7 ms·

> The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. This is simply your skewed view and not how many people rea

> The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, not because she was/is a woman. That's the joke. USA Today itself probably doesn't care if she is or isn't a woman, the award was issued to get engagement. > I don't know why this is framed as progressives shutting down the debate on the topic. Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.) > It denies the very existence of someone like Levine. This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different. > You are free to continue debating whether trans women and cis women have the same experience or whatever, but neither the USA Today or the Babylon Bee was making a statement in that debate. Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics.

slg 4y ago
>This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine. >Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.) You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. What concession can a progressive hope to accomplish debating someone who believes that sex and gender are the same and binary? >This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different. Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. They just want to live their life how they see fit. A trans person choice's don't impact you any more than a gay person's choice. Just leave them all alone and mind your own business. >Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics. This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. There is no reason to exclude trans women from this type of award.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. Isn't the compromise position to tolerate everybody's own personal words and definitions? That certainly used to be the progressive position, at least up to about a decade ago.
  - slg 4y ago
    Your "own personal words and definitions" don't matter. That is inconsequential to most trans people's live. What does impact them is the government. What definitions will they use?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      The thread is about private people and groups speaking to one another, that is what my comment pertains to.
      - slg 4y ago
        I don’t understand your point then. If the Babylon Bee can use their own definitions, so can Twitter. What grounds does that leave to object to a suspension based off Twitter’s definition?
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        I don't understand how your question relates to my point. The compromise position is that you tolerate people's personal definitions and words, e.g., you would not demand they be punished for having or using them. I'm not saying there is some legal "grounds" you could use to bar somebody from being intolerant of what you say or think, you just asked what a compromise position would be, and tolerance is one and it's what the progressive position was for a long time.
        slg 4y ago

slg 4y ago

>This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine. >Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.) You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. What concession can a progressive hope to accomplish debating someone who believes that sex and gender are the same and binary? >This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different. Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. They just want to live their life how they see fit. A trans person choice's don't impact you any more than a gay person's choice. Just leave them all alone and mind your own business. >Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics. This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. There is no reason to exclude trans women from this type of award.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. Isn't the compromise position to tolerate everybody's own personal words and definitions? That certainly used to be the progressive position, at least up to about a decade ago.
- slg 4y ago
  Your "own personal words and definitions" don't matter. That is inconsequential to most trans people's live. What does impact them is the government. What definitions will they use?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    The thread is about private people and groups speaking to one another, that is what my comment pertains to.
    - slg 4y ago
      I don’t understand your point then. If the Babylon Bee can use their own definitions, so can Twitter. What grounds does that leave to object to a suspension based off Twitter’s definition?
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        I don't understand how your question relates to my point. The compromise position is that you tolerate people's personal definitions and words, e.g., you would not demand they be punished for having or using them. I'm not saying there is some legal "grounds" you could use to bar somebody from being intolerant of what you say or think, you just asked what a compromise position would be, and tolerance is one and it's what the progressive position was for a long time.
        slg 4y ago