Talk:Gender ideology

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Merge into transgender

This article covers anti-trans arguments in general. As such, there's no need for a separate article, and it might be worth merging into the main transgender article. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not much about anti-trans arguments, it's more like a "brand" or a moral panic which is heard over and over in Italian politics and in catholicism (at least in Europe). It's not "secular" nor blatant transphobia, but a packaged panic with a specific narrative and "history". See also https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoria_del_gender (in Italian) Andmartinelli (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It also incorporates a lot of different topics, not just transgenderism. Basically anything sex-positive or anti-traditional gender roles gets thrown in there, it seems.141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that it should stay separated; this reminds me of sexual Bolshevism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 17:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. It's true that it includes more than transgender issues. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In Germany, bigots from other denominations or people not affiliated with any religion use that phrase as a snarl phrase, too.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gay agenda

This is not a more contemporary version of the gay agenda conspiracy? Looks the same for me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 181.22.87.129 / talk / contribs}

Yes and no? You could argue that this is its evolution, once overt condemnation of homosexuality (at least at the individual level) just isn't socially acceptable anymore.
But for this reason, while they are promoting pretty much the same regressive bullshit, it has the advantage of being (at least on the surface) gay-inclusive and thus more pernicious.
FWIW I would go out on a limb and argue that in light of the widespread number of contexts this is brought up as a red herring (also red baiting eheh), gender theory/ideology is to Italy, what CRT is to the US of A. --Mirh (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Protestantism

This BS is also present on Fundagelical circles, often mixing in claims the UN are spreading it. If someone with stomach to visit those sites can add references of that kind, it would be highly appreciated. --Panzerfaust (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender Ideology is not just a snarl word.

This is abnormal usage, see here Google the term and we get: Definition. "Gender ideologies are defined as views that people hold regarding gender roles (Davis & Greenstein, 2009). Gender ideologies exist on a continuum with traditional gender ideologies at one end of the continuum and egalitarian gender ideologies at the other end of the continuum." Now I'm not saying that Google must always give the right answer, but this article smacks of a kind of denialism with respect to philosophical styles of empiricism. Not science based at all. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't just use the I-word to name "having any thought about a thing at all". Putting aside that "ideology" is usually used with a negative connotation of dogmatism, it should be at least something remotely unitary and with sizeable following. And while feminism could certainly qualify in some broad sense as such (just like whatever religious canon), paradoxically it cannot be said to be committed to any belief over gender.
Because as strong as the claims that egalitarianism makes may be, these *precede* gender and deal with the person just as an intelligent agent. So it seems rhetorically preposterous to argue that a lack of prejudice that could be summed up as "do whatever the fuck you want", is to be bunched together with somebody strongly advocating women's highest achievement is to be an housewife. It's like saying that if you have "0 apples" that's not nothing because zero is still technically a number.

And to clarify how this is used instead in the common parlance (it's refreshing to see conspiracies from Europe, for once /s): accusing someone of pushing the so-called gender ideology is accusing them of acknowledging that gender (or whatever related consequence of the day) exists to begin with. And you may be surprised here, that is: how is it that progressives that (as I hinted above) could as well welcome abolition of gender are the ones bringing attention to it, while the people that think divorce and abortion were an error are the ones seemingly with the complaints? Well, putting aside the huge difference between descriptive and normative claims, the bigot narrative here is simple: whatever you would call as gender roles or gender identity, they implicitly ascribe it to sex as some god-given inescapable truth imbued metaphysically. Bonus points if this way they start to deny the entirety of sociology altogether (because of course scientific wisdom stands always in the way of good ol' traditional wisdom). --Mirh (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is gender ideology? That people are the gender they feel most comfortable with? I'm going to assume Krampus feels he is the gender that he identifies most strongly with. Would that make Krampus a gender ideologue? Carthage (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We could, possibly, distinguish between the oft-used definition that presents "gender ideology" as a monolithic bogeyman, and then the other definition. What's done on the Cultural Marxism page. (As a matter of fact, the two are somewhat related since "gender ideology" is sometimes presented as a crypto-communist ideology especially in countries that were formerly under strong Soviet influence.) Though I don't know if that would be as useful here. Anyway for the record, the source used by Krampus here, ScienceDirect Topics, is actually semi machine-generated thus why the page now says something else than it did when he originally read it. Been discussed at Wikipedia a few times: 1, 2, 3. But the paper the generation referred to does appear to exist, here. Chillpilled (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical the same distinction could be done here, because not only there is a very thick cultural barrier between the two meanings, but they aren't even remotely connected.
Like, the elegance of the CM conspiracy theory (at least once upon a time in its infancy when the foundations of bullshit had to be poured) is that you couldn't deny that cultural marxists existed, and that people such as Marcuse had strong opinions about the way the society should be. You could contend the dishonest interpretations of course, but obviously it's not like you could turn off the single neuron of antisemitic chimps once it saw red.
Conversely, with GI the only relationship is just the use of the word GENDER. Not even in its translated form (like anything fucking else) but literally with his English name: théorie du gender, teoria del gender, gender-ideologie, ideologia gender, genderové ideologie, genderismus, dženderizam, genderbeweging, gender-bevegelsen, gender-liike.
It is still a catch-all chimera to associate everything and the kitchen sink you don't like together (like CRT, ESG or indeed CM), but its power resides in just the foreignness of term for gullible boomers.
It has nothing to do with the meaning used in the paper and probably anywhere else in the anglophone literature, which is just short for "[dogmatic] belief in gender [roles]". Like, I'm not sure that would even qualify as a "concept"? It's just asking "how much importance do you place on gender" and it is a simple plain matching of words like "weight room" or "the cat is on the table".
And in the countries where "gender ideology" is a normal linguistic expression, it would be logically impossible to push the "G-E-N-D-E-R ideology" grift the same way of the other ones, because you'd have at least to acknowledge some legitimacy into the same exact word that you are indirectly trying to demonize. --Mirh (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You guys are really behind the times. I wrote this three years ago. My only point was that you can't control the language by using your own definitions. Ideologies tend to be political. It's not personal. it is certainly political. You can take it personally, but that isn't my point.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And I get that I wrote quite the mouthful (I don't know what politics has to do with semantics) but you seem the one really behind the point that is being made. Not only "ideology" in this academic sense has a different meaning from the common parlance (just like it happens with theory I guess, true that) but in the whole frigging continental europe there literally isn't any other usage of the word G-E-N-D-E-R outside of this context. I don't know if I can underline enough how that doesn't get translated because it has to have maximum foreign intelligentsia straw-man power. --Mirh (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)