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!

Interesting point. I'll have to think about that.

What do you think about Scientology compared to Gender Identity Ideology? I'd be interested to read your thoughts on that if you have any.

Well, I'm an atheist. And, no, I don't agree. I'm as sure there is no god as I am that mathematics is incomplete or that sex is binary. There are lots of good reasons for these claims, though there is not the space to go into them here. (Shades of Fermat's Last Theorem? Yes I'm sure that's true too!)

Thing is, though, I know others don't think as I do. We need to tolerate one another; I won't force my views on you, you don't try to force yours on me.

Belief in gender identity is on the same foot here as belief in god.

One thing stands out to me in your post gidabo and that is 'We need to tolerate one another; I won't force my views on you, you don't try to force yours on me.'

This is because the GI believers that I know IRL are the most intolerent and authoritarian people that I know when it comes to 'right think' and 'wrong think'.

Lots to think about, thank you for your responses.

My faith is also personal. It does not need you to believe/not believe in my God. I can go on quite happily with you and we can still be friends with you saying your God is the right one.
Gender identity seems to rely on me believing in your beliefs as well in order for it to make sense.

There are lots of ways of being religious though, and not all of them involve making ideological claims about the world. In particular, not all ways of being religious involve making claims contrary to science and empirical observation generally.
Religious people who believe that, say, God created the world in seven days and/or that evolutionary theory is false have something in common with trans ideology in that they are asserting an anti-scientific position.
The actual belief in God (and in souls) is not so much anti-science as beyond science. The manner in which people hold this belief can be 'scientifically redundant' in the sense that it has no bearing on the explanation of anything 'in' the world and is not a challenge to science.
In contrast, the 'beyond science' belief in gendered essence is considered (by believers)to be grounds for asserting someone's material status (eg as a woman). It is therefore not scientifically redundant. And this in turn makes it an imposition on others, in that it requires others to acknowledge a contested account of material reality.

So I would say there is no particular affinity between religion as such and gender ideology. The affinity would be between gender ideology and those forms of religion which imperialistically trample into the territory of science, and (in an associated over-reach) claim to make social requirements of people who are not practitioners.

As pointed out, the wars in Tudor times between Roman Catholics and Protestants was about power. The reason why we still cannot have a Catholic monarch is because that would make the Pope the ultimate authority in the UK (though the monarch now only really has symbolic authority).

The same in Northern Ireland; ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’ are proxies for political difference.

Power is the currency of gender ideology too. Without the power it wields no one would be interested.

I dont think you should feel too upset by these comparisons between gender ideology and religion, OP. They are just a shorthand for people's anger about being pressured to accept a belief system that they don't share. In general, reliigous people don't put their friends - or anyone else - under this pressure, On the contrary: they generally reflect compassionately on the duties of love, tolerance, compassion, acceptnce. I think that (in our society at any rate) they are under more pressure to be secular than the secular amongst use are pressured to be religious.

The difference is that you're 'sure', but you don't know as a fact that a god doesn't exist. It's not been proved one way or the other. (Likewise, I don't believe in god, but I accept that there's no proof either way).

I tolerate belief in gender ideology if that's what the person believes, but I don't tolerate it in the public sphere or where it impacts others, as it's provably untrue.

That would mean you are tending towards agnosticism rather than pure atheism.

No, you mistake me. I know for a fact that sex is binary, that arithmetic is incomplete and that there is no god.

I do understand some people aren't sure about these things, and also that some people actually hold the opposite view ... that sex isn't binary, that arithmetic is complete, that there is a god. Both these - the agnostics and the truth-deniers - are mistaken.

I do not wish to argue any of these cases here. There isn't space, anyway. The point is this: though I believe I am right (that all these are facts), I understand others hold opposing views. I think it incumbent on me (on all of us) to tolerate others' views even when we know they are wrong and that what they believe is contrary to the facts.

In short, our tolerance should not depend on us not being sure of the facts. This is as true of gender identity as it is of god or anything else.

Sorry, that last post of mine should have referenced @SmugglersHaunt.

RainWithSunnySpells · Today 10:12

What do you think about Scientology compared to Gender Identity Ideology? I'd be interested to read your thoughts on that if you have any.

One difference is, as far as I know, gender ideology didn't come about because someone bet a third rate author that they couldn't come up with a new religion!

😂

One line of argument:

We should (sometimes) object to gender ideology, just as we should (sometimes) object to religion, where it's being unfairly imposed on other people.

Also of course, I don't know any good arguments that "identifying" as something would make you that something, and it seems rather to be obviously false.

In the case of God, there are various arguments for / against, and individual assessments of the evidence will differ.

