Very much agree.
Hermaphroditism doesn't exist in humans in the truest sense that can be be found in other parts of the animal world, though the term was used to classify intersex conditions before the latter, more politically correct term was adopted. I admit I haven't looked for the stats, but that figure looks low, as it intersex includes mixed karotypes: 1 in 500 males is XXY.
I'm genuinely confused by the post - and I not trying to incite - it's almost as if I'm damned in whatever I say and write! I guess that's the nature of internet forums and the exchange of written words rather than a fluid exchange of thoughts, ideas and opinions.
What I was trying to say that if the male person self-identifies as female then there are certain social situations in which they need to consider how their presence is felt so that others are not made to feel ill at ease. The more extreme example would be: should they attend a women's refuge? (I think possibly not: it depends on the other women, I think).
I'm not at all saying that transgender folk should be anything other than themselves in the right place at the right time. Invariably, it's always the 'interesting' people that fill the papers. I can't say I've cared for or had much to do with the 'alternative' scene, but the few fellow travellers I know are all very down to earth types who recognise their uniqueness in actually straddling both sides of the divides rather than occupying a single space.
One of my mates at work is gay: when we go outside for a smoke he's as camp as can be. I don't expect him to be camping it up quite so much when we're in a senior management meeting discussing why the latest IT project is going down the pan.
The second part of your email seemed a bit like a non-sequitur, but maybe I didn't quite catch your drift. But I think I agree: invariably, anybody with an agenda to push is a turn off. Most folk just want to get on with their quiet lives.
I don't wish you ill, but I do mean you offence.
You see, your problem is that you are so full of hate that you fail to stop to read posts and to assimilate what is being said: and, as you appear incapable of holding discussion and debate when challenged on a point, you choose instead to find something else to throw at the person, even if you don't know quite what you've stumbled upon and how it fits with anything.
Right from my post on page three I explained, as I have explained once more, that transgender folk need to consider how they act, behave and use societal spaces.
And by the way, I don't need anybody to do me favours: radical trans-activists no more speak for me than Conchita Wurst does for hipsters.
As for radical feminists, this is simply a defining perspective among feminists, just as someone might describe themselves as 'far-left'. It's not a derogatory term, it's simply a political term, just as you might distinguish neo-liberals from liberal democrats. You missed a trick though, I had described them as trans exclusionary RF's which indeed is a derogatory term, and which I lazily used to identify one particular radical feminist group.
And as I have pointed out, whilst many of the radical feminists (such as Julie Binden) appear to have as many personal demons as do the radical trans activists, I actually have a lot of time for their (the feminists') core premise in the debate; though I expect that one, like all of the other intelligent points made by contributors to this thread, also flew right over yours and Grendel's head, just like a Chaplin penalty).
Hope I never see you around.
