Philosophically, as a, I dunno "liberal". I find it interesting that there seems to be a distinction between like maybe is it pluralism vs singularism?
I just sort of fundamentally believe that there is mostly no objective morality, at least not on edge issues like the salience of this question about the difference between sex and gender and the idea that the solution is for everyone everywhere to have the same definition on sex and gender and more importantly, to think that through discourse you can convince say people to the left and right of you to share that same perspective--
In summary it's that -- I do think it's strange that, while clearly she has a very nuanced perspective on the difference between sex and gender what feminism should be, she seems to share a value with the conservatives she is arguing against that it is very important for us to determine what the objective morality on this issue is.
And, when you're advocating for the freedom for people to be who they want to be, it's quite odd - verging on bizarre to me to advocate for a singular definition, and not have some flexibility with other definitions.
This is a hard needle to thread; I both try to empathize with say trans and non-binary folks, and men and women who do see a lot of salience in their identity as a woman. But maybe this is why I'm a philosopher and not a politician. In my own life, it only benefits me to be able to hold onto multiple competing ideas. It's a core belief of mine on how to live a moral life. But I can acknowledge it becomes an issue when you try and create policy around it.
Philosophically, as a, I dunno "liberal". I find it interesting that there seems to be a distinction between like maybe is it pluralism vs singularism?
I just sort of fundamentally believe that there is mostly no objective morality, at least not on edge issues like the salience of this question about the difference between sex and gender and the idea that the solution is for everyone everywhere to have the same definition on sex and gender and more importantly, to think that through discourse you can convince say people to the left and right of you to share that same perspective--
In summary it's that -- I do think it's strange that, while clearly she has a very nuanced perspective on the difference between sex and gender what feminism should be, she seems to share a value with the conservatives she is arguing against that it is very important for us to determine what the objective morality on this issue is.
And, when you're advocating for the freedom for people to be who they want to be, it's quite odd - verging on bizarre to me to advocate for a singular definition, and not have some flexibility with other definitions.
This is a hard needle to thread; I both try to empathize with say trans and non-binary folks, and men and women who do see a lot of salience in their identity as a woman. But maybe this is why I'm a philosopher and not a politician. In my own life, it only benefits me to be able to hold onto multiple competing ideas. It's a core belief of mine on how to live a moral life. But I can acknowledge it becomes an issue when you try and create policy around it.