People who don't like Sync for its approach to monetization are not exclusively advocating for using the app for free. There are more options than "the way it is currently" and "free."
To make a long story short, the idea of gender as distinct from sex results in a lot of circular reasoning, or contradiction if you try to work around that circular reasoning.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren't allowed, you can't rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?
As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don't say this as a complete outsider.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights 'ideological capture'?
Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn't require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.
In other words, it's easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don't remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they're wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.
If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one's ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.
You literally are engaging me by replying, which is odd considering your whole shtick right now is loudly and repeatedly declaring your own moral superiority.
I deny that I am transphobic, but you are free to demonstrate otherwise.
I linked to the LGB Alliance as it was the first group that came to mind. I haven't read up on them much, and if they are full of Nazis (in the literal sense, not the "anyone who disagrees with you" sense), then I'm open to hearing about it.
You've done nothing this whole time other than employ personal attacks and derail conversations. It would be good to see you contribute something of substance.
Climate Is Now a US Culture War Issue (www.nytimes.com)
rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
HUGE 2009scape update, Death Plateau quest, new random events and much more! (2009scape.org)
deleted_by_author
What "LGB without the T" means
Silver coin of the Cordoban Caliphate, modern-day Spain, 1002 AD
How would you feel if a person you've slept with asks for money after the deed
Pretty much the title - I met a girl on Hinge, we decided to go grab a drink, then one thing left to another and we ended up sleeping together....
Bot posting article about bots (lemmy.world)
The Fellowship (lemmy.world)
My hero rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Join the Lemmy.World Discord Server! (discord.gg)
shared from: lemmy.world/post/2809416...
Fuck SUVs in particular. (lemmy.world)