Not ONCE did Koista12 suggest that Republican anti-trans agenda is valid (unless a post was edited, deleted, or I missed something). He just matter of fact said it's what the Republicans believe. This is objectively a fact.
Post from which I take this information.
Your beliefs seem to be that LGBT people should be accepted...We are simply in a period of changing social values and half the country agrees with these new values, and half doesn't. This does not mean the people who disagree with you are fascists; they just have a different moral code than you.
Them: Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code.
(in federalism), as long each state abides by the Constitution, they are free to pass whatever laws they want that align with their citizens' moral code. If you don't like one state you are free to leave for another.
1. Federalism allows states to base laws on their citizens' moral code.
So long as the very vague, contested, changeable, 1700s document isn't violated.
2. (Above) "Whether LGBT people are accepted is a matter of moral code."
Therefore, them: Federalism allows states to refuse to accept LGBT people. If you don't like it, just leave. (I could talk about how the "if you don't like it, just leave, ezpz" framing craps on people who are poorer and face other disadvantages, but I don't have enough time.)
I wonder how they feel about a system they outline as "one where states can refuse to accept LGBT people".
(This is where I'll shill for federalism again)
Ah.
(Am I taking their post out of context?) No. They shill for federalism
because states can pass laws that align with citizens' moral code. In the same post, they make clear that "moral code" includes acceptance of LGBT people. I think you can connect the dots. (If you can't connect the dots, I'm not sure what you expect to happen when a person condones LGBT persecution, but they know that explicitly saying so will get them censured. This person got unusually explicit, all things considered, bagging a very rare public warn.)
Translation: "I'm so happy states have the ability to choose whether to accept LGBT people."
There's only so much energy I will have to surgically disassemble their intentionally muddied dogwhistles to personally assist you and overcome your oddly high benefit of the doubt, but I have it for the moment.
If half this country seems to be anti-trans you can retreat to a little leftist safe zone and hope it works out, or you can actually engage with the other side and see what their stupid fucking problem is.
It is out of touch and foolish to imply I haven't. I have for years.
I am glad you frame it as "figure out their problem" rather than the inferior "convince them" argument because, as we both know, the expected impact to my rights of persuading this one individual is minimal, and the success chance is low too.
If you aren't willing to at least discuss these issues and help them understand why they're wrong then, surprise surprise, they're going to vote, and in a lot of cases they're going to win.
Or maybe we don't know. Or maybe you expect me to devote hours a day trying to guide bigots to the light, which I'd need to do for a meaningful impact in state/national voter numbers. Not sure.
Anyway. I've put in much work into figuring out their problem, quite possibly more and more successfully than you. It's very complicated, as we both likely know, and again, I just don't have time to give that topic its due right now.
For example if someone was to tell you trans women shouldn't be allowed in sports with those born biologically female because they are generally physically larger, what would your counter point be? ... If your reaction is to say "fuck you bigot" well lol they probably won't spend much more time thinking about the issue.
I will look at the person and decide how to react.
If they are someone I care about and trust, I will likely create a careful and considerate argument. Not only do I care about them more, but I have more faith they will take the issue seriously
If they are an internet stranger who's bragging about their conservatism and dogwhistling against LGBT people, I do not care about them much, and my expected odds of conversion are minimal. So I'll pass on spending the careful, thoughtful energy.
But is there a solution that involves weight classes, testosterone measurement or something else that can scientifically put athletes on even footing? I have no idea, as a trans person what do you think?
Your desire for more perspective is appreciated. I will give you mine.
Athletes being on even footing is a myth. There are many boys who, just based on how they were born and their early life, will never realistically be able to compete in the NBA. Maybe they are too short, or too frail, or too weak in motor skills. Is this unfair? Perhaps. Is it widely accepted without challenge? Yes.
Women's sports are no different. The average height of a WNBA player is 6 feet tall. This is a tremendously rare mark for AMAB women. Obviously, not every WNBA player is 6'0'', but it's safe to say that most women have a seriously unfair height disadvantage, and some have a seriously unfair height advantage. That's just how it goes, we say.
It is strange and unfortunate how, when trans girls enter the conversation, this perspective is flipped on its head. Just like some girls happen to be born into 6'0 bodies through no work of their own, some girls happen to be born in AMAB bodies. If a girl happens to be born with the genes for a 7'2'' frame, like Margo Dydek, that's just how it goes, but if they just happen to get born with XY chromosomes, everything changes for some reason.
It should be apparent that this "some reason," talking about influences on the discourse at large v. influences on any individual, is partially from overt and subconscious bigotry.
My perspective is, if we can have total confidence that an AMAB person is a trans girl, their default treatment should be the same default treatment as 7'2'' Dydek: acceptance without regard for "unfair advantage." HRT should not be required for the purpose of preventing "unfair advantage."
There are still potential obstacles. The most prominent I have seen is safety. Relevant rules, equipment, etc. should probably be altered to create a safe experience while minimizing discrimination against people. "What if someone pretends to be trans to get relatively better performance?" I'm sure there's a good way to mitigate this relatively minor problem, but I don't know what it is.
How about someone concerned that someone born a different sex is using their bathrooms? Obviously trans people are no more dangerous than the average person but you can't just refuse to talk with someone.
When it comes to bathrooms and different sexes, the people who have the most to fear are trans people. Trans people are liable for physical violence and mistreatment, no matter which bathroom they go in. A trans woman fears attack for going into the ladies' restroom and sexual assault for going into the mens'. I am less familiar with the trans man experience and don't' want to talk on their behalf, but I imagine they have similar worries. Even though I am not a passing trans women, I only use special "all-gender inclusive" bathrooms at my university (I am supremely grateful they exist) for my physical and mental well-being. That will likely not change as my passing-ness increases.
In fewer words: as concerns the bathrooms, our primary goal should be assisting trans people. Gender inclusive bathrooms have helped me a ton, but I'm not really well-versed on solutions here. I'm less concerned about the fears of cis people just because they have much less to worry about. I'm sure someone could construct a response to such fears, but it probably won't be me.
They have fears and maybe by engaging we can help alleviate those fears, and normalize the modern lgbtq movement just like we were able to do with gay marriage / rights.
Gay normalization,
such as it is, did not come from gay people trying to Start The Conversation with bigots. Someone better informed than me can likely give a better account.