Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate.
Was gay marriage a backdoor ploy to appropriate marriage? No!
It was two things:
A. Gays wanting validation of their “relationships” as “normal”. As it turns out most gays couples are anything but normal including my relationship with my partner. I don’t need and don’t want to normalize …
Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate.
Was gay marriage a backdoor ploy to appropriate marriage? No!
It was two things:
A. Gays wanting validation of their “relationships” as “normal”. As it turns out most gays couples are anything but normal including my relationship with my partner. I don’t need and don’t want to normalize my relationship let alone appropriate what the term marriage means.
B. Gays getting access to all the legal rights of marriage in one fell swoop. Based on how the government works, there was no other practical way for gays to get access to those rights under the term civil union. Gays needed access to the case law that had already been settled under the term marriage. I personally believe the government should not have any laws around the concept of marriage.
Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman.
The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is.
That’s true but focusing on that doesn’t get trans people out of their legal limbo. The legal issues are very real! Saying it’s just a ploy is a very thoughtless way of framing it.
"Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman."
Nonsense. The entire jenner idennity cult is around getting atterntion. And in the end it will disappear, leaving in its wake hundreds of thousnds of mutilated bodies and damaged minds.
Because "trans" women are not women, they are men, and however many times their change their magic pronouns and magic names, they are still men.
That's realilty, and reality pretty much always prevails in the end. And when the fog dissipates, I hope to see a lot of McGender clinic execs and surgeons swinging from lampposts and a lot of former "trans"activists fearing for their lives.
For the record, do you regard people who want to see children mutilated as "good?"
If they're being "who they truly are," why do 90% of them outgrow it? And why, and I mean it, should people who are so uncomforable with who they are that they turn themselves into nightmarish freaks and destroy their health and bodies ... be respected for who they are?
I'm gay too, you know, and I came out in a city and a time when gay meant drag queens, the rest of us only there to give them an audience. None of them had jobs and every one of them lived with a succession of soon-to-be-ex-friends from whom they stole. But they were adults and of an age to make their own choices, however poor those choices were.
"Trans" is all about preying on confused, disturbed, and desperately shallow kids and pretending they're just 'being who they really are." Well, sorry (not really) but I am not joining that pretense. I look forward to the day when kids find another Korean boy band or hair style or fashion to "unify" around and this "trans" crap, yes, ceases to exist.
Ah yes. Let’s use a term that no morally respectful human being could disagree with - “child mutilation”.
Let’s talk about “child mutilation. What is that specifically?
Is abortion child mutilation? Seems like it would be the most extreme.
Is circumcision of baby boys child mutilation? Hard to say it’s not.
Is piercing a young girls ears child mutilation?
Is allowing kids to participate in sports that hurt their bodies forever (eg football gymnastics) child mutilation?
How about just allowing children to wear high heels or for that matter get a sun tan?
Is pulling wisdom teeth or taking tonsils out child mutilation? How about braces on teeth?
How about letting a child get any sort of plastic surgery to “fix” their appearance?
Seriously. Resorting to terms like “child mutilation” means you are just judging anyone who believes it’s the best known treatment today (eg the APA and doctors) as morally inferior to you!
Yes, we need new laws on "trans" and I am ashamed to have to say that the red states are leding the way, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
Rule number is is a complete prohibition on any gender-affirmation treatment other than psychiatry for anyone under 25.
PArents' rights are absolute? Might want to take that up with your "trans" pals. They want kids taken away from parents who don't "affirm." You really should read the news from Earth once in a while.
They are kids! Intuitively obvious to the most casual reader. You’re just being belligerent.
My Trans pals? Who are those? Scott Wiener who I know is an idiot on this. He created the bill. The bills on the left and right on trans are both ridiculous.
The only sanity is parents taking over school boards asserting their absolute rights!
I have also contacted the HRC and been very clear I as a gay person don’t support their sensationalist agenda. They have yet to respond.
