Very insightful! Another, related, frame of reference is religion. This particular delusion is part of a larger modern religious revival, in which personal identity has been deified, in the guise of the "true self." As is always the case with religious doctrines, truth and falsity are not ascribed on the basis of evidence and reason, but as a matter of faith. It matters little what source may be postulated for that faith. What does matter is conforming to the liturgical prescriptions, dogma, and the sanctioned, orthodox creeds.
I love how Eliza lists the many paths that may lead a person to the recitation of nonsense. “Faith” can refer to the earnest, cowardly, lazy, insecure, or cravenly-pretended belief in an obviously absurd idea such as “trans women are women” or “I am drinking the blood of Christ.” “Loyalty” is the real-world test: the creed spoken out loud, the action at a protest, the attack of a colleague who refuses to incant dangerous untruths.
On Twitter I witnessed a gay man called Lee (@williams_designs) get challenged. He obediently and slavishly recited TWAW & TMAM, and followed the steps in the logical process as an attempt was made to show him what a silly assertion this was. Yes he was gay, yes he was attracted to men, and yes he would theoretically sleep with a trans man because they were men and he is attracted to them. He was challenged, as he bullies Caroline Farrow , about his sexuality. Trans Males are females, and mostly anatomically correct or disfigured and as a gay man he was saying he would sleep in theory with a female because they are men? He was called out for selling his community down the river, and for being in reality a bisexual, which is what hetero people are if a woman can sleep with a female deluding herself to be a man. If the One Sex agenda makes ingress into social life, the true losers will be women. Vulnerable children are protected by Law from paedophiles and so should women be protected from men in their spaces.
I also see it as some sort of religious movement. I'd be interested to hear your view on where this stems from. Is there an innate need that people have that's being satisfied by this?
Wow, big question. Entire books have tried to answer it (and more or less failed, IMHO). I think there are multiple innate human needs that are met by the social phenomena of religious beliefs and practices. It would be a mistake to assign a causal role to any one of these needs. One factor that stands out to me is a sociocultural process by which norms and moral standards are defined and disseminated. Humans are inherently social and need systems of thought to provide scaffolding for choices. Morals do that (among other functions). This need, when coupled with broad cultural narratives (e.g. social justice), can produce social movements with the character of religious revivals. History is full of examples of such movements. Any challenges to the orthodoxy are persecuted viciously, as evidenced by witch burnings. The ensuing fear and social hysteria serves to further solidify and strengthen the general adoption of the moral arthodoxy at the focus of the revival. This dynamic has often been exploited for political advantage by forces such as churches states, or political movements. That's what we see today with gender ideology.
Interesting. Thank you. I agree history is full of these types of movements for sure and I think history is a useful reference point.
Do you think gender ideology is filling some sort of gap left by older religions? Like is it that Christianity is losing popularity? It would seem science is losing popularity too though we have some doctors who have become mouthpieces for gender ideology. I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around "why gender ideology?" And "why now?"
You don't have to answer all that. Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
Yes to the gap question. Sounds like you might think so too. But I don't see that gap as a problem. My view is that religion is at best a pseudo-solution.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I value many Buddhist tenets. Specifically, your questions bring to mind the "first noble truth," the idea of dhukha, often translated as suffering. This says that part of the human experience is that we must live with this essential dissatisfaction, or dysphoria, and most of us are constantly trying to fight that reality.
That's part of the drive towards religion in any time and culture. In ours, this state is exacerbated by a societal obsession with eliminating any and all discomfort. (Ironically, much contemporary therapy feeds into that delusion.) Deep, inexplicable, and unavoidable pain is a part of life. Rather than just doing our best to be good people despite adversities, the modern ethos pushes us to some continually receding ideal of self-realization, fulfillment, and comfort.
Everyone in the modern world is caught up in a vicious whirlpool of "craving and aversion," the twin tyrants of dhukha. Media in general, and social media in particular, contribute to the extreme intensity of our contemporary enslavement to these dynamics of dissatisfaction.
