politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The paradox of tolerance is tolerating intolerance can lead to the erosion of tolerance itself. I'm perfectly cognizant of what you're trying to say, and what your meaning is and I can tell by your replies that you've not only not read what I've said (or don't understand it), but you're entirely misrepresenting what I have said.
You're under the entirely mistaken impression that I'm being tolerant of those who are being intolerant because I'm not calling for their heads on pikes. Being anti-trans is intolerant and I believe that pushing back against them is worth doing and necessary for a society. But acknowledging that, according to the US constitution, these intolerant people have the right to be intolerant in the same way that trans people have the right to be trans, isn't being tolerant of the intolerant. It's pointing out that our most supreme law of the land affords these people this right and attempting to curtail that right is in violation of those rights and is unconstitutional in the same way its unconstitutional to attempt to curtail the rights of trans.
I've said exactly two things in the entirety of all my replies here;
Personally I would hope that wouldn't be the case. I would think that the younger generation have a good head on their shoulders and would see that trans rights are human rights. But you can't force that ideology onto people. Recognizing people have a right to be intolerant isn't siding with them, nor is it feeding into a tolerance paradox. I can still call them assholes and bigots while simultaneously recognizing their right to be repugnant.
I understand your arguments and I reject the conclusions you've drawn.
Sure, all people have rights and their rights must be respected. However, some people are misusing their rights to, in effect, erode and negate other's rights. In such an event, that behavior needs to be checked/curtailed by the societal groups around them, and, failing this, at an institutional level. Allowing that behavior to spread inevitably leads to an erosion of all human rights, which must be prevented.
What you're doing is effectively pardoning that behavior by reinforcing their rights, letting them have a platform to continue to spread toxic and negative ideology, and refusing the university in curtailing their bad-faith behavior. The university can, and should, continue to allow trans athletes to compete, and should stand up to a government that tries to erode trans/human rights. Full stop.
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable, and preventing that behavior is not synonymous with restricting rights.
I'm not a legislative body, so I can't pardon anyone.
Female students have a right to a safe space free from genetic males--trans females. Prioritizing trans females ignores current female athletes' concerns. Which is the core issue.
You can't negate students' rights for inclusivity. Gendered leagues are, by definition, gendered. Schools can't legally curtail student rights to accommodate others, regardless of feelings about transgenderism. Some athletes oppose competing with trans individuals, and their rights have to also be respected.
This is a desegregation moment. Like the South's defense of segregated schools, gender-separated sports are being used to exclude. The Civil Rights movement shifted focus to Black students' right to public education. You have to shift the focus from a never-ending fight about rights to desegregate collegiate sports. Mixing gender-separated sports with transgenderism is untenable. Eliminate gendered sports; a level playing field removes grounds for opposition. It's the only sensible solution.