The target audience of the terminology changes is not necessarily the specific people whose gender or sexual orientation is being discussed, but also others in the family. A child may be filling out forms that previously referred to "mother" and "father" and they may not be comfortable with their situation: this could be that they have two moms/dads or a transgender parent. Besides the comfort issue, this also causes confusion: whose name goes into mother and whose goes into father?
I think you need to assess how much of a difference this really makes to you and decide if you're upset about it. For me, this is a total non-issue to make some basic accommodations for others. This seems like the people that get all upset and flustered that gay people exist because "IT AIN'T RIGHT!" even though it has 0 impact on their lives.
The whole "almost all of society does xyz" thing doesn't hold any weight. At one point incest was okay too, but society evolves. Maybe that's what the MAGA people want to go back to, now that I think about it.
I dont know how you compare incest with using terms like mother and father. Incest is scientifically proved to create substandard offsprings with many health/mental problems. How is calling a mother, mother damaging to anyone?
And i agree with you on making accommodations. I have never had a problem with making accommodations for the smaller parts of society to make their lives easier and equal. I've never had a problem with same sex marriage for example because it didn't take away from heterosexual marriage. Simply put, i respect your rights as long as it doesnt come at the cost of mine and vice versa.
You have a valid point about two mothers or two fathers in one house. But why are we removnig the terms? Rather than creating an extra box for these cases on forms. Instead we are removing the term mother and father which majority of society identifies as (and no thats not the same as incest lol), we can add a box for two mothers or two fathers. This way everyone is included without one group being undermined to protect another group.
What about an elderly woman or man who prefer to be called Sir, Ma`am, Mr. Mrs ... What about their rights? Do they not have any rights? See my point here? Making accommodations for any group os fine but not when it comes at the cost of taking away from another. And in this case, it didnt have to be the binary choice that liberals made.
Good example was the passports. You have gender make, female and now X. They didnt take away the male and female from passports. They added one more for those who identify differently and i personally dont care one bit.
Bottom line for me is this. I respect others rights choices, likes and dislikes and i would accommodate to make them happy. But not when it comes at the cost of my right. That's not progress, that's just reverse discrimination (traditionally speaking).
To address your majority doesnt mean right comment again...Most people walk, a small population cant. You dont get rid of all stairs in the country and replace them with ramps because a small portion of society is on wheelchairs. You design a society with majority in mind (hence stairs) and add ramps to accommodate for thos who cant use them. I think this should make my point clear
