Originally a comment by Arcadia on Are they though?

I quite agree, and find the part that gets me is how much disputed stuff just slides by as obvious, assumed knowledge and common perspective, things that “everyone” supposedly thinks.

For instance, that Trump likes this (perhaps), that these changes are “pulverising the trans community” (significant evidence to the contrary), that Trump’s doing it to be righteous (perhaps, he’s not usually driven by that value though), that it’s an issue of “metaphysics” (Christ on a bike!), that it’s about “trans in sports or prisons” (when it’s about males in female sports and prisons), that these medical, hormonal, surgical and societal interventions constitute “care” (evidence mostly to the contrary), that this is difficult (is it? Males are not females, easy), that the administration is doing this out of cruelty (there’s lots of good, non cruel reasons to protect sex based rights and not sterilise children), that the administration is indifferent to suffering (leaving out that multiple previous administrations have been indifferent to the suffering of the female sex, LGB, disabled and even trans people alike in their efforts to affirm), and that stopping this disaster is “careless” (when it was embarking upon the disaster that was the actual careless part.

Ugh. How’s an uninformed person actually to understand this, when this is the dreck they publish?