-->
@TheUnderdog
One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.If there was only one main issue of the day (like in the 1860s with slavery) there won't be a long term compromise. But when there are many issues of the day that are divisive (like our time), you can come up with compromises.
There were many issues back then, and policy was traded. After 160 years we remember only slavery because it was a moral issue.
I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.You don't have too. They are official party positions. If the trans issue is big enough for you, you will never call Caitlyn Jenner a man, and the GOP leadership accepts transwomen as women so they can ban abortion
*sigh*, you don't understand because you don't understand that government is violence wrapped up in protocol.
All government policy is predicated on violence and the reason the fight for control of government is so fierce is because it is the socially acceptable way to use violence to achieve your ends.
Banning abortion means using force to attack people who try to perform an abortion.
What does it mean for a government to "declare a definition"? Nothing, did you know that SI is the official unit system of the United States of America?
You won't find any left-tribers willing to "trade" a meaningless declaration for what they see as unjust aggression. There are a few on this forum, I can find more on other forums if you want to expand the sample size. If there is no potential for using force against "misgendering" they won't be interested.
In case anyone wonders if force has been used, yes it has; people have been arrested in anglophone countries with insufficient protection of free speech.
