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

Men who create a female persona out of clothes and make up really believe they are the creation.

Saying it's only clothes and make up is saying that the opposite sex persona doesn't exist. It does to an extent but it only really exists in the man's mind and imagination. Other people can agree to pretend or not.

You friend believes in their imaginary personas. Lots of people don't. Most people actually.

I'm a terrible actor. It's a miracle I passed my drama A-Level.

I have come to the realisation that the emotional “you don’t want me to exist!!” statement is the only response they have when encountering a sex realist who does not go along with the idea that someone can literally change biological sex. They do not have a response to that statement of fact other than an emotional one. Even then they can’t manage to say for example that they feel sad, they feel invalidated, they feel distressed - they go straight for maximum manipulative impact. But I think is also an inevitable outworking of the affirmation only approach - and not having been made to face reality in a therapeutic setting to help them adjust to the fact that many people will not perceive their sex in the same way they do.

It’s difficult to counter because of the growing number of GC women who do say things like “trans people don’t exist” and that they should be discriminated against, and that they are all perverts etc. When more reasonable women try to counter this they are accused of being mean girls / Head Girls / just out to smear other women activists out of pure vindictiveness and so on.

Ask him which side of the debate has shown violent behaviour or shouts death and rape threats?

Then ask if that's the side he wants to be on.

So does he think that we believe all men do not exist because we don't want them in our single sex spaces?

What does your friend mean when when he says GC people "shouldn't exist"?

We don't have to accept their claims about reality, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

With regard to @Zita60 's post above, I don't believe the adherents of gender identity should benefit from EA10 protections any more than other sincerely held beliefs, but about balancing conflicting rights.

Again, that's not denying anyone's existence.

The other counter to his argument is commonly given as the fact that Hitler is thought to have been a vegetarian, at least for a while. He was also a fascist.

So if a bad actor (like Hitler) believes in vegetarianism, then the rest of us should not, because of all the other things that the bad actor believes in (like fascism).

I think this article by Gary Francione is very helpful in clarifying some of the issues. He distinguishes between two claims by trans people:

1. An equality claim, that they should not be subject to discrimination or persecution because they are trans. Most of us would agree with this, and it's enshrined in UK law in the Equality Act 2010.
2. A belief claim, that the rest of us must agree with their belief that they have actually changed sex. This is what GC feminists don't accept.

So it's possible to agree that trans people exist and should be allowed to live free of discrimination and persecution, while disagreeing that they can actually change sex. This is a perfectly logical position to take.

He uses as an analogy a Catholic's belief in transubstantiation - we mostly agree that Catholics shouldn't be subject to discrimination or persecution, but we don't have to agree with the Catholic person's belief in transubstantiation.

www.philosophersmag.com/essays/321-the-transgender-rights-issue