@ButterflyHatched
If a person has a belief that defies the direct lived reality of others and demands that they be treated in a particular way due to their genital configuration, ignoring their interiority and any hint of nuance or subjectivity because of an ideological adherence to the concept of an immutable sex essence, why on earth should any person believe anything else they say is credible and based on a balanced view of the world?
With this "direct lived reality" that people claim, can we not just reverse it?
Can't we just say, "my direct lived reality is that trans women don't appear to be genuinely women on the psychological level whether that's stereotypes or whatever it is, they just don’t seem authentic"?
Why doesn't that kind of "direct lived reality" carry just as much weight?
Or should "direct lived reality" carry more weight than reasoned argument about the issue?
Is it not suspicious if the "no debate" side wants to appeal to their subjective experience?
(And presumably wouldn't want the other side appealing to their own subjective experience that they don't think trans identified people are "authentic".)
And what about religious people that would claim to have "direct lived experience" that their religious beliefs are confirmed?
I'm all for religious freedom in the private sphere; but would we be happy if they started arguing that they should have a new type of special rights, and we shouldn't be denying their "direct lived experience" that would justify this claim for special rights?