Harm has (classically) been defined in terms of suffering. So if you cause suffering, you're harming — Agent Smith

But is it bad or good?

Can we go beyond the basic claim that someone is suffering.

And how do we measure suffering is it simply self report and can self report be called into question?

I am not suggesting we are skeptical of self report but I also think it has problems of verification and can amount to "I don't like this" which could be applied to any experience we have and could be true in as much as people can perceive anything as unpleasant. I don't like the sounds of birds tweeting loudly on a summer day because I have sensitive hearing.

all sorts of good things -- dentistry, running a marathon, dieting to lose excess weight, surgery — BC

They are subjectively good based on preferences unless you believe in objective goods?

But if you take the alternate stance that not all pain is bad then who decides how much pain is acceptable and why?
— Andrew4Handel

The person experiencing the pain decides. We don't have a way of measuring pain in an objective way. — BC

We cannot measure pain directly but we can have an objective list of things of what things predictably cause pain and at what likely level in humans.

We do decide on behalf of others how much pain they should experience mental and physical
by introducing pain reduction measures or forcing people to do things. We can intervene in self harm cases and prosecute cases of excessive S&M. Remember the voluntary cannibal victim in Germany (Bernd Brandes)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Do you think a profoundly effeminate gay male or ‘butch duke’ fits neatly onto a dichotomous scale , or are you are arguing for a scale that expresses a masculine-feminine continuum? — Joshs

It's not a scale it is a dichotomy.

Everyone is a unique individual with a profound personal inner life.

Are you referring to a scale of stereotypes? A scale of disorders of development? A genetic scale.

What is the difference between a "profoundly effeminate gay male" and any other gay male or any other male?
Is it that they work different jobs? The tone of their voice? Hairstyle? lack of conformity?
I don't get this "Profoundly effeminate comment"

A gay man of any shade is nothing like a woman and a woman is not just a flamboyant high pitched gay male. Men being attracted to other men is a different experience than woman being attracted to men and the sex is different.
In my opinion...

But we are here because a male impregnated a female and that is essential for the survival of our species and a fundamental. We need to know whether someone is the opposite sex to reproduce.

What you call ‘compelling evidence’ is reductionist methodology: colour reduced to monotone, and shades of grey reduced to black or white. We make these judgements most accurately based on the perspective for each interaction, NOT based on some popular or politically-determined binary classification of characteristics. The way I see it, denial of colour or shade variation is harmful - as is asserting that black and white are not socially constructed and cannot be opted in and out of. — Possibility

Can you actually give real world examples of what you are referring because otherwise I have not got anything to respond to.

However social constructionism is a theory and a contested theory at that, you are simply claiming without evidence that certain traits are social constructed but if you apply that to everything consistently nothing is real (It is an anti realist stance).

Who decides what is constructed and what isn't and on what grounds? There are reasons to expect, as with other living things, sexually dichotomous behaviour. What of my behaviour is responding to a social construct?

It also reads like an allegation and an allegation that peoples behaviours are not sincere. That might apply to certain people and certain behaviours but it is a strong allegation to make in general.

And if you dismantle one view of things you inevitably replace it with something else equally dogmatic like social constructionism.

Also your position reads like social engineering, that you want to engineer diversity but that is usually the most shallow and insincere form of diversity.

Like a couple of men who have posted lots of pictures of themselves in skirts on the web claiming they are "dismantling toxic masculinity." As if wearing a skirt has some kind of magical gender powers and when I can show them loads of examples of men in dresses behaving toxically on line.

I just want to illustrate what is at stake in these discussions.

My argument in summary is men and women are different, women have praiseworthy characteristics
but mens characteristics are the most celebrated.
These are all biologically based and not social constructed and cannot be opted in and out of.
The denial of this harmful.

I want people to have all the evidence and this evidence to me is to compelling to be dismissed and should shape further discussion.

I think that there needs to be good grounds in life and philosophy for denying reality or in believing in hidden identities.

Make your own mind up.





