Is that close?

I see the anti-trans movement as both horrifying and in a weird way encouraging. To address the latter, I find it encouraging in that it reflects that the previous anti movement (homophobia) has effectively failed and that ship has failed. Likewise, it's shown trans folk are everywhere and ultimately cannot be wished away.

This subject disgusts me (I'm cis) -- people's gender/identity/sexuality/etc are literally their own business and the weaponizing of fear/ignorance/distaste about the subject is the height of cruelty and the lowest of political trickery to manipulate the population to vote solely based on hate.

Like for instance you mention homophobia:

> that the previous anti movement (homophobia) has effectively failed

But one of these reasons for rejecting the ideology of "trans" is because it's homophobic.

Consider the conventional understanding of homosexuality: a sexual orientation directed exclusively towards others of the same sex. The "trans" belief system overwrites this definition to instead be those who are attracted only to others with the same "gender identity".

This means that a "trans woman" (male sex) who is only interested in "cis women" (female sex) would be a lesbian by this new definition - which effectively erases homosexuality in its original understanding, by including heterosexuals. In this case straight males.

In the past few years, LGB organizations have been springing up to counter this new type of homophobia. Often driven by or allying with feminists, who have their own set of reasons to be critical of "trans".

Sure, lots of factions there but the GOP makes trans fear-mongering a cornerstone of their platform: over 600 anti-trans laws in the past 10 years (https://translegislation.com/learn). I haven't bothered to check but, I wager that virtually all of them were put forth by politicians with an R by their name.

> But one of these reasons for rejecting the ideology of "trans" is because it's homophobic.

Ideology of trans? Is it like a mutation of the communist virus?

And speaking of mutations, bravo on twisting my statement on homophobia into some squirrelly critique that justifies your fears.

Regardless, my statement stands that this fear of yours (and others) has been weaponized and politicized very effectively but is ultimately on the wrong side of history.

Again, I have no literal or figurative skin in this game, other than living in a world where ignorance and hate have been weaponized.

It's different in other countries. In the UK, for instance, most of the pushback has been from grassroots feminist organizations who point to the misogyny and sexism that's been enabled and promoted by "gender identity" beliefs being woven into policy and law.

We do see it being challenged in this way the US too, from the left, e.g.

- https://karadansky.substack.com/p/why-i-think-were-much-furt...

> Ideology of trans?

The regressive belief that women and men are defined as "gender identities" rather than based upon the material biological reality of sex.

> And speaking of mutations, bravo on twisting my statement on homophobia into some squirrelly critique that justifies your fears.

It's not fear, this is reality. A couple of examples of this homophobia:

- https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/03/trans-activists-shu...

- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

> but is ultimately on the wrong side of history.

I doubt it. The right side of history surely cannot be one that destroys every female space and erases homosexuality in the name of "progress".

I am cis in category, but my gender unicorn would provide a more nuanced story. I am an advocate and ally, but I am also a scientist who is preparing to do some research on the intersection of autism and gender diversity...a direction I never expected to take, but the data led me there. I'd love to write to you somehow and get your perspective on my project with D.Strang. If willing to write, please at: jk i le e at uc davis ignore spaces in address for spam

As for you--it's not a matter of agenda. I don't believe you (plural) have any malign agenda. For the most part, you be you. I expect it to be disclosed very early on in any romantic context but otherwise I do not care.

I believe the case of sports isn't clear. Anyone who didn't experience male puberty will clearly function as female, but I'm not convinced that those who did experience male puberty don't gain an advantage from that.

Hard disagree.

A nuanced view, the ability to tease differences apart, is disruptive to the status quo. Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.

"relating to the most important parts of something or someone; complete or extreme"

But in seriousness, I mean nuance as the ablity to see and acknowledge the complexities, and consider fairly evidence that does not support your position...this is an effortful task, and you cannot build a movement for change by telling people to consider all facets, in fact the opposite, you provide frameworks that discourage or shortcut those introspective processes. AKA indoctrination is not nuance.

I also think it's pretty common for radicals to become nuanced between shades of their own radicalism, but be completely blind elsewhere.

I'll end by saying this, "No biologist was ever an essentialist"

That's a nice ideological soundbite that is wishful thinking. When observed in practice, both opposite ends of radicalism are most prone to discussing none of the nuance. Just think of the radical ends of this issue...

The entire concept of "genre" as more than a fringe mental illness and its sole treatment being "law-backed compulsion for people to go along with the delusion" is already a preexisting agenda, man. I know it sounds harsh, but truth is more important than anything else to some people.