‘What are the views that the majority of posters on here have regarding the dangers of gender ideology, do you actually disagree with?’
I don’t know if it is the majority, but I think the use of neutral pronouns much more of the time and the use of Mx are perfectly fine developments in language.
You don’t see it as much now, but the frequent statements that a ‘real man’ would take violent action if they thought a male person had gone into a public toilet with their wife or daughter, were profoundly anti feminist. About the last thing women need is men having a punch up in our toilets.
Using pictures to support the gender critical case is understandable, given the nature and impact of some key images and the manipulation of images to support the primacy of gender over sex. But it’s a poisoned chalice. Pretty, slight, delicate men are not women any more than large solid plain women are men.
On the same lines - no, we can’t always tell. We need to address this. Some men and more women do pass, or pass in some circumstances, or after enough surgery. Is that important? Does it change anything? Does it change some things in some circumstances? Clearly many people and some legal precedents like Goodwin think it does make a difference. As a feminist it makes no theoretical difference to me, but eg if a woman requests a female doctor and gets Dr Sam the Brighton GP (for example) there are going to be some women who reject that person because they don’t look female enough. I don’t think it’s ok to just pretend that’s never going to happen. Theoretically, what should happen? This same issue underpinned the first ECHR guidance which ended up saying that some transmen probably couldnt use women’s toilets. It’s hardly surprising that this guidance had to be withdrawn.
It makes no difference whether male people in women’s sport win or not, and focusing on those that win is counterproductive. It’s hard not to do it though because it’s so fucking offensive.
We can’t both say that we don’t care about what people wear, and that a man in a dress is inevitably expressing a sexual fetish. Tbh I think the meanings we attach to clothing are real and important and denying this helps nobody. This is not the same as the right wing pro-gender belief that women naturally want to wear skirts and be tradwives, but insisting that men wearing skirts is EITHER meaningless OR fetish wear is a horseshoe argument leading back to sexism.
The silly jokes about ‘where’s my right wing money then’ attempt to deny the truth that right wing political forces really have poured money into buying political voices that use gender idiocy to discredit left wing politics. It’s not very difficult to make politicians look like idiots when attempting to make gender trump sex in policy, and the left have gifted this to the right. That doesn’t make it ok that right wing corrupt dictators are in power, that homophobia is getting a whole new lease of life and that there have been physical attacks on boys and men who are judged not to be performing male gender well enough.
Transphobia exists and people have died from transphobic attacks. Homophobia and violent misogyny are MUCH more prevalent than transphobia - tbh they’re all closely linked - but it exists.