You don’t have kids. Stay out of it. Focus on something that affects you directly!
I couldn't number the times I've been told to "sit down and shut up" because a difference of opinion with a woman is mansplaining, a difference of opinion on race issues is because I'm a privileged white racist, a difference of opinion with "trans" is because of a phobia, a difference of opinion with young people is because I'm a boomer. How can there be discussion in the face of that kind of bigotry that is perfectly acceptable when aimed at one demographic?
> "Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate."
LOL. "Inappropriate"? Just honestly say you disagree and why, rather than trying to shame me as if having a reasoned opinion (which differs from yours) is a moral failing. That's a good example of the word games I was talking about.
I fully support same sex marriage - and it was extensively debated *as such* for many years. I see that as direct and straightforward, not a "back door" ploy in the least. There was nothing remotely similar to "could you politely pretend we are married just to spare our feelings?" followed by "since you agree we are married, now you must give us all the rights thereof!" ploy.
That "trans people are in a legal limbo" is exactly correct and proper at this time in history, because the issues are indeed in flux. It's very clear that the democratic electorate has mixed feelings, and accepts some demands better than others. Rather than deal with each issue separately (eg: bathroom present different issues than sports), the "redefinition ploy" seeks to bypass the individual reasoning and evidence about each issue, and produce a "fait acompli" victory on all issues at once, without openly admitting that. So sure, I can understand how an activist would love to transform a "legal limbo" into "complete victory for our every demand", but I don't agree that it's an honest or transparent strategy.
> "The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is."
Could you explain that one more? How do you feel that trans women are unlike women, and how do you feel that gay marriage is unlike straight marriage?
"Backdoor ploy" has negative connotations with no facts backing the judgement up. You said "I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop". That could have been directly said as "I believe that they are trying to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop." There was no need for the "it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy". To quote you, "Just say what your view is rather than trying to shame trans-woman saying they are woman".
I don't understand how your comments on same-sex marriage apply to my comment. You'll need to expound.
I don't feel anything on the phrase "trans women are unlike women". I look for clearly observable facts. The facts are that someone born genetically male (or a man) can never be someone born genetically female (a woman). If using the terms man and woman to refer to something other than genetics, that's a different discussion. From a cultural perspective is easy for a "man" to pass as a "woman" in many places in society. In fact, many trans-people say they feel more comfortable being trans in a small town in Iowa than in San Fran. That's because those in the small town in Iowa don't even consider that the person may be trans.
From my perspective both technically and culturally its obvious that gay marriage can be what a str8 marriage is. In a legal sense, they can be close. Many str8 marriages involve kids that are a product of the couple having what is "normal" sex. That can't happen in a gay marriage. In fact, much of the traditional marriage definition was intended to clarify what the legal state of children was in a relationship. That is not as much the case today. But the laws around marriage started there.
So you agree that "trans women are women" is intended to gain ALL rights of women in one stroke (vs reasoning case by case), but characterizing that as a "back door ploy" seems too harsh?
You appear to equate characterizing that strategy as a "back door ploy" is the same as "shaming trans women". No, it's just disagreement with some activist demands; it's a critique of certain political framings used by activists which I find manipulative, not "shaming" people for feeling trans. And I try my best to be discerning rather than judgmental of people. Do I need to describe the difference?
I already explained the difference between "winning by redefining words" versus "winning by honest campaigning", so I won't repeat it. But the former tactic is what I characterized as a "back door ploy" and I stand by that characterization. If that hurts the feelings of some trans activists, so it goes; I am generally empathetic to people around me, but on the internet I do not substitute sympathy for reason; some things need to be said even if a fraction of the population will feel offended, or "being offended" becomes a weapon to bypass evidence and reason, with emotion.
I am not against all "trans rights", but I do not think that trans women are the simply "the same as biological women", so I think that each issue needs to be negotiated separately; the best solution for sports will likely differ from the best solution for prisons.
