It boils down to this

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

1. If the difference between men and women isn't our bodies, what's the point of dividing humans up into groups called men and women in the first place? Why create that division at all?
2. If the difference between men and women isn't our bodies, why is it such a huge problem for TRAs to admit that humans nevertheless do have two sexes with different bodies?

Seems to me on the one hand they create an unnessessary difference between people based on nothing at all, and on the other they desparately try to quash any recognition of an actual difference that clearly does exist and clearly has significant consequences especially for the people who are female.

Makes no sense at all to me.

There's a big factual void at the centre of transgenderism, you've pointed out one aspect of it.
#nodebate, name-calling, abuse, threats, hyperbole about literal annihilation, violence - I think these are all tactics to try to hide the lack of rational grounding.

It's because 'trans' isn't just men IDing as women, or women IDing as men, that's just one small part of the bigger Queer Theory.
Your point 1 is QT your point 2 is 'trans'. It doesn't make sense because the 2 are diametrically opposed to one another. 'Trans' needs sex to exist otherwise there's nothing to 'trans' from/to. QT says sex is a spectrum, that we are both man and women at the same time, so differentiating between the two is meaningless.
If the batshittery wins eventually the 'trans' will be 'queered' away, just like gay is being 'trans' away.

Because being trans involves wanting to use single sex services - just not of their biological sex. Trans women want to use the ladies' toilets. Anything gender neutral doesn't suit them. So they need society to retain the same sex stuff sovthey can use it. So they claim that gender ID exists and is important and has to be accommodated and anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

One of the many contradictions.

Sex is whatever they want in a given moment.

There is none, two (one I wish I was and the other I wish to scape) or many sexes and even sex changing like clown fish. Everything goes if it suits their nonsense.

None of it makes any sense... it can't be rationalized. And I think it's fundamental nature of being complete BS is what makes them even more fanatical about it. They have to "believe" in it rather than work from logic, and they always feel like they are sinning and must do better cause it's built on lies and incoherence so they are always failing to be good little believers.

This goes a long way to describe the dissonance.

So much of the time is spent trying to distract from pointing out the disconnect.

I feel like much of my life now involves giving a weary sigh as people weld their lives to completely irrational philosophies that fall apart under any kind of scrutiny.

i think some of the isssues are – the US has very divisive politics. Social media has exported those extreme views around the world. The organisations that should have been scrutinising all of this and holding it to account have instead been completely captured by it.

Well, it's clear as mud to me! All I can point to are the years of women asking the same questions, and getting nothing except misdirection or silence:

Define gender. Without using social stereotypes.
How can you "trans" to female sex if you weren't male sex to begin with?
How does chopping off body parts make you actually change sex?
How are babies made if no one knows what sex anyone else is?
Define "trans" without reference to sex.
Define "trans" without reference to gender.
If some people are trans in their minds, and sex is a spectrum, why do you need to mutilate your body? Why can't you just think yourself trans?
If "trans" is all about looking like the opposite sex, not about what's in your mind, then how do you explain all the "transpeople" who say it's about dysphoria?
How can you look like the opposite sex if there's no such thing as sex?

And so on, so forth.

There aren't any answers because the whole thing is a sham.

Lots of very misguided people with way too much time on their hands. Dragging society down with them, just because they want to.

I think this is a really important point. The incoherence of QT is a feature, not a bug. It is a type of political anarchy that wants to dismantle boundaries and reboot society. The old-fashioned HSTS has already started to be consumed by it. Every time someone says 'none of it makes any sense', I think 'well that's the point'.
Capitalism is already taking advantage, of course. Medicalisation, surgeries, pornography, the DEI industry, the lawyers: more stuff to sell.

Radio 4 had a debate on national identity recently. Taking itself rather seriously with input from politicians such as Kemi and Rishi on what it means to be English and covering birth place, ethnicity, culture and belonging. Apparently there is a set of criteria that define Englishness. You can’t simply lay claim to the identity.

Not for the time I found myself rolling my eyes at the sheer irony how debates like that garner intelligent thinking, whilst those same politicians lose all critical analysis when it comes to gender debate.

Their double standards are shameless.

