Chris

You’ve just demonstrated why it causes immense harm.

See how easily you use ‘man’ and ‘male’ as synonyms? You do so, of course, because in our everyday speech we assume they are, which is fair enough as far as it goes. However, because you’ve swallowed activist lines about trans ‘women’ being actual women (and vice versa), you have quickly arrived at a point where you no longer have the language necessary to easily express the basic truth that no matter what identity someone thinks they have, there is still a basic, binary, biological division in the human race, which is male-female. Minimising the importance of, and then destroying understanding of, the importance of biology to embodied human existence is a primary aim of gender ideology. Going along with it is not ‘kind’;* it allows downstream consequences like men in dresses running rape crisis centres and re-traumatising women. It allows men to steal women’s prizes in sports. It causes outrages against the dignity of women in single-sex spaces. It allows male sex offenders to be locked up in women’s prisons. All of these things have happened, around the world. They’ve all happened recently, publicly, here in Scotland, population under 6 million. The ideologically lobotomized Scottish Government is still trying to get legal approval to let men into women’s prisons as long as they use the magic words ‘I identify as a woman’.

‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are common terms used in reference to humans, while ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not exactly synonymous - they are biological and not species specific. Even if you absolutely insist on using ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in gender ideologue approved ways you ought to be able to maintain the linguistic distinction with regards to male and female. But you’ve proven how hard that is, and of course that is the entire point. The distinction is important if we are to maintain the truth that someone’s personal sense of identity does not override their immutable biological sex. It is a distinction gender ideology cannot tolerate, because it continues to permit conditions in which males and females are treated differently and therefore undermines their whole ridiculous idea that a so-called ‘transwoman’ is actually a woman.

You can identify as a TV cabinet for all I care - it’s your life. But you don’t have the right to insist I believe you and you don’t have the right to insist we modify language to accommodate you. ‘Pregnant people’ is absolutely activist language and goodness only knows why you’re denying it because even activists say so - its an example of what they call ‘inclusive’* language. it is deliberately chosen to minimise the inconvenient and immutable biological truth of human existence which is that only females - women - get pregnant, and any pregnant human is immutably, undeniably, a woman.

* terms like ‘kind’ and ‘inclusive’ are also activist tactics - they rely on the weaponisation of empathy, as nobody wants to be seen to be unkind or exclusive. The necessary trick here is to refuse to accept a gender ideologue’s claims around what constitutes kindness and inclusion. The destruction of provisions intended to preserve the safety and dignity of women is not kind. The erosion of female sport is not inclusive, because the female category is in its very foundation and inclusive measure, allowing women to compete without being overrun by men. Permitting men to enter their category is the antithesis of inclusion. No trans-identifying individual is barred from sports - they must simply compete in the class created for them.