Remove ads

2025-AT-05: Staff and Stormingart

Status
Not open for further replies.
There exists no valid reason to advocate for the restriction of a group's civil rights, no matter how marginal an outsider believes those rights are. This isn't a matter of strategy or of calculation. These are not bargaining chips. Rights are rights. Either one is or one isn't willing to advocate for them. To abridge any is to offend all, or they aren't rights at all. This is well within the coverage of Rule 2.

[X] Uphold
 
Well, here we are again.
It's always such a pleasure.

Well, no. It isn't.

I'm going to quote one thing.
Why do transgender people focus all of their attention on the bathroom issue when all it does is make them look like perverts. Acceptance of transgender people is relatively recent and pushing on this issue this early will simply make you the next Rosa Luxemburg.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This isn't some objective thing. This is you, editorialising, and calling transpeople who want to use the appropriate bathroom - the appropriate bathroom - perverts.



This is Laith Ashley. If he tried to use a woman's bathroom - as you claim he should, and several laws dictate that he "must" - well. I'd expect the police to be called a lot of the time, seeing someone like him enter. Or worse.

That is the end result of your rhetoric. First we acquiesce. Then we get arrested. And of course, the ever-present risk of assault.

You were being transphobic. You got hit. And you try to parade around your "crossdresser" status like some kind of shield.

Fuck off.

Fuck all the way off.

[X] Uphold.
 
Never called transpeople perverts. I made it very clear I didn't even in the original discussion. I don't like words being put into my mouth.
 
"Read in between the lines". Clearly didn't. My entire argument revolves around the fact that almost all republicans and a third of all democrats support bathroom bills. This is because they do not think transgender people look like that. They assume they look like muscled up men with beards wearing dresses. You forget how bigoted and conservative the US population is. You need to change that perception of transgender people before they can be convinced to allow transgender people into bathrooms. My argument was never about transgender people should never be allowed into bathrooms that align with their identities but that doing so requires us to change that perception first. They need to see that transgender people cannot be tell apart from cisgender people and that they are NOT perverts.
 
Not to mention the fact that Laith Ashley wouldn't have any problems even if bathroom bills were passed. Even if people viewed him as a women (not that he is one but many bigoted conservatives would view him as such), it is socially acceptable for women to go into men's bathrooms. It is transgender women who would have problems legally if they were found which is also unlikely as transgender people especially with early HRT look exactly like their cisgender counterparts. Anyhow I am done talking because I don't want to reignite this debate. Good night.
 
Information: I believe I was clear about this in the Tribunal opening post.
  • Staff Post
    • i believe i was clear about this in the tribunal opening post.
    Saying you don't wish to reignite a debate while simultaneously and subsequently arguing about that exact debate is a blatant attempt to sidestep previous instructions to not relitigate the argument that spurred this Tribunal. As such, the Appellant has had their posting privileges revoked from this thread for 72 hours. I request Council keep this in mind during Tribunal discussions.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Damn there seems to be more of those than usual lately, huh. I've rarely before had to confront garden-variety transphobia going all the way to appeals with a self-righteous insistence that the appellant didn't do anything wrong, and yet this is the second in a very short while.

    Concerning. Trends to keep a watch on.

    [X] Uphold.
     
    Yeah, this is an easy one. For anyone reading after who may have any trouble understanding the unanimity of the Council's decisions, here's an analogy: it would be equally reprehensible to suggest that black people in the 1950's 'pick a different fight' than desegregation of schools, since it makes white people so very uncomfortable. It is an argument that people should abrogate their own rights in order to be allowed to exist.

    [X] Uphold
     
    What I personally don't understand is how arguing that violates rule 2. I never said I was uncomfortable with transgender people being in the bathrooms that aligns with their identity, I was never hateful towards transgender people. I simply pointed out other people are. Can someone please explain how my argument violated rule 2?
     
    The initial arbitrator response didn't even touch on how it violates rule 2. I was never hateful towards transgender people. They just said my argument was wrong. The tribunal meanwhile seems to be intentionally misinterpreting my words. I never once said in my argument that I did not want transgender people in the bathroom that aligns with their identity. My original argument literally only stated we need to change how people perceive transgender people first as that will gain support allowing us to fight for allowing transgender people into bathrooms that aligns with their identity. Essentially, my argument is was always for transgender people being allowed to enter the bathrooms they want to enter. I don't understand how anything I said violated rule 2. Can someone actually explain to me how it violates rule 2 instead of making arguments which have little to do with anything I said.
     
    Sorry if this may come off as aggressive but this just seems to be virtue signaling which doesn't do the transgender community or anyone really any good. I just want an explanation really.
     
    Saying: "America is 100% LGBT friendly and we don't need to change how transgender people are perceived" won't actually do anything. It is just virtue signaling. It will just lead to transgender rights being stomped on by a fascist government.

    I got infracted for saying we need to focus on the. cause not the effect. The cause being how transgender people are perceived by the general population and the effect being bathroom bills. I never argued against transgender people being allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing. Just that we need to tackle the cause in order to do so.

