More than one thing is happening at the same time. We should expect that to be true analytically, but some people cannot account for that ideologically. Intersectionality is an excellent principle, so is simultaneity.
Screechy, both graphics could be read as judgments, “you can’t talk about your issue; my issue is the one that matters.” But I read the graphics as facts:
(1) Progressives can model gender as a spectrum, with everyone equal.
(2) Social conservatives can model gender as a binary, with men superior.
First one: Our internal sense of identity is whatever it is. No reason to insist on a gender binary or even to think sense of selves is based mostly on gender.
Second one: Our ideas about gender come from a few thousand years of men oppressing women. As long as the oppression exists, everything else is distorted by it.
I’d guess both are valid views – so long as one is not being used to Dear Muslima the other view it’s fine. (Heh I wonder if Dear Muslima will outlast selfish gene as Dawkins’ contribution)
That’s actually four similes.
I see two different, but not necessarily incompatible, points being made:
(1) gender is a spectrum, not a binary;
(2) one end/pole/section of that spectrum tends to be victimized or oppressed at the hands of those at the opposite end/pole/section.
I think the second poster smacks a little of “you can’t talk about YOUR issue; MY issue is the one that matters.”
Four similes, two views.
More than one thing is happening at the same time. We should expect that to be true analytically, but some people cannot account for that ideologically. Intersectionality is an excellent principle, so is simultaneity.
Screechy, both graphics could be read as judgments, “you can’t talk about your issue; my issue is the one that matters.” But I read the graphics as facts:
(1) Progressives can model gender as a spectrum, with everyone equal.
(2) Social conservatives can model gender as a binary, with men superior.
But there is an asymmetry:
• Social conservatives can dismiss (1).
• Progressives need to deal with (2).
First one: Our internal sense of identity is whatever it is. No reason to insist on a gender binary or even to think sense of selves is based mostly on gender.
Second one: Our ideas about gender come from a few thousand years of men oppressing women. As long as the oppression exists, everything else is distorted by it.
* If my interpretation of the messages are correct, I think both messages are worthy.
Just idle speculation…
If the pink represents cis-het women and the blue cis-het men, why is there only one women, several men and many with other identities?
So…6 “female” genders and 20 “male” by my reckoning? Good to know.
I’d guess both are valid views – so long as one is not being used to Dear Muslima the other view it’s fine. (Heh I wonder if Dear Muslima will outlast selfish gene as Dawkins’ contribution)