The kind of body that makes babies is not the kind of body that can jump really high, run really fast and fight others. Males and females of the human species are different, and it makes no sense to pretend that they can do identical things. We cannot.
I might be a real oddball here. I’m religious but also heavily invested in rationalist groups (rationality has sharpened my theology) and also think that critical theory has a lot of good things about it. Critical theory as a descriptive model of how power works has a lot in common with rationality, which warns against groupthink. I wouldn’t say that Lindsay and Pluckrose are critical of postmodernist theory in general, but rather the post-1990 shift to what they call applied postmodernism (and what I call authoritarian postmodernism). My personal concern is that the ideas have been weaponized.
While the Radfems may hate transgenderism, it was their own rhetoric that opened the door to it. By arguing that gender differences are caused by patriarchal oppression, the implication is that if the patriarchy is removed, the differences will go away.
Coming of age in America I noticed how the Left would basically shit on religion, Christianity in particular because they saw them as their ideological enemies; Republicans.
However, Muslims were put up on a pedestal, their religion "beautiful" and their rights defended fiercely. This was in a post 9/11 world. The left went a little quite when gay marriage rolled around, but has consistently trotted out their alliance with Muslims in the war against the Christan right and Trump.
Well, now times have changed and Trans is king.
It has been AWKWARD to watch the Left squirm. Criticizing Muslims was verboten but criticizing Trans is the greatest sin.
I'm very interested to see how this many hands across the aisle will affect voting patterns.
OK, sure, there's common ground between fundies, second-wave feminists, and a couple heterodox academics. I buy that. But that's not an alliance, it's the political juggernaut of the religious right bankrolling smaller left-wing or centrist groups that back their pet causes. A movement where, e.g., New Atheists and Marxist lesbians are steering the ship isn't going to back laws that e.g., ban teachers from acknowledging that they have a same-sex partner.
Radfems and rationalists might view ending """gender ideology""" as the end-goal, but it should be pretty obvious looking at the past twenty years of culture war in this country that for evangelicals, "there are only two genders" is the crowbar with which they intend to undo the social progress made since Stonewall - since Betty Friedan, even.
Me, personally? I think women who want to join the military should be able to, but not in the same kinds of positions/jobs as men, because they are simply built differently. Absolutely differently--and there is no shame in that.
R's? You left out "Retards," Yang. (Yes, I said it. )
We used to mock the pinheads who debated "angels dancing on a pin." Now they're feted as "intellectuals." If you can't comprehend that there are two genders, you're not living in the real world. Let's not give these pinheads the time of day. To do otherwise is to play their game.
The trans agenda makes unlikely groups allies because it is that looney (loony?) and that overarching.
That said, I thought that the Dworkin/MacKinnon argument wasn't that bans on porn didn't violate the First Amendment, but rather that they didn't care about the First Amendment, this was too important. Sort of like trans today.
Someone more Inside Feminism correct me if I am wrong.
The kind of body that makes babies is not the kind of body that can jump really high, run really fast and fight others. Males and females of the human species are different, and it makes no sense to pretend that they can do identical things. We cannot.
I might be a real oddball here. I’m religious but also heavily invested in rationalist groups (rationality has sharpened my theology) and also think that critical theory has a lot of good things about it. Critical theory as a descriptive model of how power works has a lot in common with rationality, which warns against groupthink. I wouldn’t say that Lindsay and Pluckrose are critical of postmodernist theory in general, but rather the post-1990 shift to what they call applied postmodernism (and what I call authoritarian postmodernism). My personal concern is that the ideas have been weaponized.
While the Radfems may hate transgenderism, it was their own rhetoric that opened the door to it. By arguing that gender differences are caused by patriarchal oppression, the implication is that if the patriarchy is removed, the differences will go away.
Coming of age in America I noticed how the Left would basically shit on religion, Christianity in particular because they saw them as their ideological enemies; Republicans.
However, Muslims were put up on a pedestal, their religion "beautiful" and their rights defended fiercely. This was in a post 9/11 world. The left went a little quite when gay marriage rolled around, but has consistently trotted out their alliance with Muslims in the war against the Christan right and Trump.
Well, now times have changed and Trans is king.
It has been AWKWARD to watch the Left squirm. Criticizing Muslims was verboten but criticizing Trans is the greatest sin.
I'm very interested to see how this many hands across the aisle will affect voting patterns.
OK, sure, there's common ground between fundies, second-wave feminists, and a couple heterodox academics. I buy that. But that's not an alliance, it's the political juggernaut of the religious right bankrolling smaller left-wing or centrist groups that back their pet causes. A movement where, e.g., New Atheists and Marxist lesbians are steering the ship isn't going to back laws that e.g., ban teachers from acknowledging that they have a same-sex partner.
Radfems and rationalists might view ending """gender ideology""" as the end-goal, but it should be pretty obvious looking at the past twenty years of culture war in this country that for evangelicals, "there are only two genders" is the crowbar with which they intend to undo the social progress made since Stonewall - since Betty Friedan, even.
Me, personally? I think women who want to join the military should be able to, but not in the same kinds of positions/jobs as men, because they are simply built differently. Absolutely differently--and there is no shame in that.
R's? You left out "Retards," Yang. (Yes, I said it. )
We used to mock the pinheads who debated "angels dancing on a pin." Now they're feted as "intellectuals." If you can't comprehend that there are two genders, you're not living in the real world. Let's not give these pinheads the time of day. To do otherwise is to play their game.
The trans agenda makes unlikely groups allies because it is that looney (loony?) and that overarching.
That said, I thought that the Dworkin/MacKinnon argument wasn't that bans on porn didn't violate the First Amendment, but rather that they didn't care about the First Amendment, this was too important. Sort of like trans today.
Someone more Inside Feminism correct me if I am wrong.