Exactly.
It appears to be a matter of (bad) faith among many participants in this thread, and indeed many in wider society with similar beliefs (hello Daily Mail!) that:
1) most (if not all) people advocating for trans rights/protections - including those within this thread - hold extremist ideological points of view;
2) most (if not all) people advocating for trans rights/protections - including those within this thread - have no care for the protection of ciswomen;
3) males - including the males within this thread - have no intellectual or ideological right to offer an opinion on trans rights/protections (especially, of course, rights/protections for transwomen);
and
4) the relevant mainstream medical/scientific community, most national/regional governments in "western" countries, and the justice systems in those countries - all of whom are recognising transgender identity and seeking to give trans people appropriate rights and protections in law - must all somehow have been victims of "policy capture" (the add-on kicker to this is the "anti-trans" community appear to have convinced themselves that this is all some sort of conspiracy enacted and enforced by misogynistic males..... conveniently forgetting, of course, that all of those medical & governmental bodies contain high levels of female representation).
Just a reminder to anyone reading. The post that Darat "fixed" by saying that those were extremist views, rather than typical, views, were about positions held by people in government, and which have been defended by you, and by other people in the thread.
Acbytesla said it was indecent exposure to expose male geniatalia in a woman's locker room. If he is talking about the law, he is wrong. It is, now, perfectly legal to expose male genitalia in a women's locker room in many jurisdictions, including American high schools.
That was the view Darat referred to as "extremist".
You hold that view as well, don't you? i.e. You support that law. You believe that it ought to be legal to expose male genitalia in a women's locker room, so long as that male genitalia is attached to a woman. i.e. there is nothing wrong with a woman exposing her penis in a women's locker room. Correct? It's all good, right?
ETA:
And, you responded to Darat by saying "Exactly".
You then proceeded to go on with:
"1) most (if not all) people advocating for trans rights/protections - including those within this thread - hold extremist ideological points of view;"
indicating that those of us with "bad faith" are doing that.
Well, I called those views "typical". Darat said they were extremist.
ETA2: The above is really hard to parse. I'm going to try again.
I described views which are held by government actors today, and which have been enacted as policy, as "typical" TRA views.
Darat "fixed" my post, to indicate that the views are actually "extremist" positions.
You, come along and note, in point 4 of your post, that governments are adopting the very positions that Darat, not me, called "extremist". I called them "typical", based on the fact that they are actually being adopted, as you acknowledge in point 4. And yet, you attribute Darat's characterization to me and others, and claim that we are arguing in "bad faith".
In short, you're post above is kind of a mess. You need to figure out who said what, in reference to what positions.
And, so that acbytesla understands, for his benefit, I would like you to answer the following question. If a person exposes male genitalia in a woman's locker room, is that sufficient grounds to charge that person with indecent exposure? (Or whatever name it goes by in the jurisdiction he's in.) I know that, as a lawyer, you understand what "sufficient" means, so no weaselly "sometimes" argument. I'm saying "sufficient" because that is exactly what I mean.
