Always the same slogans where an argument should be, always the childish catastrophizing. It’s not cute when Trump does it, why would it be cute when trans activists do it?
I would love to know exactly how kylo knows she/he suffers violence “as a direct result of Stock’s arguments.” How would someone know that? I suppose the violence-source could shout Stock’s name while punching, but that seems pretty god damn unlikely, and short of that – what?
Nothing, which is why it’s wise to be careful about saying things like that, i.e. it’s wise to NOT SAY THEM. It’s stupid, it’s catastrophizing, it’s obviously not something a person could know. Saying it while claiming to be philosophy-backgrounded is a rooky error.
Also, no one is debating anyone’s existence. If there is a particular anyone, that anyone exists. No one is debating whether or not the person who composed that tweets. The debate is over description, and self-description, not existence.
Also no one is debating whether or not trans people are human beings.
There again – how does she/he know the macro- and micro-aggressions are a direct result of Stock’s work? Again I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone footnotes aggressions citing Stock as their source.
Also, speaking of micro-aggressions, there’s calling him “Nigel,” there’s the eye roll emoji, there’s the smirk emoji.
How not to persuade anyone of anything.