From ford_prefect42's comment above: LDR, there are exceptions to every rule, doesn't mean the rule is necessarily wrong
Except that describing every exception as "an exception", and insisting on the rule, is not a neutral act. It's actively making it harder for exceptions to exist, and creating an imperative for people who might well be exceptions in a neutral environment to go along with the flow. If you've got people who are determined to reproduce at six, and people who are absolutely definitely hostile to the idea of reproducing at 0, and equal numbers at every point in between, you're lumping 6-1 together, isolating the 0s, and making it harder for anyone in the low numbers to say, "Actually, I don't think I..." Confirmation bias like woah.
Go back a hundred years, and it's easy to argue that lesbians, or women who simply don't want to be dependent on men, exist but are "an exception to the rule". Being an exception to that rule is an exceptionally hard and difficult path of constant uphill struggle. It most likely means poverty and risk of violence. You have to really, really want to be independent from men to adopt a single life, or to really, really desire women, to make it worth the risk and sacrifice.
Fast forward a hundred years, and it turns out that once it's a fairly common pathway and reasonably well-protected, and women can be educated and compete in the workplace on equal-ish terms to men and own property in their own right, actually a pretty substantial minority think that sounds pretty good. Change the dates and you can make exactly the same argument about people who are happy to fit into a cis male/female gender binary and people who aren't being minor "exceptions" and effectively ignorable.
In a context where you are insisting that "most people want X", and the minority who don't are swimming upstream, you're defining other people's experience. It's not very cool.
(I have a baby. I would say I'm at 5 or 6 on the wanting-a-child scale: I am in a gay relationship, and I wanted a child enough to jump through MANY hoops to get one, and if I lived in a society where that wasn't possible I'd almost certainly have made sure I ended up in a relationship with a man because I'd prioritise having a child. I can't imagine what it's like to not want to have a child. But I believe people who tell me they don't because Jesus they know the insides of their heads better than I do and I really do hate the idea of "biological imperatives".)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-06-18 10:05 am (UTC)Except that describing every exception as "an exception", and insisting on the rule, is not a neutral act. It's actively making it harder for exceptions to exist, and creating an imperative for people who might well be exceptions in a neutral environment to go along with the flow. If you've got people who are determined to reproduce at six, and people who are absolutely definitely hostile to the idea of reproducing at 0, and equal numbers at every point in between, you're lumping 6-1 together, isolating the 0s, and making it harder for anyone in the low numbers to say, "Actually, I don't think I..." Confirmation bias like woah.
Go back a hundred years, and it's easy to argue that lesbians, or women who simply don't want to be dependent on men, exist but are "an exception to the rule". Being an exception to that rule is an exceptionally hard and difficult path of constant uphill struggle. It most likely means poverty and risk of violence. You have to really, really want to be independent from men to adopt a single life, or to really, really desire women, to make it worth the risk and sacrifice.
Fast forward a hundred years, and it turns out that once it's a fairly common pathway and reasonably well-protected, and women can be educated and compete in the workplace on equal-ish terms to men and own property in their own right, actually a pretty substantial minority think that sounds pretty good. Change the dates and you can make exactly the same argument about people who are happy to fit into a cis male/female gender binary and people who aren't being minor "exceptions" and effectively ignorable.
In a context where you are insisting that "most people want X", and the minority who don't are swimming upstream, you're defining other people's experience. It's not very cool.
(I have a baby. I would say I'm at 5 or 6 on the wanting-a-child scale: I am in a gay relationship, and I wanted a child enough to jump through MANY hoops to get one, and if I lived in a society where that wasn't possible I'd almost certainly have made sure I ended up in a relationship with a man because I'd prioritise having a child. I can't imagine what it's like to not want to have a child. But I believe people who tell me they don't because Jesus they know the insides of their heads better than I do and I really do hate the idea of "biological imperatives".)