Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to 'accommodate' trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence.
OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".
Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.
> Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people??
Your comment, like speech in general I admit, doesn't tell the whole truth.
"Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live."
This isn't true as they are asking that comedians to not make jokes about them. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live. Or have I missed something?
Shifting goalposts, are we, after your 'clearly' comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted?
And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.
I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.
Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.
> The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported.
Why is that an issue?
Their cause is to enact a redefinition of "woman" and "man" (and in some contexts, "female" and "male") in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so.
Of course there will be pushback on this. And it's not a bad thing to do so.
For me that's the only interesting discussion to be had here. Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
Then again, it is 'unfair' that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.
> Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
I don't know all the history of it so I won't make claims about how it started. But what you're saying does not describe the reality of highschool sports as I experienced it.
I was a competitive swimmer in highschool; the team was split 50/50 between boys and girls. We all swam in the same lanes of the same pools, swimming the same practice given by the same coaches. Virtually all of us were taught how to swim by the same woman. The only separation was the locker rooms, and the competitive events during meets. The events were the same, 100m, 500m, etc, but segregated by sex. The performance gap post-puberty was immense. The fastest girl on my team, an incredible outlier with Olympic ambitions, was slower than about 5 of the guys. If the sport were blind to sex, the team probably would have had a 90/10 ratio, rather than 50/50. This would be grossly unfair to women.
To add to this, the Women's Olympic Ice Hockey teams of the US and Canada -- both professional and highly skilled teams, have been known to practice against high school level and/or high school aged boys teams and both national teams don't always win either.
I am not saying any of this to discredit the hard work and skill these women have accomplished, but at the end of the day biology is biology.
As an avid hockey fan, I think that the two sexes play a similar, but slightly different styled game (male professional leagues allow contact unlike female leagues), but I think we should celebrate and enjoy the differences each style that hockey or any game has to offer.
