Gia's Apophenic Haze: But I can see

[StickItInTheFamilyAlbum]

Gia discusses several common phenomena that many of us might recognise. She builds out on a recent experience in a restaurant accompanied by some gaslighting. She then segues into a discussion how there are topics where any disagreement is interpreted as taking offence

I was talking to a friend recently about how I find the whole idea of 'non-binary identities' to be pretty ridiculous. He asked me why I was 'so offended' by non-binary people. Now, I'm not in any way implying he was being abusive or is a narcissist, but I wasn't expressing my opinion in an angry or heightened way, I wasn't shouting, I wasn't scowling, I wasn't swearing (more than usual). I wasn't behaving as if I were "offended". I was just stating what I thought in the same way I might say 'I find the whole idea of an oxygen bar ridiculous.' No one would think I was OFFENDED by the idea of an oxygen bar. They might think it was strange because ‘isn't oxygen good for you??’, but they wouldn't attach any kind of morality to my statement...
I tried to tell him that I wasn't offended by people who call themselves 'non-binary' at all, but that the insistence that 'non-binary' was somehow 'special' (when I think no one is purely masculine or feminine, so everyone is non-binary) is ridiculous. I don't think he was able to comprehend that fully because it seems that for leftwing/liberal people the only conceivable reason one would question anything within the gender realm is due to being offended, right? Right?! There can be no other option… The thing is, insisting that the only way it's possible for me to question, disagree with, object to, dislike something is because of 'moral repugnance' or even 'hate' is gaslighting - it is negating my perception. I know what I think. I know my reasoning. I know my own experience... This widespread form of gaslighting is based in an inability of others (men?) to expand their worldview or their understanding of how others experience the world to include the minds of others (women?).
Women are constantly being told we aren't seeing what we are seeing. And a lot of women- having been socialised to be kind, selfless and compliant and who haven't (yet) interrogated this- just accept that they are wrong about what they are seeing and go along with the cultural gaslighting. They internalise the idea that women are inherently mistaken about or incapable of understanding their own experience unless they view everything through the lens of 'male socialisation' and they work to uphold the idea that men are the only ones who have the 'proper' way of viewing the world. This lens views the idea of 'Woman' as a 2-dimensional surface- without an internal dimension, but very definitely with boobs- onto which 'non-women' can project anything they want. This lens allows the viewer to stick any label they want onto a woman as if she were a canvas hanging on a wall and believe they are looking at reality.

https://open.substack.com/pub/giagia/p/but-i-can-see?r=127vv2

It's worth reading the newsletter.

Well… I agree with the point about disagreeing not meaning being offended. I completely disagree with polarising into left and right wing views “*it seems that for leftwing/liberal people the only conceivable reason one would question anything within the gender realm is due to being offended, right? Right?! *
Wrong.

I don't think this is about left/right or liberal/authoritarian or men/women. Its about belief/non-belief.

To question the concept of a non-binary person is to question gender ideology, by suggesting that no-one has a gender identity (except for trans people, who've got something going on they call a gender identity). There's sex, and there's some cultural norms attached to it and ....... that's it.

In context, that's potentially aggressive or foolhardy. If I was living in the sixteenth century and questioned my friend's belief in transsubstantiation, I'd be either telling them I think they should be burnt at the stake, or inviting a similar fate for myself (depending on who's on the throne).

As it is, quite a few people have lost their jobs because of their lack of belief. So philosophical musings have become dangerous. No wonder the believers pretend to be frightened. It justifies their persecution of us.

To question the concept of a non-binary person is to question gender ideology, by suggesting that no-one has a gender identity (except for trans people, who've got something going on they call a gender identity). There's sex, and there's some cultural norms attached to it and ....... that's it.

I agree that I interpreted this as more of a split around ideology. and the attribution of variou labels or characteristics associated with whichever side people espouse.

I thought this tied in quite nicely with a discussion about the power dynamic where one side insists, "You're not seeing what you report or think you're seeing" and this can be so pervasive that those who made the original report start second-guessing themselves.

Interesting point from clavecisinist about when philosophical musings become dangerous and the strategic manoeuvring around that.

Well… I agree with the point about disagreeing not meaning being offended. I completely disagree with polarising into left and right wing views “it seems that for leftwing/liberal people the only conceivable reason one would question anything within the gender realm is due to being offended, right? Right?!
Wrong.

I doubt she sees herself as right wing. She's observing a social phenomenon.

I mean - as someone who knows and interacts a lot with some very conservative people, they would say this is not at all new, or restricted to gender ideology.

They would say that if they were to say something similar about some feminist ideas, or about sexuality, or whatever, they would get basically the same response, and that this has been the case for many years.

Oh, there's been arguments about who's perception of events/present reality is correct. And who is imposing their version on others (both sides would say the other would). And I agree the left attached morality to having the correct political view more even in the past (the right looks for converts, the left looks for traitors). But the twisting of reality or the idea that truth doesn't matter to this extent is fairly new.
(I think the abandoning of the idea of the truth is happening on the left and right to an equal degree but in different ways).

@HoppityBun
it seems that for leftwing/liberal people who believe in gender ideology the only conceivable reason one would question anything within the gender realm is due to being offended, right? Right?

To me at least that makes more sense. I suspect this is what she meant. It isn't all left wing/liberal people. But pretty much all the people doing this are leftwing/liberal.

The 'if you don't like something you must be offended' thing is very familiar to me. Gaslighting + misogyny (the only reason a woman could disagree with something is on a physical repulsion level as her brain can't engage on a logical level)

Maybe, but I took the article to be mainly about the "new" way in which the left tries to claim anyone who disagreed with them is "offended", or threatened, or some kind of -phobe.

It's not new at all. It's just new to people who have never disagreed with a left wing talking point before.

I think some people should get out more and perhaps work on a farm/look after animals. Immerse themselves in nature.
Forget about what’s left or right wing - just revel in biological reality.