> if progressives take the view that identity issues are fundamental moral principles and are too important to brook any compromise, that encourages people with

> if progressives take the view that identity issues are fundamental moral principles and are too important to brook any compromise, that encourages people with the non-progressive view to see it the same way It works both ways though. Both sides - progressive and reactionary - build up these issues to be all-or-nothing on the one hand, while on the other working constantly to make smaller moves. Progressives say “it’s always okay for trans people to do everything, trans rights are human rights and trans lives matter” - but we’re happy to see trans discrimination outlawed at a federal employment level. Reactionaries say “god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” or “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” or whatever other utterly inane schoolyard rhyme they’re pretending should direct the policy of a modern democratic nation - but they’re happy to see the FIDE ban trans people from participating in chess tournaments. Each side is treating these issues the same way - I honestly do not think questioning the way the issues are treated is a useful exercise at this point. Will LGBTQ issues be better ‘solved’ by treating them differently? Or are demands to examine the treatment themselves a tactic to distract from or else discredit the issue itself? Like - how is this article not just tone-policing basically. “Oh you’d find people much more willing to grant you the same rights they grant others if you’d just ask for it nicer. If you’d just wait for when the time is right.” How is that not just avoiding the issue? I’m not so impressed with this piece basically.