Yes.
How so? Even if I had issues with trans, Ellis being non-trans doesn't mean he is trustworthy.One does not actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groups for the expressed reason of you wanting to prevent trans people without being sincere in that belief.
Is being sincerely shitty somehow better than insincerely shitty?They're the same picture.
Dude, she's not afraid of interacting with men. She just believes that in general, they are a threat to women's safety.And she's taking it out on people who are in huge danger. Trans peoples lives are in danger, and it is the hateful rhetoric that people like her spread that puts their lives in danger. That gets highschool students beat up, and people killed during dates, simply for being non binary or trans.
So no, her thanking a man that complimented her, does not mean she doesn't believe all of the horrible things she repeatedly doubles down on.
One does not actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groups for the expressed reason of you wanting to prevent trans people without being sincere in that belief.
Like, this isn't even the degrees of separation thing. WTF is your point?
actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groupsWhat neo-Nazi groups does Rowling fund?
What neo-Nazi groups does Rowling fund?Unfortunately I've never been able to re-dig up the article about it. It was from about 5-6 years ago and the group has since been arrested/disbanded.
I don't think someone would like that would turn around and start passionately hating transgender people for any reason they weren't "sincere" about.
There's no clout for her here, no money she needs to make, she wasn't short of attention.
She 100% believes the hateful rhetoric. She literally believes she would be a transgender man if she was born 20 years ago and that thought terrifies her.
He words, not mine.
Trans people are in general not a threat to women.
And I'd imagine her hateful rhetoric is more of a threat to cis women because it contributes to this attitude of paranoia over "who is REALLY a REAL woman?" that leads to violence against women merely perceived as possibly trans because they don't pass some bullshit beauty standard some of these deranged people apply.The "we can always tell" crowd are very quick to assume and get nasty. So, yes, her rhetoric is more of a threat to cis women than trans women are.
As for the whole bathroom safety measure, I don't know.The vast majority, if they are actually concerned for safety "issues" of trans women using the women's room, that support such measures would absolutely call the cops if they saw a trans man walking in. These "safety measures" only exist to harm trans people and those who don't pass the complainant's standards of what a "real (gender)" is.
As for the whole bathroom safety measure, I don't know. If one is fine with women who are gay/big still using the women's bathroom, I'd say that yeah, it would be odd to then draw the line at trans.Big? O_o
Do I care?
Is being sincerely shitty somehow better than insincerely shitty?
Big? O_o
Damn those big women?
I concur. I always bring up the Candace Owens example of how in an official hearing, meaning under oath, she said the only thing Hitler did wrong was take his policies outside of Germany.
Do I believe she is a genuine white supremacist or has a Nazi SS uniform hanging in her closet at home? No. Does that actually change anything or the effect of the words she just stated as "factual"? No.
People working towards or giving harmful conclusions are still causing harm even if they are not sincerely feeling it in their heart.
And frankly, maybe such a thought is morally wrong ( If nothing else some venting ), but I would just like to see a final election to guarantee LGBTQ+ rights (and maybe abortion).
Basically let the antis have their word, but if they choose to vote they agree to random a background check and inspection to prove their moral character. Failing to pass is pretty much a way to get around denying their votes. Random so there is no last minute evidence hiding.
As an added bonus, making said voters and their problems public.
Not sure I can agree with that, though you are definitely free to vent your view. I'm in favor of easier access to voting even if it is for the sack of shit dregs of society.
Though I can't argue I'm any morally better as living in the U.S. and seeing how right-wingers use free speech to cause one of the most disastrous political climates in a modernized western democracy has turned me against U.S. free speech in favor of more restricted speech centered around not spreading objective lies and/or spreading hatred towards marginalized and discriminated groups via stochastic terrorism.
Living in this country is frustrating, to say the least.
TC is really hung up on the idea of using literal purity tests to disenfranchise voters they don't agree with despite how blatantly authoritarian it would be.
Basically let the antis have their word, but if they choose to vote they agree to random a background check and inspection to prove their moral character. Failing to pass is pretty much a way to get around denying their votes. Random so there is no last minute evidence hiding.What in the actual fuck?
As an added bonus, making said voters and their problems public.
What in the actual fuck?
So now she's a liar or something? Is there a history of that?What is this? She is known for using her platform to spread harmful disinformation.
I'd say she's actually been pretty open to speaking her mind, but maybe that's just me.