As mentioned in my post, in response to people falling for the naturalistic fallacy: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Whether it’s natural or not is simply the wrong metric by which to evaluate whether someone has a right to exist or be treated with dignity.
It’s akin to someone saying to you after you’ve dyed your hair, “that’s not natural,” and then you scramble to insist that it is.
The right response is: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Also: how do you read this and think I’m anything but an ally? I’m explicitly advocating for compassion, dignity, and equal rights for trans people. Pushing back on bad reasoning doesn’t contradict that; it strengthens it.
If your definition of “ally” means I’m required to accept weak arguments without criticism, then you don’t want allies. You want sycophants. And I’m not signing up for that.
I’m not interested in moral purity contests where allyship is contingent on uncritical agreement.
As mentioned in my post, in response to people falling for the naturalistic fallacy: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Whether it’s natural or not is simply the wrong metric by which to evaluate whether someone has a right to exist or be treated with dignity.
It’s akin to someone saying to you after you’ve dyed your hair, “that’s not natural,” and then you scramble to insist that it is.
The right response is: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Also: how do you read this and think I’m anything but an ally? I’m explicitly advocating for compassion, dignity, and equal rights for trans people. Pushing back on bad reasoning doesn’t contradict that; it strengthens it.
If your definition of “ally” means I’m required to accept weak arguments without criticism, then you don’t want allies. You want sycophants. And I’m not signing up for that.
I’m not interested in moral purity contests where allyship is contingent on uncritical agreement.