Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||
Dann ist es ja gut, dass ein solcher Vorwurf spezifisch gegen Stock in dem von dir Zitierten auch sogar recht explizit überhaupt nicht drinsteht. Aber das wolltest du auch gar nicht behauptet oder nahegelegt haben, nicht wahr? |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Der Sache nach korrekt wäre die Bezeichnung sex-essentialist. Die bloße Existenz von biologischem Geschlecht bestreiten nur sehr wenige Leute. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Der Geschlechtsrealismus steht hier im Gegensatz zum Geschlechtskonstruktivismus, und streng genommen schließt er den Geschlechtsessenzialismus nicht ein. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Streng genommen schließt er sex essentialism überall da notwendig ein, wo er in der Praxis transexklusorische oder "genderkritische" Positionen begründet. Das ist sogar kaum anders denkbar. Die bloße Existenz von biologischem sex sagt ja als solche über gender wirklich noch überhaupt nichts aus. |
Zitat: |
"And then there’s my own heresy, usually known as “gender-critical feminism”, though I prefer sex-realism: that humans come in two immutable sexes."
—Helen Joyce: https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2024/happy-to-be-a-heretic/ |
Zitat: |
"What is a woman’s place in society? Down the centuries, from Plato and Aristotle to Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certain patterns are discernible in how this question has been answered. The most cogent answers, offered in a variety of historical and economic circumstances, integrate three basic aspects of who we are as human beings. First, we are rational creatures ordered to excellence. Second, we are a species differentiated asymmetrically by sex. Third, we are unique individuals, each with our own peculiar gifts and personal agency. When one (or more) of these three aspects of human personhood is neglected or denied, the full flourishing of women and men alike is threatened. Fortunately, modern sex discrimination law integrates these three aspects of personhood. Theorized properly, this area of law provides a true account of the sexually dimorphic individual human person, which in turn provides the basis for a new sex-realist feminism. It’s an account worth fighting for.…"
—Erika Bachiochi: Sex-Realist Feminism |
Zitat: |
"Although there are exceptions, most of the Alt-Right does not demand traditional gender roles because they hold traditionalist religious views. Instead, the Alt-Right endorses what it calls “sex realism,” which is analogous to “race realism” (…). They argue that men and women have traditionally occupied different roles because they are biologically different. That is, men and women are hardwired for different tasks in society and the push for gender equality in all aspects of life goes against the grain of human nature. Instead, they argue that a traditionalist division of labor between the sexes—in which women are mostly focused on domestic tasks— is in the best interests of both men and women.
The Alt-Right’s concern about gender relations is related to its obsession with race. Its proponents hate feminism and women’s liberation in part because they blame it for declining white birthrates." (Hawley, George. The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. pp. 15-6) "Like the Alt-Right, much of the MRM [Men's Rights Movement] endorses what is called sex realism. This is the idea that men and women have different cognitive characteristics, which are rooted in biology rather than socialization. Because of these different attributes, according to this theory, men and women are biologically suited for different roles in society, and efforts to create higher levels of equality between the sexes will ultimately leave both men and women less happy than they would be under a more traditional, patriarchal system." (Hawley, George. The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 103) |
Zitat: |
"What Is the Alt-Right?
