[carbadtraingood]

One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives"

Other side: "We should arrest or do violence to trans people, because they are abominations, groomers, and freaks"

You: "You both make good points, who could say? The right answer is probably between 'persecute' and 'not persecute'. I am enlightened."

[h2odragon]

Me: This software makes a box. It has nothing to do with human rights, human sexuality, or governance. I will not adopt a "Code of Conduct" as a condition for distributing it to others. Therefore, I do not distribute it any longer.

My stance on trans people is not what you characterize; but it is not relevant to this discussion. There are many places where one's stance on $(political_issue) is not relevant, and that does not automatically imply that someone is taking the side opposite yours.

[carbadtraingood]

> attempting to be neutral is the same as joining the Philistines.

This is a super common attitude across all areas of politics, that somehow being neutral is admirable or positive. That it implies an absence of partisanism, and is therefore preferable.

That's fine when you are talking about, say, which coffee chain you like. But in today's politics, the issues being discussed are fundamental human rights for various groups. Being neutral when there is a massive power disparity empowers those who hold the majority.

[kipchak]

>That's fine when you are talking about, say, which coffee chain you like.

Aren't stakes in politics typically fairly high? I would figure a coffee chain level of concern would have to be an anomaly.

[cykros]

You: I'll disrupt anyone I feel like, because my pet issue is important enough that absolutely everything in the world needs to stop until it is addressed.

It's not saying both sides have good points -- it's saying we're talking about something completely different, and neither side is on topic.

[happyopossum]

That's a huge straw man there. The reality is closer to this:

One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives"

Other side: "Yeah, but it seems unfair to biological females to allow trans women to compete in competitive athletics"

First side: "You're denying the reality of trans people, and should be silenced."

[carbadtraingood]

First side (actually): "The term 'biological female' reflects a high school level understanding of DNA and genetics. Unfortunately, real genetics is much more complex, and many women who were born and lived their entire lives as women would be flagged by systems to detect so called 'biological women'. Your use of the term is ill defined and unscientific, and any attempt to enforce it is going to hurt both trans and cis women."