I noticed what you did there. I asked a question concerning Dylan saying THIS trans person and advocating for HIS position, and you replied as if I said ANY trans person. How about responding to what I actually said instead of making stuff up about me?
I understand that, in a debate, it can be difficult to be ideologically consistent. But this is absolutely and demonstratively a lie.
In post 237 I asked:
"In what way does Bud Light choosing to send promotional material to a trans person have any relation to "getting on board" with "demanding everybody around them believe they are a woman"?"
And your response, in post 238 was:
"But light is using their power and influence to promote a biological male who says he is a girl."
I even asked, in the same post:
"Is a company choosing to promote with - or send goods to - ANY trans person an advocation of this?"
And, in the same post, your response:
"By promoting a male who says he is female, they are being an advocate for such a person; wouldn’t you say?"
You have made it absolutely EXPLICIT that a company promoting with ANY trans person is, to you, an explicit endorsement of positions that you think deserve to be boycotted, and you have EXPLICITLY stated that what matters is that the person is trans, and nothing else.
The athletes claim to fame is the sport he is involved in; not the transgender issue. Argument failed.
Again, this "claim to fame" argument is a pure ***-pull. You've said that advocating for pro-trans positions means they deserve to be boycotted, and promoting with any individual who promotes trans identities (or people who just ARE trans) counts as that. NOW you're saying that that's irrelevant, and that the only thing that's relevant is a person's "claim to fame" which is arbitrarily dictated by you, in direct contradiction to your previously stated position.
If you are against people with pro-trans positions being promoted by a business, then you should be against pro-trans athletes, singers or actors doing promotion for businesses. Now you're saying that's not a problem. You have no ideological consistency here whatsoever. The only consistent thing about your position is that it is anti-trans. If you're a trans person, you have no recourse, because that's all you are and "being trans" is your "claim to fame", so nobody should promote you or work with you, because that would be "advancing the trans agenda". Meanwhile, if you're not trans, but happen to be pro-trans (and also famous for whatever reason) you can work with or be promoted by whoever and whatever you like, regardless of whether or not you are "advancing the trans agenda".
The only difference between one and the other is BEING TRANS. That's it. Your position is not "anti-this-or-that agenda", it's just "if you are trans, businesses shouldn't promote with you". It is explicit anti-trans bigotry.
No, not wanting them used in promotion, and not wanting them to exist are two different things.
The inevitable consequence of one is the reduction of the rights and freedoms of the other, ergo: if, for example, people made it financially harmful to depict black people in advertising, that means companies are less likely to hire black people.
This is not hard to understand.
Again; how does boycotting make them no longer exist?
It doesn't. It marginalizes them by limiting their freedoms, which is an inevitable consequence of advocating against something's existence.
"How was the Nazis saying we shouldn't patronise Jewish businesses make them no longer exist?"
"How do segregation laws and lack of legal representation make black people no longer exist?"
"How does feeding Christians to lions for sport make them no longer exist?"
Try harder.
Your claim was about not wanting them to EXIST!
Yes. If people are going to boycott businesses simply for working with, or promoting with, trans people, it is a clear indication that they are advocating against the existence of trans people. That's the logical conclusion of the position "depicting trans people in any way that is positive, or financially benefiting a trans person, is bad and deserving of negative consequences". I'm sorry you can't understand that.
Not about not wanting them used for advertising. Care to try again?
The logical consequence is the same. Again, because you have the brains of an adult, I assume you understand that if companies cannot, say, hire black people or cross-promote with black people, it's a problem for black people because it makes their lives more difficult.
I didn’t say “support trans rights” I said their claim to fame is based on trans rights.
Not until the above post, no. You've added that in retroactively because your previous statements and arguments fell apart. This new argument is equally fallacious. You've already admitted it has nothing to do with positions or "claims to fame". It's just BECAUSE THEY'RE TRANS.
That is your position. And it's a position you now realise is indefensible, so you're trying desperately to change it to this absurd "claim to fame" argument, which also doesn't hold up.
