Is Transanity Now the Orthodoxy?

I don't know anything about this site though Bing seems to like it:

Factually.co

   I had a discussion with a student the other day, and he--like many progressives--adamantly denied that anyone really believes that "Trans women are women" is literally true. Again, like many progressives, he insisted that it's just politeness to pretend that a man is a woman if he wants you to. I assured him that many people really do believe it...but he basically wouldn't believe me. Which...is good in a way, I suppose. It's a sign that he really does understand how insane the view is.

   Now, there is absolutely no doubt about it, the orthodoxy on the vanguard of the left is that "trans women" actually are women. They mean it literally and believe that it's true. And it's certainly the orthodoxy among feminist "theorists" and feminist philosophers. I have one friend who I know actually believes it. She isn't wild-eyed nor dogmatic about it--but she really, actually does believe it.

   This is one of the ways that insane views like this survive on the left: some lefties take them literally, but others don't--and the latter group either doesn't realize or doesn't care that many of their coreligionists actually believe the crazy thing. This is probably true of "reality is socially constructed," for example...

   Incidentally I've long predicted that, if this madness completely fades away--which I no longer think is guaranteed--the left will need a cover story. Stories plural, actually (for reasons I won't go into now.) And one they'll use is this one. Why...we never actually believed it!...

   Anyway, the craziest thing about the article (entry?) at the inaptly-named "Factually" is that it treats loony leftist gender theory as the orthodoxy and the normal, sane, view-from-the-beginning-of-time as heterodox dissent:

Is a Transgender Woman Really a Woman?

Here's the conclusory paragraph:

Based on the reporting and authoritative sources surveyed, the prevailing definitions used by medical organizations, major dictionaries and LGBTQ advocacy groups identify trans women as women — that is the standard factual position across those sources.... There exists a coherent and substantial opposing viewpoint that defines “woman” by biological sex rather than gender identity, and that disagreement is a political and philosophical reality reflected in public debate...This analysis is limited to the provided sources and does not adjudicate philosophical questions about the nature of sex or gender beyond reporting how institutions and commentators define and use the term (reporting limitations: no original empirical research cited here beyond source definitions).

What this should really say is:

No, of course not. But the orthodoxy among lefty groups, especially gay, lesbian, etc. groups, is that the answer is yes. And many medical organizations have been ideologically captured in the last decade, and rewrote their definitions. But rewriting definitions doesn't change facts. Why do we have to say this?

   Of course the natural guess here is that "Factually" is ideologically captured--just like Wikipedia, Snopes, FactCheck.com, the media, etc. Maybe I'll check it out sometime. I quickly asked it:

Did Trump call Nazi's very fine people?

It delivered the following equivocal and semi-correct answer:

Executive summary

Donald Trump uttered the phrase “very fine people on both sides” during a tumultuous Aug. 15, 2017 news conference about the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally; the full transcript shows he also said he was not referring to neo‑Nazis and white nationalists and that they “should be condemned totally” . Many news organizations and critics interpreted the remark as morally equivocating the violent extremists with counterprotesters, a reading that shaped public outrage and sustained debate.

1. The exact words on the record

The primary source is the transcript of Trump’s Aug. 15, 2017 remarks: after being pressed by reporters, Trump said, “you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both

The first para is probably AI-generated. At least it does get the facts in there--but then, of course, makes a dishonest excuse for the liars. Section 1 then does exactly what the (other) liars do: quotes only the first part of what Trump said. It would be interesting to know what this site said before last year when Snopes was forced to admit the truth...

   See me not commenting on the misuse of the term 'equivocate'? I think I'm growing as a person.

   Anyway: yeah. It'd be some kind of miracle if a site like this weren't biased to the left.

   Oh, also: it lists the entry about "trans" "women" in its "society" section rather than its science section. That seems at least somewhat significant...