https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256963/pope-francis-today-the-ugliest-danger-is-gender-ideology
“It is very important that there is this meeting, this meeting between men and women,” the pope told an assembly at the Vatican.
I truly am confused about what point you’re trying to make. That we should live by the social structures from a thousand years ago? Or is it that you believe we’ve perfected the social structure and it needs no further change as of today? Or something else?
Oh, I absolutely believe that we need to make changes. Society is a living thing which MUST move in order to sustain itself. What I can't agree with, however, is people looking at it as though it were an inanimate object like a computer, and picking it apart as though they're writing a computer program, often without any attempts made at all to learn about the history which has led it to existing in the form which it does. I would be a lot more open to arguments from the LGBTQ movement, if the average influencer had actually studied some of the publicly available references explaining how and why we have built our societies this way. Yet instead, the movement is dominated by those who are proud to have never engaged with historical philosophical works, religious or otherwise, and that is what is truly offensive about it all.
Edit: This very same issue is actually one place in which I can't see eye to eye with a large number of religious people either today, because many don't even appear to possess the recognition of the importance of educating oneself upon the foundations of the way of life which they engage in, instead using it as a rubber stamp of approval, with as few actual qualifications as they can get away with pursuing.
WTF are you even talking about? You keep using super vague phrases to try and argue that (and I'm just guessing here since I legitimately can't tell what you are trying to say) LGBTQ advocates are ignoring history?
What history are you pointing to? Why would that history matter in fields like medical science? Would the history of gender help us understand that some people identify as trans? Would it help us understand the best practices in helping them?
Was this all just a way to complain about "men" going into women's spaces?
is that not exactly what scientists, philosophers, artists, politicians, lawyers, psychologists, doctors and similar have been doing for thousands of years though?
Sure, but to paraphrase Copernicus, too many want to engage in such pursuits not because they have anything to contribute, but rather because it benefits them either financially or socially, and so they only end up playing the part of drones among bees.
I don't know if you're aware of this but this is like the epitome of "iamverysmart" style speech. You might think that your way of speaking is so advanced that everyone else not understanding it is just dumber than you, but the reality is proper communication is about making communication as clear and concise as possible to as wide an audience as possible.
That's really neat, but just because someone's use of language doesn't match your own doesn't always mean there's something wrong with them that they need to change. An important part of communication is an earnest attempt to understand the speaker, instead of just dismissing what they've expressed outright because you don't like their word choice.
Frankly I already "dumbed it down" quite considerably from the original quote, in which Copernicus expressed the reasons he was reluctant to share his research proving the Earth orbits the Sun:
Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees.
But he insists that he's very smart. The sad thing is, someone in his life believes him.
This is ironically the exact attitude that passage speaks of. You are presented with an excerpt from one of the most important works of science ever produced, and can do nothing but mock it.
Inability to make yourself understood to those you're speaking with is a sign of low intelligence.
You should take an entry level sociology course before you go off about history and functionalism being the root of how culture works. It's been voluminously debated and largely rejected.