Additionally, said poster knows little to nothing about:
How statistics work. Reporting on the sex pay gap is useless on a population level, where the overall percentage of male members of the trans community may be negligible. This reporting is instead industry-specific and company-specific. And the vast majority of male members of the trans community are late-transitioners, who are typically middle-class with a median age at transition of mid-40s to mid-50z - in other words, employees at an age where the pay gap is most noticeable and where even one transitioner in a mid or upper management level can skew the data significantly.
And actually the whole issue of the sex pay gap is not that simple anymore. We have laws in the UK that ensure that men and women are paid the same for the same work. As of this year and thanks to a judgement at the European Court of Human Rights, we have now also got the right to equal pay for similar work. And if unequal pay for equal work was all the pay gap was about, the reporting would now focus on making sure that the laws are upheld.
But the majority of the pay gap now has nothing to do with unequal pay, but with motherhood. Which is why we probably ought to talk about the motherhood penalty instead of the sex pay gap.
It's all about pregnancy, maternity and taking time away from workplaces to raise our children. And pregnancy and maternity, well that's all about biology. Female biology. Women's bodies.
Good luck tackling that without acknowledging the reality of women's lives.
Men don't get pregnant. Men don't need to recover from pregnancy, from birth or from birth injuries. Men don't nurse.
And the poster seems to have no clue what the UK public thinks about reforming the GRA to bring in self-id (majority opposed, small minority for)
Or the impact the adoption of self-id policies has had on women and girls in the UK who need single-sex provisions and who are being harmed by these policies, myself included. And what frontline workers as well as many managers think of these policies. I don't think the poster is at all aware of the parliamentary meetings on the issue where those providers of single-sex services told politicians what harm self-id policies are doing to vulnerable women and children.
Or the impact it has when VAWAG sector organisations saw off the branch they're sitting on by arguing against single-sex provisions. Councils across the country are now happily defunding specialist VAWAG sector organisations, because they've given up on the exclusively WAG part. Non-specialist organisations are much cheaper, but in the past councils couldn't go to them because the entire VAWAG sector argued that their services were female-only and had to be female-only because female victims of male violence needed that specialist service. And that, naturally, cost more money, as specialist services always do. Well, the VAWAG sector no longer argues that, so now, surprise surprise, councils look to cheaper non-specialist providers instead. In the history books this will go under the heading of self-sabotage.
What that poster seems unable to grasp is that we argue against the doctrine of gender identity because sex matters for women's rights. If women cannot be defined as the coherent biological group they are, they cannot be a political group arguing for rights on the basis of their sex-based needs.
Men do not need abortions. Women and girls do. There is one and only one reason why women still have to fight for their the reproductive rights and that is because we live in a male-dominated world and giving us the power to decide whether we are carrying a baby to term or not is not in the interests of the men in power.
But abortion is a people issue now, and we can't even reliably restrict ourselves to talking about the needs of female people or female reproductive systems because even the word female is now being claimed for males.
Good luck with fighting for the reproductive rights of people! That's a surefire way to grant men the right to procreate and that never ends well for us.