A contradiction in the liberal view of gender

[shadow]

I'm talking more about one's ideals. If someone thinks that there should be no difference between how we treat men and women, it is at the very least logically inconsistent for them to think that it should matter whether you are one or the other. I could see it as a means to deal with the fact that the world isn't yet what one might desire it to be, but it is still contradictory reasoning in that case.

-and I'm reminding you that just because someone or someones - plural, shouldn't, doesn't mean that they don't.  That this is not a contradiction between the two statements you chose to reference. 

I don't care about the wording of my statements or whatnot, I'm trying to understand this viewpoint. It seems like a contradiction between a proclaimed ideology and an expressed one.

To provide an analogy: it's like if I thought religions are all BS, but decided to convert from being a Muslim to a Christian. Why not just be an atheist, or distance myself from religion as much as possible if my society doesn't allow me to completely leave it? Why emphasize the change?

A poor analogy, even statement A doesn't call them bullshit, - it calls them arbitrary - and they are, as evidenced by vast disparity between competing notions of gender between cultures as they refer to their respective sexes.  Their being arbitrary doesn;t change the fact that they exist, and that people within those frameworks find them both compelling..and, in some cases, disphoric.  

Arbitrary, and rather valueless. I don't think this ideology, call it what you like, finds stereotypial gender roles compelling.

Just my experience. I absolutely agree it's not like all liberals will think this or that they are the only ones, just that there are many liberal people who hold this view, who I would otherwise agree with on many issues.

Why do you think liberals hold that view?  Why do you think it's the view of sociology, psychology, and ethics?  I take it by "otherwise" you mean you disagree here, but are you disagreeing with anything that's actually being said?

Haha... it sort of has to do with what I'm studying. I'm a joint major between two faculties, Environment and Business, so there's a very clear distinction in my mind between the two factions and their beliefs. I'd suspect that is the origin of my phrasing. I've never specifically studied sociology, psychology, or ethics, so I don't think it would be accurate for me to apply this viewpoint to them.

I agree strongly with A, which is why B doesn't seem as pertinent.

Even more simply - if someone wants to be a girl or be called a girl or be treated like a girl..whats the fucking problem?

I couldn't care less. But I don't think it should matter all that much if someone wants to be called a girl or treated like one.

---

I can see that you're fishing for arguments, as you were fishing in those statements.  I'm telling you exactly what I just told you.  That the presence of peen does not determine what gender a person identifies as.

I didn't bring that up. I believe you said it was a physical thing that defined the difference between male and female, right? Now you're saying it's not.

By the way, I'm not fishing at all. I didn't come here with an agenda, I'm just trying to reconcile some viewpoints I've been exposed to. I'd appreciate if you didn't assume I want to be proven right. I just want to understand this perspective, but I seem to be missing something that makes it logically consistent.

You were wrong.  Will you now search for other things to be wrong about?  If there are contradictions in some "liberal view" of gender (I;m sure there are plenty, lol) you failed to identify one.

Okay, I'm still confused though. I'm not trying to convince anyone or 'identify contradictions', I'm just trying to understand something.

You're now failing to identify anything I've told you.

I don't think I understand all of your arguments if that's what you mean.