>>40698747
forgive me for expressing skepticism here with regard to the sincerity of this line of questioning.
people often like to think in black and white and politics is even more often not a black-and-white thing. it is polarizing, especially, when something like [>thread topic] is a legitimate catalyst for further social stigma. to be honest with you, i don't really know or care about this issue at all, so i can't speak about it in much detail, but humor me in my confidence that op is probably right about this being terrible for optics. maybe not the absolute end-of-the-world-level scenario that some people seem to think, but it's not good. anyways, it has very little, if anything at all, to do with trans people, and yet it is already stirring transphobia.
the point is that this will slmost certainly have indirect political repercussions, somewhere down the line. when something as sensitive as the safety of your existence is on the line, it is easy to lose sight of kindness in the fog of disbelief that someone could believe that you (who likely believe yourself to be a good person) are a problem to be solved. you already know this, of course, being on /legbutt/, but that is why i choose it to illustrate the point.
but anyways politics is a very high-stakes gray area, which makes it easy to lose sight of kindness over. that's the long and short of what i'm trying to say. what is important to remember is to choose your battles. the internet has even further polarized people to the point where it doesn't often even seem worthwhile to have a discussion, since everyone has already so rigidly made up their mind about the thing being discussed that it is unlikely a comment-section conversation under some yet-more-polarizing out-of-context clickbait will result in the location of any common ground. i'm probably rambling now and i'm no longer really proofreading sorry if this is incomprehensible
