Is a man a man and a woman a woman?

[canarydan23 4,060]

35 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

As long as Suzy/Eddie is minding their own business and they promise not to assault anyone then that's OK.

How is it ok? An email had to go around my teenage daughter's Basketball team the other month warning the parents because a bloke was wandering around the women's changing rooms with his tackle out several weeks running. Do you not think women, and young girls in particular, have a right to get changed away from that? If it was in a film, you'd need to be 18 to see it, but in UEA changing rooms? Go for your life.

[A Load of Squit 5,210]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

How is it ok? An email had to go around my teenage daughter's Basketball team the other month warning the parents because a bloke was wandering around the women's changing rooms with his tackle out several weeks running. Do you not think women, and young girls in particular, have a right to get changed away from that? If it was in a film, you'd need to be 18 to see it, but in UEA changing rooms? Go for your life.

I agree with you.

What I was questioning to the original question was why they keep mentioning Izzard.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

As usual when the argument becomes an impasse, it becomes left or right. Apparently if you are left you are loonies that support anything that endangers kids in changing rooms.

The OP was whether a man is a man and the same for a woman. I answered no because several genuine people have had surgery to change sex as far as humanly possible. So I am not expert to say yes so for the sake of those who seem genuine I answered no.

However I did agree that there appear sto be so much trivia and downright stupidity about how people assign their agenda which demeans those who are serious.

Now we are told the whole debate is whether we would feel safe with Eddie Izzard in a girls changing room. He is not transexual but a cross dresser which obviously makes him a pervert in some eyes. My whole point is that we have to consider those that are genuine and believe they, with surgery, could become what their brain tells them they are.

This whole nonsense about left and right blurs what are surely just humanitarian attributes.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

57 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

How is it ok? An email had to go around my teenage daughter's Basketball team the other month warning the parents because a bloke was wandering around the women's changing rooms with his tackle out several weeks running. Do you not think women, and young girls in particular, have a right to get changed away from that? If it was in a film, you'd need to be 18 to see it, but in UEA changing rooms? Go for your life.

What has that got to do with gender reassignment? Was it a flasher or was it just someone wandering around naked in the changing rooms? 

You have the right to say what your daughter doesn't have to put up with of course. Our local swimming pool changing rooms are mixed but they are cubicles. One golf club I play has mixed changing. And of course some countries have always been more liberal than us in terms of male and female and don't batter an eyelid. NZ is one country I have experience of where male and female mix totally in terms of changing and showering in some places. These are known and those who don't agree don't go there.

[king canary 7,654]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What has that got to do with gender reassignment?

Because the debate has moved so far past gender reassignment.

One of the biggest pushes from the trans movement has been for gender self id- the idea that anyone should be able to, without any medical procedures or doctoral diagnosis of gender dysphoria, be able to to ID as they choose and get a gender recognition certificate. This is combined with a push to have services based on gender rather than based on sex.

If that becomes the case then, as @canarydan23 points out, there is nothing to stop a big hairy bloke wandering into women's changing rooms, getting their kit off and, when challenged saying 'I identify as female.' 

There was a recent case in California at Wii Spa where a man with a history of indecent exposure went into the female changing rooms under the guise of being a transgender woman. When complaints were raised and he was removed trans right protest groups turned up to picket the spa and declare them bigoted. 

The idea that 'trans = transexual' is thoroughly outdated at this point. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

Because the debate has moved so far past gender reassignment.

One of the biggest pushes from the trans movement has been for gender self id- the idea that anyone should be able to, without any medical procedures or doctoral diagnosis of gender dysphoria, be able to to ID as they choose and get a gender recognition certificate. This is combined with a push to have services based on gender rather than based on sex.

If that becomes the case then, as @canarydan23 points out, there is nothing to stop a big hairy bloke wandering into women's changing rooms, getting their kit off and, when challenged saying 'I identify as female.' 

There was a recent case in California at Wii Spa where a man with a history of indecent exposure went into the female changing rooms under the guise of being a transgender woman. When complaints were raised and he was removed trans right protest groups turned up to picket the spa and declare them bigoted. 