"Neko
3 months ago
Bottom surgery was the biggest mistake of my life, I am in agony all effin day if Im honest. It’s been 7 years and 12 revisions and it still is a mess.. Being with a partner is impossible, the smell is like a rotting corpse only a few hours after cleaning. I was fine before. Nobody wants to sleep with this I am so sad"

I don't know what I am allowed to say on this topic now but here are some videos about transgender regret.

Unless they either care about the welfare of their fellow humans, or want the power to shove their fellow human beings into assigned roles. — Vera Mont

It is irrelevant to this topic because we are discussing the majority of people. Your responses have been unhelpful so far but are you saying the majority of people should suppress or tone down their identities for a minority?

I want more evidence that you are committed to subjectivity and respecting peoples inner worlds.

Unfortunately society does not work on that basis it works on useful generalities. We can only go so far to cater for everyone's unique identity.

Could be. Nature is imperfect; reproduction is chancy; genetic errors are not unusual. Only the person living inside a body can really know how living in that body feels. — Vera Mont

Now I am just discussing your average man or women. Being a man or women is a biological fact with medical ramifications and psychological and physical ramifications.

Denying facts is not helpful. If that is the route you want to go I see no benefit to it other then maybe to you personally. Treating people and children in particular as if they there are not male and female is ridiculous. People need to be told the reality of their body and likely psychological and pohysical outcomes. Anything else is anti scientific.

Only the person living inside a body can really know how living in that body feels. — Vera Mont

What does that mean?

Yes we are subjective beings with inner private worlds. Anyone can dislike any aspect of their body and mind but is that healthy, is it delusional and where does it lead us?

It is is irrelevant anyway to the majority of people who are happy being male or female and who exhibit common traits of their sex.

Also birth defects, but many of these can be surgically corrected. I think that if someone who is suffering can be repaired, we should repair them. — Vera Mont

I don't know what you are referring to here.

Are you saying being born male or female is birth defect? I am saying sex differences are real not imposed.

We can celebrate them without imposing expectations on non conforming people.

I have to accept that most men are straight and a lot like sports and cars. At some stage I may have felt like an outsider and frustrated but I now don't expect men to change for me a minority.

I think the problem with the theory of social construction of identities is that no one can have a real or true identities.
Because you can never know how you reached you current identity whether by a valid procedure of self selection due to social pressure.
On the other hand you can accept that people are living their preferences.

Nobody's preventing such a celebration. Just don't accept enthusiastic cheering from people who are forced into a role they did not freely choose. — Vera Mont

Noone freely chose to be born.

We are talking about women in relatively free western societies when they have the choice to be what kind of women they want to be and not about enforcing a role on anyone.

We all have our sex imposed on us by biology at birth and women display different traits then man that are not imposed on them as statistics show but are consistent.
Denying these trends in women and females is denying womanhood and femaleness.

If men and women have children and women end up doing the majority of the childcare for instance
the men can step in and be a stay at home dad or help out heavily in the care. If this is not happening it may be through choice of both parties or the mans lack of commitment to equality.

But we are creating a situation of confusion where trying to find out what works and what is a an imposition or stereotype is benefitting few people and people are being experimented on such as in the case of childcare
Where what is best for the child is being held ransom to arguing about who should look after the child and why and for what reason.
If a couple create a child the child should be the priority not the parents career aspirations etc in my opinion. It will usually be the mother who does the caring in the end or a female nursery nurse, nanny or female teacher.

I think it is a shame that we cannot state or celebrate the positive differences between males or females.

As I found with the top 100 movie rating list that was 99% about the male experience.

The new ideologies on gender do not strengthen women's identities and has a limited effect on mens identities.

Can people define what a women is which is vital if we are to have women's rights and women's achievements. If you can't that is a disaster for women.

Sweeping definitions often lead to problems. This formulation leads to defining all sorts of good things -- dentistry, running a marathon, dieting to lose excess weight, surgery ... -- as bad, which they clearly are not. — BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_marathon_fatalities

I am saying the pain involved is unwelcome and not the whole event.
My personal preference is for minimum pain.

I will concede your point to an extent to say that a prohibition on pain would rule out a lot of activities but personally as an antinatalist I would bite the bullet because I want to eradicate pain.