I'm guessing the first sentence of your last paragraph meant to say "gay marriage canNOT be what str8 marriage is", right? I do take your point that a major component of the social & legal institution of marriage has been and to a lesser degree still is about protecting children. But only a component. By today, it's clear that childless marriages are extremely mainstream, not an aberration. A good half of my (straight) married friends have never had children (and will not). Or are in a marriage which is not producing children.
Meanwhile a number of gay or bi friends do have children. So I don't see "conceiving, birthing and raising children" as supporting a categorical statement that "gay marriage cannot be what str8 marriage is".
I'm largely in agreement with most of your positions on "trans rights" and where the emphasis of the discussion ideally should be happening.
I'm not supportive the embellishing views with phrases that are judgements The "backdoor" judgement is exactly that. Here's a definition of "backdoor": "use backdoor to describe an action or process if you disapprove of it because you think it has been done in a secret, indirect, or dishonest way." There is nothing secret, indirect or dishonest in the vocal trans-peoples views that trans-woman are woman. They just believe that. There is some implication that you are being "manipulative" as you say by using that phrase. As the biblical saying goes, judge not lest you be judged.
As for marriage, I do agree that the concept of marriage is no longer really meaningful in many cases any more. Why is anyone getting married "legally" except for the following reasons:
1. To gain the tax advantages
2. To gain visiting rights in hospitals.
3. For those with biological children from couple sex in the marriage - i.e. str8s people - clarify legal standing on children in the marriage. Adoptions, surrogates, etc that gay and some str8 people use to have "children" has a legal definition beyond marriage that has to be established. Marriage is not necessary or even sufficient for those cases.
Everyone would be better off creating their own definition of what the marriage is than trying to use the default one defined by the state and federal government. Doing the default is just pure laziness and in many cases leads to problems later in the marriage.
I hear that you consider describing the words "back door ploy" as too judgements. And you are free to so consider it.
To be clear, I do mean that implication that using "trans women are women" as a way to gain blanket approval of all trans activists demands is indirect and dishonest.
Many people are pushed (or even compelled) to speak that slogan, which is emotionally sold as just being kind and accepting of the feelings of trans women; not endorsing that equation is considered causing harm. So TWaW is pushed as an emotional mixture of politeness, empathy, and solidarity.
But then, if TWaW, that implies that women's prisons, women's sports, women's shelters, women's changing rooms, and everything else that women have separate rights to - must be fully open to "trans women", however the latter is currently defined (eg: by self ID). This bypasses or obviates any rational discussion of each issue, based on the specific pros and cons and the effects on all parties (eg: women prisoners housed with intact male sex offendes self-indentifying as women). Or any evaluation of systemic differences in men's and women's sports performance and what factors affect it.
So it substitutes an emotional argument in one domain ("shall we help them feel better about themselves by saying they ARE women?") for many separate rational discussions in other areas (sports, prisons, etc). And I believe that is, for some activist organizations, a deliberate tactic.
If "TWaW" was sold as something one should endorse ONLY IF one agrees that subjective gender identity should trump biological sex in all circumstances, then it would be honest and not a back-door ploy. But it's sold as one thing (being nice to vulnerable people because you have empathy for them), then used as justification for several other things (agreeing with whatever trans activists demand because you have conceded their main point already).
So I'm going to stick with my characterization of that tactic as a "back door ploy", with the implications thereof. It's a critique of a tactic i perceive as being used by SOME people (trans or cis); it is NOT shaming everyone who happens to be trans. As such, it's my attempt to discern and deconstruct a political tactic, not an attempt to be personally judgmental of trans folk in general, based on an immutable characteristic. You are welcome to your own differing opinion, I am not trying to convince you, but just to leave a more accurate concept of my point in the minds of any readers.
