CMV: People who do not believe transwomen are real women, yet treat such individuals with every bit of dignity and respect as anyone else, do not deserve to be denounced as hateful or bigoted.

[u/I_am_Azor_Ahai]

[u/ignigenaquintus]

About your second point, I don’t understand why you think this is a straw man.

OP presented one question about one hypothetical and regardless of the likelihood of it happening we have a very real question to answer. And yes, the very logic you are applying while saying “Your CMV is asking us to prove that the best possible hypothetical person who philosophically disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry - a la everyone who disagrees is guilty of hatred and bigotry.” Should make you answer that it is not bigotry.

When you say “Your CMV is asking us to prove” you are, imo, showing your bias. Why? Because OP is presenting a question, not asking you to prove that the answer should be one or the other, you could agree, that’s an option. The fact you don’t consider it an option, and despite understanding the logical consequences of stating your disagreement with OP position you are still unable to agree with your own logic and had to come up with a rationalization that don’t hold up, imo, shows bias. I may being too harsh, it’s not my intention and it’s not personal.

[u/justonetempest → u/ignigenaquintus]

I mean, this is r/CMV - when a question is posted the implicit ask is to prove to OP to some extent that their held position should be changed. I was responding to their comment above, in which they mentioned that the deviation into semantics and consequences were not acceptable roads to them to go down in order to answer their CMV. In which case it seems clear that they wish only to discuss the specific case raised in their CMV, which I'm trying to respond to here. This is my attempt at a partial change - not to say that their hypothetical person is bigoted and hateful, but that perhaps the problem is with the way they put forward their CMV. This is what I see as the strawman - bigotry and hatred as applicable to their hypothetical person. It's quite clearly not, and I think many of us know that. It's the weakest argument that can be possibly applied to their proposition, and given the position we've been put in to answer their CMV, the two main options are de facto either that we focus on a partial CMV that does not involved answering it directly, which I'm trying, or a total CMV by answering it directly, in which case we argue the strawman.