A disconnect in debates around trans issues is both sides claiming the mantle of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ in support of their political positions. Those making anti-trans arguments suggest that pro-trans people are in denial about the existence of a sexual binary, and that they “don’t know what a woman is”. Those making the pro-trans argument suggest that anti-trans people are ignorant of the complexity of biological sexuality and the numerous ways in which a person can be neither male nor female.
I assume most people making either of these arguments understand the sense in which the other is accurately describing reality, but they tend to minimize that sense for rhetorical reasons. Their real disagreement is about which sense has more weight for various political purposes: the anti-trans position emphasizes the majority, the ‘norm’, while the pro-trans position emphasizes the minority, the edge-cases.
This tendency to center the majority vs the minority seems a recurring theme in culture-war political disagreement, in questions around race and gender and wealth. How much should we inconvenience the majority to improve the lives of the minority? Is it more important to improve the lives of more people, or of the people whose lives are hardest? Perhaps we see it most explicitly in the competing slogans, “Black Lives Matter” vs. “All Lives Matter”.
There are even competing roles served by political rights: as protecting the majority against the whims of a powerful minority, or as protecting minorities against the preferences of the many.
Is this a fundamental difference in personality, such that it will tend to predict which issues cluster together politically, or just a rhetorical tactic employed where useful? I suspect it’s the former, and that people’s political beliefs will tend to consistently align towards one or the other, with the normal caveat that we’ll see individual deviations where individuals fall differently into minority and majority on various issues.
If it is, it is a political dimension distinct from left and right, though minority-focus is often left wing. Immigration is an example where minority-focus and majority-focus diverge on the left, as many on the left oppose immigration because of a presumed conflict between the interests of domestic labor (the majority) against the interests of those who would migrate to seek opportunity (the minority).
Neither mainstream left nor right-wingers have any opinion worth a grain of salt when it comes to trans issues.
Only intellectuals such as yourself, myself and other online intellectuals have any opinion worth considering all.
For example right-wingers will outright lie and make up false statistics such as bathroom rape myths or extremely exaggerate trans mass shooter statistics like Charlie kirk did, when there were only 5 trans mass shooters yet his tone of voice and what he said insinuated there were hundreds.
Meanwhile the left knowingly lies about trans brains being the same as female brains, they know its a lie but say it anyway as propaganda. I know this because they told me they know its a lie but say it anyway.
Neither side is worthy of our respect at all. Also the new lgbt flag looks butt ugly, i prefer the original trans flag to be quite honest. And there was no democratic vote on the lgbt flag.
my opinion is transsexuality benefits the majority. There are statistics saying that only 3% of men are willing to date a transwoman which i think are bs stastitics, most men seem to lust towards femboys and trannies for example.
the second thing is my Futarani plan will save humanity, the alternative is death. We can look at examples such as Petrov saving humanity from nuclear armeggedon. The current non-futarani cis societal system puts all humans at the very edge of death and obliteration. Although futarani are not the same as transwomen, they are similar enough for me to mention.
note that the ungrateful soviet bastards did not even give him a medal or even a promotion, and infact punished him for saving society from nuclear armeggedon, that is how backwards cis society is.
The individual (smallest unit of every group) is the smallest minority and is protected against the majoritarian “will of the people“ (be that a majority or a minority) by making sure every law conforms to the golden rule. If every individual in every group is protected, then every legitimate group is protected. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Imagine you are them, or your group is their group, and don’t limit their actions or impose on them or their group any actions you & your group don’t want limited or imposed upon. You can’t have zero limits (chaos), but the limits have to apply equally to every stakeholder. The only point of law is to remind people that everyone is respecting each other‘s fair limits and playing the same game without cheating. Stupid rules ruin the game and spoil the fun. Only cheaters (losers by default) would want to write unfairness into the rules.