What is your definition of TRA?

It doesn't help that modern TRA will say that men with gender have been uses womens spaces for years and no chill old way men with gender are saying anything to the contrary.

Your friend sounds like someone who transitioned under the old social understanding (something like ‘transwomen are men with a persistent and debilitating psychological condition that is partially alleviated by taking on the appearance of the opposite sex, not drawing unnecessary attention to their natal sex is polite, but women are not obliged to accommodate them in female only spaces’) as opposed to the current day gender ideology (which is
more like ‘trans women are women same as tall/black/old women are women and they are just as womanly as you, if not more so, so shut up and budge over, you old bigoted menstruator/cervix haver/uterus owner’

I was pretty chill about the old way but the new way? No Thank You.

People make choices throughout their lives, the vast majority of those choices will have some consequences, some positive and some negative. Some will be unexpected or at least unintended. If one makes the choice to live as one believes the opposite sex does, then there will be consequences. One of those consequences may be that one can no longer attend publicly used swimming pools, or gyms, as the changing facilities may well be problematic, or you may be seen as problematic if you try and use the facilities which are not those for the sex you were born as.
No one ever suggested that choices should be consequence free.

In my region most Council run leisure centres have changing villages - no single sex facilities. Personally I hate them but would see that a trans person of either sex could use them comfortably.

Absolutely, that example is exactly the kind of thing I mean so thanks for sharing.

Anyone who advocates for the sterilisation and mutilation of children and other vulnerable groups, as well as anyone who supports the invasion of female single sex spaces by males.

That includes people who are not trans-identified, and I also believe that not all trans-identified people are TRAs. I will always be saddened and concerned to see vulnerable people undergo irreversible medical mutilation, but if they aren’t actively promoting dangerous and misogynistic policies then I wouldn’t classify them as a TRA.

On the contrary. I am very willing to be challenged. However, telling me I am combative and seeming to misinterpret my posts without asking for clarification or limiting the scope of my posts to suit whatever it is you are trying to prove (ie. rejecting sport and discussing single sex spaces and suggesting pronouns and then limiting the pronoun discussion to the individual interaction) is not me 'not willing to be challenged'. It is also not a sign in my opinion, that you are open to discussion. however, it is your thread so good luck.

"I don't think asking an opinion is arrogant. I think that implying that everyone who understands the issue would come to the same conclusion as you is."

I believe I said that there would be people who didn't reach the same conclusion. I even suggested a reason why they might not.

"Isn't the point about accusing everyone who thinks differently of being incapable of critical thought? Or do want to talk about pronoun use?"

Sorry? I have said that some people will come to different conclusions due to what they belief and what they reject. I have also said that if you believed the evidence and understood and acknowledge the issues, that it was likely that they would reach broadly the same conclusions.

You seem to have an agenda that you are working to here, I think I will leave you to it.

No. My post was clear in discussing the fact that pronoun usage has wider ramifications other than 'just being nice and polite to someone'.

Do you agree that it has wider ramifications? You rejected my sports example and suggested pronouns. I was following your lead as it is your thread.

”You didn’t mention it in your post, can you point out where I said you did please?”

apologies.

You didn’t mention laws in your post. Can you please point out where I said you did please?

And I think you are reading combat into my post.

But hey, no worries. The point was pretty clear. Some people will dismiss the collective harm that has already been done because of using pronouns. My point is that pronouns usage has already been used to leverage policy by activists. I even gave a specific example. You didn’t mention it in your post, can you point out where I said you did please?

I did however, make a point about pronouns being an issue on a collective level to women and girls.

And where is the arrogance in asking your opinion on a point? You either agree or you don’t. How about instead you engage with the point being made since you introduced pronouns into your thread? What factors should be added to the list I wrote that I missed?

ok. Shall we do pronouns then? That discussion all comes down to understanding there is two levels this discussion involves. The collective level and the individual.

On a collective level, the usage of pronouns has been used by male people to successfully add credibility to their claims to access the female category of sport, to access female single sex spaces and to jeopardise female people's jobs and their well-beings. Based on a compelled linguistic compliance.

There is no evidence at all to support that gender identity theory is any but a philosophical belief. There are no laws that compel any person to adhere to the cultural elements of any other philosophical belief in the UK. No one has to call a priest by any honorific that they use, as an example.

Looking at the Cass Report, the ramifications of social transition, ie. the usage of pronouns, can be said to lock a child into an identity. Therefore, this is a significant issue.

Do you believe that someone who has read the reports, has seen the political leveraging that has already and continues to cause harm by activists, and who doesn't extend honorific titles to others based on philosophical belief will not understand the significance of them using pronouns on a collective level?

That they might choose to extend to use pronouns in a direct interaction with an individual because of some etiquette that they choose to follow is up to them. I cannot be bothered to join that argument.

But do you think that a person who makes all those connections fails to understand the significance of pronoun usage?

Because I would hope that someone who can read and understand all this would absolutely see the connections of how pronouns work.They can see the connections and still make a rational choice, and this will depend on their personal need to maintain politeness on an individual level.

Obviously, there also will be people who don't make those connections, or who do but need to deny that activists have successfully used these polite social mores to gain policy changes that women are campaigning to rectify for instance. Why would they deny it? I don't know. But they do. What is needed for them to believe it? Who the fuck knows?

So, will two people have differing views? Yes. of course they will. Because two people will have very different views on politeness and etiquette in direct social considerations.

Either way, I personally am not involved and tend to not involve myself in any campaigns about pronouns. But I don't believe that at this point of campaigning, that pronoun discussions progress the movement to ensure that when it is necessary that sex is prioritised over gender.

So, yes, there is a reason I chose to discuss sports in my example. Because I am focused on significant issues. If people want to have discussions about pronouns, fine. They can fucking have at it.

I wonder, what is a TRAs definition of a feminist?

This issue is far more clear cut than other issues as it is undeniable that male bodies go through irreversible changes during puberty that can not be undone

This applies in every single issue where women want single sex spaces.

And who patronisingly describe GC thinking as likely to derive from fear, either from personal experience or fear of what might happen

I see this often. Someone on another thread did it earlier. I am genuinely interested in the thinking behind it. Why do they assume it's fear? I agree with you, it's patronising. I am not scared. Well, fearful of the loss of women's rights, sure, but I do not fear people with TRA views. Is fear the only way to 'rationalise' GC beliefs, rather than accepting them as fact?

Certainly falling within the TRA definition are the enthusiastic promoters of trans ideology in my organisation, who have official backing in the name of D & I - even to the extent of working with Stonewall (even now!) to develop policies. Bizarrely, they are mostly women. And who patronisingly describe GC thinking as likely to derive from fear, either from personal experience or fear of what might happen (e.g. suggesting that JKR's views derive from experience of domestic violence........) and they can therefore be re-educated into following the One True Faith.