At some level, isn't this just about defining what it means to call something a "reasonable concern?" Isn't there a diff b/w "There's a real problem here that we/schools/the govt should do something about" (bad) & "I see how you might think that, but here's how it's already being addressed" (ok?)?
I might at least colloquially call both of those responses "acknowledging reasonable concerns." The difference is just whether it's reasonable to ask the question or reasonable to expect a policy change. Does it matter if "concerns" is changed to "questions"?
Obviously, phrases sometimes take on meanings that transcend their ordinary usage. "All Lives Matter" might be true in the abstract, but came to be used as an intentional juxtaposition with BLM & it's reasonable to expect at least politicians to be aware of that. Perhaps that's at work here as well.
In general, I think news and policy work should focus on real life problems instead of hypotheticals, and it is irresponsible *at best* when we focus on hypotheticals. That many people think this hypothetical is a real, pressing problem is a failure of media to accurately inform the public.
I don’t have to pretend a concern is reasonable just because a lot of people believe it. Almost a third of Americans believe Barack Obama wasn’t really born in the United States despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Mainstream media accepting that President Obama’s place of birth is a legitimate concern and attempting to address the conspiracy theory with evidence has done basically nothing dissuade those people.
That's a tough/thought-provoking analogy. My initial reaction is that if there were an otherwise-persuadable Birther voter, I think it would be OK to say "I know you might have heard that from a lot of people, but here's the evidence showing he was born in HI." But that's not a claim re efficacy.
I do not believe there are a lot of persuadable people. There are a lot of people who care more about other things and will focus on those other things when presented with them. Entertaining this topic as legitimate, even to try debunking it, just signal boosts it.
Being like “oh, the birthers have some good points because there sure are a lot of them!” is just ridiculous.
The issue is not that trans organizations and journalists have not been explaining things well enough to people who are concerned about trans kids playing sports. It is that people who are concerned about trans kids playing sports have been brain poisoned to worry about an imaginary problem.
It is not possible to overcome the misinformation firehose with facts, nor is it possible to overcome the misinformation firehose by treating that misinformation like it is real and serious.
I can see how a child might be afraid of the dark spaces under their bed and between the coats in the closet, but that doesn't make the boogeyman a reasonable concern.
Restricting rights and enforcing segregation on a minority is extreme. Doing it over and over hypothetical is psychotic. There is no validity to the anti-trans claims. Decades of trans inclusions demonstrates no increased risk and no trans-dominance. Literally stripping rights based on lies.
THAT
Believing in boogeymen is not a reasonable concern, guy.
Telling trans kids they can’t play with their friends because of hypotheticals in the minds of transphobes is despicable. There is NO evidence that including trans girls increases risks. There aren’t reasonable concerns, there are just bigots who want to segregate and humiliate marginalized kids.
no.