Is gender a social construct?

[Phill4]

I think genders is a construct used to describe biological male and female.

there is also the gender in society, example "dressed like a woman"

so biological gender which is based on the specie polar type.
and social gender, which is more like the things that are based on social needs to fit the biological type. For example in certain cultures women have this garment that is specific to carry newborns, it fulfills a function, and it is the relation between the biological and social needs of a woman after giving birth.

so the definition is based on something.

our contemporary , sedentary life , strives to make life more and more comfortable, yet we carry these traditions from when it was necessary to wear and act in a certain way depending on the biological type (gender) and social needs.


Now today, we have people who adopt the social gender and confuse it the biological gender.

if transgenders want a gender that fits both biological and social needs of the current social requirements, that would have to be a social gender T for transgender. which is the accurate term.

If they were able to switch chromosome and genetic structure to the opposite sex and the body transformed following the parameters of a biological woman, THEN, the argument would have a strong base.

I keep thinking that because of the estrogen and steroid protocols they follow, which are unnatural and foreign , their chemistry will change and directly affect their psyche and their thinking, obviously they will feel more like a woman or a man, not to mention the mood swings, I have the idea, this whole argument is not only fuel by anger which at the core is a problem of self acceptance and acceptance of others, but that the altering of their body at the chemical level can easily cause any number of thought processes emerging from mood swings.


As I was discussing this yesterday with someone, to me it is not a problem against them as transgender, plastic surgeries can even sometimes improve a person's life such as the case of ear prosthetic, or hair removal for people who have excessive hair on their face, etc etc
A transgender altering their appearance can very well work for them, and some even lead happy lives as what they like to look and feel like, no issues there. Not necessarily my approach to life personally, but there is no judgement in that sense
The problem comes when these groups wish to force this onto other people, and demand acceptance from people when they haven't even accepted themselves.
In other words they can do what they want with their body, but they can't surgically force or change the world's perception or mother nature.

Factors of external consideration come into play when dealing with them in person individually, depending on the person, as I said many actually live their lives and that is that, but as the C's say, it is important not to lie to the self, to me they are what they are, and there is no one word definition , man who shaped his body surgically and to look like what he perceived as a woman, or woman who shaped his body surgically to look like what he perceived as a man.

So this is in a big part, a product of society, to those in that social movement, not that now we discovered the wheel and that "oh you can be a woman if you want" or "guess what? being a man is not limited to being born one" that is simply false, and believing it as reality is twist in perception and wishful thinking.

Some thoughts here

 

[obyvatel]

whitecoast, for me they are the one and same and in my language and country those words have same meaning, maybe because we re not so enlightened, and it would be ok to keep that all gender aka conchita idiocy confined in the far west as far and long as possible but we know that that pathological drive never stops if someone does not stomp on it.

I am in a similar boat as Corvinus as far as this discussion about gender identity and fluidity goes. Even after spending decades in western society, I do not understand to any depth as to what the real issue is given that it seems to have such a big emotional impact on people. But I am ok with it and would prefer to stay "unenlightened" in this matter.

[quote author=luc]
However, this has not always been the case. Part of the reason I think that the postmodernists were able to hijack society the way they did was because in the 50's, the imbalance was more towards conservatism, and many people didn't like it.
[/quote]

The seeds of this was perhaps sown much earlier, from the early German Romantic thinkers of the late 18th and early 19th century. Their views developed in the milieu of French revolution, as well as scientific advancements which challenged the traditional Christian doctrine. The Romantics were influenced by astronomical discoveries of William Herschel which showed that the universe was likely very very big, far bigger than what was generally understood at that time. There were contemporary discoveries in biology which brought out the organic (as opposed to rigid and mechanical) nature of life forms. Herschel himself furthered the view that the whole universe was a very vast organic entity of which humans were a very miniscule portion, in contradiction to the church's view of man as the crowning creation of God occupying a central position in the scheme of things. The Romantics took empirical observations and added their imagination to come to certain ideas. They concluded that the basic spiritual problem of humans was that they failed to recognize their identity as a part of the infinite organic wholeness of the universe. The cure was to rediscover the felt sense of unity within oneself and between oneself and the universe. The key term is "felt". They put stress on feeling authentic and acting out of this felt sense of authenticity. Life was meant to be lived as a novel (the word "roman" in some European languages is interpreted as "novel"), expressing oneself in whatever way that felt authentic in the moment. Cultivating a feeling of oneness with the infinite universe and expressing it in ever novel ways was the ideal life from this Romantic viewpoint. These Romantic views had their influence on post-modern thinkers.

