I think there is more to the word choice of Conservative rhetoric that is more insidious than I think we give creedence. It underlies a misconception spread through the right wing that trans people veiw their situation as primarily metaphysical. Like we have an essence or soul that is at odds with our physical bodies. When they talk about “gender ideology” they aren’t talking about theory - they are talking religion. They took the slogans used to reduce a fairly complex situation into an understandable entry point for people who do not experience anything like transness and elaborate that into the entirety of the stance.

"Trans women are women… " and “X living in an X body” are examples of this at work. They take this as it’s most literal interpretation. “trans women are” becomes That trans people believe that they are physically indistinguishable from their cis counterparts - they render this as a delusion rather than the reality - that trans people are reacting to their physically observae original sexual phenotype and are utilizing social engineering to not be reminded of their physical bodies all the damn time.

The warped lens creates a concept of transness that most people would find completely wackadoo because it isn’t based on anything solid. The average cis person does not experience an innate internal gender preference. For example a cis man of this type does not specifically ride or die on riding around in the body of a man. He might care about being perceived as attractive or fulfilling his cultural role as one thereby smoothing his way through society and social expectation but if he were asked how he would feel if he woke up in the body of woman there’s not a reaction of horror or loss. Perhaps there’s a reaction of novelty and curiousity but not that this is a change of self. There is a flexibility present there which trans people and a minorty of cis people lack. Appealing to the typical cis man’s internal sense of “maness” isn’t going to work. That’s applying an incompatible trans person’s framework to a cis person’s experience and the two do not resemble each other closely enough.

Since this vast majority do not ascribe value to the sexual dymorphic aspects of their bodies and have zero reference point of any internalized preference misrepresenting a very reliable innate reaction to perceivable stimuli as a delusion or a religion has been an incredibly useful tactic and when someone uses the term “gender ideology” it is worthwhile stopping them and asking what they actually mean and combat this misconception directly.

Oh no they think we’re cute! Nobody move! Give them space to recover!!!

The flagrant misgendering throughout the piece, the lack of any quote or attempt to get a statement from the trans person in question, the use of “biological male”, the quotation marks around “inclusive”, the published unsubstantiated rumors about a person’s potential personal family planning choices with over the top medicalized languaged like “inseminate”… This piece is the most hateful thing I have read in a minute and even the BBC, that shithole of anti trans reporting should be fucking ashamed at how flagrant the transphobia is.

Leonardo.

I have a long held theory based on the history of the Mona Lisa (Being recognized as a genderswapped self portrait he literally entitled “the Happy one” carried around by the artist and gifted to his gay lover after death) that the artist was trans.

I would absolutely love to potentially verify this because the idea that one of the most famous paintings in the world has been a trans gender affirming portrait in plain sight of art historians this whole time with nobody cluing in and writing a proper paper about it - is just kind of the best.