Guardian readers' response to Rustin piece on Phoenix v OU

And another one:

'the self-evident belief that biological sex and gender identity are different should not be used as cover for a prescriptive belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity as a socio-legal category'

Fascinating. These writers seem reasonably intelligent. So how come they have not run these statements back and tested them out?

The problem with "no debate" is that if you never defend your views, you never think through or understand their implications. You never question your own assumptions. In this collection of letters this really shows.

hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

It's weird how the letter writer is able to make such a spectacularly batshittily stupid statement while writing fairly lucidly and eloquently.

This, from the letter by F. Green, is so telling:

”Prizing your own freedom of speech over other people’s ability to live safe and good lives leads to a weird form of feminism that aligns with or overlaps appalling rightwing politicians and bigoted pundits whose speech poisons public discourse.”

Women, be quiet. Your interests, your conscience, none of it matters, because there are real human beings here who deserve everything the world has to offer. Those rights and liberties you have heard of, obviously these aren’t meant for the likes of you. And, by the way, you smell.

Interesting that the views that the second letter writer describes as “not even controversial” are the same views that Maya Forstater lost her job over.

IIRC, Maya’s only addition was to say that sometimes sex matters. And everyone would concede this in some areas (eg in medicine) so it is just a question of exactly where you draw the line.

And yet the writer leaps from “this is obvious” to it’s bigoted to say this can matter.

So near but yet so far…

It is hard to fathom why some people’s reality should be legally protected to the extent that it must be imposed upon other people, to the exclusion of their own reality.

"It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected."

It is, isn't it?

"(The) prescriptive belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity.... denies the validity and very existence of those with transgender identity."

Schools used to teach logic. Please can we bring it back?

If it is necessary to argue that A is more important than B, that does not deny the existence of B. Quite the opposite - if B did not exist, we wouldn't have to argue the point.

It's endlessly fascinating to me how quick the 'progressive left' pivoted from where they were in 2016, where truth was all important and 'alternative facts' were the dragons that needed to be slain.

Now everyone has their own reality/truth/facts that can't be denied or independently verified, and any denial of any of it is hateful.

As someone who has always thought of themselves as being on the left, I constantly feel like I missed a meeting.

For other people, god existing is their reality. I totally deny that reality, as an atheist. You're damned right I want that view legally protected.

blimey. The gruan inviting and actually publishing comments on gender woo which are not entirely Kool aid orientated. What's going on?

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

It’s hard to fathom whether people like this are really that stupid.

I don’t deny that trans people believe that their reality is they are of a different sex, but I don’t believe it myself and I don’t believe I should be forced to comply with their belief.

It’s really not difficult.