4 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
Please define "erasing them from public existence". Provide concrete actions that are actively being taken, not vague concepts of "bad things".
- Philpax 2y ago
  I would recommend clicking on the link and scrolling down.
  - tekla 2y ago
    Not answering question.
  - bakugo 2y ago
    I 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.
    - rimbo789 2y ago
      Gender-affirming care is good and needed to protect kids.
      - duckfan 2y ago
        A lot of people strongly believe this to be true. However, the evidence does not support this.
    - banqjls 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - duckfan 2y ago
    [dead]
    - akimbostrawman 2y ago
      "destroying and erasing" trans people = not overtly pushing for there spread and acceptance
      - reef_sh 2y ago
        Assuming 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 ago
        Doesn'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 ago
        Not 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 ago
        Interesting 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 ago
    I 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.”

I 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 ago

Please define "erasing them from public existence". Provide concrete actions that are actively being taken, not vague concepts of "bad things".

Philpax 2y ago
I would recommend clicking on the link and scrolling down.
- tekla 2y ago
  Not answering question.
- bakugo 2y ago
  I 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.
  - rimbo789 2y ago
    Gender-affirming care is good and needed to protect kids.
    - duckfan 2y ago
      A lot of people strongly believe this to be true. However, the evidence does not support this.
  - banqjls 2y ago
    [flagged]
- duckfan 2y ago
  [dead]
  - akimbostrawman 2y ago
    "destroying and erasing" trans people = not overtly pushing for there spread and acceptance
    - reef_sh 2y ago
      Assuming 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 ago
        Doesn'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 ago
        Not 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 ago
        Interesting 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 ago
  I 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.”