Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Shield

Annasopra wrote: »

A straight man having a relationship with a trans woman...

A biological male having sex with another biological male is two gay biological males having sex.

Saying that it's a straight relationship because one of the biological males identifies as a woman is an abuse of language, and is where you start to lose supportive people at breakneck speed. Refusing to accept the reality of biological urges is also the slippery slope to homophobia.

We should be striving for more clarity, not less.

LLMMLL

Shield wrote: »

Refusing to accept the reality of biological urges is also the slippery slope to homophobia..

Huh?

Shield

LLMMLL wrote: »

Huh?

Which part of my sentence confuses you? Happy to explain if you're happy to clarify.

LLMMLL

Shield wrote: »

Which part of my sentence confuses you? Happy to explain if you're happy to clarify.

How would this lead to homophobia and why should we care if some crazy people become homophobic?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The only fantasies playing out here are that people do not adjust their attractions all the time based on new information. (Or worse still that people have no control over their sexual attraction.)
That hot girl is a total wagon to her suffering friend, dial goes down for many.
That hunk is out on parole, dial goes down for many.
The new lad in the office is married, dial goes down for many.
That incredible chick is my sister, dial goes down for many, hopefully most.
That handsome guy in the gay bar has a vagina, dial goes down for many.
Or here - the new hot lad in the office is gay - straightaway mostly zero interest from heterosexual women.

Just some of the manifold ways new information affects original sexual attraction and changes it. Easily and for many.

I’m fine with all the above. Because it doesn’t apply to everyone and you don’t try to suggest it is. Many people will have no issue being with a married person. There are numerous cases of incest. Lots of women do find gay men attractive. Etc. However the dunne states that all straight men will instantly lose all attraction to a trans woman upon finding out she’s trans and if they don’t they are bisexual. None of that you’ve said aligns with what he is claiming.

For instance, assuming you’re not into gay guys, is this some decision you made or do you just find yourself to not be attracted to them once you find out. If you’re in control of it you could flip it. So do you believe that you can make yourself attracted to gay men?

One eyed Jack

Shield wrote: »

A biological male having sex with another biological male is two gay biological males having sex.

Saying that it's a straight relationship because one of the biological males identifies as a woman is an abuse of language, and is where you start to lose supportive people at breakneck speed. Refusing to accept the reality of biological urges is also the slippery slope to homophobia.

We should be striving for more clarity, not less.

You’re choosing to take what was said out of context? This is what was actually said -

Annasopra wrote: »

You're clearly living in a bubble that isnt the real world then.. A straight man having a relationship with a trans woman does not make him gay or bi at all and frankly it is just beyond silly to claim it does.

Apart from the fact that “a biological male having sex with another biological male is two gay biological males having sex” is a completely different argument, it still doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny - having sex doesn’t define anyone’s sexual orientation any more than not having sex defines their sexual orientation.

Nobody said anything about how the relationship is defined, other than the dunne using the one single example of Blair White, as though their relationship is the relationship by which all other relationships are defined (I don’t think they are), and I pointed out that Blair’s boyfriend defines himself as straight. Who’s definitions do you imagine he considers relevant? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest he doesn’t care for how anyone else defines him, it’s his own understanding of how he defines himself is more important to him than anyone else’s. I don’t care to argue with him, I don’t imagine it would make a blind bit of difference to how he chooses to define his sexual orientation, or their relationship.

“Abuse of language” though? That’s hyperbole at breakneck speed, and I’m not sure anyone cares for losing the support of people who they never imagined supported them in the first place.

“Refusing to accept the reality of biological urges” is not any slippery slope to homophobia! That’s just more hyperbolic nonsense. I’m not sure it would hold up in Court either if anyone were to claim that their behaviour was justified because of the reality of their biological urges, and refusing to accept the reality of biological urges amounts to unlawful discrimination. I’m pretty sure anyone wouldn’t be long reminding them that people are generally regarded as being capable of self-control and reason with respect to their behaviour towards other people. “Biological urges” isn’t going to get anyone off the hook (as many times as people have tried to use it as a justification for their ill behaviour and attitudes towards others).

