Gender Ideaology vs Religious Ideaolgy

[Bunnyasmyname]

I follow my faith and consider myself pretty religious, however it struck me that many consider all this trans/gender identity movement as some kind of religion.
Upon reflection, it does indeed have some comparisons.

I am now wondering what other religious feminists thought. Is it just the addition of faith or the millennia of sacred scripture that separates ‘real’ religions? Is this how it was for the early Christians when their religion was emerging?
How does one justify belief in God and yet decry this other ideology?

Apologies for my clumsiness - English isn’t my first language, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say!

How does one justify belief in God and yet decry this other ideology?

Presumably the same way one justifies belief in God A and yet decries belief in Gods B to Z.

The structure and manifestation of the belief - based on faith rather than provable evidence, the need for public professions of adherence, the use of set mantras/catechisms to make those statements and explain the tenets of the faith, the raising up of a sacred or priestly caste - are the reasons it is compared.to a religion. There are all independent of what it is a belief in.

Surely the difference is that you don't go around forcing people to agree that your god is the one true god. You don't call the police on those who disagree with you. You don't go into mosques with your head uncovered claiming to be Muslim and that everyone must tolerate you doing your interpretation of their prayers on your yoga mat.

I don't think the two are comparable at all.

It is worth looking at the political struggles during Tudor England in particular, the demands that people changed what they claimed to believe or else, people being burned for heresy and wishing to hold their own belief rather than just parrot what they were told by the politically powerful.

And look at the parallels with Catholicism. The demands for recanting. That no one can properly understand but those at the rank of priest. The holy days. The mantras to chant. The virtue signalling and the whole Victorian 'God is Love' (Be Kind) during acts of cruelty. The idea of the soul and the body as two separate things (although in this ideology God is a klutz apparently who often messes up in putting souls into bodies.) Women and original sin (re labelled privilege) which means they should rightfully suffer and the righteous would embrace this willingly. The belief that heretics are subhuman. It's all there.

To me this ideology seems a bit reinventing a modern religion as the vehicle for status, power, control, and fulfil that function now that Christianity has mostly left the building.

Humans invent religions for their own purposes, and some invent gender ideology for their own purposes too. It's not a surprise to me that there is some overlap in characteristics.

This particular faith however has no truck in 'love each other' or 'love the sinner' or 'treat others as you would wish to be treated' and is much more 'death to the infidel'.

There are some people who compare aspects of the gender critical to movement to a religion too.

Interesting. How so?

Do go on? Parallels with religious faith? Belief in reality and the equality of women is a religion how?

In some ways, I agree. But I very much doubt that you and I would agree on those ways. My comparison is with my religion, Judaism, which has values such as

If it is hateful to you, do not do it to others.
Do not put a stumbling block in front of a a blind person.
Speak the truth.

Surely the difference is that you don't go around forcing people to agree that your god is the one true god.

I’d say that’s exactly where they are similar - plenty of religions endorse proselytising because they think their god is the true god and because you are being saved from being a heretic, but because - to take the example of Christianity - it’s part of the battle against evil.

Gender ideology is similar because it’s seen as the righteous path and the fight against bigotry/fascism/whatever.

Dawkins says that he considers 'Woke' to be a religion.

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/does-woke-count-as-a-religion

This is a long one from James Lindsey. Queer Theory and Gnostcism.

There are fanatics of every faith/political system and none faith. Those fanatics of faith are often corrupting/manipulating beliefs to their own ends. Usually for the benefit of men.

fine to invite people to follow your religion and explain it. Not anywhere near fine to force people to convert/profess faith/recant/force religious practices on others.

Dawkins and Boghossian.

'Is white privilege the modern day Original Sin?

How is mass denial about the truth of gender, any different from Catholic transubstantiation?

Is woke culture today's dogmatic religious mob?

Join me and Dr. Peter Boghossian as we explore these questions and more in another episode of The Poetry Of Reality.'

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-religion-inevitable-richard-dawkins

But surely most religions do that, countless wars over the centuries, religious conversion therapies etc etc. nor certain your point has any validity at all unless you were just arguing for its own sake?

Whoops it seems I cannot mention certain political ideologies and cult in the same sentence or else it gets removed!

I am finding this more difficult to answer the longer I think about it!

In gender identity it seems that the self is the highest good whereas most other religions would place the highest good outside the self and encourage some level of humility or love thy neighbour, or in Buddhism the concept of no self or that suffering is greatest where the ego is strongest.

There is no possibility of forgiveness or redemption in gender identity ideology, no concept of service to others, no concept of responsibility to others in the group, no ideal of “pray for your enemies”, “turn the other cheek” or Metta the Buddhist practice of cultivation of loving kindness towards everyone including those who have caused you pain.

