• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    they’re not offended by her bathroom attendance. they’re offended by her existence.

    Exactly. Now she’ll exist in their bathroom as a regular reminder. For whatever reason they’re uncomfortable, she’ll be reminding them in a regular basis, rather than that be something that just happens somewhere else.

    imagine if rashida tlaib ….

    Is a flawed analogy. You’re giving an example of giving up without repercussions. That’s very different. This could easily be a malicious compliance scenario.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I don’t even know what you’re imagining here. what do you mean reminder? they’re talking about trans people 24/7 already. they’re not uncomfortable either. this is just performative.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Maybe it is just performative and accepting it means not playing into their performance.

        Or maybe it actually makes them uncomfortable. Imagine some old guy who can’t deal with people outside their experience suddenly having the person they’re uncomfortable with in the bathroom with them, saying “is this what you wanted”? Imagine someone actually offended a woman might use the woman’s restroom, realizing that means a woman has to use the men’s room with them.

        Apparently I’m assuming something different than you are, assuming there’s some root to their performance. Every sexist, racist, genderist, xenophobic performance starts with someone who is sexist, racist, genderist, xenophobic etc. These people are not just empty vessels cynically performing for the gullible masses, they are actual bad people cynically performing