Outside of any context, the only political information that the term Alt-Right conveys is that it is right of center and offers an alternative to the mainstream right. For a time, this was one of the term’s strong points. As a vague phrase, anyone with right-wing inclinations who rejected mainstream conservatism might find it appealing. Over the course of its short history, the expansiveness of the label Alt-Right has waxed and waned. At its inception, it was an umbrella term containing people with several different ideological moorings—but this changed as it became increasingly associated with the radical right. It did not enjoy extraordinary growth during this period. Even the far right mostly abandoned the term by the end of 2013—including Richard Spencer, the person who coined it—but it came roaring back two years later on social media. In this subsequent iteration, it once again briefly experienced a moment of widespread appeal. It was used by people with multiple right-wing ideological dispositions until it again became explicitly and exclusively associated with white racial politics by the end of 2016. White identity politics has been a central plank of the Alt-Right, even if some people who embraced the label thought otherwise. The Alt-Right views identity as the foundation of politics, and race as a key element of identity. It rejects the now-dominant notion that race is a social construct rather than a legitimate biological category, and it views the future success of whites as its predominant goal. The Alt-Right is additionally an anti-Semitic movement, and most of its leading voices consider Jewish influence on political life detrimental to whites." (Hawley, George. The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. pp. 8-9) |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Hier ist ein anderer Text:
|
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
"Streng genommen" schließt er sex essentialism überall da notwendig ein, wo er in der Praxis transexklusorische oder "genderkritische" Positionen begründet oder begründen soll. Das ist sogar kaum anders denkbar. Die bloße Existenz von biologischem sex sagt ja als solche über gender und dessen Konstruiertheit wirklich noch überhaupt nichts aus. Und die Behauptung einer wesentlichen (wie du sagen würdest "ontischen") Verknüpfung oder direkten Entsprechung von sex und gender ist bereits Essenzialismus. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
To the extent that it upholds this account, sex discrimination law is true to the nature of human personhood. Unfortunately, Ginsburg and her fellow abortion advocates have betrayed the account that Ginsburg herself established. They have argued that abortion rights are required by sex discrimination law. To support this claim, they have promoted flawed theoretical accounts of human nature. Therefore, giving a proper theoretical grounding to the advances of sex discrimination law—and giving a proper historical context to the emergence of these insights—will not only help shield abortion prohibitions from spurious litigation; it also can help us understand ourselves better as sexually dimorphic creatures, for whom sexual embodiment is fundamental, but not determinative. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
In the Republic, Socrates asserts that male humans “mount” like dogs (and are physically stronger), while females bear the offspring; but apart from these basic biological differences, sex is said to be mostly superficial, akin to the differences between bald and long-haired men. Elite women responsible for governance should be afforded education and work according to their talents, just as men are—and just as anti-discrimination law requires today. But to achieve parity of public position, these elite women will need, Socrates says, “an easy-going kind of childbearing.” With their mates selected for best breeding, elite women will have their children quickly swept away from them and cared for by wet nurses and governesses—whose own children, if “ordinary,” will need to be euthanized “if the flock is going to be of the most eminent quality.” Professional equality thus comes at a great cost, to the elite women themselves, to their caregiving servants, and to young children. Public roles are doled out by merit, but the intimate life of the family—and many human lives—are sacrificed to the good of the city. As in today’s feminist advocacy, universal childcare and abortion (and in antiquity, also infanticide) are necessary to the sex-equalizing scheme. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
The Christian response to sexual asymmetry, endorsed implicitly by Pizan and explicitly in Wollstonecraft’s Rights of Woman, was a crucially humane alternative to the Republic’s. It channeled sex into lifelong monogamous marriage, so that women were not left alone with the unequal burdens of sex. As belief in the imago Dei began to elevate women and children relative to their status in antiquity, Christian sexual mores demanded the same chastity of men as of women. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
But Pizan and Wollstonecraft’s shared vision of equal dignity, reciprocity, and collaboration between the sexes was jeopardized—and their critique of gender inequities further justified—as the industrial revolution took hold. After all, during the premodern era, the struggle for material subsistence helped to harmonize the physical and reproductive asymmetries between the sexes, as mere survival required a profound collaboration in the agrarian household. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Men certainly had legal authority over their wives at this time, but women often enjoyed governance of the capacious household, the delegated management of the oikonomia that Aristotle first recognized. Some women were even known to rule as great queens and abbesses. |
Erika Bachiochi hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Like Plato and Descartes, Sanger and her heirs were right to foreground the common rational capacity of men and women. But the modern feminist account misfires by undermining a proper understanding of each human person as a particular unity of sexed body and rational soul. Though rightly wishing woman to be duly recognized as human, they misconstrue what it is to be human. As Aristotle taught, the rational (human) soul enlivens and unifies the embodied individual as the complex, multi-faceted person he or she is, governing and directing the person to his or her human end. Our sexed bodies are not mere appendages of our minds: As Pope John Paul II explained, they express who we are as human persons, a reality that cannot be mechanistically (and technologically) willed away, as hard as we may try. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: |
...An dem Punkt muss ich mal fragen: Sag mal Myron... bist du davon ausgegangen, dass niemand den Text tatsächlich lesen würde? Was für ein absurder Text. ![]() |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Bachiochi's (nicht Bariochi!) |
Zitat: |
"The Conservative Feminist Revolution
Feminism is continually being redefined, and a group of conservative (and not so traditionally conservative) men and women are now piloting another new approach. Fairer Disputations, part of the Wollstonecraft Project at the Abigail Adams Institute, publishes and compiles work by individuals that do not always agree but defend “a vision of female and male as embodied expressions of human personhood,” and affirm “that men and women are equal in their dignity and their capacity for human excellence, yet distinct in many significant ways, particularly when it comes to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and care for children.”…" Quelle: https://lawliberty.org/the-conservative-feminist-revolution/ |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Gerade entdeckt:
Konservatismus ist aber nicht gleich Rechtsextremismus (Ultrakonservatismus, Faschismus)! |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Richtig, aber was mich viel mehr interessiert: Was davon ist denn bitte feministisch? Für mich liest sich das nämlich einfach wie ganz strunznormaler klassischer christlicher Konservatismus. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Dessen unterdrückerischen Patriarchismus kann eine konservative Feministin nicht akzeptieren. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Aha, da tummeln sich also unterschiedliche feministische (und sogar antifeministische) Gruppen unter dem Banner des sex realism. |
Zitat: |
"People who espouse sex-realism, for example, come from the widest imaginable range of intellectual positions. Some are social conservatives, who value traditional gender roles; others are radical feminists who want those roles abolished.
