No matter how you slice it, denying that a person is royal is not the same thing as denying that that person is male or female
I disagree.
Transwomen are biologically male. This is an irrefutable, undeniable scientific fact. If you refer to a transwoman as
"she" then you are acknowledging their spurious claim to be female, and in so doing, are denying an irrefutable, undeniable scientific fact.
Now, some people will call me transphobic for this. I am not. I not only have no fear of trans-people and do not feel at all threatened by them, but I regard them as ordinary people who simply have a different view of their own sexuality from other people, and in that aspect, no different from gays or lesbians, celibates or nymphomaniacs, those who support the rights of people to be sex workers, and those who don't. They (should) have the right to love whoever they want, live wherever they wish and associate with whoever they choose. They are a part of our communities.
However, those rights must never be allowed to abrogate the rights of others. Allowing biological males to use female toilets, to be incarcerated in female prisons, and to participate in female sports not only abrogates the rights of females, it endangers them both personally and physically. Calling a male
"he/him" and calling a female
"she/her" is NOT transphobic, but it
is the thin end of the wedge, the first step in forcing society to accede to the demands of trans-radical activists. Well, I refuse to participate in their ideological claptrap, and I will
not use their jargon, because it perpetuates falsehoods. If that results in me being a labelled a
"dick", then so be it. Its a badge I will wear with honour and pride (no pun intended).
Of course, some will label me as a right-winger. I am not. As anyone who knows me, and anyone who knows my body of work on this and other fora, I am very much centre-left in my political ideology. That does not mean, however, that I will simply fall in step and parrot the liberal mindset on everything.