It's all about stereotypical female behaviours - whereby wearing a dress, growing your hair, painting your nails or just using a female name is enough to supposedly make you a woman; yet having a female body - a 'stereotype' which is participated in by 1 out of every 1 woman - apparently doesn't actually count for anything whatsoever.

I'm not at all saying that all men who claim to be women and demand access to female single-sex facilities are predatory perverts; BUT if you were a predatory pervert, it's doubtless exactly the kind of behaviour that would hold a great attraction to you.

But Kemi is, and always has been completely clear about what a woman is and that men cannot be women. Which is why i will vote Conservative at the nect G E if she is still leading the Tories

There are two interrelated rationals that sit behind the argument that the biological birth sex of trans people shouldn't matter. They are rarely fully articulated, because they have obvious faults and are mutually contradictory (in spite of their interrelation), but you will frequently find them invoked obliquely.

1 . Sex in the modern age is irrelevant. We now exist in a post-sex world and sex is no more than a choice and social custom akin to selecting Mr, Ms., Mrs., or Miss. The choice of which sexed service or space to use is simply a function of personal preference and the correlation to biological sex is a dead anachronism, like the idea that needlepoint is some how only for females.

Under this rational:

Why create that division at all?
Because 'sex' is a a self selecting association, like a hiking club. Excluding someone from that space or service because of their biological sex is simply hatred against trans people - everyone else gets to use the service of their choice only trans people are excluded.

If the difference between men and women isn't our bodies, why is it such a huge problem for TRAs to admit that humans nevertheless do have two sexes with different bodies?

Differences between sexes should simply be seen as differences in certain attributes among the human population.

2 . Sex in the modern age is still relevant, but trans people change their effective sex. By getting surgeries and taking cross sex hormones, trans people do in fact change their 'biological' sex. It should be assumed that most trans people are totally undetectable and that it's only a few outliers who can be clocked and a very few people who aren't even trans who abuse the trans category. In the same way that were don't discriminate against a class even those some people in that class abuse it and others pretend to be in the class even though they are, trans people shouldn't be discriminated against (excluded from single sex services and spaces) due to a few bad apples.

Under this rational:

Why create that division at all/why is it such a huge problem for TRAs to admit that humans nevertheless do have two sexes with different bodies?

In this scenario, the division should be maintained. Trans women are not safe in men's spaces and their dignity is violated by being forced to use them.

What's notable is that in TRA arguments they will switch back and forth between justifications, e.g. no one cares what sex toilet you used, it's just a place to piss, but, and also TW are unsafe in the men's toilet.

It’s the structure of the circular argument. Those two points are how the discussions go and then when a tra sees the next round coming they say no debate/ start being abusive

Yeah. What is most disturbing/alarming/depressing is that over 100 MPs apparently share these beliefs.

'Trans' is a con trick. It attracts both the vulnerable and the venal.

I suppose one can add the seriously naive to that, thinking of aforementioned MPs.

Suggesting one can achieve what is obviously and fundamentally impossible is a lie.

It’s an ideology. Charlie Kirk was murdered because he talked about facts continuously in an era where facts don’t matter anymore. Once feelings override facts then your argument becomes futile I’m afraid.

A poster once pointed out that the trans ideology insists we removed all biology from identification of a woman and replace it with things men can achieve eg clothes, make up etc. That was a very powerful statement and really stuck me as the heart of the problem

As I said on another thread, if you claim the sex that commits 99% of sex crime can become the sex that commits 1% of sex crime, whose ears will prick up?

Very well put.

This is a feature, and a very deliberate one, of postmodernism combined with queer theory.

If someone can theorise themselves into a boundaried category, ie find a way to get through the category boundary, they can claim membership of that category.

And be righteous while doing so. (this is important as it can be used for societal support.)

And any argument can be used to destabilise the boundaries. Including ‘language is always evolving and changes’.

I can think of 101 MP's who have answered Dietrich Bonhoeffer's question.

‘But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.’

I guess those of us who give these people power, can expect nothing but stupidity from those who have no inner independence and wisdom.

No such thing as a transwomen or transmen. There are males, females, the deluded and liars.