Simple. 1. Because you posted in public on a topic I'm interested in. 2. Because I'm not clear what you are saying. Are you grouping all "trans-women" with Nazis? Or only the loonies fringe of the "trans". Those blokes who "claim" to be women, but still act, behave like men. Do you differentiate?
I do indeed differentiate between the two, RB. Unfortunately, the gunman who recently killed and seriously injured children at the Catholic school he attended, is being referred to as 'her' by the NYT. He claimed he was a woman, so the NYT is referring to him as such.
Clearly "they" were a loony, no matter what gender they claimed or performed as. So, I'd prefer loony tunes idiots be referred to as "they". Just as we don't/shouldn't refer needlessly to a criminals race.
Agree. Thank you for being such a polite, thoughtful person here on BlueSky.
Thanks. Not often we get genuine engagement on social media. But nice when it happens. PS: If you check my timeline you'll find I'm far from polite all the time!
I always check timelines, as well as 'replies' to others, RB, thoroughly before engaging. Differences can be interesting - but ideally I enjoy intelligent, creative, thoughtful, passionate, bookish people - not obsessed with accumulating followers. You have an engaging timeline. #1 for me.
Well, I fit the "not interested in accumulating followers" critieria. I'm sure I lose a few of the thoughtful ones when sometimes I go on a quickfire series of rants. To stick around as a follower you need to be tolerant of occasional rants 😁
We live in 'ranty' times, my friend. I get it. Occasional a good rant is what it takes.