In reply to: My suggestion is that… posted by IrishApache
There is a yawning chasm between making a presidential proclamation and … not recognizing a person’s right to exist, and that sort of rhetoric is not effective argument and just serves as a way for people who already agree with you to pat themselves on the back and cast anyone who doesnt agree with you as essentially transcidal/not recognizng trans people’s right to exist.
People are presumably upset because 1) Biden acknowledged Trans Day of Visibility and 2) that happened on Easter this year.
The whole point of the day is to acknowledge that trans people exist. So it’s deeply ironic that the argument seems to be Biden shouldn’t acknowledge this because of people who might be offended by the acknowledgement. That’s pretty much the point of having the day in the first place.
As to the rest of your nonsense I haven’t accused anyone of being transcidal.
Your original post talks about people’s preferences being put over trans people’s “right to exist.” Your response to me says you never said anything about people being transcidal. Either I do not understand what a subjugation of a “right to exist” means (surely possible, but right to exist seems to have a clear meaning), or you used hyperbole that does not match your intended meaning.
Of his presidency. Not having it this year would send a message that we value trans people except when it might hurt us politically.
I could see your point if this was the first year. But it'd be conspicuous to not do so this year.
(Namely, a subset of outraged Christians) matter more than the worth of trans people. Fundamentally that’s the argument, as far as I can tell.
My post was expressly not about the merits, on which I tend to agree, but about the way in which the poster I replied to argued it
to acknowledging a trans person's right to exist... Biden had plenty of other days to choose from.