A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

[Kylie]

Absolutely. Either everything is sacred, or nothing is sacred. I don't want to live in the sort of Kindergarten country it would take for everything to be sacred, so I choose nothing.

No shades of grey in your worldview?

 

[Moral Orel]

I will say that if an action can cause demonstrable harm to people that it should be illegal. That's why we outlaw murder, rape, theft, etc, because all those things cause demonstrable harm.

Now, it has been shown that misgendering people and not giving them that respect to acknowledge who they are causes harm to. Trans people (and gay people as well) who are not giving that respect have higher cases of depression and suicide. The same studies also show that when trans people are giving love and support, they have much lower instances of depression and suicide.

So, if we agree that actions that cause harm should be illegal, and disrespecting trans people has been shown to cause harm, what's the conclusion you draw?

I don't agree that all harm should be under the purview of the law. Emotional harm is something that we can and should learn to deal with ourselves. I think we should protect children from emotional abuse from their parents via the law because they can't have learned the skills to not be traumatized, but adults need to learn to cope with other people not accepting or liking or respecting them.

No shades of grey in your worldview?

This isn't an issue of shades. It's an issue of separating topics into lists of "offensive" or "not-offensive". Whether anything is offensive or not, and even how offensive anything is, is entirely subjective and everyone's opinion is exactly as valid as everyone else's. Morally, I'll respect anyone's thing as long as all you're asking is for me to not say something around or to you. Legally, it's too unwieldy and impractical to outlaw everything.

 

[stevevw]

Yes it does. Don't fire someone simply because they're pregnant. It's really simple, and I think you're trying to overcomplicate it.

Its not over complicating things. It is not as simple as stating don't fire someone and for people to accept that no matter what. That's more along the lines of a dictatorship. People want to know and understand the context to justify things. It may be that there are situations you can lay off a women who is pregnant. You see the issue as just being about words and I see it as part of a bigger issue about transgender ideology that is undermining women’s rights. That is why it is important to understand context and unwrap the issue.

As mentioned, it is not just about getting fired for being pregnant. Pregnancy affects women’s careers at a time when they are at their peak earning capacity. How do you support this by saying people are denied opportunities when it is a specific disadvantage to women compared to men.So there is a whole context around this that needs to be understood to justify and emphasize the importance.

Besides the premise that you are using is wrong and therefore this is undermining long held and fought for women’s rights. Gender ideology and the language it uses to support the ideology have no factual basis. You cannot become the opposite sex through self identity. We are letting a subjective feeling dictate policy and narrative. That is a dangerous and risky road to take when determining important things like rights, laws and policies. So therefore, I and others see that it is important to keep the narrative to how it has been supporting women for decades through hard fought wins on women’s rights.

That's not true. Why would we have a discussion about the use of "he" and "she" if folks were pushing for a genderless society? Why would people be referring to trans women and trans men if they didn't want people to use the words "women" and "men"? Transgender activists still want gender to be a thing, they just conceive of it differently than you do.

It is not so much a gender-less society but a society based gender ideology that has no factual basis that minimizes our understanding of male and female which are primarily based on biological sex and been accepted for years. So feelings over fact which for any other area would be classed as wrong. There are several other reasons why a person may have gender dysphoria that are not associated with gender identity which are being denied by trans activists who shut down any opposing views. So, to place so much emphasis on gender ideology is risky and unfounded and threatens women's and children's well-being and safety.

Personally, I think moving towards a society that concerns itself with gender less and less is a good thing. The same way that we've moved forward to concern ourselves less and less with race. There are some contexts where that isn't going to be possible, but most of the time it would be better if we didn't care about gender at all.

Race is different as there is a biological basis and transgender ideology does not correspond to this. The equivalent logic would be people could identify as Chinese by just saying they are. I agree we should neutralize gender when we can but I disagree that the conflicts caused by gender ideology are minor. Once again because biology is a part of what makes gender all situations that involve biological sex will conflict with transgender ideology. That’s why we are seeing activists trying to disrupt women’s groups and movements especially feminist ones. Anyone who claims that a man cannot be a woman or sticks up for women's rights is targeted as promoting hate and shut down.

