[ad_1]
If I say that HIV (which causes AIDS) can be transmitted by blood transfusion or in sexual intercourse, especially anal, this is now known. I can add that, therefore, transmission is more common with promiscuous people and hemophiliacs who need a strained transfusion: this is knowledge.
But, if I say that HIV is a divine crime to punish promiscuous and, especially, homosexuals, who are very (and not themselves) propagating, it's not knowledge, it's ideology. It's just to check if we are speaking in the same language.
Alongside these lines, "gender ideology" would be gender-based opinions or beliefs – different from knowledge that is gradually accumulating on the topic. Examples.
Beginning in the 1970s, some militants, who want to protect the lives and rights of individuals who have tried to change their gender, have confirmed that the poles are purely social constructs: there would be not only men and women but a gender gender, where each person would be free she found her place.
This statement is partly ideological, because it is not true to say that everyone chooses their gender "freely" because it deals with clothing for the day. And it's partly true (not ideological) because in fact, as I'll show later, there are not only two genres.
Now the idea that the genre can freely choose seems very dangerous (I do not know why) the defenders of the traditional family and order. The accused activists also practiced "gender ideology". Indeed, the belief of such supporters of tradition, that there are only two half, is also an ideology. This is, in fact, the great ideology of the contemporary genre, what prevails in the botekuins and churches.
Moral history: in the sense of gender, we have two opposite ideologies. One says that the genres are the cultural constructions that are imposed on us and that we should be free to choose. And another says there are only two genres, and the rest would be shitty and unprotected.
What do we really know about genres, ideologies? We know that the obvious half of a person can not match the sex that a person feels to belong – in these cases, an individual can become transgender, that is, change his appearance and his gender, to adapt to the sex he feels to belong to. When this happens, there is a complex (and still unclear) mixture of factors in the game: genetic, hormonal and psychic.
However, what is important to me today is that we know that the obvious half of the person can not agree with their internal sexual organs or sex marked with their chromosomes.
For example, someone may have KSI (male) chromosomes, was born with vulva and vagina, and where you would expect your ovaries to be present testicles. The fetus of this person responded only in an atypical way masculinizing androgenic (possibly a 5-alfarreductase deficiency).
The list of genetic and hormonal conditions that produce intersexual individuals (neither male nor female) is long. A credible estimate says that 1.7 percent are born of more or less intersexual individuals.
Lek was nasty and offensive to these faces. Classically, up to ten years ago, in the case as I mentioned before, doctors would decide to remove testicles and "make" to the girl.
Today we prefer to have everyone grow up and live how he or she decides. In recent years, the operation and mourning of children of intersexuals is rare, because in some countries, an individual who felt childhood can, when grown up, go to court and ask for compensation from a doctor and a parent. It also begins to think about the possibilities of the intersex people who have been officially declared gender neutral.
In the meantime, gender ideology insists on the proclamation that God creates only men and women. Barons and shepherds who claim to jeopardize God's reputation, apparently, their factory of humans, if they produced only men and women, would have a serious problem of quality control.
One question, which remains for some time: why the existence of intersexual and transgender organizations negates the gender ideology of bachelors and pastors?
Source link
