> The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space.

But that's unfortunately not it. There are many many people who believe that being trans isn't real, and that anyone who claims to be trans has a mental illness. In addition to denying trans people access to gendered spaces, they also want to deny them medical care, and do things like aggressively (sometimes even gleefully) call them by a name and pronouns that are painful to hear. (Which would still be reprehensible even if being trans was a mental illness!)

And that latter bit is something I have seen happen in online spaces. It's a form of harassment. If the simple "don't be a dick to others"-type CoC is one we can agree on, that's definitely a violation. It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that, and if there's someone who can't even do that basic human thing in a community I manage, then they are not welcome there, regardless of what informs them (often misguided religious beliefs) that they should be hateful like that.

> > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

> And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space.

Depends on the space. It will matter sometimes. For instance: pregnancy forums, prostate cancer support groups.

But I agree this shouldn't be relevant for online spaces used to organise work on software development projects. These, almost always, are not intended as single-sex spaces, nor as venues for discussing people's differing views on this topic.

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that

I think that's more a philosophical stance. Appealing to "basic human decency" seems too subjective, both culturally and personally. There are many perspectives on what this might mean in practice.

Unfortunately the pronouns issue is difficult to avoid when communicating in English, because we have separate words to refer to female and male, and for most English speakers it's natural to use these to describe a person's sex. Overriding it because someone prefers (or demands) an opposite sex pronoun, or even some esoteric pronoun outside of the usual closed set, can be difficult even if that's something you've chosen to accede to. It's like a variation of the Stroop test but in everyday speech.

There are some reasonable arguments to be made for choosing otherwise too, though I expect you probably would not agree.

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should

I think trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't do is kindof the definition of politics.

Full quote:

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that,

You're fighting for the right to be a dick to people for no other reasons than because you are prejudiced against them. Frankly, that sounds rather pathetic, maybe do a little introspection?

Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them?

> trans ideological cause

Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.

No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access.

That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.

No, that's not the typical focus of the issue, and repeating that over and over won't make it so.

What do you see it as?

In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.

Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...

Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

> Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative.

Who cares?

> TERFS are still feminists.

You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that.

The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them.

> Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.

What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?

Hitler was a vegetarian. This does not imply that vegetarians in general are siding with Nazis. To assert that would be an error of logic.

You're making a similarly incorrect fallacy of association between TERFs and anti-feminist conservatives.

If vegetarians did side with Hitler, then yeah, I would have an issue with them as a group. But that's completely different, can't you see? TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates, a lot of whom hold anti-feminist views. That's the issue.

Again, and please read it this time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...

You speak of "all these so-called TERFs", but the article you linked, in the very first sentence, qualifies this with "some":

"Some trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups and politicians who oppose legislation that would expand transgender rights in the United States."

As for "TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates", which you claim, the two articles in the citations for the Wikipedia quote above talk about how right-wing groups in the US are listening to feminists on this specific issue. So really it's the opposite way around to what you're saying.

Wow, you really got me with that "some". Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF? I won't waste anymore time arguing with someone who refuses basic facts. The truth is, that TERFs have done nothing to further the feminist cause. At best they give ammos to the right, who in this day and age, is acting openly anti-feminist, and amping up rhetoric against an already stigmatized minority who is 4 times as likely to be on the receiving end of violent crimes.

> Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF?

Yes of course, and I know several personally. It's a fairly common set of views in the UK.

Over here it's not like it is the US where there's such a strong party political divide over this issue and as a consequence feminist groups (like WoLF, mentioned in the Wikipedia citations of the section you linked) decided to appeal to politicians on the right because the left has been so captured by trans ideological beliefs. Though not all on the left. If you're interested, look up Kara Dansky, radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, who has been trying to convince her party for years of the case for women's sex-based rights.

That's not true. JK Rowling is a good counterexample to your claim, as are the women who brought the FWS case to the UK's Supreme Court (and won), and as are so many other women whose feminist advocacy involves this topic.

JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke", which suggests multiple interesting facts about her political views:

* She thinks "woke" is a bad word, which would put her on the right.

* She thinks Reform UK is woke, which puts her on the far right.

* She's a very confused person, which I would expect from someone claiming to be a feminist while making her prejudice against an already persecuted minority her whole personality.

> JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke"

No she didn't.

What she actually said, in response to someone expressing surprise that Farage supports incarcerating males in the female prison estate, was this:

"Genuinely surprised anyone's shocked by this. Just because huge swathes of the left have revealed themselves to be dripping in misogyny doesn't mean a massive chunk of the right doesn't remain exactly as indifferent to women's rights and issues as it's always been."

She also wrote:

"All those people who tell me support for women's single sex spaces means I must support Reform (which I don't) appear to share exactly the same opinion on women's single-sex spaces as Reform."

Sorry but you've mischaracterised and misquoted her words, and used this to reach a false conclusion.