Just been “unfriended” for believing in biology

[Somethingthecatdraggedin7]

I posted links about the Supreme Court ruling on my fb feed and have just been unfriended and blocked by a real life friend.
I hadn’t seen her for a long time so we had never talked about the issue because the last time we met (about 8 years ago) transgender wasn’t a thing. Well certainly not in my little corner of the UK anyway.
I am bemused. This is someone I had helped a lot with certain situations. She knows me, she knows that I am a kind and decent person.
But now because I post about the legal reclamation of the word woman I am suddenly persona non grata.
I have friends of differing views on all sorts of topics and we accept that we don’t have to agree on everything. Clearly this particular friend can’t accommodate diverse opinions.
So much for tolerance and inclusion then.

Normal people can cope with their friends and family disagreeing with them about various things.

Fanatics break off contact with other people for not sharing their weird beliefs.

It's cult behaviour.

She's not a friend. If she is willing to end a friendship because you believe women should have rights I say good riddance.

He has, yes. As do the majority of transwomen.

You hadn't seen her for 8 years anyway. Does it really matter?

People like to curate their online spaces and social media. Some people simply cannot be arsed to "debate". I never talk about politics with friends, but they also don't share political things on social media, nor do my family really. If someone means a lot to you, you can often ignore what they've said, but if it's someone you haven't seen for that long, maybe you weren't that good friends anyway?

Now, I'm not comparing what you said on social media and this issue to racism or such things. But, you do go on about "so much for tolerance of diverse ideas" - this is fine for some issues, and this post you've made about the SC ruling can be one of those, but consider that being tolerant of intolerance is also a paradox. You can't be tolerant towards racist ideas in a tolerant society for example, it just doesn't work like that. That's a separate issue to your main point though, but it's a reason saying things like that feel a bit off to me.

Normal people can cope with their friends and family disagreeing with them about various things.

Agreed. There are lines people are allowed to draw though. It's their life. I wouldn't knowingly remain close friends with someone who supported Trump or who watches Andrew Tate, why would I?

This is her line. Maybe it says something about her. Doesn't seem you've lost much OP, does it?

No loss. She's clearly got problems understanding basic biology.

I don't want to be around any phobias tbh. Same as if you are spewing pro reform shite.

I agree with this.

The op must have known her comment would provoke reactions; indeed the premise of her thread is that she believes people of certain views cannot handle opposition, so surely she could have forseen such a response.

It does make the whole thread seem a disingenuous and opportunistic attempt to denigrate.

In noting that by putting her views forward in the way she did she invited pushback, I’m not disagreeing, necessarily, with her views on the topic per se, but rather questioning the sincerity of her method of promoting debate on this forum.

If you erase sex as something recognisable, how do you know someone is trans?

Serious question. They become 'just another person' without any protected characteristics that can be identified.

If you cant see sex, you can't see sexism. You cant see homophobia. And you can't see transphobia.

These become meaningless concepts because you have removed the ability in law to identify them.

Otherwise if it's just about feelings anyone can claim they are trans, homosexual etc etc.

Imagine I woke up tomorrow and said I feel like a transwomen. Without sex as a definition point you HAVE to recognise me as a transwoman and my claim to represent transwomen. So anyone could claim anything and it all be utterly meaningless!

Without sex to define trans people you can't actually protect them.

The law has to be definable. You cant have a woolly meaningless concept that changes depending on whether observing sex is convenient to you at particular times. Sex has to be observable in ALL situations at all times.

Otherwise trans as a concept, manages to effectively do a Back To The Future on itself and creates a paradox where 'Martina' ceases to have ever existed.

The fact that those screeching about 'transphobia' haven't worked this out yet, amuses me no end tbh.

The people who think anti-trans views are as bad as racism do not extend their sympathy to women who have had to put up with the nonsense of transwomen are women and stfu for the last ten years. I might be more sympathetic to them if they had had an ounce of empathy for others - but they don't.

He's still a man and women are entitled to exclude men from their single-sex spaces. If you let one man in then you let them all in. That is the difficulty this judgement has sorted out - no men, not even if they have had surgery or have a GRC, because they are not women. Third spaces are the way to go in addition to single sex provision (because women need this) but I see no moves on the part of TRAs to fight for third spaces - which suggests that it's not the need to pee that drives them but the validation of upsetting women.

