you are not following me, I agree its a construct, we agree there. I believe it's a false construct. also it's terrible people are shot for their beliefs, but religious people are also killed everyday for their beliefs. My belief that gender isn't even real does nothing to put transgenders in any danger. Now had I sad gender is a very real thing and not just in the minds of society, I believe that would be more harmful to transgenders.

you are the one making black and white statement not I. you are the one declaring religion does zero good and is all evil. while it does evil it does good. you then are implying that the view gender does exist is a good and righteous view with no evil. thus one who doesn't beileve in religon can still speak on it, while the opposite isn't true.

that's not what I'm comparing. what I'm comparing. I'm simply saying that the logic that one can not speak on something they don't beileve in is very faulty logic.

I'm sorry, but I haven't attacked at all. you are the only one who has, and even after you attacked I didn't even attack back.

Also you imply you are better and above others when you say ur view of good and bad is the correct view of what's good and bad. that is ur entire work around for being able to speak about religion and God even if you don't beileve in it, when you say I shouldn't be allowed to speak about gender, because I don't beileve gender exists at all.

I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me, I think it's a misunderstanding so will just turn the other cheek. what I was saying there was when I express the view that I dont beileve in gender, that it's a false social delusion it's religous people who try to shut me up.
You are saying I shouldn't be allowed to express that view as well. That's all I'm pointing out.

I'm sorry if I'm not expressing myself well enough, is there something specific you are confused about as to what I'm saying? maybe if we just tackle 1 point at a time we can better understand eachother.

I mean what you said actually sounds like a religous person,, " I'm allowed to do X cause I deem myself more righteous than y" very dangerous religous like thinking there. don't start playing by their rules. it will turn into a cycle that goes nowhere.

it is the same. some feel religon brings a lot of good and charity. your also making a strawman arguement as I never said the act of gender expression does cause harm. in fact my point since the beginning is who does it hurt? Sorry but it's an apples to apples comparison, you just don't like it. by your standards the religous people who feel it does cause harm could do what you are doing and say you need to shut up about religon and they are already allowed to speak on gender identity. Sorry us people who don't believe in the traditional views society has on gender must never fall into using religous logic. Which is we decide we are more moral and just and thus can play by different rules.

I'm not telling anyone anything just sharing my feelings is all. There are many others in the community who feel the same as me and beileve gender us a false social construction. just because I don't believe in gender existing doesn't mean I can't have any thoughts or input on it. by ur logic that would mean anyone who didn't beileve in God and religon and its effevt on society should shut up.

the code book sounds like it need to update the term gender to sex. like " gender designated tiolet fixture" ones gender doesn't decide what type of tiolet fixture they would need thier sex would.
know what I mean , there are those in the woman gender who could still use a urinal. but I dont think gender exists anyway its a false social delusion that hopefully we get passed one day and everything is genderless.

like if gender did actually exist reasonable people would overwhelmingly agree on what defines a gender. know what I mean? Like for the most part reasonable and logical people would all have to agree the defintion of a male is.......... and defintion of female is.......... Since reasonable people don't have a anything close to a shared defintion, I think that's just more evidence gender is a false delusion. So since i dont beileve gender exists I obviously don't believe a person can transfer from one thing that doesn't exist to another thing that doesn't exist. we are all just humans. It's tough you know what I mean, cause in a way of I were to consider myself transgender, I feel I would be reinforcing the gender delusion and to a degree the gender binary delusion.

I dont beileve that gender exists. I believe it's a false mass delusion.

I'm not trying to be argue, but am genuinely curious, how this would make things harder for trans person. the people that for trans and gender fluid people using the bathroom they choose aren't gonna turn their backs on it because of it,, and the people who are against it are already against it. The one thing that makes me nervous about out right declaring it is wrong and being against this, is it opens the door to trans people needing to pass so subjective sincerity test to be allowed to exercise their rights. I honestly think it be safer and better for the trans community to say ok fine you say your gender fluid or a woman thats that, you know the haters are just waiting for the trans community themselves to open the door to making it ok to question if someone has alternative motivations in making a gender identity claim. I do respect your point of view for sure, and I understand how my point of view may not sit well. but I think it's safest for the trans community to stay with an unwavering position that no one is allowed to question if a person is sincere in their gender identity. I think that's far more dangerous to our rights.

I mean when it comes to people who would get upset that a biological male identifying as a woman is using a single person woman's restroom, I doubt they care much as to why the person is identifying the way they are. I think they be upset either way.

well i dont know, maybe others don't think it's the wrong to temporarily identify as a woman to use a single one person restroom, I dont really see who it hurts

how does Massachusetts law define what it means to identify as a female? if the law says to identify as a female you simply just say you are a female and that's that, no one is allowed to question if you don't really mean it, than legally you could just say you a female each time you want to use the bathroom.
If anyone gets upset when you go right back to being male you could say you are gender fluid. So that should cover you legally, but than you gotta ask yourself if that's the right thing to do.