Ok good - looks like I've stepped in the river that's been
flowing for a long time before I got here.
[it's all new to me]
I'm all for changing the conversation, keeping the name, or
changing the name and changing the conversation or whatever
anybody chooses.
Now that I know it's a "hot button issue", I'll step out of it
and identify with none-of-the-above. I'm interested in Conflict
Theory. I'll stick with that. I didn't notice the boxing gloves
on my hands and apologize for any punches unknowingly thrown.
It's not my fight and I'll stay on the sidelines. [older thing I
wrote] Ok. Found one that works for me. Equalism. I'd happily
identify with Equalism. Convincing argument (for me, not
necessarily for anybody else) is from that site and this
individual mirrors some of my thinking from before:
" Equalism is minimalist and catchy. I think equality is needed
for various people, let's take examples:
People who fall out of the gender binary, genderless people,
genderfluid, asexual, semisexual, transgender, transexual,
intersexual, pansexual and all kinds of sexualities, gender
identities or their absences, all kinds of unique
self-perceptions.
People who identify themselves as women or men, have no problem
with their identity and sex in terms of documentation but people
who fall out of the gender binary are forced to choose one sex.
That is an example of a lack of equality. Why is gender and
apparel which is linked to biological sex so important? Just to
tick one.
Back to the point: Equalism covers everybody. In each and every
aspect. It covers people, and that is what unites us."
But honestly, a group can name itself whatever the heck it wants
to.
