Again, you’ve acknowledged literally nothing that I’ve said, to focus on how you are the hard done by one.
You also mispresented me. I didn’t say you were worse than a bigot, I said people like you hurt more than bigots do. A bigot can’t let me down, because all they know is hate. But when the people that are meant to be allies call for you to lose rights? It hits harder than bigots do.
I could give a shit whether we would get on in real life. Us getting on should have nothing to do with your support. What I care about is that you’re arguing for exclusion of trans folk. The fact that your support relies on education from trans folk that you perceive as more reasonable simply means that your support is conditional. And conditional support isn’t really support
I disagree with you when you say you didn’t imply that I was worse than a bigot. Because if bigots hurt on purpose, and I hurt more than bigots, then what does that make me? “I’m not saying you’re a killer, I’m just saying that your actions murder people.” Semantics.
What should I acknowledge? That I am arguing for the exclusion of trans people? Did I say “hey, trans folks must be banned because of this or that”? I stated my views and I said I’m open to being schooled. But you’re acting like when Trump says “that was a nasty question” to reporters who ask questions, instead of freaking answering the question. Or what did I miss?
And hopefully you’ll hear out my reasons when I say this, but yes my support for trans folks is conditional, just like with the support I give to everyone else. Here is why: I support the inclusion of gay people. But some gay people think that trans people are not part of the community (TERFs, they are called?) So my support ends there. If someone says “I can’t believe your support for gay rights is conditional” I’ll just tell them to pound sand - because I won’t tolerate anybody who tells me that trans people should not exist, not even gay people.
So you have my full support. But that supports ends where the right of others to peacefully co-exist is threatened. If you don’t think this is okay, that’s your problem.
Your inclusion ends where others are excluded. I think cis women may be excluded from a sport if some trans folks participate in it. Where are their rights? That’s the argument. Let’s discuss. Is that bigotry? Absolutely not. Is it ignorance? Possibly! Am I wrong? Tell me so without berating me! Others have done the same and provided me with study materials in this very thread, and I’ve been reading.
But some gay people think that trans people are not part of the community (TERFs, they are called?) So my support ends there.
That’s conditional support for their ideas, not for their rights.
My point wasn’t that your support for the ideas of trans folk is condition. My point was that your support for our rights is conditional, based on your own personal assessment of whether we deserve some particular rights that everyone else has…
Your inclusion ends where others are excluded. I think cis women may be excluded from a sport if some trans folks participate in it.
This is an example of what I’m talking about. “I want to exclude the super vulnerable people from sports, so that the more privileged, and less vulnerable folk don’t feel uncomfortable”.
It’s text book bigotry… You don’t mean it to be bigotry, because your position isn’t shaped from hate. But it still hurts vulnerable folk, and empowers the people who do hate us. All whilst you smile and tell us that you support us, and worst of all, genuinely believe it…
Others have done the same and provided me with study materials in this very thread, and I’ve been reading.
And yet here you are, still arguing for our exclusion… Even if you haven’t read it yet, and may change your mind in the future, the fact that you’re willing to frame exclusion of trans folk as acceptable until convinced otherwise should make you question your biases. It doubt it will, but it should…
And yet here you are, still arguing for our exclusion…
Oh my god. Please stop saying this, because it’s not true.
Do I want to exclude trans people you from a women’s sports? NO! Let’s start from there. Yes? Let’s just say that I am (or was) misinformed. And let’s say that I really want to learn (which I’ve already said several times.) Now, if I say “now, what if…” and then you’re like “Oh you’re still a bigot! Exclusionist!” then how can we have a healthy exchange of ideas? It’s not like I’m some religious fundamentalist, covid denier, or flat Earther, claiming that I’m demanding equal attention to some absurd idea. I’m telling you “hey, I want to learn” and you’re like “no, you’re not, and you won’t change!” Is that your idea of a healthy debate?
This is an example of what I’m talking about. “I want to exclude the super vulnerable people from sports, so that the more privileged, and less vulnerable folk don’t feel uncomfortable”.
