>you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me Not at all, I promise. If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely becaus

>you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me Not at all, I promise. If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :) >But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else. I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al. >They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people. I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.