Some are evangelical Christians who see the two sexes as important because they are God-given; others venerate evolution as life’s organising principle, and the origin not just of the two sexes but of their significance. The materialism common to both Marxism and most strands of conservatism means that on this point the far ends of the political spectrum meet. You might think that people who had dissented once would be understanding of people who do it again. But the tribal urge remains even among cast-outs. And just as suffering can encourage desire for revenge rather than compassion, being silenced can inspire a desire to occupy the pulpit rather than embrace pluralism. Being cast out is an experience people tend to bond over. If they discover their differences only after that happens, it can feel like betrayal. But the difficulty goes deeper than hurt feelings, or even disagreements about tactics and strategy. The desired end-points of different groups may differ. And it’s genuinely hard to accept that people who espouse worldviews very different from yours may do so sincerely, rather than nefariously. Left-wing feminists, for example, are often suspicious of social conservatives who oppose trans ideology, whom they suspect of a hidden agenda to return women to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The Christians among them, they fear, see an opportunity to recriminalise abortion as part of a wider attack on bodily autonomy. Social conservatives, for their part, think feminism opened the door to trans ideology by denying psychological sex differences, and that at least some of the gender roles feminists reject result from those differences, rather than being arbitrary and oppressive. It may seem impossible to get such a disparate bunch to come together for long enough to work together on a single issue. The only way to do so, it seems to me, is to reject both tribal contrarianism and micro-conformity; to lean into difference and embrace dissent within dissent." —Helen Joyce: https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2024/happy-to-be-a-heretic/ |
Zitat: |
The only way to do so, it seems to me, is to reject both tribal contrarianism and micro-conformity; to lean into difference and embrace dissent within dissent. |
Zitat: |
Left-wing feminists, for example, are often suspicious of social conservatives who oppose trans ideology, whom they suspect of a hidden agenda to return women to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The Christians among them, they fear, see an opportunity to recriminalise abortion as part of a wider attack on bodily autonomy.
Social conservatives, for their part, think feminism opened the door to trans ideology by denying psychological sex differences, and that at least some of the gender roles feminists reject result from those differences, rather than being arbitrary and oppressive. |
Zitat: |
Some are evangelical Christians who see the two sexes as important because they are God-given; others venerate evolution as life’s organising principle, and the origin not just of the two sexes but of their significance. The materialism common to both Marxism and most strands of conservatism means that on this point the far ends of the political spectrum meet. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Auch gerade erst entdeckt (und noch nicht aufmerksam gelesen):
Holly Lawford-Smith: Rehabilitating Biological Essentialism |
Zitat: |
"In my essay collection Sex Matters, I endorsed the gamete definition in the following form: “I take… female to be the sex that, all going well, produces large immobile gametes (ova/eggs).” I explained the phrase “all going well,” as meaning “something like, bracketing certain issues like endometriosis that can create problems for typical reproductive functioning.” Referring to the developmental pathway is more precise, though, because it makes clear that this is a biological definition. It makes sense of why someone can still be female even if they do not in fact produce ova/eggs, without allowing that someone can be female because “all going well” they would have been born the opposite sex—which I take to be an incoherent claim on the grounds that had their parents had a child of a different sex, that would have been a different child. (This is an implication of the philosopher Derek Parfit’s conception of the person, presented in his 1984 book Reasons and Persons).
