>No society can afford to focus on the well-being of a non-reproducing minority. Not for real. It can say that it does, as a kind of religion. But if it actually does, it will get outcompeted by societies that offer the majority realistic opportunities to produce and reproduce.
How are opportunities to produce and reproduce being denied t…
>No society can afford to focus on the well-being of a non-reproducing minority. Not for real. It can say that it does, as a kind of religion. But if it actually does, it will get outcompeted by societies that offer the majority realistic opportunities to produce and reproduce.
How are opportunities to produce and reproduce being denied to cisgender people by transgender ideology? How does it deny opportunities to produce to anyone?
I remember someone telling me that they hated transgenderism because not being able to tell that an individual is a potential mate is a threat to the survival of the species. Is this (close to) your argument?
>>How are opportunities to produce and reproduce being denied to cisgender people by transgender ideology?
Such opportunities aren't denied. I'm reproducing well despite a few transgender people here and there - they don't disturb me in any sense, really. But I also notice that average people reproduce much less in mainstream Western society than among some religious minorities. That tells me that those religious minorities are creating better opportunities for reproduction. It is likely that not encouraging people to spend their teens thinking about what gender they are is one (and only one) thing that high-reproduction societies are doing differently. (That being said, also societies like Russia where transgenderism is not favorably have low birth rates, so I really don't say transgenderism males a decisive difference. It is just part of a package that together makes mainstream Western society demographically uncompetitive).
I don't think that transgenderism is a threat to production. Production is what mainstream Western society is good at. Few ideas have been able to change that fact.
>No society can afford to focus on the well-being of a non-reproducing minority. Not for real. It can say that it does, as a kind of religion. But if it actually does, it will get outcompeted by societies that offer the majority realistic opportunities to produce and reproduce.
How are opportunities to produce and reproduce being denied to cisgender people by transgender ideology? How does it deny opportunities to produce to anyone?
I remember someone telling me that they hated transgenderism because not being able to tell that an individual is a potential mate is a threat to the survival of the species. Is this (close to) your argument?
>>How are opportunities to produce and reproduce being denied to cisgender people by transgender ideology?
Such opportunities aren't denied. I'm reproducing well despite a few transgender people here and there - they don't disturb me in any sense, really. But I also notice that average people reproduce much less in mainstream Western society than among some religious minorities. That tells me that those religious minorities are creating better opportunities for reproduction. It is likely that not encouraging people to spend their teens thinking about what gender they are is one (and only one) thing that high-reproduction societies are doing differently. (That being said, also societies like Russia where transgenderism is not favorably have low birth rates, so I really don't say transgenderism males a decisive difference. It is just part of a package that together makes mainstream Western society demographically uncompetitive).
I don't think that transgenderism is a threat to production. Production is what mainstream Western society is good at. Few ideas have been able to change that fact.