Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you, I don’t. I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback (and this happens on both sides, across all issues, not just trans rights). You’re taking what i’m saying to mean people should not push back at all, and that is NOT what im saying. You are also conflating an observation with a prescription. My initial post was only critical of the “all or nothing” approach that most people seem to take to issues these days, and how that can negatively affect progress. I’m expressing a concern about how black and white things are compared to how things seems 20-30 years ago with gay rights or 50-60 years ago with civil rights even.

I’m very curious what you think the positions i’ve become entrenched in are? I suppose the one thing is that I believe we as a society/human race are extremely fucked at the moment, probably past the point of no return on a number of things that will end us, but not really specific to this conversation.

So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.

Its about engagjng in good faith discussions so that people who just passivly observe things dont get the impression that the disenguous “just asking questions” people are the moderate and reasonable ones.

First off, thank you for taking the time for an execellent response. This is pretty much the kind of compromise im talking about, you acknowledge there are people with genuine concerns, but the vocal majority are acting in bad faith. You didnt just say anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, you brought more information to backup your positions.

Honestly, i am with you 100% on everything you mentioned already. The reason im posting the question like this is because sadly it seems my partner of 16 years, has fallen down the Jk Rowling rabbit hole, and i know for a fact my wife does not hate trans women, but also wants “women only spaces” because on facebook and twitter you basically get nothing but hateful stuff vaguely disguised as "safety” or fairness concerns. Its not exactly easy to convince a 49 year old life long feminist that they are falling for propaganda.

Its one thing when to have this kind of disagreement with random internet people, and quiet another to have it with someone you respect and care about. The point is conversations can and should be had. If its mostly bad faith actors being vocal with fake concerns, why not respond with something that has genuine aswers to those concerns, like what you did here so that the people who do have good faith concerns but arent speaking up dont get overwhelmed by only seeing the bad faith side of things?

You asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…

Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.

This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?

I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.

An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.

To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say “well i dont agree with it but i still love you”. Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?

It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.

Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.

Im not sure you have my logic correct… Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.

I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.

What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.

On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.

How didnt it work out? It lead to eventually getting marriage equality world wide, in large part because those first states tried to do civil unions.

Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it “civil unions” and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage…

I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.

I already use vivaldi, but i really wish this was possible too.

You should not trust any company to stand up against court orders.

I like when companies openly show what data they do provide, all of the good vpns do.

Ordered by whom? Last i checked Putin was at the top of the chain of command.

Mullvad

deleted by creator

One thing to keep in mind is thar mozilla is now an ad company and can use this data itself for whatever advertising it wants to sell, so they dont even need a third party they can just sell targeted ads directly to companies while not technically “sharing” the info they gather to anyone.

Basically, why sell the data to other people when you can profit from using it directly?

I look forward to only criminals having access to encryption

Vivaldi because:

• built in ad and tracking blocker
• Clear, easy to understand privacy policy
• best UI customizability
• hibernates tabs
• clear and sensible business model
• not vc funded.
• webdav support for calendar syncing
• actually contributes to the fediverse.

If i had to choose something fully floss i would go with librewolf.

In a way crypto has fulfilled the promise of “banking the unbanked”… Its just that the main group of ”unbanked” people happened to be criminals and scammers.

Its been a huge boom for scammers, before this you had to convince people to use wester union or something and convince a person they are talking to some inconvenienced soon to be oil barron, now all they do is throw up a website with tradingview charts and people will throw money at them.

Social engineering, they convinced multiple key holders to sign a transaction.