You managed to open the can of worms anyway, so no turning back. You mighty not realize that the "pro-life" movement and the trans ideology movement have a lot in common. I'll leave you to figure out what that commonality is. What does the gender binary really mean to people like you, as it expresses itself in society at large?
You managed to open the can of worms anyway, so no turning back. You mighty not realize that the "pro-life" movement and the trans ideology movement have a lot in common. I'll leave you to figure out what that commonality is. What does the gender binary really mean to people like you, as it expresses itself in society at large?
It means that the words "man" and "woman" refer to something knowable in objective reality and are not simply arbitrary linguistic categories.
The postmodernists will defend gender fluidity all the way because they have to. Postmodernism is built on the idea that reality either nonexistent or unknowable, so language effectively creates reality. That's why a man (with a penis) who says he's a woman actually BECOMES a woman by that declaration.. But if "man" can refer to something real, then other words might also refer to something real, and any assertion that reality might be describable is like taking a block of C4 to the foundation of postmodernist theory. If "man" and "woman" are real things, maybe "baby" or "family" or "marriage" or "rights" or "right" and "wrong" might refer to real, objective, unchangeable things too. And we can't have that -- pretty soon we'll be talking about Plato's ideal table.
We're getting pretty deep into philosophical weeds here, but it's not an exaggeration to say that this is a conflict over whether objective reality exists or not. That conflict has been brewing for decades and happens to have come to a head with "what is a woman", but the philosophical conflict is much larger than that.
In that sense there are 2 agendas working in parallel, one philosophical and the other prurient. Both are wrapping themselves in the rainbow flag to keep prying eyes away from what's going on underneath.
Sorry for the long post, but you did ask. :-) And BTW: I don't need to agree with people on abortion or religion or philosophy to consider them friends, so please don't take anything I said personally.
In some respects I agree with what's in your post. However, the words "family" and "marriage," "rights," "right" and "wrong" at least do not refer to real, objective, unchangeable things except perhaps in your mind. I know what they mean to me, and am sure what they mean to me is very different from what they mean to you. That's kind of what I meant by people like you and the trans cult having more in common than you realize. BTW, nothing wrong with the original rainbow flag, that is, the flag as first designed, before the TQ+ nonsense inserted itself. Never was, never will be.
If "human rights" don't refer to something objectively real, we're all in big trouble. Any right created by man can be removed by man, which means it can't be a "universal human right".
I would suggest that your own definitions here will make it very hard for you to successfully push back on the trans cult. You have already conceded most of the linguistic battlefield. And that's where this battle is being fought.
But those Tri-flags and "All gender" restroom signs on single occupancy WCs need to go! "Toilet" would do...
People might have different ideas about "family" and "marriage" but I don't think one can really compare those who prefer a traditional view of these to those who groom and drug & mutilate children with a non-scientific ideology, IMO... I can understand if you are offended on behalf of the original flag. But, we all do see an awful lot of it these days. I'm rainbowed out :-) I think Andrew Sullivan has written about this burn out.
This makes absolutely no sense in any way possible without resorting to postmodern language. You can't conflate your way towards a meaningful conjoinment of the two.
What does the gender binary mean....What a useless question. And please refrain from making comments like "mean to people like you?" It paints you as an irritant and disdainful clod.
I feel bad for Abigail Shrier that her well-written, thoughtful article attracted readers like you. You think I'm an irritant and a disdainful clod. So be it, since I wouldn't want the good opinion of a nitwit like you. Tit for tat, how's that? But I am glad that my comment got under the skins of some of the commenters here. It did its job then. You think this is a simple semi-abstract issue to discuss and everyone should agree with you? You felt entitled to misinterpret the intent of my question about the "gender binary" (actually "sex binary" is the only meaningful term and I'm all for respecting that). The current Western gender cult includes the traditional adult male value system, whether you realize it or not. It harms mostly women and children and gay people and I think you're in none of those categories. You sound like a man with "traditional" values, just a few steps away from an MRA. Just the feeling I get though, You're free to prove me wrong.
