I've noticed this too, it's not only gender ideology but racial ideology and more. Seems to be form of ideological "pilot-induced oscillation"[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation
"[Pilot-induced oscillation] occurs when the pilot of an aircraft inadvertently commands an often increasing series of corrections in opposite directions, each an attempt to cover the aircraft's reaction to the previous input with an over correction in the opposite direction" (in this case the "pilot" is "society")
In the beginning the radical idea is a basic kind of equality where some kind of person shouldn't be disadvantaged for some characteristic.
There is then a growth phase where many people join and small specific victories turn into general victories.
There is then a shrinking phase where people leave the movement or lose zeal as general victories are had.
The movement keeps much of its ideology capital and with the more moderate people losing interest, the median ideology moves towards special privileges for hyper-specific characteristics defended by a very real "the problem still exists".
The end stage is a movement that tries to conflate its extreme views as being equally as beyond question and equally morally right as the views during the growth phase, and you get conflict when people have a hard time sorting out the complexities of which is right and which is too far... and you get the backlash where the basic right is threatened by the connection with the extreme views... and so it goes.
The 21st century is the century of complexity, the basic problems are often solved and the complex ones need more nuance than the basic ones took... and the struggle is getting this point across that things aren't as simple as they were before.
While in tech i’ve been gently exploring the idea of freaking out my thoughts into something publishable.
Sometimes HN is an exercise in attempting to communicate how i think and getting feedback.
At least when it comes to America - there are some very deeply entrenched societal issues that we'd need to resolve to achieve anything near equality including generations of depriving wealth accumulation in communities (i.e. Native Americans).
Is it really fair to say we've come nowhere since the 70s?
Nonetheless, sophisticated social engineering attempts or clandestine social research are certainly within the realm of discovering by a quick search of the news.
So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.
That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.
People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.
It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.
> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law
That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.
> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.
When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.
Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.
To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.
I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.
Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.
There is, for example, a fairly famous author (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who is a Somali ex-Muslim, and she says she was having really hard time from the Dutch left when she lived there. Her ideas simply did not fit the preconceived concept of an African immigrant.
* self labeling
* others labeling you
* how others are labeled
any of the three can become unhealthy when overdone, and different people have different amounts of interest in the three. They each have a set of problems associated with them.
I wouldn't go out of my way to say any one in particular is more of an issue. (i.e. they're all issues in different ways)
How does this story go if they hadn't been obsessed with their identity as Muslims or if they had gone to the local mosque to ask about Islam instead of seeking out radical Muslims online?
I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.