I believe its important to at least try to be consistent.

To be clear, hostility towards certain people in life is fully justifiable. In fact its essential. A society cannot function if in some situations a person doesn’t receive at least a chastising for what they have done.

I would like to give an example to illustrate the point.

Imagine you walk into the bank and there is a person ahead of you in the line, while waiting there you overhear what the person is saying and you realise that this person is an impersonator, they are impersonating you with false documents are are draining the money from your account.

How could immediate and decisive hostility not be justifiable in this situation?

This person is taking something from you.
This person is impersonating you.
This person is defrauding the back

Now imagine you are in the same situation and the person ahead is doing the exact same thing, but this time it is you neighbour who is being defrauded.

The response would also be justifiable.

But then we can say with absolute certainty the even if you don’t know the person being defrauded. You should intervene. If the person in the line ahead of you is impersonating someone you only met once 20 years ago you should still intervene.

It also follows that if you saw a women being conned on the street by a conman it shouldn’t matter if you know her or not. Intervention in some form is required.

Taking something, impersonating, dishonesty, fraudulent claims.

These are all essential reasons in any society for an immediate verbal attack, and I do mean attack, to point out the damage being done. To be fair the hostility is not just justifiable it is essential. Dishonesty does far more harm that a verbal chastising, and of course if you turn a blind eye to the dishonesty… you know that person will get away with it and do it again.

So it is essential that you intervene, you must, otherwise the dishonest person will strike again and next time the victim might be unsuspecting.

However we shouldn’t just do this in defence of a women being conned or a person being subject to fraud at a bank.

So allow me to point out all of the situations that come to mind when such hostility is perfectly justifiable.

Response – A person in a wheelchair claiming sympathy due to being disabled. You know this claim to be untrue

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person.

Situation – A person is claiming a discount due to being a military veteran. You know this to be untrue.

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person.

Situation – A young person trying to buy liquor, you know that the id they have presented is false.

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person.

Situation – a person is collecting money for a charity, and you know they are pocketing the money

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person.

Situation – A person is claiming to be a Navy Seal, you know this to be false

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person… then contact Don Shipley.

Situation – A man claiming to be a women, you know this person is a man

Response – Immediate hostility to the dishonest person.

Now you might have a bleeding heart and say, hang on… you should be more tolerant.

Its not me who should hang on… it’s you. Corruption is merely a form of dishonesty. Any society which turns a blind eye, or even encourages dishonesty is on a roller-coaster to hell.

Now the clarification is needed.

If you read careful you will note that the hostility is only justified if you know the claim is false. For example a real veteran should not be subject to that hostility, nor should a real disabled person.

An intersex person should never be subject to this hostility because their issues are real.

But that brings us to the trans issue.

I have yet to find any reason, why these people who claim the same sympathy as intersex people should have that sympathy.

Any hardship put on a trans person is self imposed, much like the fraudster in the wheelchair. Their legs weren’t born broken… they broke them intentionally by choosing to believe in the ideology.

Now this is not a complete black and white issue. For example if a person in a wheelchair suspects their fraud will be exposed… and breaks their own legs. Do they deserve sympathy or hostility?

The answer is both… you poor, stupid, crippled conman. You dunce.

You can also use this approach when someone you know does something really stupid, lets say your buddy tries to back flip a mini motorcycle and breaks his arm

The answer is both sympathy and ridicule… you poor, stupid, broken idiot. What were you thinking.

So we can conclude that Intersex people have real disadvantages that are not self imposed and therefore deserve sympathy.

However by comparison the entire concept of transgender is inherently dishonest, they are piggybacking on the real disadvantages that intersex people face.

To be clear, trans people have found hard to have themselves considered NOT to be mentally unwell. I agree… so the gloves are off.

That is literally the difference.
Now the implications of this is huge.

I saw a maxim some time ago and I have been trying to come to a logical conclusion…

“If having genitals doesn’t prove your gender… then how does changing them affirm you gender?”

The point that’s being made is that if you believe you are a man trapped in a women’s body, and the penis and sperm don’t prove your manhood, then you cant claim that replacing it with a faux vagina helps prove in any way that you are not a man.

But while thinking about this maxim I came to a realisation about why trans people seem addicted to medical interventions.

Every single trans person is like the conman in a wheelchair. They know that at any point someone could call out the fraud. However just like that desperate conman, they “break their legs” with genital mutilation in an attempt to make the claim truthful.

The problem of course, is because this harm was self imposed. With the goal of trying to make a false claim true… it doesn’t achieve the goal.

So do they deserve sympathy or hostility?

The answer is both… you poor, stupid, crippled conman. You dunce.

To be clear the only sympathy they deserve is the kind that points out the stupidity of the self imposed harm. That’s it.