The idea that 'trans = transexual' is thoroughly outdated at this point. 

And I have said, that the frivolous who are making a mockery of the real issue should just be told to pish off. If someone walked into the women's room just because he was being facetious that throw him out. Sport isn't turning their back on the genuine so the frivolous can go and try something else.

We are too happy to moan about things rather than approach them head on. Mourdant was right but for the wrong reason. Fight. Say no. I don't agree. Its only a minority and a few celebs who are pushing for this identify as Unicorn tripe. Ignore them. They will have a new trend next year.

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And I have said, that the frivolous who are making a mockery of the real issue should just be told to pish off. If someone walked into the women's room just because he was being facetious that throw him out. Sport isn't turning their back on the genuine so the frivolous can go and try something else.

We are too happy to moan about things rather than approach them head on. Mourdant was right but for the wrong reason. Fight. Say no. I don't agree. Its only a minority and a few celebs who are pushing for this identify as Unicorn tripe. Ignore them. They will have a new trend next year.

Who decides who is being facetious? That bloke identifies as a woman and feels they have a right to use female-only facilities. The UEA won't throw them out.

That's wrong. But it is happening more and more frequently. And as ever, it's women and girls who lose out and are inconvenienced; my daughter now won't use the changing facilities at UEA.

[Aggy 762]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

A better analogy would be if your neighbour put up red curtains but identified them as blue.  He’d be perfectly within his rights to do so provided he didn’t also insist that everyone else agreed his red curtains were blue.

Ah, all becomes clear. You don’t think people should have the right to insist things you don’t agree with.  I don’t usually like to use the term snowflakes, but…

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

As usual when the argument becomes an impasse, it becomes left or right. Apparently if you are left you are loonies that support anything that endangers kids in changing rooms.

The OP was whether a man is a man and the same for a woman. I answered no because several genuine people have had surgery to change sex as far as humanly possible. So I am not expert to say yes so for the sake of those who seem genuine I answered no.

However I did agree that there appear sto be so much trivia and downright stupidity about how people assign their agenda which demeans those who are serious.

Now we are told the whole debate is whether we would feel safe with Eddie Izzard in a girls changing room. He is not transexual but a cross dresser which obviously makes him a pervert in some eyes. My whole point is that we have to consider those that are genuine and believe they, with surgery, could become what their brain tells them they are.

This whole nonsense about left and right blurs what are surely just humanitarian attributes.

This is much closer to my position.

The whole debate has been distorted by one or two high profile cases or self publicists (Izzard etc) and for political value.

The simple truth is that these days 'sex' and indeed sexuality is understood to be more complicated, more nuanced. I'm not really interested in the 'trans' people but more for those that discover often in late life they are actually the 'wrong' sex but have otherwise led quiet normal lives. It is something I recall from anatomy classes that shattered my naïve understanding of 'sex' (other quirks are people with their heart on the wrong side etc and so on). Sympathy and understanding required for these people however it shows. However, once you grasp or even see what nature can do physically then you are much more open to what it can do to orientations as well. Our simple black/white or male/female notions doesn't cut it.

I think the real question here seems to be not genetic sex or sexuality but simply physical appearance. So yes whatever you may feel you are you should still use gender specific facilities that match your body simply to not cause undue offence to others. Of course  - there will still be some issue as always  (the manly hairy woman in the ladies). Nothing is 'perfect'. 

As to the left / right. That misplaces I think peoples mindsets. There are those who think beyond simple solutions and will accept things are more complicated and those that don't. Crime and punishment come to mind. Do we just keep locking more and more people up (c.f. USA) or actually try to fix the cause of crime too? That can be read across to the small boats as well.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Yellowfuture 71]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Who decides who is being facetious? That bloke identifies as a woman and feels they have a right to use female-only facilities. The UEA won't throw them out.

That's wrong. But it is happening more and more frequently. And as ever, it's women and girls who lose out and are inconvenienced; my daughter now won't use the changing facilities at UEA.