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

No. It doesn't. Its just complete and utter nonsense and frankly an absurd misunderstanding to suggest it does. It happens all the time that straight men have relationships with trans women and they are still straight men.

In much the same way that someone eating a chicken burger can still call themselves a vegetarian.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

But why do you assume that your opinions/thoughts and feelings are the exact same as everyone else. They arent.

No I don't. I am aware you are of a different opinion/mindframe.

You're still demonstrably incorrect though.

Annasopra

Shield wrote: »

A biological male having sex with another biological male is two gay biological males having sex.

Saying that it's a straight relationship because one of the biological males identifies as a woman is an abuse of language, and is where you start to lose supportive people at breakneck speed. Refusing to accept the reality of biological urges is also the slippery slope to homophobia.

We should be striving for more clarity, not less.

If people think thats an abuse of language then they are not "supportive" :rolleyes:

Telling straight people that they are really gay just because you say so is frankly nothing less than laughable. I have no idea what "biological urges" have to do with anything. Really though in all honesty who exactly are you to decide the sexual orientation of all these straight men is actually gay.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

No I don't. I am aware you are of a different opinion/mindframe.

You're still demonstrably incorrect though.

You are telling any straight man in a relationship with a trans woman that he must define as bisexual because you say so

You have decided that your opinion is correct and that everybody cannot disagree with your opinion.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Hardly desperate to highlight how ridiculous it is to suggest that sexuality follows well defined “if A then B” rules and we are all in complete control of our sexuality.

If the Dunne is in complete control then he can choose to be gay if he wants. Do you think that is possible?

If sexual attraction follows incredibly precise rules of age then the dunne could be interested in someone who has just turned 18 but repulsed by someone who will turn 18 tomorrow.

Would you not be repulsed by an underage person? Or would you just say "hey I'm naturally attracted to this person so I can't control it"?

If I found an underage person attractive and then found out their age, I would be of the mindset of "oh, that person has the characteristics and physical appearance of someone I find attractive/someone of age. Thankfully I found out her actual age."

I can still acknowledge their attractiveness and have zero sexual interest.

I could choose to engage in homosexual acts if I so wanted. I would have zero sexual interest though. If I was sexually interested, I would be either bisexual or homosexual though.

What's your point?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No I don't. I am aware you are of a different opinion/mindframe.

You're still demonstrably incorrect though.

How have you demonstrated that, even according to your own standards - men having sex with other men makes them gay, other than “because I say so”? That’s literally all your claim boils down to. There’s nothing supporting your argument other than your own opinion, and you’re right because you say you’re right, and anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. It’s as though you imagine other people have no agency to determine for themselves how they choose to define themselves, they must comply with your opinions.

I dare say it’s a very poor grasp on reality anyone has if they imagine they have the authority to determine how other people must define themselves.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

You are telling any straight man in a relationship with a trans woman that he must define as bisexual because you say so

You have decided that your opinion is correct and that everybody cannot disagree with your opinion.

I'm telling anyone who engages in sexual activity with someone of the same biological sex as them that they are bisexual or homosexual.

I have decided that my opinion is absolutely correct because of the definitions of the word.

They are free to define themselves how they wish, it doesn't make them correct.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How have you demonstrated that, even according to your own standards - men having sex with other men makes them gay, other than “because I say so”? That’s literally all your claim boils down to. There’s nothing supporting your argument other than your own opinion, and you’re right because you say you’re right, and anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. It’s as though you imagine other people have no agency to determine for themselves how they choose to define themselves, they must comply with your opinions.

I dare say it’s a very poor grasp on reality anyone has if they imagine they have the authority to determine how other people must define themselves.

As I said, define yourself as you want. It won't make you right.

I could call a car a tree, but that doesn't mean that people must acknowledge that I am in a forest when driving down the M50

If you think willingly engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same biological sex is something that a straight person can and wants to do, then your grasp of reality is skewed.

Gentlemanne

It's Blaire White by the way. She's a staunch trump supporter, I'm not surprised she's the trans woman some posters refer to

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As I said, define yourself as you want. It won't make you right.

