You clearly have a different view of things. I don't see it that way.
That is fine; some of my friends don't see it the way I do either.
Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.
I don't have a problem with people that want to define their gender, so I'm not interested in asking such questions.
Problem? Asking questions?
I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation. For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically. They certainly believe it is their
right to do so.
I told you that, because I do not want you to simply believe me, and I think it is a very simple way you can verify this for yourself.
I do not have any problem with any gender, cis or trans or anything else. I am perfectly happy to interact with anyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, orientation, species, or phylum. The one problem I have with gender is that I often miss cues that others consider clear and obvious; to some those are important to acknowledge, and I sometimes fail to do so, unintentionally. (It is why I use predominantly "they" in English, too: that way I don't need to worry about it.)
I brought up self-defining gender, because it will lead to misuse, and I am interested in ideas on how to curb/avoid those, without making things harder to those whose life is improved via legal assertion of their self-defined gender. The law has been set, but there is no discussion about that, because it has devolved into a shouting match between "it won't happen" and "it will happen all the time". We still have many gender quotas in statutes, too; are they still valid, and do they achieve the purpose they were created for?
I am interested in such things, because I am interested in all ways we could make our societies better, at the individual level. It is how I care, through discussions as if these things were solvable problems, being a thing-oriented person.
I very rarely have any problems with those I am talking with face-to-face, even if the disagreement is deep. Many seem to find me easy to open up to, because I am easy to "read", and I truly listen to what they are saying. It is those who take offense on behalf of someone else who isn't there when hearing triggering words or concepts being mentioned, regardless of the context, that have attacked me –– and I've only found out afterwards, when the damage is done, I'm labeled, and there is nothing I can do about it. A big part of this is that when having a technical or political discussion, I do not mind playing the devil's advocate, in order to draw out the underlying reasons behind opinions and approaches. (Simply put, I do not care about opinions per se, but I care and highly value hearing the reasoning behind said opinions.)
Still, it's better to give people a chance than to build walls around ourselves.
Exactly, I agree 100%. My point is that the actions taken now, the enforcement of politically correct and socially just speech, in fact
builds those walls.
Even moreso intersectionalism and multiculturalism (or, more correctly, cultural relativism), because it requires individuals to recognize
other and actively acknowledge them as
other by adjusting their behaviour and expectations based on who they interact with.
It does not work, and never has.
I do not want monoculturalism either, just cohesion by treating every individual equally: equality in face of law, equality of opportunity, no discrimination; not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.