There is absolutely no discrimination or data pointing the bigotry and hatred towards LGBTQ people, absolutely zero.

In case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic.

Secondly, there is way more friction here than with a term like guardian, which represents a situation that is universal thoughtout humanity, and always has been. The common language only changed because of the need for accuracy and inclusiveness in things like school handbooks, not because it wasn't fully understood and accepted by the population as being an inevitable element of human populations for anywhere from 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 children.

In contrast the differences between "man" and "woman" are stark and matter in all kinds of contexts.

They do not want to be called "menstruators", they want to be called women.

Why does their opinion about what they want to be called not matter?

I mean it does, but it doesn't override everyone else's. Consider people with with albinism. A medical text should not refer to people with albinism as albino men, even if some men might prefer to be called "men" instead of albinos. That'd mean calling albino women "men" which they clearly are not.

In the same way, assuming you accept that trans men are men (which the author purports to) calling people who menstruate women is calling these men something that they are not. So you need to use something that actually describes what you are trying to describe. This is also true since not all biological women menstruate, so even there if you use the term "women" instead of "people who menstruate" when discussing something medical that has to do with menstruating, you've now used an inaccurate term that describes a larger group of people than you are discussing.

That same logic should apply to people who claim to be the opposite gender from what they were born.

"Women" as a term is incredibly useful and descriptive when referring to females. It's strongly correlated with multiple important traits. When its definition is changed to mean any one who assigns the word 'woman' to themselves, the word conveys no meaningful information.

This is the heart of the matter, and they even admit as much when they have to use terms like AFAB or ciswoman. These distinctions were not needed until they intentionally made the term "woman" meaningless.

You're mad at passing culture, not pronouns.

What's the obsession with this phrase, as if everyone is going to say "Oh no, we can't try to prevent rape anymore because we'd have to look at people's genitals to accomplish it. haha, silly us."

For one, we had a solution to this. It was your ID which listed your sex.

And two, if people screw with ID laws enough that it can't be trusted then you will be required to go to a doctor and drop your pants down to have your biology categorized as a requirement to enter female spaces and events.

Not all trans people are trans-women, and if you wanted to prevent rape you'd do better to ban politicians and priests from bathrooms

We already had banned all male politicians and priests from female spaces simply by virtue of their being male. You're weakening that protection by letting them claim to be female to avoid being removed.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/prison-review/

> Not all trans people are trans-women

And yet trans women (and males by any other ID) are the risk.

> Repackaged homophobic rehtoric

Wow, no. What's homophobic is you trying to use homosexuality to defend men in women's spaces. This is why the LGB Alliance is fighting for homosexual and sex-based rights and separation from the trans-queer movement.

A more adaptive definition of gender might be more suitable: social gender, body gender and biological gender.

E.g. bisexual trans women.

Thus, it should not be offensive to say things like 'trans women are biologically male, thus have biological male advantages in things like sports'. This is a controversial statement. However, there is a section of the trans community who will insist that trans women are actually literally women like all other women.

In many situations, the adoptive parent is considered the parent, if the parent and child are OK with it, so is society in general. But at a doctor appointment, it is imperative to distinguish between biological and civil parenthood.

But apart from that: I (and many others nowadays) are OK with considering male to female trans as women. If you want to be a woman and act like a woman, I'll consider you a woman regardless of your biological sex.

But I'm not OK with referring to people as menstruators and semen donors: I think that's humiliating.

I guess I draw the line there: I respect trans identity, but I don't want that every single text must think about every single minority and accommodate them at all costs.

I have a friend with 1 arm but I wouldn't be outraged if someone said "people have two arms". I wouldn't even think about it, and neither would he: it's generally true, and if it's not said in bad faith, who cares?

Talk about walking on egg shells! Let's drop the thought police act, which some people like way to much, and let's fucking try to live together.

I'm fine to let trans men into male spaces around me because that's my decision, as a man, to waive some of my rights temporarily.

But for us to declare that a man can be a woman is giving away women's rights, and that's not okay.