Trans sibling in law

Also, why would you? It’s not some kind of virtue to validate absurd requests. I think that’s where the disconnect lies between your approach and that of others on the thread.

Other people are allowed to not define themselves based exclusively on their biology, and they’re allowed to move through their life as a female with the understanding that they have of their identity

I’m genuinely curious: if you don’t see “female” here as biological, what do you think it is? What constitutes a non-biological meaning of female, and in particular, a meaning that is not male?

If it was “just someone’s life” and they stayed out of the spaces that aren’t meant for them, and we weren’t required to validate their personal self image, no one would have a problem.

To be honest, I’d call you a purple unicorn if that’s what you asked for.

Firstly, because it’s no skin off my nose whether you’re a banana or a fridge, and secondly because I’m not intentionally rude to people.

What I wouldn’t do is start a million and one debates about who you are, and your life.

I'm free to identify as a banana if I want, with pronouns Chiquita/Fyffes/Del Monte, I don't think anyone here would deny me that pleasure.

But you'd have to be batshit crazy to agree with me, and I'd be unreasonable to expect you to do so.

Gender identity ideology makes zero sense. It’s absurd. Your gender identity belief is a fringe belief, which you’re entitled to, obviously, but no one else is obliged to go along with it any more than they are obliged to adopt someone else’s religion. Thankfully sense appears to be returning to law and policy in our secular society, hopefully the social contagion will die down in future and children will stop ruining their lives over this nonsense.

Excellent diversion from the facts.

We don’t “all know” anything. You’ll never believe this, we don’t “all” have to think the same or believe the same things.

You believe that sex is the only thing that matters, other people don’t have to agree, and they don’t have to constantly beg you to agree with them either.

Other people are allowed to not define themselves based exclusively on their biology, and they’re allowed to move through their life as a female with the understanding that they have of their identity.

And they’re allowed to do that without being patronised, ganged up on, or spoken to/about in the way you see here.

You don’t make the rules, and you don’t get to decide or to be honest question how someone else sees themselves.

Yes he is your brother in law now, my sister in law is transgender she transitioned 28 years ago, if you have any questions please ask me.

How am I wrong precisely? What have I gone wrong on as I move through the world in my female body? I’d welcome an understanding of the shortcomings of my opinions. Very happy for you to make a coherent case for gender identity ideology, but we all know there isn’t one.

Let’s all pretend that referring to me by name isn’t some attempt to start the “everyone tell this woman off” thing (again).

There is nobody here idiot enough to not see through that.

It’s not “behind your back”, this is a public thread.

Precisely, I’m not going to bother refuting being in some imaginary group you’ve decided people “like me” are in, or you thinking people who believe that you’re wrong just “don’t get it.”

If you could return the favour by not bitching about people, by name, behind their back, that would be awesome.

Exactly.

“People like” = people who believe in gender identity ideology. Nothing more than that.

You’re not going to refute it? Imagine my surprise.

Engage with being referred to as “people like” whatever it was you meant, and then ties in some more condescending “doesn’t get it”?

No thanks, I’m good.

@SleeplessInWherever

You think that because we acknowledge sex stereotypes exist, we “believe in gender identity” but you are failing to recognise or consider the sleight of hand here, when we’re moving from talking about actual women in all our variety to talking about men who adopt female “gender” stereotypes.

Try actually engaging with what I said in my comment that you’re so irritated by. Refute it, maybe? If you can.

You’re a smart woman - when you post on a thread, you get a notification when others do. You know that.

I appreciate that makes it difficult to bemoan somebody behind their back because you’re just not quite finished, but there we have it.

The comment was directed at things you have said, and I responded with my take on it. Hope that helps.

You obviously popped in to read “more than 24 hours later”, didn’t you? I didn’t tag you. Are you bored then?

More than 24hrs later, and you’re still name dropping me. I mean really; are you well?

Either bored or a bully, one of the two.

There’s really not a lot of variety here. If there was, you wouldn’t all be able to conduct the mega pile ons that you do.

A variety of back patting and applause for the 20 or so women being outwardly unkind to one, is it? What a miserable way to live, I’m almost glad I don’t belong in that group.

@RareGoalsVerge this simply does not compute with people like Sleepless. She doesn’t get it. She thinks that because we acknowledge sex stereotypes exist, we “believe in gender identity” but she is failing to recognise or consider the sleight of hand here, when we’re moving from talking about actual women in all our variety to talking about men who adopt female “gender” stereotypes.

Defining womanhood as biological is the absolute diametric opposite of "reducing us to our biology". If biology is the unifying factor that women share, that liberates us for ever other possible facet of our lives to be anything at all, without constraint. There is no feeling or preference or personality trait or set of priorities of any kind that is intrinsic to "woman". We are that subcategory of human which has female biology. Everything else about us can be whatever we choose.

Exactly this! Which is what TRAs do when they fling around their accusations of essentialism and 'reducing women to their anatomy'. Try asking them how defining a physical, chromosomal, anatomical, biological adult human female is reducing women to their anatomy, and it all starts to unravel.

Ask why biology translates to essentialism (it doesn't) and see how competent they generally are at explaining what that means. I'd also be interested to hear any cogent explanation as to how defining women's oppression in terms of the bodies we inhabit, or understanding gender as an instrument of that physical and social oppression, is a bad thing.

This is the very definition of 'reductive'. I'm not buying that half these people even believe, much less claim to understand, half the garbage they spout. As for Russell Group degrees, UK Higher Education sure ain't what it was.