Thats really shocked me....

[king canary 7,654]

48 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Ah, all becomes clear. You don’t think people should have the right to insist things you don’t agree with.  I don’t usually like to use the term snowflakes, but…

I don't think its that- I think its that those people shouldn't have the right to insist that I have to believe it too.

To take the curtains anology still further, if my neighbour wants to believe his curtains are red when they are blue that is his prerogative. If he insists anyone who doesn't believe his curtains are red are in fact terrible bigots and that any suggestion his curtains might not actually be red is akin to violence and that his entire mental wellbeing rests on me actively affirming his curtains are red then we're closer to the tenor of some of the debate.

Edited October 6, 2023 by king canary

[king canary 7,654]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Who decides who is being facetious? That bloke identifies as a woman and feels they have a right to use female-only facilities. The UEA won't throw them out.

That's wrong. But it is happening more and more frequently. And as ever, it's women and girls who lose out and are inconvenienced; my daughter now won't use the changing facilities at UEA.

Yeah the ship KG is advocating here sailed long ago.

I've sat in presentations at my workplace where the head of HR said 'trans women (meaning anyone who identifies as a woman) are women, that is all there is to it.' I wasn't really in a position to tell him to **** off and stop being silly. Luckily some semblance of common sense was restored with the Maya Forster case which meant 'gender critical' beliefs are protected but still...

[littleyellowbirdie 2,578]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

I don't think its that- I think its that those people shouldn't have the right to insist that I have to believe it to.

To take the curtains anology still further, if my neighbour wants to believe his curtains are red when they are blue that is his prerogative. If he insists anyone who doesn't believe his curtains are red are in fact terrible bigots and that any suggestion his curtains might not actually be red is akin to violence and that his entire mental wellbeing rests on me actively affirming his curtains are red then we're closer to the tenor of some of the debate.

Absolutely this. I don't care how many so-called experts and campaigners tell me all of this is correct and what everybody else in human history believed is wrong. This whole gender ideology business is utter rubbish. I'm happy to treat people with issues over their own sex/gender with respect and just ignore it, but no way do I accept that we should be indoctrinating young children with the idea that this small minority is actually perfectly normal and to actively encourage them down a road where they question their own identity.

The reason sport is being sent into chaos accomodating this is because none of it makes sense. Like Copernicus, they've come up with a social equivalent to the insanely complicated model to show that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but as soon as you try applying it beyond that individual context it falls to bits.

This whole discussion puts me in mind of room 101, where Winston is being told that 2+2 is whatever the party tells him it's supposed to be and he must accept whatever they say without reservation. We're literally having it demanded that we accept new thoughts as fact and to sit down for all of society having it's laws and customs changed on the basis that these thoughts are fact.

Edited October 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[benchwarmer 625]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it usually IS a duck.

But not always.

Edited October 6, 2023 by benchwarmer

[horsefly 4,310]

28 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Absolutely this. I don't care how many so-called experts and campaigners tell me all of this is correct and what everybody else in human history believed is wrong. This whole gender ideology business is utter rubbish. I'm happy to treat people with issues over their own sex/gender with respect and just ignore it, but no way do I accept that we should be indoctrinating young children with the idea that this small minority is actually perfectly normal and to actively encourage them down a road where they question their own identity.

The reason sport is being sent into chaos accomodating this is because none of it makes sense. Like Copernicus, they've come up with a social equivalent to the insanely complicated model to show that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but as soon as you try applying it beyond that individual context it falls to bits.

This whole discussion puts me in mind of room 101, where Winston is being told that 2+2 is whatever the party tells him it's supposed to be and he must accept whatever they say without reservation. We're literally having it demanded that we accept new thoughts as fact and to sit down for all of society having it's laws and customs changed on the basis that these thoughts are fact.

