I never stated they had no merit. What I did state was that they should be endorsed based on their merit and not a headline pushing them because of their transition.
I’d be willing to bet that most trans would rather be known by their merit and not clouted in a headline based on their transition.
What I did state was that they should be endorsed based on their merit and not a headline pushing them because of their transition.
this is just chickenshit “I don’t see color!” rhetoric but applied to trans people—if you come back with this an additional time i will ban you.
as an aside: irrespective of whatever nonsense idea of “merit” you have, it’s actually incredibly significant to be a visible, high-profile trans person of any kind, and most trans people embrace the role of being publicly trans. you can also be the most clearly “qualified” trans person ever and it just won’t matter, because existing as a trans person opens you to vitriol, hate, cries that you’re a degenerate diversity hire and grooming children, unprosecuted calls for your violent murder, and and increasingly state-sponsored misgendering and denial of your gender identity.
Is that what you do here? You can’t have a conversation and just threaten a ban when having a civil conversation? You can see from my post history that I’ve been nothing but cordial in any discussion I have. If banning someone during a civil conversation is your “win”, then go ahead.
Leaving out the “people” after “trans” sure does dehumanize trans folks and is not what I would call civilized. Not using she/her pronouns when it is pretty obvious that is what she uses is also telling. Tone isn’t the only thing that makes civil conversation
Yours is a performative cordiality that serves only to attempt to skirt rules rather than actually adhere to the spirit of them. It has no value whatsoever, and makes up for none of your awful rhetoric.
Calm attitudes do not grant you license to shit on people.
Sounds to me like you think she has no merit.
Can’t help but wonder on what basis you might’ve made that assumption.
I never stated they had no merit. What I did state was that they should be endorsed based on their merit and not a headline pushing them because of their transition.
I’d be willing to bet that most trans would rather be known by their merit and not clouted in a headline based on their transition.
this is just chickenshit “I don’t see color!” rhetoric but applied to trans people—if you come back with this an additional time i will ban you.
as an aside: irrespective of whatever nonsense idea of “merit” you have, it’s actually incredibly significant to be a visible, high-profile trans person of any kind, and most trans people embrace the role of being publicly trans. you can also be the most clearly “qualified” trans person ever and it just won’t matter, because existing as a trans person opens you to vitriol, hate, cries that you’re a degenerate diversity hire and grooming children, unprosecuted calls for your violent murder, and and increasingly state-sponsored misgendering and denial of your gender identity.
Is that what you do here? You can’t have a conversation and just threaten a ban when having a civil conversation? You can see from my post history that I’ve been nothing but cordial in any discussion I have. If banning someone during a civil conversation is your “win”, then go ahead.
Leaving out the “people” after “trans” sure does dehumanize trans folks and is not what I would call civilized. Not using she/her pronouns when it is pretty obvious that is what she uses is also telling. Tone isn’t the only thing that makes civil conversation
Yours is a performative cordiality that serves only to attempt to skirt rules rather than actually adhere to the spirit of them. It has no value whatsoever, and makes up for none of your awful rhetoric.
Calm attitudes do not grant you license to shit on people.