Those people are vastly outnumbered for a reason though. Fields of science aren't immune to errors or people who are supposed to be experts in their field yet are still flat out wrong. There's more and more evidence as time goes on that those who are against the current methods of handling transgenderism are simply wrong. There's enough currently that there's no reason at all to believe them or even consider what they have to say on the subject. (Unless they have something that hasn't been repeated a thousand times already though they're still unlikely to have anything to say that's going to prove that the current methods of handling it are wrong.)
Actually, the majority of people who argue against anti-trans stuff are not necessarily trans themselves, though some of them naturally are. What they are, however, is liberal, and liberals in general (not all of them) preach about tolerance in addition to being supremely intolerant of those who disagree with them.
I think you might have partly misread what I was saying. Note that I specified online as I have little personal experience discussing transgenderism with people offline outside my own friends and family. (So I can't speak for offline.) I also specified that it was that way but it's changing. In my experience it's really only been the last year or so that people who aren't transgender have really defended transgender people at all in most places.
What they are, however, is liberal, and liberals in general (not all of them) preach about tolerance in addition to being supremely intolerant of those who disagree with them.
I can't really disagree there, a lot of people who identify as liberal definitely are quite intolerant, but that doesn't really seem very relevant to the conversation to me.
There's evidence that goes both ways, it's just that the people who argue against it are discredited simply for not having the popular opinion. Like what you just did, actually - that was a wonderful example to prove my point, so thanks for making it.
I heard your specification, but my statement referred to both online and IRL people I've interacted with. Typically, the people who argue against anti-trans are almost all liberals, whether they're trans themselves or not. Note that due to aligning views, transgenders typically are liberal themselves, which adds to both our points.
Whether liberals are intolerant or not was the entire point of my first post, actually. The guy I replied to was obviously one by the way he was both defending and attacking simultaneously (and therefore showing both his "tolerance" and intolerance very plainly), and when I said "your type of people have to watch out for this", I was referring to liberals. Though I'll admit the implication would have been hard to catch if you weren't looking for it from the start.
But it's late for me (about 3:30 am), and I need sleep. I'd love to continue this discussion as long as it strays away from attacks to person, but the later I stay up, the harder it'll be for me to be functional tomorrow/later today. Peace for now. May this not devolve into a flame war in my absence.
Nah, I'm not going to be "tolerant" of people who try to deny my identity and stop me from accessing appropriate medical treatment or legal protections. I have no obligation to tolerate opinions that put me in actual physical danger. I do not have to tolerate the dehumanizing behaviour of other people or their patent disrespect for me as a person.
It's great for you that your neutrality about the rights of trans people lets you feel all smug and intellectually superior but in reality your stance is about as legitimate as being neutral on climate change or evolution. We very obviously exist and people like you are being completely ridiculous in presenting your doubt of our legitimacy as remotely rational. It's prejudice and ignorance plain and simple.