Like I said, there are some contexts where it matters, but we aren't discussing those right now. We're discussing discrimination against pregnancy.

But I was using the pregnancy example in referring to the topic of how women need to maintain their specific gender identity so that their rights are upheld for which we are talking about. All those other contexts relate to that.

So, you are agreeing that there is some context that support what I am saying. It is now just a matter of how many. You say only a few and I say there are many. But even if there are only a few this should not diminish the importance of upholding women’s rights. One context that makes women unsafe or denies them rights is one too many.

I do have to ask out of curiosity though, what are "Men's Sheds"? Is that an Australian thing?

The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture. It's like the tool shed in the back yard where men did little repair jobs and got with their mates to have a beer and chat except Men's Sheds are a bigger version and more organized like an association. Men’s Sheds are found in many cities and towns around Australia and continue to spring up internationally. There are around 13 Men's Sheds in the US and a number in NZ and Britain. They were set up to advise and improve the overall health of all men as there is a high incident of male mental health ans suicide as well as preventable deaths from heart disease etc. As men find it hard to express their feelings and talk about their problems men's shed create a social environment where men may feel more comfortable about sharing. Some allow anyone to join including women but the majority are for men.
Find a Shed

 

[Moral Orel]

Its not over complicating things. It is not as simple as stating don't fire someone and for people to accept that no matter what. That's more along the lines of a dictatorship. People want to know and understand the context to justify things. It may be that there are situations you can lay off a women who is pregnant.

That's already covered by my sentence "Don't fire someone simply for being pregnant". Getting laid off isn't being fired for being pregnant, it's only being fired while pregnant. There are okay reasons to fire someone, such as poor work performance, and there are bad reasons to fire someone, such as anything that doesn't have a thing to do with job performance. We can explain it meticulously without mentioning gender, or biological sex, or race, or religion as anything more than examples. Discrimination should be understood in a broader context anyways.

As mentioned, it is not just about getting fired for being pregnant. Pregnancy affects women’s careers at a time when they are at their peak earning capacity. How do you support this by saying people are denied opportunities when it is a specific disadvantage to women compared to men.So there is a whole context around this that needs to be understood to justify and emphasize the importance.

I don't see how the extra details matter. Losing your job is an obvious and drastic harm. That's sufficient. When we say "Don't fire someone simply because they're black" we don't need to analyze statistics about their best earning years. If women became pregnant generally during low earning years, would that make it okay to fire them simply for being pregnant? Of course not.

Besides the premise that you are using is wrong and therefore this is undermining long held and fought for women’s rights. Gender ideology and the language it uses to support the ideology have no factual basis. You cannot become the opposite sex through self identity. We are letting a subjective feeling dictate policy and narrative. That is a dangerous and risky road to take when determining important things like rights, laws and policies. So therefore, I and others see that it is important to keep the narrative to how it has been supporting women for decades through hard fought wins on women’s rights.

What premise am I using that is wrong? That the word "gender" can be used differently than you're used to? Word definitions are arbitrary. No one thinks they can change their biology by simply thinking it either, that's silly. Transgender people don't feel that their biology is different than it actually is, let's clear that up now. They feel that how they identify doesn't match the biology that they recognize they have. If they thought that they could imagine their biology into being something other than it is, they wouldn't seek surgery and hormone therapy.

It is not so much a gender-less society but a society based gender ideology that has no factual basis that minimizes our understanding of male and female which are primarily based on biological sex and been accepted for years. So feelings over fact which for any other area would be classed as wrong. There are several other reasons why a person may have gender dysphoria that are not associated with gender identity which are being denied by trans activists who shut down any opposing views. So, to place so much emphasis on gender ideology is risky and unfounded. This is a risky approach and threatens women's and children's well-being and safety.

You said people are trying to eliminate gendered words like "man", "woman", "boy", "girl". That would be a genderless society, and that isn't what's happening.

Race is different as there is a biological basis and transgender ideology does not correspond to this. The equivalent logic would be people could identify as Chinese by just saying they are. I agree we should neutralize gender when we can but I disagree that the conflicts caused by gender ideology are minor. Once again because biology is a part of what makes gender all situations that involve biological sex will conflict with transgender ideology.

