ghink

In most spaces that I tried to ask questions about this topic, when first wondering about the contradictions in this ideology, I was pilloried and sometimes even banned from the space. These were typically leftist political spaces where I was already a participant.

So I listened and learned, and ended up realising that all of this is built upon unfalsifiable beliefs that I have no obligation to accept. Like, a man who calls himself a woman is a woman? Nope, not affirming that nonsense.

In the case he cites, The Times was obliged to use that wording because of guidance from the press regulator.

Which many people, like Dawkins, complained about, but, on the other hand, complying with this guidance works out well in the long run because it highlights the absurdity of ideas like: a man is a woman if he says he's a woman.

That's like saying to an atheist that they have to personally accept any of the harmless whims of the religious.

Like, a quick prayer won't hurt you if you don't really believe in it, will it? Just do it to be polite. Hands together, eyes closed, done. What's the problem?