That Trans Thread

[Charlie Boy]

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

You certainly are an unpleasant entity.

I will not judge someone who feels that they are misgendered because I have never thought those thoughts or felt those feelings.  

I'm just saying that it should not be up to everyone else to decide how a person wants to present themselves, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.  And sensibilities being hurt don't count.

You spend too much time worrying about things that are not your business.

Unpleasant? Perhaps. But one imagines you’d prefer honesty cloaked in courtesy to false agreement wrapped in smiles.

You say you don’t judge those who feel misgendered—commendable. Nor did I suggest otherwise. The point at hand is not whether someone may present themselves however they wish. Of course they may. The concern arises when others are compelled—legally, professionally, or socially—to affirm such identities under threat of consequence, regardless of belief or context.

Your position, respectfully, seems to conflate personal liberty with public obligation. I’ve never suggested anyone should dictate how another presents themselves. I’ve simply questioned whether everyone else must participate in that presentation, particularly when doing so may conflict with their reason, speech, or conscience.

As for your suggestion that I “spend too much time worrying about things that are not my business”—well, I might say the same of those who demand ideological conformity from strangers in schools, workplaces, and institutions. If speech is to be policed, then yes—it becomes everyone’s business.

Still, I appreciate your candour. Disagreement is no sin; it’s the oxygen of discourse. The moment it ceases to be permitted—or politely endured—we’ve lost something far more precious than comfort.

Shall we leave it there, or would you prefer to continue the dance?