26 Comments

The kind of body that makes babies is not the kind of body that can jump really high, run really fast and fight others. Males and females of the human species are different, and it makes no sense to pretend that they can do identical things. We cannot.

Expand full comment
founding

I might be a real oddball here. I’m religious but also heavily invested in rationalist groups (rationality has sharpened my theology) and also think that critical theory has a lot of good things about it. Critical theory as a descriptive model of how power works has a lot in common with rationality, which warns against groupthink. I wouldn’t say that Lindsay and Pluckrose are critical of postmodernist theory in general, but rather the post-1990 shift to what they call applied postmodernism (and what I call authoritarian postmodernism). My personal concern is that the ideas have been weaponized.

Expand full comment
author

I enjoy reading theory from many different angles and picking and choosing what I like from each one to form my own syncretic understanding of the world. And I'm like you: I'm both a Christian and someone that enjoys reading Bay-Area rationalist thinkers like Scott Alexander. Postmodernism is fun to think about as pure theory, but turns to mush when applied in real life.

Expand full comment

Ironically, critical theory isn't a bad description of life under the technocratic oligarchies leftists tend to install.

Expand full comment

While the Radfems may hate transgenderism, it was their own rhetoric that opened the door to it. By arguing that gender differences are caused by patriarchal oppression, the implication is that if the patriarchy is removed, the differences will go away.

Expand full comment
author

It was liberal feminism's fusion with intersectional theory to create intersectional feminism that led to gender ideology. Under intersectional feminism, one must care about all identity categories: gender, race, sexuality, size, and transness. Radical feminism on the other hand is purely centered around women.

Expand full comment

> Radical feminism on the other hand is purely centered around women.

In particular much of it is focused on turning women into men, for example, by pushing them into male occupations, via Title IX insisting that women's sports are just as good as men's sports, forcing male-only clubs to accept women, etc. Then when some men start turning themselves into women, they come crying back to the traditionalists.

Expand full comment

Gender roles will go away. Sexual differences will never go away--what will go away is the association of certain roles and characteristics with people just because they happen to be male or female. In radfem utopia, girls and boys will be free to express their personal preferences (many of which are influenced by genes, others by their upbringing...) without being bullied for not conforming to notions of what a good girl or a little man is supposed to be. But sex is independent of these cultural norms--that is what radfems believe about gender.

Expand full comment

> Gender roles will go away. Sexual differences will never go away--what will go away is the association of certain roles and characteristics with people just because they happen to be male or female.

Gender roles are based on the sexual differences. Example: is the difference in strength between men and women based on gender roles or sexual differences? If you say gender roles, than you can't object to "transwomen" in women's sports. If you say sexual differences, then you need to concede that jobs that require strength should be given to men.

Expand full comment

The difference in strength is a sexual difference. It's biological. So are many others, including some behavioral "male-typical" and "female-typical" sexual behaviors. But many, many elements are cultural--those alone are "gender roles".

Expand full comment

So you agree it was a mistake to push women into physically demanding jobs like those in the military?

Expand full comment

Some gender roles are based on physical differences, but many are not. Scientific research, math, writing, surgery and medicine, etc. have no relationship to physical strength. Women have strength and that's how our foremothers were able to carry water from the stream or well, carry and string out wet laundry, and carry firewood. This is also why women are able to be nurses and move patients around. Fortunately, more men are entering the "female world" of nursing and are often put on nights in the ER and ICU when the crazy drunks come in and have to be "man handled." If we hadn't let go of our emotion-laden need to keep certain jobs sex-role based, those women would be fighting drunks or calling security. Men have more strength, but women are not sacks of bones and skin. Not all roles in the military require the same physicality and not all men can do all the jobs, then there are some women that can do the very physical jobs. I recommend reading "We Band of Angels" about the nurse corps at Bataan. Those were some strong women, both emotionally and physically.

Expand full comment

> Some gender roles are based on physical differences, but many are not.

