All of this relies on one stumbling block: the total subversion of freedom of association.
If you want to undo that start by fighting a series of pitched battles in the courts.
"Private club excludes trannies because they're not really men."
"Private association for straights bans qeers"
"Bakery refuses to bake cake for queers, on religious ground."
Etc.
These seemingly meaningless one-off fights set precedents. The enemy relies on these legal precedents because the enemy is well organized, but also terribly fearful that the illusion of the legitimacy of their complaints or victimhood will be seen through.
it is absolutely playing in their court, but if you think they're entirely all powerful, you're mistaken. You may overlook even that they have internal factions, that they infight, that they rely not on controlling all people in power positions, but only on a key subset of them, which means those who aren't controlled can, under the right conditions be turned against their masters.
Set precedents that allow exclusion of subversive elements. You won't win them all. I'll even go so far as to say you won't win most of the legal battles. But you'll garner eyeballs, normalize your right to self-association and the defense of your own.
masuji 0 points 3.2 years ago
All of this relies on one stumbling block: the total subversion of freedom of association.
If you want to undo that start by fighting a series of pitched battles in the courts.
"Private club excludes trannies because they're not really men."
"Private association for straights bans qeers"
"Bakery refuses to bake cake for queers, on religious ground."
Etc.
These seemingly meaningless one-off fights set precedents. The enemy relies on these legal precedents because the enemy is well organized, but also terribly fearful that the illusion of the legitimacy of their complaints or victimhood will be seen through.
it is absolutely playing in their court, but if you think they're entirely all powerful, you're mistaken. You may overlook even that they have internal factions, that they infight, that they rely not on controlling all people in power positions, but only on a key subset of them, which means those who aren't controlled can, under the right conditions be turned against their masters.
Set precedents that allow exclusion of subversive elements. You won't win them all. I'll even go so far as to say you won't win most of the legal battles. But you'll garner eyeballs, normalize your right to self-association and the defense of your own.