[_-david-_]

You could make that argument about any group that has a large amount of critics. Congress, for example, has an approval rating under that of trans people.

I propose Twitter bans anybody who "berates" a politician. If we don't do that then Twitter is allowing the environment to be too unpleasant for one the most marginalized groups out there.

Why would my plan be bad, but yours good?

Just because there is an environment that is too unpleasant for some people to remain in, doesn't mean that environment should change to conform to the wants of that person. People who are sensitive to sound can't go to some loud bar and demand everybody stop making noise. (Well they could demand it, but nobody will care). The bar isn't forcing the person to leave by not lowering the volume.

[socialismisok]

Partly due to power imbalance. Congresspeople are not typically subject to routine violence just because they are congresspeople. They aren't typically dealing with a healthcare system that is actively hostile to them. They don't have high levels of homelessness, abuse, and suicide.

Additionally, congresspeople are public figures - being satirized is part of the social contract when you become a public figure.

And congresspeople have power. Lots of power. Saying that an average congressperson and an average trans person are equal is just not true.

If you pulled out another minority group with little power, your rule might be more agreeable.

[xigoi]

> Congresspeople are not typically subject to routine violence just because they are congresspeople.

…why do you think politicians have bodyguards?

> They aren't typically dealing with a healthcare system that is actively hostile to them.

Not doing unnecessary cosmetic surgery is not “actively hostile”.

[Shared404]

A) It's not just surgery, there's the difficulty in getting HRT.

B) For some trans people, the surgery is necessary from a quality of life perspective and a reduction of dysphoria.

C) It varies by country. In the US, the medical system is actively hostile to everyone (but especially trans people). In the UK, the requirements to just get HRT as a legal adult are insane.

[_-david-_]

>Partly due to power imbalance. Congresspeople are not typically subject to routine violence just because they are congresspeople.

Congressmen are attacked all the time. They have assassination attempts all the time. The average trans person doesn't need protection, but the average congressman does.

>They aren't typically dealing with a healthcare system that is actively hostile to them. They don't have high levels of homelessness, abuse, and suicide.

Healthcare is absolutely not hostile to them. Doctors are being threatened with firing (or may have been fired?) if they don't use the correct pronouns.

I do agree that trans people have higher levels of homelessness, abuse and suicide, but I don't think it is relevant.

>Additionally, congresspeople are public figures - being satirized is part of the social contract when you become a public figure.

Having a public social media account makes you a public person in a sense. If you don't want public attention don't make a public account.

>And congresspeople have power. Lots of power. Saying that an average congressperson and an average trans person are equal is just not true.

Seeing how a trans person was able to get a company that has something like 10% of the internet going through them (Cloudflare) to remove a site I would say trans people have a massive amount of power.

>If you pulled out another minority group with little power, your rule might be more agreeable.

I think we should have consistent rules regardless of how much power a person has. Should politicians not have the right to a trial because they are powerful? Of course not. Rules should be uniform.