Oh god you are so wrong. The only thing so many gays had against SSM was tjat they knew it would take the esteem away from the promiscuity. That bathhouses didn't close in 1982 was as solid a condemnation of the immaturity of gay culture as cigarettes are for capitalism.
You sneer-quote "relationships." Wow. I've been with the same guy since the mid 90s, we went to 6the USA and got married in san Jose in 2017.
I've never been much for gay culture and my various lovers and I have known a lot of heterosexual couples. exact same issues, exact same conflicts, exact same everything.
You must have felt all special being oart of the marginal enclave culture, I never did. I only went to the clubs to find guys to fuck., and even then it was only for about a year and a half in my 40s. Later I met them online. No cigarettes.
I was married to a woman for 32 years. My marriage was nothing like the gay relationship I have today. My partner and I are planing to get married but the only reason is for tax purposes. Everything else we already have covered.
I disagree with your perspective. The old joke "Grindr is the best place to find a husband. That's where I found all of yours!" applies.
And I only got married (heterosexually) after living together for 7 years, but when I needed insurance coverage. Gay and straight marriages both vary greatly. I don't see a solid basis for characterizing them as nothing like each other, as categorically different in ways that affect the institution of marriage.
You of course are free to so characterize you own marriages that way, but having two marriages differ greatly is not unique to your situation. Chris' marriage might be more similar in substantial aspects to your marriage to a woman. Your pattern is not close to universal.
Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate.
Was gay marriage a backdoor ploy to appropriate marriage? No!
It was two things:
A. Gays wanting validation of their “relationships” as “normal”. As it turns out most gays couples are anything but normal including my relationship with my partner. I don’t need and don’t want to normalize my relationship let alone appropriate what the term marriage means.
B. Gays getting access to all the legal rights of marriage in one fell swoop. Based on how the government works, there was no other practical way for gays to get access to those rights under the term civil union. Gays needed access to the case law that had already been settled under the term marriage. I personally believe the government should not have any laws around the concept of marriage.
Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman.
The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is.
That’s true but focusing on that doesn’t get trans people out of their legal limbo. The legal issues are very real! Saying it’s just a ploy is a very thoughtless way of framing it.
"Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman."
Nonsense. The entire jenner idennity cult is around getting atterntion. And in the end it will disappear, leaving in its wake hundreds of thousnds of mutilated bodies and damaged minds.
Because "trans" women are not women, they are men, and however many times their change their magic pronouns and magic names, they are still men.
That's realilty, and reality pretty much always prevails in the end. And when the fog dissipates, I hope to see a lot of McGender clinic execs and surgeons swinging from lampposts and a lot of former "trans"activists fearing for their lives.
What is your goal with your comments?
You seem to need to “judge” trans people as more sinister.
Trans people are humans navigating through life on an issue that the cultural norm would prefer not to exist. As a gay person, I get that!
The only person who is being sinister is you. You’re trying to portray them as some evil cult. Why? Because you need someone to look down in!
Focus on being positive . I’d love to hear about living in Vietnam. Is there a trans-debate there?
For the record, do you regard people who want to see children mutilated as "good?"
If they're being "who they truly are," why do 90% of them outgrow it? And why, and I mean it, should people who are so uncomforable with who they are that they turn themselves into nightmarish freaks and destroy their health and bodies ... be respected for who they are?
I'm gay too, you know, and I came out in a city and a time when gay meant drag queens, the rest of us only there to give them an audience. None of them had jobs and every one of them lived with a succession of soon-to-be-ex-friends from whom they stole. But they were adults and of an age to make their own choices, however poor those choices were.
"Trans" is all about preying on confused, disturbed, and desperately shallow kids and pretending they're just 'being who they really are." Well, sorry (not really) but I am not joining that pretense. I look forward to the day when kids find another Korean boy band or hair style or fashion to "unify" around and this "trans" crap, yes, ceases to exist.
Ah yes. Let’s use a term that no morally respectful human being could disagree with - “child mutilation”.
