Some people believe in things and aren’t minmaxing their life based on what gives them the best return.
Of course, they can be wrong. But I always find it odd when people say “I don’t understand” when it seems so obvious to me. They see things as right vs wrong and want to make things right even if it hurts them.
I don't understand believing that trans people (or whatever other belief) are a major threat, but I understand getting heavily involved in policies around trans people if one were to somehow believe that trans people are a major threat.
What I don't understand is spending your days shitposting on Twitter about it. I'm not sure if that applies to Adams, but it definitely applies to Musk and Rowling.
I have not seen any indication that Rowling, Musk, or Adams assert that trans people are categorically a "major threat". That said, these folks do view trans people as a "major threat" to those athletes who compete in the category that once was exclusive to humans distinguished by having XX chromosomes. They believe, and rightly so in my opinion, that this athletic competition category should remain exclusive to those humans scientifically established (usually pretty obvious at birth) to have XX chromosomes.
>those humans scientifically established (usually pretty obvious at birth) to have XX chromosomes
It is entirely possible your heart is in the right place, but this specific comment gives it away that you haven't actually looked at this issue too closely. There are "scientifically established" reasons why this issue is a lot more complicated than the anti-trans folks always make it out to be, even if we completely ignore the existence of trans people. Look up Swyer Syndrome[1] for example.
The obvious indication is that they’re putting a huge amount of time and money into this issue. If they don’t think it’s a major threat then what are they even doing?
I think many people view it as a "four lights" situation. How many lights there are isn't really consequential, when you see four lights and you're being commanded to say there are five lights or else, you're going to have some people dig in their heels and refuse to submit no matter how much it hurts them. In fact, rich people who can insulate themselves from the hurt are in the best position to obstinately stick to their version of things.
> I don't understand believing that trans people (or whatever other belief) are a major threat, but I understand getting heavily involved in policies around trans people if one were to somehow believe that trans people are a major threat.
You are presenting a strawman argument, and then declaring you can't believe that others believe this. The truth is, they don't believe that.
What women like J.K Rowling argue is that women's and girl's rights are harmed by insisting that trans people be treated for all purposes as their declared gender without regard to their birth sex. They argue that women and girls by virtue of their sex need single-sex facilities where males aren't admitted, no matter how that male self-identifies. They argue that treating adolescents expressing gender confusion with puberty blockers and surgery is extremely harmful and morally wrong.
And it's clear from recent surveys and polls that clear majorities in most western countries agree. An example of this is a recent poll in the UK regarding its recent Supreme Court judgement on the interpretation of its Equality Act. [1][2]
Regardless of the position you take on this, nothing is to be gained by not engaging with what others are actually saying and arguing.
I’m trying to be charitable. The alternative is that these people are spending a ton of their personal time and wealth on a problem that is not a major threat, which is a much worse look for them.
Are they spending a ton of their time and wealth. Rowling has tweeted like 20 times in 5 years. It doesn’t seem like a big part of her life, just something she’s talked about.
It’s like I comment about oatmeal raisin cookies. I like them and will engage in conversation every few months or so. But it’s not a ton of my life. I don’t wake up and go to bed thinking of cookies.
Huh? I checked her account to see how many times she’s tweeted in the past day, but I got bored and stopped after 20. And every. Single. One. Is about trans stuff.
No it's not. Latest tweet is a retweet about the assisted dying bill going through Parliament. Next is about women's rights to single-sex spaces in context of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Three tweets down is a retweet about an LGB conference. The tweet before that is about her taking legal action against libellous statements.
A few more tweets down from that is something about a man who fought a polar bear off with a saucepan.
That's a fair rebuttal. I guess what I don't understand is the reflexive nature to double-triple-quadruple down into stuff that's like... not even overly difficult to discern as being wrong? Like to come back to Scott Adams, he seems to have a lifelong set of issues around socializing, and is a bit racist. But like, he managed a successful career that got around those things. So why come back in his twilight years to be really racist in public, even as people asked him to not? Even has a lot of his fans asked him to not?
I think if you ask Scott Adam’s if he’s racist, he doesn’t think so. So the hill to die on is something to the effect of what he thinks is right and he doesn’t see that as racist.
Of course, they can be wrong. But I always find it odd when people say “I don’t understand” when it seems so obvious to me. They see things as right vs wrong and want to make things right even if it hurts them.