A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities

[If my soul was made of stone]

The term "gender ideology" is only used by authoritarian crackpots who think that the idea of gender existing separately from sex is an affront to their reactionary views of social order. As a trans person myself I'm beyond sick of being made to constantly justify the bare nature of my existence when the parameters of my experience of living in the wrong body are already so harrowing, and facing discrimination on top of it is deeply offensive and existentially exhausting. Being told that my existence is "ideology" is patronizing, and I don't care whether braindead "academics" like Richard Dawkins or people like the OP of this thread with backwards noble-savage conceptions of working people or ethnic minorities are those dishing it out. Discrimination can only be ameliorated through greater understanding, not suppressing deviation from societal expectations.

I agree that transitioning isn't always the answer, and there are people here who can explain that better than I can, but it sounds like you're swinging too far in the other direction and trying to scare people off of even considering that another way is possible for them. I don't always have the most politically correct takes on issues related to gender or trans solidarity myself, depending on how my own experience has informed them, but you seem opposed to this for all the wrong reasons.

The Economist can be pretty ghoulish when it comes to covering issues that actually directly affect people rather than spheres of international theater and made-up numbers that are hardly relevant to most people.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It seems to me like extremists are trying to prevent reasonable people from being public advocates for LGBT issues, and this is a potential explanation for the far left's attempts to harass Contrapoints into oblivion and it also in a slightly different situation explains the insane anti-gay attacks they used against Pete Buttigieg as well.

At the risk of wading into the sort of hardened radical queer theorist territory for which I have a bit of notoriety here, the attacks on Pete from queer voices on the left weren't about his sexuality in isolation, but the perception that he had sold out his queerness to neoliberal/neoconservative pandering and ensconced himself in the values and expectations of a social order built on upholding cisgender heterosexuality (academic types will call this "homonormativity"). The idea that the "queer community" is unified and needs to know better for its own interests is patronizing and paternalistic, and ignores the perspective of many queer voices that have come to reject broader social norms rather than try to seek their approval. I would certainly much prefer a world where I wouldn't risk getting murdered for being transgender, but debates like this where cishet perspectives with no firsthand knowledge of our experience act like they know what's best for a very heterodox collection of people makes me wonder if it's ever worth the effort to get the world on my (or our) side, and while I'd prefer a world with less hot-button discourse eating my people alive it's the inevitable result of advances in queer rights and the Information Age atomization of sociopolitical spheres.

[If my soul was made of stone]

This thread has been an absolute mess, and intellectual arguments are being reduced to inane drivel, a lot of which is totally irrelevant.

The thing is, what is gender? If you can’t answer that question, then this debate becomes totally unintellectual in nature, and is more based in personal feelings. In the latter case, then the feelings of a trans person who calls themselves a gender different than there biological sex are no more important than the feelings of someone who thinks that “a man with a uterus” is an oxymoron. Simple as that. They can still respect one another, but you can’t force either one of them to respect the other persons view.

The difference is that for one person, this is just an opinion about a set of issues that barely affects their life in any way, while for the other (trans) person, the way society feels about this issue determines their ability to be safe and successful in every aspect of their lives.

Even if this does come down to a debate about feelings, why would you deliberately hurt someone’s feelings when it costs you nothing to just treat them the way they are asking to be treated?

Like I said, it’s not too much to expect them to respect one another (for example, use requested pronouns). But if the person says, “I still think you’re 100% a man” when the person claims to be a woman, you can’t get mad at them for stating that when you can’t prove them wrong.

What "proof" is needed beyond someone's stated gender identity? Anything else is exclusionary purity-test nonsense that absolutely goes against your principle of respecting other folk.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Should be noted that many non straight people do not define as queer. I personally find the word demeaning. The gay men I know who identify as queer pretty much always wear makeup and often have varied pronouns. The queer community is a more radical subset of the LGBT community.

As a self-identifier the term does originally refer to more radical currents (see the Queer Nation Manifesto), but as with much of the culture as a whole it's become far less politically charged within the past decades. I prefer to use "queer" as a general term to "LGBT" because it's snappier and there won't be any debate over what's included in or left out of any acronyms, but it's true that I do identify with the radical tendencies more than most that I've known in my time.

[If my soul was made of stone]

This thread has been an absolute mess, and intellectual arguments are being reduced to inane drivel, a lot of which is totally irrelevant.

The thing is, what is gender? If you can’t answer that question, then this debate becomes totally unintellectual in nature, and is more based in personal feelings. In the latter case, then the feelings of a trans person who calls themselves a gender different than there biological sex are no more important than the feelings of someone who thinks that “a man with a uterus” is an oxymoron. Simple as that. They can still respect one another, but you can’t force either one of them to respect the other persons view.

The difference is that for one person, this is just an opinion about a set of issues that barely affects their life in any way, while for the other (trans) person, the way society feels about this issue determines their ability to be safe and successful in every aspect of their lives.

Even if this does come down to a debate about feelings, why would you deliberately hurt someone’s feelings when it costs you nothing to just treat them the way they are asking to be treated?

Like I said, it’s not too much to expect them to respect one another (for example, use requested pronouns). But if the person says, “I still think you’re 100% a man” when the person claims to be a woman, you can’t get mad at them for stating that when you can’t prove them wrong.

How is telling someone “I still think you’re 100% a man” respecting them?  Why would you say that when it is obviously very hurtful to the person you are saying it to, and doesn’t make any difference to the way you live your own life?

It's more respectful to be honest about your opinions than to engage in a false charade to protect other people's feelings. Treating others as fragile is not showing respect; it is the opposite.

Whatever you say, Jordan Peterson.