What’s disheartening for me is the number of dopers who read an incredibly one sided article full of accusations–noticeably lacking in actual facts but brimming with incredible logical leaps supported by a lengthy list of quotes from exactly one side of the argument. Seems no other viewpoints were sought.
The one fact that seems to be established is that a statute of an early suffragist was marked with anti-gay slogans during a trans-rights protest by a person or persons unknown. From this information we are asked to conclude that trans gendered people object so strongly to women having been given the right to vote a hundred years ago that they are vandalizing statues now. Having accepted that logical deduction, we must further conclude that anti-trans activists are supporters of human rights while pro-trans activists want to restrict the rights of women.
@xtenkfarpl may have been a little slow realizing this but their sense of fairness eventually forced them to see through it. That is to be commended. It’s difficult to recognize our own errors and correct them but it’s essential.
If only all dopers were as self-aware.