Double_R

This is just silly.

The left doesn’t call Trump supporters fascists because of edgy humor, they call them fascists because they support a fascist.

Here’s a real list of what fascism entails;

Authoritarianism - Trump doesn’t believe in any check on his power and literally tried to steal an election

Charismatic leader with a cult like following

Demonization/Scapegoating of the “other” (perhaps MAGA’s most prominent trait)

Glorification of force (pardons J6 rioters, celebrates “being tough” on everyone from criminals to illegals i.e. ‘Aligator Alcatraz’, loves watching ICE smash windows of illegals, military parades)

Suppression of dissent (sues 60 Minutes for a routine edit, locks up students for protesting or writing an unfavorable editorial, withholds funding from Harvard and other universities who don’t do what they say, gleeful about getting Stephen Colbert fired, fires the BLS commissioner for reporting unfavorable job numbers)

That is what fascism is, and Trump is an extreme example in every category. If you support him, you are a fascist, full stop.

How is it a complex question?

Because there’s more to the question of what a woman is than their genitals. How do you define a woman?

Then what does it mean to be against trans rights then?

It’s broad generalization that includes taking positions against treating trans people as the gender they identify with. It can include many different things, like refusing to acknowledge their preferred gender or name, forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with their physical status, banning them from the military, passing laws requiring that people like them are not allowed to be talked about in schools, stuff like that.

Alright; so things changed. What is your current position then on this?

I didn’t say anything changed here, I was referring to the fact that of all trans issues out there on the left, this is perhaps the least agreed upon and least thought about so it’s disingenuous to focus your portrayal of the left on this niche subtopic.

I generally agree that trans women should not be allowed to play in women’s sports. There are however cases where it’s debatable depending on the demands of the sport and the actions taken to ensure fairness, but I couldn’t go into any further detail because I just don’t care enough about this topic to research it any further. I leave that to the experts who deal with it.

Then what issue is representative of the greater issue?

The ones I named above. Issues that actually affect the well being and fundamental human dignity of the people who experience gender dysphoria. Anti-trans activists love retreating to the sports issue because it’s probably the only prominent example where the anti-trans position can be defended without relying on bigotry.

Alright; so you started out left wing and then become more left wing? Alright. I meant have you (by yourself, not with the party at large) went from having a left wing stance to a right wing stance on an issue? I used to be hardcore conservative, but that's changed.

Losing my faith because of argument is a pretty big example of open mindedness, not sure what more you need to recognize your initial assumption was wrong.

I can’t think of any specific examples where I changed my position from a left wing stance to a right wing, my evolution started on the right, albeit briefly. I started off in politics identifying with the Republican Party and rooting for John McCain. After watching the debates I switched to Obama. He just made more sense to me. I spent the next few months switching back and forth from Fox News to MSNBC. I settled on the latter, the former was just too much nonsense and propaganda for me.

You really seem stuck on the idea that open mindedness requires that one has to actually change their positions. I don’t buy that. Sure it’s a good way to demonstrate it, but OM requires only that one be willing.

The test of OM is whether one bases their positions on logic and reason, demonstrated by whether they can match their convictions with thought-through in depth explanations for why they believe what they believe, and whether they are consistent in their reasoning. If one is careful in forming their positions, there would rarely be a case where they would need to change their mind.

No; they say a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman.

Yeah, that’s what happens when you demand simple answers to complex questions - you get a simple answer that not only doesn’t address the issue, but one that also doesn’t represent the complexity of the viewpoint of those whom you demanded the overly simplistic answer from. Who knew?

If saying, "I don't agree with the statement, "A woman is anyone that identifies as a woman" " violates transgender human rights, then 60% of the country violates trans human rights according to Pew Research (and so do I). Buzzwords and buzz phrases like, "human rights" don't mean anything anymore.

No one is saying this. The national point of contention has nothing to do with your stated position on a phrase.

Saying you want to ban them from sports is saying TWAM which the left argues violates human rights (the % are roughly identical with sampling size being the difference).

This is such a niche issue the political right is obsessed with. I, as a lefty have never taken the position trans women should be allowed to play in woman’s sports and I don’t know anyone on the left in real life that ever gave this much if any thought til it became a political talking point on every right wing network and podcast. So no, you don’t get to pretend like every lefty thinks the same on this issue.

The reality is, the right focuses heavily on this one issue not because any of them really think this matters, but because this is the one subtopic where the right is in the majority, so they have to keep the conversation here while ignoring every other aspect of trans rights. The goal is to pretend the sports issue is representative of the greater issue. It’s not, no matter how many clicks it generates.

Fine. But for me, it's pointless because I already know of the opposing side's viewpoints and you probably do as well. It's like a 1st grader learning about 2+2=4 when they learned it last year; it's pointless.

Quite arrogant of you to presume you already fully understand opposing viewpoints, but you’re entitled to that.

If you think it’s all pointless regardless then why are you here?

Has this ever happened with you in the years that you have debated?

I joined DDO as a theist and left an atheist, so yeah.

I've decided (and this is very tough to say) that there is nothing immoral about being an ideological hypocrite.

Hypocrisy isn’t immoral, it just shows you to be an unserious person because where criticisms are valid and it doesn’t change your stance on either side, it means you don’t actually care about that which you purport to care about. The only question left is whether you are trying to convince your audience or yourself.

For example:

If you don't want to arrest the makers of this:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/618DNn-65GL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

But want to arrest the makers of generic child porn, then you're a hypocrite

Standards since then have changed considerably, accessibility to actual child porn being a major catalyst. Most people back then couldn’t really fathom the idea of an adult being sexually turned on by a photo like that, so we all just thought it was funny. Now we know better. But even setting that aside, actual child porn, where the intent is to put children on display for the sexual gratification of adults, is still orders of magnitude worse than a bad attempt at a funny picture. There’s nothing hypocritical there.

the left wants rehabilitation for rapists and murderers (unless the convict's name is Trump)

No idea where you are getting that from. To the extent there is any truth there, it’s that the left believes people can in fact be rehabilitated. Nothing about that idea though would apply to Trump because the first step to rehabilitation is admitting you were wrong, something Trump would never do.

Straight left wing men believe TWAW but wouldn't date them because they think it's gay (even if ideal in every other category). 

Left wingers take a much more nuanced view on the question of what a woman is than their overly simplistic right wing counterparts. TWAW is a statement regarding the treatment of TW by society, that has nothing to do with what the person who supports that basic human right should or shouldn’t find sexually attractive.

How can you change someone's mind on an issue when they don't really care about hypocrisy? If you just can't change anyone's mind because people are so proud of their opinions as if it's a big part of their identity, then there is no point in debating on anything.

If your marker of success when engaging with people who disagree with you is to change their minds you’re setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment. People, particularly those who have strong opinions (like the kind of people you’d find spending their free time on a debate site) are very unlikely to change their minds about anything, especially within a relatively short conversation. I carry no expectation of that, I do it for the exercise in spotting logical fallacies and the opportunity to learn more about opposing viewpoints. If I’m right, the conversation validates my position further, giving me more confidence in what I believe. If I’m wrong, even better. Now I can rid myself of previously held false or fallacious positions and become more in tune with reality.

But to your initial question, if progress is what you want then engaging with hypocrites is pointless. Either be satisfied with putting it on display for others, or move on.