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

Returning to the OP's interlocutor. To be a GQ feminist has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of trans people. GQ feminists regard gender as a social construct which is designed to place women as an underclass. Full stop
End of.

If trans people can only define themselves through a social construct that I reject, then that isn't my problem.

The Equality Act doesn't force us to pretend that someone who claims to be the opposite sex actually is the opposite sex.

A lot of businesses seem to think it does.

Do you think it should be legal to sack someone like my colleague, simply on the grounds that they are trans, and are living as the opposite sex?

Why would they be sacked if they're doing their job effectively?

And how does someone live as the opposite sex?

Being trans is a person saying that they are the opposite sex.

Which means they're lying. Either deliberately or because they're suffering from a delusion.

If it doesn't disrupt your colleague's life then it doesn't deserve protection.

Of course it forces people to pretend. It is a legal fiction.

It deserves no more protection than a belief in fairies.

I didn't say she didn't have gender dysphoria, I said that she did, that was in my first post about it. She had struggled with it for many years, and finally transitioned so she was living as a woman.

(This isn't a friend, by the way, simply a colleague who I only met a couple of times when she came to my office. We'd interacted over email, as our work was related. When she transitioned, our manager emailed to everyone a statement in which she explained why she had transitioned, the name she had chosen etc. After that, she just got on with her job and I don't think it was ever mentioned again.)

Gender dysphoria isn't a disability per se, under the Equality Act. It only becomes a disability if it prevents the person from carrying out day-to-day activities.

The Equality Act doesn't force us to pretend that someone who claims to be the opposite sex actually is the opposite sex. It stops us discriminating against them in employment, housing etc.

Do you think it should be legal to sack someone like my colleague, simply on the grounds that they are trans, and are living as the opposite sex?

Being trans is a person saying that they are the opposite sex. Why they're doing that can vary - dysphoria that means they genuinely think their body is the wrong sex, a male sexual fetish about dressing up as a woman, a fear of being a young woman because of how they are treated, a fear of being gay and therefore preferring to live as the opposite sex because that would make them straight etc. And the extent to which someone pursues this varies - cross-dressing, hormones, surgery etc.

Some men just love an excuse to wind-up women. If you've never been in an abusive relationship it's hard to recognise.

A man who is really a woman does not in fact exist and can't exist.

Arguing over whether he "should" exist is therefore pointless. It is like saying people shouldn't be allowed to go to Narnia.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=old%20foreign%20spouse.-,U.S.%20territories%20and%20states,Idaho%2C%20Indiana%2C%20and%20Minnesota

Since 2000 there are 6 twelve year olds who legally married in the USA.

Yes you read that right.

There is a national (federal) law on marriage equality in the US. Respect for Marriage Act was passed in 2022 to codify recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages by the federal government and all US states and territories.

@Zita60 you've said your friend doesn't have gender dysphoria because your friend doesn't need the protections of that disability. So it must be something else.

We don't "all know what being trans" means, it means whatever people want it to mean to suit their argument in the moment.

If you mean your friend wants to be know by a different name that's trivial to change.

If you mean wear different clothes, challenge dress codes on the basis of sex discrimination.

If you mean make people pretend he's really a woman, to deny the evidence of our eyes? Then no, people shouldn't have that right.

Check his hard drive.

What do you mean people like your friend? What exactly are you trying to protect?

My DH says the same. It’s mentioned briefly at work because they have TW colleagues and there is a lot of eye rolling and avoidance. But because it has zero impact on them, it’s not a topic that invites GC challenge or activism.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm trying to point out that my colleague would not be protected from discrimination under the protected characteristic of Disability. Therefore, the protected characteristic of Gender reassignment is needed to protect people like her.

We both know what "being trans" means - someone who thinks they are the opposite sex to the one they are. I would call it a mental issue - it's not due to an airy-fairy concept like their gender identity not matching their sex. I've read some research that shows trans people have some differences in the part of the brain that controls self-perception. I don't know if that research has been replicated by other scientists, but it does sound like a plausible explanation for why some people think they are in the wrong body.

Then there's the whole issue of AGPs, which must have a different cause.

Happy to see forst post quoting Gary Francione. Long been a fan of his animal rights essays. He's a great voice for the left wing GC.

If he’s telling you that most people "with your views" think something, he’s saying he knows more about your views than you do. Which is unreasonable. He’s also saying that some people “with your views” have different views from others "with your views” which is even more unreasonable. Perhaps he could try listening to your views a bit more

How is Canada different? This looks like that old fashioned sexism that's available in other countries to me.

This basically

he doesn’t want a discussion because he doesn’t want to listen to anything you have to say

he just wants you to accept his manly man with no skin in the game view

I wouldn’t waste your time with him

Mind so open his brain fell out or so close minded he's incapable of engaging with any other idea.

Either way 52 year old bloke telling a woman what a woman is, is quite the thing isn't it? It's almost as if men feel they have the right to hold power over women to the point of removing their own ability to define themselves.

Hmm.

I understand Canada is different again. You are very unlikely to get anywhere with this conversation as he doesn’t sound like he’s curious and open minded on this topic.

I mean you could try using descriptors like sex realist instead of GC, but if he’s insisting he’s able to definitively state the views of GC women, wherever in the world they may be, this is not the recipe for maintaining a friendship. Does he often state that he knows more/better than you about your own experiences and knowledge?

He used the word bathrooms to talk about toilets? Is he British or American? Because if he’s American there is a very different context around the state of women’s rights, gay rights and trans rights going on in each of the 50 States as well as nationally. This is a country that still doesn’t have national laws on marriage equality or abortion, or an equivalent of the EA for example. It is possible to find yourself talking past each other even more than we do in the U.K. when talking about “rights” because they are a lot more protections here than they are in many parts of the USA.

"We are more than happy for trans people to exist, but I don't believe that women should have to look at or be close to penises in female only spaces. Do you?"

Nope. He's just a sexist woman hated wally who needs to wind his neck in

HTH

He doesn’t want to learn anything or have a rational argument though does he. He doesn’t care about your opinions or women, he supports men and just wants to rant on about his irrational beliefs. To him it’s an enjoyable way to vent his anger and assert dominance, a double whammy of being both righteously misogynistic to women and on the right side of history.

If he is rigidly sticking to provably untrue statements as the basis of his arguments despite evidence against it, then a) he’s stupid, b) a bigot and c) it’s pointless arguing with him