Hacker News Reader

Comment by Robelius | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the point of having different viewpoints so that they can argue over what is ethical? What's the point of a board to make decisions if everyone fundamentally believes the same thing? At that point, you already made your decisions and are trying to reinforce them in an echo chamber.

When some people say they want a diverse field of thought, what they really mean is they want a diverse field of thought that they agree with. I don't agree with some of her views, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have a voice.

View on HN

Not every viewpoint deserves equal space or time. One such useless viewpoint is that "Trans people shouldn't exist"

The UN human rights council has Saudi Arabia and the US on it, and they vehemently disagree on issues all the time.

This appears to be a better argument for excluding Saudi Arabia from the UN HRC than the position that all viewpoints are worth hearing.

It's the Human Rights Council after all, not the Human Rights Skeptics Council.

I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the UN human rights council is considered a useless organization

This fact is normally used to discredit the UN Human Rights Council.

Did the ex board member actually say this exact statement?

Or are you paraphrasing and dramatising for effect?

Such an inflammatory quote should surely have a reference to be taken seriously

From the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497

That tweet doesn't include anything even close to "trans people shouldn't exist"

What's wrong with this tweet? This is a common view. Gender identity is a very extreme concept that erases sex as a protected characteristic.

Just as I suspected, she said nothing like "Trans people shouldn't exist" - you simply made up that quote. You are clearly not arguing in good faith.

Unfortunately everyone that replied to you was unable to understand clear bigotry when it isn't stated in comically brazen form.

I often see this hyperbolic statement ("Trans people shouldn't exist") being attached to anyone that doesn't go along with the entirety of the far-left progressive views on trans people. Most people who they attribute such a statement to are not saying "these people should not exist". There is a wide spectrum of views, most of which agree that trans people have a right to exist without threats to their person. The push back on the modern trans movement is often about nuances like whether trans women are women or a different category of their own.

I won't bother listing out the various reasons people might have to disagree with the modern trans movement. But attaching hyperbolic statements to make someone out to be genocidal is not appropriate and seems like a bad-faith rhetorical attack.

I've never seen anyone believe "Trans people shouldn't exist". The arguments tend to be around when and to what extent others must accept a trans person's gender identification.

No one wants to erase trans people from existence Thanos style.

From the horse's mouth:

https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497

I grep'd for the words "exist" and "trans" in there and got zero matches. Please try again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com