QT: Why is rejection of gender seen as discrimination?

submitted by adungitit from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ISaidWhatISaid 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Rejection of gender is rather vague. What do you mean specifically? I don't know where you are but it's against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion, no matter how backwards or unprogressive that religion may seem to you personally. An American judge literally compared a gender change to changing your religion in a verdict that served as a precedent for subsequent cases, so the courts view rejection of someone's gender the same way as rejecting someone because of their religion. A lot of religious doctrines are blatantly misogynistic but those are legally protected too. Many of the popular "world religions" are offensive and may even seem irrational to many progressively minded people, but are still legally protected. The law has never really been on the side of rationality or objectivity or progressivism when it comes to cultural issues like "one's belief about oneself", so it is a bit strange to expect the law to do a 180 when it comes to gender as a "system of belief", for the simple fact that the idea of gender is not exceptionally irrational or backwards when compared to other systems of belief that are already legally protected.

[–]adungitit[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your argument seems to be that if the law accepts one backwards notion, that all the other ones should be expected to be accepted as well. Misogyny and racial discrimination aren't particularly different from religion or gender ideologies in what you said, and yet we have laws against them. There are in fact, numerous system of beliefs that the law won't protect you for having. So I'm not sure what your point is. In fact, I'm not even sure what "law" you're referring to.

[–]ISaidWhatISaid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your argument seems to be that if the law accepts one backwards notion, that all the other ones should be expected to be accepted as well.

That's exactly what the law does presently. The law doesn't differentiate between one religion being less backwards than another but accepts them all as valid belief choices under the principle of freedom of religion.

Misogyny and racial discrimination aren't particularly different from religion or gender ideologies in what you said, and yet we have laws against them

And yet we don't have laws banning the concept of religion or the concept of gender outright. Also, the assumption that gender is inherently a harmful concept akin to misogyny or racial discrimination is a feminist ideological point, not an academic point. Academics on the other hand have long held the opinion that different societies around the globe have different gender norms, not all of which are to the detriment of women. For example, the fact that most societies expect women to become mothers and organize themselves around this expectation is not due to "misogyny" (as an anti-natalist feminist would argue) because at present most women do want to become women, even in Western countries where they have the option not to, so it makes sense for societies to expect most women to become mothers and to organize themselves anticipating that this gendered expectation will be the case for most females in that society.

Lastly I am not vaguely referring to a law in theory, I am referring to an actual legal precedent, one that is referred to in almost every subsequent trans rights related case:

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/schroer-v-library-congress-decision

Go and read it for yourself. The judge compares a gender transition to someone changing their religion, and says that someone should be allowed to change their gender the same way someone is allowed to change their religion. The fact that both gender and relgion have no basis in reality is irrelevant to this judge.