Ah yes, it's authoritarian to be anti racist, homophobic or transphobic.... the enlightened centreism strikes again!
It's authoritarian to be authoritarian and a devout supporter of every fashionable form of irrational prejudice and discrimination. Which you are.
It's not surprising you're so hostile to "enlightened centrists". They're the people who actually support the concepts that "progressives" hate so much they've corrupted them. Concepts such as equality, tolerance, diversity and liberalism. They're also moderate, which gives extremists like yourself another reason to be hostile to them. They're also the only people who have any chance, even the slightest chance, of stopping the "progress" towards ever more authoritarianism and irrational prejudice, so they're the only threat to the "progress" you favour.
And no, "anti-racist" does not mean "defining people by their "race", judging people by racist stereotypes and discriminating against people because of their "race" and using threats and force and violence against anyone who objects to that". No matter how often "progressives" say it is, it is not. You are winning. You might win completely. But you'll still be liars, even if you brainwash people into believing the lie and force anyone who sees through it to be silent.
Here are my positions on those subjects, which used to be called liberal before...people...like you destroyed liberalism and is probably what you call "enlightened centreism".
Race: It's not real. Defining people by how much suntan they have is wrong and silly. Defining people by obviously inaccurate descriptions of how much suntan they have (which is what belief in race is) is even more wrong and even sillier. I think my position on racism was most eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King when he talked about his dream of a society in which people were "judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character".
Homosexuality: Not significantly different to heterosexuality and the distinction between the two is relevant only on an individual basis for sex and sexual relationships and only in that they require compatible orientations. For example, I think that Stjepan Hauser is sexy. In the highly unlikely circumstances of me making a pass at him, whether or not he's homosexual would be relevant. No distinction should be made in law, at all in any way, at any point in the
spectrum of homo-/heterosexuality. I'd tolerate a distinction made on an individual basis and not politicised, as long as that distinction included tolerance. I wouldn't require approval, but I would require tolerance. So, for example, I would allow a person to disapprove of some part of that spectrum and to express their disapproval and to withold their personal approval of it, but I wouldn't allow them to politicise it.
Trans: Too broad a term and it's being deliberately used to promote sexism as a result. Which I'm sure you approve of. I make a distinction between sex and gender precisely because I'm not sexist, so of course I make a distinction between transgender and transsexual. They're completely different things. Since I'd prefer gender to be restricted to what it really is (
trends that should never be applied to any individual) and for artifical gender to be done away with entirely (leaving only trends that are biological, e.g. height), I think the entire idea of transgender shouldn't be relevant. It's only of any relevance because of enforced gender, which I would prefer to not exist. If everyone has gender freedom, changing gender is an irrelevant idea. Sex is completely different, as it's physiological. My position on that is "close enough". It's impossible to nail down a hard and fast definition of sex that applies in all cases, so I go on "close enough" as a principle. If someone has a physiology that fits a "close enough" definition of one sex, that's the sex they are. If they have their physiology changed to be close enough to the other sex, they've changed sex.
Phobia. I'm sick of you people lying about what a phobia is. Do you ever tell the truth? Is it a point of honour with you to lie about everything, or is it just that lying is a useful political tool in some ways?
