Maybe I am explaining poorly. When I say that they want them to "not exist" I don't necessarily mean that they will literally be killed (although I do worry that it might eventually come to that). I mean that they will be forced out of social visibility and effectively memory holed. To give some examples:
The right is passing laws saying that you can't teach about trans people or gender in schools. Part of the job of schools is to teach kids about the various important social/cultural/ideologies that make up the world; things like history, capitalism, communism, democracy, dictatorships, the various world religions, atheism, etc. Forbidding teaching of a major element of society like transgender people is in effect an attempt to erase them from social consciousness.
The right is passing laws anti-drag laws that define obscenity so broadly that it can be used as a threat to suppress drag performance. Attacking a culture's artistic movements is a classic way to attempt to suppress it from the public sphere.
Depends how it's taught. As a parallel example, it should be no problem to teach about Christianity in a school context, in terms of informing pupils that this is what many people believe. The problem is when the principles of Christianity are taught as if it is truth.
Same for gender identity and trans. It should be fine to inform pupils that some people in our culture believe that everyone has a gender identity, and that they also believe that this is what defines if someone is a woman or man or, as is described within this belief system, neither. But teaching this as if it's a fact is problematic.
A sensible policy would ensure that the curriculum is agnostic to these beliefs.
The hypocrisy in the comment lies in the author’s claim that others are acting in “bad faith,” while simultaneously misrepresenting the opposing argument. Specifically, the commenter criticizes the original poster for allegedly exaggerating (“malicious lie,” “breathless idiot”) when interpreting certain conservative actions as denying the existence of trans people. Yet, in doing so, the commenter engages in their own distortion—downplaying the genuine impact of policies that functionally erase or severely limit the recognition and legitimacy of transgender identities.
Moreover, the commenter clearly distinguishes between literal existence and societal allowance for billionaires, yet refuses to apply the same nuance to the original comment regarding transgender identities. This selective application of interpretative generosity constitutes the core hypocrisy.
Don't copy and paste ChatGPT at me please. It is amusing to me to see how poorly ChatGPT structures sentences and arguments. It must be trained almost exclusively on HR guidebooks and press releases.
We have to agree that Elon Musk is the ideological leader of the party now. He has arranged explanations for his own extreme and unambiguous statements. It’s noble to hold strangers on the Internet to a higher bar. But no idea in the party isn’t touched by Elon Musk.
So when he says “dead — killed by the woke mind virus” he might be trying to garner figurative sympathy as if he lost a child. It certainly coincides with a call to criminalize any facet of trans health care for trans youth.
And when he says “America will go bankrupt” without him, he might be issuing a threat or maybe just a warning. Donald Trump is no stranger to bankruptcy and certainly must see that politicians only mention debt rhetorically. His administration added more than $8T, or $5900 per capita per year.
So if we must accept only extreme solutions to things that were never problems, maybe their intention really was those urges?
Maybe I am explaining poorly. When I say that they want them to "not exist" I don't necessarily mean that they will literally be killed (although I do worry that it might eventually come to that). I mean that they will be forced out of social visibility and effectively memory holed. To give some examples:
The right is passing laws saying that you can't teach about trans people or gender in schools. Part of the job of schools is to teach kids about the various important social/cultural/ideologies that make up the world; things like history, capitalism, communism, democracy, dictatorships, the various world religions, atheism, etc. Forbidding teaching of a major element of society like transgender people is in effect an attempt to erase them from social consciousness.
The right is passing laws anti-drag laws that define obscenity so broadly that it can be used as a threat to suppress drag performance. Attacking a culture's artistic movements is a classic way to attempt to suppress it from the public sphere.
Depends how it's taught. As a parallel example, it should be no problem to teach about Christianity in a school context, in terms of informing pupils that this is what many people believe. The problem is when the principles of Christianity are taught as if it is truth.
Same for gender identity and trans. It should be fine to inform pupils that some people in our culture believe that everyone has a gender identity, and that they also believe that this is what defines if someone is a woman or man or, as is described within this belief system, neither. But teaching this as if it's a fact is problematic.
A sensible policy would ensure that the curriculum is agnostic to these beliefs.
[flagged]
4 replies →
4.5 has our back:
The hypocrisy in the comment lies in the author’s claim that others are acting in “bad faith,” while simultaneously misrepresenting the opposing argument. Specifically, the commenter criticizes the original poster for allegedly exaggerating (“malicious lie,” “breathless idiot”) when interpreting certain conservative actions as denying the existence of trans people. Yet, in doing so, the commenter engages in their own distortion—downplaying the genuine impact of policies that functionally erase or severely limit the recognition and legitimacy of transgender identities.
Moreover, the commenter clearly distinguishes between literal existence and societal allowance for billionaires, yet refuses to apply the same nuance to the original comment regarding transgender identities. This selective application of interpretative generosity constitutes the core hypocrisy.
Don't copy and paste ChatGPT at me please. It is amusing to me to see how poorly ChatGPT structures sentences and arguments. It must be trained almost exclusively on HR guidebooks and press releases.
We have to agree that Elon Musk is the ideological leader of the party now. He has arranged explanations for his own extreme and unambiguous statements. It’s noble to hold strangers on the Internet to a higher bar. But no idea in the party isn’t touched by Elon Musk.
So when he says “dead — killed by the woke mind virus” he might be trying to garner figurative sympathy as if he lost a child. It certainly coincides with a call to criminalize any facet of trans health care for trans youth.
And when he says “America will go bankrupt” without him, he might be issuing a threat or maybe just a warning. Donald Trump is no stranger to bankruptcy and certainly must see that politicians only mention debt rhetorically. His administration added more than $8T, or $5900 per capita per year.
So if we must accept only extreme solutions to things that were never problems, maybe their intention really was those urges?