This probably won’t be popular but it is true nonetheless.
What has happened is that people, on the both the right and the left, bring up legitimate concerns with regards to gender diversity issues. They’re concerned that we might be going overboard with preferential hiring, they have concerns about men and women’s showers and the like, and while there are often answers and discussions to be had around these issues even if you don’t agree with them they are legitimate
But instead of treating them like legitimate issues and engaging with people that have these concerns unfortunately the transgender advocate community and many on the left have lashed out and basically called anybody who has questions about any of this transphobic scum who need to be locked up and should be disposed of and silence and any other nasty names they can think of.
This tends to polarize these positions and people start feeling attacked and they tend to move into the anti-transgender camp. A child is banned from a school just for saying he believes there’s two genders 100 parents out there start thinking the things have gone too far and if they see a chance they’ll oppose this
Then you wind up with two sides. And there’s never any discussion between two sides, it’s just us versus them and them versus us.
And once that takes hold it’s really hard to beat. Unfortunately transgender rights issues got handled very poorly in the last six or seven years and now there’s growing opposition that’s not being driven by rational concerns but rather tribalism
It’s true that that is your opinion. It reflects on you and your subjective experiences, perceptions, and interpretations; not on reality. Introducing an opinion as “it’s true” can come across pretty closed-minded.
It’s my opinion that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow. You can argue that it’s not a fact, but I wouldn’t be betting any money against it 😉 Does that make me arrogant?
Truth is rarely absolute. If you think that it’s not true or if you think that additional contacts or information is necessary then by all means present your case.
Of course I’ve had personal experience of it, but to base my statement on one person’s soul experience would probably not be very valuable. However on a larger scale we can certainly see it in action as well. And you can follow the progression as people become less and less tolerant in the light of more and more radical demands.
One person’s experience is always interesting but the broader picture certainly is what is important
There arent “two sides” to accepting the existence of a group of people
There is acceptance and there isnt. You dont get to say people who dont believe that trans people exist have some kind of valid argument.
You wouldnt say this shit about the civil rights movement
This is a human rights issue. Trans rights are human rights. If you dont think that you shouldn’t be participating in a discussion about trans inclusion.
There’s always two sides. Nothing is ever black and white. Acceptance does not mean Every element of the demand must be addressed unquestioningly. Nor does questioning elements of their demands represent a lack of acceptance to their existence.
I absolutely would say the shit about the civil rights movement. In fact I do. For example people demanding reparations for black americans to make up for slavery that happened generations ago is not something I believe in. That doesn’t mean I am claiming slaves didn’t exist or that black people don’t have issues today or that there shouldn’t be actions that address those issues.
Waving around the term human rights issue doesn’t change anything. It is common for human rights to conflict. When one person’s rights butt up against somebody else’s rights Then generally speaking a conversation is had to look at solutions that minimize the impact of both people. It is absolutely not the case and it is extremely repressive to simply pretend that one group’s rights don’t exist in order to favor another group’s rights and that’s just simple logic.
So pretending that nobody else has a valid opinion and should shut up is the kind of thing that has led to this blowback where people are saying “If it’s a question of one set of rights or the other and there’s no compromise then I would rather it be my rights that exist and not theirs”. That is not a good way to proceed.
You’re replacing to be “I can’t think of a logical counter argument therefore I’m going to create an argument he didn’t make and fight against that”.
Can you point to anywhere that I said people have a right to deny a group of people public existence"? No? I never said that? Well how interesting 😂
And I wonder if you would extend that same line of thinking to Nazis or cultures that believed in slavery.
What I said was that it is common for people’s rights to conflict. This is the so-called can’t shout fire in a theater concept, although that specific example is a bad one and has been disproven.
In other words Someone’s right to free speech does not eradicate someone else’s right to safety. So when that happens we have to look at solutions that create the least amount of offense to people’s rights.
