5 ms·
People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to
by Philpax 2y ago
People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.
- duckfan 2y agoHow are their lives being destroyed? Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.
- Philpax 2y agoI don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/
- bakugo 2y agoPlease define "erasing them from public existence". Provide concrete actions that are actively being taken, not vague concepts of "bad things".
- Philpax 2y agoI would recommend clicking on the link and scrolling down.
- tekla 2y agoNot answering question.
- bakugo 2y agoI did. It's almost nothing but intentionally obtuse terms that mask the actual issues being discussed. For example, what exactly is "gender-affirming care"? Because I suspect that includes giving life-altering drugs to young children.
- duckfan 2y ago[dead]
- akimbostrawman 2y ago"destroying and erasing" trans people = not overtly pushing for there spread and acceptance
- reef_sh 2y agoAssuming you're actually arguing in good faith, the "erasing" bit has been quite obvious and blatant. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-inn-national-monument-transgender/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-inn-national... Removing people from information about a historical event doesn't look good under any lens.
- duckfan 2y agoDoesn't this change make it more historically accurate? In 1969, the year of the Stonewall uprising, the "TQ+" hadn't been invented yet as a cultural concept. The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar and was being targeted for that reason.
- reef_sh 2y agoNot really, no, especially considering the involvement of trans people in the event itself. For example, see the section regarding "Zazu Nova" on the current page https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/photosmultimedia/virtual-fence-exhibit.htm https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/photosmultimedia/virtual-fenc... and before the erasure https://web.archive.org/web/20250202042345/https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/photosmultimedia/virtual-fence-exhibit.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20250202042345/https://www.nps.g...
- duckfan 2y agoInteresting to see the difference and I agree that's an inaccurate edit. For historical accuracy it should describe Zazu Nova as a gay man who was also a transvestite or drag queen.
- StefanBatory 2y agoI don't think they're arguing in a good faith with you. "“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- jccalhoun 2y agoThis is an oversimplified strawman argument. Biological sex is a complex subject. The cultural understanding of sex is complex. If I has a man take my 2 year old daughter to the men's room is that a bad thing? (For the record I don't have any children)
- duckfan 2y agoI don't think anyone is arguing that you should be barred from taking your hypothetical two-year-old daughter into the men's bathroom if the need arises. That's really not the issue.
- jccalhoun 2y agobut I thought "Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad."?
- duckfan 2y agoPerhaps think on that a bit more then. Consider for example that female-only spaces don't exclude women who are pregnant with male babies.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoThat is, by definition, indirect. So that doesn't qualify as "directly harming" anyone, even if your analysis of those policies is otherwise accurate.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoNo it isn’t. When people see the anti trans party winning elections they see that as permission to bully trans people. The vote directly leads to abuse.
- fastball 2y agoYes, it very much is indirect. Direct would be the "anti trans party" passing a law saying that you must bully trans people.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoYour definition of direct is terrible
- fastball 2y agoI'd be happy to hear your definition of direct, which somehow includes a bunch of indirect things happening.
- HDThoreaun 2y agovoting for trump tells everyone in the country that you dont mind if trans people are abused. This creates a culture that is uninviting even if no one acts poorly beyond the voting. You dont have to physically abuse someone for your actions to have direct consequences
- fastball 2y ago> voting for trump tells everyone in the country that you dont mind if trans people are abused It literally does not. You can vote for Trump without ever having thought of trans people a day in your life, much less thought of "abusing" them. Additionally and AFAIK, Trump himself has never expressed a desire to abuse trans people, according to a normal and accepted definition of "abuse".