It will though, and it does. Your agreement isn’t necessary.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could call a car a tree, but that doesn't mean that people must acknowledge that I am in a forest when driving down the M50

No, it simply means that people who don’t share your perspective are unlikely to understand what you’re talking about. A more obvious example is the kind of misunderstandings that happen between people who don’t understand the same language.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you think willingly engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same biological sex is something that a straight person can and wants to do, then your grasp of reality is skewed.

Never mind about anyone’s grasp of reality being skewed, I don’t care what anyone gets up to with whomever in the comfort and privacy of their own homes or wherever, or how they choose to define it. I don’t think they care what I think either, in much the same way as anyone is unlikely to care what you think or how they should define themselves. It doesn’t matter to anyone else whether you think you’re right or wrong about them, and that’s the point you keep missing - anyone can define themselves however they want, using whatever language they want. They don’t have to seek anyone else’s permission or approval.

You’re the person is trying to argue that a person’s sexual orientation changes depending upon who they’re having sex with, and anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. I don’t care if you think I’m wrong, I’d only care if you were to try and suggest introducing laws that support treating people as less than equals on the basis of your beliefs. You’re not doing that though, but there are a minority of people who are trying to do just that.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It will though, and it does. Your agreement isn’t necessary.





No, it simply means that people who don’t share your perspective are unlikely to understand what you’re talking about. A more obvious example is the kind of misunderstandings that happen between people who don’t understand the same language.





Never mind about anyone’s grasp of reality being skewed, I don’t care what anyone gets up to with whomever in the comfort and privacy of their own homes or wherever, or how they choose to define it. I don’t think they care what I think either, in much the same way as anyone is unlikely to care what you think or how they should define themselves. It doesn’t matter to anyone else whether you think you’re right or wrong about them, and that’s the point you keep missing - anyone can define themselves however they want, using whatever language they want. They don’t have to seek anyone else’s permission or approval.

You’re the person is trying to argue that a person’s sexual orientation changes depending upon who they’re having sex with, and anyone who doesn’t share your opinion is wrong. I don’t care if you think I’m wrong, I’d only care if you were to try and suggest introducing laws that support treating people as less than equals on the basis of your beliefs. You’re not doing that though, but there are a minority of people who are trying to do just that.

Do you think you can be a meat eating vegetarian? Is being a vegetarian a matter of perspective?

And yes, I do think your sexual orientation changes depending on who you willingly have sex with.

If you willingly seek, fantasise about or engage in, sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, then that is not heterosexual.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But again, what has this got to do with gender identity?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would you not be repulsed by an underage person? Or would you just say "hey I'm naturally attracted to this person so I can't control it"?

If I found an underage person attractive and then found out their age, I would be of the mindset of "oh, that person has the characteristics and physical appearance of someone I find attractive/someone of age. Thankfully I found out her actual age."

I can still acknowledge their attractiveness and have zero sexual interest.

I could choose to engage in homosexual acts if I so wanted. I would have zero sexual interest though. If I was sexually interested, I would be either bisexual or homosexual though.

What's your point?

I’m rarely attracted to anyone below 27ish so not an issue for me.

If I was into very young looking people I imagine while I would not pursue a 17 year old I could still be attracted to them.

I think you are misinterpreting what I mean by can’t control it. I mean the attraction. You are making it sound like I mean not being able to control the actions. As if someone attracted to a 17 year would not be able to stop themselves from being with them. That is categorically not what I meant at all. You can be attracted to someone and control your actions.

I didn’t ask you could you choose to engage in sexual acts with men. Obviously anyone could. And gay people have been in relationships with straight people of the opposite sex throughout history for very obvious reasons.

I asked could you choose to be attracted to men. Since you are in complete control of your sexual attraction as you claim it should be no issue right?

Airyfairy12

I worked in a Youth center in my last job and two of the teenagers I worked with identified as a different gender to their own. One identified as no gender, this was a sudden transition from the staffs perspective but who knows what was going on in their mind long before they were open about their decision to be no gender. They showed up one day with all their hair cut off and correcting anyone who called them her/she/girl/woman ect..

