We share a distaste for the speech police, and most controversial sociocultural discussions seem to lead to the opposing sides cutting corners (philosophically, morally, or legally) in the interest of meeting their own needs.

It’s nuanced, and complicated, and fraught. Anti-trans rhetoric (the really nasty bigoted stuff) is directly correlated with instances of anti-trans violence. But where do you draw the line? These are lines that I’m vary wary of any government getting to draw. Because that kind of power is an inevitable slippery slope.

The intention of my original post was to (vehemently) disagree with the caricature of bitcoiners being closed to the idea that our society and the humans who comprise it are actually far more complicated than it appears.

How many other times has science revealed insights about humanity and the universe that was not visible to the naked eye?

In this way, I think the anti-trans view is incorrect (and will be proven such in time), and the marginalization of individuals in our society which results from such a viewpoint is more damaging than simply keeping an open mind and listening to people around us. 

 I just *personally* don't think these things are too complicated.  

When your body is dug up ~300 years from now, the amount of gender affirmation or surgery done will more than likely not be traceable - and the details pertaining to your gender will be evident from your skeletal structure as either man or woman.

I don't see this viewpoint as stoking anti-trans rhetoric. 
 

 Eh. I think it sidesteps the actual questions at hand, while maintaining a structure of marginalization against a minority.

I sincerely appreciate the civil discourse here. Not a lot of places on the internet where  this👆exists. 

Especially not when the conversation gets started by a note like mine 😉 

 I should be precise though. Not “maintaining a structure of marginalization”, but “maintaining a structure that supports marginalization”.

Less accusatory and more accurate 🤝