You're viewing part of a thread.
You can't use archaic as a preparative against one thing and then come back and use it as a positive for its "opposite". I read your link, it is a perfectly good link, so I guess your arguing that an archaic Indoasia-centric queernormative world view is "the way the world actually works" instead? If you think you can understand what someone is attempting to say/discuss by only half of an opening sentence, I understand why you seem to be arguing past multiple people in this thread.
No, I'm arguing that your rigid definition of gender (that no reputable biologist would agree with) is not the way the world works. Because gender and biological sex are different and have always been different and biological sex is far, far more complicated than XX and XY.
This was your claim:
Gender was traditionally identical to sex and this issue didn’t come up much till relatively recently.
Unless by "traditionally," you are going by an entirely Anglo/Eurocentric view of the world (and only really applies to the Christian era), which is pretty damn bigoted, I showed you that you were wrong.
The proper thing to do would be to admit it.
I doubt you will. But it's either you were wrong or all of those other cultures are not part of humanity. Which would be very bigoted.
I never said that gender is identical to sex, don't go putting words in my mouth. I am not sure if you are just skimming things or intentionally reading negatively, because I did clearly say that the Global North is the target audience for most social media, including Lemmy, and thus yes, for a North American or European that does apply as "traditionally".
I have said nothing contrary to that, nor said anything about it being either my world view, the only world view, a superior world view, or anything of the sort, and you are calling me a bigot for just pointing that fact out. I fully support the idea that sex and gender are not the same, can be different, and can be fluid, but also acknowledge that the majority of humans (I'll even confidently say globally here) will have them relatively aligned and not even think about it. That is why there need to be protections for those that do, because they are a minority.
Way to go about pissing people off. Your purity test bullshit that anyone daring to discuss your individual world view is automatically a bigot must be a big hit at parties and brings people together around you. I'll go out on a limb and say you are arguing that the non-Eurocentric queernormative world view is the superior world view, and that you do not believe that could be construed as a version of bigotry of any kind because you are "right". Like the actual bigots on the other side don't feel exactly the same.
Interesting how your "global north" excludes an entire continent's worth of north.
Now I know your trolling, pretending that the term "Global North" isn't a known shorthand for essentially the G8 and coined specifically by the left to point out the disparity with the rest of the world on a global power and economic scale
I am not trolling. You're proving my point. You think "normal" = "white."
Wow, you really are an absolute caricature of a social justice warrior and an ass who likes to put words in people's mouths to boot. Having the knowledge that a thing exists means you support the thing that you know exists, huh? Since you pointed out the existence of an Anglo/Eurocentric world view first I guess that must mean you think normal means whiteness and you are trying to welcome me to the club?
Wow, you really are an absolute caricature of a social justice warrior
Ah, now this all makes sense. You're a conservative.
Since you pointed out the existence of an Anglo/Eurocentric world view first I guess that must mean you think normal means whiteness and you are trying to welcome me to the club?
That's not how putting words in quotations marks work.
I am not a conservative, I am a left leaning classical libertarian that wants universal healthcare, UBI, LGBTQ rights, safe and legal abortions, and both religion and money out of government because these are the most effective/cost effective ways for government to support the common good.
You trying to put words in my mouth such as gender and sex being the same, or that I am a bigot who thinks normal = whiteness because I point out that social media started in and is primarily used in rich Euro/Americasphere countries is why you are a caricature, and I am real sick and tired of you doing so.
You think "social justice warrior" is an insult. So maybe you should rethink your other positions.
I'm happy to be insulted by the same term that could be used on Malcolm X or Nelson Mandela, even though it definitely does not apply. It's very flattering nonetheless.
No, I think that being a caricature by calling anyone who you seem to think is any amount to the right of you a white supremacist bigot and misconstruing them as such by putting words in their mouth like a character made up by Fox News is what's asinine, and would be the "insult" in this case.
-Edit-
And you are seriously telling me that because I don't pass your purity test I should rethink and abandon my leftist ideals/positions and just what, go right wing? This, right here, is why you are a caricature.