Transphobia ?

Do worms have genders? Who thought of that, and why? But oookaay, curiosity is a good thing. Question everything, learn something new every day. I went looking on google to try to understand the "Rowling transphobia" discussion. I've known gay people both male and female; I've known men and women. I had an interesting discussion outside a mall public restroom with an apparent male in female garb. She seemed uninsulted when I asked my ignorant questions, and I answered when she asked me what I was waiting for. It seems people are labeling themselves, beyond transgender (gender dysphoria?) to include genderless and intersex (not even including hermaphrodite and similar in this discussion). Nowhere have I seen anything that says someone without a uterus can menstruate nor that a 'person who menstruates' is not a woman. That does not mean that all women menstruate. A transman would have a difficult mind fuch every month until that thing is removed (or he ages out) I guess, but he would present publicly as male, yes? The transwoman would be a non-menstruating woman, like any other non-menstruating woman. I am all for 'inclusive' but who is excluded from the 'menstruate' club, except non-uterus or too young/old, or surgically altered people? That covers a lot of us. And only 'people who menstruate' (women) and their room-mates are interested in whatever monthly challenges are being discussed. I do not understand why there's such an uproar insisting 'people who menstruate' instead of 'woman' is somehow more inclusive, which is what I understood Rowling to say. (Hmm, that looks backwards in text -- Rowling said 'woman' is the right word.) Why the discontent? Anyone? NOTE 11/20/2021 Recent explanatory source. I've just recently became aware of 'TERF' derogatorily used about the writer. Does that mean I'm a trans-exclusionary radical feminist because I asked these questions? I don't think I am exclusionary nor radical. Being equal (which everyone should be) does not mean having special rights; does not mean you should be 'protected' from inquiry.  

And, as long as we're on this discussion, we need pronouns. We can't go around saying "I was talking to Char the other day and ..." [pronoun here] "said...". I have seen suggested 'they/them', but that refers to more than one, and sorry Char, you are one person. Now imagine the name is some great long multi-syllable thing that you can't abbreviate to a nickname. I've seen suggested 'it' which in my mind is not only genderless, it is lifeless -- we use it for wheel barrows, ropes, tongs, and other inanimate objects. Many of us don't even refer to other animals as 'it'. And what about the French? They gender inanimate objects -- houses and flags, strictly binary so far. I'm sure they could come up with Lo, Lu or something but Le and La are all they have to work with right now. I think those who object to being either he or she should come up with a suitable pronoun for themselves that we can all understand and accept. Most do not object if you want to be referred to differently but saying 'they' at [pronoun here] indicates another has entered the story, where using 'it' is horribly impersonal, at best. The selected pronoun must be easy to spell for writing and distinctive in sound enough so that 'hir' for instance is not confused with 'her' when speaking. The relatively new (to me anyway) 'cisgender' label at least keeps the familiar pronouns. English is bad enough as it stands now -- They're going over there to their home where they will lounge on the red blanket to read an article she had read earlier, and to have two drinks, too. -- Let's don't make it even worse. 

Oh, and none of it is a sin. None of it needs "fixing". That's just silly.

Comments, ideas, suggestions?