'The right side of history' = 'God is on our side'?

[RainWithSunnySpells]

I'm sure that this isn't an original thought (it's probably been suggested before) however once I thought about this it made a lot of sense of the weird phrase TRSoH.

I always wondered how anyone can be on TRSoH in the present. Surely it is the people in the future who will judge that when they look back at the past? Therefore, does TRSoH essentially mean or is an equivalent to 'God is on our side'?

Or, translated, "I'm cleverer than you."

Or, translated, "I'm cleverer than you."
Edward Lear made more sense

I’m really intrigued about this

I would say that only women have the kind of bodies that can gestate babies

do you consider this to be biological essentialism?

do you think this is wrong?

do you think this is going to change in the future

(please can we not pretend that women who like role playing as men are actually men, we both know that’s not true)

your actual point being?

we can cut the questions

Well I’m trying to understand what you mean by biological essentialism and the idea that our understanding of sex will change

concrete examples would help

I can’t predict the future.

I've always believed since I got into this that those who believe in GI genuinely think that it will eliminate sexism. So Freddy person (sorry forgot their name) who has had two babies insists that this means men can give birth and that dads can be birthing parents, and therefore sexism will disappear because there is no longer an association between being female and having babies, and therefore (eg) employers can't decide not to employ young women because they might get pregnant, because anyone can get pregnant.

This to me is profoundly unrealistic. Partly because the numbers are so tiny, partly because employers who want to discriminate in a sexist way will just find other signals to look for. Sexism is stronger and more deeply rooted than facial hair.

I would support biological essentialism, if that means that sex plays some role, some degree of influence, on certain attributes in men and women.

Of course environmental influences are also important.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507973

biological essentialism

The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture). The concept is typically invoked where there is a focus on difference, as where females are seen as essentially different from males: see gender essentialism. The term has often been used pejoratively by constructionists; it is also often used synonymously with biological determinism.

Everyone thinks that 'God is on their side' even Putin, he has the backing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

It's all a load of 'shoemakers'.

'The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture). The concept is typically invoked where there is a focus on difference, as where females are seen as essentially different from male'

Holy logical fallacy, batman.

'Biological essentialism' is just being used as a cheap rhetorical tactic.

Feminism has been traditionally hostile to biological essentialism, so labelling an idea 'biological essentialist' is implying that the idea is unfeminist. This then puts the people expressing that idea on the back foot and in the position of having to justify themselves.

Without unpacking what is meant by 'biological essentialism' the accusation is meaningless.

You’ve got the nail on the head.

Feminism has traditionally been opposed. But now (at last on MN) it’s taken a turn more akin to eugenics.

Bertrand Russell said it best - 'The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt'

Maybe, but various examples that would or could go against that. For example:

French intellectuals taking sexual liberation too far, which is now looked on with horror.

Affording rights to foetuses is still highly controversial.

Giving religious minorities special exemptions for animal welfare, religious slaughter, is very controversial, as would be the idea that we can't ban male circumcision (non medical of children) because of minority culture.

Where there is an argued "clash of rights" then things get controversial.

We still haven’t legalised polygamous marriage, or adult consensual incestuous marriage.

When it comes to race, the Supreme Court just rejected the idea of using race in college admissions.

I would argue we have gone too far in worrying about the "rights" of minorities when it's merely a case that a policy may disproportionately impact them.

In the case of "trans rights", it's not just that it clashes with other claimed rights; also it's based on the strange idea that you can "identify" into a different class or you are being "discriminated" against.

But we don't allow people to identify as a different age and compete against under 18 in sports. Or let a white person identify as black and then think they have a "right" to participate in an organisation that represents black people.

Why accept something that leads to that kind of absurd consequences, and appears to be a completely new basis for claiming "rights"?

Also when it's just factually wrong, that identifying as something makes you that something.

Yeah, 'eugenics' is another catch-all term used to denote an idea as bad without having to explain what is actually wrong with it.

A 'thought-terminating cliche', perhaps.

I think history will look back on this in horror. Somewhat like the "witch burnings" in early US history. Every time I hear one of those stories I wonder how people could be so stupid.

So Freddy person (sorry forgot their name) who has had two babies insists that this means men can give birth and that dads can be birthing parents, and therefore sexism will disappear because there is no longer an association between being female and having babies, and therefore (eg) employers can't decide not to employ young women because they might get pregnant, because anyone can get pregnant.

Freddy's got that arse about tit, hasn't they?

It's not eugenics to maintain the categories of female and male in law and statistics. Nor is it eugenics to question lifelong medicalisation of children who are disproportionately neurodiverse and gay. Not all ideas are the same.

Patterns do repeat endlessly, but in slightly different configurations.
The only new bits are the new technologies or modes of industries which characterise the age or culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_recurrence

Sex is a stable category throughout the natural world, and always has been.

You cannot even answer the question, let alone predict the future.

Though I would add, if you looked at history you might have a better idea of predicting the future - because movements and idead come and go - and tend to meet predictable fates. Fate being the term for 'Necessity' ( that which is coded or destined).

ideas