Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brian Villanueva's avatar

What I love about this piece is the larger connection between the trans and the surrounding DEI / social justice / oppression matrix ideology. This us why many conservatives equate progressive social-justice with a religion. The debate on this issue really is metaphysical and theological.

Most people think this issue is about how to treat vulnerable and confused children. One side says "affirm them so they can become their true selves"; the other says "work to help them accept their biological reality". These positions cloak deeply incompatible views of the world though.

The "affirmer" is saying, "There is no 'objective reality'. Reality IS what the oppressed person says it is." -- this is why "believe their lived experience" is a clarion call for this group. The affirmer is also saying, "Because reality is shaped / created by our description of it, there are no natural limitations on what humans can do." Natural limits imply the existence of something real: a limit. This sounds weird, but it is basic postmodernism.

Meanwhile, the opposition position is entirely rooted in an acceptance of objective reality. The "accepter" says, "Reality obviously exists, so we must learn to live within it. We may be able to improve it somewhat, but we're stuck with some limits." To the affirmer though, this comes across as not only harmful for oppressed, "transgender" children, but an assault on their entire philosophy -- and it is! The "accepter" is trying to destroy the "affirmer's" world! That's why affirmers will defend slicing the private parts off children despite the obvious risks and absurdities. It's only tangentially about the kids; it's really about whether reality can be allowed to exist.

The debate over transgenderism is really a debate over the nature and existence of reality, and most importantly whether there are any natural limits on human action. It is a theological debate; waged in the realm of language about metaphysical things. The debate happens to have come to a head with "what is a woman?" and "can Johnny actually become a girl?", but the underlying theological / philosophical argument is much deeper. And the postmodernists have won essentially every battle in the last 70 years.

If you want a glimpse of the destination they want to take us to, think for a moment where "there are no natural limits on man's actions" leads to.

Expand full comment
Anonymous Coward's avatar

I have a 17 year old and also younger children. I feel I have seen a very disturbing trend continue to take deeper hold in our culture since my oldest was a baby- this idea, which you correctly situate within a larger ideology, that children should be leaders and that they are wiser than parents, whose job is to facilitate their self-expression rather than to teach and lead and require. This is contrary to the way any other mammal (or any other human culture throughout history!) has treated their young. It is exceptionally dangerous and damaging in many areas, not just gender. So many kids are growing up insecure and unmoored because their parents and teachers treated them like the experts on what they needed. Kids need adults to lead them. We must realize this basic truth if our culture is to avoid self-destruction.

Expand full comment
201 more comments...

No posts