I think every younger generation has something that separates them from older generations, for my generation it was total acceptance of gay rights, abortion rights and extended childhoods due to the recession. I dont ever recall anyone declaring themselves as gender neutral or not identifying with a gender, girls who were like boys where tomboys, boys who were like girls were effeminate and that was it, there was no further discussion.
Maybe all this gender neutral stuff its a generational thing that im too old to understand.

I remember reading something about 10 years ago that said in the future there wont be genders and maybe thats how the world is going?

The youth are always the ones to bring change, progression and new ideas into society through their own self expression and self discovery, they influence each other through this and this influences pop culture which challenges old ideas and ways of doing things. I just see it as todays young people exploring gender and their perception of it, in another 15 years there'll be a new generation with a new concept that todays young people will criticize, just like older people criticized us and the ideas we focused on exploring and changing, my generation are known as 'snowflakes' for challenging racism, sexism and political issues. This generation are called mentally ill for challenging identity and gender.
I mightned understand it but thats ok, I dont have to. As long as theyre not hurting anyone let them at it!

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m rarely attracted to anyone below 27ish so not an issue for me.

If I was into very young looking people I imagine while I would not pursue a 17 year old I could still be attracted to them.

I didn’t ask you could you choose to engage in sexual acts with men. Obviously anyone could. And gay people have been in relationships with straight people of the opposite sex throughout history for very obvious reasons.

I asked could you choose to be attracted to men. Since you are in complete control of your sexual attraction as you claim it should be no issue right?

In my post that you quoted I stated that:

"I can acknowledge their attractiveness and have zero sexual interest"

If I am attracted sexually to men, I am not heterosexual. I can however say that Jason Momoa is an attractive man but still be heterosexual as I have no sexual interest.

I don't see how that is a controversial or even an unusual attitude to have.

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I worked in a Youth center in my last job and two of the teenagers I worked with identified as a different gender to their own. One identified as no gender, this was a sudden transition from the staffs perspective but who knows what was going on in their mind long before they were open about their decision to be no gender. They showed up one day with all their hair cut off and correcting anyone who called them her/she/girl/woman ect..

I think every younger generation has something that separates them from older generations, for my generation it was total acceptance of gay rights, abortion rights and extended childhoods due to the recession. I dont ever recall anyone declaring themselves as gender neutral or not identifying with a gender, girls who were like boys where tomboys, boys who were like girls were effeminate and that was it, there was no further discussion.
Maybe all this gender neutral stuff its a generational thing that im too old to understand.

I remember reading something about 10 years ago that said in the future there wont be genders and maybe thats how the world is going?

The youth are always the ones to bring change, progression and new ideas into society through their own self expression and self discovery, they influence each other through this and this influences pop culture which challenges old ideas and ways of doing things. I just see it as todays young people exploring gender and their perception of it, in another 15 years there'll be a new generation with a new concept that todays young people will criticize, just like older people criticized us and the ideas we focused on exploring and changing, my generation are known as 'snowflakes' for challenging racism, sexism and political issues. This generation are called mentally ill for challenging identity and gender.
I mightned understand it but thats ok, I dont have to. As long as theyre not hurting anyone let them at it!

I pretty much agree.

Let them at it.

Once they acknowledge that their gender and their sex are completely separate.

Let's not just abandon the very real differences between the sexes

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In my post that you quoted I stated that:

"I can acknowledge their attractiveness and have zero sexual interest"

If I am attracted sexually to men, I am not heterosexual. I can however say that Jason Momoa is an attractive man but still be heterosexual as I have no sexual interest.

I don't see how that is a controversial or even an unusual attitude to have.

Sexual attraction is not impartial observations of attractiveness. I’m sure you know what I mean by sexual attraction.

Are you saying that you are not in complete control of your sexual attraction? Because that’s what you have been claiming up to now.

It seems we are in agreement then.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sexual attraction is not impartial observations of attractiveness. I’m sure you know what I mean by sexual attraction.

Are you saying that you are not in complete control of your sexual attraction? Because that’s what you have been claiming up to now.

It seems we are in agreement then.

I'm interested as to where I said that and in what context.