But if you take the alternate stance that not all pain is bad then who decides how much pain is acceptable and why?

You mean like S-M? It hurts so good? Pleasure through pain? Harm me, baby? — Joshs

If you are getting a thrill from being hit then that would turn the pain into a pleasure.

Can a tree be harmed? It doesn't particularly have experiences that can be categorized as pleasant or not, and it doesn't seem to hold 'value', and yet I can arguably harm one. — noAxioms

I think you can interfere with a trees teleology. The tree seems to have a function it is fulfilling. But that might not amount to harm.

An ecologist maybe harmed by witnessing the destruction of a habitat. Anyone could be harmed by distress at some event or conduct.

I think harm is less deniable than the good. Pain seems to be obviously bad but pleasure could be obtained from anything good or bad.

To me harm is the basis of moral intuitions. I cannot imagine moral judgements being made without the perception of harm.

People use the claim "It isn't harming anyone" to justify a behaviour or stance.

You seem to be making the mythical assumption that people who change gender are just people who can't accept homosexuality. — Jack Cummins

There is increasing evidence for this and I have already cited two cases of gay men in this thread.

I have shown you the evidence about the Tavistock clinic of which I can find you more given time.

So it is not mythical, there is evidence and there is increasing evidence and there is lots of evidence.

There are other reason for presenting as the opposite sex and there is lots if evidence for Autogynephilia a term created Ray Blanchard who is an expert in this area, worked with trans people and made this theory with their approval based on their evidence such as arousal at the thought of oneself being the opposite sex. The only reason the autogynophile is unpopular is because it doesn't support the trans children narrative and makes people have to view some trans people as having a sexual paraphilia.

There is also evidence for Rapid onset gender dysphoria being transmitted among girls.

Why can't a person with a female body identify as a gay man? — Jack Cummins

Because gay men are same sex attracted. As a gay man from a Christian cult background, gay men were pressurised to be heterosexual and to have sex with women one of my sisters tried to get me to date women. This is very traumatic for us. Gay men were given electric shocks whilst being shown homoerotic images. They were given sickness inducing drugs likewise and chemically castrated (with substances now used as puberty blockers.)
Now they are being called transphobic for not wanting to sleep with women who identify as gay men and accused of sexual apartheid.

A women cannot live as a gay man and a gay man having sex with a vagina is heterosexual sex. What is happening is women wanting to being gay men impersonating gay men and being surprised and hurt when being rejected by gay men.
It is a crying shame this is happening for both sides because it is giving people unrealistic expectations.

it was always those who were outside the norm who came under critical attack and subject to moral panic — Jack Cummins

This is not a moral panic. Gay men have had their penises and testicles removed because they couldn't accept their homosexuality or thought being gender non conforming meant they were women.

Gender non conformity is being pathologized and labelled and not normalised.

and being treated by unethical surgeries with many complications.

It is nothing like the situation faced by gay people despite us being force paired with TQIA+

Being gay does not require surgeries, genital mutilation and hormones and life long medicalisation, undermine women's rights and spaces or make everyone lie about reality to appease someone else.

As I know that you are in England now, I am wondering if you are aware of the most controversial trans legal case of Kiera Bell. — Jack Cummins

Yes I am familiar with the case.

And now the Tavistock clinic is being closed down which is a historical first and unprecedented move for complete closure of a failing service.

This behind a pay wall but:

"The Tavistock gender clinic is facing mass legal action from youngsters who claim they were rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers.

Lawyers expect about 1,000 families to join a medical negligence lawsuit alleging vulnerable children have been misdiagnosed and placed on a damaging medical pathway."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-gender-clinic-to-be-sued-by-1-000-families-lbsw6k8zd

The LGB Alliance is much Maligned charity trying to protect the rights and identity of gay and bisexual people. Mermaids a charity for "trans children" has tried to get the LGBA closedown but in the process exposed itself and is now being investigated by the charity commission for malpractice and child safety issues.

"LGB Alliance said 60 per cent of boys and 70 per cent of girls referred to Tavistock are gay or bisexual, while just 17 per cent of the population are not heterosexual.