You seem to be struggling with this concept. You seem to be claiming that One group’s rights are absolute and any other rights must be ignored or else people have been denied the right to exist or something.
Sorry buddy but you’re the one who’s spouting nonsense that doesn’t exist in the real world.
No, I’m not saying anything remotely close to that and you’re completely making that up because you can’t address the point.
Pointing out the two sets of rights conflict doesn’t mean that one side does or doesn’t support the other
And yes you absolutely have a right not to like gender diversity. That is absolutely every person’s right. You have the absolute god-given right not to like anything, you don’t have to like puppies if you don’t want to. Who told you you didn’t have the right to decide what you do and don’t like?
But we’re not discussing what people like. We’re discussing people’s rights. And rights are not absolute. And if someone’s gender rights conflict with someone else’s rights to something then there’s going to have to be a solution that minimizes the impact of BOTH parties rights and that’s jus the way it is.
And stop making up fake arguments just cuz you can’t deal with the actual argument
What “two sets of rights” are you addressing then? What “both sides” is there to gender acceptance?
Rhetorical question by the way. There are no valid “sides” to bigotry.
The only fake argument here is pretending that GSRM people existing and being accepted has valid opposition and acting like this is some “left vs right” issue and not a bare minimum human rights argument that has no valid opposition that isnt rooted at its core in ignorance and/or bigotry
Some arguments dont get to be a BoTh SiDeS game
I would genuinely ask you what actual valid argument you believe exists in opposition to GSRM acceptance but I dont believe in platforming fallacious or bigoted opinions as somehow equivalent to fact and the FACTS are: LGBTQ+/GSRM people exist, have always existed, did not choose to be who they are, and have a right to exist same as anyone else regardless of prejudice
Extremists always demand things go their way or they threaten harm of one kind or another. The left has tyrannical extremists who do not compromise or converse and the left adamantly refuses to acknowledge they exist nevermind disavow them, possibly partly due to that harm being threatened upon them if they do. The right extremists are called out and vilified constantly and right refuses to disavow them too.
Power is power, however it is formed, if it is used to compel compliance, it is tyranny. Extremists being accepted in both sides are pulling in opposite directions and tearing the center. The center needs to form a cohesive leadership and pull support from both sides to starve these extremists of the audience they need to exist. Disavow them and kick them out. If the left can’t even admit their extremists exist, the right has no reason to disavow their crazies.
It is a problem with the left and arguably society in general that we are slower to acknowledge the dangers and horrors of left wing extremism then we are with right wing. Some estimates put Stallings killings at around 20 million. Left Wing radicalism has killed more people the right-wing radicalism
I don’t even know if it’s about forming a center, I think we should try and be promoting the idea that there is no difference between right-wing or left-wing radicalism and that all radicalism should be regarded in the same light.
That’s arguably true from one point of view and I can see why you’re saying that. I guess what I’m saying is I feel like it should be more ubiquitous to both right and left thinking. For example both right and the left generally speaking can agree that murder is bad even if we don’t agree on what we should do with murderers. Some things are outside of the realm of left and right.
I think is a society we should come to an agreement that certain extremism whether it’s left or right is horrible and wrong. And there was a time when that was a generally accepted belief. “I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it”. etc etc.
When I was a younger person there was a great deal more belief in the idea that repressing speech or repressing people or groups or any sort of authoritarian Behavior be it on the right or the left was unacceptable and would like to see that pervasively agreed on by both sides of the spectrum again.
The Hallmark of a free and successful society is its ability to be tolerant of multiple and often conflicting ideology and still find a way to work together on those things we agree on.
This probably won’t be popular but it is true nonetheless.
What has happened is that people, on the both the right and the left, bring up legitimate concerns with regards to gender diversity issues. They’re concerned that we might be going overboard with preferential hiring, they have concerns about men and women’s showers and the like, and while there are often answers and discussions to be had around these issues even if you don’t agree with them they are legitimate
But instead of treating them like legitimate issues and engaging with people that have these concerns unfortunately the transgender advocate community and many on the left have lashed out and basically called anybody who has questions about any of this transphobic scum who need to be locked up and should be disposed of and silence and any other nasty names they can think of.
