A fight over transgender rights derailed environmentalists in Nevada

trans rights are an issue which is extremely controversial for no reason. People on the left and right work themselves up for fringe-case scenarios like trans athletes or trans person using the restroom.

I know a few trans people and honestly, most trans people just want to be left alone. A trans person is literally just someone with a man’s brain in a women’s body or women’s brain in man’s body. Actual trans people understand that e.g. someone hooking up with you and not revealing they’re trans, or not accepting that you don’t date trans people, is extremely messed up. The people who don’t, them being trans is not the issue, there are psychos of all kinds.

I don’t see why people are so concerned with bathrooms because 1) actual men can illegally enter women’s bathrooms anyways, and 2) if someone is behaving creepy and sexual in a bathroom it doesn’t matter what gender they are. Like no sane person who clearly appears to be one gender is going to publicly enter the other gender’s bathroom and expose themselves, trans or not. I know most trans people do not like entering gender-specific bathrooms with others around anyways.

But people just get so worked up about these issues. Case in point: one environmentalist group explicitly advocates against trans people using their gender’s bathrooms, and the other group gets so offended it hinders their shared goal to help the environment.

If you let your secondary issues interfere with the primary goal of your organization, then your support base is reduced to those who agree with you on those secondary issues as well, harming your ability to reach your primary goal.

That's why you should focus on what matters most to you, and remain silent/neutral on as much else as you can.

Putting the whole transgender thing to one side, taking up with a group that thinks

a) that clean energy is a myth.

b) that ending industrial civilization is a positive goal to aim for

Is not a good look for people trying to stop a mine, where I would assume more directly relevant arguments about the fragility of the local environment would be expected.

Are these people somehow making a living from being controversial? They sound so utterly counterproductive to their stated goals that I'd be wondering who they were actually working for.

Behind them in the photo, they have indigenous "Land Back" signs, whose message, logically, is that non-"indigenous" people (so like, immigrants), should have their land seized (and be expelled from the Americas? Roll back to 1400?). This just seems like another stupidly controversial position to attach yourself to.

Now, practically where I see these "Land Back" signs is at environmental protests opposing e.g. pipelines and mines, all of which may be well and good.

The environmentalists that protest alongside these signs don't really take them seriously (like, they don't expect to forfeit their houses). But if you don't mean something, why say it?

Maybe I'm too hard on these movements. If they hold out the opportunity of "going Native" for everyone else, then maybe they're ok. I'll acknowledge here that that would be an explicitly assimilationist goal, which "we" aren't supposed to like, but I could actually be ok with that. The key thing is universalism.

This is a couple of anti-trans, anarcho-primitivist wackos. The fact that they can derail an environmental movement is depressing.