wastle

> she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked

She has done neither of these things you claim. Please refrain from spreading misinformation.

> Are you seriously now claiming that TERFs aren't mostly found on the right? Ever heard of a left-wing TERF?

Yes of course, and I know several personally. It's a fairly common set of views in the UK.

Over here it's not like it is the US where there's such a strong party political divide over this issue and as a consequence feminist groups (like WoLF, mentioned in the Wikipedia citations of the section you linked) decided to appeal to politicians on the right because the left has been so captured by trans ideological beliefs. Though not all on the left. If you're interested, look up Kara Dansky, radical feminist and lifelong Democrat, who has been trying to convince her party for years of the case for women's sex-based rights.

You speak of "all these so-called TERFs", but the article you linked, in the very first sentence, qualifies this with "some":

"Some trans-exclusionary radical feminists have allied with conservative or far-right groups and politicians who oppose legislation that would expand transgender rights in the United States."

As for "TERFs are consistently found to be supporting right-wing candidates", which you claim, the two articles in the citations for the Wikipedia quote above talk about how right-wing groups in the US are listening to feminists on this specific issue. So really it's the opposite way around to what you're saying.

> JK Rowling accused Nigel Farage of being too "woke"

No she didn't.

What she actually said, in response to someone expressing surprise that Farage supports incarcerating males in the female prison estate, was this:

"Genuinely surprised anyone's shocked by this. Just because huge swathes of the left have revealed themselves to be dripping in misogyny doesn't mean a massive chunk of the right doesn't remain exactly as indifferent to women's rights and issues as it's always been."

She also wrote:

"All those people who tell me support for women's single sex spaces means I must support Reform (which I don't) appear to share exactly the same opinion on women's single-sex spaces as Reform."

Sorry but you've mischaracterised and misquoted her words, and used this to reach a false conclusion.

Hitler was a vegetarian. This does not imply that vegetarians in general are siding with Nazis. To assert that would be an error of logic.

You're making a similarly incorrect fallacy of association between TERFs and anti-feminist conservatives.

That's not true. JK Rowling is a good counterexample to your claim, as are the women who brought the FWS case to the UK's Supreme Court (and won), and as are so many other women whose feminist advocacy involves this topic.

> > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

> And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space.

Depends on the space. It will matter sometimes. For instance: pregnancy forums, prostate cancer support groups.

But I agree this shouldn't be relevant for online spaces used to organise work on software development projects. These, almost always, are not intended as single-sex spaces, nor as venues for discussing people's differing views on this topic.

> It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that

I think that's more a philosophical stance. Appealing to "basic human decency" seems too subjective, both culturally and personally. There are many perspectives on what this might mean in practice.

Unfortunately the pronouns issue is difficult to avoid when communicating in English, because we have separate words to refer to female and male, and for most English speakers it's natural to use these to describe a person's sex. Overriding it because someone prefers (or demands) an opposite sex pronoun, or even some esoteric pronoun outside of the usual closed set, can be difficult even if that's something you've chosen to accede to. It's like a variation of the Stroop test but in everyday speech.

There are some reasonable arguments to be made for choosing otherwise too, though I expect you probably would not agree.

What do you see it as?

In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.

No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access.

That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.

The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex.

This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.