Read on Twitter
Basically, it goes like this.
Person not in minority: *expresses view that opposes the existence of and is harmful to a minority, constituting an attack.& #39;
Person in minority: & #39;Please do not do this.& #39;
Person not in minority: & #39;I am being attacked.& #39;
Person not in minority: *expresses view that opposes the existence of and is harmful to a minority, constituting an attack.& #39;
Person in minority: & #39;Please do not do this.& #39;
Person not in minority: & #39;I am being attacked.& #39;
I mean. I doubt you can successfully frame this as anything other than hypocrisy. You can try, if you wish. But you won& #39;t get far.
That& #39;s why, if you articulate that you don& #39;t believe that transgenderism exists, ergo trans people don& #39;t have a valid opinion, it& #39;s hypocritical then to express surprise and frustration that your opinion isn& #39;t valid. Because you& #39;re a victim of the very thing you practise.
So, unfortunately, & #39;can& #39;t we accept all opinions?& #39; isn& #39;t valid, because validating the idea that some people& #39;s voices are not valid - well, it surely doesn& #39;t make sense!
And I understand, if you& #39;re long-term friends with the individual harbouring these non-conducive views, you& #39;ll probably prefer to be civil and try and appease both sides. Because that& #39;s more comfortable. But is it necessarily the right thing to do?
I mean, if we took Gareth Roberts& #39; article and substituted transgender people for homosexuals, or people like me who have mental disabilities such as Asperger& #39;s... I mean, goodness. How would you countenance such a thing, in all good conscience?
I think I already raised this point before, but I believe it& #39;s worth re-iterating. Look at Graham Lineham. Unable to get any professional work, because the industry would be mad to be associated with him, and ridiculed by the people whose rights he claims to be defending.
