While I think NikoBellic could certainly phrase his opinions better, I think dismissing his concerns about society as mere bigotry is taking too easy of a conclusion.
I think this is a good opportunity to point out the moral roots of liberals and conservatives and why social tensions are so high in the West right now. To take a page from Jonathan Haidt’s book, there are at least five moral under-pinning’s which make up liberal/conservative philosophy and can determine government policy:
1. Care-Harm
2. Fairness-Reciprocity
3. Loyalty-Betrayal
4. Authority-Subversion
5. Sanctity-Degradation
Both liberals and conservatives regard the first two as important, but here’s where they split ideologically: Conservatives regard the remaining three points as equally, or perhaps as more, important. They are concerned with societal cohesion and order and believe in self-sacrifice: That you should refrain from impulsively following your own inward desires and think about how your actions can impact others, however indirectly. To them, society is fragile and human beings can be easily confused and demoralized, and traditional values are what keep people grounded and united. They believe people instinctively want to surrounded by those who are like them, and that a diverse society is a fragmented one.
For liberals, they don’t really regard the last three very highly. In fact, some even find them oppressive. Liberals are more concerned with individual liberty. If society’s rules are forbidding someone to freely express themselves, then, well, that’s terrible. What’s the point in having all these rules, then? If they’re not harming anyone, then why can’t they just live however they want to? For liberals, a diverse society is one that is free.
So where does this all relate in regards to trans issues? The liberal position is pretty clear: Trans people are who they say they are and we should accept that. But for conservatives it isn’t as simple: We see the sex differences as sacrosanct, and that to blur this distinction can render these differences as meaningless. We believe men and women are happiest when embracing traditional masculine and feminine roles. Not everyone is going to fit those stereotypes, of course. But our chief concern is is flaunting, celebrating, an alternate lifestyle in front of highly impressionable people, including children, and then impulsively making a bad decision that they could end up regretting for the rest of their life just because it seemed trendy and they wanted to fit in. This was years ago, and transgender mania was nowhere near as bad compared to what it is now, but there were signs of what was coming: While I didn’t personally know her, I knew of a girl during my college years who was a bit of tomboy; she apparently got pressured into thinking she was transgender and got the surgery and hormones to transition into FtM. She ended up absolutely hating it and detransitioned, but the damage had been done: Her breasts were permanently malformed, and I heard she wouldn’t be able to have kids. An absolute tragedy. Don’t know what happened to her, but she became hugely depressed and withdrew from college after a few weeks.
And her story is hardly unique: There’s also Walt Heyer, a man who was abused from childhood by his grandmother which brought about his dysphoria. Transitioning didn’t “cure” him or bring him peace. He needed counseling, but the medical industry him pushed becoming a transgender woman instead.
The fact is there’s so much about transgenderism we don’t know about, and we should stop pretending to. It’s causing a lot of untold suffering, but those in favor of it turn a blind eye for reasons I can only guess at. Just because someone claims they’re transgender doesn’t mean they actually are. A lot people experiment during their formative years before they start to embrace the nature that inherent to them as they grow older.
I diverged quite a bit from my original point. The bottom line is that you shouldn’t assume someone is a bad person just because they have a bad take. Perhaps you think I shouldn’t spend so much energy defending Niko. He could certainly assert his points better and with more nuance. But I don’t think his concerns are rooted in malice.
