1) Isn't the whole trans movement about allowing/accepting people to transition as they please ?
Ideally, every person is allowed to express any gendered trait or behavior they please without any negative consequence; ie. there is no pressure to conform to any kind of stereotype whatsoever. So the decision to transition is entirely up to the individual.
So I find it strange that you would like my ideology as one that forces people to medically transition and take cross-sexed hormones....even from as young as puberty...that sort of thinking comes from the very left.
The "solution" might come from the left, but the solution exists to solve the problem created by people (mostly) on the right. If people stopped feeling that there was anything wrong with people expressing any kind of gendered trait or behavior, then people could just be themselves and medical transitions would likely decline.
Many trans people feel forced to medically transition because it's the only way they can pass as cisgender men or women and avoid becoming the targets of the discrimination and violence coming from "your" ideology. Only people who believe that "men should be men, and women should be women" engage in discrimination and violence toward gender-nonconforming people, and most of those people are on the right. This is the category I'd probably fall into. Since I have no way to defend myself from bigots, I feel extremely unsafe walking around as a non-passing trans person. So unsafe that I'm often afraid to leave my house unless I pass as a cis man.
Ofc, since many trans people also believe that "men should be men, and women should be women", many more transition because it is in line with their own beliefs; they can't feel like "real" men or women unless they conform anatomically. And many people in the medical community support this position as well.
There are other reasons to transition, and I support everyone's decision to transition, regardless of the reason, so long as they are doing it because it's what they want and not because they feel forced to do it to legitimize themselves. Legitimacy is an artifact of the belief in the existence of two distinct genders, which I do not believe in. Nothing I do is going to make me more or less legitimate, because I am already fully legitimate exactly as I am.
2) I guess you and I have different ideas on segregation. I think you see it as "back of the bus" extremism. But all I am talking about is the Freedom to have a men's only, women's only, black's only, Chinese only, Latino etc.... clubs or activities whatever have you...without the constant fear of being called an --ist.
One of the main reasons clubs like these were pressured to change was because "old boys' clubs" allowed white men to exchange favors and business advantages in informal settings that gave them an unfair advantage over women and minorities; ie. it kept white men in power at the expense of everyone else. There's no need for white men to invade womens' spaces, or minority spaces, if women and minorities have nothing to give them, so the invasion is obviously going to be unilateral.
If we can celebrate our diversity of races and cultures...why can't we celebrate the masculine and the feminine.
I'm all for celebrating masculinity and femininity. I see nothing wrong with either, even when pushed to their absolute extremes. Everyone should be allowed to enjoy and celebrate whatever gender expression they prefer.
What people cannot do is assume that people who express themselves in gender-nonconforming ways are somehow abnormal or inferior. They are not. As long as everyone understands that "traditional" and "hyper" masculinity and femininity are mere aesthetic preferences, I don't see any problem with celebrating them. Just like I don't see any problem with people celebrating their love of anime or videogames or punk or vintage cars. These are all merely things which give people pleasure.
Imo, the gender dimorphism that people fight so hard to protect is just another sexual kink. People are certainly entitled to enjoy their sexual preferences. What they can't do is force everyone else to participate in their lifestyle. Many people don't enjoy that kink.
You can't really have a masculine focused activity in a gender pleural/neutral atmosphere anymore than you can have a black history activity in a multiracial atmosphere.
Can you imagine a Miss America pageant with half the contestants being trans, or very gender non-conforming ? If the pageant loses its focus on femininity it stops being a pageant.
They could call these "femininity pageants", and have them celebrate femininity, but then, most of the contestants would probably be trans anyway.
The problem here is that you want to restrict the celebration of feminine traits and behaviors to people who are genetically female. But it is not at all abnormal, and indeed very common, for genetic males to have and prefer at least some feminine traits and for genetic females to have and prefer (even more*) masculine traits.
* Even more because masculine traits are more often considered positive in our culture and feminine traits more often considered negative. This being the main reason so many men are fine with the stereotypes and so many women hate them.
Gay bars are designed differently from straight bars, a latino bar is different from a chinese bar.
I cannot go to a chinese restaurant and demand non-chinese food for the sake of diversity.
I will never understand how some on the far left demand we accept all sorts of diversity whilst simultaneously pretending that there are no differences between the various groups.
I only recognize differences between individual, biological entities. Groups are artificial, conceptual constructs.
The groups only exist because people have noticed differences between individuals and put everyone with this
particular trait into this
particular group and everyone with that
particular trait into that
particular group. If there were no differences to select between, there would be no groups, because there would be no basis for selection.
Example: The group "men" is obviously different from the group "women" because we have noticed differences between individuals and decided that everyone with (for example) a penis goes in the "men" group and everyone with a vagina goes in the "women" group.
The problem with a binary gender system is that it is an extremely low-resolution model of human diversity. The highest resolution model is recognizing every person as a unique individual, with their own unique sexual fingerprint; the lowest resolution (and therefore, the least-useful) model is diving everyone into one of two groups. The more you divide people into smaller and smaller groups based on distinctions, the higher the resolution of your model is, and the more intelligently and accurately you can talk about the differences between people; which is why there has been a sudden influx of "new" genders. (The distinctions have always existed, we're merely recognizing and classifying them now.)
For some reason, many people prefer the simplest and least-accurate (binary) model (probably because it makes life simple for them). Insisting on a binary system is like insisting we only use red and green to talk about color. It makes having intelligent conversations about the phenomenon of color all but impossible; people will get bogged down in discussions about whether yellow is "really" red or green. Likewise, insisting on two genders makes having intelligent conversations about human sexual diversity all but impossible.
For example....the trans movement demanding gender neutral bathrooms...and refusing to understand why a cis-gendered woman would be uncomfortable with the idea.
Make all bathrooms gender-neutral, single-occupancy. Simple change in building codes. Problem solved.
Or LGBTQ groups demanding that churches marry them, instead of just marrying in courts where religious beliefs play no part.
Or insisting that the race/gender/sexuality of actors don't matter...whilst insisting on recasting white/straight/cis/male roles by minorities
I don't actually like recasting characters. But that's because I think it's lazy and patronizing. I don't want second-hand characters; I want new, original characters. I understand that, from a financial perspective, that's unlikely to happen, and that recasting is a less than satisfying compromise.
I satisfy my craving for diversity by having diverse characters in my own stories.