3 ms·
> It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural" le guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someon
by Chris2048 3y ago
> It seems you're implying not taking women seriously to be "natural"
le guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- komali2 3y agoOk: how would you have interpreted the comment? Rereading the thread, it seems they're implying that pushing back on gender stereotypes is to force people to not "be natural."
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoHere's how I interpret it (but note that I am not the author; I am guessing): Let's say that I am a university-attending female, but even though I am attending university, what I really want to be is a wife and mother. (Such people do in fact exist.) Universities can "push back on gender stereotypes" so strongly that I feel like it's not OK for me to be who I want to be. That is, you can push back on gender stereotypes so hard that those who fit the stereotypes feel like they "shouldn't" be who they are. Opposing stereotypes is fine; going that far to do so is less fine.
- ambichook 3y agoi'm missing how this is relevant like, at all? what with the context of the entire rest of the conversation, i struggle to see how you reached that interpretation
- komali2 3y agoYou're doing the same thing, presenting one thing as "natural" when there's no evidence for this belief that passes rigorous evaluation. I don't think there's any reason "pushing back on gender stereotypes" should or would make someone feel uncomfortable expressing their gender however they choose - the whole point is to give people the choice to express their gender as they see fit. If that means by being a tradwife and mom, great, the important thing is that they get to choose that role of their own free will.