The debate between classical feminism and the groups in favor of the Trans bill finally approved by the Government has highlighted some things. This is a discussion within the cultural left, whose positions, with eventual variations, are hegemonic in the media, which have assumed the politically recommended vocabulary as mandatory (for example, when talking about violence) and not even they wonder if there can be other different positions in society.
In any case, the discussion has shown that the concept of gender (gender), which is at the center of the debate, is not univocal, quite the opposite. While classical feminism vindicates the woman’s body, as an object of oppression that must be rescued from her, the most extreme theories of gender say that all the concepts involved, including those of sex and body, are social constructions. Which, obviously, also applies to the concept of gender, which is not, as is often thought (and is intended to be thought), a descriptive concept of reality that tells us how things are, but rather an abstraction of high ideological or political voltage, as stated by the philosopher of this field Sally Haslanger when years ago he asked himself literally “what we want the genre to be”.
A good part of the aforementioned debate has revolved on this, since there is and cannot be any unitary concept of gender that includes in the same drawer (a) the expectations that a society associates with the behavior of men and women; (b) the subjective experience of one’s own body as sexed; or (c) how I want to be seen and recognized by other people in relation to sex, what social image I want to convey. (a), (b) and (c) represent three different gender concepts.
It turns out that in every political struggle and context it will be convenient to adopt one or another approach with the aim of neutralizing “sexual injustices”, which must be approached in terms entirely analogous to those of the Marxist class struggle. And a central instrument of these struggles is language, Newspeak with which it is necessary to refer normatively to forms of “non-binary” sexuality.
Neither liberal pluralism nor the right of parents to choose the education they want for their children are being respected
In practice, feminism and gender theory compose a kind of conceptual coalition or duopoly (that of the “gender perspective”) that occupies a dominant place in the social space. That, in our opinion, affects the constitutive pluralism of democratic societies. Why? As it explains John Rawls, the most cited and influential theorist of political liberalism, none of the different conceptions of man and the world (including sex, of course) that legitimately exist in society should monopolize the public sphere, cornering the other competing visions. her and forcing the remaining citizens to adopt “the only true conception.”
Well, today we find that, in the political and legal field, it is legislated with the same “gender perspective” that is required of judges and courts at the highest levels. This approach also prevails in the politically tolerable lexicon even in the professional field (woe to those who dare to speak of “therapy”!). And it also affects the crucial field of education, especially public education.
Laws aside, municipalities and autonomous communities governed by the left (if not also the others) promote quasi-compulsory assistance activities and workshops taught by LGTBI groups throughout the course, when they do not organize commemorations or conferences that gloss over feminism or the gender perspective. . No other conception of sexuality enjoys such a privilege in public schools.. For example, one recommending the value of marriage or highlighting the problematic (surgical and hormonal) aspects of gender reassignment. It seems clear that neither liberal pluralism nor the right of parents, enshrined in the Constitution and the 1948 Universal Declaration, to choose the education they want for their children are being respected.
Of course, a democratic society must outlaw any form of discrimination, including that motivated by sexual orientation. Likewise, taking charge of the suffering caused by the so-called gender dysphoria is a requirement of interhuman compassion. But none of this shows that gender theories or Trans law are the best ways to tackle these problems without provoking other no less serious ones.
*** José Vicente Bonet Sánchez (president of SOFIC-Society of Christian Philosophers), Enrique Bonete Perales (University of Salamanca), Pilar Ferrer Rodríguez (Catholic University of Valencia) have participated in the writing of this rostrum of the Society of Christian Philosophers , Enrique Moros Claramunt (University of Navarra), David González Niñerola (Secondary Education), David García-Ramos Gallego (Catholic University of Valencia), Ángel Barahona Plaza (Francisco de Vitoria University), Carmen Álvarez Alonso (San Dámaso School of Theology) , Marcelo López Cambronero (Edith Stein Institute of Philosophy), Manuel Oriol Salgado (CEU San Pablo University), Juana Sánchez-Gey Venegas (Autonomous University of Madrid) and Jaime Vilarroig Martín (Cardenal Herrera University – CEU).
Follow the topics that interest you
Reference-www.elespanol.com