I do not believe that people can choose their sexual attraction.

I also do not believe people can choose their sex.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm interested as to where I said that and in what context.

I do not believe that people can choose their sexual attraction.

I also do not believe people can choose their sex.

In your post at 18:28 you quoted me saying “If you honestly believe we are in complete control of our attraction...”

Your response was “I am in complete control”

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

In your post at 18:28 you quoted me saying “If you honestly believe we are in complete control of our attraction...”

Your response was “I am in complete control”

Ah I see.

Admittedly "complete" may have been the wrong word to use in that situation.

I did explain it in the rest of the post.

My point was that if I found a girl attractive and then found out she was underage or biologically the same sex as me, the attraction would be quelled immediately because I am not bisexual nor am I interested in underage girls.

So in that way, my attraction is in my control to an extent or more accurately, my attraction is based on my sexual orientation and interest.

If you find someone attractive and after finding out they are the same sex, you are STILL sexually attracted to them, then by definition, you aren't heterosexual.

But I admit I phrased it badly and can see where you were coming from.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you find someone attractive and after finding out they are the same sex, you are STILL sexually attracted to them, then by definition, you aren't heterosexual.

It’s not the definition it’s your opinion. Could you prove to me by only making reference to the definition of heterosexuality that a straight man who does not know a woman is trans and is attracted to her is not gay or bisexual?

Surely if the definition is clear and can be used to decide other people’s sexuality then your interpretation should be solely based on the definition and you would not need to add any extra bits of your own.

I’ve never seen a definition that says “attracted to X based on full knowledge of their chromosomes”.

Or is it just how you choose to interpret the definition.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think you can be a meat eating vegetarian? Is being a vegetarian a matter of perspective?

Sure, why not? And yes, it is a matter of perspective, as is any identity - a matter of perspective. To you or I it might make no sense that someone would identify themselves in a particular way, but I’m not interested in policing how anyone should behave or what they should believe based upon my perception of what they identify as. I wouldn’t appreciate anyone telling me I’m not something I say I am because I don’t adhere to their perception of how I should present myself or how I should behave, so I extend that same courtesy to others - essentially, you do you, or they, whatever the case may be.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yes, I do think your sexual orientation changes depending on who you willingly have sex with.

If you willingly seek, fantasise about or engage in, sexual behaviour with people of the same sex, then that is not heterosexual.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

You obviously do think there’s something wrong with it if people don’t adhere to how you choose to define their identity for them. There’s nothing wrong with people not sharing your opinions, is the point, not whether you approve or disapprove of their behaviour.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But again, what has this got to do with gender identity?

What it has to do with gender identity is fairly simple - in Irish law gender identity is now a protected characteristic, where it wasn’t before, and what that means is that Irish law recognises and protects people from being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. It means that anyone who might disagree with how someone identifies themselves, they may find themselves liable for unlawful discrimination, or harassment and so on, depending upon how big a deal they wish to make of informing that person that they are not who or what they identify themselves as. Irish law isn’t interested in your opinion on biology or sexuality or what you think is common sense.

That’s what it’s got to do with gender identity - Irish law is the standard by which Irish society is governed, not science or anything else.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure, why not? And yes, it is a matter of perspective, as is any identity - a matter of perspective. To you or I it might make no sense that someone would identify themselves in a particular way, but I’m not interested in policing how anyone should behave or what they should believe based upon my perception of what they identify as. I wouldn’t appreciate anyone telling me I’m not something I say I am because I don’t adhere to their perception of how I should present myself or how I should behave, so I extend that same courtesy to others - essentially, you do you, or they, whatever the case may be.





You obviously do think there’s something wrong with it if people don’t adhere to how you choose to define their identity for them. There’s nothing wrong with people not sharing your opinions, is the point, not whether you approve or disapprove of their behaviour.





What it has to do with gender identity is fairly simple - in Irish law gender identity is now a protected characteristic, where it wasn’t before, and what that means is that Irish law recognises and protects people from being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. It means that anyone who might disagree with how someone identifies themselves, they may find themselves liable for unlawful discrimination, or harassment and so on, depending upon how big a deal they wish to make of informing that person that they are not who or what they identify themselves as. Irish law isn’t interested in your opinion on biology or sexuality or what you think is common sense.

