Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Cliff went to a lot of effort to post what is essentially one giant ad populum fallacy.
EDIT: My bad, there's also a really weak appeal to authority in there.
If the concept we're talking about is discrimination and bigotry, no, it doesn't cut both ways and now you've engaged in a false equivalence.
Terrible post all around, Cliff. 1-star.
|
This is an issue of conflicting rights. The right of natal girls and women to not face unfair competition in athletics, vs the right of transgendered women to compete in their preferred category. As much as you want to believe there’s a simple answer to that question that all informed people of goodwill can agree on, there isn’t. People like Pepsi have made up their mind (natal girls and women have to stop being such babies and suck it up). Others disagree - including regulatory bodies that have engaged in extensive research and consultation. That’s only a ‘weak appeal to authority’ if you think science and consultation with athletes should play no part in establishing fairness in sports.
Do you believe the 50 per cent of the Canadian population who support the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, but who believe athletes should compete in the sex they were assigned at birth, are ignorant bigots? How small, exactly, is your circle of moral virtue?
Actually, I know the answer - it’s very small. And it will always be very small. No matter how our society progresses and changes over the coming decades, you will always recalibrate your expectations so you can sneer at the 80 per cent of normies. Because victimhood and resentment at wider society is your whole identity.