I get what you mean, but I think you are confused. Norms cannot be rejected because they are factually wrong in this sense, because they are not attempts to describe the world, but rather regulate behavior. It is not about how the world is, but how it should be. So in order to reject a norm, you need a normative consideration against it …
I get what you mean, but I think you are confused. Norms cannot be rejected because they are factually wrong in this sense, because they are not attempts to describe the world, but rather regulate behavior. It is not about how the world is, but how it should be. So in order to reject a norm, you need a normative consideration against it — that it is morally wrong, or that it is instrumentally irrational, for instance. For example, in order to reject vegetarianism, you must think it is morally unnecessary, that is, nothing wrong with eating meat _because_ you think humans are naturally omnivores. You can reject a norm because you think it is based on shaky empirical grounds, but not simply because it describes the world inaccurately — it's not what norms do. The same for the pronouns thing. It could be that we have reasons to follow the new norm even though there are only two "biological genders" (to please people for negligible cost, for example). To successfully reject the norm, you'd to add to your remark that because there are only two genders, you think we _should_ not engage in pronoun talk since it is unnecessary and gender nonconforming people are just confused. This is all moral talk in the end
I agree, to a point. The people rejecting the norms are doing so for what they consider moral reasons. The reason their proposals carry any weight in society at all is the same reason they can't recognize that their beliefs are incompatible with reality: a rejection of objective truth aka cultural relativism. Gravity exists; unicorns aren't real.
I get what you mean, but I think you are confused. Norms cannot be rejected because they are factually wrong in this sense, because they are not attempts to describe the world, but rather regulate behavior. It is not about how the world is, but how it should be. So in order to reject a norm, you need a normative consideration against it — that it is morally wrong, or that it is instrumentally irrational, for instance. For example, in order to reject vegetarianism, you must think it is morally unnecessary, that is, nothing wrong with eating meat _because_ you think humans are naturally omnivores. You can reject a norm because you think it is based on shaky empirical grounds, but not simply because it describes the world inaccurately — it's not what norms do. The same for the pronouns thing. It could be that we have reasons to follow the new norm even though there are only two "biological genders" (to please people for negligible cost, for example). To successfully reject the norm, you'd to add to your remark that because there are only two genders, you think we _should_ not engage in pronoun talk since it is unnecessary and gender nonconforming people are just confused. This is all moral talk in the end
I agree, to a point. The people rejecting the norms are doing so for what they consider moral reasons. The reason their proposals carry any weight in society at all is the same reason they can't recognize that their beliefs are incompatible with reality: a rejection of objective truth aka cultural relativism. Gravity exists; unicorns aren't real.