Just to correct the record:
I’m not in favor of excluding trans people from sports. That said, I also recognize that access to sports especially at a competitive level isn’t a guaranteed right, and has always been limited to the relatively privileged.
As for bathrooms, I believe all public restrooms should be either gender-neutral or single-occupancy to better ensure safety, privacy, and inclusion for everyone.
You keep putting words in my mouth, at what point did i suggest rolling back rights for anyone?
It seems like you are just looking to be offended, good luck with that, ill leave you to your strawmen.
when I offered examples earlier, I wasn’t endorsing those views I was referencing arguments I’ve heard others make. Sharing an example doesn’t mean I personally support it, any more than mentioning a conspiracy theory means I believe in it.
When I mentioned “women’s safety,” I was reflecting how some cis women frame their concerns not my own view. Many of them aren’t transphobic, but simply misinformed or exposed to fear-based narratives, often through social media and sensationalist news. That’s part of why I left platforms like Facebook it was full of that kind of rhetoric even in unrelated spaces.
I absolutely understand if some people don’t want to engage with those views. But I do believe there’s value in having allies who are willing to engage in good faith, challenge misconceptions, and bring people closer to understanding and empathy especially in a climate where trans rights (and many others) are under attack.
This isn’t about compromising trans safety or dignity. It’s about strategy and outreach—about trying to build broader coalitions and prevent further regression. We may not change everyone’s mind, but we can still work to prevent them from siding with those who want to strip rights away entirely. In that, we’re all on the same side.
Just to be clear AGAIN I'm not suggesting trans people should give anything up, nor that seeking equality is "too much." That’s a misrepresentation of what I said. My original point was observational, not prescriptive. I was commenting on how polarized discourse has become, especially compared to previous civil rights movements, like the fight for gay rights in the 90s and 2000s.
I'm not arguing against pushing for rights or progress. On the contrary, I support continuing that fight wholeheartedly. My concern is about how infighting and rigid framing can stall progress and alienate allies. That’s the issue I was trying to highlight.
Just to clarify, I’m not disagreeing with you. My concern is about how certain approaches on all sides of complex issues can unintentionally lead to greater pushback. I’m not saying people shouldn’t push back at all, but rather that the "all or nothing" mentality often shuts down meaningful dialogue and hinders progress.
My original point was an observation, not a prescription. I'm reflecting on how discourse today feels more polarized compared to the more incremental, dialogue-driven progress we saw during earlier movements like gay rights 20–30 years ago or civil rights 50–60 years ago.
What does it have to do with the marathon IP? Like im genuinely curious if this has some kind of link to the original games or if its just bungie planning a tax write off by tanking an IP they own the rights to.
It seems like the only reason theyd slap an old IP onto something this generic looking is because they need a cash grab and expect the game to fail.
Oh wow thats a name i never expected to see again. I knew a guy who blew a ton of money on that game years ago.
For instance, if someone expresses concerns about safety in locker rooms, a helpful response might be: "Can we find a way to ensure women's safety without assuming all trans people are a threat?"
Engaging in good faith helps ensure that passive observers see reasoned, respectful dialogue not just the loudest or most disingenuous voices.
First off, thank you for taking the time for an execellent response. This is pretty much the kind of compromise im talking about, you acknowledge there are people with genuine concerns, but the vocal majority are acting in bad faith. You didnt just say anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, you brought more information to backup your positions.
Honestly, i am with you 100% on everything you mentioned already. The reason im posting the question like this is because sadly it seems my partner of 16 years, has fallen down the Jk Rowling rabbit hole, and i know for a fact my wife does not hate trans women, but also wants "women only spaces" because on facebook and twitter you basically get nothing but hateful stuff vaguely disguised as "safety” or fairness concerns. Its not exactly easy to convince a 49 year old life long feminist that they are falling for propaganda.
Its one thing when to have this kind of disagreement with random internet people, and quiet another to have it with someone you respect and care about. The point is conversations can and should be had. If its mostly bad faith actors being vocal with fake concerns, why not respond with something that has genuine aswers to those concerns, like what you did here so that the people who do have good faith concerns but arent speaking up dont get overwhelmed by only seeing the bad faith side of things?
They asked "What is there to compronise" and i answered "an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women"...
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say "well i dont agree with it but i still love you". Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
Yeah exactly so nothing i mentioned was actually rolling anything back, trans people never had equality, women never had equality, minorities do not have equality. You will never have equality under a capitalist system unless you have the $$$ and lawyers to backup your demands for it,.
But please keep being loud about how everyone who disagrees with you is trying to take away your rights (the ones you never had to begin with) and making up strawmen to argue with so you don't have to address anything in reality. I'm sure you'll make progress any day now with that attitude.