I think there is a connection with early Romantic thought and the issue under discussion. Gender fluidity can be a form of extension of the "moment by moment expression of authenticity" espoused by the early Romantics.

As an aside, I was always puzzled by the observation that the terms "oneness", "living in the now" used so prolifically in liberal Western culture were purportedly a result of the influence of Eastern philosophies like Buddhism and Hinduism. Yet, I grew up in the Eastern part of the world without a sense of the overarching importance of these terms in popular and spiritual culture. The point can and has been made that eastern philosophical doctrines are viewed through the lens of romanticism by the western liberal adopters of such views. One example is Buddhist Romanticism, which has taken and adapted Buddhist ideas to liberal western standards. How this ties in with the topic of discussion is that there are some "western Buddhists" and "western tantrics" who have apparently come to the conclusion that "gender fluidity was common and recognized in ancient societies of the east". They will site some pictures of androgynous deities to prove their point. However, I do not know of any systematic effort in present or past times to use such an argument to promote "gender fluidity" among members of society in eastern nations. But things may have already started to change, thanks to the pizza effect .

 

[MusicMan]

I think gender is becoming a social construct, in as much as it has become much easier to have an operation to change your physicality. You can become 'more than a woman' by having a 'boob job' etc, or you can become 'less of a woman' by having a 'gender re-assignment.' This applies to males as well as females, and including those who identify as homosexual.

On the other hand, those people who are actually born with 'both sets of genitals' or hermaphrodites seem to be struggling with a sexual identity and because society says the toilets are for 'males' or 'females' it poses for them a quandary.
A similar problem arises for those who have chosen to 'cross-dress', and numbers of these people are increasing as society becomes more tolerant of them.

I think the solution would be to either take all the gender identification off the toilets, or to construct toilet facilities with several doors, one for each form of sexual identity, but inside everything can be used by everybody.

So yes, I think gender identification is becoming more fluid, at least in Western societies, and communities need to put some thought into how they present themselves to the world at large. Not just in toileting but throughout the society, as long as it's without prejudice.

 

[Laura]

The following video is really priceless. The topic is different, but the same libtard ill-logic combined with profound ignorance of reality is being trotted out in an almost spit-spewing rant by David Tafuri that is used to back the gender fluidity ideology. Just watch and imagine that they are debating the importance of gender pronouns. It won't be difficult... You will see the hysterization that Lobaczewski talks about, and the total inability to get to the crux of the matter because of subconscious selection and substitution. It really is amazing to watch.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...Ow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Laura]

Here we have another libtard and the topic is much closer to gender issues. Tucker interviews Cathy Areu of Catalina Magazine about whether it's appropriate to call breastfeeding "natural." Talk about ignorance, and failure to get to the crux of the matter.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...mY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Laura]

Here you can see a real, live, schizoid psychopath using the chopping motions of the hand as she speaks... justifying genital mutilation by confusing the terminology.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...E4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[thorbiorn]

There are cases of males being able to lactate, even though it is rare and sometimes associated with a disease.
_http://www.breastfeeding-problems.com/lactating-man.html

Where this might be going is anyones guess, but at least some of the social construct people will need to explain, preferably on TV, the difference between themselves and a type of bat or the occasional goat

Nonhuman animal male lactation
The phenomenon of male lactation occurs in some other species, notably the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus), and the lactating males may assist in the nursing of their infants. In addition, male goats are known to lactate on occasion.[5]

Human male lactation
The phenomenon of successful human male breastfeeding has been credibly observed in several cases.[6] However, the cases are not sufficiently documented to allow distinguishing of possible pathologic galactorrhea.

 

[neema]

Wow!! just wow. This is all insane. What a world we are living in. I can’t believe it’s got so bad that I agree with tucker Carlson, of all people. Every day I see more and more how truly horrifying it is living with psychopaths and “their” world. Call me bitter but I pray for cosmic intervention everyday now.

