Here’s the fun thing about that question; it’s basically ‘Would you date someone you considered mentally insane?’ Whether you are atheist considering dating Hindu, a Catholic considering dating a Zoroastrian, or a Buddhist dating a nihilist, this is a person who has a fundamentally different understanding of reality. Here’s the real kicker; ‘Is someone who has a distorted sense of reality capable of giving consent?’ Can you even date them if you value consent?

I used to use purely Reddit. I stopped after the API nonsense. Now I’m purely on lemmy. I have no interest in any of the others.

The short of it is: western society has been pretending human behaviour is simple and easy to understand for ages, but can’t anymore, and that’s leading to a fight over how to think about it all.

Homosexuality was viewed as a choice. Gender was viewed as natural rather than cultural. Criminals were just evil. Addicts were just irresponsible. Etc. Etc. In the last century, the democratization of expression and the shift to individualism has shattered that illusion of homogeneous simplicity.

This combines with a primitive delusion of semantic authority (this word has a specific defined meaning, and it is the one in the dictionary/my head) so that people think the object is determined by it’s descriptors rather than the descriptor is defined by its context. People hear a word (e.g. man) and assume all the common entailments are mandatorily part of the definition. (e.g. penis, taller and broader than average, likes to have sex with women, likes to hunt/fight/sport, wants to be a father and provider, insert other cultural signifier of masculinity here) So, when someone sees a word being applied to someone, but doesn’t feel like the definition in their head matches, they feel it’s wrong. (e.g. He likes men. That doesn’t match my definition of ‘man.’ Could my understanding of the word ‘man’ be wrong? Of course not. They must be something else. ‘You there, stop calling yourself a man. You’re not.’)

The current battle is a battle to define what the next concensus will be for the definition of various words. Traditionalists want to go back to a more familiar way of defining things. (e.g. It had a penis at birth? Man. And he better act like one.) And they are willing to happily ignore the preferences of people who don’t feel like that definition matches theirs. Neogenderists (for lack of a better term) believe something is wrong with the gender concepts and want to change them, whether that means adding one neuter gender, adding 100 genders, limiting us to the traditional two genders but removing physical sex as a characteristic in favor of just the cultural elements/secondary characteristics, or seeking to abolish gender entirely. Some people are interested in making the language match people’s self-conceptions, some are not.

And all of this is still in flux. Who knows which group will be most prominent in 10, 20, 30, 100, or 1000 years? We could have a time in the future where people will die to fight for the idea that there are exactly four genders, ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘human,’ and ‘steve,’ differentiated mostly by hair color, with entailments regarding preferences for spicy foods, appropriate toenail length, and room temperature, and that the people who want to dye their hair are transchromists. We’d all like to believe humanity would have the wisdom to avoid it, but looking around doesn’t inspire much hope.