And there has been a huge 4,400 per cent increase in the number of girls referred to the clinic, with triple the number of girls attending the clinic compared to boys."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11205739/Soon-close-NHS-Tavistock-clinic-accused-transing-gay-away-bitter-legal-dispute.html

"Paul Roberts, head of LGBT Consortium, said it was 'transphobic' to claim 'a person with a female body cannot be a gay man'."

(...)like how someone can be so mad about men acting as women. — Hanover

They are impersonating women and having and encouraging other people to have unethical Frankenstein surgeries and undermining women rights so you are mischaracterising the issue.

Do you have a problem with black face and if so why?

Where has anyone on this thread claimed they have a problem with men dressing in women's clothes or acting unmanly.

Nevertheless are you also denying the fetishistic element of cross dressing, of men pleasuring themselves whilst dressed as women including in women's toilets (there is footage) and public spaces, which there is huge evidence for on the internet. Sexual pathologies and paraphilias are real. It is not just about people being squeamish about gender non conformity.
Saying gender nonconforming children are trans is about enforcing gender stereotypes and that is happening.

My questions are why did you post this and what do you think it shows? — Hanover

It shows that gender ideology is based on untrue foundations it is not the only case by any means but it was the most influential original one that we were being taught in 1992. It is also of importance since John Money is responsible for the original separation of sex and gender.

The sciences are bedevilled by a replicability crisis particularly in the medical sciences and psychology/neuroscience. This means a lot of false information is in the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

This case is an example of a thorough refutation of certain claims and problem with the ethics and sanity in this kind of research among other things. The pressure on participants in studies to lie is well documented. Those studies can be called into question but they came after research into prominent much cited case like Zimbardo's "Stanford Prison experiment"
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication

"There’s even more evidence that the “guards” knew the results that Zimbardo wanted to produce, and were trained to meet his goals. "

"The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge."

Not sure this unusual case from almost 50 years ago is much relevant to the current discussion. — Tom Storm

It is the building blocks of gender ideology and the belief that sex differences beyond reproduction are artificial.

In case you are interested I went to a let women speak event in my hometown Bristol UK and was one of the three men who spoke at the end. If you want to know what I look and sound like my contribution is from 1 hr and 43 minutes in.
We were heavily and nosily protested by activists at this event which you can't tell on most of the video but I can give more details about that and police inaction.
I was a bit overwrought myself.

This is how the John Money and David Reimer case was Reported in the 1992 psychology text book I own as evidence that gender differences were caused by socialisation.

Psychology : the science of mind and behaviour
by Gross, Richard D, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1992.

"A classic piece of evidence relevant to the issue was reported by Money in 1974. It involves a pair of monozygotic (identical) twins whose embryonic and fetal development were that of a normal male. An accident during circumcision (by cautery) caused one of the twins to lose his penis. Assuming that gender is primarily a social phenomenon, and that identity is learned, it was decided to raise the unfortunate "penectomized" boy as a girl.

This would seem to be a decisive way of choosing between the learning versus biological arguments, by letting rearing "compete" with biology, and it would have been a true test case had not as much as possible been done to "defeat" the male biological realities and to enhance female biological maturation.

At seventeen months, "he" was castrated, i.e. the androgen-secreting testes were removed, and was given oestrogen (female hormone): a vaginal canal was constructed at this time. Much earlier than this, the parents changed "his" clothes and hairstyle.

By the age of four, "he" preferred dresses to trousers, took pride in "his" long hair and was much neater and cleaner than his brother. "He" sat while urinating, in the usual female fashion and was modest about exposing "his" genitals (in contrast to the other twin, for whom an incident of public urination was described by the mother with amusement)."He" was encouraged to help the mother with the housework, while the brother "couldn't care less about it.
At five years. "he" had many tomboyish traits, but was encouraged to be less rough and tough than the other twin, and was generally quieter and more "ladylike", while the normal twin was physically protective of his "sister". At nine years, although "he" had been the dominant one since birth, "he" expressed this by being a "fussy little mother" to "his" brother. The brother continued to play the traditional protective, male role.
This seems to support the view that gender identity (and gender role) is learnt. The reversal of original sexual assignment is possible if it takes place early enough and is consistent in all respects, which includes the external genitalia conforming well enough to the new sex. However, the castration and use of oestrogen clearly, contributed to the ease of reassignment and probably also accounts for the normal twin being."

