Unfortunately you are using a defunct and obscure complaint from Peterson. But, fortunately, you are referencing Solzhenitsyn who decried the lies that denied mass incarceration, the Gulag, which implied widespread repression in the society. Are we to understand that you hold to the analogy in the US where mass incarceration is the highest in the world and the repression is palpable?! Doubtful
But the real gripe in your shtick is the intersectionality thesis where gender discriminations melds with racism and class hierarchy. You, like Peterson, deny these unethical and immoral inequalities in our society. The theme of compulsory heterosexuality and the attending domestic violence that goes with it, is the heart of your beef - an unethical position.
You claim to research Analytic Philosophy but rant about the wrongness of transgendered identity. The problem with Analytic Philosophy is that it’s terms are conventional - just bring your dictionary and you can find out everything. This position denies individual rights and valences the couple norm; this position denies racism and valences white privileges which wouldn’t matter if the killings could end! This position also denies homosexuality and valences the practice of fucking another man’s ass or face and then walking away denying that he is a homosexual! If you are going to complain about lying, then address the lies of self-defense or rape or domestic violence!
At one point you defend the social institutions then at another point you reject certain social institutions. The contradictoriness of your assertions is transparent: you want your subjective ideals to be universal but reject the same claim by others. You have to reach a relativistic perspectivalism that accepts difference. Don’t blame Derrida or Foucault for the “left-wing” university - a pejorative denial of university regulations and practices. You as an individual must stand alone with your views and enter them into the university system for evaluation, or you can march around with silly fascists and their make-believe shields! If pretense doesn’t qualify as a lie, what does?
Transgenderism is about sexual liberation and sexual practices where one authentically presents their self as a particular transparent identity. You know when you are dealing with a homosexual and you are informed about this reality before participating. But for you, as a cis-male, this is an impossible situation. You are unable to take the perspective and see the Gestalt in its obverse mode and mood. Odd that you address “Just War” theory, just down the road from genocide and the fascist state of mind! In Analytic Philosophy, the gender markers of male and female often have nothing to do with biological reproduction - whether a ball or square or triangle or the number 3 or 11 has anything to with gender is arbitrary but conventional, inscribed in the historical language. When we recognize this arbitrariness, we similarly recognize that gender is inscribed in us, it is terminological, not as reproducers but as functional roles whose agency is co-opted by compulsory norms - and the objection is palpable!
It is time to get out of the locked-up securitized chapel where the mouth in the pulpit indoctrinated you, and enter the streets and walkways to observe all the people in their individuality, and not in your metaphysical categories!
There's a phrase: "there's no smoke without fire." Using this adage as a framework, biological sex is the fire, gender is the smoke. Smoke is ephemeral but it is rooted in the flames as the catalyst.
Re: “Rainbow Marxism”
Unfortunately you are using a defunct and obscure complaint from Peterson. But, fortunately, you are referencing Solzhenitsyn who decried the lies that denied mass incarceration, the Gulag, which implied widespread repression in the society. Are we to understand that you hold to the analogy in the US where mass incarceration is the highest in the world and the repression is palpable?! Doubtful
But the real gripe in your shtick is the intersectionality thesis where gender discriminations melds with racism and class hierarchy. You, like Peterson, deny these unethical and immoral inequalities in our society. The theme of compulsory heterosexuality and the attending domestic violence that goes with it, is the heart of your beef - an unethical position.
You claim to research Analytic Philosophy but rant about the wrongness of transgendered identity. The problem with Analytic Philosophy is that it’s terms are conventional - just bring your dictionary and you can find out everything. This position denies individual rights and valences the couple norm; this position denies racism and valences white privileges which wouldn’t matter if the killings could end! This position also denies homosexuality and valences the practice of fucking another man’s ass or face and then walking away denying that he is a homosexual! If you are going to complain about lying, then address the lies of self-defense or rape or domestic violence!
At one point you defend the social institutions then at another point you reject certain social institutions. The contradictoriness of your assertions is transparent: you want your subjective ideals to be universal but reject the same claim by others. You have to reach a relativistic perspectivalism that accepts difference. Don’t blame Derrida or Foucault for the “left-wing” university - a pejorative denial of university regulations and practices. You as an individual must stand alone with your views and enter them into the university system for evaluation, or you can march around with silly fascists and their make-believe shields! If pretense doesn’t qualify as a lie, what does?
Transgenderism is about sexual liberation and sexual practices where one authentically presents their self as a particular transparent identity. You know when you are dealing with a homosexual and you are informed about this reality before participating. But for you, as a cis-male, this is an impossible situation. You are unable to take the perspective and see the Gestalt in its obverse mode and mood. Odd that you address “Just War” theory, just down the road from genocide and the fascist state of mind! In Analytic Philosophy, the gender markers of male and female often have nothing to do with biological reproduction - whether a ball or square or triangle or the number 3 or 11 has anything to with gender is arbitrary but conventional, inscribed in the historical language. When we recognize this arbitrariness, we similarly recognize that gender is inscribed in us, it is terminological, not as reproducers but as functional roles whose agency is co-opted by compulsory norms - and the objection is palpable!
It is time to get out of the locked-up securitized chapel where the mouth in the pulpit indoctrinated you, and enter the streets and walkways to observe all the people in their individuality, and not in your metaphysical categories!
The rainbow Marxism comparison was Cardinal Robert Sarah's, originally. And Dr Robillard explains the incoherence of gender ideology here:
https://quillette.com/2021/08/04/the-incoherence-of-gender-ideology/
Watch your language in future comments, Mr. Welfare.
There's a phrase: "there's no smoke without fire." Using this adage as a framework, biological sex is the fire, gender is the smoke. Smoke is ephemeral but it is rooted in the flames as the catalyst.