The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So sure, subject the lofty peanut gallery to this standard. If you're actually personally affected by a political issue it's usually pretty easy to figure out where you stand on it.
I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree.
First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side.
As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken.
Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.
Deeply understanding viewpoints that pose a direct threat to you takes a lot of effort. It takes time and mental resources. I don't think it is fair to expect that of everyone; activists, sure, but most people just want to live and feel safe. That is hard as is, especially for trans people.
Yeah, I would estimate <1% of people try to deeply understand the nuances of any issue.
It would be great if we had a reliable way to identify that 1% and sort articles/comment/reach by this metric, but it's a hard problem.
For as many people that deeply understand a topic, there are many more that are parroting or making up rationalization for the beliefs they think they are expected to have. These sorts of arguments aren't really arguments, they are just a self-soothing method of tribal identification.
I think there is a pitfall with trying to "understand the other side" because there are an infinite number of possible opinions and not all have merit. It is useful to a point, but when taken to the extreme you just waste a bunch of time reading garbage.
But this would only disagree with my comment if you further say that trans people should nevertheless be allowed to call something or someone trans-exclusionary without having understood their position. Is that your point?
If it is then I would still disagree: if it is too emotionally taxing to try to understand an opponent's position then I think that one can just refrain from calling them out in public.
In fact, how do you know a viewpoint really poses a threat in the first place? For example, which of your rights does it propose to infringe? If you can answer that then you probably already understand the viewpoint enough to counter it...
> It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity
Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.
