WoodScientist comments on Dems gonna Dem

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The point is we should not make trans people in sports a litmus test for all candidates.

Name a single political jurisdiction that banned trans kids from playing sports and was content with stopping there. Name one.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a slippery slope fallacy. I say sports isn’t worth throwing every single other concern out the window, and you say ah but it’s not about sports, that’s just how it begins - if we don’t stand up for sports now, tomorrow they’ll be shoveling trans kids into crematoria.

I won’t engage that faulty line of reasoning.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

You don't know what the slippery slope fallacy is.

The slippery slope is a fallacy when you're just making hypothetical conjectures. I'm discussing the exact and specific numerous states have followed. I'm not speculating; I'm describing history.

Again, name ONE political jurisdiction that has stopped at sports. You can't because you know it never stops there, and that calling this a "slippery slope fallacy" is just your abominable attempt to cover for genocide.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago*

Are you saying that every jurisdiction that has squabbled over trans people in sports has proceeded to genocide? This slope is more slippery than I thought!

You’ve tried twice now to get me to disprove a point you won’t even come right out and make. It won’t work. Make your point, if you can, that by failing to support trans people in sports, Gavin will shortly be shoveling trans kids into the ovens, like so many jurisdictions have before him.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent