Firstly do you agree with my framing of an appropriate limit to personal freedoms?

No, there needs to be a direct violation that occurs and each case can be treated individually. Saying that someone who is trans violates another persons rights in general is just stupid.

But I haven't said that. I said only that personal freedoms should be granted up to the point that they harm others. And you refuse to agree even with that simple concept.

I just know for a fact that people are in everyone else's business regarding gender and that trans people are being physically attacked because of very personal changes they have made in their lives that don't effect anyone else's safety. Their rights are being violated, not the other way around.

Often their rights are violated, I agree, and I oppose that. But sometimes the demands of trans activism infringe on the rights of others. For example the rights of women to have sex-segregated sport. In my opinion, women deserve certain hard-fought rights. I dont agree that transactivist demands >

> to infringe on those rights are fair or reasonable.

Not winning a sports game doesn't violate someone's rights.

The main violaters of women's rights and safety are men, but we don't demand they stop being men. We occasionally stop men from violating the rights and freedoms of others by locking them up, which is done individually.

I don't demand trans-identifying people change their identity. But I also don't accept the idea that humans can change sex by virtue of some internal feeling or unilateral declaration. Trans-identifying men remain men, and should necessarily be excluded from women-only spaces as a result.

And to return to your original query, it's that position which has earned me and many others the intolerance label on Bluesky.

I appreciate you letting me know. It's great that bluesky is functioning appropriately and calls it like it is. It's comforting to know that.

Being gender critical is a perfectly normal and widespread worldview. It's also protected by UK law. It's not intolerant any more than atheism is intolerant.

Women go into the restroom in individual stalls. While in the bathroom, we pee, fix our make up, or sometimes gab with each other. We don't feel the need to confirm that the woman in the private stall next to us looks the same way we look (with the exception of bigoted women).

Toilets are segregated by sex for many good reasons. Men have no place in women's toilets, regardless of any internal sense of identity.

There is a difference in trans women and men. Also, motives matter. Trans women go into a woman's bathroom to pee, men go into a woman's bathroom to gawk or assault. Communal bathrooms exist, so not all bathrooms are segregated.

That is your opinion, which should not be used to infringe on someone else's rights, even if that person happens to be trans. Also, there is a difference between gender identity and sex. There is nothing wrong with wanting your physical gender to match your mental gender.

My opinion, yes, and that of the majority of the UK and US populations (according to polling). What is a physical gender? What is a mental gender? I don’t think I believe in either. I believe in sex, and that we rightly segregate certain spaces by sex.

I'll let you take on those questions yourself. I would encourage you to look at medical journals and peer reviews instead of listening to uneducated people's opinions to form your own, but that is your call.

I've stated the same, so no I don't.

So we agree there are some necessary and reasonable limits to personal freedoms? Much as those freedoms should be protected otherwise?

It's not a trick question. I'm not trying to trap you.

I'm not worried about you trapping me. It's not a concern, at all.

Sure, you don't have the freedom to beat someone up, SA someone, or murder someone.

Quite. And of course there are a million such examples, large and small.