3 ms·
On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic
by brailsafe 7y ago
On this specific point, I agree with you, and generally have for some time, but am generally more skeptical than ever of the people on the apparently altruistic inclusivity side. It may be confirmation bias, but the kind of shit I've become aware of is ridiculous. Some examples are the backlash that Bret Weinstein got a few years ago at Evergren, the amount of "Fuck Terfs" that's spraypainted all over my neighborhood because women's shelters don't allow people who only identify as women to be the same as bio-sex females, and the banning of public libraries from inclusion of events like pride on the basis that they allow critics a space to speak. If the genuine desire to have a dialogue was there, it would be more obvious. Even some of my friends who live the social justice life seem to shut down when they don't have script readily indexed to respond to what they deem a threat in regular conversation. I wish this wasn't the case, because I am a liberal person, but believe these things need scrutiny as much as anything else. That's the only way people who are currently suppressed can then be elevated in a sustainable way.
Here I'm trying to make distinctions between things like a gay person's human right to marry and a male's ability to identify as a woman and sue female oriented genital grooming places for discrimination on the basis that they have male parts. In one case that human right was denied arbitrarily based on the ideology of doctrine imbued culture and law.