 

[genero81]

Wow!! just wow. This is all insane. What a world we are living in. I can’t believe it’s got so bad that I agree with tucker Carlson, of all people. Every day I see more and more how truly horrifying it is living with psychopaths and “their” world. Call me bitter but I pray for cosmic intervention everyday now.

This whole issue was nothing more than an oddity for me not really understanding what all the hoopla was about. It's sometimes hard to grasp just how different some other people think from how I think. It just shows how disconnected from reality one can become when one accepts wrong ideas as true. The whole crystallizing on a wrong foundation idea, I guess. But this has been a great thread for detailing all the intricacies of this issue which really shouldn't be an issue at all. What a mess! I have to admit I'm kind of with Nima on being ready for whatever "help" the C's are referring to. Even of the cosmic variety. Or, "beam me up Scottie!" Geezus

 

[Laura]

Wow!! just wow. This is all insane. What a world we are living in. I can’t believe it’s got so bad that I agree with tucker Carlson, of all people. Every day I see more and more how truly horrifying it is living with psychopaths and “their” world. Call me bitter but I pray for cosmic intervention everyday now.

This whole issue was nothing more than an oddity for me not really understanding what all the hoopla was about. It's sometimes hard to grasp just how different some other people think from how I think. It just shows how disconnected from reality one can become when one accepts wrong ideas as true. The whole crystallizing on a wrong foundation idea, I guess. But this has been a great thread for detailing all the intricacies of this issue which really shouldn't be an issue at all. What a mess! I have to admit I'm kind of with Nima on being ready for whatever "help" the C's are referring to. Even of the cosmic variety. Or, "beam me up Scottie!" Geezus

The bizarre thing is that about all of this mess we are in is because of Postmodernism. A few years back, that was just a word I'd heard and didn't know much about. I came across some odd references to it here and there in my research and figured out that was what Nachman ben Yehuda was talking about in his book "Sacrificing Truth" which is about the use of archaeology for political purposes, specifically the archaeology of Masada.

Then, of course, it came up now and then in biblical studies and pretty soon I was getting the idea that this "philosophy" was spreading like a fugus everywhere. It took awhile for me to make the connection of it to the "you create your own reality" deal, but darned if there isn't a connection!

It wasn't until I read Gellner's "Postmodernism, Reason and Religion" and his "The Psychoanalytic Movement" that I really understood the fundamental nihilism that is at the foundation of it all. Obviously, Postmodernism and its prophets/adherents do not talk about that, if they are even aware of it (most of them aren't, apparently).

On Wikipedia, you can read about Nihilism:

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ᵻlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ᵻlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators[4] as "nihilistic".

Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch;[5] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[6] and many aspects of modernity[3] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

If you think about it, it's rather like the "Austrian Talk" that Lobaczewski described in Ponerology.

This cycle of happy, peaceful times favors a narrowing of the world view and an increase in egotism; societies become subject to progressive hysteria and to that final stage, descriptively known to historians, which finally produces times of despondency and confusion, that have lasted for millennia and continue to do so. The recession of mind and personality which is a feature of ostensibly happy times varies from one nation to another; thus some countries manage to survive the results of such crises with minor losses, whereas others lose nations and empires. Geopolitical factors have also played a decisive role.

The psychological features of such crises doubtless bear the stamp of the time and of the civilization in question, but one common denominator must have been an exacerbation of society’s hysterical condition. This deviation or, better yet, formative deficiency of character, is a perennial sickness of societies, especially the privileged elites. ... From the perspective of historical time, it would be harder to examine the regression of the ability and correctness of reasoning or the intensity of “Austrian talk”, although these approximate the crux of the matter better and more directly.

In spite of above-mentioned qualitative differences, the duration of these time-cycles tends to be similar. If we assume that the extreme of European hysteria occurred around 1900 and returns not quite every two centuries, we find similar conditions. Such cyclical isochronicity may embrace a civilization and cross into neighboring countries, but it would not swim oceans or penetrate into faraway and far different civilizations. {I think he might be wrong about that; it has certainly crossed the ocean from the US to the EU!}

When the First World War broke out, young officers danced and sang on the streets of Vienna: “Krieg, Krieg, Krieg! Es wird ein schoener Krieg ...”. While visiting Upper Austria in 1978, I decided to drop in on the local parson, who was in his seventies by then. When I told him about myself, I suddenly realized he thought I was lying and inventing pretty stories. He subjected my statements to psychological analysis, based on this unassailable assumption and attempted to convince me that his morals were lofty. When I complained to a friend of mine about this, he was amused: “As a psychologist, you were extremely lucky to catch the survival of authentic Austrian talk (die oesterreichische Rede). We young ones have been incapable of demonstrating it to you even if we wanted to simulate it.”