Are you well? Just FYI, Copernicus is famous for demonstrating that the earth revolves around the sun, proving it is not at the centre of the universe. Perhaps try an alternative analogy

[king canary 7,654]

23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Absolutely this. I don't care how many so-called experts and campaigners tell me all of this is correct and what everybody else in human history believed is wrong. This whole gender ideology business is utter rubbish. I'm happy to treat people with issues over their own sex/gender with respect and just ignore it, but no way do I accept that we should be indoctrinating young children with the idea that this small minority is actually perfectly normal and to actively encourage them down a road where they question their own identity.

The reason sport is being sent into chaos accomodating this is because none of it makes sense. Like Copernicus, they've come up with a social equivalent to the insanely complicated model to show that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but as soon as you try applying it beyond that individual context it falls to bits.

This whole discussion puts me in mind of room 101, where Winston is being told that 2+2 is whatever the party tells him it's supposed to be and he must accept whatever they say without reservation. We're literally having it demanded that we accept new thoughts as fact and to sit down for all of society having it's laws and customs changed on the basis that these thoughts are fact.

This is the problem and why I think you were right earlier in the thread when you said the excessive demands of the more extreme TRA's have led to a general drop in support on trans issues.

I generally believe the British public in 2023 operate largely on a 'live and let live' principle to these sorts of issues. What consenting adults want to do amongst themselves is largely their business providing it doesn't particularly intrude on others. But when you start asking people to deny things that are patently obvious and known in order to validate the feelings of others you'll lose them.

It is patently obvious that biological sex matters.

It is patently obvious that someone with a penis doesn't magically become a woman by saying they are.

It is patently obvious someone who went through male puberty will have an advantage in almost all sports.

It is patently obvious that we should be as cautious as possible in proscribing drugs to children if we don't know what the side effects could be.

However....

It is also patently obvious that many, like those at the Tory party but also some folks in America, have no interest in women's rights and just pretend to in this case for culture war red meat.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,578]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Are you well? Just FYI, Copernicus is famous for demonstrating that the earth revolves around the sun, proving it is not at the centre of the universe. Perhaps try an alternative analogy

I meant to say Ptolemy, not Copernicus, but then you doubtless had already worked that out and were simply being deliberately obtuse, as is your wont.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I meant to say Ptolemy, not Copernicus, but then you doubtless had already worked that out and were simply being deliberately obtuse, as is your wont.

Nope! Your mention of Copernicus was very much of a piece with the rest of your confusing analogy-filled rant, so I assumed you meant exactly what you said. As it happens Ptolemy would be an equally poor analogy. So successful and simple were Ptolemy's theorems for navigating the night skies, that it wasn't until the 1970s that the US navy stopped using them in their manuals for their pilots (Thanks must go to my old lecturer, Rob Black, for pointing that out when I was a student long, long ago).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,578]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Nope! Your mention of Copernicus was very much of a piece with the rest of your confusing analogy-filled rant, so I assumed you meant exactly what you said. As it happens Ptolemy would be an equally poor analogy. So successful and simple were Ptolemy's theorems for navigating the night skies, that it wasn't until the 1970s that the US navy stopped using them in their manuals for their pilots (Thanks must go to my old lecturer, Rob Black, for pointing that out when I was a student long, long ago).

It's a simple analogy. Ptolemy's model was based on an incorrect premise. The model worked in a limited sense, but fell apart in a wider context. The heliocentric model is simpler, works in a wider context, and is based on a premise we know to be true, namely that the solar system is centred around the sun.

In exactly the same way, this whole transgender ideology thing requires ever more complicated rules and changes to compensate for the chaos it creates, underlining it's all rubbish.

Edited October 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,986]

35 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is the problem and why I think you were right earlier in the thread when you said the excessive demands of the more extreme TRA's have led to a general drop in support on trans issues.

I generally believe the British public in 2023 operate largely on a 'live and let live' principle to these sorts of issues. What consenting adults want to do amongst themselves is largely their business providing it doesn't particularly intrude on others. But when you start asking people to deny things that are patently obvious and known in order to validate the feelings of others you'll lose them.

It is patently obvious that biological sex matters.

It is patently obvious that someone with a penis doesn't magically become a woman by saying they are.

It is patently obvious someone who went through male puberty will have an advantage in almost all sports.

