[gizmo385]

> What happened to agree to disagree?

I’ll agree to disagree with you about how best we spend our tax dollars. I’ll agree to disagree with you about the right strategy to tackle climate change. I’ll agree to disagree with you about what infrastructure projects we prioritize or how we distribute foreign aid.

What I won’t “agree to disagree” about is that LGBTQ people deserve not to be discriminated against. I won’t agree to disagree about whether trans people should be accepted for who they are or if we should follow the broad scientific consensus on how to help people with gender dysohoria feel comfortable as themselves.

An agreement to disagree is, ultimately, a reinforcement and protection of the status quo and when the status quo is deeply cruel to certain people in our country, I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement.

[ars]

You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have.

For example you listed certain things that you think everyone must agree with.

But another person might think those things are unimportant and climate change is the thing no one is allowed to disagree about "because it's going kill everyone", which makes it easily outweigh your things.

> I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement.

In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?

What happens when another person feels just as strongly as you, but in the other direction? Is the only possible result a never-ending fight?

You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.

[gizmo385]

> You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have.

Never said I did - just said that I’m not going to simply agree to disagree. In a disagreement between someone pushing for change and someone advocating for maintaining the status quo, “agreeing to disagree” is a win for the status quo.

> In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?

Again, not what I said. You are free to hold those positions but I’m not going to “agree to disagree” and I’m going to judge someone who holds those positions.

> You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.

I definitely can, but I don’t particularly care to examine or take seriously the arguments against “trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against”.

[notogock]

What about difficult topics like whether males who identity as women should be allowed into female-only spaces like prisons, domestic violence refuges, sports teams, changing/locker rooms, nude spas, events for lesbians, and so on?

This the crux of the matter. This is what is so controversial - should women lose their hard-won sex-based rights, just so men who want to be them can benefit?