"Is" vs "Ought" is basically approaching a problem from the perspective of how the world is vs approaching the problem from the perspective of how the world ought to be (also known as descriptive vs prescriptive)
An example in trans discourse would be the discussion around passing. The ought perspective would be something along the lines of "no one should be required to pass so we should stop judging trans people for not passing and acting like passing is the end all be all of transition" while the is perspective would be like "passing is an extremely important part of transition because trans people who don't pass are often subjected to far more discrimination, up to and including violence, so information on how to pass better is a critical resource."
Notice that these statements do not actually contradict. In fact, if you put a "but" in between the first one and the second one it sounds like a perfectly reasonable assessment. However, you could see how someone approaching the problem from the first perspective could get in an argument with someone from the second perspective. From the Is perspective, the Ought perspective seems naïve and unrealistic. From the Ought perspective, the Is perspective seems restrictive and exclusionary. Because social media discourages nuance, people can very easily turn this into a fight rather than realizing that these can be two valid perspectives on a complex issue.
dailybridgerton
titsay
kaledo-art
2087