It is patently obvious that we should be as cautious as possible in proscribing drugs to children if we don't know what the side effects could be.

However....

It is also patently obvious that many, like those at the Tory party but also some folks in America, have no interest in women's rights and just pretend to in this case for culture war red meat.

 

Regarding the bit in bold, absolutely. They'll disguise this under the noble-sounding goal of "defending traditional values" or, even more oddly, "defending Western civilisation". Sounds good, but what they really want is more control for themselves/their chosen option to be the primary one/the biggest piece of the pie.

And some Tories are reduced to this as it's crystal clear that the notion of "trickle-down economics" has been debunked.

Edited October 6, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,578]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Regarding the bit in bold, absolutely. They'll disguise this under the noble-sounding goal of "defending traditional values" or, even more oddly, "defending Western civilisation". Sounds good, but what they really want is more control for themselves/their chosen option to be the primary one/the biggest piece of the pie.

Who's 'they'?

[king canary 7,654]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Who's 'they'?

I'd assume the Tory party as mentioned in the highlighted bit he's responding to.

[Aggy 762]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I don't think its that- I think its that those people shouldn't have the right to insist that I have to believe it too.

To take the curtains anology still further, if my neighbour wants to believe his curtains are red when they are blue that is his prerogative. If he insists anyone who doesn't believe his curtains are red are in fact terrible bigots and that any suggestion his curtains might not actually be red is akin to violence and that his entire mental wellbeing rests on me actively affirming his curtains are red then we're closer to the tenor of some of the debate.

Of course they should have that right. Anyone should have the right to insist whatever they want - as long as it isn’t abusive or violent.

Struggling also with your second para. What is the negative affect on ‘you’ here - it isn’t hate speech, it isn’t violent. It is an opinion that hypothetical ‘you’ is a terrible bigot, an opinion anyone should have the right to hold.

If your hypothetical neighbour starts harassing you on your doorstep, I absolutely agree with you. But like I said previously - that isn’t an issue about men being men or women being women etc…

 

[king canary 7,654]

11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Of course they should have that right. Anyone should have the right to insist whatever they want - as long as it isn’t abusive or violent.

Struggling also with your second para. What is the negative affect on ‘you’ here - it isn’t hate speech, it isn’t violent. It is an opinion that hypothetical ‘you’ is a terrible bigot, an opinion anyone should have the right to hold.

If your hypothetical neighbour starts harassing you on your doorstep, I absolutely agree with you. But like I said previously - that isn’t an issue about men being men or women being women etc…

 

Something doesn't have to have a negative effect on my directly for me to care about it. I'm not negatively effected by Chinese ethnic cleansing yet I can still think its bad.

Of course people can hold the opinion that others are bigots- but to act like accusations of bigotry and hatefulness are just words with no consequences isn't right. The issue becomes when you have situations such as Suzanne Moore in the Guardian or Maya Forster or Kathleen Stock who are hounded out of their jobs for these supposedly bigoted views because their employers are too cowardly to stand up to a loud pressure group. 

You can also see the power of people not wanting to be ostracised for perceived bigotry in the BBC piece about lesbians feeling pressured into having sex they don't really want with trans women so as to not feel like they are terrible bigots.

Or the fact that women's groups who want to discuss women's sex based rights can't hold meetings without groups of angry and occasionally violent 'protest' groups outside trying to intimidate attendees- and that is if their venues don't cancel the meeting beforehand due to pressure from the same groups.

So this isn't just people muttering 'what a bigot' under their breath but an organised pressure campaign that isn't shy about going after jobs, friendships and dignity for believing the person with a penis isn't actually a woman.  

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Who decides who is being facetious? That bloke identifies as a woman and feels they have a right to use female-only facilities. The UEA won't throw them out.

That's wrong. But it is happening more and more frequently. And as ever, it's women and girls who lose out and are inconvenienced; my daughter now won't use the changing facilities at UEA.

