Your point being?And they were/are supporters of scientific racism. Quite the comparison.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your point being?And they were/are supporters of scientific racism. Quite the comparison.
So you don't really have an argument against the comparison.Comparing LGBT identities to [x thing with measurable harm] certainly hasn't gone out of style despite how woefully anemic an argument as a reactionary appeal to emotion it is.
The point is you're being needlessly obtuse and drawing comparisons between two radically different and unrelated things.Your point being?
My point being such a comparison is inappropriate.Your point being?
It's about as much of a comparison as 'I wonder if religion will be looked on by the future the same as pedophilia.'So you don't really have an argument against the comparison.
There are many ways in which the gender identity and eugenics movements are comparable. Both are social-political movements. They both have a strong ideology. They both attempt to justify themselves with the imprimatur of science. They also both vehemently attack any perceived opposition. Just like you are attacking me now.The point is you're being needlessly obtuse and drawing comparisons between two radically different and unrelated things.
No, it isn't. There are many ways in which the gender identity and eugenics movements are similar. Unlike religion and pedophilia which are dissimilar.It's about as much of a comparison as 'I wonder if religion will be looked on by the future the same as pedophilia.'
It's a nonsensical appeal to emotion without an argument about how the two are comparable.
Only in your opinion. Feel free to explain why such a comparison is inappropriate.My point being such a comparison is inappropriate.
Dear god if you can't see it no words will influence you.Only in your opinion. Feel free to explain why such a comparison is inappropriate.
There are many ways in which the gender identity and eugenics movements are comparable. Both are social-political movements. They both have a strong ideology. They both attempt to justify themselves with the imprimatur of science. They also both vehemently attack any perceived opposition. Just like you are attacking me now.
Well...Dear god if you can't see it no words will influence you.
Unfortunately you missed something. "Gender traditionalism" isn't a thing. Gender identity is a recognized movement. The absence of that movement isn't one. Just as "noneugenics" isn't a thing either.Oo I can do this too.
Like gender traditionalism, Eugenics tried to arbitrarily assign moral value judgements to traditional role expectations, often using unhelpful stereotypes not confirmed by actual social studies.
Like Eugenics, gender traditionalism uses pseudoscience and reductionism (such as gender = sex or race = genetics) as excuses to suppress diversity or counter traditional groups as "undesirables."
Incidentally eugenics groups targeted gender studies, and the most famous nazi bookburning photo is from a gender studies university.
Unfortunately you missed something. "Gender traditionalism" isn't a thing. Gender identity is a recognized movement. The absence of that movement isn't one. Just as "noneugenics" isn't a thing either.
I grew up in a generation before any of this terminology was widely discussed or a thing. I settled on just dismissing the entire social construct of gender as bull crap. I don't believe in gender; one could say I'm anti-gender and believe human society would be better off without it. I believe people are simply people, and there is no need to create these social construct binaries of "masculine" and "feminine." I believe this binary creates social expectations and social dynamics that are inherently sexist, and that sexism is problematic. I also believe this binary has such a stranglehold on human culture I have to deal with it whether I want to or not. I also believe in respecting human diversity, and that includes respecting other people's use of the cultural construct of gender in spite of my disdain for it.
So instead, I mostly advocate for nonbinary ways of approaching the topic of gender. It could be that if I had grown up in a healthier social environment on this topic, I wouldn't have settled on dismissing the entire thing as bull crap. It's also possible that if I had grown up in a non-patriarchal, non-misogynistic environment, I wouldn't have settled on dismissing the entire thing as bull crap. We are all very much the product of our upbringings. Moving past that can be possible, but not always desirable and often difficult. I applaud anyone who takes the time and has the courage to work through these things for themselves. You are being able to do things that people of my generation rarely could or did. Cherish that, embrace that, and us allies have got your back. You do you, and you be you!
I also believe in respecting human diversity, and that includes respecting other people's use of the cultural construct of gender in spite of my disdain for it.
Ah yes, by asking you to have some basic respect and decency in a thread that isn't even in a debate section I'm "attacking" you.There are many ways in which the gender identity and eugenics movements are comparable. Both are social-political movements. They both have a strong ideology. They both attempt to justify themselves with the imprimatur of science. They also both vehemently attack any perceived opposition. Just like you are attacking me now.
I also dislike the premise that "everyone is a little nonbinary", or "nonbinary is natural while gender is not", or "I think binary genders are silly, but I respect them"; this is a mentality I come across often with gender abolitionists and general nonbinary crowds.
To clarify something, I think for many who are anti-gender or nonbinary wouldn't use the word "silly" to describe the consequences of rigid cultural constructs concerning this aspect of human identity. I used words like "sexist" and "problematic." I could have also used the word "harmful."
Where I respect gender constructs, it's because I understand not everyone is harmed by the expectations of them and I value diversity on the whole. I'm pretty live-and-let-live. I don't mind abiding by other cultural customs as a way of showing respect; it works for their people and that's great. The problems happen when one set of cultural ideas is the only option permitted or available. Anyone who doesn't fit into the mold is told they do not belong. That's where that word "harmful" comes in.
I am always going to have a hard time with a gender binary because it harmed me growing up. I can't apologize for that; it wasn't even something I wanted, it was forced on me by my surrounding culture. I understand the cultural construct of the binary just fine, I just don't agree with it. It's hard to agree with something that hurt you, yeah? Well, maybe not for masochists. I'm not one of those.
Irrelevant to the main question. Will the modern gender identity movement be judged beneficial or deleterious by history?Gender traditionalism is a belief employed by many movements, most significantly conservative religious ones.
Just like eugenics was not in-of-itself a movement. It was a belief employed by multiple social political entities.
My goal is discussion. Apparently some here aren't interested in that.Ah yes, by asking you to have some basic respect and decency in a thread that isn't even in a debate section I'm "attacking" you.
Those are some thin and tenuous links your drawing here, trying to compare an effort to genocide people to the way in which people identify and express themselves.
What's your goal here, Shaul?
Could have absolutely fooled me, what with the absolutely asinine comparison between gender identity and eugenics.My goal is discussion. Apparently some here aren't interested in that.