If we are going to say that "even if the debate seems distasteful, it should go ahead", then it should be fully legitimate to argue, in debate about the Israel/Palestine issue, that Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank has become a form of apartheid. and that there is a clear danger of that happening within Israel proper(the lands on the Israeli side of the Green Line) if the president trend towards introducing increasingly discriminaory legislation towards Palestinians who are Israeli citizens-and who, by staying where they are, have acceptedfd the state and made peace with its majority community, and therefore should not be treated as undesirable residents or the enemy) should be accepted as a valid and acceptable debating position, as well as the position of those who utterly reject the idea that criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians is nothing more than antisemitism and therefore anyone who expresses it is either an antisemite(if Gentile) or "self-loathing" if Jewish.
Making people who are trans/non-binary/Two Spirits debate the validity, unchangeability and safety towards others of their identity or personal truth is not legitimate, because nobody should have to defend themselves as who they are within a debate forum, just as Black/Brown/First Nations niversity students should never have to debate whether their admission to the university and their very right to exist in safety on the campuses they attend should be accepted by all as legitimate, nor should Muslims have to debate whether they have any right to even live in "Western" countries and to expect to be treated as "real (fill in the national identity blank here)" in those countries.
Debate is for ideas, not to make human beings justify their very existence and their right to exist where they are.
BTW, if you think I'm an anti-Zionist, I'm not. I support the right of Israel to exist in peace, safety and security as currently constituted, in exchange for thracceptanf of a Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank & Gaza(with a secure corridor so Palestinians can travel between both) the West Bank settlements- all of which are illegal- being removed, East Jerusalem being accepted as the Palestinian capitol(it's silly to make a big deal about whether it's there or in Ramallah, which would be a ten minute drive away in a peaceable situation. I don't support a single state- at this point it's clearly unworkable- and see an Israel/Palestine(it can't be Israel/Jordan since Palestinians will never accept being placed under Jordanian rule) confederation on the model of Belgium being a long-term possibility.
And I'd say that Netanyahu or whoever ends up eventually replacing him has to stop treating Palestinians collectively as if they can't be trusted not to be murderous berserkers incapable of functioning as decent human being, and needs to accept that this conflict can't be ended by either side scoring a final military victory followed by the other being forced to sign an unconditional surrender treaty- there can't BE a "winner" and there can't be a "loser", because the only way to end this is to make sure both sides save face.
