Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

Except turin wasn't given cross sex hormones he was chemically castrated with puberty blockers.
Add to that your claims about scientific definition of transgenderism has repeatedly been shown to be bs and not backed by any reliable evidence. Also trans people are at no higher risk of suicide than any other group, however once they transition their risk of suicide is increased from before in large part due to the effect of the cross sex hormones and/or surgeries that they've taken/had.
So basically everything you've said in your post is the complete opposite of what is known provable fact.

It's like the unwritten chapter of Just So Stories

What a load of tosh @Janine2363. There is no "scientific definition on transgender people". There is no transgender brain. There is a medical condition of body dysmorphia. There's also a sexual fetish called autogynephilia. Minority sexual fetishes are not protected characteristics, and their public expression are not a human right.

There is no study that shows reliably that people's brains have 'developed in a way that does not match the body'.

If you have a link that proves this (and not the one that never controlled for same sex attraction and made a stronger conclusion than the evidence showed) please link it up. Otherwise, please stop spreading harmful misinformation.

I think they do...

The scientific definition on transgender people is that in their development, the brain developed in a way that it does not match the body.

Which brains match which bodies? How do I know if my brain matches my body? What if my brain is the brain of a 25 year old Japanese man but I'm a 50 year old Pakistani woman?

No one seriously believes this stuff, do they?

What a load of bollocks

This is at best an unverified theory

Give it a rest.

'born in the wrong body' is discredited as a concept to be taught.

If the brain difference was genuine, reliable and identifiable, then we would be able to detect which gender questioning children were 'true trans' and which were just questioning. We would also be able to use that medical test to differentiate between 'true trans', questioning (but not actually trans) and AGPs before Gender Recognition Certificates were given out, to ensure that only the 'true trans' got one.

Yes, scientific understanding of genetics, but next to that is also the biology and the process of development. The scientific definition on transgender people is that in their development, the brain developed in a way that it does not match the body. This by itself is not strange, because the development of the body is hugely dependent on and sensitive to hormones. In particular the brain. For instance menopausal women have a risk on depression because of loss of hormone balance. The medication used for treatment (hormone supplement) is interestingly the same as used for trans women. Which for this reason are biologically different from men. A man subjected to female hormones would risk an acute depression with a high probability of suicide. This is what happened to the WW2 hero Alan Turing. He was homosexual at the time it was a criminal offence, he has subjected to a forced hormone therapy .... and killed himself. For transgender people with significant dysphoria it is the other way around, the have a depression and the change fixes it. That's all

However, imagine a transgender colleague at work, and on purpose, misgendering that person, that would be rude, and persistently doing so would be bigoted, because it is 'reasonable' to do not see a transgender in a certain way, but it is 'unreasonable' to behave like that, because of ones belief.

Is it?

Using wrong sex pronouns is not a neutral act. Social transition in schools is now actively discouraged for a reason.

Why does someone have the right to demand others use those pronouns?

It's like demanding another employee says grace before eating in the staff canteen because otherwise it's disrespectful to someone else's belief.

It's bollocks.

Apologies, no offence intended, I could have explained better, although I tried, I'll try better. it's in the words 'on purpose' and persistently.

It is not that having a difference in opinion or belief which makes whether something is bigotry, or phobia. Indeed you cannot just go around and shouting 'bigot' to everyone who sees things differently, that would be .... 'bigotry' ....

However, imagine a transgender colleague at work, and on purpose, misgendering that person, that would be rude, and persistently doing so would be bigoted, because it is 'reasonable' to do not see a transgender in a certain way, but it is 'unreasonable' to behave like that, because of ones belief.

When interacting with people, different origins, different belief, different preferences, you name it, the world is a large place. Why not be polite ?

Asexual reminds me of a nightmare I once had where I cut off my little toe and it grew into a new me who tried to take over my life😱. In my defence I had a broken little toe at the time and I had gone to bed saying I couldn’t think straight because the pain was taking over so had zonked out on strong pain killers.
I had also been trying to grow roses from cuttings so it kind of makes sense.

We don't reject genderism because it's too complex for our little brains, we reject it because it's homophobic, misogynistic, batshit crazy and has no basis in reality.

This.

I can PROVE that men are not women. Therefore it's not an unreasonable belief. Because it's not a belief. It's a provable fact. It's just that legally it falls under the protection of being a belief - but it's based on the point that it's a demonstrable fact based on science. Thus all scientific work which demonstrates something is protected because democracy society values scientific work and it should not be sidelined and/or prohibited by religious zealots because otherwise this destroys the foundations of democracy.

Thing is, just because someone believes something about themselves, if it’s not verified, then they can’t demand everyone else believes it. Not believing a man is a woman is not bigoted, it’s just a fact!

I think you got it right there, it is as you write all about 'beliefs', and opinions. Thing is, we sometimes prefer to stick to simple beliefs, because the complex reality gives us a headache.
I don't think that is a problem by itself, it is not unreasonable to belief things, but when false beliefs start determining our actions and the actions are unreasonable, then there is a problem

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group"
Which is the definition of bigotry.

Just to add to that point.

Women who accurately recognise that is impossible to change sex do not have an unreasonable belief.

Women who do not believe in gender because they understand the sexism of gender stereotypes which affect them negatively do not have an unreasonable belief.

This is why believing in sex is recognised by the courts in this country as a belief worthy of respect in a democratic country.

That's actually correct, good that they changed it. 'denying someone's gender identity' (persistently, on purpose) would be:
"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group"
Which is the definition of bigotry. Phobia is just "being unreasonably afraid of"

A little black flag?

I always have to do a double take for the word aromantic as I instinctively read it as aromatic.

I'd quite like a flag sprayed with Chanel No 5 please.

Acorus calamus, the rush that was strewn on floors in th'olden days. I'd post a picture but...🤷‍♀️

One that's soaked in or sprayed with lavender oil or attar of roses every so often?

What about an aromatic flag?