Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it “civil unions” and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage…
I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people
It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.
Well, that whole civil union thing didn’t really work out so well and those same people were still (and are still) homophobic to the extreme so why give them anything? They are clearly not interested in compromises anyway.
And why the fuck is there a compromise position at all? Bigots don’t have a right to discriminate against people. If they don’t want to get on board they can fuck off.
What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.
On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.
I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone
A full third of the population is already alienated. It’s not working well for anyone. I’m simply saying we should leave a full third behind in the dust if they don’t want to give up bigotry. These people are not helpless, they know that they’re wrong, and they’re doing this shit anyway. Compromising with them is exactly why we elected a fascist.
And to be clear, conservatives drove this, they had a million opportunities to turn around, and refused every time. I’m not the one who brought us here.
Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.
Im not sure you have my logic correct… Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.
I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.
What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say “well i dont agree with it but i still love you”. Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…
They asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
For instance, if someone expresses concerns about safety in locker rooms, a helpful response might be: “Can we find a way to ensure women’s safety without assuming all trans people are a threat?”
Engaging in good faith helps ensure that passive observers see reasoned, respectful dialogue not just the loudest or most disingenuous voices.
“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
Just to clarify, I’m not disagreeing with you. My concern is about how certain approaches on all sides of complex issues can unintentionally lead to greater pushback. I’m not saying people shouldn’t push back at all, but rather that the “all or nothing” mentality often shuts down meaningful dialogue and hinders progress.
My original point was an observation, not a prescription. I’m reflecting on how discourse today feels more polarized compared to the more incremental, dialogue-driven progress we saw during earlier movements like gay rights 20–30 years ago or civil rights 50–60 years ago.
Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it “civil unions” and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage…
I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.
Well, that whole civil union thing didn’t really work out so well and those same people were still (and are still) homophobic to the extreme so why give them anything? They are clearly not interested in compromises anyway.
And why the fuck is there a compromise position at all? Bigots don’t have a right to discriminate against people. If they don’t want to get on board they can fuck off.
What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.
On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.
A full third of the population is already alienated. It’s not working well for anyone. I’m simply saying we should leave a full third behind in the dust if they don’t want to give up bigotry. These people are not helpless, they know that they’re wrong, and they’re doing this shit anyway. Compromising with them is exactly why we elected a fascist.
And to be clear, conservatives drove this, they had a million opportunities to turn around, and refused every time. I’m not the one who brought us here.
Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.
How didnt it work out? It lead to eventually getting marriage equality world wide, in large part because those first states tried to do civil unions.
By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should’ve done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!
Or was civil rights too fast as well?
Im not sure you have my logic correct… Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.
I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.
What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say “well i dont agree with it but i still love you”. Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…
They asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.
I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.
Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.
For instance, if someone expresses concerns about safety in locker rooms, a helpful response might be: “Can we find a way to ensure women’s safety without assuming all trans people are a threat?”
Engaging in good faith helps ensure that passive observers see reasoned, respectful dialogue not just the loudest or most disingenuous voices.
“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
That’s why
Just to clarify, I’m not disagreeing with you. My concern is about how certain approaches on all sides of complex issues can unintentionally lead to greater pushback. I’m not saying people shouldn’t push back at all, but rather that the “all or nothing” mentality often shuts down meaningful dialogue and hinders progress.
My original point was an observation, not a prescription. I’m reflecting on how discourse today feels more polarized compared to the more incremental, dialogue-driven progress we saw during earlier movements like gay rights 20–30 years ago or civil rights 50–60 years ago.