How to square the circle of my trans sceptism and my trans friend?

Not at all. Scare quotes indicate OP doesn't consider her trans friend actually to be a woman. That's fine. (And true, it would appear.)

What is strange (not "disgusting", a strange choice of epithet (not scare quotes there, just quote-quotes!)) is OP's writing "as a woman she always was" of her friend, a trans woman (and so never a woman, always a man). No doubt you think that disgusting. But, well, some of us think you are wrong so to think.

I'm not sure why trans ideology is so over the top in its expression ('literal violence', 'disgusting' and so on). It seems to be a kind of aesthetic built-in to the discourse, possibly ultimately deriving from the sort of extreme full-on screech-talk characteristic of many erstwhile transvestite men back in the day when I was young (long ago). Not really fun then, even; much less now.

I've got friends who are actively and passionately believers in christianity - I am not. They mention their church activities because it is an important part of who they are, I've been to christian weddings, christenings, funerals because of my relationship with them - they don't try to convince me that they are right.

Friends don't have to agree on everything - even things that matter to them.

HER

"women"

Use of inverted commas is disgusting here

Well, you at least know what I said! We may not be able to talk about the elephant in the room here, but someone clearly doesn't want anyone to know about it and so I'll be raising it at every opportunity I get so that all women who know me know about you-know-what. I see a lot of posts about transpeople quietly going about their lives not wanting any attention. People have no idea.

Yep, your post got deleted within 5 mins of posting

Wow. Someone's watching me closely. But we know.

who I supported through the tart dressing phase, the boob surgery, the fallout with his ex wife and children, etc.

Do I feel friendship and understanding? No I save that for the ex wife and children.

A thread about how you should all be kind to our exes on a board frequented by trans widows, is pretty unpleasant.

Apparently not Spartacus.

That would also suggest a lack of self awareness about the hypocritical policing of tone that happens on this board constantly. I am in awe of any regular reader who fails to pick up that women are just so fucked off at being censured and censored, that they would think posting something that attempts to tone police would be accepted.

It is like the constant policing of who women should read, listen to or talk about.

Your friend sounds like he’s had his cake and eaten it. I hope his kids are doing ok.

And (from the OP's original post) that is the situation here, @GoodThinkingMax The OP supported this person whilst they dumped the wife & children for their shiny new fantasy.
I think by now we are all aware of the damage this does to the transwidows and children. It's not just like supporting a pal through their divorce.

If it were something like this then yes, we’re definitely being co-opted into someone else’s fantasy

twitter.com/godblesstoby/status/1551344298523869184?s=21&t=I_tVWxTR91ihJfg-EzFOXQ

I shall await the 'plopping' and/or friendly support stage (sorry if this feels like adding nuance to the convo with last variation, bad habits )

And I apologise, I feel @ShirleyPhallus is in stage 4 'the flounce', rather than previous misdiagnosis.

I do find it amusing that I predicted your previous posts won't stand @Pluvia.

For the lurkers, or anyone willing to dance around the rules - why does my comment referring to to the book stands, but Pluvia's post naming the women's objection to the manifestations of the condition described in the book are deleted?

I agree — you don't have to agree with everything your friends think or say. I just can't really ever feel close to someone who has a belief that seems, to me, to impede their critical thinking. This article is about Rev Richard Coles having lunch with Richard Dawkins: Dawkins concludes 'What is difficult arguing with Richard is he is not swayed by factual evidence; it is feeling that matters. Feelings are important, but they don’t tell us what is true.' That's how I feel when I'm with people with sincere but irrational beliefs. If I'm going to really trust someone and feel close, I need them to be grounded in reality. That doesn't mean we agree on everything.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jul/31/rev-richard-coles-and-richard-dawkins-dine-across-the-divide-evidence-feeling

And that's before we get to the situation of trying to relate to someone who is one thing but presenting as another. I know I really struggle feeling close and comfortable with anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn't seem congruent.

The same was as I've known plenty of nice people who are religious, but still believe that every organised religion has preformed atrocities and has overall been harmful to humanity.

You don't have to believe the same things as your friends, anyone who insists you follow their believes isn't a friend.

The deletions are so ridiculous. What are the grounds for deletion on this topic these days?
And are they the same for other belief systems?

Looks like it's wins for women everywhere but Mumsnet, doesn't it?

Absolutely, @Roseglen84 I would be less than happy if asked to work alongside a character who spent all day acting as a caricature version of me.

He might be a good friend of someone-or-other. But that wouldn't make my situation any more comfortable.

Pluvia
I can imagine having a transwoman on the periphery of my social circle if they use male facilities (changing rooms etc) and respect the differences between them and those of us with XX chromosomes. Knowing that a man has transitioned later in life, leaving a wife and children for a life in heels and mini-skirts (going from what the OP says) would incline me to suspect that this individual was living out their sexual fantasies in RL — which is not something I'd want to be involved with as a non-consenting participant.

This is something that baffles me about the handmaidens that go along with this crap - do they really not understand that it is sexual in nature, that the desire for 'girly mode' is nothing more than a big wankfest?
Would they be equally ok with their friend Dave co-opting them into his foot fetish? How is this any different?

And in case Pluvia's post is deleted, it related to the condition we are not normally allowed to name, but which is, not uncontroversially, discussed in a book 'The Man who would be queen' by Michael Bailey.

This condition and its manifestations inform a lot of the opinions and attitudes on this board.

There, surely this can't be deleted?