Step 1) teach child to categorise people as men or women based on observable reality, with “man” and “woman” referring to biological sex
Step 2) undermine this by claiming what someone really is what they feel they are, an unknowable, metaphysical quality that has no bearing on external reality unless declared to members of a receptive society
It’s as if you’ve taught a child the difference between a cat and a dog, and now when they point out a cat out you shrug and say perhaps it’s a dog. But what’s a “dog” if it can subjectively feel like a cat, and thus demand to be called a cat?
Let’s go back to simpler definitions of “man” and “woman” as referring to sex, and the trans- prefix to indicate a person would like you to treat them as if they had a different body and accompanying socialisation. You can even delve deeper and explain gender dysphoria to a child if they’re curious as to what causes this behaviour.
I understand the urge to demedicalise transgenderism and give it legitimacy by pretending all of us contain a “gender identity”. But it’s not true. I’m a woman because I am. That’s it. And a transwoman is…a transwoman, a male who identifies as female. That’s it. And non-gender binary people are women and men who wish to be treated as neither socially.
We don’t have to pretend non-transgender people have “gender identities” or that biological sex isn’t real (a construct or spectrum…intersex people are male or female, it’s a disorder of sexual development not something to be used to pretend that a person with emulative surgery has changed sex or crept closer up the “spectrum”) in order to respect non-gender conforming people.
Replacing biological sex in matters of public policy with “gender identity” is deeply sinister, but of course only girls and women will suffer from a dismantling or sex-based rights and protections.