Let’s talk about “child mutilation. What is that specifically?
Is abortion child mutilation? Seems like it would be the most extreme.
Is circumcision of baby boys child mutilation? Hard to say it’s not.
Is piercing a young girls ears child mutilation?
Is allowing kids to participate in sports that hurt their bodies forever (eg football gymnastics) child mutilation?
How about just allowing children to wear high heels or for that matter get a sun tan?
Is pulling wisdom teeth or taking tonsils out child mutilation? How about braces on teeth?
How about letting a child get any sort of plastic surgery to “fix” their appearance?
Seriously. Resorting to terms like “child mutilation” means you are just judging anyone who believes it’s the best known treatment today (eg the APA and doctors) as morally inferior to you!
For the life of me, I can't imagine why you would want to use a euphemism, change the subject, or throw out a stream of preposterous comparisons.
I wish I'd had my tonsils out. I wouldn' be half deaf now.
So castrating and hysterectomizing young teens is comparable to getting earlobes pierced. Yeah, you have a 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 on reality, champ.
Babies who are intersex are already being castrated!
Do you have kids? I have three kids and two grandkids!
One thing that I’m absolute about. I don’t want people like you telling me as a parent how to raise my kids. Parents rights are absolute.
No need for any new laws on trans. The DCFS exists to investigate abuse. If a child or teacher believes they are being abused, report it to DCFS.
Have a great life!
Yes, we need new laws on "trans" and I am ashamed to have to say that the red states are leding the way, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
Rule number is is a complete prohibition on any gender-affirmation treatment other than psychiatry for anyone under 25.
PArents' rights are absolute? Might want to take that up with your "trans" pals. They want kids taken away from parents who don't "affirm." You really should read the news from Earth once in a while.
BTW, in the penultimate sentence, who are "they?"
They are kids! Intuitively obvious to the most casual reader. You’re just being belligerent.
My Trans pals? Who are those? Scott Wiener who I know is an idiot on this. He created the bill. The bills on the left and right on trans are both ridiculous.
The only sanity is parents taking over school boards asserting their absolute rights!
I have also contacted the HRC and been very clear I as a gay person don’t support their sensationalist agenda. They have yet to respond.
You don’t have kids. Stay out of it. Focus on something that affects you directly!
I couldn't number the times I've been told to "sit down and shut up" because a difference of opinion with a woman is mansplaining, a difference of opinion on race issues is because I'm a privileged white racist, a difference of opinion with "trans" is because of a phobia, a difference of opinion with young people is because I'm a boomer. How can there be discussion in the face of that kind of bigotry that is perfectly acceptable when aimed at one demographic?
I'm a boomer. I'm a white man. Stay out of my parenting of my kids.
If you thinking I'm abusing my kids, report it to DCFS.
End of story.
Have a nice life.
"You don’t have kids. Stay out of it. Focus on something that affects you directly!"
I don't have elephants either but I protest those who trophy hunt them.
You sink lower in every post. You're well below "jerk" already, you should quit now,.
Yes please, go save the elephants.
Have a great life.
> "Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate."
LOL. "Inappropriate"? Just honestly say you disagree and why, rather than trying to shame me as if having a reasoned opinion (which differs from yours) is a moral failing. That's a good example of the word games I was talking about.
I fully support same sex marriage - and it was extensively debated *as such* for many years. I see that as direct and straightforward, not a "back door" ploy in the least. There was nothing remotely similar to "could you politely pretend we are married just to spare our feelings?" followed by "since you agree we are married, now you must give us all the rights thereof!" ploy.
That "trans people are in a legal limbo" is exactly correct and proper at this time in history, because the issues are indeed in flux. It's very clear that the democratic electorate has mixed feelings, and accepts some demands better than others. Rather than deal with each issue separately (eg: bathroom present different issues than sports), the "redefinition ploy" seeks to bypass the individual reasoning and evidence about each issue, and produce a "fait acompli" victory on all issues at once, without openly admitting that. So sure, I can understand how an activist would love to transform a "legal limbo" into "complete victory for our every demand", but I don't agree that it's an honest or transparent strategy.