In the European languages, “Austrian talk” has become the common descriptive term for paralogistic discourse. Many people using this term nowadays are unaware of its origin. Within the context of maximum hysterical intensity in Europe at the time, the authentic article represented a typical product of conversive thinking : subconscious selection and substitution of data lead to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter. In the same manner, the reflex assumption that every speaker is lying is an indication of the hysterical anti-culture of mendacity, within which telling the truth becomes “immoral”. {We certainly saw some prime examples of "paralogistic discourse" and "conversive thinking" and "subconscious selection and substitution of data" and "avoidance of the crux of the matter" in the videos I posted above.}

That era of hysterical regression gave birth to the great war and the great revolution which extended into Fascism, Hitlerism, and the tragedy of the Second World War. It also produced the macrosocial phenomenon whose deviant character became superimposed upon this cycle, screening and destroying its nature. Contemporary Europe is heading for the opposite extreme of this historical sine curve. We could thus assume that the beginning of the next century will produce an era of optimal capability and correctness of reason, thus leading to many new values in all realms of human discovery and creativity. We can also foresee that realistic psychological understanding and spiritual enrichment will be features of this era. {Again, Lobaczewski didn't factor in the dominant influence of the USA. But, the show is not yet over; perhaps Russia's influence will save Europe; perhaps Cayce was right that hope for the future would come from Russia. It remains to be seen.}

At the same time, America, especially the U.S.A., has reached a nadir for the first time in its short history. It is hard to judge whether we are observing the symptoms of incipient upward movement, although it seems likely. Grey-haired Europeans living in the U.S. today are struck by the similarity between these phenomena and the ones dominating Europe at the times of their youth. The emotionalism dominating individual, collective and political life, as well as the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, are impoverishing the development of a psychological world view and leading to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyper-irritability and hypo-criticality on the part of others. This can be considered analogous to the European dueling mania of those times. People fortunate enough to achieve a position higher than someone else are contemptuous of their supposed inferiors in a way highly reminiscent of czarist Russian customs. Turn-of-the-century Freudian psychology finds fertile soil in this country because of the similarity in social and psychological conditions.

America’s psychological recession drags in its wake an impaired socio-professional adaptation of this country’s people, leading to a waste of human talent and an involution of societal structure. If we were to calculate this country’s adaptation correlation index, as suggested in the prior chapter, it would probably be lower than the great majority of the free and civilized nations of this world, and possibly lower than some countries which have lost their freedom. A highly talented individual in this country finds it ever more difficult to fight his way through to his right to self-realization and a socially creative position. Universities, politics, and even some business areas ever more frequently demonstrate an united front of relatively untalented persons. The word “overeducated” is heard more and more often. Such “overqualified” individuals finally hide out in some foundation laboratory where they are allowed to earn the Nobel prize. In the meantime, the country as whole suffers due to a deficit in the inspirational role of highly gifted individuals.

As a result, America is stifling progress in all areas of life, from culture to technology and economics, not excluding political incompetence. When linked to other deficiencies, an egotist’s incapability of understanding other people and nations leads to political error and the scapegoating of outsiders. Slamming the brakes on the evolution of political structures and social institutions increases both administrative inertia and discontent on the part of its victims.

We should realize that the most dramatic social difficulties and tensions occur at least ten years after the first observable indications of having emerged from a psychological crisis. Being a sequel, they also constitute a delayed reaction to the cause or are stimulated by the same psychological activation process. The time span for effective countermeasures is thus rather limited.

 

[whitecoast]

A social construct is a model of the world shared between people in a group, which can be conveyed or deliberated over through language. So when we say gender is a social construct, what they're really saying is, "The myriad ways in which people behaviorally manifest their sex is controlled/influenced/circumscribed by their culture's model of the world."