Race is based on biology too. We just recognize how unimportant the distinction is most of the time. We still have a lot of hangups about biological sex that we're slowly getting over, but it is the same thing in a lot of areas.

But I was using the pregnancy example in referring to the topic of how women need to maintain their specific gender identity so that their rights are upheld, and all these contexts relate to that.

Right, and we'll see if the pregnancy example supports your case or not.

 

[stevevw]

That's already covered by my sentence "Don't fire someone simply for being pregnant". Getting laid off isn't being fired for being pregnant, it's only being fired while pregnant. There are okay reasons to fire someone, such as poor work performance, and there are bad reasons to fire someone, such as anything that doesn't have a thing to do with job performance. We can explain it meticulously without mentioning gender, or biological sex, or race, or religion as anything more than examples. Discrimination should be understood in a broader context anyways.

If discrimination should be understood in a broader context then why does employment laws, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Humans Rights relating to pregnancy mention women and use woman specific language. Pregnancy is linked to women for all these laws and rights. Women experience specific disadvantage and you cannot defend their rights by avoiding to specifically refer to them in the language. This is what many are saying where transgender ideology is pushing one set of rights at the expense of others.

Here is what the Canadian Human Rights Act states and if there is any country that is going to support gender neutral language it is the Canadians. It mentions only pregnancy related discrimination is a form of sex discrimination because only women can get pregnant. That includes termination of employment.

The Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act) prohibits discrimination related to pregnancy. Pregnancy-related discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, because only women can become pregnant. Discriminatory practices related to pregnancy, such as negative treatment, refusal to hire or promote, termination of employment, or harassment, are against the law under the Act.
Policy on Pregnancy & Human Rights in the Workplace - Page 1 | Canadian Human Rights Commission


According to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Women not people are protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Know your pregnancy rights | womenshealth.gov

I don't see how the extra details matter. Losing your job is an obvious and drastic harm. That's sufficient. When we say "Don't fire someone simply because they're black" we don't need to analyze statistics about their best earning years. If women became pregnant generally during low earning years, would that make it okay to fire them simply for being pregnant? Of course not.

The Pregnancy penalty is not just limited to getting fired. It is about all situations that women experience disadvantage because of being pregnant. The idea of gender neutral language and women being pregnant when applied to the overall disadvantage does make a big difference because we then have to consider the context. Women losing the best years of their career to being pregnant is a big disadvantage compared to men and you cannot justify and support this by neutralizing the language. There are a number of women specific disadvantages relating not just to pregnancy but many other areas that need women specific context and this is what people are saying is at risk by not specifying the differences.

What premise am I using that is wrong? That the word "gender" can be used differently than you're used to? Word definitions are arbitrary.

No they are not and that is what is being disputed with transgender ideology. You cannot take the biology out of the meaning of gender. By only using a subjective and arbitrary standard for defining gender when it comes to making laws and policies is dangerous. It has no factual basis and people can change it and add new ideas all the time. We have seen gender fluidity rapidly increase and extend their list of gender identities in recent years and there is no way to determine if these are just made up or have any factual basis. Certainly not using this basis for changing laws. We don't use this methodology in any other way except maybe for religion but we also don't use that for making laws either.

No one thinks they can change their biology by simply thinking it either, that's silly. Transgender people don't feel that their biology is different than it actually is, let's clear that up now. They feel that how they identify doesn't match the biology that they recognize they have. If they thought that they could imagine their biology into being something other than it is, they wouldn't seek surgery and hormone therapy.

I never said that or at least was not implying that if it came across that way. I am saying that transgender ideology wants everyone to believe that the only way to determine gender is through self identity. They want to exclude biology as a determining factor. This is why we are seeing conflicts and confusion because biology is being taken out of the equation where males claiming to be females are participating in women's sports and blowing women off the park. Or allowing what are basically males into female spaces threatening women's safety and privacy. The new laws of self identity allow a person to be male one day and female the next and the right to enter female spaces.

You said people are trying to eliminate gendered words like "man", "woman", "boy", "girl". That would be a genderless society, and that isn't what's happening.