Weak argument, sorry. That’s like saying “oh beating a trans person for being trans is worse than beating a cis woman for being a cis woman, because cis women are less vulnerable!” My position before knowing better was (and again, was), all trans women are stronger than cis women because they benefited from having inherently more muscle mass before transitioning. And you must concede in this hypothetical scenario, again, hypothetical, that that’s NOT fair to cis women.
And you instead of saying “bro, no, wait, here’s what you need to know,” you say “BIGOT!! EXCLUSIONIST! YOU WILL NEVER LEARN!” (per your last sentence), and that’s, frankly, bullshit and I’m glad that you don’t speak for everyone, because this conversation is becoming insufferable and you don’t help with gaining support from others who are really on the fence.
Now, if I say “now, what if…” and then you’re like “Oh you’re still a bigot! Exclusionist!”
Leaving aside the fact I have never once call you a bigot, then yeah, I’d still call you out for this, because “what if…” is still empowering bigots who want to exclude us, based on made up scenarios.
Rather than “what if”, default to inclusion in the here and now, and worry about the “what ifs” if they ever actually appear. And point of note, most of the “what if” scenarios will never eventuate, because the whole point of most of them is as a wedge tactic, to open the door on the topic of exclusion, rather than a genuine exploration of the nuanced topic of co-existing but distinct needs for inclusion of vulnerable groups.
That’s like saying “oh beating a trans person for being trans is worse than beating a cis woman for being a cis woman, because cis women are less vulnerable!”
No… It’s saying that addressing the active exclusion of trans folk from community is more relevant than the discomfort of a more privileged group of people, whose discomfort arises from misinformation and deliberately stoked fear.
And you must concede in this hypothetical scenario, again, hypothetical, that that’s NOT fair to cis women.
Why must I concede that? At the community sports level, inclusion is more important.
At at the elite level? Unfairness can never be assessed by looking at one attribute in isolation. Trans women typically have larger frames, but reduced muscle mass to move it around. What does increased strength even mean in that scenario? At this level, the thing that matters is real world outcomes specifically in the sport in question to the extent that meaningful competition is impossible. And so far, there zero sports where this is actually an issue. Trans folk hold zero world records, very few national records, and on average, under perform compared to cis folk of their gender.
And you instead of saying “bro, no, wait, here’s what you need to know,
In my second comment to you, I said “Trans people have no track record of consistently out performing cis people in any sport at any level. Literally every example you can think of is a misrepresentation by a media more interested in controversy than fact. Those are your facts”
That’s what you need to know, and that’s what I told you.
You skimmed right over it to continue arguing with me, because you were indignant that I’d made you feel called out
you don’t help with gaining support from others who are really on the fence.
And there is that conditional support.
You are telling me that your opinion, and the opinion of others on whether we should have the same basic rights to inclusion as everyone else, is dependent on how politely I raise my points with you?
Which is to say, my rights are contingent not on the issue at hand, but on how I present myself to you?
then yeah, I’d still call you out for this, because “what if…” is still empowering bigots who want to exclude us, based on made up scenarios.
I disagree with you on this. I have no problem answering “what if” questions regarding misinformation about my own circumstances.
“Trans people have no track record of consistently out performing cis people in any sport at any level. Literally every example you can think of is a misrepresentation by a media more interested in controversy than fact. Those are your facts”
Cool beans. I missed that. Thanks.
You are telling me that your opinion, and the opinion of others on whether we should have the same basic rights to inclusion as everyone else, is dependent on how politely I raise my points with you?
No, because I would have reacted the same way if you said the same things politely. “Excuse me, my young lemming, but with the utmost respect I’m afraid to tell you that you are nothing but an exclusionist, and I hope you accept my declaration that everything points out towards your person never being capable of changing your position.” I would have preferred you to say “hey you stupid misinformed bozo, are you ready for some schooling can of whoop-ass?”
Why must I concede that? At the community sports level, inclusion is more important.
You don’t accept hypothetical scenarios in a discussion, and I do. We will never align. And that’s okay. I’m done with this discussion. Continue being a happy, dense mod and yes, feel free to keep thinking whatever you want to think about me. Peace and happiness to you.