Anybody with a brain cell wold know if that chap walks in and says I am a woman today is being stupid and not let him in. Its because people will not say No. What has happened that people cannot dislike someone anymore? What has happened that every time I type I am conscious of not trying to upset anyone?

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Anybody with a brain cell wold know if that chap walks in and says I am a woman today is being stupid and not let him in. Its because people will not say No. What has happened that people cannot dislike someone anymore? What has happened that every time I type I am conscious of not trying to upset anyone?

It's a lot of reactionary small 'c' conservatism at play. I do wonder how many of these trans or whatever people if they met without prior knowledge they could sex anyway?   

What we need to do is to take the steam out the argument both ways.

 

Oh - Just saw this which is topical. I wonder when the Tories (first woman PM (best man for the job!), first Asian PM) will have the first 'Trans' one (openly)?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/06/belgian-transgender-deputy-pm-petra-de-sutter-rishi-sunak-not-join-real-bullies

Edited October 6, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Aggy 762]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

The issue becomes when you have situations such as Suzanne Moore in the Guardian or Maya Forster or Kathleen Stock who are hounded out of their jobs for these supposedly bigoted views because their employers are too cowardly to stand up to a loud pressure group. 

You can also see the power of people not wanting to be ostracised for perceived bigotry in the BBC piece about lesbians feeling pressured into having sex they don't really want with trans women so as to not feel like they are terrible bigots.

Or the fact that women's groups who want to discuss women's sex based rights can't hold meetings without groups of angry and occasionally violent 'protest' groups outside trying to intimidate attendees- and that is if their venues don't cancel the meeting beforehand due to pressure from the same groups.

So this isn't just people muttering 'what a bigot' under their breath but an organised pressure campaign that isn't shy about going after jobs, friendships and dignity for believing the person with a penis isn't actually a woman.  

But none of that is caused by someone having a sex change. Those things are caused by other wider societal issues and views , and the stance of the employer - people also get sacked for comments on race, gender/misogyny, disabilities, sexuality etc etc. 

The prime minister’s comment wasn’t “let people do, believe, and say what they want, but that works both ways”. That would have been fair enough.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Aggy

[king canary 7,654]

Just now, Aggy said:

But none of that is caused by someone having a sex change.

I think I've said about 8 times on this thread that we're not talking about people who have had or are having sex changes. Part of the reason this debate is so toxic is that people either can't or won't differentiate between sex and gender.

1 minute ago, Aggy said:

The prime minister’s comment wasn’t “let people do, believe, and say what they want, but that works both ways”. That would have been fair enough.

I have at no point in this thread claimed his comments were OK or defended him. This thread has clearly moved on past discussing his comments into the wider debate around trans rights.  

[horsefly 4,310]

19 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a simple analogy. Ptolemy's model was based on an incorrect premise. The model worked in a limited sense, but fell apart in a wider context. The heliocentric model is simpler, works in a wider context, and is based on a premise we know to be true, namely that the solar system is centred around the sun.

In exactly the same way, this whole transgender ideology thing requires ever more complicated rules and changes to compensate for the chaos it creates, underlining it's all rubbish.

But not as rubbish as your use of inaccurate and inappropriate analogies that confuse rather than elucidate.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

I spent a number of years working in Thailand, which as most of you know is famous for its third gender. The Ladyboys, or khathoey as they are known over there, have been around in mainstream society for hundreds of years and can be found in all class strata and in all sorts of professions and, apart from the occasional bump in the road they get along pretty well as integrated members of the society. So why do khathoeys get by without major problems but transwoman create so many issues. Well, obviously the Thais have had much longer to figure this out, but one very significant difference is that khathoeys do not claim to be women. If you ask them what there gender is they say they are khathoey, a completely separate category. And when it comes to having to choose bathrooms, for example, then they follow their biological sex. So one of the bumps in the road that occur is that all males can be called up for national service. Khathoeys get an excemption if they've had surgery, as they are considered to have 'mal-formed chests'

Perhaps western trans people should drop the demand to be considered to have a gender opposite to their biological sex and instead we come up with a name for a third gender and let them be that.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Rock The Boat