The purpose of anti-trans activists is to suppress or completely eliminate the rights of trans people. So why shouldn't trans people at least be justified to suppress the activities of their antagonists? At least if not done in a physically harmful way? What if it were "naturists" instead of "trans people" in this matter? In fact, naturi…
The purpose of anti-trans activists is to suppress or completely eliminate the rights of trans people. So why shouldn't trans people at least be justified to suppress the activities of their antagonists? At least if not done in a physically harmful way? What if it were "naturists" instead of "trans people" in this matter? In fact, naturists are usually the victims in such cases. Should we not respond in some effective way?
Naturists would be delighted to coexist with those who are "offended". But they're almost always not allowed to. Being "offended" is a far less serious thing than being fined or incarcerated. Just ask Stephen Gough.
I think that both sides have the right to voice their beliefs, but as soon as either side uses violence, then they lose the argument. We live in a society of outrage and offence on many issues and spend so much time screaming across barricades rather than talking and trying to understand.
I agree in principal. I can't speak to other countries but in the US you can pick pretty much any objective measuring tool you like and most of the time there'll be one side doing much more screaming and much less talking & trying to onderstand than the other. It's rarely 50/50 and often the same groups are involved regardless of the issue.
The purpose of anti-trans activists is to suppress or completely eliminate the rights of trans people. So why shouldn't trans people at least be justified to suppress the activities of their antagonists? At least if not done in a physically harmful way? What if it were "naturists" instead of "trans people" in this matter? In fact, naturists are usually the victims in such cases. Should we not respond in some effective way?
Think about it. Lots pf people are offended by naturists. By this logic, they are justified in suppressing them.
Naturists would be delighted to coexist with those who are "offended". But they're almost always not allowed to. Being "offended" is a far less serious thing than being fined or incarcerated. Just ask Stephen Gough.
I think that both sides have the right to voice their beliefs, but as soon as either side uses violence, then they lose the argument. We live in a society of outrage and offence on many issues and spend so much time screaming across barricades rather than talking and trying to understand.
I agree in principal. I can't speak to other countries but in the US you can pick pretty much any objective measuring tool you like and most of the time there'll be one side doing much more screaming and much less talking & trying to onderstand than the other. It's rarely 50/50 and often the same groups are involved regardless of the issue.