A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities

Even if we ignore the fact this is a nonsense non-issue that isn't solved by the "solution" of forcing people into bathrooms by biological sex rather than gender identity, it's still nonsense.

You've just created a world where predatory men pretend to be trans men, who are now legally required to use women's bathrooms.

At least most trans women are trying to express in a feminine way (disregarding the issues with women—cis and trans—being discriminated against for not being “feminine enough” by someone's standard), with this "solution", you've just normalised people actively trying to be as masculine as possible going into women's bathrooms. Congrats.

(Of course, predation in bathrooms is illegal, why on earth would someone who is willing to break that law be stopped by another one saying they aren't meant to be there? It's literally the same nonsense argument used by homophobes to argue we shouldn't allow gay people into those spaces.)

This description is the opposite of my experience of the trans community. In my experience of trans people they are welcoming of any combination of gender expression and identity and are universally supportive of gender exploration and non-traditional gender expression for trans and cis people alike.

> The gender critical are not policing trans identity

I don't know how anyone could look at the swath of laws introduced throughout 2020-2021 in both the US and in the UK and actually believe that people are not trying to police trans identity.

> by loudly insisting that any kind of socially non-normative gender expression should be seen as tantamount to and ipso facto equated with some sort of trans identity.

I mean, no. One of the good side-effects of allowing people to be more comfortable with gender fluidity is reducing stereotypes about what men and women need to look like and how they need to act. It means less telling women that something is wrong with them if they inhabit traditional male roles or have certain body types.

This is helpful not only for trans people, but also for non-conforming cis people. The less that people are freaking out over somebody calling themselves a girl if they don't look a certain way, the better things are for everyone who is not inhabiting a traditional gender role, whether they be cis or trans.

> Need I point out how this policing may be harmful to non-heteronormatively-expressing folks?

No, you don't need to. As I pointed out above, this policing isn't happening, and breaking down social norms about gender expression creates safe spaces for non-heteronormatively expressing people, regardless of whether or not they identify as trans.

An advantage of separating concepts like gender, sex, and presentation is that non-conforming cis people can feel more comfortable saying, "my appearance/interests do not make me less of a woman/man."

The idea that trans people are telling girls who like sports that they have to be men just so fundamentally misunderstands what the trans community actually believes about sex and gender. Trans people largely believe the opposite of what you say, they are pushing back against the idea that you can be "prescribed" an innate gender-identity by society.

All the research I’ve seen shows no significant consequences to taking puberty blockers. Puberty proceeds as normal once the puberty blockers have been stopped. Puberty has quite a wide range of onset ages and this is not taking the range that far beyond the historical range.

> In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times.

Streicher and his fellow editors were already active members of the NSDAP (Nazi party) during the 1920s. Streicher and other editors were taken to court, yes, but the assertion that it was for the content of his magazine and not actions like the Hitlerputsch is not something I can find support for in any source.

> Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933.

Antisemitism was alive and well in the Weimar Republic, the claim that people were taken to court for antisemitic speech is another one that I can't find a source for. People were taken to court for violence against Jews, as they were still full German citizens in the Weimar Republic. I looked up the passages of the Weimar Republic constitution around religion and freedom of assembly and there is nothing about hate speech or similar kinds of discrimination. One of the major causes of increasing violence against Jews was Der Stürmer and similar publications, because they could be circulated without impunity.

In fact, I looked up Alan Borovoy's quote, he said:

> During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech.

I find this number of 200 interesting, because 200 is roughly the same number as Jewish cemeteries that were desecrated between 1923 and 1933, and makes me suspicious that he's taking court cases about desecration and equating them with hate-speech - which are obviously not the same things.

> In einer regelrechten Schändungswelle wurden zwischen 1923 und 1932 fast 200 Fälle registriert [1]

Sorry it's in German, but it should be easy to translate. In any case, the passages you posted have no substance other than a quote from one guy that from anything I can see seems to be conflating two different things to support his argument.

[1] https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemi...