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
And your comment is trying to “both sides” gender acceptance that is what this entire post is about
You’re acting like gender acceptance is a binary thing. Either you accept all of it or none of it. Sorry but that’s not the real world.
In the real world people can say that they support the right and transgender people to exist and live their lives happily and freely and still not agree with them being allowed in women’s sports. That is a perfectly valid argument to make whether you agree with that argument or not. And it doesn’t mean that the person doesn’t believe in transgender or gender diversity you just means that there are elements of it but they have issues with that conflict with the rights of other people
Sorry but you’re just 100% wrong and you’re letting your bias and hatred guide your thinking. And that’s what’s creating the backlash against transgenderism. Your style of intolerance and absolutism eliminates the possibility of having an intelligent and respectful conversation about the issues. And that’s not healthy
And look at your hate-filled response. “I would ask you to talk about what you mean but i’ve already decided to hate you and ANYTHING you could possibly say”. What the hell is that? Is that really the person you want to be?
When you absolutely force people to agree with you 100% or insist that they are scum that need to be eliminated which is what you’ve done here then the majority of people are going to choose that they’re not scum and don’t want to be eliminated and if it’s US versus them then it’s the trans that have to go
And that’s what we’re seeing play out now and it’s absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous. You’re spreading hatred being like that. Don’t do it.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
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
And your comment is trying to “both sides” gender acceptance that is what this entire post is about
You’re acting like gender acceptance is a binary thing. Either you accept all of it or none of it. Sorry but that’s not the real world.
In the real world people can say that they support the right and transgender people to exist and live their lives happily and freely and still not agree with them being allowed in women’s sports. That is a perfectly valid argument to make whether you agree with that argument or not. And it doesn’t mean that the person doesn’t believe in transgender or gender diversity you just means that there are elements of it but they have issues with that conflict with the rights of other people
Sorry but you’re just 100% wrong and you’re letting your bias and hatred guide your thinking. And that’s what’s creating the backlash against transgenderism. Your style of intolerance and absolutism eliminates the possibility of having an intelligent and respectful conversation about the issues. And that’s not healthy
And look at your hate-filled response. “I would ask you to talk about what you mean but i’ve already decided to hate you and ANYTHING you could possibly say”. What the hell is that? Is that really the person you want to be?
When you absolutely force people to agree with you 100% or insist that they are scum that need to be eliminated which is what you’ve done here then the majority of people are going to choose that they’re not scum and don’t want to be eliminated and if it’s US versus them then it’s the trans that have to go
And that’s what we’re seeing play out now and it’s absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous. You’re spreading hatred being like that. Don’t do it.
“Transgenderism” huh…
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
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.