.....

Now both brothers have committed suicide. The parents admitted lying to researchers about progress, there was sexual abuse by Money
but this was long one of the most influential cases on gender issues.

The fact that Jenner and Page can now live happily should be our focus — Tom Storm

And Not the facts of reality, biological reality or women's integrity and safety?

Not dangerous men being given easy access to vulnerable women's spaces.

Not the fact we cannot change sex?

Not the fact the men are taking awards designed to recognise biological females achievements and prize money aimed at biological women (Lia Thomas etc)

One persons happiness should not come as a result of others peoples disadvantage, and in this case forcing everyone else to lie. That is an appalling stance to take. Not humane at all.

Being the first women on the moon would a be a momentous achievement for women but we are now undermining these achievements to placate other people and also encouraging more people to believe they can escape the rules and boundaries of biology.

"For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. — Andrew4Handel

John Money invented Gender being separate from sex which does not even make sense.

And his botched and insane intervention to rear a boy as a girl failed.

But I have it cited as a success in one of my text books that we were using in in A' level psychology in England in the early 1990's.

We were using and early edition of "Richard D Gross psychology the science of mind and behaviour."

Allowing men to identify legally and socially as women is objectively harmful.

Calling men "women" legally is a legal lie. It lies to society and women about biological males and for example it has led to male rapists and murderers being referred to as "she" in court and put in women's prisons. It has made female victims of male crimes be told to refer to the perpetrator as "she" in court or get charged with contempt of court.

I have already cited the case of Karen White https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

So does society really believe these men are women? I don't for certain. Are we to everyone on behalf of sparing someone's feelings or subjective self assessment and desires.

An absurd situation would be is someone like Caitlyn Jenner went to the Moon would we call Caitlyn the first woman on the moon? Are we going to call a man "the first woman on the moon" or the first Female X and allow them to take credit for what is intended for women. (This as already happened with male sports people breaking women's sporting records)

If Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page) went to the moon would Elliot be the first woman on the moon or just another man on the moon now she identifies as a "He".

This is gas lighting everyone and lying and total dysfunction as an alleged cure for a mental health disorder that we are now being told is not a mental health disorder despite the need for surgeries and life long medication.

More on John Money and the invention of Gender:

"For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. Notes by a former student at Money's laboratory state that, during the yearly follow-up visits, Reimer's parents routinely lied to staff about the success of the procedure.[failed verification] When Money learned about this, he continued to misrepresent the results as a success for decades. By the time this was discovered, the idea of a purely socially constructed gender identity and infant Intersex medical interventions had become the accepted medical and sociological standard"

"Sexologist John Money is often regarded as the first to introduce a terminological distinction between biological sex and gender role (which, as originally defined, includes the concepts of both gender role and what would later become known as gender identity) in 1955"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

"Before Money's work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories."

"A 1997 academic study criticised Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer.[4] Reimer committed suicide at 38 and his brother died of an overdose at 36. Some of Money's therapy sessions involved sexual activity between the two brothers when they were children."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

"Money was a prominent proponent of the "theory of gender neutrality"—that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and that it could be changed with the appropriate behavioural interventions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

"By the age of 13 years, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see Money again."

Would you say that pursuing happiness and well-being is rational behaviour and denying yourself the opportunity for it, is irrational? — TheMadMan

I don't think you can derive an ought from an is. A preference for happiness might be pre rational.

I don't think facts about the worlds should necessarily compel any behaviour and if facts should lead behaviour it is not clear which behaviour and which facts.
Should I take an umbrella out if it rains? Should I give to charity? Should I eat more fruit and vegetables?

I am not sure if reality is or has to be rational at its base. In one sense it seems nature must obey rational laws and that reality can't have contradictory happenings or even things like uncaused causes.

