GC views not valid because the majority are "bad actors"

I'm not saying everyone, or even many on the board are "bad actors". I'm saying that because of cognitive bias he will find posts to support his existing view that we are bad actors.

We're not responsible or accountable for his own cognitive bias. Perhaps he should take some critical thinking classes.

Opinions are for debate and conversation. At somepoint that ends.

As was stated yesterday, opinions ultimately have no place in law making. You actually have to make a decision to clarify issues to prevent injustice.

By all means have an opinion, but realise that some of your opinions are ultimately missing the point about how the law works. You can not have plurality in law because otherwise the law falls down and doesn't work in practice as you have unresolved areas which real life humans get stuck in the middle of because politicians couldn't get their head out their arses and do their job properly in the first place.

We need to emphasise how we make law and how decisions and definitions are necessary and fudges led to problems - usually for the most vulnerable out there.

I'm not saying everyone, or even many on the board are "bad actors". I'm saying that because of cognitive bias he will find posts to support his existing view that we are bad actors.

old there are a lot of assumptions being made that I 1) don't "agree with the actual arguments" and 2) can't deal with them.

I've been GC for a very long time. I'm very comfortable with my personal position; through years of debating I also now am able to see the logic of many other positions even though I disagree with them.

The entrenched "only one correct answer" stance that's developed on here is off-putting to me as a GC feminist and if you were a trans ally (like OPs friend) it would seem even worse.

That's all I'm saying. We don't have to agree, it's not an argument with only one "right" answer.

No, not disingenuous at all. The PP made a number of claims and I am trying to determine which bit of the friend's identity warrants specific protection above the protections everybody already has.

Oh FFS! Disingenuous, much? 🙄

You should take your own advice.

I don't think trans is real.

I haven't said that no one thinks trans doesn't exist because that would contradict my own opinion that "trans" as something real doesn't exist.

I don't think "trans people" (ie people who are "really trans") exist, but I acknowledge that some people identify as trans. These people obviously exist.

Can you deal with the actual arguments?

We had to agree to disagree, but his main argument for why I was wrong was that "the vast majority" of people who hold my view believe that trans people should not even exist. I could not sway him on this point - didn't matter that I argued that no, the vast majority of GC people are probably women, we don't believe that trans people should not exist

This is the OP.

In short, GC people know there is an identity people have called "trans" where people believe they are more like the opposite sex to a greater or lesser extent. People have differing views about the validity of said belief. But it doesn't mean that we want to hurt people or unnecessarily make their lives difficult. We're just speaking up for our own rights.

I strongly disagree that this man would find "a load of material" on MN confirming that we are "bad actors". He would find women pointing out that mammals cannot change sex, and that sex is important in certain situations. Lots of discussion about safeguarding and child mental health.

I do not think that the OP, or anyone, should just shrug and "agree to disagree". Declaring that we want trans people not to exist is deliberately inflammatory language. I have been to the museum in Warsaw and seen the telegram in which Hitler, when retreating from the Soviet advance, orders the capital of Poland to be literally wiped off the map. That is wanting people not to exist.

We need to challenge the ludicrous assertion that knowing the guy down the chipshop that swears he's Elvis isn't actually Elvis, is in some way threatening.

In short, calling out bollocks, is not wrong.

People who identify as transgender saying "you don't think I exist" are incorrect though, Cassie. And that's how it mostly gets used. I'm happy to discuss why I think gender identity ideology doesn't make sense.

I am also a terrible actor, I can only do me but tbf that hasn't stopped a lot of big names in Hollywood being very successful.

Not necessarily. My point is GC posters like you think trans isn't real aka "doesn't exist". So posters saying "noone GC thinks trans doesn't exist" are incorrect.

It would be much easier to have productive conversations if people could acknowledge where the opposing viewpoints come from as opposed to just shouting them down. In my opinion.

It's good that you have your own view, I've already explained how I would personally protect people who identify as the opposite sex from discrimination and I don't think it requires a separate protected characteristic.

I think historically trans people especially TW would find it hard to get/keep a job because its seen as somehow deviant, perverted or linked to homosexuality and makes people uncomfortable so they would prefer not to have those people around. I mean just look at KJKs "landlords" video. Lots of people have those attitudes.

I don't personally have an issue with gender reassignment being a protected characteristic in a work context.

A "trans person" only exists as a person who identifies as trans. "Trans" doesn't have to exist as an objective fact in order for people to identify as trans. People identifying as trans doesn't make "trans" real in any way.

As for legislation and medical treatment, why shouldn't something that is not real be removed?

You say "exactly my point". Are you agreeing with me?

Also, ask the person who brought up the "unfair dismissal rules", as I said, I was playing devils advocate.

Why can't pregnancy be dealt with under "unfair dismissal rules"? Or being gay?

Because there is a history of many people being sacked for those two things. Is there a history of many people being sacked for being "trans", or are there other issues at play such as homophobia?

I agree. But OP started a thread asking how to change his mind and wondering if she should direct him here.
I think if she directs him here he's just going to find a load of material that confirms his own belief.

She's better sticking to the "agree to disagree" line imo

The OP knows her friend better than either of us, I'm sure she will do as she sees fit. My reasoning is basically "agree to differ" anyway.

The contention that GC people don't think trans people "exist" is true in one sense, but only in that they don't share their belief in gender identity ideology.

Genderists use this "don't exist" phrase as if there is something sinister under it, that we don't see them as human. It's nonsense, and manipulative. The women (and men) on this thread have been clear what they believe. As I said, sometimes you can't argue with people who are invested in believing stupid things about a particular group.

Why can't pregnancy be dealt with under "unfair dismissal rules"? Or being gay?

Exactly my point.
Then it gets onto semantics about in what sense a trans person can exist if "trans" isn't something real. Even more so if its being removed from all legislation/medical treatment etc.

@Zita60
It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.

Couldn't sacking someone for being trans be dealt with in the same way?

I agree. But OP started a thread asking how to change his mind and wondering if she should direct him here.
I think if she directs him here he's just going to find a load of material that confirms his own belief.

She's better sticking to the "agree to disagree" line imo

It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I've already said I would protect it under religion/belief or disability, but why couldn't "trans" "be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules"?

I think I'd agree with that.

Interesting point about whether there should be protected characteristics at all.

I think the reason they have been included in the Equality Act is that they are all reasons that people have been discriminated against historically. Women have been sacked when they got married, gay people have been sacked for being gay, diabled people have been sacked (or not employed) for being disabled, and so on. So it makes it simpler to explicitly include these PCs.

It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.