Welcome to the forum
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Gender philosophy can discuss, but is not equivalent to, LGBTQIA (phew!) issues, which can be discussed under as many headings as their are subjects e.g. politics, religion, ethics, etc.
If we were to accept your argument, then we would be forced to accept that "Jewish" is a thing that has nothing to do with itself. Which is not true.
Most of the things have one thing in common in the the acronym LGBTQI: differentness. Diversity. A behaviour of sexual nature (as per practice, appearance, or appearance in secondary or tertiary sexual characteristics) that had been austricized in the past, on a scale of mild form of discrimination to being excommunicated, to jail terms to being stoned to death or burnt at the stake, YET in the social environment of today, they are tolerated, or outright accepted and embraced as a deviant yet socially or legally normal behaviour from being straight, shoot-from-the-hip breeders.
I believe it is both the discussion topics of gender and sex and how we interpret social and political activity regarding these issues. It is a bit odd to create an acronym that posits specific advocacy in my opinion, similar to -1-'s apparent reflection about one's identity to be "Jewish". The "LBGT..." acronym evolves and grows to be more inclusive than say, the advocacy of a group labeled, "The Anti-defamation League" with its added goal: "to defeat Antisemitism and hate". It begs why have an advocate of a specific interest OR set of interests defend a general class of abuses in society.
I try to argue this often but politics often expects this kind of 'advocacy' approach. To me, it often has an incidental opposite effect: to avenge or counter-advocate against those not specifically labelled but implicitly understood in context. For instance, a "feminist" organization that aims to defeat some general abuse, like "domestic violence", prejudices its intent by implicitly implying either that women are the subject of concerned party to be protected uniquely under the domain of "domestic violence" with the counter-implied enemy class, "male", as a minimum subset of humanity to be the sole perpetrators of domestic violence.
It may not point directly against men as a whole but by its own posited subclass of the whole, it implies that at least women are a 'victim' class with universal agreement to be concerned to prevent violation against uniquely.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest