No, I'm not quite arguing for this. I'm saying that we're all neither 100% masculine or 100% feminine (not male nor female). So I think greater acceptance of feminine males and masculine females is not only healthy, but important.

Indeed, I suspect this would help do away with a lot of the angst of gender dysphoria immediately.

But this wouldn't have anything to do with the realities of sex-based (male and female) violence. And the need to recognise that the immutable reality of sex has to be taken seriously when talking about female safety. Being able to say what a woman is, is obviously an essential step in figuring out how to protect women's rights and safety.

So while I agree in principle that taking a 100% all or nothing view on anything is a bad idea, objective reality tends to be fairly absolutist. It's very difficult (and arguably dangerous) to build working policy around people's subjective feelings.

I mean, for example, if a guy sees a woman and thinks she’s the most beautiful human he’s ever seen and falls deeply in love with her, he will be hurt if she rejects him. But we don’t say that she should safeguard his feelings to her own detriment. She has every right to reject him, no matter how much it might hurt his feelings. Because we recognise that we should rule 100% in her direction when it comes to her autonomy and comfort.

We're adults here. Sometimes the world doesn't work the way we want. If we can't handle that, frankly, we're dangerous.