Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat) on Nostr: Thanks. Looking into these: > > Quoting the bible saying that cross-dressers are an ...

Thanks. Looking into these:

> https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1701259614077989121
> Quoting the bible saying that cross-dressers are an "abomination to god" and then calling out William/Lia Thomas specifically

That's pretty horrible, but he's talking about the William/Lia Thomas case which was particularly egregious due to women being effectively forced to change in his presence in the women's locker room and then also losing titles to him.

> https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1626672143617384472

This seems to be entirely about the female-only spaces thing. He's obviously not suggesting that men go out and harass or lynch trans people or cross-dressers, but rather that they should "man up" and physically keep male people out of female-only spaces.

Regarding the "suggesting they should be locked up" claim I'm going to assume (since you didn't provide a citation, unless I missed it) that it was most likely in reference to males who enter female-only spaces.

> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/
> Turning Point USA founder and CEO Charlie Kirk once said some prominent Black women did not have "the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously."

That's a really shitty thing to say about those women, but it was clearly a comment on DEI and those specific women, not a generalization about black women.

This is just like if someone talked about certain "old white men" being shitty people and only having the positions they have thanks to privilege. Right-wingers then often conclude "they're racist and sexist against white men" which isn't correct either. There's a difference between being pro-DEI and "racist against whites" just like there's a difference between being anti-DEI and racist against non-whites.

> https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/charlie-kirk-once-called-for-patriot-to-bail-out-paul-pelosi-assailant-david-depape/
> Access denied for some reason, so I'll go by this instead: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-bail-pelosi-attacker/
> Kirk's remarks, delivered during an Oct. 31, 2022, episode of his podcast, "The Charlie Kirk Show," also included him saying, "I'm not qualifying [the attack]. I think it's awful." He asked why the attacker was held without bail, claiming that in Chicago someone can "commit murder and be out the next day."

Seems to be complaining that there's an apparent double-standard applied to that particular murderer, while acknowledging that he's a murderer and that what he did was awful. Take note how he made sure to add that he thinks it's awful; something which a lot of left-wing people commenting on Kirk being shot omitted in their posts glibly talking about it (like the two RedHat employees mentioned in the Lunduke video).

All in all, while I agree that he had horrible opinions, and that the "abomination" thing crosses the line, it seems to have been an exception due to the heat caused by the changing rooms issue, and I still don't see any evidence of him promoting violence against political opponents in even a single instance, let alone there being a pattern of such rhetoric.

So far what I'm seeing continues to confirm my idea that the reactions to him are a typical case of words being twisted and someone being made out to be ten times worse than they really were as a person. Same thing that right wingers, trans activists, pro-Palestine people, pro-Israel people, and frankly sometimes even the GC feminists I support, are all guilty of. People just completely give up objectivity and fairness when they hate someone's ideas.