Dear Ttbn,

«We have to accept that there are very few irrational people who feel that they are a sex that they obviously are not»

There are irrational people who feel that they are a sex. Period.
Any rational person can clearly observe that we are not a sex.

---

Dear John,

«The concept of gender identity, and the societal expectations placed on males and females, exist regardless»

Sadly still so - isn't it about time that we get rid of such nonsense?!

«We would therefore still need a word to describe these phenomena, even if “gender” really did mean something different in the past.»

On the contrary - having no word for that superstition should help us forget more quickly that it ever existed.

I know and care nothing about soccer, but apparently in the WOMEN’S game in Australia, the champions this season were a a team with 5 males in it. The real women's teams have decided that they will not play against that team again.

How long, I wonder, will it be before taxpayers find themselves funding legal action against real women again, now that it a court has decided that real women can't block a man from horning in on a women-only app.

mhaze,

No, we're all talking about two distinct concepts. All you’ve done now is focus on where there’s overlap between the two. Before, it was about whether law can overrule science. (Suddenly we’re all suddenly friends of science when it suits us, it seems.)

These concepts are distinct because gender is shaped by social and cultural factors, whereas biological sex pertains to physical characteristics. They’re not just different ways of arriving at the same “meaning” (whatever that is).

The recognition of transgender identities is not about creating confusion or enabling deception. It is about respecting the lived experiences and identities of others. Transgender men, who have undergone reconstructive medical procedures, use restrooms that match their gender identity.

There is no evidence to show that allowing transgender people to use the restrooms matching their gender identity creates safety issues, and the rare incidents that you could point to involve criminal behaviour, not transgender behaviour.

"BuT iT eNaBleS sEx OffEnDeRs!"

Sex offenders will commit rape and sexual assault either way. Allowing transgender people to use the restroom they identify with hardly makes this easier - particularly given how embarrassing dressing up as the opposite sex would be for most of them. This whole issue would go away with the implementation of single-stall unisex rooms, anyway.

Feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals of challenging rigid gender norms and promoting equality. Transgender women do not "invalidate" the experiences of cisgender women, they highlight the diversity of womanhood.

The rest of your post is mere paranoid conspiracy, and is utterly baseless. Let me guess: it’s the Jews?

John Daysh sounds like just another Marxist trying to destroy class based elite socially constructed reality or as the Marxist's call it "False Consciousness", in the name of freedom from slavery. But slavery is everywhere, and Marxism wouldn't be my method of treating the ill even if I thought it needed to be treated. It's interesting how Marxist's delineate nature and nurture, mostly they deny nature, in favour of saying that everything is nurture. They claim all nurture accept theirs is tyranny. They deny that anything in Tradition could be anything other than capitalist elite propaganda. Marxist's seem to want to destroy everything to the ashes (blank slate), in the name of love, by destroying systems and processes, that create stability and identity.

They claim universalist principles, with apparently lower than average understanding of the universe, or as some have said, maybe they just want to see the world burn, because they hate the world.

It's been said Marxists don't love the poor, they hate the rich, the competent, the thoughtful, the productive, it's the religion of the mediocre and, as Ayn Rand said, of death itself (but she wasn't right about everything).

Maybe John Daysh has just been led astray. But I'm getting tired of those repeating Marxist propaganda, the ideology that killed 100 million people, and then claiming that they didn't know that they were promoting death. They should.

Atlas Shrugged talks about "the real trick" of power that the Marxist's understand. You create laws that cannot be obeyed, and cash in on guilt, of course only on those with something of value. It's said that Marxist's understand power in a superior transcendent way. Maybe it's the same with hate.

A person can hate another, a group of people, etc, but taking everything from Jung's "shadow archetype" from deep within the soul, bringing it up, and projecting it, onto hating the whole world, and wanting to create death everywhere, is hate at a superior order of magnitude.

Often the best thing to do is send the boxers to their own corners to be with their own team.

Sometimes perhaps often it is hateful to force people to be diverse

social construct has been contrived to excuse the “abnormal” behaviour of some,
John Daysh,
That goes without saying ! It has been designed to take focus totally off merit.
The description "abnormal behaviour of some" is a deceitful attempt to water down the undeniable fact that it is not "some" who operate that way, it's most !