I appreciate your comment. The last part was a bit uncalled for, but anyway. In any case, while I can agree in scientific consensus, there will always be people that don’t. And that is the point I was trying to make.
There are people who believe the world is flat, and people who believe the world is 4000 years old. My point was that not agreeing with scientific consensus is not the same as not believing the people who do shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t participate in society however they want.
In fact, the person I know who doesn’t believe in the concept of transgenderism did in fact vote in favour of trans rights in my country (as did I). They don’t understand it and don’t agree with the concept, but they still want everyone to have the rights they deserve and know it’s not up to them to decide how one defines themselves.
The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.
To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.
I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo
I appreciate your comment. The last part was a bit uncalled for, but anyway. In any case, while I can agree in scientific consensus, there will always be people that don’t. And that is the point I was trying to make.
There are people who believe the world is flat, and people who believe the world is 4000 years old. My point was that not agreeing with scientific consensus is not the same as not believing the people who do shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t participate in society however they want.
In fact, the person I know who doesn’t believe in the concept of transgenderism did in fact vote in favour of trans rights in my country (as did I). They don’t understand it and don’t agree with the concept, but they still want everyone to have the rights they deserve and know it’s not up to them to decide how one defines themselves.
And I think they are not a bigot.
The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.
To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.
I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo