I agree with you, partially, especially around the veil of ignorance. I’d also want to add on a very very deep false consciousness. In either Part 1 or Part 2, an audience member hinted on the prioritization of palatability / peace over honest conversation. Rev. Gideon, when given the chance, stood firm in the comfort/discomfort of his stance and I think a conversation/debate could have been pulled out of that lens. I think calling the conversation “foolishness” could be a bit too harsh. I see it as setting the ball rolling. And along the way, as the ball gathers more snow it’ll be steered to a more honest and accurate discourse. But yeah… a number of terminologies and concepts were thrown around without very little address and digging. I get it’s the unpopular “OPINION” I think a lot more research was needed. It is great to speak off of personal experiences but the topic is not personal. (I don’t know if that makes sense) I think defining things like gender, patriarchy, roles, marriage, sex would have been great. There’s so many nuances and semantics to terms and statements like “empowerment”, “boy child too”, “I’m me and not them”, “raise children as humans and not as boys and girls” . I believe the audience tried to steer the conversation in a more head-on way. I think the panel could have had it in them to be more honest/fearless but again, conversations centered on the politics of sex and gender have a knack for getting heated and I think this particular space wanted a more palatable/calm/- dare I say - peaceful atmosphere around the conversation. As much as a lot of emphasis was put on “nomenclature”, a lot of the wording and terminology was hardly given context and often times misused. It’s a sticky conversation- this one. I applaud the hosts and the guests for sharing and I definitely believe it does add up to something of great significance.

Proverbs 31

Happy new year to you too 🎉

❤Thank you for watching

Happy new year!! 🎉