On "trans rights" and rights in general
Contrary to popular misconception, critics of the transgender movement do not disagree that trans people have "rights" as a monolith. They're talking about whether trans people have specific rights including:
- not being misgendered
- tax-payer funded gender surgery/hormones
- (specifically children) to get surgery at all without their parents consent (or with)
I don't definitely disagree with all of the above, but it gives you a sense of the reasonable criticism people can have with the concept of "trans rights" as "allies" actually mean it (not as the basic human rights they claim to mean).
I do definitely disagree with the right to not be misgendered, as that goes against the right to free speech, which I value a lot.
Trans rights I definitely agree with:
- having surgery with their own money as an adult
- social transition (excluding the bit where they force other people to play along calling them by their preferred pronouns using laws such as the German self-identity law)
- freedom from violence from bigots
Human rights are not just a stand-in for "things I like". They actually mean something. Namely, government force applied to protect a property of a human being or group thereof (legal right), or a moral obligation on someone to do or not do something to/for someone (moral right).
A legal right to not be misgendered means that the government passes laws prohibiting misgendering trans people. Think about that.
On "trans rights" and rights in general
misgendering people, whether they're cis or trans, is likely to hurt them. making mistakes illegal usually involves very demanding requirements of negligence, but making willfully hurting others out of spite and prejudice illegal is a lot more reasonable
as for medical and psychological treatments needed by any person to be able to live a happier life, ruling some out just because you don't experience or need them comes across as horribly selfish to me. I hope you never need treatment for a condition that others reject as legitimate, and if you do, that you aren't, like, taking back at another vulnerable group. especially teens and children, who may have to deal with bigotry and intolerance not only in society at large, and in doctors, but also in parents that were supposed to be supportive
In the USA, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is protected free speech no matter what (as it should be) - you just face the consequences if anything happens (nothing ever happens anymore, as theaters are designed to avoid crowd crushes and people now tend to ignore crying wolf).
It is a terrible idea to let the government get away with making any speech illegal, ever, even if you are opposed to such speech - as the government can and will exploit that weapon against you on a whim (for example, they'll gleefully take the chance to go look back over everything you've ever said until they find illegal speech and then put you in prison for years to life for such bad speech).
It is not reasonable to make even hurting others feelings out of spite and prejudice illegal, as the cure to spite and prejudice is more speech - not arrests and censorship.
Many people absolutely hate my guts for daring to like freedom and community and do their absolute best to try to hurt my feelings (but they do not win, as I do not stoop to their level by attempting censorship) and would love nothing more for speech that points out that free software even exists (after all, it hurts the feelings of corpo suits badly) - it is highly important that such people do not end up with such power! (some of them already partially do - there are some microsoft businesses that have a contract+NDA that states that mentioning that free software even exists to business customers is forbidden).
@Suiseiseki
And add to that that it's not spiteful or prejudiced to not believe that men can be women or vice versa.
It is absolutely an insane argument to say that affirming reality can be morally wrong, let alone should be illegal.
@lxo
