Okay, thank you. Some things (I think) you were right about, some I disagree with. I’m hedging even though my own beliefs/goals were the subject because I’m open to my own account being questioned. If I want to make speculations about eg subconscious things that might affect you, then I should be open to the same kind of mechanics affecting me, too.
Anyway, here are my answers from the other day. I didn’t add anything about immigration but I can do later if you like.
I’ll respond to your ideas about mine later.
I think your view on transgenderism is that it’s okay, has no significant negative consequences (to people or society), and is so obviously okay that anyone opposing it must be a bigot or an idiot or worse.
I think your view on gender identity is that it’s valid, without limitation, and that questioning it is itself only done out of bigoted and unprincipled positions. Sometimes people question it and mean well, but these people don’t put up much of a fight, and certainly don’t make loud and/or public statements. They universally end up agreeing. Anyone who does not can only be doing it due to bad reasons.
I think your view on sex is that it is trumped by gender identity, and there are no significant, substantial, or valid reasons for treating them separately, with the sole exception of medical matters, and even then that might be only those that necessarily need correct information about sex/gender. The idea of biological men having free entry into women’s restrooms is just something we’ll have to get used to, and it’s preferable to tolerate any sexual assault that results and that our criminal justice system will handle those cases fine.
I do not think you see any substantive issues with the logical formulation or argumentation you have put forward so far. I do not think you see any substantive contradictions between the beliefs that most men (or at least a double-digit percentage) will do opportunistic SA and that allowing trans women in women’s bathrooms is the right thing to do.
I think these views are radical for at least these two reasons:
- These views are treated as principled despite there being no coherent principled argument in favor of it, and despite the implied changes having considerable impact and being far reaching.
- Many of the views you hold would be wild 20 years ago; many rational, liberal people (from 20 years ago) would find it hard to believe that in 2026 biological males would be allowed to enter women’s bathrooms, teenage males would be winning girl’s sporting events and injuring (female) girls in the process, and that the common and widely-practiced feminist ideology says that this is right and correct, that you’re a bigot if you don’t agree, and that, when it came to wedge issues, some feminist factions now had more in common with conservatives than the left. These are radical because they are a large shift in a short space of time.
If there is an argument to be made that these are not radical, I think it is that these ideas are now pretty widespread and largely implemented.
Note that I’m not arguing that radical ideas are bad. Sometimes they are good. The enlightenment was radical. America’s founding was radical. Feminism was radical. But also: Reganomics was radical (and IMO bad). The Bolsheviks were radical (also bad). Nazis and Fascism was radical (also bad).
On (my impression of) your goals:
Note: I’m ignoring things like entertainment/recreation.
I think you want to make the world better and are engaging with me as part of that. One goal is to change my mind about some things that you think are bad (and you have done that on some things (or been part of that happening at least)).
I also think you want to win and do not want to concede any points, whether that’s really a goal or not is maybe moot. I could say more but it’s highly speculative and mostly based on how I have felt in the past (particularly pre-FI/CF).