My Religion Is a Country Club Theory: I was discussing gender pronouns and respecting a person's choice in alternative identities w/ my college student daughter this morning. (She has friends who're pursuing non-binary identities). I was making the point that when a person asks to be referred to by another identity, it asks nothing of us other than the inconvenience of having to remember. Unlike those things we're asked of from religionists all the time. Because religions are so culturally embedded, we tend to be blind to them.
I was making the argument, and she wasn't agreeing, that one of the problems I've w/ religion, and particularly Islam, is that it's like a country club: If you have a friend who's a member of a club with membership restrictions based on race, sex, or religion, you'd most likely have a problem with that friend. This is exactly what religion is: The Torah is full of severe punishments and restrictions. Besides tolerating slavery, rape, genocide, etc., G-d also hates non-virgin brides and disobedient children (stoning-worthy offenses), intermarriage, and keeping The Chosen "separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices." Xtians hate gays and seem to relish the idea of non-Xtians spending an eternity in torture. Islam says flat out that non-Muslims must convert or die. (Non-Muslims are considered kafir, the opposite of the believer, one who conceals the truth of Islam. Jihad anyone?) Apologists will argue that non-Muslims exaggerate the significance but the Qur'an is full of threating language on the subject.) All of these traditions believe that life is but a wretched way station slowing us on our journey to the paradise that is our ultimate purpose. Now, fortunately for us, most adherents aren't nearly committed enough to do the dirty work their faiths demand. Still, they're the rules of membership for their "country clubs" of choice (as much as it is a choice).
To restate: Religious traditions demand action. Gender pronouns do not.
To wit: A biological female with (more than likely) two X chromosomes, who also eschews traditional gender pronouns, doesn't hurt you or affect your life in any way. Why not respect their wishes and stop wondering what their story or genitalia is? (And increasingly, science does tell us that there's more to the story.) Ultimately, it's none of our @#$%ing business. Consider it a no-cost social grace.
See the difference? Discuss.
The problem is that you are arguing for a stereotype of religious in your condemnation of them while not arguing for a stereotype of gender-fluidity in your acceptance of them. Hence, it is easy to "humanize" the gender-fluid while "de-humanizing" the religious.
If you were fair to the religious, you'd not that the majority of religious do not tolerate slavery, rape, or genocide nor do the majority of muslims promote "convert or die" nor do the majority of christians hate gays.
You also state that if a person is a member of a certain country club, you'd likely have problems with them. The problem is that You state that those are the rules for membership but they are not. If being a christian meant you HAD to promote rape or hate gays, you might have a point but they do not.
To wit: a person that believes in their god doesn't affect your life in any way. And thus, if you see fit to show respect to one segment of the population by not viewing them as a stereotype (gender fluid), then you should also show respect to another segment of the population by also not viewing them as a stereotype (religious)
I agree. Religions are meant to keep people apart, to divide and conquer. I have no issues with gender fluid persons, all I ask is that they forgive me when I mess up pronouns because I'm old with ingrained habits. For example when a Rebecca becomes a he my brain doesn't make that switch easily or quickly, but I try. If the bible is taken literally I would have been stoned ages ago. And I give the bible no place in my life today.