Matrix style skeptical situations lead to an infinite regress of possible illusory states of being it seems.

Here is something from Jammidogder a trans man who has 1.03 million subscribers.

"(...)something big's happened, I had lower surgery back in January this year so January 2018 and that essentially means that I now have a penis"

Here Jammi is lying to a big audience as a phalloplasty (or the metoidioplasty Jammi had) is not a penis, does not function like a penis and the other implants are not testicles and do not function as testicles and produce sperm, Jammi also does not have a prostate gland or produce seminal fluid.

Jammi goes on:

"(...)with my surgery first stage back in January 2019 where had complications hematoma nicked artery blood spurting everywhere second emergency surgery week in hospital horrible horrible time much pain."

"One of the surgeons came through and like removed some stitches and then squeezed out the blood clot probably one of the most painful things I've ever experienced
yesterday went a bit bad after the squeezing I did feel better and then went to the toilet and suddenly the right side just started swelling up again really bad blood was spurting out.
It was not pretty so what that meant is I had to go back in for surgery it was all good in the end and it didn't impact my actual results but it was probably one of the worst weeks of my life i'm not gonna lie "

.......

Jammi then goes on to describe having no regrets.

What does it take to make someone admit they regret something. Jammi was just a normal lesbian before this. Now Jammi is a heterosexual male. An aspiration for an increasing number of lesbians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YImdgvt8_qA&t=240s&ab_channel=Jammidodger

How can you endorse anyone getting a phalloplasty.

It is nothing like a penis.
Look at the article and the images in it and tell me you believe that is a penis and worth removing a chunk of your arm and leg for?

Are you a man? I have penis I have had surgery for a missing testicle and undescended testicles but I can get erections and produce sperm. Don't gas light people that that is a penis and a necessary body modification. It is sterility and life long health programs. How many examples do you want me to quote of complications I can probably easily find 100 I have read.

Why would you encourage women to think this is a penis and an adequate replacement for a penis?

Please read this article to find out what a phalloplasty is and what it complications are.

*warning graphic photos*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901910/

It was mentioned in this article I cited:

"The overall proportion of phalloplasties that need surgical revision, while lower for some surgeons (including mine), is about one in two. The highest number of corrective follow-up surgeries needed by anyone I know personally is 12"

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/gabriel-mac-essay.html

"One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed."

. To arrive at what you are alluding to: Is seeking truth rational or irrational, or maybe something beyond both? — TheMadMan

I feel that rationality is a value statement about beliefs and behaviours.

On one account rationality could require consistency between belief and behaviour.

If someone says "I hate getting wet" but goes out in the rain without an umbrella that could be considered irrational. But we could argue that peoples beliefs and behaviour don't need to compliment each other we just value that personally.

I think how you respond to a choice like staying in the matrix or not would reflect your values and preferences probably. If you value living in the truth you might want to get out of the matrix.

I try to myself to some extent by challenging my perceptions and received information. At some stage it can get to the point of rejecting society, getting confused or having lots of unanswered questions.

And that relates to — Vera Mont

What you said

that you don't feel threatened by things that are having a negative effect on other women

and that your personal perception should apparently guide legislation not the obvious flaws in an ideology.

As a gay man I am now being associated with lots of unpleasant things I am strongly against including gender ideology, breaking down healthy barriers, sterilising children with puberty blockers and castrating people and trying to normalise the attraction to children (Paedophiles) Now being labelled MAPS or minor attracted people.

I don't see why we need to escape gender stereotypes.
— Andrew4Handel

That is a problem! — Vera Mont

I am man who as I said earlier read books aimed at teenage girls as a boy and hung around with girls at primary school (kindergarten for Americans?)

I have never been a conformist but I have also never considered myself to be escaping stereotypes. I have had to accept that I am different than a lot of men who have different preferences not deny these mens existences and preferences and deny biological differences.

Ironically gender ideology says that if you are a girl who doesn't like make up and dresses you might be a trans child and need sterilising by puberty blockers and that if you are non conforming you need a flag and a label like Non binary or Ace-aro, pansexual and two-spirit etc.