But the effect of thinking this way ultimately forces things into a situation where the only way to advance is to prove what is essentially an unproveable assertion. I understand the general gist of what you're getting across. You cannot have an equitable debate where one party stakes everything and the other party has little real stake in the outcome. The problem with debating human rights is that if one side loses, they lose everything. Suppression of any kind of dissent is a hallmark of a cult, so that's why that kind of activism is sometimes labelled as cultish.Īll activists, trans activists included, should make their case for their beliefs just like everyone else, and they don't have some divine right to simply declare that everything they believe is just and true, and the rest of us should just follow quietly.
It's a collective agreement that we achieve via debate in a democracy, but it is exactly this debate that zealous activists try to suppress. Everyone is deserving of all of the human rights that we collectively agree should be human rights. No, I'm saying reasonable people can disagree what counts as a fundamental human right. Are you seriously saying that it is Ok if we give people just some of their human rights?
0 kommentar(er)