Ok well I have not explained myself properly. Transgender ideology is trying to eliminate the traditional meaning of females and males as a gender that is associated with biological sex. So anyone who states that women including the word women is determined by biological sex is being attacked as promoting hate and discrimination. The language therefore has to be gender-less and no one can mention that gender has anything to do with the traditional understanding of biology when it comes to males and females. This has seen many organizations, professional speakers, support agencies for women, businesses and language in general being attacked by transgender activists for promoting hate and harming the transgender community and policed such as with no platforming when they are only debating the topic and are decent people.
It’s Time for Progressives to Protect Women Instead of Pronouns - Quillette

Race is based on biology too. We just recognize how unimportant the distinction is most of the time. We still have a lot of hangups about biological sex that we're slowly getting over, but it is the same thing in a lot of areas.

No race is purely based on physical features. Definition, Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color.

Right, and we'll see if the pregnancy example supports your case or not.

My case is supported by employment laws, codes of conduct, Human Rights and Decriminalization law. All keep the word women in their language. At this stage no one is changing this. That's because they know that there is a separate category of women that has different and specific rights that need to be upheld. What the Human Rights and other legislation is doing is adding another category for those who do not conform to the traditional understanding so they are also covered and that is how it should be done. Rather than diminish or deny women specific rights and cause conflicts in society there should be a separate category that supports transgender people like they do with Indigenous people, women and children.

 

[Moral Orel]

If discrimination should be understood in a broader context then why does employment laws, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Humans Rights relating to pregnancy mention women and use woman specific language. Pregnancy is linked to women for all these laws and rights. Women experience specific disadvantage and you cannot defend their rights by avoiding to specifically refer to them in the language. This is what many are saying where transgender ideology is pushing one set of rights at the expense of others.

Here is what the Canadian Human Rights Act states and if there is any country that is going to support gender neutral language it is the Canadians. It mentions only pregnancy related discrimination is a form of sex discrimination because only women can get pregnant. That includes termination of employment.

The Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act) prohibits discrimination related to pregnancy. Pregnancy-related discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, because only women can become pregnant. Discriminatory practices related to pregnancy, such as negative treatment, refusal to hire or promote, termination of employment, or harassment, are against the law under the Act.
Policy on Pregnancy & Human Rights in the Workplace - Page 1 | Canadian Human Rights Commission


According to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Women not people are protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Know your pregnancy rights | womenshealth.gov

Discrimination should be understood in a broader context, like I said, because there are good and bad reasons for firing/demoting/hiring/promoting someone. We seem to narrow in on specific things that are discriminated against for reasons I can only guess. Maybe it's because we want to retain our right to discriminate for other arbitrary things or maybe it's just because we only try to change things we personally care about. For example, we recognize that we shouldn't discriminate against people based solely on their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex, right? What about people that are fat, or ugly, or based on their political affiliations? These aren't protected classes, but they're bad reasons to discriminate aren't they? Understood in a broader context of not discriminating for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, the semantics of protecting this specific type of person or that specific type of person becomes superfluous.

Let's say they changed the language that you posted. What specific harm would happen and how do you know that would happen?

No they are not and that is what is being disputed with transgender ideology. You cannot take the biology out of the meaning of gender. By only using a subjective and arbitrary standard for defining gender when it comes to making laws and policies is dangerous. It has no factual basis and people can change it and add new ideas all the time. We have seen gender fluidity rapidly increase and extend their list of gender identities in recent years and there is no way to determine if these are just made up or have any factual basis. Certainly not using this basis for changing laws. We don't use this methodology in any other way except maybe for religion but we also don't use that for making laws either.

Word definitions are arbitrary. I could say that "flabberdab" is the word for masculine and "goodersab" is the word for feminine. Arbitrary. All that matters is that you know what I mean when I use the words. They can change the meaning of the word "gender" to anything they like, and in those rare instances where biological sex matters, we'll consider biological sex instead of gender.

Everyone recognizes that there are biological differences between the sexes. The issue is debating where that matters and where it doesn't. Like I said earlier, those trans activists who say it doesn't matter anywhere are wrong; but at the same time those who oppose them that say it matters everywhere are also wrong. Whether people identify as one gender or another doesn't matter, or at least, no one has given me a reason thus far to care.

No race is purely based on physical features. Definition, Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color.

