I will agree with this statement if you add the change the first two words "The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part."
I will agree with this statement if you add the change the first two words "The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part."
Yes there are an incredible number of malicious men.
Yes the position of the trans-activists are enabling those malicious men "justify" their access into traditional women's spaces.
Yes, trans-women can never be the same as a woman. The concept of a man being a woman because they said so is not where the CASS or now NHS is. The trans activists position of a trans-woman = a woman and a person should be affirmed in their gender (i.e. you saying a man can say they are a woman) is rapidly losing ground. But there are still actors in Rowlings Fantastic Beasts and other new ventures making these claims. There will always be a fringe that will never admin a trans woman is not a woman (and a trans man is not a man but that seems to be less controversial).
Most of the trans community want to have a well thought out conversation on how they can be supported and ideally affirmed. As I have stated, I have trans people working for me. Both trans-men and trans-women. I'm learning allot about how they experience the world by interacting with them. They are not malicious. They are dealing with their gender dysphoria in the best ways they can.
Positions like yours don't create an environment for a well thought out conversation. You are just reacting to the trans activists.
My interaction with the Medium is indicative of Medium catering to the trans-activists. They flagged the following statement as the reason for my latest suspension.
"The trans community started the war by declaring trans-woman are woman. No if ands or buts."
My guess is that you would agree that is just a statement of fact. Medium still won't relent. Even after I followed up with Trump's position and recently the UK supreme court position. They are in a trans-activist bubble. I don't understand why but that's where they are.
The only way that this moves to a well thought out conversation is when you and I can have a well thought out conversation.
My position is clear.
A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man.
Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support.
How that support plays out especially with traditional woman's spaces is controversial primarily because men tend to be malicious especially when it comes to pleasing their sexual urges. But it still boils down to the line.
A trans-woman is not equal to a man maliciously posing as a woman to access a woman's space.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?
I will agree with this statement if you add the change the first two words "The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part."
Yes there are an incredible number of malicious men.
Yes the position of the trans-activists are enabling those malicious men "justify" their access into traditional women's spaces.
Yes, trans-women can never be the same as a woman. The concept of a man being a woman because they said so is not where the CASS or now NHS is. The trans activists position of a trans-woman = a woman and a person should be affirmed in their gender (i.e. you saying a man can say they are a woman) is rapidly losing ground. But there are still actors in Rowlings Fantastic Beasts and other new ventures making these claims. There will always be a fringe that will never admin a trans woman is not a woman (and a trans man is not a man but that seems to be less controversial).
Most of the trans community want to have a well thought out conversation on how they can be supported and ideally affirmed. As I have stated, I have trans people working for me. Both trans-men and trans-women. I'm learning allot about how they experience the world by interacting with them. They are not malicious. They are dealing with their gender dysphoria in the best ways they can.
Positions like yours don't create an environment for a well thought out conversation. You are just reacting to the trans activists.
My interaction with the Medium is indicative of Medium catering to the trans-activists. They flagged the following statement as the reason for my latest suspension.
"The trans community started the war by declaring trans-woman are woman. No if ands or buts."
My guess is that you would agree that is just a statement of fact. Medium still won't relent. Even after I followed up with Trump's position and recently the UK supreme court position. They are in a trans-activist bubble. I don't understand why but that's where they are.
The only way that this moves to a well thought out conversation is when you and I can have a well thought out conversation.
My position is clear.
A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man.
Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support.
How that support plays out especially with traditional woman's spaces is controversial primarily because men tend to be malicious especially when it comes to pleasing their sexual urges. But it still boils down to the line.
A trans-woman is not equal to a man maliciously posing as a woman to access a woman's space.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
You never studied philosophy have you?
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Lets redirect the conversation.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
"Lets redirect the conversation."
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
You haven't directly answered the questions from the comment above. Stop trying to gloss over them.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
See also:
https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/the-long-overdue-question-of-what/comment/114338834
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?