Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I might be getting confused with 'gender-critical'
|
Perhaps.
Sorry for my incomplete earlier reply, due to stuff happening.
Yes, gender dysphoria is a thing. It is also (whisper it) disproportionately present in those with an autistic spectrum condition compared to the general population. As a disorder, it deserves appropriate medical treatment and management. That, however, is becoming mired in loaded terms like “conversion therapy” at the same time as others are being accused of hate speech for “misgendering” people through use of incorrect pronouns.
This is the effect of critical gender theory, which is using gender issues as just another line of attack on what are identified as “power structures”. In other words it’s one front on the culture war that those waging it are always quick to deny exists.
---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
It was a question in answer to your response, i was genuinely trying to understand how you formed your view not entrap you.
Saying something has been the normal for millenia doesn't mean it will stay that way. everything is subject to change, we might not like it, we might argue against it but ultimately change wins. Desperation to cling to the status quo driven by fear or other methods often means positives that may arise are lost.
I can admit my own fallibility on the above with regards to the B word 
Personally, I would think our grandchildren will have bigger fish to fry then if we refer to someone as he/she/they/it
Interesting conversation , brings the whole question of tolerance, empathy and how we only utilise it when it conforms to our beliefs |
Fair points all, though it appears here that you are (unconsciously I think) casting tolerance and empathy as a one-way street. Compelled speech is outlawed by the HRA for good reason. One person’s right to believe something does not demand any other person’s affirmation. I consciously do not affirm the hypothesis that there are multiple genders because I believe the arguments are loaded in pursuit of a wider social agenda that has little concern for those who are genuinely suffering a psychological disorder that deserves to be treated without social theorists watching for opportunities to scream about patriarchy, prejudice and hatred. Someone may decide they are non-binary. That’s their business - and thus far is a tolerant attitude. If however my position is to be critical of the entire framework that permits them to declare themselves non-binary, do they tolerate me responding, “live how you like, but I believe you’re mistaken?” Or do they attempt to go to law, using weasel words like “hate speech” or “-phobia” to try to circumvent a simple philosophical disagreement?
“Things always change” isn’t a convincing argument in favour of any given proposition. The proposals put by gender theorists are not inevitable. And in point of fact I think millennia of things *not* changing in this regard is very persuasive. We are being asked to believe that human power structures have somehow totally suppressed something that, if true, would be fundamental to human nature, through all recorded history and possibly for as long as humans have walked the earth. And that those working in shiny new queer studies departments in western universities have somehow only now blown the lid off it.
I find that to be staggering in its arrogance and in its lack of self awareness and humility, given the magnitude of the issues they profess to be expert in.