“Don't be shocked, but I am a supporter of the human rights of Black people, women, lesbian and gay people, trans people and all other people regardless of ethnicity, religious belief (or non-belief) to be treated with dignity, tolerance, equality and fairness within human society.”
I’m only shocked because you used “woke” as a perjorative, which pretty much always signifies an asshole. It’s been thrown around so indiscriminantly at this point it’s essentially stripped of meaning beyond being an epithet.
“I am not a fan of the religious right but I believe that late-stage predatory capitalism and delusions of empire among both neoliberals an neocons is a more dangerous and destructive force in American politics.”
A few things: one is that I’m not sure that delusions of empire are a big thing right now, historically speaking. Unless you’re a Putin fan worried about NATO or a Putin foe worried he’s trying to put the USSR back together?
Second, I agree whatever capitalism has morphed into has become an existential threat. Third, we need to have room for more than one existential threat - capitalism may end the American experiment, the Religious Right actually wants to. We’re going to have to multi-task here. Last, the Religious Right and late-stage capitalism are basically fused together, so opposing both is fairly straighforward. Marx was right, religion is being used as the opiate of the masses.
“I don't believe questioning the extremism of some trans activists is means that I am ‘siding with’ the religious right, much less being anti-trans.”
Didn’t say there weren’t extremists, the whole point of the article is that siding with the RR is a mistake. It’s only a mistake you’re making if you’re making it.
“Can you not see the uncompromising extremism in the current trans activist stance that any biological male who declares himself a woman is therefore a woman equal to all other women and must be treated as such for all legal and social purposes, no matter the practical difficulties and undeniably negative impacts that imposes on other members of society, including many women who are not trans. “
(1) How much of that is actually happening?
(2) What are the threats to society?
(3) That seems like something civilized people can sort out. Given that the right want to take an axe to feminism and eradicate all LGBTQ rights, the threats posed seem very unequal in danger.
“Trans rights (like the rights of all marginalized groups in society) will not make significant genuine headway if no effort to reconcile them with the legitimate human rights of all other human beings.”
Not quite sure what this means. It sounds like “marginalized groups only get as many rights as the rest of us choose to give them.” Maybe I’m misreading it.
“This is not easy, but basic human rights gained by one group cannot be won at the price of the basic human rights of another group.
People who’ve never had basic human rights might disagree.
“Human rights must fit into a universal scheme to be legitimate and universally recognized and respected. No short cuts.”
Human rights have never and never will fit into a universal scheme or be legitimate and universally recognized and respected. Some people will always think they’re better than others and/or they deserve more rights.
What happens when there’s a conflict? The way you’ve phrased it, whoever gets there first claims the rights, whoever follows has to settle for what’s left. Some men think they’re losing rights to women, who decides? With your structure we’d still have slavery, still waiting for that univeral respect. How long do groups have to wait before getting their rights? Until everyone else is comfortable? If it was you, would you be that patient?