But I will also suggest a practical reason for belief in God: we need theism for other core beliefs like free will and moral responsibility. Philosophical naturalism is probably just going to end up as moral nihilism.

To be clear, that doesn't mean that atheists will all behave badly, or openly endorse moral nihilism. I'm just saying that their position is theoretically going in that direction. It's also the case I think that everyone has difficulty in trying to ground morality whether theist or atheist; but theism I think has advantages as a foundation.

Should you accept something merely for a practical reason? Perhaps not, but if you have other evidence, then maybe the practical reason helps push you in that direction.

I know some atheists will just say that we don't need an "illusion" like free will; as I say, they are going down the path of moral nihilism whether they know that or not.

we need theism for other core beliefs like free will and moral responsibility

Nonsense. There are perfectly good arguments for both that have absolutely nothing to do with any god, and plenty of religious belief systems that have little or nothing to say about either.

The problem with discussions like this - and this thread is a poster child for it - is not a single poster has defined what "god" is. Either to them or in a more generic sense.

Yes some of use can use dictionaries. But that doesn't really solve the problem does it ?

Part of what a society is, is a consensus on some basics. Like what a woman is ) to pick a random example). And "everybody knows/we all know/of course you know" is not an answer

I would also challenge - in fact downright reject - any idea that any religion has "learned to be tolerant" as they have lost influence and power. A cursory glance at the US Christian fundamentalists would show that is the exact opposite of what is happening.

(Runs away.)

Thank you for the scolding, I didn't know that was a requirement. Will someone run after the head girl as she flees, and offer her a cup of tea or something?

Without dictionary, since we've been told that won't do: I personally meant a deity, a higher power, a focus of worship, a belief system. But it's not really relevant and people have managed an interesting conversation without first setting terms that scored top marks in the form exam.

I have only seen very stupid people who do not understand what gender critical means do this.

If you've seen someone make an intelligent comparison then I would be interested to hear about it.

Its only a scolding if you take it as such

Without dictionary, since we've been told that won't do: I personally meant a deity, a higher power, a focus of worship, a belief system

But that's still a word soup (and subtly excludes "gods" plural). HMRC is certainly a higher power than any of us, but I suspect it's not quite what is meant.

I really should find a hobby, empty nest syndrome and all that ....

Why does it matter how people define ‘God’ or ‘Gods’? I suspect different faiths, and people within each faith think differently about this. And it seems likely you will reject them all.

HMRC is not a ‘higher power’, it is a government administrative unit. It is also a unit that if you have a disagreement with you could take to court and possibly win against.

If you look at the OP I think the question is in what ways is gender identity similar to and different from mainstream religions.

Trying to nail down the definition of “God” or “Gods” is not required to explore the question in my opinion and to do so would quite derail the thread. Every single person on this thread might well have different and conflicting ideas about what a deity is or isn’t. We can objectively discuss differences and similarities in religious practice and the most basic aspects of a particular religious faith. We can then consider how well or not gender identity fits into the religious category by what we observe about practices and faith based positions of proponents of gender identity.

“What is the definition of God?” seems like a new thread which would be better placed on the Philosophy/Religion board.

Not all mainstream religions even have a deity and some have multiple deities. The existence of deities can neither be proven nor disproven, this differs from a belief that a human being can change sex which is observably, objectively, provably impossible.

The belief in gendered souls however is more comparable to a belief in a deity because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

The problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid participation in the belief in gendered souls whereas avoiding participation is other beliefs is socially acceptable, not believing in gendered souls might lose your job and at the very least just about every form we now have to fill in will ask us which type of soul we have.

Trying to nail down the definition of “God” or “Gods” is not required to explore the question in my opinion and to do so would quite derail the thread.

I agree - the question isn't about 'god/gods' at all, but about the common features of religions - of which gods are only 1 (and arguably quite a minor one).

Similarly, you could discuss whether a vacuum cleaner counts as a labour-saving device without having a robust definition of a fridge.

You have to ask what it is that makes a religion a religion.

It tends to be defined as an organized set of beliefs that encompass, typically, ideas about the fundamental nature of reality, some kind of ethical system, some type of ritualistic elements, and some mechanism for passing on the system. But that can vary a lot, some put far more emphasis on some of those elements than others. In some the rituals may be elaborate, others simple. The belief system might be expressed mainly in poetry or stories, it may have historic elements, or it could be mainly a philosophical system, or a combination - in some cases it may be almost entirely unimportant. There may or may not be a belief in a god or gods. Ritual practice might be more individual, or more communal.

So while I do think modern social justice/identarian ideas do have some of those characteristics, that in a way is not so strange. What is more notable to me is that it's a lot less intellectually coherent or mature than almost any of the major religious traditions. And it's quite fundamentalist in nature.