I have no problem answering “what if” questions regarding misinformation about my own circumstances.
That’s cool for you, but you’re not trans and don’t face exclusion based on the misguided assumptions people have about you. You don’t have bigots actively generating “what if” debates to try and normalise exclusion towards you.
To you, it’s just a sometimes thing. For me, it’s an active part of a campaign driven by people trying to remove our rights, and it’s explicitly designed to sound reasonable, and be repeated innocently by people who don’t know any better.
This is all hypothetical to you. To me, it’s a tool used to hurt me and my community.
Nah, not true. Your characterization of me is incorrect, and your insistence on it makes you dense and surprisingly narrow-minded. I’ll keep responding as long as you continue, but I’m done with this conversation. Have a nice life.
Again, you’ve acknowledged literally nothing that I’ve said, to focus on how you are the hard done by one.
You also mispresented me. I didn’t say you were worse than a bigot, I said people like you hurt more than bigots do. A bigot can’t let me down, because all they know is hate. But when the people that are meant to be allies call for you to lose rights? It hits harder than bigots do.
I could give a shit whether we would get on in real life. Us getting on should have nothing to do with your support. What I care about is that you’re arguing for exclusion of trans folk. The fact that your support relies on education from trans folk that you perceive as more reasonable simply means that your support is conditional. And conditional support isn’t really support
I disagree with you when you say you didn’t imply that I was worse than a bigot. Because if bigots hurt on purpose, and I hurt more than bigots, then what does that make me? “I’m not saying you’re a killer, I’m just saying that your actions murder people.” Semantics.
What should I acknowledge? That I am arguing for the exclusion of trans people? Did I say “hey, trans folks must be banned because of this or that”? I stated my views and I said I’m open to being schooled. But you’re acting like when Trump says “that was a nasty question” to reporters who ask questions, instead of freaking answering the question. Or what did I miss?
And hopefully you’ll hear out my reasons when I say this, but yes my support for trans folks is conditional, just like with the support I give to everyone else. Here is why: I support the inclusion of gay people. But some gay people think that trans people are not part of the community (TERFs, they are called?) So my support ends there. If someone says “I can’t believe your support for gay rights is conditional” I’ll just tell them to pound sand - because I won’t tolerate anybody who tells me that trans people should not exist, not even gay people.
So you have my full support. But that supports ends where the right of others to peacefully co-exist is threatened. If you don’t think this is okay, that’s your problem.
Your inclusion ends where others are excluded. I think cis women may be excluded from a sport if some trans folks participate in it. Where are their rights? That’s the argument. Let’s discuss. Is that bigotry? Absolutely not. Is it ignorance? Possibly! Am I wrong? Tell me so without berating me! Others have done the same and provided me with study materials in this very thread, and I’ve been reading.
That’s conditional support for their ideas, not for their rights.
My point wasn’t that your support for the ideas of trans folk is condition. My point was that your support for our rights is conditional, based on your own personal assessment of whether we deserve some particular rights that everyone else has…
This is an example of what I’m talking about. “I want to exclude the super vulnerable people from sports, so that the more privileged, and less vulnerable folk don’t feel uncomfortable”.
It’s text book bigotry… You don’t mean it to be bigotry, because your position isn’t shaped from hate. But it still hurts vulnerable folk, and empowers the people who do hate us. All whilst you smile and tell us that you support us, and worst of all, genuinely believe it…
And yet here you are, still arguing for our exclusion… Even if you haven’t read it yet, and may change your mind in the future, the fact that you’re willing to frame exclusion of trans folk as acceptable until convinced otherwise should make you question your biases. It doubt it will, but it should…
Oh my god. Please stop saying this, because it’s not true.
Do I want to exclude trans people you from a women’s sports? NO! Let’s start from there. Yes? Let’s just say that I am (or was) misinformed. And let’s say that I really want to learn (which I’ve already said several times.) Now, if I say “now, what if…” and then you’re like “Oh you’re still a bigot! Exclusionist!” then how can we have a healthy exchange of ideas? It’s not like I’m some religious fundamentalist, covid denier, or flat Earther, claiming that I’m demanding equal attention to some absurd idea. I’m telling you “hey, I want to learn” and you’re like “no, you’re not, and you won’t change!” Is that your idea of a healthy debate?
