• Metaright@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean, let’s not pretend that everyone in that group thinks the same way about this issue.

    Plus, we’d do better to stop equating people finding gender ideology to be incoherent with “intolerance.”

    • kitonthenet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “LGB Alliance” is an astroturf front group for the heritage foundation that’s led by straight people, hope that helps!

    • LemmyLefty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what happens when your group gets mainstream or majority support and you forget that it came with the blood, sweat, tears and bruised bodies of the ones who threw the first bricks at Stonewall.

      “I don’t get it, but you do you”: if you can’t help at least do no harm.

      • Metaright@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        1 year ago

        To make a long story short, the idea of gender as distinct from sex results in a lot of circular reasoning, or contradiction if you try to work around that circular reasoning.

        • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That gender and sex are distinct is academically uncontroversial. Sociology in particular likes to dive into that issue.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thats old now. You’re transphobic.

            (I kid, but thats what got me perma banned from reddit)

          • Metaright@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            45
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.

            • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture,

              Big yikes.

              • Metaright@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                30
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?

                As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don’t say this as a complete outsider.

                • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  26
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?

                  Or would you consider that researchers acting in bad faith are not entitled to be taken seriously by simple dint of their profession, and that allowing people to spew academically ridiculous invective under the guise of ‘just asking questions’ is harmful to the reputation and integrity of academic institutions and a violation of the duty they hold to improve society’s understanding, not worsen it with the implicit endorsement of weasel words and misleading obscurantism?

                  History major here. Not exactly distant from the scene.

                  • Metaright@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    22
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?

                    Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn’t require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.

                    In other words, it’s easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don’t remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they’re wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.

                    If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one’s ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.

            • lapingvino@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Arguments that go against the existence of people are very similar to eugenics in all possible ways. We can talk about semantics, but if your take on semantics is going to exclude people, then we have active proof that your semantics are wrong, even if it sounds so simple and right. That is what these sciences study on and what motivates to figure out how it all actually works.

            • the_inebriati@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture

              “I don’t like how facts hurt my feelings so I choose to ignore them”

    • nac82@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You really thought to pull up and just shout “I read and believe bigot propoganda”.

      What did you think you proved here?

    • Foreigner@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Of course the LGBTQ+ community is not a monolith, barely any large community is. But that “alliance” in particular is exactly the kind of group this comic is aimed at. It’s no secret the LGB alliance is cheered on by some hard right conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation.United we stand, divided we fall.