Dear Foxy,

In my previous response to you I was not speaking of sex and/or gender at all.

When it comes specifically to sex and gender, I fully agree that nobody should be ill-treated because of their sex, sexuality, or gender, etc.
I have no issue with these (could you possibly be confusing me with other forum-members who do?).

But I was stating the obvious:
It is not humanly possible to treat everyone the same.
Just not possible and nobody is expected to do that.
Do you, for example, treat Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir the same as you treat your children?
I find nothing wrong about treating good people and evil people differently - don't you?

«How about just accepting people as people first and
foremost and listening when they tell you about their
feelings and needs. Why is that so hard?»

Is that something you practice?
Is that reasonable?
Would you listen to Netanyahu calmly and patiently to hear all about his feelings and needs, why he "needs" to keep the war in Gaza going and having daily more people killed, wounded and displaced on both sides so that he can avoid prison and remain in power?
Or to Ben-Gvir explaining why he feels bad that Arabs still exist and how he "needs" to kill all gentiles so that Jews will not be tempted to marry them?
I certainly am not expecting you to do so.

«Their gender identity is their business and it's just
our business to respect that because they're a human
being deserving at least basic decency.»

Just drop that ridiculous word, "identity" - gender has nothing to do with identity, and then I will agree as well:

Their gender is their business and it's just
our business to respect that because they're a human
being deserving at least basic decency.

Yuyutsu,

The topic being discussed is gender identity.
Not flowers, horses, Netanyahu, or any other diversion
you want to bring up. And if you object to the word
"identity" which is fundamental here - you're more
than welcome not to use it.

I'm not going to continue to argue with you.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

«The topic being discussed is gender identity.»

So I am right on the topic then - there is no such thing!

«Not flowers, horses, Netanyahu, or any other diversion
you want to bring up.»

Flowers and horses were used as examples:
There are flowers - but there is no flower identity.
There are horses - but there is no horse identity.
Similarly there are genders - but there is no gender identity.
If someone claimed that they are a flower or a horse, or are identical with a flower or a horse, then wouldn't you agree that they lost some marbles?
Believing that one is a gender, or identical to a gender, is no different.

As for Netanyahu, that was indeed off topic, but it was in the context of replying to an off-topic diversion that you raised first.

Yuyutsu,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Dear Foxy,

«We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.»

This discussion is not about you and me, agreeing or otherwise,
there are many more people reading this,
and there is much at stake:

Should government ask in the 2026 census, "Which gender are you?", or "which gender do you identify with?" and answering that question be compulsory, then I may have to part with lots of money, perhaps even go to prison, because I could not answer that question.

Why? Because I am not a gender and do not falsely identify myself with one.

If you think that you are a gender (doesn't matter which), then good on you because come 2026 it will save your money, but as Galileo said: "And yet it moves". Law cannot overrule science, but it can make certain sciences illegal, including the science of logic, and make people pay dearly for adhering to it.

Yuyutsu,

You're right. This is not about you.

And, I do not wish to argue with your logic.