Talking to non GC people

[Sausagenbacon]

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

Thanks for fixing. I am actually wearing my old glasses right now as I can't find my current ones, so yes, I am currently in the "should have gone to Specsavers" bracket!

@SoftBalletShoes Oh hang on, aren't you the poster who kept saying in yesterday's now-deleted thread that trans identifying men are a "type of woman"?

Men are not a "type" of woman.

Why am I not surprised that those are the photos you chose...

That's a really sexist and reductive way of thinking about women.

'No bad actor would take all the hormones and make himself look so feminine and have a mastectomy and grow his hair and look SO much like a biological woman simply for the purposes of using the women's loos and changing rooms!'

Erm...

This is a common sense viewpoint - no to non-transitioned men but yes to TW who are post-transition - but again, the anti-trans lobby won't have it.

You think it's just the anti-trans ( ie GC) lobby who won't have it? I've got news for you. The trans lobby won't have it either. They think it's transphobic.

The whole argument is muddled, unworkable and all over the place

Yes, same poster.

I thought i recognised this argument. To recap: transitioned or hormone-taking men are a "type" of woman. But not a biological woman. But still a type of woman.

I don't think the poster realises that's deemed to be transphobic.

And they still haven’t got round to posting the post on it that they “mistakenly posted” on this thread! How interesting.

The same poster who said men were a type of women, then used experiencing menopause as proof they were a woman.

Bizarre logic.

Only to extremists at the other end of the argument. I don't deal in extremes.

It's almost like I'm also doing other things and now cba!!! But you read all sorts of dark and sinister motives into that if you like!

Yes, well, there are extremists at both ends of the argument, and I think both are ridiculous.

Top surgery is a type of mastectomy. What's the issue?

Ah right, it's just that you somehow failed to mention trans extremists in your original post, preferring instead to focus solely on the "anti trans lobby". Good that you've clarified it now though.

It is not, it's a balanced, reasonable, and measured viewpoint that takes all sides into consideration while putting safety first. I know that extremists at both ends of the argument refuse to see any middle ground and only extreme positions are good enough for other extremists. I see nothing sexist or reductive about it.

Someone who wants to present as a woman would probably not have a mastectomy

Yes, because we were talking about people who hate minorities, like trans people. So obviously we were talking about anti-trans.

Can you engage with the content instead of splitting hairs? I'm guessing not, because my position isn't extreme.

No, but a woman who wants to transition to being a trans man would.

Typing too fast - I meant to write mammoplasty.

But what does that have to do with your original quote about the potential for bad faith men?

You can’t even follow your own logic.

Read your own sentence.
Your posts are so muddled.
Don't make out it's other people not wanting to engage when actually it's hard to follow your posts.

Yes, I meant to write mammoplasty instead of mastectomy.

Should have been mammoplasty, not mastectomy. I don't know if that was me or autocorrect.