For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols?

submitted by divingrightintowork from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Really? Then why is it called "gender critical" rather than "gender abolitionist"?

https://wildwomynworkshop.com/store/badges/badges-25-mm/abolish-gender-25mm-feminist-button-badge/

Its not like I made it up. It's common position from gc. However I do see descent on it and there are a range of opinions in gc. It would be nice to formalise that in order to understand the arguments.

In short, my view is that any society where certain ideas are not allowed to be thought is a tyranny. I have always objected to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes and made efforts in a variety of ways towards reducing, eliminating and laughing at them. But I don't think it's desirable to attempt to abolish them because doing so would mean taking measures to control what other people are allowed to think, feel and dream about. Enough societies have tried that sort of thing already, and it has never worked out well.

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

Government laws and interventions on gender to force it would be bad and coercive.

But leaving the state aside I'm still not clear on what your preference is.

That there would be no "stereotypes" ?

I have to be honest a lot of this seems like a logic trap, such that male stereotypes are viewed as good unless it's a toxic male and all female stereotypes are bad unless its the right kind of woman.

Stereotypes seems like another term for gender norms. Surely they change, but at its heart society doesn't seem to really want to get rid of them all. It might want "freedom" but there are enough biases remaining to count as soft social enforcement. That can come from the majority of people being conforming, even if they are liberal on non conformists.

Likewise most people opposed to trans ideology don't actually want a world without social gender, most of the behavioural aspects of gender.

Which takes us back to the question of what gc actually wants because this isn't all about trans people.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Its not like I made it up. It's common position from gc.

As proof you link to a website of selling handmade buttons, one of which says "abolish gender."

I have nothing to do with that website. I don't agree with every idea the woman who owns & runs it has put on her buttons. I don't agree with how she chooses to spell the word woman, in fact.

However I do see descent on it and there are a range of opinions in gc. It would be nice to formalise that in order to understand the arguments.

I dunno who this "gc" is. Lots of diverse people criticize, challenge and oppose sexism and sex stereotypes. We are not a hive mind. If you want to "formalize" what you think the "gc" view is, have at it. Me, I'm not interested.

I have to be honest a lot of this seems like a logic trap, such that male stereotypes are viewed as good unless it's a toxic male and all female stereotypes are bad unless its the right kind of woman.

WTF? Talk about titling at windmills. You're shadow boxing with some figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with me or anything I've said. The stereotypes "toxic male" and "right kind of woman" are not ones to which I ascribe. You should have stopped with

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

Government laws and interventions on gender to force it would be bad and coercive.

The remainder of your post is just you making unsubstantiated speculations in which you attribute to me views that I have not expressed, do not hold and have not intimated that I might hold.

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension. When posters very clearly say one thing, you respond as though we've actually said something quite different. Reminds me of the famous Cathy Newman tactic: what you really seem to be saying is... It's as if your go-to stance is to conclude that what others say can't really be what we actually mean, but you know what we really mean coz of some magical powers of clairvoyance.

So to reiterate:

Making observations about religions is not the same as dismissing religions.

Being critical of sexism and sexist sex stereotypes is not the same as advocating for authoritarian measures attempting to abolish them.

I am not an authoritarian or utopian. I have no interest in trying to design or dream up what I think an ideal society might be so that I can try to impose it on others and the world by fiat. Anyone with LT experience in politics and social progress in the real world knows the advantages of incrementalism. Also, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Which takes us back to the question of what gc actually wants because this isn't all about trans people.

No, this takes me to the end of the road in our exchange. I believe you are not engaging in good faith.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Cathy Newman tactic

To be honest I didn't find Cathy Newman's tactic wrong.

To me it's saying "This is how the views can be interpreted. Here is the model they are being interpreted as by others. Over to you point how they're understanding is wrong." It's just part of debate. Giving a viewpoint on a topic and asking for a response.