Maybe I could have left out the final remark. But I was quite astonished by the large amount of identity-focused language. The English Heritage Stonehenge job description (and the website) should use more neutral language.
This is what neutral language sounds like. It sounds to me like you'd prefer to pretend these people don't exist. I'd like to remind you that male homosexuality was illegal in UK as recently as 1967. Section 28 was in force up until 2003. Same sex marriage was illegal until 2014. The ideology you are seeing in this job ad is liberal democracy. The ideology you are defending is something else entirely, and very much not a form of neutrality.
I disagree with the neutral language, this is what some people (including me) would call "woke agenda".
Not all LGB people support the expansion to include TQ+ issues. Nor some of the side-effects e.g. women athletes forced to compete against men. Or a women-owned gym in Germany that was fined because the owner didn't want to allow males in the women-only space.
There is no disdain for "these people" (or groups, as a poster above suggested) and some of this people exist in my own live too, but disagreement about what is appropriate and neutral in a job ad, particularly of a charity which receives?/received public funding.
Genuinely curious: what makes you think the moral panic around trans people is structurally different to the moral panic around gay people decades ago? All the arguments you've made here are more or less identical to arguments made to keep homosexuality illegal previously.
For me it's not about morality, anything goes afaic.
My arguments were that biological men can enter women spaces, even though some women are not ok with that. Or compete in women's sports, violating fairness as male/female bodies are different. Or cases like the female gym-owner who was fined.
I don't think such laws existed or were being pushed for with homosexuality previously? That debate was more about what adults do in their private live.
Drag queens, yes, but no legal system which allowed a man to almost instantly become a lawful women (Germany had a "famous" such case..). I like simple, friendly programming languages. The same goes for law and common sense (~trans violates this somewaht).
"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before age eighteen." Attributed to Einstein 1948.
I realise this is the Internet, and it's not for me to convince you of anything. But you've formed an opinion on what is normal and "neutral" strong enough to bring it to a thread about something else online. Is that opinion informed, or received?
For example, you say: trans women can compete in sport with cis women, and that is unfair. Is it? I don't see an a priori answer either way. I certainly don't think banning the "promotion" of trans people in public is a viable solution.
While my common sense may be a collection of old prejudices, some have surely changed over time. I suspect that my opinions are informed and received. Reading newspapers, discussing things with friends, HN, books. A lot of influences. And then I muse on what makes sense, who is compassionate and what is important atm. Perhaps common sense a bit like Treebeard: deeply rooted but able to walk.
> I don't see an a priori answer either way
Fair enough. But my common, naive sense would say, cis/trans bodies are objectively different (and this settles it in my favour ;-)). -- I'll stop here, public hn for this subjects is too demanding for me, I might fall over Queers for Palestine or Druids for Israel and become unwell...
