News

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?

That should make you question things...