Bard spotting on Bluesky 03 January 2025

Where was this published? And might I write a rebuttal for The Friendly Atheist?

Hemant Mehta (@friendlyatheist.com):

The Spectator. Right now, I may hold off on publishing more, but if you write anything, I'd love to see it!

Brynn Tannehill (@brynntannehill.bsky.social):

Thanks! Short version: Dawkins fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be trans. Trans women are women doesn't mean that we are identical to cisgender women, only that we should be treated as our ID'd gender for nearly all legal purposes.

That's it.

Brynn Tannehill (@brynntannehill.bsky.social):

It's not a religion, because if it was we'd have WAY more legal protections. Frankly, we should make it a religion just to make court cases targeting us a bit spicier.

The other part is that it's a "fad". No more so than being LGB. It's just that tolerance and awareness has increased.

SE Gyges (@segyges.bsky.social):

legally being a religion might be beneficial tbh

Ms. Penny Oaken, SkyWitch (@skywitches.net):

The government & the courts would treat "trans women are women as a religious tenet" exactly as seriously as they take challenges to "In God We Trust" and the recognition of Wicca as a religion. They already sidestep Judaic religious challenges to abortion care