There are NO transgender people. If “transgender” denotes the transition from male to female or vice-versa, it relates to fact less than does “unicorn.” There is NO sex change; such a transition NEVER occurs in humans. The misnomer “sex-reassignment” signifies only a transition to NEUTER, to ex-men and ex-women deprived of their reproductive systems. Nor is “self-identification” any more efficacious. Identifying and even believing one is a member of the opposite sex doesn’t make one so, any more than Emperor Norton’s believing he was Emperor of California made him so.
https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/the-transgender-myth-part-i
https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/the-transgender-myth-part-ii
https://theeuropeanfamily.com/f/the-ultimate-abuse-of-a-european-child

I prefer the term “transvestite” to denote pre-op delusionals, sufferers of gender dysphoria; and “neuters” to denote post-ops.

“Biologically male” is redundant and implies there’s another kind of male. There are no other kinds. Maleness and femaleness (NOT identical to masculinity and femininity) relate to reproduction, which is biological. When I discuss, say, the invasion of males into women’s sports, I never use the customary “biological males” but simply “males.”

My point is that we should avoid using the language of the peddlers and consumers of lunacy, because doing so seems to imply endorsement thereof.

As for the idea of Pakis and Somalis and other non-NON-British being Brits because they’re physically in Britain, it’s of course a lie of the anti-Whites. Hell, how many times have I had Spaghetti al Pomodoro in London restaurants? Does that mean spaghetti are an English dish?