Right, and human biology, specifically genetics, controls those physical characteristics, just like human biology, specifically genetics, controls whether people have a penis or a vagina. The trouble is recognizing which differences between the sexes and the races are purely superficial, and which ones aren't.

 

[stevevw]

Discrimination should be understood in a broader context, like I said, because there are good and bad reasons for firing/demoting/hiring/promoting someone. We seem to narrow in on specific things that are discriminated against for reasons I can only guess. Maybe it's because we want to retain our right to discriminate for other arbitrary things or maybe it's just because we only try to change things we personally care about. For example, we recognize that we shouldn't discriminate against people based solely on their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex, right? What about people that are fat, or ugly, or based on their political affiliations? These aren't protected classes, but they're bad reasons to discriminate aren't they? Understood in a broader context of not discriminating for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, the semantics of protecting this specific type of person or that specific type of person becomes superfluous.

In saying that discrimination should be understood in a broader context because there are good and bad reasons for firing/demoting/hiring/promoting someone you are actually showing why it is important to understand context. Because there are individual circumstances as to whether a person is discriminated against we need to therefore understand each category such as women, race, religion etc and individual circumstance. If you begin to neutralize the language of each individual circumstance for each category that is discriminated against you run the risk of neutralizing the category as well.

I agree that as a general principle it is wrong to discriminate period but then we need to understand how that applies to context to be sure we get it right and that peoples rights are upheld in different situations because an argument may be possible to justify discrimination. For example a general principle would be that it is wrong to discriminate against fat people but in some situation it is OK such as for health reasons and certain jobs. Some airlines charge extra for obese people because they take more than one seat. This could not apply to race or religion. It is the same for gender in that some circumstances for women such as the gender pay gap only applies to women. So we need discrimination acts and rights. You will find that race, religion and Indigenous people have separate laws and rights as well.

Let's say they changed the language that you posted. What specific harm would happen and how do you know that would happen?

The harms would be what I have been talking about the hard fought for rights such as the right to privacy and safe spaces. Changing the language leads to this because making the language neutral is a representation of the transgender ideology that states that biological has nothing to do with gender. That allows males to become women just because they say so and enter women's private and safe spaces even if they still have male genitals. Your not seeing the bigger picture. The language and discourse we use shapes how we think and will determine the way we live.

For example this article refers to real situations where gender neutral language leads to self identity policies for transgender people and makes all spaces mixed where males can infiltrate women's spaces.
Recent Freedom of Information requests reveal that in the UK, two-thirds of sexual assaults in public pools and leisure centers took place in mixed-sex or “unisex” facilities. A pre-operative trans woman prisoner, Karen White, sexually assaulted two female inmates recently whilst on remand in a British women’s prison. Critics argue from such evidence that making self-ID the legitimate means of accessing women-only spaces puts females in those spaces at risk—occasionally from trans women, but also from predatory males who are not trans, but who now cannot be confidently challenged in such spaces. The inclusive language of “gender-neutrality” tends to obscure the fact that a policy of self-ID effectively makes spaces mixed-sex by stealth.

In considering this difficult issue, we need to be aware of the fact, often glossed over or treated as heresy if mentioned, that a substantial number of trans women are pre-operative and retain natal genitalia, and that many are sexually attracted to females.
Ignoring Differences Between Men and Women Is the Wrong Way to Address Gender Dysphoria - Quillette

Word definitions are arbitrary. I could say that "flabberdab" is the word for masculine and "goodersab" is the word for feminine. Arbitrary. All that matters is that you know what I mean when I use the words. They can change the meaning of the word "gender" to anything they like, and in those rare instances where biological sex matters, we'll consider biological sex instead of gender.

But it is not as simple as that. A society forms the way it thinks and acts through words and language. The words are not seen in isolation and often words have a cultural meaning and represent norms that have a bigger meaning than just the word meaning. They can be part of a narrative which makes an ideology. That ideology cannot be switched on and off. It will apply to everything which we are seeing now with the conflicts and confusion and women are losing their rights.

In some cases the simple changing of a word such as the reinterpretation of the word sex to also include gender permits transgender women to enter all women spaces. The word women no longer means biology women but anyone who says they are a women. These have massive consequences for how we think and act.

