I Met Paul Graham Once

This is self-evidently incorrect, for a multitude of reasons.

Reason 1: Gay men do not wait to 'realize' they are gay until their 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s. "Trans" do.

Reason 2: Autogynephilia exists.

Reason 3: Orientation threatens (essentially) no one. But transgenderism directly attacks the sex-based rights that women have long fought for, undermining their rights to sex-segregated spaces (see Tickle vs Giggle or that crazy LA Spa case).

Reason 4: While homosexuality is trivial to define (same-sex attraction), transgenderism is not. Gender was defined as "performing" one's sex, per feminism. But if one "performs" the other sex, they are merely non-gender-conforming, not the other sex! This is why "what is a woman" has become such an infamous question, because trans activists cannot answer it in a way that actually makes sense to anyone.

I could go on. Downvote if you must, but we are post-peak-trans and reality is re-asserting itself; I am glad of it. Without wishing ill towards those caught up in the madness, I say: No. I shall not use pronouns that require me to lie about how I perceive the world, and I deny that the assertion of my right to speak truth is an act of hatred.

> Except many of the most vocal criticizers of progressive prigs come from reactionary prigs and their enablers, and many of the most vocal criticizers of the reactionary prigs come from progressive prigs and their enablers.

I don't think that's true. I'm old enough to remember when priggishness was mostly right-coded, but at that point it looked like church ladies and curtain-twitchers complaining about boobs on the TV, which is not the group that's criticising leftist priggishness by any means. In political compass terms, it's something bottom-left attacks top-right and bottom-right attacks top-left for, because it's more of a top-bottom issue than a left-right one, and it's not really hypocrisy from one side or the other, it just looks like it when viewed through the left-right axis (of course there are some legitimate hypocrites who just cheer for their own left-or-right side and have e.g. flipped from being pro-free-speech when it was left-coded to being anti-free-speech now that it's right-coded).

> Maybe I've just gotten older and less worried about social consequences, but as priggishness goes the currently-passing fashion felt pretty tame. In the mainstream culture - thirty years ago it was "godlessness". Twenty years ago it was "support our troops". Ten years ago it was "gender". And today it's "woke".

The part that worries me is that this time we don't have the separation of personal and political (partly because feminism deliberately, explicitly tore it down) that ensures people don't have to fear for their livelihoods because of their views. It was illegal to fire people for godlessness (or its opposite) or gender, and that was an important protection that unions fought hard for. Wokeism is akin to religion in most of the ways that matter, but since it isn't recognised as such, people can be (and are!) fired (not to mention socially excluded etc.) because they were too woke or not woke enough, and we seemingly just accept that.

> 1) should institutions that have female only spaces or events be allowed to exclude pre-op transwomen? Post-op? For example, the women's only nude spa in Seattle that got in trouble for excluding a transwoman

I'm not sure how such a thing is strictly enforceable. Even in states that have banned trans people from using the bathroom that they prefer, it seems to operate mostly on the honor system.

> If a coworker of mine who I know to be a biological male (he has sired children, etc.) socially transitions (no surgery), should I be forced to call him "she"

What does "forced" mean? The reality is that if you cannot make this basic accommodation that most people consider to be a matter of social etiquette in 2025, other people may not perceive you in a positive way and that can have unintended consequences.

You mentioned in another reply that you feel its important to respect cultural norms and expectations when it comes to things like what you are expected to wear. Well, basic respect of pronouns and not antagonizing transgender people are increasingly a 'cultural norm'.

> Should I be able to make an argument on social media (Reddit etc.) such as "Men cannot get pregant" or "trans women are not real women" without getting banned for hateful conduct?

People seem to make comments like this on reddit without getting banned now? A search of reddit for that term brings up many results.

There seems to be a resurgence and re-normalization of plain LGBTQ+ hate and antagonization these days. Twitter/X is full of people thrilled that "gay" and "retarded" are acceptable adjectives for them to use again.

So, in January 2025 I am not really buying any arguments about "I'm not allowed to even discuss basic issues around gender" because those discussions are absolutely happening and the rules seem less restrictive than they have in a long time.

Exhibit A: Mark Zuckerberg's latest announcement that you are allowed to post vile garbage about LGBTQ people without restriction.

Sama onstage with Trump and $500 billion says otherwise.

[dead]