It makes total sense to me, as I have come to some similar conclusions. The one I find personally relevant is my stance on race, as not socially meaningful, therefore, I don't get to join the race argument, I'm in denial of the very premise.
I think what might be helpful to expound upon is WHY we don't get to participate. Something I am just recently coming to understand. It's not just being outside of the argument (a boundary I would rather not exist with any argument) but it's also just adding to the noise of many self-admitted non-arguments.
I happen to agree with you. Like race, gender is also a "non-argument". So arguing against it gives a credence to it I think it doesn't deserve. Ironically, I am more willing to practice the preaching of "wokeness" than many of its purveyors seem to be.
They claim identity labels are traditionally arbitrary, patriarchal and largely Anglican. This is the strongest and most agreeable part of their argument. So I follow this out logically on a social level. We no longer rank order things like sports, healthcare, education etc. by race and gender; and instead by ability. This includes nontraditional genders and identities as well. We all become "They and Gray".
I think we would indeed see much more crossover than traditionally expected but we would also have to reduce both the "fair" and unfair barriers to entry. I think a classlessness would follow a racelessness....and it is THIS reality that "wokeness" would rather not see come to fruition.
The only reason I would argue, would be to call EVERYONE's bluff. But that's bad poker.
It makes total sense to me, as I have come to some similar conclusions. The one I find personally relevant is my stance on race, as not socially meaningful, therefore, I don't get to join the race argument, I'm in denial of the very premise.
I think what might be helpful to expound upon is WHY we don't get to participate. Something I am just recently coming to understand. It's not just being outside of the argument (a boundary I would rather not exist with any argument) but it's also just adding to the noise of many self-admitted non-arguments.
I happen to agree with you. Like race, gender is also a "non-argument". So arguing against it gives a credence to it I think it doesn't deserve. Ironically, I am more willing to practice the preaching of "wokeness" than many of its purveyors seem to be.
They claim identity labels are traditionally arbitrary, patriarchal and largely Anglican. This is the strongest and most agreeable part of their argument. So I follow this out logically on a social level. We no longer rank order things like sports, healthcare, education etc. by race and gender; and instead by ability. This includes nontraditional genders and identities as well. We all become "They and Gray".
I think we would indeed see much more crossover than traditionally expected but we would also have to reduce both the "fair" and unfair barriers to entry. I think a classlessness would follow a racelessness....and it is THIS reality that "wokeness" would rather not see come to fruition.
The only reason I would argue, would be to call EVERYONE's bluff. But that's bad poker.