In contemporary discourse, especially among conservatives, it has become commonplace to challenge progressive ideologies with the assertion: “Liberals claim to embrace open-mindedness, yet their reactions to opposing opinions tell a different story.” I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. As a progressive, I do not consider myself open-minded, and I would clarify this characterization if it were used to describe me. Here’s my rationale.
We exist in a time where educators and students must live in fear of violence within their schools. Each incident prompts Congress to extend their “thoughts and prayers,” yet they consistently fail to enact meaningful change, despite evidence that gun control laws can effectively lower gun-related fatalities. Our society seems fixated on the tools of murder, and I confess, I am not open to discussions that prioritize firearms over the safety of children. No argument could ever persuade me that your right to bear arms supersedes my children’s right to live.
When two individuals of the same sex or gender express their love and seek the same rights as heterosexual couples, they should be allowed that freedom. This is a fundamental human right, and it impacts your life only in that it enriches your community with another loving partnership. My stance on this matter is firm and non-negotiable.
Similarly, when a transgender individual wishes to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity or seeks workplace protections, they deserve those rights without question. If you believe I am close-minded for supporting this, you’re absolutely correct. I have yet to encounter a persuasive argument against such basic human dignity.
The tragic reality of unarmed Black individuals being killed by law enforcement, while some hide behind a “blue line” rather than addressing the systemic racism entrenched in our justice system, leads me to lose respect for those who refuse to empathize with the suffering of innocent lives. My discussion on this matter is closed; your viewpoints are irrelevant when they stem from racist ideologies. There aren’t two sides to this issue; that was settled long ago. It is 2023, and if you haven’t recognized that yet, it’s time to catch up.
I do not identify as a “tolerant progressive.” I refuse to accept your false equivalencies. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, false equivalency refers to an argument that unfairly compares two sides, claiming they are equally culpable in a dispute. Such reasoning often serves to condemn an opponent while excusing one’s own viewpoint. I will not entertain arguments that ignore centuries of suffering, that dismiss the lives of murdered children and violated women. So label me as you wish, but if your critique is that I am not an open-minded progressive, then I concede that point.
For further insights into related topics, visit our other blog posts at Intracervical Insemination. You can also explore Make a Mom for expert guidance on fertility journeys. Additionally, UCSF’s fertility resources offer valuable information regarding pregnancy and home insemination.
In summary, I am a progressive who stands firm in my beliefs and is not swayed by arguments that undermine the rights and safety of marginalized individuals. My openness does not extend to harmful ideologies that conflict with basic human rights.