This tends to polarize these positions and people start feeling attacked and they tend to move into the anti-transgender camp. A child is banned from a school just for saying he believes there’s two genders 100 parents out there start thinking the things have gone too far and if they see a chance they’ll oppose this
Then you wind up with two sides. And there’s never any discussion between two sides, it’s just us versus them and them versus us.
And once that takes hold it’s really hard to beat. Unfortunately transgender rights issues got handled very poorly in the last six or seven years and now there’s growing opposition that’s not being driven by rational concerns but rather tribalism
It’s true that that is your opinion. It reflects on you and your subjective experiences, perceptions, and interpretations; not on reality. Introducing an opinion as “it’s true” can come across pretty closed-minded.
It’s my opinion that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow. You can argue that it’s not a fact, but I wouldn’t be betting any money against it 😉 Does that make me arrogant?
Truth is rarely absolute. If you think that it’s not true or if you think that additional contacts or information is necessary then by all means present your case.
It’s true.
Have you had actual experience of this or is it something you read about?
Of course I’ve had personal experience of it, but to base my statement on one person’s soul experience would probably not be very valuable. However on a larger scale we can certainly see it in action as well. And you can follow the progression as people become less and less tolerant in the light of more and more radical demands.
One person’s experience is always interesting but the broader picture certainly is what is important
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
There arent “two sides” to accepting the existence of a group of people
There is acceptance and there isnt. You dont get to say people who dont believe that trans people exist have some kind of valid argument.
You wouldnt say this shit about the civil rights movement
This is a human rights issue. Trans rights are human rights. If you dont think that you shouldn’t be participating in a discussion about trans inclusion.
There’s always two sides. Nothing is ever black and white. Acceptance does not mean Every element of the demand must be addressed unquestioningly. Nor does questioning elements of their demands represent a lack of acceptance to their existence.
I absolutely would say the shit about the civil rights movement. In fact I do. For example people demanding reparations for black americans to make up for slavery that happened generations ago is not something I believe in. That doesn’t mean I am claiming slaves didn’t exist or that black people don’t have issues today or that there shouldn’t be actions that address those issues.
Waving around the term human rights issue doesn’t change anything. It is common for human rights to conflict. When one person’s rights butt up against somebody else’s rights Then generally speaking a conversation is had to look at solutions that minimize the impact of both people. It is absolutely not the case and it is extremely repressive to simply pretend that one group’s rights don’t exist in order to favor another group’s rights and that’s just simple logic.
So pretending that nobody else has a valid opinion and should shut up is the kind of thing that has led to this blowback where people are saying “If it’s a question of one set of rights or the other and there’s no compromise then I would rather it be my rights that exist and not theirs”. That is not a good way to proceed.
This is a minefield of a comment that is way above my pay grade…
You dont have a “right” to deny a group of people public existence. You never did. That isnt how any of that works.
You’re replacing to be “I can’t think of a logical counter argument therefore I’m going to create an argument he didn’t make and fight against that”.
Can you point to anywhere that I said people have a right to deny a group of people public existence"? No? I never said that? Well how interesting 😂
And I wonder if you would extend that same line of thinking to Nazis or cultures that believed in slavery.
What I said was that it is common for people’s rights to conflict. This is the so-called can’t shout fire in a theater concept, although that specific example is a bad one and has been disproven.
In other words Someone’s right to free speech does not eradicate someone else’s right to safety. So when that happens we have to look at solutions that create the least amount of offense to people’s rights.
You seem to be struggling with this concept. You seem to be claiming that One group’s rights are absolute and any other rights must be ignored or else people have been denied the right to exist or something.
Sorry buddy but you’re the one who’s spouting nonsense that doesn’t exist in the real world.