> "The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is."
Could you explain that one more? How do you feel that trans women are unlike women, and how do you feel that gay marriage is unlike straight marriage?
"Backdoor ploy" has negative connotations with no facts backing the judgement up. You said "I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop". That could have been directly said as "I believe that they are trying to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop." There was no need for the "it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy". To quote you, "Just say what your view is rather than trying to shame trans-woman saying they are woman".
I don't understand how your comments on same-sex marriage apply to my comment. You'll need to expound.
I don't feel anything on the phrase "trans women are unlike women". I look for clearly observable facts. The facts are that someone born genetically male (or a man) can never be someone born genetically female (a woman). If using the terms man and woman to refer to something other than genetics, that's a different discussion. From a cultural perspective is easy for a "man" to pass as a "woman" in many places in society. In fact, many trans-people say they feel more comfortable being trans in a small town in Iowa than in San Fran. That's because those in the small town in Iowa don't even consider that the person may be trans.
From my perspective both technically and culturally its obvious that gay marriage can be what a str8 marriage is. In a legal sense, they can be close. Many str8 marriages involve kids that are a product of the couple having what is "normal" sex. That can't happen in a gay marriage. In fact, much of the traditional marriage definition was intended to clarify what the legal state of children was in a relationship. That is not as much the case today. But the laws around marriage started there.
So you agree that "trans women are women" is intended to gain ALL rights of women in one stroke (vs reasoning case by case), but characterizing that as a "back door ploy" seems too harsh?
You appear to equate characterizing that strategy as a "back door ploy" is the same as "shaming trans women". No, it's just disagreement with some activist demands; it's a critique of certain political framings used by activists which I find manipulative, not "shaming" people for feeling trans. And I try my best to be discerning rather than judgmental of people. Do I need to describe the difference?
I already explained the difference between "winning by redefining words" versus "winning by honest campaigning", so I won't repeat it. But the former tactic is what I characterized as a "back door ploy" and I stand by that characterization. If that hurts the feelings of some trans activists, so it goes; I am generally empathetic to people around me, but on the internet I do not substitute sympathy for reason; some things need to be said even if a fraction of the population will feel offended, or "being offended" becomes a weapon to bypass evidence and reason, with emotion.
I am not against all "trans rights", but I do not think that trans women are the simply "the same as biological women", so I think that each issue needs to be negotiated separately; the best solution for sports will likely differ from the best solution for prisons.
I'm guessing the first sentence of your last paragraph meant to say "gay marriage canNOT be what str8 marriage is", right? I do take your point that a major component of the social & legal institution of marriage has been and to a lesser degree still is about protecting children. But only a component. By today, it's clear that childless marriages are extremely mainstream, not an aberration. A good half of my (straight) married friends have never had children (and will not). Or are in a marriage which is not producing children.
Meanwhile a number of gay or bi friends do have children. So I don't see "conceiving, birthing and raising children" as supporting a categorical statement that "gay marriage cannot be what str8 marriage is".
I'm largely in agreement with most of your positions on "trans rights" and where the emphasis of the discussion ideally should be happening.
I'm not supportive the embellishing views with phrases that are judgements The "backdoor" judgement is exactly that. Here's a definition of "backdoor": "use backdoor to describe an action or process if you disapprove of it because you think it has been done in a secret, indirect, or dishonest way." There is nothing secret, indirect or dishonest in the vocal trans-peoples views that trans-woman are woman. They just believe that. There is some implication that you are being "manipulative" as you say by using that phrase. As the biblical saying goes, judge not lest you be judged.