When you refer to the "rare instances where biological sex matters" being excluded from transgender inclusion this will not go down well for the transgender movement. Because for them it will represent discrimination in not being recognized as a women with full rights. This shows how you cannot separate biology from the issue in ideological terms. Second the biology is not a small and rare part of the issue. It applies to everything where males and females are different physically. That includes all sports, privacy situations which can apply to anything from women's groups for personal issues, swimming pools, change rooms, toilets, women's hostels and refuges.

But also state run prisons, hospitals wards and all medical situations where wrong diagnoses can be made because men and women have different reproductive systems. Also we haven't touched on the psychological and cognitive side of things. For example stats show that men are the main perpetrators of abuse towards women. By saying that men can be women this disregards this fact. Add to this that they can now have open access to women's spaces this is a risk overlooked.

Everyone recognizes that there are biological differences between the sexes. The issue is debating where that matters and where it doesn't. Like I said earlier, those trans activists who say it doesn't matter anywhere are wrong; but at the same time those who oppose them that say it matters everywhere are also wrong. Whether people identify as one gender or another doesn't matter, or at least, no one has given me a reason thus far to care.

The problem is for transgender ideology based on subjective feelings biological sex does not matter when it comes to determining gender and they are not willing to include biological sex. Whereas most including myself accept that in some cases gender can be socially constructed and therefore we should not have a hard and fixed criteria.

So we should primarily uphold the traditional and factual definitions that incorporate biology as the main basis for gender and allow subjective ideas in some situations, But transgender ideology want it the other way around by making subjective definitions the main basis and factual definitions as non-existent or minimal. The problem is the transgender activists are winning and influencing laws with this ideology and that is what is upsetting most people.

An ideology that is based on subjectivity is trumping science because people are being politically correct. When people cry out loud that denying the rights of transgender is causing harm and suicide it can have a strong emotional sway which people find hard to go against. But if we based all laws on avoiding to hurt people we would be in a lot of trouble.

Right, and human biology, specifically genetics, controls those physical characteristics, just like human biology, specifically genetics, controls whether people have a penis or a vagina. The trouble is recognizing which differences between the sexes and the races are purely superficial, and which ones aren't.

Yes I agree but what muddies the waters is political correctness and that seems to be the trend nowadays. Virtue signalling rather than actually doing the right thing. In 10 or so years we will be seeing those who transitioned wanting to de-transition and suing those who pushed them into sex changes. We will look back and see how society allowed this to happen. Another situation where people believed they were doing good when in fact they were actually making matters worse.

 

[Ken-1122]

So you decide that your opinion about this person is more important than their own opinion about themselves. And that's why it's not worth having this discussion with you. Because you are incapable of respecting others.

Again; it's not about opinion, it's about fact. You need to remember, they agree with me on biology; they would just prefer I use pronouns in reference to gender instead of biological sex. But as I said before, If I'm talking to someone, it's my choice how I speak, and if I choose to not refer to gender, that's my choice; especially when they aren't even a part of the conversation.

 

[Ken-1122]

My definition of those words are different to yours.
Gender to me is with regards to your physical make up. XX chromosome denotes a female gender. XY denotes male gender. It does get blurry though when people have operations to alter sexual organs or hormone levels.

Actually they’ve redefined the term to mean something different. Gender now is about what goes on inside your head regardless of chromosomes or biology. The definition you are using is now wrong.

In such cases, it doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what they think. If they want to be referred to as having a specific gender, then that is politely how I will refer to them.

"sex" to me is an act of reproduction.

Biological sex is about your physical make up.

I would consider this approach to be stubborn and disrespectful.
It doesn't hurt to be respectful does it?

I find it disrespectful for them to insist when I speak of someone, I use pronouns associated with their gender rather than their biological sex. How I speak of someone is my business not theirs; especially when I am not speaking to them

Just like when Cassius Clay changed his name to Mohammad Ali.
To respect him, you need to call him by his preferred name. You don't get bonus points for calling him Cassius, you just annoy him. Why do that?

Names are different. I use your name when I speak to you; when you are a part of the conversation. Realize, they agree with me on their biology, IOW a transgender woman knows they are a biological man; why can’t this person respect my wishes to use biological pronouns when talking to someone else?

