There are some interesting responses here…. Some proving the point you’re making. I said the LGBTQ+ world needed to be careful about who it let advocate for them when I ran head first into a bunch of vitriol from James Finn for daring to suggest acceptance at gunpoint wasn’t a great strategy for liberals.

I have worked out over the various trans debates I’ve had on the site how I want to parse this reality and it allows for sex to be described via male or female and the words man or woman to be a social description. That way, it’s possible to be a male women or a female man. I have no problem with this - though I suspect it’ll be labelled transphobic by someone.

That doesn’t resolve the initial problem tho… you still can’t determine what constitutes a woman/man. Under my linguistic hedge, the woman/man part is simply a performative aspect of personality… that’s it. It’s indistinguishable from other personality traits - and to my mind one of the least important.

I would rather determine whether you’re a dick over whether you have a dick. This makes me an equal opportunist bastard, equality doesn’t have to be nice - and if I think you’re a prick, then being trans isn’t a get out card any more than any other personality trait.

Great article as always. Never afraid of being in the cultural deep end of the argument pool. :o)