Don't entirely agree with "While it is true that societal roles have been imposed on men and women, these roles were constructed to maintain a certain order, rooted in ego, and, sadly, often misogyny".
I disagree with "rooted in ego", as hate is self destructive and self destruction is not at all "for yourself". If anything it's people who lack healthy autonomy, and try to cope in dysfunctional ways.
Also I think "often misogyny" paints a too limited picture, as "societal roles" I believe have as often been imposed by women as by men (for example women shaming men who don't adhere to "their male stereotypes" by putting white feathers on their clothes in public if they conscientiously objected, or women calling men who don't live up to "their male ideals" (e.g. wear makeup) perverted to send cause rumours that end up with police suspecting the man who committed no crime), thus I'd argue it's sexism in its entirety in both directions, not "only one direction of sexism". I think that no criminal in history has ever been very successful at acting alone. There's always accomplice(s).
It's a "flap doodle" bait and switch conjuring trick, playing on the ambiguity of a word like gender which can have different meanings in different contexts. In one context it has been used interchangeably to refer to sex, in another context it's used to describe social roles deemed appropriate for a human being according to which sex a person may be. Gender ideology arguments switch the context in the background argument whilst retaining the same word in the foreground argument so suddenly a person with the body of a man can claim that his real "sex" is that of a woman, simply because he feels more comfortable with or more attracted to having the gender role society normally ascribes to women. Leading to absurdities, confusion and outlandishly impossible psuedo metaphysical ideas such as it being possible for a human being to be "born in the wrong body".
Gender ideologues insist that we should all take care not to conflate sex and gender - ironically because they are ones who doing so more than anyone.
I know two people who love trains, since childhood, they have learned all about them. They each have model trains, but love the actual locomotives, the history and lore of trains. One is a man, one is a woman. Just think, if they decided to be transgender, they could keep their love of trains and still have their identities intact. They could swap each other’s identities if they choose. (They don’t know each other though).
The idea presented in this article shines a whole new light on the situation.
Don't entirely agree with "While it is true that societal roles have been imposed on men and women, these roles were constructed to maintain a certain order, rooted in ego, and, sadly, often misogyny".
I disagree with "rooted in ego", as hate is self destructive and self destruction is not at all "for yourself". If anything it's people who lack healthy autonomy, and try to cope in dysfunctional ways.
Also I think "often misogyny" paints a too limited picture, as "societal roles" I believe have as often been imposed by women as by men (for example women shaming men who don't adhere to "their male stereotypes" by putting white feathers on their clothes in public if they conscientiously objected, or women calling men who don't live up to "their male ideals" (e.g. wear makeup) perverted to send cause rumours that end up with police suspecting the man who committed no crime), thus I'd argue it's sexism in its entirety in both directions, not "only one direction of sexism". I think that no criminal in history has ever been very successful at acting alone. There's always accomplice(s).
It's a "flap doodle" bait and switch conjuring trick, playing on the ambiguity of a word like gender which can have different meanings in different contexts. In one context it has been used interchangeably to refer to sex, in another context it's used to describe social roles deemed appropriate for a human being according to which sex a person may be. Gender ideology arguments switch the context in the background argument whilst retaining the same word in the foreground argument so suddenly a person with the body of a man can claim that his real "sex" is that of a woman, simply because he feels more comfortable with or more attracted to having the gender role society normally ascribes to women. Leading to absurdities, confusion and outlandishly impossible psuedo metaphysical ideas such as it being possible for a human being to be "born in the wrong body".
Gender ideologues insist that we should all take care not to conflate sex and gender - ironically because they are ones who doing so more than anyone.
I know two people who love trains, since childhood, they have learned all about them. They each have model trains, but love the actual locomotives, the history and lore of trains. One is a man, one is a woman. Just think, if they decided to be transgender, they could keep their love of trains and still have their identities intact. They could swap each other’s identities if they choose. (They don’t know each other though).
The idea presented in this article shines a whole new light on the situation.
Excellent articulation!