Is this definition essentialist? Absolutely! An essentialist definition is just a definition that offers a single necessary and sufficient condition for being some thing. Both the chromosome definition and the gamete definition do that. An early alternative to essentialist definitions, in philosophy, was the property cluster or “family resemblance” definition. Where an essentialist definition of woman says this is what it means to be a woman, property cluster definitions say this, or this, or this, or any combination of these, are what it means to be a woman. No disjunct is necessary, so essentialism is avoided: there are many ways to be a woman. Handshakes all around." —Holly Lawford-Smith |
Zitat: |
"Jedes Individuum irgend einer Ordnung als Nichtzwitter (Gonochoristus) besitzt nur einen von beiden Geschlechtsstoffen, Ovum oder Sperma. Das getrenntgeschlechtliche Individuum mit Ovum, ohne Sperma, wird allgemein als weibliches (femininum), das nichtzwittrige Individuum mit Sperma, ohne Ovum, als männliches (masculinum) bezeichnet."
(Haeckel, Ernst. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Zweiter Band: Allgemeine Entwickelungsgeschichte der Organismen. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1866. S. 60-1) |
Zitat: |
"Natalie Stoljar, in the paper mentioned earlier, made the important point that we can give an essentialist definition of a category without that entailing that each member of the category has their membership as an essential property." – Holly Lawford-Smith |
Zitat: |
"Because sex is an essential property of persons, being a member of the category woman will entail being essentially female, and being essentially female will entail being a member of the category woman.
… The fact that anyone female is necessarily female (had her parents conceived a child of the opposite sex that child would not have been her; she will remain female throughout her life no matter what she does) makes biology destiny in the first way, the way that death is the destiny of all humans. Your biology determines your future, in the sense that if you are female, then your future is female." —Holly Lawford-Smith: https://fairerdisputations.org/rehabilitating-biological-essentialism/ |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Ich frage mich ganz ehrlich, wie ich eine Feministin ernst nehmen können soll, die in Trans-Frauen eine größere Bedrohung sieht als in evangelikalen Christen, und zwar in dem Maße, dass sie mit Letzteren ein Zweckbündnis gegen Erstere eingeht. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Ich hab in meinem ganzen Leben noch keine "genderkritische" Person - dich inklusive - getroffen, die nicht in irgendeiner Weise Grundrechte wie u. A. das auf freie Persönlichkeitsentfaltung und/oder das auf körperliche Autonomie von Trans-Personen beschränken wollte. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Das eine Zitat, das Myron gerade als Beispiel für Stocks Sympathie für Trans-Leute gebracht hätte, schien mir zumindest enorm patronizing zu sein und eben nicht "voller Empathie und Mitgefühl". |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Meinst du mit "körperliche Autonomie" das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit? Falls ja, dann will ich das in Bezug auf Transpersonen in keiner Weise einschränken. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Wenn Transfrauen beispielsweise vom Frauensport ausgeschlossen werden, dann mag das die freie Entfaltung ihrer Persönlichkeit einschränken; aber diese Einschränkung kann sehr wohl gerechtfertigt sein. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Dass "normale" Transsexuelle von den Genderideologen ungefragt politisch instrumentalisiert werden, scheint dich dagegen nicht zu stören. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||
....
Soso. War das jetzt ein Tu quoque oder nur ein Versuch, von Stocks Aussage abzulenken? Wer sind denn diese "normalen Transsexuellen" und "Genderideologen" und wer wird hier ganz konkret wie wann wo von wem "instrumentalisiert"? Dein Tu quoque sieht hier nämlich nicht nur deshalb absolut erbärmlich aus, weil es ein Tu quoque ist, sondern auch weil bei mir klar war, auf welche Person und welche Äußerung ich mich ganz konkret beziehe. Mal abgesehen davon, dass von "Instrumentalisierung" bei mir gar keine Rede war. Es ist also noch nicht mal ein gelungenes Tu quoque. |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: |
....
