What is the end game behind the all-or-nothing stance?

submitted by AllieKate from self.GenderCritical

Disclaimer: NOT saying that I, or anyone else here, holds any of these views. But suppose someone believed any of the following things:

It's OK for males to play on women's sports teams, but not to be housed in women's prisons

It's OK for 16-year-olds to medically transition, but not 14-year-olds

It's OK for post-op TIP to legally change gender, but not pre-op

It's OK for puberty blockers to be used on children if three different endocrinologists sign for it, but not otherwise

It's not OK for anyone to use the opposite-sex public restroom, BUT all public places must be required to provide a third-space unisex option

If anyone held these views, he or she would be tarred and feathered by the left, exactly as though the opinion were truly murderous. Why is NO nuance EVER allowed? It's as though they are TRYING to drive people to the right wing....

all 2 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Chocolatepudding 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think people don't think it through. They, understandably, want to be tolerant and kind. These are not bad motivations ofc but there's a lack of understanding of what's at stake.

Climate change has set the precedent, one can't express concern about turbines being built on peat bogs (huge natural carbon sinks) without being called a mass murderer who doesn't care about their grandchildren. Makes any debate toxic and it shouldn't be