Religion is, at best, a palliative, anaesthetic, or soporific effort to alleviate the symptoms of dissatisfaction, never a cure. So, the gap that the historical doctrines are leaving in the wake of their slow and painful demise is being filled by other, more modern (and postmodern) delusions.
But, at root, it's nothing new. Just the refusal of mortal human animals to face the facts. We always want to embrace the seductive illusions of some ultimate answer, promising us salvation from our selves, rather than the mundane, painful reality of our day-to-day uncertainties and inadequacies.
And, even with all those words, I didn't answer your question! :) All that I said doesn't address "'why gender ideology?' And 'why now?'" In the context of the general background dissatisfaction, as I described above, there's a host of sociocultural and historical particulars that have driven the culture to the specific formulations of gender ideology.
Helen Joyce does a good job of tracing some of the history in her excellent book *Trans*; if you haven't read it, I recommend it as the single best summary of much of the relevant landscape. She mentions the role of philosophical dualism as a key element, and I think that's a deep insight. Another interesting analysis, more focused on theories in academia, is presented in the book *Cynical Theories*.
The widespread general assumption of some version of dualism (even without any formal religious, theological, or philosophical expressions of it) has, over the past few decades, merged with an increasing association of social justice with personal identity. The "lived experience" of marginalized or oppressed people has become a basic component of the narrative driving many modern trends in addressing social inequities.
Sex (as in M/F) is a very basic component of personal identity and, thanks in part to the important contributions of second-wave feminism, sex and gender became seen as separate and distinct aspects of one's identity. Consequently, "gender," almost by default, has come to occupy a role that was traditionally reserved for the soul, or spirit. In the modern dualistic economy of the person, body and gender have replaced what was once body and soul.
I don't think this is *explicit* in most formulations. Instead, gender has become associated with a stand-in for the soul: the "true (or authentic) self." The gender cult has found a ready-made sound bite for their PR campaign in the subterfuge "we must be *authentic*." Of course, this doesn't bear scrutiny. There's nothing authentic about pretending to be someone who one can never be, on account of basic biology.
But it appeals to the intuition that we are not "only" our bodies; the parts of us which are most important and least mundane, our "spirits" or "souls" are essentially *gendered*. And that fits neatly into the narrative of personal identity, which powers the basic moral justifications of contemporary social justice movements. Taken together, this combination of morality and spirituality provides most of the elements of any self-respecting religious ideology. It's relatively easy to add other popular constituents of religion: liturgy, community, symbolism, ritual, and, of course, heretics.
I agree that people are trying to escape discomfort. Our culture promotes this. Or maybe I should say that it's profitable to create demand for relief from discomfort.
I wonder if the spiritual component ties in--sow the seeds of dis-ease and reap a harvest of people who will do anything to avoid it. Isn't that what religion does? Create a problem (original sin, etc.) that is only solvable through dedicated worship, rituals, and various forms of payment in exchange for one's salvation.
(disclosure: I am a Christian, so you may seem me as biased or you may accept that I have been thinking about these issues more than others)
Theologians of all ages claim (Calvin was famous about it) that it is a human nature to believe in something. And it is interesting to observe how with the gradual secularization (since 19th century) there is rise of quasi-religious movements where exactly this kind of loyalty and (let me call a spade a spade) blind faith is required: socialism and fascism in their myriad of variants, various nationalist movements, sometimes quasi-religious environmental movement, many political movements, many variants of movements supporting various minorities, and many others. Yes, of course, most of them have some point (workers’ conditions were really poor, our environment is truly in peril, women, blacks, homosexuals and many others had really rough time), but many of them turned into this quasi-religious craziness. It is hard not to find a correlation between two social processes.
C. S. Lewis: “People are not free not to believe; either we believe in the true God or we believe in any idiocy which catches our fancy.”
I'm with you. I see more and more people describing this phenomenon this way--it's hard not to when it's chalk full of mantras, dogma, blasphemy (saying sex is a thing, women as a sex class matter) and ostracization of heretics (anyone who doesn't go along with the program).
For me it is about power and domination, reciting the absurd upon request. I made the analogy somewhere of bigger child at infant school sitting on top of a smaller peer and punching him repeatedly until he admits to something he didn't do, or say.
Earlier today I read about "biofouling" where invasive species potentially cling to the hulls of ships cruising the Antarctic and this will become my preferred term for trans women, as opposed to males who self-identify. Biofoulers.
Drugged up with oestrogen, sliced open, chopped and changed surgically, nursing open wounds, taking a copious amount of drugs.
The problem is that the term "trans women" is almost perfect to go into language war with because it befuddles and confuses people who are not invested in the issue to a great extent, its origins are in the 90's I understand. It is aspirational for any ideologue to be called any form to type of woman, and "trans woman" smack of entitlement and licence to invade women's spaces and privacy, I avoid at all costs.
"Biofoulers" properly conveys my contempt for those who go beyond GNC or Transvestitism and seek to convince everyone else what their deluded and drug-fuzzled minds tell them, fuelled by the grotesque ideology that is Gender Identity.
Wasn't there a scene in "Taming of the Shrew" wherein Petruchio forces Kate to say that the sun is the moon, or vice versa? And, her willingness to do so was a test of...something. Perhaps, not loyalty, but of...submission, willingness to submit to his authority and his authority alone?
Trans is a cult, as false as "trans-racial" like racist Rachel Dolezal claiming to be Black. And countless more girls and women are being assaulted, raped, murdered as a result. So those going along with the lie are accomplices, betraying all females.
Very insightful! Another, related, frame of reference is religion. This particular delusion is part of a larger modern religious revival, in which personal identity has been deified, in the guise of the "true self." As is always the case with religious doctrines, truth and falsity are not ascribed on the basis of evidence and reason, but as a matter of faith. It matters little what source may be postulated for that faith. What does matter is conforming to the liturgical prescriptions, dogma, and the sanctioned, orthodox creeds.
I love how Eliza lists the many paths that may lead a person to the recitation of nonsense. “Faith” can refer to the earnest, cowardly, lazy, insecure, or cravenly-pretended belief in an obviously absurd idea such as “trans women are women” or “I am drinking the blood of Christ.” “Loyalty” is the real-world test: the creed spoken out loud, the action at a protest, the attack of a colleague who refuses to incant dangerous untruths.
On Twitter I witnessed a gay man called Lee (@williams_designs) get challenged. He obediently and slavishly recited TWAW & TMAM, and followed the steps in the logical process as an attempt was made to show him what a silly assertion this was. Yes he was gay, yes he was attracted to men, and yes he would theoretically sleep with a trans man because they were men and he is attracted to them. He was challenged, as he bullies Caroline Farrow , about his sexuality. Trans Males are females, and mostly anatomically correct or disfigured and as a gay man he was saying he would sleep in theory with a female because they are men? He was called out for selling his community down the river, and for being in reality a bisexual, which is what hetero people are if a woman can sleep with a female deluding herself to be a man. If the One Sex agenda makes ingress into social life, the true losers will be women. Vulnerable children are protected by Law from paedophiles and so should women be protected from men in their spaces.
I also see it as some sort of religious movement. I'd be interested to hear your view on where this stems from. Is there an innate need that people have that's being satisfied by this?