Weak argument, sorry. That’s like saying “oh beating a trans person for being trans is worse than beating a cis woman for being a cis woman, because cis women are less vulnerable!” My position before knowing better was (and again, was), all trans women are stronger than cis women because they benefited from having inherently more muscle mass before transitioning. And you must concede in this hypothetical scenario, again, hypothetical, that that’s NOT fair to cis women.
And you instead of saying “bro, no, wait, here’s what you need to know,” you say “BIGOT!! EXCLUSIONIST! YOU WILL NEVER LEARN!” (per your last sentence), and that’s, frankly, bullshit and I’m glad that you don’t speak for everyone, because this conversation is becoming insufferable and you don’t help with gaining support from others who are really on the fence.
Leaving aside the fact I have never once call you a bigot, then yeah, I’d still call you out for this, because “what if…” is still empowering bigots who want to exclude us, based on made up scenarios.
Rather than “what if”, default to inclusion in the here and now, and worry about the “what ifs” if they ever actually appear. And point of note, most of the “what if” scenarios will never eventuate, because the whole point of most of them is as a wedge tactic, to open the door on the topic of exclusion, rather than a genuine exploration of the nuanced topic of co-existing but distinct needs for inclusion of vulnerable groups.
No… It’s saying that addressing the active exclusion of trans folk from community is more relevant than the discomfort of a more privileged group of people, whose discomfort arises from misinformation and deliberately stoked fear.
Why must I concede that? At the community sports level, inclusion is more important.
At at the elite level? Unfairness can never be assessed by looking at one attribute in isolation. Trans women typically have larger frames, but reduced muscle mass to move it around. What does increased strength even mean in that scenario? At this level, the thing that matters is real world outcomes specifically in the sport in question to the extent that meaningful competition is impossible. And so far, there zero sports where this is actually an issue. Trans folk hold zero world records, very few national records, and on average, under perform compared to cis folk of their gender.
In my second comment to you, I said “Trans people have no track record of consistently out performing cis people in any sport at any level. Literally every example you can think of is a misrepresentation by a media more interested in controversy than fact. Those are your facts”
That’s what you need to know, and that’s what I told you.
You skimmed right over it to continue arguing with me, because you were indignant that I’d made you feel called out
And there is that conditional support.
You are telling me that your opinion, and the opinion of others on whether we should have the same basic rights to inclusion as everyone else, is dependent on how politely I raise my points with you?
Which is to say, my rights are contingent not on the issue at hand, but on how I present myself to you?
That should make you question things…
I disagree with you on this. I have no problem answering “what if” questions regarding misinformation about my own circumstances.
Cool beans. I missed that. Thanks.
No, because I would have reacted the same way if you said the same things politely. “Excuse me, my young lemming, but with the utmost respect I’m afraid to tell you that you are nothing but an exclusionist, and I hope you accept my declaration that everything points out towards your person never being capable of changing your position.” I would have preferred you to say “hey you stupid misinformed bozo, are you ready for some schooling can of whoop-ass?”
You don’t accept hypothetical scenarios in a discussion, and I do. We will never align. And that’s okay. I’m done with this discussion. Continue being a happy, dense mod and yes, feel free to keep thinking whatever you want to think about me. Peace and happiness to you.
That’s cool for you, but you’re not trans and don’t face exclusion based on the misguided assumptions people have about you. You don’t have bigots actively generating “what if” debates to try and normalise exclusion towards you.
To you, it’s just a sometimes thing. For me, it’s an active part of a campaign driven by people trying to remove our rights, and it’s explicitly designed to sound reasonable, and be repeated innocently by people who don’t know any better.
This is all hypothetical to you. To me, it’s a tool used to hurt me and my community.
Nah, not true. Your characterization of me is incorrect, and your insistence on it makes you dense and surprisingly narrow-minded. I’ll keep responding as long as you continue, but I’m done with this conversation. Have a nice life.