All this over one internet argument?
Its not really one argument. What I do is simply induction pattern generalization, as I learned from Machiavelli's work.
It means we use real life examples to see patterns, probabilities...ect. For example, when we say that trans people arent driven by primitive emotions, it only takes few examples of trans people to break that illusion.
I used to support trans people thinking its "their body, their choice", even when they were doing most insane nonsense, such as "banning misgendering".
But the more trans people I met, one thing became more and more obvious, even on modern day debate. these are people governed entirely by emotions, would implement laws based on emotions and laws based on offending their feelings.
I admit, ever since Bones won that debate arguing against trans issues, I had a bit of doubt if trans support was actually healthy.
But it didnt take many examples for me to realize an obvious truth about trans people, first the truth that they are pushing their ideology on kids and convincing kids they are trans, and many examples of kids regretting after being brainwashed into that.
But that wasnt what convinced me right away. What convinced me is this: All trans people I met seemed to have values which only make sense if they are driven by emotions. RemyBrown noticed this too. trans people dont believe in free speech, and in any server where they are majority, they ban anyone who disagrees with trans issues.
I realized that supporting trans people likely endangers free speech, because these people dont believe in free speech one bit. they are driven by emotions and would make laws based on emotions if they ever got more influence or power.