Wow, big question. Entire books have tried to answer it (and more or less failed, IMHO). I think there are multiple innate human needs that are met by the social phenomena of religious beliefs and practices. It would be a mistake to assign a causal role to any one of these needs. One factor that stands out to me is a sociocultural process by which norms and moral standards are defined and disseminated. Humans are inherently social and need systems of thought to provide scaffolding for choices. Morals do that (among other functions). This need, when coupled with broad cultural narratives (e.g. social justice), can produce social movements with the character of religious revivals. History is full of examples of such movements. Any challenges to the orthodoxy are persecuted viciously, as evidenced by witch burnings. The ensuing fear and social hysteria serves to further solidify and strengthen the general adoption of the moral arthodoxy at the focus of the revival. This dynamic has often been exploited for political advantage by forces such as churches states, or political movements. That's what we see today with gender ideology.
Interesting. Thank you. I agree history is full of these types of movements for sure and I think history is a useful reference point.
Do you think gender ideology is filling some sort of gap left by older religions? Like is it that Christianity is losing popularity? It would seem science is losing popularity too though we have some doctors who have become mouthpieces for gender ideology. I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around "why gender ideology?" And "why now?"
You don't have to answer all that. Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
Yes to the gap question. Sounds like you might think so too. But I don't see that gap as a problem. My view is that religion is at best a pseudo-solution.
I'm not a Buddhist, but I value many Buddhist tenets. Specifically, your questions bring to mind the "first noble truth," the idea of dhukha, often translated as suffering. This says that part of the human experience is that we must live with this essential dissatisfaction, or dysphoria, and most of us are constantly trying to fight that reality.
That's part of the drive towards religion in any time and culture. In ours, this state is exacerbated by a societal obsession with eliminating any and all discomfort. (Ironically, much contemporary therapy feeds into that delusion.) Deep, inexplicable, and unavoidable pain is a part of life. Rather than just doing our best to be good people despite adversities, the modern ethos pushes us to some continually receding ideal of self-realization, fulfillment, and comfort.
Everyone in the modern world is caught up in a vicious whirlpool of "craving and aversion," the twin tyrants of dhukha. Media in general, and social media in particular, contribute to the extreme intensity of our contemporary enslavement to these dynamics of dissatisfaction.
Religion is, at best, a palliative, anaesthetic, or soporific effort to alleviate the symptoms of dissatisfaction, never a cure. So, the gap that the historical doctrines are leaving in the wake of their slow and painful demise is being filled by other, more modern (and postmodern) delusions.
But, at root, it's nothing new. Just the refusal of mortal human animals to face the facts. We always want to embrace the seductive illusions of some ultimate answer, promising us salvation from our selves, rather than the mundane, painful reality of our day-to-day uncertainties and inadequacies.
And, even with all those words, I didn't answer your question! :) All that I said doesn't address "'why gender ideology?' And 'why now?'" In the context of the general background dissatisfaction, as I described above, there's a host of sociocultural and historical particulars that have driven the culture to the specific formulations of gender ideology.
Helen Joyce does a good job of tracing some of the history in her excellent book *Trans*; if you haven't read it, I recommend it as the single best summary of much of the relevant landscape. She mentions the role of philosophical dualism as a key element, and I think that's a deep insight. Another interesting analysis, more focused on theories in academia, is presented in the book *Cynical Theories*.
The widespread general assumption of some version of dualism (even without any formal religious, theological, or philosophical expressions of it) has, over the past few decades, merged with an increasing association of social justice with personal identity. The "lived experience" of marginalized or oppressed people has become a basic component of the narrative driving many modern trends in addressing social inequities.
Sex (as in M/F) is a very basic component of personal identity and, thanks in part to the important contributions of second-wave feminism, sex and gender became seen as separate and distinct aspects of one's identity. Consequently, "gender," almost by default, has come to occupy a role that was traditionally reserved for the soul, or spirit. In the modern dualistic economy of the person, body and gender have replaced what was once body and soul.
I don't think this is *explicit* in most formulations. Instead, gender has become associated with a stand-in for the soul: the "true (or authentic) self." The gender cult has found a ready-made sound bite for their PR campaign in the subterfuge "we must be *authentic*." Of course, this doesn't bear scrutiny. There's nothing authentic about pretending to be someone who one can never be, on account of basic biology.