Woran Du da "eigentlich" vorbeisehen würdest, ist nicht einmal Selbstjustiz sondern eine Form von Lynchmob: Bei dem Druck, der da erzeugt wurde, glaube ich nicht, dass das die paar queeren Hansels sind, die das veranstalten, bei denen ich auch ein gewisses Verständnis hätte. Aber um diesen Druck zu erzeugen, braucht man man genügend Überzeugungstäter, die sich sicher sind, den absoluten moralischen Kompass zu haben, und sich das Recht nehmen, ihre Moral auch mit Terror durchzusetzen. Das sieht für mich eher danach aus, als hätte man sich der Trans-Personen angenommen, um die moralische Keule gegen Gegner schwingen zu können - unter anderen Bedingungen würde man das wohl eher paternalistisch nennen..... |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||||||
Da hat Dir Myron dummerweise die falsche Dichotomie angeboten. Die müsste eher lauten "Genderidelogen" und Transsexuelle. Den Verdacht habe ich ja auch schon geäußert und auch mit den Zahlenverhältnissen begründet:
|
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Ach, kann es das? Wie wirkt sich denn die Art der Keimzellen auf das Praktizieren eines Sports aus? Oder wirst du etwa deiner eigenen Geschlechtsdefinition untreu, sobald sie dir mal nicht in den Kram passt? |
Zitat: |
"Executive Summary:
This paper looks at whether or not it is appropriate for athletes who are born male but who identify as women, often called transwomen, to compete in the women’s category in sports. The authors hold the view that it is not appropriate because it is sometimes not safe and always unfair given the present and conceivable future state of medical transition. The basic case for women’s sport is this: Male physiological advantage, gained through the process of androgenization, covers the entire range of athletic capacities. If male advantage were to be ignored by removing the women’s category, women would win next to no sporting competitions, and would be systematically excluded from participation in and the rewards of fair competition. If it is unfair to require that women compete against men because of the significant physiological advantages that male-bodied people possess, can it be it fair for male-bodied people to compete in the women’s category? Does medical transition mean that it is fair for transwomen to compete in the women’s category? Males and females are physically different. Broadly, when compared with females, males are taller and have longer bones with narrower hips and wider shoulders; have lower body fat and higher muscle mass; have larger hearts and lungs and higher levels of haemoglobin. On average, males can move faster, jump further, throw longer, and lift heavier objects than females, and this creates large performance gaps between males and females in almost all sports. For transwomen who have successfully suppressed testosterone for 12 months, the extent of muscle/strength loss is only an approximately (and modest) -5 percent after 12 months. Testosterone suppression does not remove the athletic advantage acquired under high-testosterone conditions at puberty, while the male musculoskeletal advantage is retained. In 2016, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) released a report that strongly asserts “the principle that the inclusion of all athletes…overrides any consideration of potential competitive advantage” (emphasis added). However, in attempting to support its position for inclusion above all else, the CCES places a great deal of weight on the “requirement to modify their body through hormone therapy.” Yet there should be no requirement for athletes to modify their bodies in this way. Circulating testosterone levels are not a reliable marker of male advantage and are ineffective at levelling the playing field physiologically. A classification system is needed to ensure everyone can compete fairly and fully. Such a system would consist of age categories, sex categories, impairment categories, and sometimes weight categories, all of which would refer to properties of bodies, not properties of identification. Gender identity, on its own, is irrelevant to sport categorization. There is no basis for the claim that transwomen as a group should be prevented from playing sport. The question is whether there is a justification for excluding transwomen from the protected category of women’s sport. This is about rights within sport, as opposed to access to sport. It is reasonable for women in sport to expect that their rights will be upheld by the institutions and procedures of their sports. There is neither a medical intervention nor a clever philosophical argument that can make it fair for transwomen to compete in women’s sport. It is, however, possible to reduce the significance of gender identifiers in sport. To do so, we need to change the conceptualization of the categories so they are based on physiological advantage. Fairness in sport can be achieved with the reconceptualization of the male category as “Open” and the women’s category as “Female,” where female refers to the sex recorded at birth. The objective for us is to make sport as open and inclusive as possible, given how important sport is and how bodies are constructed. The task is to adjust how we think about and organize sport in ways that are maximally inclusive, while remaining fair and safe for all participants." (Pike, Jon, Emma Hilton, & Leslie A. How. "Faster, Higher, Stronger: The Biological and Ethical Challenges to Including Transgender Athletes in Women's Sports." [PDF] Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2021. pp. 6-7) |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||