That’s what it’s got to do with gender identity - Irish law is the standard by which Irish society is governed, not science or anything else.

Ffs. You think people can be a meat eating vegetarian? That says it all. We are truly through the looking glass.

Gender identity IS NOT sex.

You obviously don't give a **** about the meaning of words so it's absolutely pointless even discussing this with you. Words seem to be interchangeable when it suits you and therefore have no meaning.

Honestly, this is the most bizarre and frankly preposterous argument.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s not the definition it’s your opinion. Could you prove to me by only making reference to the definition of heterosexuality that a straight man who does not know a woman is trans and is attracted to her is not gay or bisexual?

Surely if the definition is clear and can be used to decide other people’s sexuality then your interpretation should be solely based on the definition and you would not need to add any extra bits of your own.

I’ve never seen a definition that says “attracted to X based on full knowledge of their chromosomes”.

Or is it just how you choose to interpret the definition.

Heterosexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in THE OPPOSITE SEX.

Bisexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in BOTH SEXES.

Homosexual people are attracted to and sexually interested in THE SAME SEX.

It's not my opinion.

But **** it, according to you and oej, everything is interchangeable.

Now you'll forgive me, I have to let my table out for a wee. Then I'm going to curl up in my avacado and get some sleep. I have an early start in the pancake.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ffs. You think people can be a meat eating vegetarian? That says it all. We are truly through the looking glass.

Gender identity IS NOT sex.

You obviously don't give a **** about the meaning of words so it's absolutely pointless even discussing this with you. Words seem to be interchangeable when it suits you and therefore have no meaning.

Honestly, this is the most bizarre and frankly preposterous argument.

Why can’t someone be a meat eating vegetarian? You introduced the example, so there must have been a point to the question. I say they can, you obviously think they can’t. I’m just not sure anyone who is a meat eating vegetarian cares less for whether you think they can’t be a meat eating vegetarian, in much the same way as if I say I’m a man, and you disagree, who’s opinion do you imagine I’m gonna go with - yours, or mine?

I never said gender identity is sex btw, pointless would be your arguing with something I’ve never said, and then claiming I don’t care about the meaning of words. The point is that people don’t have to care what the words they use to identify themselves mean to you, unless they actually want something from you, then of course it’s important that someone ensures you understand what they mean. The meaning of words also depends upon the context in which they are used. Colloquialisms, slang words, nicknames, you name it, they all depend upon the context in which they are used. Only this evening I was reading about a particular type of mushroom of the genus phallus - ‘the common stinkhorn’ as it’s more commonly known - appropriately named for it’s appearance at least

Context, and the meaning which a person means to convey, are more important than the words they use, especially if you’re not familiar with the words they’re using, or you have a different understanding of the words anyone is using. The reason I demonstrated why it has everything to do with gender identity is it’s relevance in Irish law, where under the provisions of the gender recognition act, gender identity is equated with sex -


18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.


Bizarre and frankly preposterous as it may be to you, the reality is that the only thing that has any relevance is Irish law, which is not based upon what you think or what you imagine is common sense. It means as bizarre and frankly preposterous as you think the argument may be, other people who don’t share your perspective don’t have to care for how you think they should define themselves.

Just as an aside, depending upon the jurisdiction, I wouldn’t advise mocking vegans either (much as I think their ideas at least, thoroughly deserve to be mocked ) as ethical veganism is now a protected belief under UK Equality legislation. Thankfully, such protections don’t apply to people’s “gender critical beliefs”, they’re still not protected by legislation any more than the idea of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” is recognised as having any scientific validity whatsoever.

I’m not averse to the idea of words having meaning at all, I’m averse to the idea of people trying to dress up their bullshìt prejudices in terms like “freedom of speech” and “facts over feelings”, etc, and when they’re pulled up on it then try to play the victim as though they’re being treated unfairly, when it’s nothing more than they’re being held to the same standards as everyone else - nobody is obligated to endure their bullshìt or engage with them in any way, shape or form whatsoever.