But it appeals to the intuition that we are not "only" our bodies; the parts of us which are most important and least mundane, our "spirits" or "souls" are essentially *gendered*. And that fits neatly into the narrative of personal identity, which powers the basic moral justifications of contemporary social justice movements. Taken together, this combination of morality and spirituality provides most of the elements of any self-respecting religious ideology. It's relatively easy to add other popular constituents of religion: liturgy, community, symbolism, ritual, and, of course, heretics.
I agree that people are trying to escape discomfort. Our culture promotes this. Or maybe I should say that it's profitable to create demand for relief from discomfort.
I wonder if the spiritual component ties in--sow the seeds of dis-ease and reap a harvest of people who will do anything to avoid it. Isn't that what religion does? Create a problem (original sin, etc.) that is only solvable through dedicated worship, rituals, and various forms of payment in exchange for one's salvation.
(disclosure: I am a Christian, so you may seem me as biased or you may accept that I have been thinking about these issues more than others)
Theologians of all ages claim (Calvin was famous about it) that it is a human nature to believe in something. And it is interesting to observe how with the gradual secularization (since 19th century) there is rise of quasi-religious movements where exactly this kind of loyalty and (let me call a spade a spade) blind faith is required: socialism and fascism in their myriad of variants, various nationalist movements, sometimes quasi-religious environmental movement, many political movements, many variants of movements supporting various minorities, and many others. Yes, of course, most of them have some point (workers’ conditions were really poor, our environment is truly in peril, women, blacks, homosexuals and many others had really rough time), but many of them turned into this quasi-religious craziness. It is hard not to find a correlation between two social processes.
C. S. Lewis: “People are not free not to believe; either we believe in the true God or we believe in any idiocy which catches our fancy.”
I'm with you. I see more and more people describing this phenomenon this way--it's hard not to when it's chalk full of mantras, dogma, blasphemy (saying sex is a thing, women as a sex class matter) and ostracization of heretics (anyone who doesn't go along with the program).
Reminds me reading one Ideologues post where he claimed to have trademarked ONE TRUE GENDER, like a religious f-ing calling. Lovely prose Lee.
For me it is about power and domination, reciting the absurd upon request. I made the analogy somewhere of bigger child at infant school sitting on top of a smaller peer and punching him repeatedly until he admits to something he didn't do, or say.
Earlier today I read about "biofouling" where invasive species potentially cling to the hulls of ships cruising the Antarctic and this will become my preferred term for trans women, as opposed to males who self-identify. Biofoulers.
Drugged up with oestrogen, sliced open, chopped and changed surgically, nursing open wounds, taking a copious amount of drugs.
The problem is that the term "trans women" is almost perfect to go into language war with because it befuddles and confuses people who are not invested in the issue to a great extent, its origins are in the 90's I understand. It is aspirational for any ideologue to be called any form to type of woman, and "trans woman" smack of entitlement and licence to invade women's spaces and privacy, I avoid at all costs.
"Biofoulers" properly conveys my contempt for those who go beyond GNC or Transvestitism and seek to convince everyone else what their deluded and drug-fuzzled minds tell them, fuelled by the grotesque ideology that is Gender Identity.
This is why I'm always suspicious of slogans and rallying cries. They are designed to circumvent rational thought.
Really good piece.
Wasn't there a scene in "Taming of the Shrew" wherein Petruchio forces Kate to say that the sun is the moon, or vice versa? And, her willingness to do so was a test of...something. Perhaps, not loyalty, but of...submission, willingness to submit to his authority and his authority alone?
Trans is a cult, as false as "trans-racial" like racist Rachel Dolezal claiming to be Black. And countless more girls and women are being assaulted, raped, murdered as a result. So those going along with the lie are accomplices, betraying all females.
"There are four lights."
BRILLIANT