Although I think I understand what you are saying, to me it's a contradiction into which many fall nowadays with this "gender is a social construct" business.
{snip}
"Typically associated with sex" because humans are capable of pattern recognition. If 999 men out of 1000 share certain behavioral and psychological traits, that they generally do not share with women (and viceversa), then, that association is based on the observation of natural and objective occurrences.

I don't think anything I've said about how language is socially constructed contradicts any of that information, for what it's worth. To say your understanding of something is a social construct isn't to actually downplay or minimize the influences of reality and biology on the situation. Although that is the way that a lot of post-modern gender theorists wish to construe it.

I think you're falling into a trap. Equality and understanding should definitely be there. Empathy towards those that for one reason or another are "different". But if a pronoun of a change in language had to be made every time someone is different, then society would lose the little cohesion it has left.

You probably just need three - female, male, and other. That's enough to give everyone a seat at the table imo.

This pronoun issue also promotes normalizing something that is NOT normal.

I think it's a fine line to walk between having understanding and empathy for someone while simultaneously pathologizing them. That's not to say it can't be done, but people ARE awfully prone to black-and-white thinking.

And when those minorities ENFORCE their "differences" onto others, that's not good at all. It often ends up worse for them!

Yeah, I don't agree with enforced speech.

Notice the paradox between demanding to be included and accepted, while at the same time setting themselves apart, as unique.

Is that really paradoxical? I mean that's how diversity works, even if you just construe diversity on the individualist level instead of the leftist "identity politics" level. "We're all unique, but we also all belong," etc.

This is a rather new phenomenon, and it should not be normalized just because we want to be "nice". We might be doing a huge disservice to honest and suffering transgenders, who actually want to understand themselves and be understood. Instead of focusing on a "gender", a pronoun, etc., we should be focusing on people's essences.

Honestly, I don't have any answers to these questions you pose. What usually happens is you'll have early adopters (the liberals), while the conservatives stay away for maybe 1 or 2 generations while more science gets done on the manner and the bugs get sorted out, or it gets rejected outright (such as abortion and gun laws in the USA). You're never going to engineer a society where mistakes are never made and people are never harmed, either by individuals around them or by the institutions that impose on how those individuals interact. I do see greater risk in the latter than in the former though, since overreach of government-mandated and -funded scientific consensus has given us some horrendous inventions like the AGW industry, GMOs, mandatory vaccinations, and the like.

I agree with Atreides' post about how post-modernists use language to impose structure and power relations between people and groups of people, so as to give these social engineers power over society. I don't agree that it all started with the Enlightenment, or that its primary triumph was materialism and atheism. For me the Enlightenment was more about universalism, human rights, democracy, limited government, and separation of church and state. Curiously enough all these things did indirectly lead to the creation of Total War, which was just introduced to Europe through Napoleon, who famously bragged how he went through "20,000 men in a month" on campaign that spread republicanism throughout Eastern Europe. That's a topic for another day though.

You could just as easily stretch Progressivism back to the Dissenters of England, who had dreams of rebuilding society from the ground up in their pristine, puritan colonies in New England. You could even stretch it back further to the Millenialism, and the wish to immanentize the eschaton, bring about a new heaven and earth, etc. Reading Secret History of the World, those ideas are tied into the Golden Age. So depending on how far back you want to go, you can construe Progressivism as a Utopianism where people attempt to change and remove some of the negative aspects of our society, and replace them with healthier ones. That seems paleochristian to me. Obviously as a popular movement, Progressivism has succumbed to ponerising influences, as well as newfangled trends such as (yes) atheism, but I think it only did to to bypass the separation of church and state so it could still use the state ideologically impose its views on others. That's the view of Mencius Moldbug at least, who wrote a very good short series called "how Dawkins got Pwnd", which is about how off-base Richard Dawkins got by assuming "institutions that pass down Truth-with-a-capital-T" all have metaphysical beliefs. The modern universities certainly are truth-distributing organs, but they can fleece the government for money and tell people what to think and how to vote because they tell everyone they're not doing it out of a religious conviction.

 

[genero81]

The bizarre thing is that about all of this mess we are in is because of Postmodernism. A few years back, that was just a word I'd heard and didn't know much about. I came across some odd references to it here and there in my research and figured out that was what Nachman ben Yehuda was talking about in his book "Sacrificing Truth" which is about the use of archaeology for political purposes, specifically the archaeology of Masada.

