Ah, you see: "adults" in this context does not imply "children" as its antonym. The term "adults" is being used to describe objective, analytical, intelligent people who are properly informed of the relevant facts and medical opinions, and who have carefully taken all factors into account when arriving at conclusions and policy initiatives, in a calm & hysteria-free fashion.
No.
It's exactly what other posters have characterized it as.
People who agree with you = adults.
People who disagree with you = not adults (implied: children)
It's a means of avoiding and dismissing arguments or points by infantilizing the person who is making it. Addressing the arguer rather than the argument.
And most people posting in this thread are the opposite of most or all of those descriptors.
And the direct insult, where you have out and out called people who have a different view hysterical and lacking of intelligent.
Don't get me wrong, I have issues with some of the language and "tone" of some on the other side of this debate as well. But at least they post some evidence to support their position.
It's not worth debating with you because you haven't presented a position or evidence to weigh in quite a while.
But hey: you guys feel free to carry on with your rationalisation of the progressive reforms as "institutional capture" and other assorted nonsense. Whatever floats your collective boat. Just know that you're on the wrong side.
Oh and any suggestion that reformers and progressive thinkers do not have the risk to cis women in mind, let alone that they are "misogynists", is an out-and-out misrepresentation and a lie. The adults understand all the risks and benefits to every group, and they are legislating (and will continue to monitor and adjust legislation) accordingly. Again, the posters in this toxic little thread can continue feeling free to cloak their fundamental denial of transgender identity in fears about cis women's safety, but the cloak has slipped too many times.
Enjoy!
Regarding the highlighted, there has been evidence presented for that assertion in at least one case. I don't necessarily think that's a broad truth, but I don't see you presenting evidence to the contrary.
Nor have you presented evidence that there is any true concensus about transgender issues and how they should be treated in every situation. There is certainly no medical concensus about their participation in female sports. Nor have I seen quotes from doctors saying that trans-women must use gendered spaces rather than sexed spaces. This is not mentioned in the DSM-5.
Legislators, similarly, seem to not have a clear view, as there seem to be contradictory or controversial laws being passed all over the world.
The fact is, it's a subject of debate in the U.S. From what I've seen, it's a subject of debate in the U.K. and (at least parts of) Europe as well.
The whole "valid identity" thing is a mischaracterisation as well. It is possible, for example, to think that trans women have a valid identity that is not the same as "man" but is also not "women." There's that whole non-binary thing. Because gender is not sex.
It would be nice if didn't happen. But it does.