Chris

^ This. Though his error isn’t surprising. Political queer theory deliberately muddies definitions of words, making it difficult to define or discuss with a common frame of reference and allowing queer assertions to flourish by default.

I’ve become more and more hardline on this as I’ve read and listened to the debate over the past several months. I am no longer willing to allow that ‘gender’ as a construct even exists. Those who like to witter on about their ‘gender identity’ invariably do so by using circular definitions with reference to their entirely internal sense of self. As a social construct, it is very poorly constructed indeed. All they are really doing is dissecting and venerating aspects of their personality. We all have one of those and some are more pleasant to be in a room with than others.

I hold that everybody has a sex which is immutable and which is of primary importance. And everybody has a personality, which is to be cherished and valued as part of our shared experience of humanity, but nobody has an absolute right to have accommodations made for specific aspects of their own personality.

Once I might have gone along with calling a bloke in a dress ‘she’ just for a quiet life. However I now better understand what seemingly simple accommodations like that have done - they permitted genderists to take that ground and then move on to demand more, and now we are where we are vis a vis universities, NHS trusts and other employers getting fined/held liable for squillions, mostly of public (i.e. our) money, because they have been making unlawful accommodations for loud, often obnoxious, and almost invariably male, transvestites.