Then, of course, it came up now and then in biblical studies and pretty soon I was getting the idea that this "philosophy" was spreading like a fugus everywhere. It took awhile for me to make the connection of it to the "you create your own reality" deal, but darned if there isn't a connection!

It wasn't until I read Gellner's "Postmodernism, Reason and Religion" and his "The Psychoanalytic Movement" that I really understood the fundamental nihilism that is at the foundation of it all. Obviously, Postmodernism and its prophets/adherents do not talk about that, if they are even aware of it (most of them aren't, apparently).

On Wikipedia, you can read about Nihilism:

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ᵻlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ᵻlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as futurism and deconstruction,[3] among others, have been identified by commentators[4] as "nihilistic".

Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch;[5] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[6] and many aspects of modernity[3] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

If you think about it, it's rather like the "Austrian Talk" that Lobaczewski described in Ponerology.

This cycle of happy, peaceful times favors a narrowing of the world view and an increase in egotism; societies become subject to progressive hysteria and to that final stage, descriptively known to historians, which finally produces times of despondency and confusion, that have lasted for millennia and continue to do so. The recession of mind and personality which is a feature of ostensibly happy times varies from one nation to another; thus some countries manage to survive the results of such crises with minor losses, whereas others lose nations and empires. Geopolitical factors have also played a decisive role.

The psychological features of such crises doubtless bear the stamp of the time and of the civilization in question, but one common denominator must have been an exacerbation of society’s hysterical condition. This deviation or, better yet, formative deficiency of character, is a perennial sickness of societies, especially the privileged elites. ... From the perspective of historical time, it would be harder to examine the regression of the ability and correctness of reasoning or the intensity of “Austrian talk”, although these approximate the crux of the matter better and more directly.

Thanks for your elucidation. You did a great job clarifying the psychological processes involved. It's fascinating to watch this all happening in real time and see the research and clues associated with your work here be confirmed. However, I can't say it makes it any less terrifying!

 

[Hindsight Man]

The vids Laura posted with the indignant ideologues reminded me of this passage from ponerology :

May the reader please imagine a very large hall in some old Gothic university building. Many of us gathered there early in our studies in order to listen to the lectures of outstanding philosophers. We were herded back there the year before graduation in order to listen to the indoctrination lectures which recently have been introduced. Someone nobody knew appeared behind the lectern and informed us that he would now be the professor. His speech was fluent, but there was nothing scientific about it: he failed to distinguish between scientific and everyday concepts and treated borderline imaginings as though it were wisdom that could not be doubted. For ninety minutes each week, he flooded us with naïve, presumptuous paralogistics and a pathological view of human reality. We were treated with contempt and poorly controlled hatred. Since fun poking could entail dreadful consequences, we had to listen attentively and with the utmost gravity.

 

[Siberia]

This pronoun issue also promotes normalizing something that is NOT normal.

I think it's a fine line to walk between having understanding and empathy for someone while simultaneously pathologizing them. That's not to say it can't be done, but people ARE awfully prone to black-and-white thinking.

I think empathy is good when it is asked for. If these people were asking for help or defence - in a sincere and considerate manner - that would be a request for empathy. But when the fluent gender idea is being promoted and/or enforced - that's not asking, that's demanding and imposing. So I think what is really called for in this case is the truth, rather than empathy. And the truth is that the fluent gender thing is NOT normal / healthy, and therefore shouldn't be promoted and/or enforced.

 

[Glenn]

FWIW, Jordan Peterson recommends this book on postmodernism (haven't read it yet):

Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault
by Stephen R. C. Hicks

Tracing postmodernism from its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant to their development in thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty, philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century. Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left - the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism - now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism? Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy. This expanded edition includes two additional essays by Stephen Hicks, *Free Speech and Postmodernism* and *From Modern to Postmodern Art: Why Art Became Ugly*.

_https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406

First edition of the book is available as YT audiobook, or mp3 and PDF files on Hicks's website:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/explaining-postmodernism/

I'd recommend it for everyone who may have problems with understanding some parts of Gellner's writing, as I have, or as a very good and accessible introduction to the postmodernism phenomena. A bit different approach but fully relevant to the problem at hand.

Thanks for posting the link POB. I have added that one to my reading list. It is amazing to me how the PTB are constantly pulling at the threads that hold society together.