Soso. War das jetzt ein Tu quoque oder nur ein Versuch, von Stocks Aussage abzulenken? Wer sind denn diese "normalen Transsexuellen" und "Genderideologen" und wer wird hier ganz konkret wie wann wo von wem "instrumentalisiert"? Dein Tu quoque sieht hier nämlich nicht nur deshalb absolut erbärmlich aus, weil es ein Tu quoque ist, sondern auch weil bei mir klar war, auf welche Person und welche Äußerung ich mich ganz konkret beziehe. Mal abgesehen davon, dass von "Instrumentalisierung" bei mir gar keine Rede war. Es ist also noch nicht mal ein gelungenes Tu quoque. |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Da hat Dir Myron dummerweise die falsche Dichotomie angeboten. Die müsste eher lauten "Genderidelogen" und Transsexuelle. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: | ||||||||||
Soso. Wer ist denn da dieses ominöse "man", das sich da Trans-Personen "angenommen" hat? Die Illuminati? ![]() Um es mal ganz deutlich zu sagen: Das, was Myron mit "Genderideologie" meint, nämlich die Unterscheidung zwischen Sex und Gender und die rückhaltlose Anerkennung der individuellen Gender-Identität, ist nicht nur unter Trans-Personen weitestgehend Konsens, sondern ebenso weitestgehend in der ganzen LGBTQ+-Community. Dir ist schon klar, dass LGBTQ+ gerade deshalb eine Sammelbewegung bildet, weil die meisten sexuellen Minderheiten für sich allein genommen zahlenmäßig zu klein und gesellschaftlich zu marginal sind, um für ihre Rechte und Interessen wirklich effektiv eintreten zu können, wenn sie sich nicht zusammenschließen? Deine "Kritik" läuft auf die Forderung hinaus, dass nur Transgender für Transgender-Rechte eintreten dürfen und jede Form von Solidarität pauschal der Vereinnahmung mindestens verdächtig ist, inklusive seitens des ganzen Rests der LGBTQ+-Bewegung - was aber eben die völlige politische und letztlich auch soziale Isolierung der Trans-Community und damit ihre Verteidigungsunfähigkeit gegen Diskriminierung und auch gegen wirkliche politische Angriffe bedeuten würde. Dass man ein Argument wie deins im Falle von Stock anbringen kann, wo es anscheinend zu regelrechten Morddrohungen kam (was die meisten Transgender und auch der größte Teil der LGBTQ+-Bewegung wohl eher nicht mittragen dürfte und was ich übrigens auch nicht mittrage), mag ja noch angehen. Nur so ist das Argument nicht formuliert. So, wie du das formulierst bzw. von Myron übernimmst, nämlich als Gegenüberstellung von Trans-Personen und "Genderideologen", stellt sich mir die Frage, wo du da die Grenze ziehst. Letztendlich läuft dein Argument darauf hinaus, dass, wo immer eine größere Zahl von Personen für die Rechte und Interessen von Trans-Personen eintritt, es sich um irgendeine Form von Instrumentalisierung handeln muss bzw. für dich zumindest der Verdacht besteht. Jeder, der Gender Wrongthink betreibt, hat von Solidarität mit Transgender-Personen Abstand zu nehmen, weil er sie sonst für seinen Wrongthink instrumentalisiert? Mit Verlaub: Das hätte Myron wohl gerne! ![]() Mal ganz abgesehen übrigens davon, dass du damit immer noch das alberne Myronsche Tu quoque mitmachst. |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Nein, es ist nicht das alberne von Myron, es ist mein eigenes und eigentlich kein Tu quoque, sondern eine eigenständige Feststellung, die ich auch anders begründe, weshalb ich auch geschrieben habe, dass Myrons Dichotomie falsch ist. |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Meine Frage war die, ob das persönliche Mobbing mit Gewaltdrohungen gegen Stock überhaupt von diesen Minderheiten ausging oder nicht vielmehr von einer ideologischen Gruppe, die unabhängig von der LGBTQ+-Bewegung aktiv ist und diese nur benutzt. |
fwo hat folgendes geschrieben: |
btw: im sexualfeindlichen GB gehört auch die offen lesbisch lebende Stock zur LGBTQ+-community. So besteht in dem Fall tatsächlich die Möglichkeit, dass Empathie und Mitgefühl, die Eszter Kováts in ihrem Buch gefunden hat, aus eigenem Erleben gespeist sind. |
Tarvoc hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Um es mal ganz deutlich zu sagen: Das, was Myron mit "Genderideologie" meint, nämlich die Unterscheidung zwischen Sex und Gender und die rückhaltlose Anerkennung der individuellen Gender-Identität, ist nicht nur unter Trans-Personen weitestgehend Konsens, sondern ebenso weitestgehend in der ganzen LGBTQ+-Community. |
Myron hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Nein, mit "Genderideologie" oder "Genderismus" meine ich nicht einfach irgendeine Unterscheidung von sex und gender (was immer "gender" bedeuten mag), sondern die antibiologische gender-identity theory, der zufolge das "wahre" Geschlecht einer Person durch deren innere "Geschlechtsidentität" bestimmt ist: https://freigeisterhaus.de/viewtopic.php?p=2294171#2294171 |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde