moopoo

It is a term that comes from gender-critical feminism but this is a mainstream view in the UK, there's nothing extremist about it. It's effectively a sensible middle ground between anti-trans parochialism and trans rights dogma.

Even the term "trans-identifying male" is a middle-ground compromise, to avoid calling them men and to not cede the argument by referring to them as women. In my experience, the most thoughtful and well-considered discussion on this topic has been with gender-critical feminists who have thought critically about their perspective and have it based in the material reality of sex.

I find the trans advocacy movement quite fascinating in how it operates as a cult that brooks no dissent.

It seems like their end goal is to have everyone believe (or appear to believe, under threat of consequences) that being a woman or a man is merely a thought in one's mind, rather than based on the material biological reality of sex.

I'm not sure it's even possible for them to be flexible on this, as it's all about usurping an existing societal view and having everyone agree with this new belief.

It also reminds me somewhat of how the Church of Scientology infiltrated key governmental instititions back in the 1970s, in order to further their aims.

So do you have reason to disagree with the thoughtful criticisms of Islam that Dawkins has expressed?

Not sure why you mentioned that otherwise.

Dismissing someone's well thought out hard work as "kid stuff" is really quite rude. Do better please.