"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?
"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?