eeeesh

> Here's how that works out in practice, from today:

> Someone says "he", they're corrected with "she", and that's the end of it.

This is a good example of conversational flow in an environment where people are not reprimanded for referring to others with pronouns that accord to the speaker's personal worldview. One person says "he", another person says "she", and everyone tolerates this difference of expression whether they agree with it or not.

Essentially it's the most politically neutral stance on pronouns, as implemented in an everyday conversation.

How not? This policy permits expression aligned with personal convictions without privileging one political position over another.

The most politically neutral decision in this case would be to let people refer to others with whichever pronouns accord to the speaker's beliefs, without reprimand.

The option that results in the fewest incidents of violence is segregation within the male prison estate. Which is already done for protection of vulnerable male prisoners incarcerated there. Pedophiles, ex-cops, gang informants, etc.

Democrat policy that enabled males to voluntarily transfer into women's prisons wasn't driven by analyzing data on male-on-male violence, but from the absurd belief that if a man says he's a woman then he is a woman.

That implementing this belief might have horrendous outcomes for female prisoners wasn't even a consideration. Even though this was pointed out to them many times over, by feminist groups and others. They just did it regardless.

Women prisoners have been sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated by males who were transferred in to the female prison estate as a direct result of gender identity policies introduced by Democrats. These are some of the most vulnerable women in society and they've been sacrificed on the altar of authoritatian trans absurdity. They are a minority group that Democrat politicians happily discard and abuse and ignore.

This might just feel a minor social issue to you, but many people - including ones who usually vote Democrat - are looking at outcomes like this and wondering why on earth they should trust this party with anything.

That's not to say the Republicans are any better. There are two wrong sides here.

Where "do xyz" means "gain access to opposite-sex spaces without consent of those for whom these spaces are intended". This is an important issue for women and girls in particular, as female spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety - and in the case of competitive sports (e.g. "play soccer"), fairness.

If we're being real, telling males they can use women's and girls' spaces is very unpopular policy.