As for marriage, I do agree that the concept of marriage is no longer really meaningful in many cases any more. Why is anyone getting married "legally" except for the following reasons:
1. To gain the tax advantages
2. To gain visiting rights in hospitals.
3. For those with biological children from couple sex in the marriage - i.e. str8s people - clarify legal standing on children in the marriage. Adoptions, surrogates, etc that gay and some str8 people use to have "children" has a legal definition beyond marriage that has to be established. Marriage is not necessary or even sufficient for those cases.
Everyone would be better off creating their own definition of what the marriage is than trying to use the default one defined by the state and federal government. Doing the default is just pure laziness and in many cases leads to problems later in the marriage.
I hear that you consider describing the words "back door ploy" as too judgements. And you are free to so consider it.
To be clear, I do mean that implication that using "trans women are women" as a way to gain blanket approval of all trans activists demands is indirect and dishonest.
Many people are pushed (or even compelled) to speak that slogan, which is emotionally sold as just being kind and accepting of the feelings of trans women; not endorsing that equation is considered causing harm. So TWaW is pushed as an emotional mixture of politeness, empathy, and solidarity.
But then, if TWaW, that implies that women's prisons, women's sports, women's shelters, women's changing rooms, and everything else that women have separate rights to - must be fully open to "trans women", however the latter is currently defined (eg: by self ID). This bypasses or obviates any rational discussion of each issue, based on the specific pros and cons and the effects on all parties (eg: women prisoners housed with intact male sex offendes self-indentifying as women). Or any evaluation of systemic differences in men's and women's sports performance and what factors affect it.
So it substitutes an emotional argument in one domain ("shall we help them feel better about themselves by saying they ARE women?") for many separate rational discussions in other areas (sports, prisons, etc). And I believe that is, for some activist organizations, a deliberate tactic.
If "TWaW" was sold as something one should endorse ONLY IF one agrees that subjective gender identity should trump biological sex in all circumstances, then it would be honest and not a back-door ploy. But it's sold as one thing (being nice to vulnerable people because you have empathy for them), then used as justification for several other things (agreeing with whatever trans activists demand because you have conceded their main point already).
So I'm going to stick with my characterization of that tactic as a "back door ploy", with the implications thereof. It's a critique of a tactic i perceive as being used by SOME people (trans or cis); it is NOT shaming everyone who happens to be trans. As such, it's my attempt to discern and deconstruct a political tactic, not an attempt to be personally judgmental of trans folk in general, based on an immutable characteristic. You are welcome to your own differing opinion, I am not trying to convince you, but just to leave a more accurate concept of my point in the minds of any readers.
Oh god you are so wrong. The only thing so many gays had against SSM was tjat they knew it would take the esteem away from the promiscuity. That bathhouses didn't close in 1982 was as solid a condemnation of the immaturity of gay culture as cigarettes are for capitalism.
You sneer-quote "relationships." Wow. I've been with the same guy since the mid 90s, we went to 6the USA and got married in san Jose in 2017.
I've never been much for gay culture and my various lovers and I have known a lot of heterosexual couples. exact same issues, exact same conflicts, exact same everything.
You must have felt all special being oart of the marginal enclave culture, I never did. I only went to the clubs to find guys to fuck., and even then it was only for about a year and a half in my 40s. Later I met them online. No cigarettes.
I was married to a woman for 32 years. My marriage was nothing like the gay relationship I have today. My partner and I are planing to get married but the only reason is for tax purposes. Everything else we already have covered.
I disagree with your perspective. The old joke "Grindr is the best place to find a husband. That's where I found all of yours!" applies.
And I only got married (heterosexually) after living together for 7 years, but when I needed insurance coverage. Gay and straight marriages both vary greatly. I don't see a solid basis for characterizing them as nothing like each other, as categorically different in ways that affect the institution of marriage.
You of course are free to so characterize you own marriages that way, but having two marriages differ greatly is not unique to your situation. Chris' marriage might be more similar in substantial aspects to your marriage to a woman. Your pattern is not close to universal.