Don't think it is "just" a "matter of opinion". Or at least not just mine. You read that post of Kaeley Harms? This bit in particular?
KH: "[Walsh is] right that transgender ideology is a problem, but he is completely blind to the reality that it’s a problem that exists, in part, because of the regressive sex-role stereotypes he himself p…
Don't think it is "just" a "matter of opinion". Or at least not just mine. You read that post of Kaeley Harms? This bit in particular?
KH: "[Walsh is] right that transgender ideology is a problem, but he is completely blind to the reality that it’s a problem that exists, in part, because of the regressive sex-role stereotypes he himself prescribes as the solution."
Seems that both Walsh and many of the PITT crowd are rather dogmatically attached to those "regressive sex-role stereotypes", largely because they apparently think that sex [AKA reproductive biology] and gender [personalities & personality types] are the same kettles of fish. Some reason to argue that they're only "victims" of being overly attached to untenable dogma and quite unscientific claptrap -- something of a self-inflicted wound. And thereby as much a part of the problem as of the solution.
As for "rude" and "lived experiences", not quite sure how being offended counts for a great deal. And "lived experiences" is also the mantra of the transloonie nutcases. Which really don't count for much either, particularly when the issue is some "grim meat hook realities", when the question is what it takes to qualify as male and female and the consequences of them.
And as for "negative assumptions about those parents", you might consider that one such parent -- Penny Adrian -- has liked several of my comments in this thread:
Don't think it is "just" a "matter of opinion". Or at least not just mine. You read that post of Kaeley Harms? This bit in particular?
KH: "[Walsh is] right that transgender ideology is a problem, but he is completely blind to the reality that it’s a problem that exists, in part, because of the regressive sex-role stereotypes he himself prescribes as the solution."
Seems that both Walsh and many of the PITT crowd are rather dogmatically attached to those "regressive sex-role stereotypes", largely because they apparently think that sex [AKA reproductive biology] and gender [personalities & personality types] are the same kettles of fish. Some reason to argue that they're only "victims" of being overly attached to untenable dogma and quite unscientific claptrap -- something of a self-inflicted wound. And thereby as much a part of the problem as of the solution.
As for "rude" and "lived experiences", not quite sure how being offended counts for a great deal. And "lived experiences" is also the mantra of the transloonie nutcases. Which really don't count for much either, particularly when the issue is some "grim meat hook realities", when the question is what it takes to qualify as male and female and the consequences of them.
And as for "negative assumptions about those parents", you might consider that one such parent -- Penny Adrian -- has liked several of my comments in this thread:
https://substack.com/profile/551643-penny-adrian/note/c-21219295
And another one -- Hippiesq -- commenting elsewhere here has commented positively on my own post on the issue:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-nothing-sacred-looking-into-the
So I really don't think I'm all that much out of line.