Lots of words were used interchagably that aren't now, especially for older folks lol, again, agreements evolve. And the corelation is that it's an example that shows that your biological sex and your identity aren't exactly the same issue.
You're arguing against positions and stances that weren't taken - of course things change - that doesn't change the fact that society functions due to our mutual understanding of social constructs - you brought up some women not liking being referred to as female and I said that's a relative new phenomena that's gained traction with third wave feminism and that older folks tend to be the ones using that word interchangeably, that's not me saying it hasn't or shouldn't change - basic text analysis will show you I've conceded a shift in regards to that word - harping about agreements evolving doesn't substantiate anything - you said a distinction should be made between sex/gender - to which i replied there's no need for such in this context
. we know what a woman is/who is a woman.
Yeah but you likely wouldn't know she couldn't bare children unless she told you.
i don't need to know that to still know what a woman is/who is a woman - videos of Umar misidentifying a transformer isn't the gotcha moment you seemingly think it is. I mean, this -> that's not the ONLY thing that's factored and results in the common understanding of what a woman is - also applies to "appearance".
I didn't say holding that view about gender fluidity is abhorrent..I'm saying that plenty of things that were abhorrent were also perfectly normal and routine til those agreements you talked about came under review. Gender fluidity is one of those conversations being had and everyone is drawing their own lines, as they should.
As for the bold, removing that disctinction isn't something I agree with at all.
and this seems to be at the root of our exchange - you appear to be saying things for the sake of saying them - "plenty of things were abhorrent until
" - yeah, and carrots used to be purple. Again, I've seen pedophiles use that argumentation. People don't go for it because common sense, context and a general sense of right or wrong are communally shared. We have the capacity to be objective as people and this is a specific thing - simply and vaguely saying "ah but we reviewed previous agreements" isn't substantive here, and since you're repeating yourself, I'll do the same - they're not being denied their human rights, their rights to exist (free of persecution) or even the rights to be who they want to be - which is a a trans-woman. All people are saying is that a trans-woman is just that a trans-woman, and not a "woman"