I agree but I think you've already decided that trans people are misguided & deserve sympathy & pity but not rights (love the sinner, hate the sin?). I guess I've made my mind up too!

I don't think you've engaged with the ones I've shared so I think I'll leave it there, thank you.

Yes of course & sexuality is fluid too. It shouldnt be a case of affrim *or* support. They are not binary choices (see article). Seeing being trans as akin to anorexia logically leads to conversion therapy which is where we started. Being trans is not a mental illness (neither was being gay)

In simple terms, they know they're not the sex they were assigned at birth, in the same way that a cis person knows they are! I feel like we're hoping round in circles. Perhaps you should read more trans literature or speak to more trans folk (who're just as diverse as anyone else)

I think it's both more and less flexible actually, dependibg on context. With respect, this is exactly the kind of questions people used to ask of L&G people to prevent equalising the age of consent. How would a teen know they're gay?

It's a very common & outdated misconception that being trans is just about gender norms. It's deeper & more fundamental than that. There's alot more flexibility for womens gender norms but there's still plenty of trans men. Trans people have always existed regardless of prevailing gender norms.

I think we need both. The problem seems to be that I wholeheartedly accept we need to be more accepting of diverse expressions of maleness (& femaleness). But you don't appear willing to accept that trans women (& men) also need to be accepted (& not dismissed as pretending, fakes or dangerous).

I appreciate you're trying to get your head around all this. On the question of gender affirmation I think you might find this piece helpful:

www.bacp.co.uk/bacp-journal...

But, according to your logic, *all* trans women are 'pretending' to be women! So you're only willing to be inclusive on your own terms which, by definition, doesn't accept certain people.

Of course. That's why we need more gender choices like non-binary, gender fluid, agender etc. 😊

We need to do both. Why exclude some women (trans women) from being women? Yes, we need to extend the bandwidth of masculinty & femininity (& what it means to be male & female). But people dont transition cos the bandwidth isn't wide enough cos being trans isn't just about masculinity & femininity.

Agree 💯 thank you. Its important to discuss these things openly, honestly & respectfully 😊

Absolutely. We definetely need to expand the category of men to include all men including feminine men, trans men and all kinds of men. How to include trans women more effectively in society? Firstly, it'd help not to call them men! More love & acceptance all round!

Someone tried to ban a book because it supports the "ideology" of coming out. They got shut down. - LGBTQ Nation "When people look at the world through a filter that says there is a gay agenda, they will find one."

📚 Someone actually tried to ban a book because it promotes the “ideology” of… coming out

Yes, apparently, being honest about who you are is now a dangerous political agenda

Truly, we are living in the golden age of nonsense

Which means trans women are not men, just like adopted (or other) mothers are not childless, they've just taken a different route to being a mother. They're room for us all, right?

Yes, just like birth mothers & adopted/other mothers are both kinds of mothers. Just like we need to expand the category of mother we need to expand the category of woman. We can still recognise, protect & celebrate our differences without denying trans people's existence.

Not really no. It is true & it is a big deal, especially for the mums (or dads) and the women (or men) involved. One has (usually, but not always) given birth so they might be a birth mother, but they're both mothers. Rather like cis & trans women. The beauty of human diversity! 😊 🌈

To me, the parallels are very clear. Think about it! 😊

If you have no problem referring to them both as mothers or fathers (despite biology), why not refer to people who have transitioned as male or female (despite biology)? Or does biology only matter in some cases and not others?

I'm still confused. So you're now saying they *can* be two mothers or two fathers then, despite 'biology'? Good. By that logic, we can be trans, right? Phew, we got there in the end! Biology isnt destiny! 😊

Now that's confusing! So if two women have children together one has to be the father? I guess you can see how that would be considered homophobic. This clearly shows how transphobia & homophobia work together & (often comes from the fundamentalist religious right).

I'm trying to make the point that homophobia & transphobia are deeply linked & entangled. Some would consider the refusal to see two women (or two men) having children together as mothers & fathers as homophobic. I think that would be reasonable, don't you?

Really?

Then you'll know the answer depends on what you mean by 'affirm'. I certainly wouldn't deny it.

Did you read the article?

No, but are you saying that means they're not mothers & fathers?

What Gender Affirmative Therapy is and is not - Rewriting The Rules This factsheet describes gender affirmative therapy: what it is, why it is necessary, what it does, and what it doesn't do, in relation to trans and cisgender people

Good, cos that's my understanding of gender affirmative therapy. I found this helpful:
www.rewriting-the-rules.com/gender/what-...

Yes of course. Can you see the parellel?

Genuine question. Do you believe that two women or two men can have children together? Are they mothers & fathers?

Curiosity & an open mind to all possibilities without thinking one outcome is preferable and another is undesirable or impossible.