- YABVU
- I have never, and would never, refer to anyone as "chicks with dicks", but I do know the difference between men and women, and that surgery, hormones and clothing do not turn one into the other.
- I have never seen anyone else on MN use the phrase "chicks with dicks" (maybe they have and I've missed it), and I think your use of the phrase is intended to conflate gender critical feminism with cruelty / bigotry, and that is a very unfair representation of the perspective of the many many people who have been posting on the numerous threads from a gender critical perspective.
- I read your link, and it confirmed for me that transgenderism and in particular transgender activism is deeply rooted in anti-feminist stereotypes and expectations about the appropriate "roles" of men and women in society, and is therefore damaging to equality for women and girls.
From your link (bold are quotes, italics are why I think it's pure shit):
Male and female characteristics depend on two factors: sex and gender.
‘Sex’ describes our physical structure, including external appearance, internal organs and brain, which all differ between males and females.
Human brains have all sorts of differences unique to individuals, but there is no difference between male and female brains that would allow a scientist to look at a human cadaver brain and tell you what sex the person was. The organs and physical characteristics that do differ between men and women - and the experiences which are directly linked to them, like menstruation, prostate cancer, childbirth - are the differences between men and women and what defines a person as one or the other.
There are two different aspects to gender: ‘gender identity’ describes the inner sense of knowing that we are boys or girls, and later men or women; ‘gender role’ describes how we behave in society.
Many, many people - myself included - woudl say that they don't have an internal 'gender identity', other than what they know of their sex because of their biology, or what they experience socially because of the stupid, sexist, dangerous, oppressive 'gender role' that this article seems to hold up as an acceptable and inevitable reality.
Can you really not see why the phrase "'gender role' describes how we behave in society." is VERY FUCKING PROBLEMATIC to anyone interested in feminism, freedom and equality?!
Even though we now live in a more equal society, boys and girls are still expected to dress differently from each other and, possibly, enjoy different kinds of games. Each is expected to have rather different interests and different groups of friends.
Oh, God. Really? I don't know where to start. Is 'more equal' good enough, or shall we maybe consider whether all children, whether boys or girls, should feel free to wear, play, be interested in, and be friends with whatever / whomever they like?! Do you actually want to live in a society where boys and girls are expected to have 'rather different interests' (science for boys, hairdressing for girls), and if they don't conform to that, then you'd have them told they might need to mutilate their bodies in order to make them into an approximation of the kind of body that matches their 'expected gender role'?
However, people vary greatly and it should not be surprising that, occasionally, a few individuals experience a mismatch. The way they are expected to behave may be quite different from the way they actually want to behave.
Yes, and rather than saying it's WRONG that people should be expected to behave in one way or the other based on their reproductive organs, and that their 'different' interests and behaviour are JUST FINE regardless of their sex, the transgender movement would have us all send the message that if your interests don't match society's sexist expectations for a boy / a girl, then you're not a real boy or girl at all, and you have a condition that needs treatment so that you can better conform to the sexist expectations of our sexist culture.
Research studies indicate that a small part of the baby’s brain develops in opposition to the sex of the rest of its body. This predisposes the baby to a future mismatch between gender identity and sex.
I'm saying bullshit. What research studies? Why isn't that footnoted with a source? Please link to the study on that small part of the baby's brain. Is it that when the small part of the baby's brain is supposed to form receptors for the colour pink and shiny pairs of shoes, it instead develops racecar-and-dinosaur receptors? 
As the individual grows through childhood, adolescence and on into adulthood, the discomfort may become extreme. Even so, many will continue to strive to live and behave according to the gender role that society expects of them.
However, for some, the stress of their situation may become so intolerable that medical help is sought to enable the individual concerned to undergo ‘transition’, that is, to live according to the opposite gender role, and to have treatment, usually including hormone medication and surgery, to bring the body more closely in line with the underlying gender identity.
This is awful and must be painful and is very wrong. Because gender roles are damaging and limiting and oppressive, and are stupid made up bullshit anyway, which should be challenged at every turn until they are abolished. The answer is not to say that 'gender roles' are correct and immutable.
Think of it this way: there's a girl who loves mechanics, but her societal 'gender role' says that she should be more interested in fashion. She finds this uncomfortable and hard to deal with. Gender critical feminism says that the problem is that society shouldn't stereotype people's aptitudes and interests according to their sex. Transgenderism says that the problem is the girl shouldn't have been born with a vagina.
Now which one of those perspectives sounds progressive and rooted in common sense and equality? And which one sounds like disordered thinking at best, and a regressive anti-feminist plot at worst?