The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
I am really pleased that The Economist accepts that this is a debate and an important one for women who feel that being a woman is more than having feminine feelings and liking dresses and glittery stuff.
Politicians, sporting bodies and councils have forged ahead with seeing gender identity more important than chromosomes It is disappointing that no political party has really examined the affect this has on women before deciding our opinions are irrelevant and we are just being mean and not sharing.
I think boys and girls should be free to wear the clothes and have the interests they want. Let's erase the stereotypes not biology.
Unfortunately even the Economist discussion forum is biased as a 3 letter word beginning with "s" isn't allowed and we can only discuss "gender"!
Censorship exists - so do software glitches. You probably ran into one.
"All three of Britain’s three main parties support a shift to gender self-identification, for example, and yet a recent survey by YouGov for Pink News, an online publication aimed at LGBT+ people, found that just 18% of voters did."
Is there any limitation to the number of times someone can change his mind? Could this be a daily thing, like deciding what to wear?
Separately, why use "they" for "he/she/it"? Surely singular to plural is still a valid distinction? Even the much-derided "ze" for those unwilling to identify as "he/she/it" would be preferable to this mathematical melee.
When did the Economist change from describing itself as a “centre right” to “liberal“? Liberal these days has a far more left-wing connotation and certainly an advocation of left-wing policies on identity politics that you wouldn’t find with centre-right. It’s not something the classical “Liberals” of the 19th century would have come up with!
So being honest when did the Economist move from centre-right to the left? We should all be told. Especially as it has also given up its long-standing belief in free trade, which it’s forefathers would never have done. The Economist is quite happy with the way the EU conducts its business as a closed cartel, with tariffs applied externally and free trade internally - only on the condition of free movement of people. The Economist accepts this quite happily without any question how can that be?
I don't know when the shift to extreme political correctness started, but I keep reading to see how far it will go. Civil rights for racial and religious minorities, homosexuals, transgenders, disease-carriers (even contagious, like HIV) are already part of US law. Next wave should bring us rights for pedophiles, zoophiles, maybe even cannibals - there have been such cases, apparently legal in case all parties were of age and the "food" consented while compos mentis. Parody is far outstripped by reality.
I guess there's nothing important to report on this week.
Oh, no - thanks to this series of essays I understood Obama's policy as implemented by Brennan at the CIA:
".....[Brennan] made a ...stepped up recruitment of and support for racial, sexual and gender minorities."
Never before knew the difference between "sexual and gender" minorities, but self-identification v. medical confirmation explains it.
And since we all know race is a social construct, the genius of the policy becomes evident: if your spy's cover is blown, you simply tell him/her/it/them to self-identify as something else, plus recalibrate their racial social constructs, and voila! Brand new identity ready for rollout.
Of course this flexible morphology leaves unanswered the question of how Brennan identified them to begin with in order to recruit and support them, but perhaps the next essay will address that.