    Can someone explain to me how this is a rule 2 violation and not just you all virtue signaling.

    I am done taking now.
     
    The 'asking to use the bathroom you present as makes you look like a pervert' is accepting and assuming as true the right wing position that of course any trans person going into a bathroom is going to... I don't even know, do something unacceptable. Which to people like Nancy Mace appears to include 'existing'. It's best not to talk like that.

    I see no grounds for an overturn.

    [X] Uphold
     
    So virtue signaling it is. You intentionally misinterpreted my words. I know this because you left out the rest of my words which stated I did not agree with that.

    I never said I agreed with it. Just that a third of all democrats and almost all republicans do. I made it very clear in my original argument that I do not believe that transgender people are perverts.

    I want to tackle the cause not the effect. The cause being how transgender people are perceived and the effect being bathroom bills. I am fighting for transgender people using the bathrooms they wish to use. But that in order to do that, we need to fight on how transgender people are perceived.

    You did not explain to me how this violates rule 2. Instead you leave out most of my words.
     
    Wish people here actually talked about how this is a rule 2 violation. Instead people here intentionally reignite the argument to bait me into arguing back (as they are intentionally leaving most of my words out) so they can silence me alongside virtue signaling by pretending the cause doesn't exist.
     
    Stormingart said:
    So virtue signaling it is. You intentionally misinterpreted my words. I know this because you left out the rest of my words which stated I did not agree with that.

    I never said I agreed with it. Just that a third of all democrats and almost all republicans do. I made it very clear in my original argument that I do not believe that transgender people are perverts.

    I want to tackle the cause not the effect. The cause being how transgender people are perceived and the effect being bathroom bills. I am fighting for transgender people using the bathrooms they wish to use. But that in order to do that, we need to fight on how transgender people are perceived.

    You did not explain to me how this violates rule 2. Instead you leave out most of my words.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    If you are incapable of understanding how people might feel you hate them if you make an argument that their rights should be abrogated to make people who hate them feel comfortable, then I don't really see any point in explaining further.

    That's not the kind of community we want to have here on SV.

    Further, I would strongly suggest you stop posting here and arguing with Councilors. That could lead to further consequences outside of this Tribunal itself.
     
    Last edited:
    Can't wait for Datcord to silence me again despite me merely arguing back against people leaving out most of my words and misinterpreting some of my words intentionally so they can paint me as a transphobe.
    Telamon said:
    If you are incapable of understanding how people might feel you hate them if you make an argument that their rights should be abrogated to make people who hate them feel comfortable, then I don't really see any point in explaining further.

    That's not the kind of community we want to have here on SV.

    I would strongly suggest you stop posting here and arguing with Councilors, as you've been asked to stop by moderation.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    You literally put words in my mouth again. I literally never said transgender people should have their rights abrogated. I am fighting against that as per my initial argument. I said we need to fight the cause to prevent the effect.

    I will take your suggestion and shut up from now on. I just wanted it to make it clear you guys are intentionally putting words in my mouth, leaving some out to paint me as a transphobe so you can virtue signal, and then confirm what I stated:

    Instead people here intentionally reignite the argument to bait me into arguing back (as they are intentionally leaving most of my words out) so they can silence me alongside virtue signaling by pretending the cause doesn't exist.
     
    Stormingart said:
    I said we need to fight the cause to prevent the effect.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    "just do what the transphobes want (use the wrong bathrooms) and they'll be less transphobic! Abrogate your gains! Concede your position!"

    You say - and I will quote here:
    Again I don't think people should get hung up on bathrooms. If anything this is good for the trans community. Allowing transgender people to use the bathrooms that align with their identities would simply cause backlash. This prevents people from associating transgender people with perverts.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    To avoid the backlash that de-segregation should have, because the whites won't enjoy it, why don't the black people just not get hung up on having separate facilities!

    You are blind to what you're saying. We're not virtuing signaling, you're just either a moron or a transphobe.

    Or both. Both remains an option.
     
    Estro said:
    "just do what the transphobes want (use the wrong bathrooms) and they'll be less transphobic! Abrogate your gains! Concede your position!"
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    What gains? What position? That's the problem. You would be right if transgender rights were legally protected. But they aren't. There is no repealing something that currently does not exist. You can't concede something that currently does not exist.

    We are repealing nothing but instead changing our focus to the cause (how people perceive transgender people) through agitation, through education, etc. Getting transgender people out there so people can see that they are normal people just like us.

    My argument was never about repealing already existing rights. But as you would know if you did not leave half of my words out, fighting for those rights by attacking the cause not the effect.

    You are blind to what you're saying. We're not virtuing signaling, you're just either a moron or a transphobe.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Do love how half of this thread is just people attacking me personally. Only the first page attacked my argument but they also didn't provide any reason why it violated rule 2. The second page is just personal attacks which get me frustrated to say the least.
     
    4 more messages…
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top