If I say that the HIV virus (which causes AIDS) can be transmitted through transfusion or sexual intercourse, especially anal, it is now known. Therefore, I can add that the transmission is more commonly irresponsible to humans and hemophiliacs who need continuous blood transfusion: this is also knowledge.
But if I say that HIV is a divine misfortune to punish innumerable, and especially homosexuals who themselves (and do not create) themselves themselves, this is not knowledge, that is ideology. That's just to make sure we speak the same language.
Consequently, "gender ideology" would be a gender perspective or belief that differs from the knowledge that is gradually accumulating on this topic. Examples.
From the 1970s, some fighters who wanted to protect the lives and rights of people who tried to change their gender, confirmed that the gender would be only socially constructive: there would be only men and women, but a series of gender nuances where each person would be free to find his place.
This statement is partly ideological, because it is not correct to say that each of them chooses their gender "free" because they choose day clothes. And this is partly correct (not ideological), because in fact, as I will show later, there are not only two genres.
Now the idea that a genre can be "freely" chosen seems very dangerous (I do not know why) for the advocates of traditional family and order. And they accused the aforementioned "gender ideology" practitioners. Indeed, the perception that there are only two genders in support of such traditions is also an ideology. In fact, there is indeed a modern-day ideology dominated by botanical gardens and churches.
Historical morality: in terms of gender, we have two contradictory ideologies. One says that the genres are the cultural structure that we are imposing on and we should be free to choose. And the other says there are only two genres, and the rest will be angry and messy.
What do we really know about genres, ideologies, except for that? We know that the apparent sex of an individual may not correspond to the gender to which the individual feels attached – in such cases, the individual may become transsexual, that is, change his appearance and gender in order to fit the gender that he or she feels to belong to. When this happens, there is a complex (and still rather vague) set of factors: genetic, hormonal and psychic.
But today, it is important to me that we also know that the apparent sex of an individual may not be in line with their internal genitals or gender, as indicated by their chromosomes.
For example, someone may have XY (male) chromosomes, born with vulva and vagina, and if you could expect your ovaries to be, in the testicles. The fetus of this person only responded atypically to masculine androgens (possibly a 5-alfarreducease deficiency).
A list of genetic and hormonal states that produce individuals intersex (not men, women) is long. The correct estimate is that 1.7 percent of the birth is from more or less intersex persons.
These drugs have been truculent and abusive with these people. Classically, ten years ago, in a case like the one I mentioned earlier, doctors decided to remove the testicles and "make" the girl.
Today, we want to let everyone grow up and live as he or she decides. In recent years, intercourse and distortion of children are less common, as in some countries an individual who is disturbed by childhood can turn to an adult after an adult and claim compensation from doctors and parents. One also starts to think about the possibility of officially declaring gender-neutral for interleaving.
At the same time, gender ideology insists on declaring that God only men and women. Barons and shepherds who claim to endanger God's reputation because obviously their factory would be a very serious quality control problem if only producing men and women.
One question that remains at another time: why the ideology of bacterial and pastoral gender denies the existence of intercategories and transducers?