If I may, I'd like to suggest that one probably has a legitimate and reasonable argument or proposition or observation, if other people respond by attacking the writer (or speaker) instead of attacking the argument.
If I may, I'd like to suggest that one probably has a legitimate and reasonable argument or proposition or observation, if other people respond by attacking the writer (or speaker) instead of attacking the argument.
A British women’s cycling competition just limited participation to biological women. One “trans woman,” which is to say, a man, said thls was, you ready? Not “exclusionary,” not just “transphobia,” but, and I am not making this up, “genocide.”
Being excluded for not being female isn’t injurious in any physical way. He calls it mass murder.
I am so happy to see the backlash at these uh people growing.
"If I may, I'd like to suggest that one probably has a legitimate and reasonable argument or proposition or observation, if other people respond by attacking the writer (or speaker) instead of attacking the argument."
Exactly. Attacking people is the only option when you know you can't defeat their argument.
Steve ---
Thank you for putting this up.
Simple, helpful, important.
If I may, I'd like to suggest that one probably has a legitimate and reasonable argument or proposition or observation, if other people respond by attacking the writer (or speaker) instead of attacking the argument.
A British women’s cycling competition just limited participation to biological women. One “trans woman,” which is to say, a man, said thls was, you ready? Not “exclusionary,” not just “transphobia,” but, and I am not making this up, “genocide.”
Being excluded for not being female isn’t injurious in any physical way. He calls it mass murder.
I am so happy to see the backlash at these uh people growing.
"If I may, I'd like to suggest that one probably has a legitimate and reasonable argument or proposition or observation, if other people respond by attacking the writer (or speaker) instead of attacking the argument."
Exactly. Attacking people is the only option when you know you can't defeat their argument.
Steve ---
Have you seen this?
https://themindcollection.com/revisiting-grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The arguments are completely insupportable. Nothing in “gender ideology” can withstand any examination, it all instantly falls apart.
Beginning with its canon, “trans women are women,” etc.
So they go directly to attack.
It’s very common to try to get anyone pushing back to be banned from forums, fired from their jobs, and in some bizarre states, arrested.