treatment of people independent of gender
I had, for some reason, associated the Left with the concept of ‘Gender Neutrality’. Multiple recent experiences have shown me this was a faulty assumption. It became most clear with the massive negative feedback I got when questioning why, in ‘killed even the women and children’, it is still in modern day considered worse to kill a woman than a man. But there was a hint the Left is not actually associated with gender neutrality right before when the Trump administration had made military testing Gender Neutral (same test for everyone independent of gender). I was surprised that decision came from the Right and also surprised the massive opposition was by lefty lemmys.
I know some species of birds have the genders become very different from each other and some, like Vultures, have females and males that are nearly indistinguishable. It, after-the-fact, makes sense to me that Gender Neutrality (treatment of people independent of gender) is potentially a different thing from the ‘Gender Rights’ fought for by the Left. Anyway, so I have been awoken recently to Gender Neutrality not actually being of the Left, acceptable to the Right, and I am most curious in which ideology ‘Gender Neutrality’ is the accepted ‘correct’ view. So
Which ideology is associated with “Gender Neutrality”?
edit: I do now see how Gender Neutrality is the removal of gender distinctions whereas the ideal of the Left is chooseable gender distinctions.
It’s not that simple.
The right, for instance, very much does NOT support gender neutrality, and in fact, that’s the exact reason that they call for gender-neutral physical standards for the military. The actual goal is to set standards that are more easily attainable by biological males in order to generally keep women out of the armed forces.
And in the same sense it can be argued that the left actually is gender neutral regarding the military, which is why they want physical standards that are relative to the norms for biological males and biological females respectively rather than one standard that favors biological males. Their gosl is gender neutrality in overall composition of the military, which, due to innate biological differences, requires differing standards along the way.
So both are “neutral” situationally, but neither is broadly. And that’s the case for all ideologies - they might argue for some sorr of gender neutrality when ir serves their broader goal of forcing society into whatever form they prefer, but as soon as actual neutrality would conflict with their goals, they’ll just as easily forego it.
idk. To me, the first paragraph sounds like they are interacting with people independent of gender (gender neutrality) while the second sounds like treating people differently based on gender so as to achieve gender balance and gender equality. It can be argued that the second is more noble, results in balanced genders, etc. But in the first, people are interacted with independent of their gender and, in the second, they are differentiated based on gender. It’s this subtle difference I am realizing does not align with party lines as I thought they were (and this is a perfect example of it).