A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities

Human society has no "laws" by nature, the closest observable in nature with the great apes is a brute "winner" takes it all society, that is not capable to create and sustain complexity and coherence.

To compensate this, humanity has "contract" cults who form a basic law providing form of society, protecting the weaker party form getting exploited and abused. These contract cults exists since the dawn of time and have been shaped into various forms, mostly with mythological wrappings, we designate as religion today. Hounded into the service as contract cultists, have been all sexual deviants of a society. Always. Which is why if you watch carefully, its actually selected for.

A emotional reaction to question regarding sexual deviancy from the norm, is a important signal during the mating process, regardless on what side of the political spectrum you are.

Gender ideology is a synthetic contract cult, and while it has all the other negatives, previous religion incarnations carried with them, it also brings alot of freedom to the cultists and tries to do away with alot of pain. Abolishing it, is not possible, as it will simply lead to other contract cults forming.

The best that can be accomplished is, preventing the church from intervening in fields of science society depends on and finding a new separation of church and state, with this contract cult.

PS: Bad engineered religions, lead to a faltering rule of law in societys, which then return in the long run to the "winner" takes it all societal model, destroying complexity capability.

I've had priests tell me they love me and want me to be a fully accepted member of society. There's just this one problem...

So no. I don't believe the kind words she uses to paper over the harmful misinformation she spreads out of her confirmation shopping cart.

If you could find statistical evidence (controlled for income) that shows black Americans commit _insert violent crime_ at 9x [1] the rate of other races, then I would absolutely be in favor of taking steps that mitigated that crime happening. That's an extremely controversial thing to say, but the point is moot - as far as I am aware nobody has done such an analysis, and nobody wants to. However, there are plenty of species in which the males rape the women [2] because such a thing is simply advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.

[1] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals

Muscle mass does just disappear in the exact same way as it does when someone stops steroids. It’s not instantaneous which is why places require 12-24 months of constant hormones.

Also you picked the one single example where trans women have been sorta kinda banned with basically no concrete justification, caused the world to roast them publicly, and then clubs largely ignored them and came up with their own rules — like France and the US changed the requirements to time on HRT and T levels like every other sport and the UK did a height and weight limit which, while odd, is actually a lower bar than time on HRT.

Outright bans on trans women will basically never be necessary when HRT is so effective. If by some chance there is a sport where it’s not enough you can start imposing greater restrictions like requiring trans women reach a certain (low) weight to shed any pre-transition muscle.

It’s a fair question. I can’t speak for all trans women, but the impression I get is that many trans people would prefer to think of their transition as a medical issue to be managed back into the gender binary. You’ll probably get varying answers depending on just how far someone is in their transition.

This doesn’t come up often but I think cis folks aren’t aware that many trans folk “graduate” out of the community once they feel sufficiently transitioned. After a few years of hormones and surgery, many would just prefer to go on with their life — skipping the debates and games of political football.

Personally speaking, the concept of a third space wouldn’t be so bad, but making gendered spaces less necessary to begin with seems like a more realistic target. Historically, women were chained to their homes because of a lack of public restrooms. Why we didn’t opt for single-stalls and shared facilities is probably more to do with existing building codes and social norms, rather than a natural order of things.

This reply is getting a little too long, but I’d like to pass on the much wiser words of Kate Bornstein:

    Then there's gender attribution, whereby we look at somehody and say, "that's a man," or "that's a woman." And this is important because the way we perceive another's gender affects the way we relate to that per­son. Gender attribution is the sneaky one. It's the one we do all the time without thinking about it; kinda like driving a sixteen-wheeler down a crowded highway...without thinking about it.
    In this culture, gender attribution, like gender assignment, is phallo­ centric. That is, one is male until perceived otherwise. According to a study done by Kessler and McKenna, one can extrapolate that it would take the presence of roughly four female cues to outweigh the presence ofone male cue: one is assumed male until proven otherwise. That's one reason why many women today get "sirred" whereas very few men get called "ma'am."