To fade friendship because of TG Ideologist remark?

[ballroomblue]

NC for this.

We were out with one of our friends when he, a labour voter. mentioned Keir Starmer. He said he thinks Starmer is good man but a bit dull.

I replied 'I have no respect for Windsock Starmer whatsoever because of his support of transgender ideology and claims that 'transwomen are women.'

I usually don't get drawn in to political discussions but I had to speak up.

Our friend calmly replied. "Well, that's a non-issue."

I immediately saw red. My face heated up and the rage surged through me at this remark, something which I rarely experience.

Somehow I managed to bite my tongue and stop myself from reacting.

I've known this friend for over a decade, have always been fond of him and see him quite a lot, but am now questioning whether I want to spend time with someone so dismissive and lacking in insight and plain ignorant of the reality of the catastrophic effects to women that TDI has had.

Please be honest - am I overreacting?

No, you're not over reacting. Your friend has his head up his arse and no clue about what is going on around him.

Not a great time in history to be friends with people like that as this mess is at least half their fault. Ditch him unless he can explain what he means by, 'non issue'.

Honestly OP you need to learn how to discuss a topic without boiling over! Don’t ditch a good friend for this .

This.
Especially if it’s a longstanding friendship.

Yes, but there's a line, no? Would you be friends with someone who has racist views, for example?

I agree with your feelings, but in the circumstances, I do think you overreacted. Sorry, OP. You reacted to a mild comment with a very keyed-up energy, that probably seemed disproportionate to him. And the language you used - "Windsock Starmer" - probably sounded like something you heard online and were repeating. Not your own opinion.

If your friend is already primed to think of this as a non-issue, he probably thinks you've been brainwashed by something you saw online and he 'set you off'. This seems to be a default opinion among normies who can't be arsed to take an interest. I've experienced it and I know how frustrating it can be, so you have my sympathy, honestly.

I was actually thinking that "non-issue" has several potential meanings, all wildly different from one another.

A PP has mentioned this problem of people being set against each other - I agree.

I also think one of the most problematic things at the moment is that it seems unacceptable to say "I don't know".

There must be 1 million political issues I don't know anything about. If anyone tried to engage me in conversation, I would say I don't know. But a lot of people don't feel able to do that.

So, you end up with people listening to a lot of low quality arguments that don't relate to what is happening (on any issue).

And I can see a comment like "non-issue" coming up as a substitue for somebody not knowing what they don't know and not wanting to comment.

I don't consider this mess to be the fault of people who simply didn't engage with it.

I think there are a lot of issues with people who did "engage" but didn't look at any facts or any law.

I have friends with opposing views to me on this issue. As I value our friendship nonetheless I tend to avoid talking about it with them rather than fall out over it. If I had to discuss it I would try to keep it respectful and not descend into arguing.

I'm friends with people who voted Brexit despite the effects of Brexit crippling my business.
We just don't mention it.
One friend has recently said they wished they didn't vote Brexit and I'm glad I was around to hear that.

You have to find your own level of acceptance when it's not so obvious as racism or homophobia for eg.

Afaik didn't KS change his mind on women/gender issue recently?

My friend has completely different opinions on this and many other subjects, we agree to disagree or we change the subject. It’s not worth losing a friend over.

It shouldn't be this way, but the sad truth is there are people you have to tone police yourself around, if you want any hope of discussing this issue with them. You have to stay calm, only share about half of what you know (so you don't look too invested, which will be read as 'obsessed'), and divert the conversation to safer ground the instant you see them becoming uncomfortable. It's annoying, but the only way to preserve an otherwise good friendship.

The good news is, this goes both ways. You don't have to sit there and listening to someone wang on with TRA talking points if you don't want to. You can divert the conversation the same way. The way he made you feel? Small and belittled, with the "it's a non-issue"? You can absolutely channel that right back at him. A smile, a laugh, a dismissive comment.

"Sorry, Keir Starmer's been shit on women's rights. I can't talk about this with people who don't pay attention to it though. It drives me mad. Anyway, who's your pick for the Eurovision this year?"

If you think he's the kind of lost cause who won't take this seriously until the pendulum swings right through the Overton window, then don't bother engaging at all. Make it clear there's something you're thinking and not saying, but absolutely do not let yourself be drawn.

"Oh, I can't take Starmer seriously. Do you want another cup of tea?" - should be about the size of it.

In a few years, when he finally catches up to reality and is surprised to learn you had strong feelings about this all along, you can tell him the truth. "Well, I wanted to, but I didn't think you'd listen. You were always so dismissive."

No need to end the friendship. But no reason not to have a heated debate either.

@FredoandToto
No.
Racism is something I would have noticed at the beginning of a friendship and then wouldn’t have pursued it (the friendship).
When you meet someone new and they display any form of unkindness, you wouldn’t nurture that relationship.

I think your friendship is more important than politics and you can disagree and still be friends.

I'd be annoyed by how dismissive he was.

If he'd said, 'I disagree, TWAW', fine. Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one. But to just shrug it off as a 'non-issue' (which it clearly isn't to either bloody side of the debate!) would make me think that anything which doesn't touch directly on him, he sees as unimportant.