As someone who was born and raised in Bradford, I can't say I'm surprised at the developments in Birmingham.

That said, the authorities have banned them from protesting outside schools now. See where it goes when the children return after half-term. See if the police actually have the bollocks to make arrests.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48480299

It's not very hard to figure out.

Left wing views means Muslims can practice their religion within the confines of the law. But it doesn't mean they can influence their religion in education. See? Pretty simple.

I think one commentator in a British newspaper how just down the road from some of these schools you have areas where there are a good number of far-right supporters. Imagine what they'd get the schools to omit if they had their way.

Politicians aren't budging as, as they keep saying, you cant pick and choose which parts of equality legislation you choose to follow. Also, the lessons seem to merely make young children aware that same-sex couples exist, nothing about sex. So all I can assume if the protesters don't want to acknowledge that, which if so then tough.

From my understanding of your posts, you argument is not that "gender and sex are independent", but instead that "considering gender and sex to be independent is bullshit". I've been attempting to demonstrate that it is not bullshit and that your claims of independence are a bit reductive, but at the core of this, I don't want to argue about your simplistic interpretations of this image, but instead discuss why you think that the image is bullshit. I am asking you for the third or fourth time now: Make an argument.

(Now I just want to say, I don't feel that my understanding of your posts is in any way incorrect or a reach, because you are the one who called the image we are speaking about "bullshit" and then followed up by attempting to demonstrate that the image asserts that gender and sex are independent...)

As for why I won't answer your question, I don't believe that my answer would benefit this discussion, as we are not talking about my opinions on the correct labeling of trans individuals. We are talking about why that image is bullshit which, let me remind you again, you have still not actually presented an argument for beyond incredulity.

"because you are the one who called the image we are speaking about "bullshit" and then followed up by attempting to demonstrate that the image asserts that gender and sex are independent"

"And again:

Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

This includes things like how someone dresses and styles their hair. This does not include an individual's chromosomes."

as i've said previously but i suppose you missed it because it was an edit, the people behind this image do not even believe that sex itself is something that can be defined but is instead socially constructed, this article is linked to/sourced from their website

"

It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny"

https://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/

so how can you make the argument that they are saying sex and gender are related when they don't even believe sex itself is a thing anyway?

"As for why I won't answer your question, I don't believe that my answer would benefit this discussion"

the question i've asked you is pretty much the core issue being debated here, it is essentially my argument and to me your refusal to answer pretty much confirms that you see the problem yourself

"if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?"

ironically i had a similar discussion with someone else and they also refused to answer after about 3 times also, even though they were staunchly in support of this nonsense 

"We are talking about why that image is bullshit which, let me remind you again, you have still not actually presented an argument for beyond incredulity."

which is why i've asked you the question i have to clarify why i've made that argument

its interesting how you'll bend over backwards to defend this idea but you can't answer this simple question that will affirm your position on it

First of all, I haven't defended much of anything as of yet, because you have yet to actually present an argument. I don't need to defend anything if you continue to refuse to present your case for why the image is bullshit. Again, incredulity does not count as an argument.

As for that article, if you actually read beyond the headline, you would know that your representation of it is incorrect. To provide a tldr, there are a lot of factors which contribute to biological sex including but not limited to chromosomes, genitalia, hormones and secondary sex characteristics so it doesn't make sense to present "biological sex" as a binary and it certainly doesn't make sense to use that artificial binary to deny others their identity.

That said, until you actually present an argument as to why that image is "bullshit", I see no reason to further respond. I will gladly have a conversation once you present something worth responding to. If you present your argument and I feel that answering your question would contribute to the conversation, I will answer it, but this is not a conversation about my beliefs, it is a conversation about yours and I simply won't let you deflect the conversation away from that.

"you would know that your representation of it is incorrect"

you mean when i directly quoted the heading proclaiming that sex is socially constructed?

"To provide a tldr, there are a lot of factors which contribute to biological sex including but not limited to chromosomes, genitalia, hormones and secondary sex characteristics so it doesn't make sense to present "biological sex" as a binary"

even though sex is defined by the capacity to produce viable offspring?

what do you think sex means exactly?

"That said, until you actually present an argument as to why that image is "bullshit""

well if you don't agree that its stupid to make the argument that sex and gender are unrelated, what am i really supposed to do with you?

"but this is not a conversation about my beliefs"

its a conversation about the inevitable outcome of actually putting this nonsense into practice, which is that you can't actually differentiate between the genders in any logical way

your refusal to answer this

""if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?""

demonstrates that

I love all this happening!! sjw getting bitten in the a$$ by their own B$  HAHAHAHA!!! It is so funny.

The good thing about this is that it can open the path in the near future for "non protegees" to have a voice and not be considered promoters of Hate speech.

⚠️ WARNED: Trolling ~ CGI

He might be referring to the "other genders" part of that graphic, teaching this to kids is at the same level as teaching kids other fantasy tales like religions.

Images like this are used to explain individual differences, not make a point about the unicorn. Overall, it is really just expressing that all of these concepts are not equal to each other, and that individuals vary on a sort of sliding scale on how they relate to each of these concepts.

I generally prefer a visual like the one below which shows these things as one sliding scale instead of multiple arrows, but they both have their own strengths and weaknesses (Namely, I think this is generally considered to be less accurate, but I find it to be a lot more easily understood).