Should we count how a given government program affects "chocolate lovers" or "procrastinators" or "quirky people?" There is no reason to count the effects of a program on "non-binary people" unless the program itself is about non-binaryness - although any such program would be a waste of resources (while a program from procrastinators actually could do a lot of good).
Being "non-binary" is an amorphous state of mind. It may be interesting to discuss it in a psychology forum, but, in officially counting the benefits of a program, replacing a group of women (or men) with a "non-binary" category muddies the waters, wastes resources (it takes extra effort to find and count this group), and, frankly, smacks of a desire to gain points from the "LGBTQ+" lobby groups.
It's just silly, but also potentially harmful as it adds to the campaign to erase women's rights by allowing men to enter their spaces and sports and take their accolades, and the campaign to socially and medically alter vulnerable young people in ways that will make them less healthy. It needs to stop!
Where are the footnotes to this article? The body contains quite a few footnote numbers, but they are not links nor is there a list of footnotes at the bottom of the piece.
Thank you for pointing that out! Sometimes we lose thing in the formatting. There is still one footnote missing from the original submission which we'll add as soon as we get it.
This was a great article. We need reminders like this to show how nonsensical & impractical it is. Reminders to show the real life complications of trying to accommodate‘identities’. It proves itself ridiculous & shows how far removed from reality we have allowed ourselves to become
Should we count how a given government program affects "chocolate lovers" or "procrastinators" or "quirky people?" There is no reason to count the effects of a program on "non-binary people" unless the program itself is about non-binaryness - although any such program would be a waste of resources (while a program from procrastinators actually could do a lot of good).
Being "non-binary" is an amorphous state of mind. It may be interesting to discuss it in a psychology forum, but, in officially counting the benefits of a program, replacing a group of women (or men) with a "non-binary" category muddies the waters, wastes resources (it takes extra effort to find and count this group), and, frankly, smacks of a desire to gain points from the "LGBTQ+" lobby groups.
It's just silly, but also potentially harmful as it adds to the campaign to erase women's rights by allowing men to enter their spaces and sports and take their accolades, and the campaign to socially and medically alter vulnerable young people in ways that will make them less healthy. It needs to stop!
Where are the footnotes to this article? The body contains quite a few footnote numbers, but they are not links nor is there a list of footnotes at the bottom of the piece.
Other than that, great work!
That’s what I came to say!
Thank you for pointing that out! Sometimes we lose thing in the formatting. There is still one footnote missing from the original submission which we'll add as soon as we get it.
This was a great article. We need reminders like this to show how nonsensical & impractical it is. Reminders to show the real life complications of trying to accommodate‘identities’. It proves itself ridiculous & shows how far removed from reality we have allowed ourselves to become