Your consent violated
Reverse victim and offender. Can do! says “Katy” Montgomerie.
No. That’s a reversal. No you’re the man pretending to be a woman; no you are; no you; etc. Reality blows the whistle hard: only women are women; men are not women; women only are women.
I notice she focused ONlY on one of the issues (Eddie Izzards pronouns) and not the other points.
He. In both cases.
Over half of trans people have had their consent violated (in much more serious ways than pronouns/gendering/sexing)?
How the hell does he know? In what ways have trans people had their “consent violated” (whatever that means)? Does it mean the same kinds of things as physical danger (or worse) in vulnerable spaces like toilets, hospital wards, and refuges? Trans people haven’t created their own refuges; nor have men. The only violations of consent in refuges are men’s violations of women’s refuges. There is no parallel “violation of consent” suffered by trans people in refuges. What’s the evidence that supports that claim? I am skeptical.
Oh, he doesn’t know. He’s using some special meaning of “consent violated” that’s valid only inside his head. We’re all “violating his consent” by not believing him when he insists he’s a woman. He has to consent to our not believing him! It’s the law! (In some other universe.)
I have heard of some lost and dumb causes in my time, but any campaign by men of any descriptiom for some sort of right based on God knows what for them to enter womens’ facilities like washrooms and changerooms, though it might get majority support amongst transwhatevers, will not even get to first base with the mainstream male community whose priority will be the safety of their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters and other female friends and relatives.
Their transenergy would be more productively spent in a campaign to convert all the Catholics into protestants, or all the Jews into Zoroastrians.