England, based?
Agenda PostHow terrible what is? Banning gender discussion or gender discussion? I’m assuming the latter but I can’t tell.
The latter. As I mentioned in another comment, even the proponents of gender theory cannot actually talk about this issue with somebody scrutinizing it without looking like absolutely clownish fools. There's a reason a blogger turned podcaster has managed to shred their ideology with a simple question that they STILL cannot coherently answer two years after he released the documentary. Yes, I'm talking about Matt Walsh and What is a Woman? You know if they actually had a coherent answer, it'd be all over the internet. They actually cannot coherently define what a woman is without destroying gender theory.
I always fail to understand that question and why people struggle to answer it .
A women is simply a women due to the existence of Exceptions to any physical identifier.
They cannot answer it because any coherent definition excludes trans women and no mental gymnastics successfully includes them when you apply more scrutiny.
Ex:"But what about STERILE women?!? They can't have kids!!"
In the same way that humans are naturally bipedal, that doesn't mean legless people are now some new species.
Of course they'll also try to conflate hermaphrodites with trans people when they're not. And if your justification for trans identity being valid is legitimate genetic disorders, you're losing in another way.
I see no harm in allowing people to do what they wish . From my understanding they’re hurting by just existing as their birth gender.
I don’t want that for my friends, I don’t really want to see them die. So therefore I see no issue in trans ideology. If my friends are happier this way, I’m happy for them.
Can you explain to me the reasoning behind standing against them if it has no impact on you?
I reject the idea that the larger culture doesn't impact the individual. That said, I'll leave that to the side too address what you're more specifically asking about.
Other countries are moving away from the "affirmative care" model, especially with children, because it doesn't actually work. And yes, I know you can have "studies" where they ask people shortly after surgery (a few months is still a relatively short period) and they say they're happier. That's not really enough. In the same way that I believe doctors shouldn't be able to blind a patient that simply wants to be blind, doctors shouldn't mutilate confused individuals.
On another note, if we are living in a society where healthcare is handled by institutions, either insurance or government will foot the bill if this is "healthcare". There's also the fact that many things in society are built around the obvious fact that sexes are different. Locker rooms are just one example that is commonly brought up. The idea that a confused man should be able to intrude on women's spaces (or vice versa, but it's generally more of an issue this way) is ridiculous.
If trans individuals did not expect any societal financial support for their "medical" care, if they didn't expect the rest of society to play along with the charade, and if they weren't intruding into places that aren't meant for them, then at least there'd be the argument that it's just them living their lives. It's really not though. It'd be the equivalent of a religious group suggesting that everybody else must affirm their beliefs in their presence and allow them special privileges.
Locker rooms are stupid too, same for urinals. They are all cost cutting measures that are socially enforced.
Make individual changing rooms and individual bathrooms. Let the stall door actually reach the floor. Boom, now people get privacy and don't have to worry about intruders.
I like privacy, but keep in mind, your solution literally would cost more money than we currently spend on bathrooms and locker rooms. I don't know how much that would be, but as a lib right, I imagine you prefer cost savings when possible and don't want the government mandating the more expensive option.
And the reason the sex segregated restrooms are socially enforced is because they're reinforcing a biological reality.
In Europe it is common to have unisex bathrooms that are all individual little rooms with a shared sink
I prefer to spend money where I want and for money use to be efficient. If taxes were optional, I would happily pay some but not all in the view that it would function commercially, but I digress.
It wouldn't cost more money. We have family bathrooms, men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms. That's 3 unique areas that all need plumbing and tiling. I don't know if you've noticed, but you can routinely hear someone NOT use the urinal or toilet whenever you enter. So that is time wasted because of the desire for actual privacy, not these visual-blockers. In addition to the construction of 2 poor restrooms, where you'll see lines for one sex and not the other. Inefficient.
The idea that it's socially enforced because it's reinforcing something is some weird double-reality and now people are attaching their identity to it. They don't want a bathroom with shared sexes, so they will heavily defend it from change - they aren't willing to see that they defend it so vigorously because they don't want to share it with their same sex either.
they don't want a bathroom with shared sexes
That is a level of delusion I rarely see from lib right. Let's even completely ignore the gender identity issue. Ask women of they'd be comfortable with men in their locker rooms or bathrooms. And make sure to tell them, no, not trans women, cis men.
I also love how you see urinals and sex segregated bathrooms as cost saving measures that don't reduce costs. Which is it?