Hmmm…. I guess it depends on the extent to which you agree with the proposition “I oppose transgender rights”. If it describes you and you also support mask mandates and vaccine mandates then I guess the Venn diagram is not a perfect fit.
You've moved the goal post. Not supporting a mandate is not the same as being anti-mask or anti-vax. I support wearing masks and getting vaccinated, and I encourage everyone to do so. I also support making masks or vaccines required in order to engage in certain activities.
On the other hand, I definitely don't support the rhetoric that has shown up alongside vaccine mandates, suggesting that people who don't get vaccinated shouldn't be allowed to access needed health care, or should be denied the right to a livelihood, or should otherwise be abused.
On the same note, I don't think any person in this thread would EVER say "I oppose transgender rights". Hell, I would go so far as to say that we all support transgender rights. Where we disagree, however, is on whether or not what is being demanded is actually a 'right' to begin with, and what should be done when the entitlements being demanded conflict with the rights and safety of other people, as well as how to determine whether a person appropriately qualifies for those entitlements.
Consider, for example, that we all support the rights of disabled people to fair treatment in employment and housing, the right to not be discriminated against or be subject to abuse or harassments, and the entitlement of disabled people to reasonable accommodations for their disability so that they can participate fully in society.
But... we also all allow that there are going to be some situations where a person's disability
does preclude them from participation, and we try to accommodate that as best as possible. For example, I don't think we would require a professional sports team to allow a paraplegic to play quarterback in the name of inclusion, would we? And we wouldn't think it appropriate to require an electric company to allow someone with cerebral palsy to work on power lines, as it would represent a danger to them and to everyone else.
Additionally, we don't allow people to self-identify as disabled. We grant certain entitlements to people with disabilities: preferential parking spaces, accessibility ramps, accessibility stalls in restrooms and showers, subsidization to alter homes to allow for safety and access, Preferential seating at large venues for wheel-chair users, and often the ability to skip lines to gain access to services or venues. We don't allow self-declaration of disability, because those entitlements place an obligation on other people, and it would be unfair both to genuinely disabled people and to those supporting the entitlement if we allowed easy access for disingenuous people to game the system.
If a person says that having disability rights were contingent on proof of a disability and not reliant solely on self-declaration, and that even so having a disability still precludes some activities... do you think it would be reasonable to cast those people as "anti-disability", or to suggest that they "oppose disability rights"?