You managed to open the can of worms anyway, so no turning back. You mighty not realize that the "pro-life" movement and the trans ideology movement have a lot in common. I'll leave you to figure out what that commonality is. What does the gender binary really mean to people like you, as it expresses itself in society at large?
It means that the words "man" and "woman" refer to something knowable in objective reality and are not simply arbitrary linguistic categories.
The postmodernists will defend gender fluidity all the way because they have to. Postmodernism is built on the idea that reality either nonexistent or unknowable, so language effectively creates reality. That's why a man (with a penis) who says he's a woman actually BECOMES a woman by that declaration.. But if "man" can refer to something real, then other words might also refer to something real, and any assertion that reality might be describable is like taking a block of C4 to the foundation of postmodernist theory. If "man" and "woman" are real things, maybe "baby" or "family" or "marriage" or "rights" or "right" and "wrong" might refer to real, objective, unchangeable things too. And we can't have that -- pretty soon we'll be talking about Plato's ideal table.
We're getting pretty deep into philosophical weeds here, but it's not an exaggeration to say that this is a conflict over whether objective reality exists or not. That conflict has been brewing for decades and happens to have come to a head with "what is a woman", but the philosophical conflict is much larger than that.
In that sense there are 2 agendas working in parallel, one philosophical and the other prurient. Both are wrapping themselves in the rainbow flag to keep prying eyes away from what's going on underneath.
Sorry for the long post, but you did ask. :-) And BTW: I don't need to agree with people on abortion or religion or philosophy to consider them friends, so please don't take anything I said personally.
In some respects I agree with what's in your post. However, the words "family" and "marriage," "rights," "right" and "wrong" at least do not refer to real, objective, unchangeable things except perhaps in your mind. I know what they mean to me, and am sure what they mean to me is very different from what they mean to you. That's kind of what I meant by people like you and the trans cult having more in common than you realize. BTW, nothing wrong with the original rainbow flag, that is, the flag as first designed, before the TQ+ nonsense inserted itself. Never was, never will be.
If "human rights" don't refer to something objectively real, we're all in big trouble. Any right created by man can be removed by man, which means it can't be a "universal human right".
I would suggest that your own definitions here will make it very hard for you to successfully push back on the trans cult. You have already conceded most of the linguistic battlefield. And that's where this battle is being fought.
"linguistic battlefield" indeed. We are in a war of words. I have few that I play with for humour and truth.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/12/29/transgender-and-other-trans-words-definitions/
But those Tri-flags and "All gender" restroom signs on single occupancy WCs need to go! "Toilet" would do...
People might have different ideas about "family" and "marriage" but I don't think one can really compare those who prefer a traditional view of these to those who groom and drug & mutilate children with a non-scientific ideology, IMO... I can understand if you are offended on behalf of the original flag. But, we all do see an awful lot of it these days. I'm rainbowed out :-) I think Andrew Sullivan has written about this burn out.
This makes absolutely no sense in any way possible without resorting to postmodern language. You can't conflate your way towards a meaningful conjoinment of the two.
What does the gender binary mean....What a useless question. And please refrain from making comments like "mean to people like you?" It paints you as an irritant and disdainful clod.
I feel bad for Abigail Shrier that her well-written, thoughtful article attracted readers like you. You think I'm an irritant and a disdainful clod. So be it, since I wouldn't want the good opinion of a nitwit like you. Tit for tat, how's that? But I am glad that my comment got under the skins of some of the commenters here. It did its job then. You think this is a simple semi-abstract issue to discuss and everyone should agree with you? You felt entitled to misinterpret the intent of my question about the "gender binary" (actually "sex binary" is the only meaningful term and I'm all for respecting that). The current Western gender cult includes the traditional adult male value system, whether you realize it or not. It harms mostly women and children and gay people and I think you're in none of those categories. You sound like a man with "traditional" values, just a few steps away from an MRA. Just the feeling I get though, You're free to prove me wrong.