On a couple of supposed Vinaya rules regarding monks and women and trans people

[SeriousFun136]

@Invo

And I just got fearful impression that perhaps sometimes in trying to defend someone, we could go too far and in trying to protect minority we can give them special treatment instead of equal treatment, and it is something that from my actual perspective I see as not a good solution: firstly because it can make them feel superior than majority and create unhealthy psychological mechanisms, and secondly, when we give someone special treatment instead of equal treatment, the opposision starts to be really aggressive and it can backfire and create unnecessary conflicts and tensions.

To be honest, I agree that that can be a very real problem.

According to the Dhamma-Vinaya, beings are subject to the laws of the universe regardless of whether they are born into majority and minority social groups.

I bring up the topic in this thread: "Left-Wing, Western Liberalism" and "Early Buddhism" - #76 by SeriousFun136

Even though I do think there are parts of left-wing/liberal philosophies that are biased towards minorities on the basis of their minority social status as opposed to promoting fairness on the basis of the development of their views and actions, I think the right-wing/conservative philosophies also make the same mistake of being biased towards majorities on the basis of their majority social status as opposed to promoting fairness on the basis of the development of their views and actions.

There is evidence that many liberal philosophies provide band-aid solutions to such problems, such as say affirmative action, but conservative philosophies often just lazily sit there and watch injustices go on without making any attempts to address them, say by wanting to scrap affirmative action but not actually replace it with any actually better measures.

It seems worth remembering that Siddhartha was born into the highest social group during his time, but he went on to form a religion that did not bend and defer to the traditionally established religious institution at that time (brahmanas), nor the perhaps more “liberal” group (sramanas) of ascetics as he was often perceived to be, but instead provided an actually effective, valid solution to a real problem that was a true middle way, which is what I think you were trying to get at too.