I'm curious, do you see anything wrong with the Canadian "resolution"? The anti-trans doomsayers never seem to want to talk about how self-ID seems to be going fine there. It's been years now, surely any problems would have arisen by now.
"Well it worked in other countries, ergo will work in American" would solve like 99% of our problem if it where actually true.
I don't really care about a trans solution because as I have stated many times an have been super clear about I don't there's a trans problem. It's all semantics and categorization and the Gordian Knot can be cut by just not caring about a ton of old cultural baggage and like a minimal amount of base human decency.
And no the fact that the rest of society still has a bunch of stupid nonsense gender roles doesn't mean me not using doesn't solve the problem for myself. I'm not here to fix the world I'm just trying to live in it.
Yes a lot of people think the people with vaginas should be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen birthing the babies and making the men folk a sammich and that's dumb, obvs. A person with a penis declaring himself a woman doesn't fix that or address or break down the stereotype. This idea that the best way to fix dumb rules is to make dumb exceptions to the rules as a "take that" is dumb.
Thread nannies keep popping their head in hear to tell us we're talking around each other and the leaving and that's because, again as I said many times, we've have one side saying we have 5 fingers and one side saying we have 4 fingers and thumb and we keep pretending the solution is to stop the discussion yet again, and restart it at the "Okay everybody count your fingers again" stage and we keep acting shocked that we keep getting different answers even though we all the problem is the definition of "finger" and there's actual debate here about how many digits are actually on a hand.
The two "sides" as it where are using different definitions of what a "woman" is, citation THE TITLE OF THE THREAD and all that which wouldn't be an issue if both sides could argue the point instead of trying to define themselves as correct by looking at their thumbs and declaring it a finger or not over and over and over and over and over.
A while back I proposed the impossible trifecta and I think that stills holds as the core disagreement. We have 3 standards, only 3 of them can be functionally and reasonably in effect at any one time. And to adhere to my own standards the argument can be made without using categorization arguments i.e. I am correct because I define a term in a way that makes me correct.
1. In public spaces the penised people have to be kept separate from the vaginaed (vagined? vaginied? Whatever) people for the safety, comfort, privacy, mental well being, or similar concept of the people with vaginas. This is the classic standard of separation of the sexes.
2. A person genital structure and other biological attributes no longer determines their sex. This is transgenderism as a concept.
3. Society cannot force/coerce people to dress, act, present, "code", or otherwise do, look, act, or display a certain way based on their genitals. This is rejection of traditional of gender roles, i.e "men do this, women do that."
If we reject 1, we're rape enablers. If we reject 2, we're transphobes. If we reject 3 we're putting stereotypes on the genders to act a certain way.
We have to keep the penises and the vaginas separate, but we can't like separate via gender because either we take everything on the honor system which is pointless or we set literal or metaphorical genital checks at the door and we all agree that's just horrible.