If you actually read all of my comments throughout the thread you will see that the links I posted to Fair Play for Women were on my fb feed weeks before my old friend (who I had found and contacted about meeting up after not seeing her for years due to my increasing disability and stage 4 cancer) accepted my friend request. I simply wanted to see someone I had liked very much again whilst I still had time.
So far from knowing the links might provoke her I didn’t even know she would become a fb friend at the time, and I had no reason to think the links would cause her or anyone of my fb friends upset or offence at all.
Throughout my thread I talk about the friends I have who have completely different views than mine on a range of issues and we all manage to get along just fine because we can agree to disagree.
Other posters raised the fact that in their experience the transgender issue polarises opinion and opposing views are not tolerated rather than me although I agree that appears to be true for some people.
I said I was surprised that my old friend could not accept different views which is the exact opposite of your frankly perverse representation of my account.
To be honest, I rather question your comprehension because none of your accusations have anything to support them at all.
I have not denigrated anybody and the only disingenuous person I see here is you.

To me that’s transphobic, yes. I believe it is possible to change gender and am supportive of my trans friends. I use their preferred pronouns.

You are confusing sex with gender, you can be whatever gender you like but you can’t change sex, you’re either a man or a woman. Stating biological facts isn’t transphobic.

She’s hardly a friend, then, is she?
No loss.

I’m not sure whether the fact you knew which person might take offence, (or the fact that the one that did had not been friended at the time), makes all that much difference, though, to the fact that polarising views - which I think we all agree do seem to what we are dealing with for whatever reason - will cause people to take umbrage, and that that isn’t so hard to foresee.

I think if you want to post them, you have to accept some people will wish to withdraw from those sorts of conversations. It’s not that unpredictable, and so it’s the “surprise” that I took to be disingenuous - albeit that I can appreciate that the disappointment can still be very real nonetheless.

You are right that a lot of other posters were saying their experience of this issue was that it was a non- tolerance one, however, perhaps as a result of that, I did take your comments in a later post ( I did read them all) about “ the irony” of their movement in the same vein. Perhaps, in hindsight, that comment was both fuelled and coloured by the comments of the other pp to some degree.

However, I nonetheless think if you are posting about these issues, you need to understand the extent to which many people find them something they don’t want to engage with - and I’m not sure disengaging is any more unreasonable than wanting to speak out. If choices around debate are allowed, they need to be allowed in both directions.

This opinion clearly and simply shows why the law needs to be able to place clear meanings on words and be able to sort people into "boxes"

If you are a voter you would need to self exclude from a jury on the basis of this opinion if it was about transphobia or had a party who identified as a transperson as you would be unable to do your civic duty as a jury member.

This is about sex though, not 'gender'. You may be gaslit to deny your lived experience as a female, but the rest of us, grown up from girlhood, periods, being sexually abused, catcalled, etc that lived experience of the female oppressed sex class is not anything a male from the oppressor sex class can ever understand. So I will not be gaslit to call a member of the oppressor sex class by female pronouns, just as I wouldn't call Rachel Dolezal a black woman. You don't get to identify into an oppressed sex class. Personally I think you're being femphobic and misogynistic and on your knees for males. You've been programmed and socialised from a girl to prioritise males and their feelz. This woman says NO.

You would declare an interest. Then you wouldn't be chosen for that case.

but your generation is going to die out aren't you?!'.

Interesting how she is so utterly convinced of the biological fact that generations of people do age and eventually die out (I don't know how old you actually are; when I was 5, anybody over 13 was very, very ancient indeed!)

Yet when it comes to other simple basics of science and biology, she is equally convinced that they are NOT true.

I wonder how she would have reacted if you had looked her in the eye, angrily insisted that 'your truth' that you will live until you're 250 is THE undeniable truth, and called her a bigoted hater for denying your lived experience and trying to erase your very existence?

The question is would (choice) or should (civic obligation).

If the poster thinks the opinion is normal or "the only right one" to have they would fail to understand that they bring a bias into the jury room as they have a differing scale of 0% to 100% to the average person.
And should make the opinion know to the court at the point of selection

Well there are many people in the world who are intersex, neither male or female. I view my trans friends as the sex they have opted to be.

What is gender? How do I know if I have a gender?

There’s no such thing as intersex, they are people with DSD’s who are either male or female. Please leave them out of your insidious ideology, they are not trans. Educate yourself instead of parroting what you read on Reddit.

Do you understand that sex and gender are not the same thing?

And that humans cannot change sex?

If so, can you explain what you think a gender is?

That’s absolutely false. You have been sold and bought lie after lie under the auspices of “be kind” or perhaps under the threat of being tagged as a bigot.

You cannot “opt” to be the opposite sex. Interesting choice of words though?

Sex is binary. Those with DSDs are not in between the sexes, nor are they a third, fourth or fifth sex. Stop using people with a medical condition to justify this utter lunacy.