So while I see certain surface aspects such as mantras, holy days of obligation, the faith position that people are who they say they are and not who the objective observer might perceive them to be, the concept of a soul etc what gender identity religion lacks is anything which might help guide people to be more considerate or kinder, to forgive others and themselves when they have hurt others, it lacks hope or anything which brings out the best in people and I think it creates narcissistic traits more than pro social traits. I think that rather than offering the comfort and peace which some mainstream religions offer it tends to induce paranoia and isolation due to the fragile self being the thing which is being worshipped and held sacred.

Not to mention that in modern Western societies religions have learned how to function peacefully because most of them are no longer tied to politics, power structures etc or those power structures such as the monarchy in the UK are no longer absolute and no longer feel threatened by those who don’t follow the state religion. Gender identity religion however is currently very much tied with power structures and is inherently dependent on others sharing the belief. You can be a follower of any other mainstream religion and not have your Faith impact by the non belief of others, that others won’t necessarily believe the same as you is acknowledged in most of them. However gender identity religion requires that all of us believe or pretend to believe that what an individual states as true about herself or himself is objectively true. If we don’t participate we are then the individual has to struggle to believe the thing he or she wants to believe about himself or herself. The sense of self is a fragile deity and requires constant affirmation and validation from all other individuals coming into contact with it. Authoritarian means to compel this is a feature then of this particular religion

Excellent post Persephone lots to think about there.

It is a profoundly selfish and self centred belief system, in which the god is the self and what it wants and feels (in this moment) and which everyone not part of the special group must serve without question. Selflessly, without seeking reward of any kind or equality with the special one, embracing being lesser and if unlucky enough to be female/gay/BAME/in prison etc gladly embracing exclusion and harm so that the special one's self is indulged without boundaries. That special one's self however has no responsibilities of any kind, no reciprocal action at all, it just wants and demands and receives in the manner of an ancient Emperor, and punishes any hint of failure.

There is no heavenly reward offered after death either for those who must serve: having been allowed to be of use to the special one is supposedly reward enough.

As a faith, it's one that a psychiatrist could write books about in terms of dysfunctionality and pathology. Both in those who wish to the centre of the faith and served by it, and those who gain their sense of self and status by serving within it.

no concept of service to others, no concept of responsibility to others in the group,

I'd say there is. But the service and responsibility is from the laity (including.non believers) to the priestley caste. It is not reciprocal.

It was pointed out somewhere (sorry I have forgotten where) that the way people who detrans are treated by the GI believers has parallels to apostates.

There is also similarities between TRAs and Iran’s morality police. The enforced use of preferred pronouns is like the enforced wearing of a hijab. And the same subjugation of women.

Laity are not non believers though; they are heathens/infidels or in the language of this religion ‘bigots’. This group must be forcibly converted or squashed. The laity are ‘cis’. The ‘cis’ can elevate themselves into the lower priestly orders by identifying as ‘queer ‘.

There really isn't much difference at the level of beliefs. Some people believe in immortal souls, some people believe in guardian angels, some believe in paranormal auras, some believe in gender identities. And so on.

The difference comes at the level of society and politics. Generally, and over the years, we have learned to tolerate one another's beliefs. We no longer discriminate against those who believe different things to us. We no longer have laws based on such things as the "real presence" (or absence thereof) or imprison (or worse!) 'blasphemers', 'heretics' or 'unbelievers'.

Our schools no longer tell our children in schools that they have immortal souls or guardian angels etc. Rather we mandate teachers to tell our children, "Some people believe ...".

But, now, believers in this latest metaphysical claptrap, 'gender identity' demand special treatment for themselves and their beliefs. They want belief in gender identity enshrined in law; they want children taught it as fact; and so on.

Of course we should refuse. Believe whatever you like. Worship any god, describe any aura, tell any story you wish. But leave aside our laws, and particularly, our children.

[Oh, and just for the record, there are no such things as guardian angels, paranormal auras, gender identities, omnipotent gods or immortal souls. But I hold no grudge against those of you who believe in such things. Fill your boots; believe what you like. Just leave me and my kids alone.]

I think there’s a big difference between gender ideology and religion.

I’m agnostic, but even an atheist would probably agree there’s no real way of knowing if there’s a god or not - it’s just something we don’t know for sure.

With gender ideology, we know for a fact it’s not true (I.e. you can’t change sex, gender is just stereotypes) yet we’re told to believe it.

I therefore have more respect for religion than gender ideology. No one really believes in gender ideology. It’s objectively untrue. People are just lying to others and themselves.