When you say “someones rights to conflict” you’re saying someone has a right to not support gender diversity in this context
Im not engaging with that and you dont have a “right” to not like gender diversity
There is no “both sides” to accepting LGBTQ+ people
No, I’m not saying anything remotely close to that and you’re completely making that up because you can’t address the point. Pointing out the two sets of rights conflict doesn’t mean that one side does or doesn’t support the other
And yes you absolutely have a right not to like gender diversity. That is absolutely every person’s right. You have the absolute god-given right not to like anything, you don’t have to like puppies if you don’t want to. Who told you you didn’t have the right to decide what you do and don’t like?
But we’re not discussing what people like. We’re discussing people’s rights. And rights are not absolute. And if someone’s gender rights conflict with someone else’s rights to something then there’s going to have to be a solution that minimizes the impact of BOTH parties rights and that’s jus the way it is.
And stop making up fake arguments just cuz you can’t deal with the actual argument
What “two sets of rights” are you addressing then? What “both sides” is there to gender acceptance?
Rhetorical question by the way. There are no valid “sides” to bigotry.
The only fake argument here is pretending that GSRM people existing and being accepted has valid opposition and acting like this is some “left vs right” issue and not a bare minimum human rights argument that has no valid opposition that isnt rooted at its core in ignorance and/or bigotry
Some arguments dont get to be a BoTh SiDeS game
I would genuinely ask you what actual valid argument you believe exists in opposition to GSRM acceptance but I dont believe in platforming fallacious or bigoted opinions as somehow equivalent to fact and the FACTS are: LGBTQ+/GSRM people exist, have always existed, did not choose to be who they are, and have a right to exist same as anyone else regardless of prejudice
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
You are criticizing their language, not their argument.
No, im criticizing their argument. You dont get to say trans acceptance is a “both sides” issue full stop.
No, your criticizing their language AND straw manning them. You don’t get to put words in other people’s mouths full stop.
Extremists always demand things go their way or they threaten harm of one kind or another. The left has tyrannical extremists who do not compromise or converse and the left adamantly refuses to acknowledge they exist nevermind disavow them, possibly partly due to that harm being threatened upon them if they do. The right extremists are called out and vilified constantly and right refuses to disavow them too.
Power is power, however it is formed, if it is used to compel compliance, it is tyranny. Extremists being accepted in both sides are pulling in opposite directions and tearing the center. The center needs to form a cohesive leadership and pull support from both sides to starve these extremists of the audience they need to exist. Disavow them and kick them out. If the left can’t even admit their extremists exist, the right has no reason to disavow their crazies.
It is a problem with the left and arguably society in general that we are slower to acknowledge the dangers and horrors of left wing extremism then we are with right wing. Some estimates put Stallings killings at around 20 million. Left Wing radicalism has killed more people the right-wing radicalism
I don’t even know if it’s about forming a center, I think we should try and be promoting the idea that there is no difference between right-wing or left-wing radicalism and that all radicalism should be regarded in the same light.
That belief sits squarely in the center, the furthest point from both extremes, it is the center.
That’s arguably true from one point of view and I can see why you’re saying that. I guess what I’m saying is I feel like it should be more ubiquitous to both right and left thinking. For example both right and the left generally speaking can agree that murder is bad even if we don’t agree on what we should do with murderers. Some things are outside of the realm of left and right.
I think is a society we should come to an agreement that certain extremism whether it’s left or right is horrible and wrong. And there was a time when that was a generally accepted belief. “I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it”. etc etc.
When I was a younger person there was a great deal more belief in the idea that repressing speech or repressing people or groups or any sort of authoritarian Behavior be it on the right or the left was unacceptable and would like to see that pervasively agreed on by both sides of the spectrum again.
The Hallmark of a free and successful society is its ability to be tolerant of multiple and often conflicting ideology and still find a way to work together on those things we agree on.