Yes, and strength isn't the only physical difference between men and women, just one of the most obvious ones.

> Women have strength and that's how our foremothers were able to carry water from the stream or well, carry and string out wet laundry, and carry firewood.

But not as much as men.

Expand full comment

Coming of age in America I noticed how the Left would basically shit on religion, Christianity in particular because they saw them as their ideological enemies; Republicans.

However, Muslims were put up on a pedestal, their religion "beautiful" and their rights defended fiercely. This was in a post 9/11 world. The left went a little quite when gay marriage rolled around, but has consistently trotted out their alliance with Muslims in the war against the Christan right and Trump.

Well, now times have changed and Trans is king.

It has been AWKWARD to watch the Left squirm. Criticizing Muslims was verboten but criticizing Trans is the greatest sin.

I'm very interested to see how this many hands across the aisle will affect voting patterns.

Expand full comment

OK, sure, there's common ground between fundies, second-wave feminists, and a couple heterodox academics. I buy that. But that's not an alliance, it's the political juggernaut of the religious right bankrolling smaller left-wing or centrist groups that back their pet causes. A movement where, e.g., New Atheists and Marxist lesbians are steering the ship isn't going to back laws that e.g., ban teachers from acknowledging that they have a same-sex partner.

Radfems and rationalists might view ending """gender ideology""" as the end-goal, but it should be pretty obvious looking at the past twenty years of culture war in this country that for evangelicals, "there are only two genders" is the crowbar with which they intend to undo the social progress made since Stonewall - since Betty Friedan, even.

Expand full comment

Me, personally? I think women who want to join the military should be able to, but not in the same kinds of positions/jobs as men, because they are simply built differently. Absolutely differently--and there is no shame in that.

Expand full comment

So you'd support repealing the relevant anti-discrimination laws?

Expand full comment

That depends. There's always nuance and exceptions, and different jobs can be performed by women in certain "careers" that require other skills/characteristics... I'm thinking of firefighters--sometimes you need a small-framed individual to go down a hole to rescue someone: police officers, a particular woman who's a great detective... In Spain, the physical tests that future cops and firefighters must pass are different for men and women. That makes sense to me, yet it's an anti-discrimination measure.

Expand full comment

> There's always nuance and exceptions

And who's in a better position to determine what those are. The local boss, or the bureaucrat enforcing anti-discrimination laws?

> a particular woman who's a great detective

So have people hired for that job based on the relevant skills.

> In Spain, the physical tests that future cops and firefighters must pass are different for men and women. That makes sense to me,

Except it doesn't.

I'm not going to let you weasel your way out of this by using terms like "nuance and exceptions" as squid ink.

Expand full comment

R's? You left out "Retards," Yang. (Yes, I said it. )

We used to mock the pinheads who debated "angels dancing on a pin." Now they're feted as "intellectuals." If you can't comprehend that there are two genders, you're not living in the real world. Let's not give these pinheads the time of day. To do otherwise is to play their game.

Expand full comment
author

The problem is that these pinheads have a lot of power right now. They are pushing this ideology onto young children and setting kids up for irreversible damage to their bodies. I can't just ignore them.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023

The trans agenda makes unlikely groups allies because it is that looney (loony?) and that overarching.

That said, I thought that the Dworkin/MacKinnon argument wasn't that bans on porn didn't violate the First Amendment, but rather that they didn't care about the First Amendment, this was too important. Sort of like trans today.

Someone more Inside Feminism correct me if I am wrong.

Expand full comment
author

It is a sight to behold that so many unlikely alliances are forming over a pernicious ideology that will result in the destruction of many young lives if taken to its conclusion.

As for the Dworkin/MacKinnon argument, I see it as both. They wanted to ban porn without regard to any existing laws, but the First Amendment got in the way, so they had to find a loophole in order for the bans to survive legal challenges.

Expand full comment
founding

> they didn't care about the First Amendment

Yeah, they viewed the US Constitution as patriarchal (the "Founding Fathers").

Expand full comment