Why is it so hard for you to respectfully address her, how she wants to be addressed?

How hard is it for them to respectfully recognize I use biological references, not gender references? How come this respect only goes one way?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why is everyone so Babylonian/confused? If we are back to "I feel in the mind I am X even though I was born physically Y", then why did we run the psychology of sexuality out of academia in the 70s and 80s?

Why the heck do HUMANS keep repeating the same confusion every age?

Language evolves, but context is founded. There is no reason to be silent in the face of cultural change. There is no reason not to be staunch on a position if there is respect.

What on Earth are you talking about???

 

[stevil]

How hard is it for them to respectfully recognize I use biological references, not gender references? How come this respect only goes one way?

I am sure they will address you, by however you wish to be addressed. Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, he, she, it, they. Whatever you want to be addressed as.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am sure they will address you, by however you wish to be addressed. Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, he, she, it, they. Whatever you want to be addressed as.

And I will address them by whatever name whey wish to be addressed by

 

[stevil]

And I will address them by whatever name whey wish to be addressed by

And your stubbornness and arrogance demands you to ignore their request on being referred to by their chosen pronoun?
Does it hurt you in someway to refer to them as they would like to be referred?

Did you realise that there is a very high suicide amongst transgender people.
Does your insisting on boxing them into a specific gender, regardless of their own efforts and pleas to be addressed as the other gender, do your own actions help this person feel comfortable about themselves or add to their anxiety and eventually contribute to them committing suicide?

 

[Ken-1122]

And your stubbornness and arrogance demands you to ignore their request on being referred to by their chosen pronoun?
Does it hurt you in someway to refer to them as they would like to be referred?

Me stubborn and arrogant? How dare they demand I use gender pronouns; I decide how I speak, and which pronouns I use.

Did you realise that there is a very high suicide amongst transgender people.
Does your insisting on boxing them into a specific gender, regardless of their own efforts and pleas to be addressed as the other gender, do your own actions help this person feel comfortable about themselves or add to their anxiety and eventually contribute to them committing suicide?

Are you suggesting I feel sorry for these people? NO I treat them just as I do anyone else. If anybody is going to demand I speak a certain way, they better have a darn good reason that meets my approval. Thus far I have not heard a good reason to use Gender as currently defined; however I'm open to listening to any reason they might have.

 

[Kylie]

Again; it's not about opinion, it's about fact. You need to remember, they agree with me on biology; they would just prefer I use pronouns in reference to gender instead of biological sex. But as I said before, If I'm talking to someone, it's my choice how I speak, and if I choose to not refer to gender, that's my choice; especially when they aren't even a part of the conversation.

Sounds to me like you are choosing to be disrespectful.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Trans people make it an issue by self identifying as other. "Trans-female", etc...
If they wish to be seen as the gender they have in their mind they wouldn't label themselves as former transitioned to other.
They would also be upfront from the start that they still possess their God given genitalia when they do so, when they meet with someone they see as a possible romantic interest. But they don't always do that either.
It isn't anyone's responsibility , that deception, but the one deceiving someone whom the Trans imagines as a possible romantic interest. In fact it starts any possible relationship off on the platform of deception which means not just the shame of facing truth on the part of the Trans person, but it also bodes ill for the relationship chance itself when it starts off with deception concerning the most important factor in any future sensual relationship; sexual anatomy.

 

[RDKirk]

Trans people make it an issue by self identifying as other. "Trans-female", etc...

I have no problem with a transgender person wishing to be referred to by whichever gender they were intending--and the vast majority do. Most want to live normal lives as the gender they have changed to.

At this point, we're talking about a tiny minority of a tiny minority that want to be explicitly recognized as being transgender.

 

[Alien Lotus]

I have no problem with a transgender person wishing to be referred to by whichever gender they were intending--and the vast majority do. Most want to live normal lives as the gender they have changed to.

At this point, we're talking about a tiny minority of a tiny minority that want to be explicitly recognized as being transgender.

Citation?

 

[Alien Lotus]

Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones.

 

[RDKirk]

Citation?

Blaire White

Multiple videos.