Recently I read an article about one of the most interesting feminist philosophers, Shulamith Firestone. I won't link to the article because I'd rather not draw a smidgeon of attention to it, but it was basically anti-progressive and written by someone who did not actually read Firestone's work. To sum it up, the author acknowledged her mission, but proceeded to criticize her xenofeminist ideas and even jest about how she "ironically" died alone.

At first, I didn't realize this article was part of a Christian website (thanks, ADHD), but it finally clicked when I read the last paragraphs. The author portrayed Firestone's work as that which would, if taken more seriously by the public, render people (especially women) purposeless and inhuman, disconnected from their "inherent" nature. To this author, we would no longer be capable of kindness or altruism, for a woman being a woman in the traditional sense and embracing motherhood is what makes her human.

Aside from the true irony of preaching kindness and then laughing about a mentally ill woman dying alone, the author believes that Firestone wanted to totally abolish motherhood and pregnancy, but this isn't true and is evidence of the author having never delved into her work. As an article on the Conversation mentioned:

While it's the call for artificial wombs that Firestone has been remembered for, her vision of a progressive society was always much richer than a desire to abolish pregnancy entirely, and included recognition that some people might wish to continue reproducing in the "old-fashioned," biological way. What was most important to her was that "the decision not to have children or to have them by artificial means" become "as legitimate as traditional child-bearing."

Firestone suffered from schizophrenia. She didn't die alone due to a lack of a man or children in her life, she died because of her illness and how it affected her relationships. Had she not been afflicted, she probably would've continued her life as a visual artist, if not an activist.

But I'm not only writing this post to defend Firestone. I'm writing it because I had an epiphany after noticing a concerning pattern between religious extremists and anti-AI.

How often do you catch these two groups using "human" to describe traits that are supposedly inherent to us?

Religious extremists, like the author above, consider "human" to be someone who is entirely male or female, complete with values that are not believed to be socially or culturally influenced, but naturally occurring. To them, these values keep society functioning as they were intended by God.

Anti-AI consider "human" to be someone, often an artist (of the drawing sort), who seeks to connect with other humans and express themselves with traditional art tools. Art made by humans with a significant degree of creative control is believed to hold the essence of the creator, a soulfulness, which is supposed to separate it from the nonhuman chaos and "soullessness" of AI-generated media. Artists are human. "Techbros" are not.

Both religious extremists and anti-AI deem people who don't fit their view of "human" as misguided or corrupt.

That's when I realized.

"Humanity" is no longer simply a defining quality of human kindness or compassion or the desire to express oneself.

"Humanity" has become a weapon.

A weapon that is used to dehumanize others who don't share the same views or values as the wielder.

This isn't surprising, as humans in general are given to shunning the "other" and following the leader(s), but it's still disappointing, especially as it exposes reactionary, borderline fascist thinking in otherwise progressive people.

When adopting a belief system or political ideology, there are a handful of questions you should ask yourself about it:

• Does this expand my sense of compassion rather than make me more selectively compassionate?

• Does this contribute to an us vs. them mentality?

• Does this support infringing on any basic human rights?

• Does this allow people more personal autonomy?

• Does this make me view those who don't share my thoughts or feelings as subhuman?

• Is this above criticism? (No.)

I admit that I sometimes fail to remember these. I'm far from perfect and can anger easily. I'm not an antitheist and I don't wish death on others, but I can understand antitheists and wanting the world to be rid of people who want to hurt you.

I don't have a solution. I'm just here trying to learn to enjoy myself while defending my rights without dehumanizing the opposition. It's hard. Getting through to people who refuse to listen—people who ignore the facts, people who put their beliefs above your bodily autonomy or way of expressing yourself—is hard. Most minds are made up before you have a chance to change them.

I hope that one day we can all coexist. I hope that one day humanity will cease to be a weapon, where humanity will be about embracing personal differences instead of demonizing the "other." The future needs it, I think.