Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier Boy
Neh that's an extremely weak argument even if assumed to be true; you're straight up admitting that it can be taken advantage of, just disclaiming it with the idea that people "only know that" because it was highlighted by people concerned at the possibility?
Your argument, then, hinges on the idea that said predators "would never have noticed" and so it wouldn't have been a problem which is at best shaky. Logically, of course it would still have "been noticed" and propagated. Best case scenario is that it might have taken a little longer.
And that's assuming full accuracy of what you're saying, I think there's a strong case to be made that the rise of "anti trans" has gone hand in hand with unrelated, self-driven trans awareness that has nothing at all to do with any anti-trans movement and is more rooted in the identity-politics that defines and is interwoven with late millenial/early genZ sociology.
|
I'm not making any argument, as I have no interest in this discussion on here. I'm just pointing to the facts of the timeline. If it's true, then it's not weak. By definition.
Dude, honestly, you're the only person on here that I would have had this discussion with in a serious manner, but it's not something I'm interested in anymore. It always devolves. I've had folks who I had long standing relationships with, saying I've never been an ally to women about anything because of this topic, and let's also not forget your Saturday morning love letters to me about my signature (honestly no hard feelings whatsoever). It's always only ever one misplaced sentence (from either side) away from descending into full on stupidity, and so there's just no point.