[hnbad]

The question isn't whether a company genuinely supports trans people or just does it for the money. The question is whether they support trans people or oppose them. They're a company. They're driven by profitability and ROI first.

It doesn't matter that they're not sincere. It doesn't matter that they're not authentic. It matters that they help normalize pro-trans messaging, rather than normalizing anti-trans messaging, or doing nothing. Yes, it'd be nice to live in a world where you get to choose between the company that sincerely supports trans people and the company that merely does so for optics but still fires those sincerely opposing them, but that's not the one we live in.

To be honest, I think most of the trans community would be perfectly happy to have companies simply not actively funnel money into politicians who want them to stop existing. Alas.

[simondotau]

There’s a lot I could take issue with about what you’ve said, not least of which being the absolutist “with us or against us” mentality which toxifies US politics. If you want to have a single issue dictate every one of the hundreds of choices you make every day, have at it, but I’m not going to pick a web browser based on which one pays the most lip service to one particular social issue.

But really, I just can’t get past the idea of “it doesn’t matter if they’re not sincere” when in the same paragraph you spell out exactly why that’s an absurd thing to say.

[dogleash]

> The question is whether they support trans people or oppose them

But they're neither. They’re indifferent with some opportunist exploitation sprinkled on top.

[simondotau]

And indifferent is the right attitude. It is wrong for corporations to be treated as a channel of political power. This is a point we should be consistent on, we shouldn’t make an exception for when it seems convenient to us… because we certainly don’t like it when it’s used against us.