In fact, the opposite is true.
Brilliant analysis as usual, Yang. White liberal women are completely hopeless. I finally realized it when one of the members of the world's most entitled class announced during Covid that she could identify with a poor black working single mother as they shared the same struggles. Lightbulb moment that upper class, college indoctrinated white women are completely untethered from reality, reason and basic common sense.
> the best thinkers on a topic aren’t those that know their own position the best, but rather the thinkers that understand their ideological opponents’ position the best.
I can’t say how strongly I agree with this. I always attempt to be able to pass an ideological Turing test for the opposing positions before giving my own position. Not saying I always succeed, but I at least try.
> gender ideology is complete nonsense, that it is a social contagion that primarily affects affluent autistic young adults and other internet-addled neurodivergent people.
This isn’t exactly gender ideology, but LGBT, but my last piece digging into the statistics of bisexuality look like there is definitely social contagion in identifying as bisexual but not actually engaging in it [https://taboo.substack.com/p/is-bisexuality-a-political-statement].
To contrast that though, Scott Alexander’s piece on “Penis Stealing Witches” was a good one that made me think that identifying as transgender could be both social contagion and actually gender dysphoria [https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-geography-of-madness]. Probably the best piece on gender dysphoria I've read.
Once again, you nailed it. My favorite (and I took a screenshot for future reference) is the first footnote. Thank you for your writing!
Cheers mate, love this one. The underlying philosophical bases that permeate political ideologies in American society are a particular fascination of mine, I’m convinced that postmodernism has memory-holed people into the logic state that contemporary liberals tend to occupy - a regressive form of conservatism that does not recognize its own paradoxes.
I’m also of the opinion that Foucault’s thought has gone the way of old school Critical Theory, completely bastardized by narcissists who could never hope to understand him.
Excellent exposé on how many people will blind themselves to the inconsistencies of their ideological position. The fact that their argument is riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods has, unfortunately, not stopped it from gaining traction and acceptance.
“In a future post, I’ll show how Republicans can win over many of these voters without having to change any core policies.” Really looking forward to this, Sheluyang.
I just "found" your stack and very much enjoyed this article, well, as much as it's possible to "enjoy" another look at how irrational and illogical our society has become. If this is progress I think I prefer the Dark Ages.
Like Future Biff Tannen handing the Sports Almanac to 1950s Biff in "Back to the Future Part II," I'm starting to think you're really me in 2035 sending heads-up on the culture war issues that are going to bubble up in the next 10 years. Accelerationist nerves are tingling.
It's impossible to know for sure, but it seems most of the commentators here are male. I don't understand why more women are not up in arms by this craziness. Are they not aware that this fad (hopefully it WILL pass, but no time soon) is an attempt to destroy women? Of course, the woke are working on "toxic masculinity" as well. The ultimate goal appears to be trans humanism.
Oh man, I wish you hadn't posted that picture of Thomas. I threw up in my mouth all over again.
It's a good thing I don't know which box my own Ivy League diploma is stored in. If I could find it, I would tear it up into a miilion little pieces and mail it back to the idiot who's the current president of my school (a woman, of course, too stupid to know that she cheers on her own oppression).
Here's a much better picture of Thomas. This is an official University of Pennsylvania Athletics page:
A number of years ago I found a book called The Sports Gene by David Epstein in the public library, translated into Swedish and presented like any socially acceptable book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sports_Gene
I read it and found it remarkable that it was socially accepted to highlight genetic reasons to the succes of certain racial groups in certain sports.
That book was launched in 2013. Apparently, the subject has become more controversial ten years later.
I've largely agreed with your analysis, and it conformed to much of what I'd believed was happening, much to my dismay. However, I think I've reached a state where, while I agree that there is a real danger of the shift you constantly and ominously describe as happening, there are also real issues that resonate with minority communities that Republicans are wildly out-of-touch on. It becomes easy, when we live in the heavily Democrat-dominated areas and witness the worst excesses that result, that it becomes easy to forget that the Republicans haven't exactly been doing an stellar job either.
To use an analogy, the Democratic Party is a ship that's led by a wise and seasoned captain and a largely cooperative crew, but the navigator, who's essential for the ship to continue functioning, is a complete nutcase. Although they privately slightly scoff at the navigator, for the most part, the Captain and crew largely accommodate the navigator's sometimes slightly insane demands.
The Republicans, on the other hand, also have a Captain, but he does not know what he's doing. HE is the crazy in this instance, and he fills his entire ship up with the crazies. Admittedly, this is a very different type of crazy than the navigator's crazy, and perhaps some might find it a more preferable type of crazy. However, in the original ship, remember that the navigator wasn't running the ship. Now, the navigator certainly might become the captain in the future, but at least right now, the ship's run by not-crazies. Sometimes, we look at some parts and painfully cringe, but the ship has good leadership, who , when confronted by the navigator, usually have the support of the crew. The second ship has no leadership to keep the crazies in line, instead, the crazies have become the leadership.
Can I also add read original sources once in a while. A good example of this is Adam Smith. His Wealth of Nations says a lot of things that would be very critical of modern crony capitalism and banking.
So this comment of yours stood out to me: "Literally every country that backs gender ideology is a majority-White one known for having a colonial history. White people support it at rates far higher than people of color, especially those in the Global South."
Let's overlook the use of "literal" here - ah yes, that colonial juggernaut of Estonia! :P - and instead look at your actual data. Yes, Africa is generally not big on LGBT rights. But Latin America is on the whole about as supportive of LGBT issues as Europe is! What gives? Given they're both in the global south and both were Portuguese colonial holdings at some point, why is Brazil so """"woke"""" but not Angola?
My gut explanation here is that - owing to the racial makeup of the region, political ideology in Latin America has historically stressed racial harmony (la raza cosmica and all that), while Africa's colonial history has pushed it towards black nationalism. HUGE OVERSIMPLIFICATION, yes yes, I know. But I think a society whose founding principle is "we are great because we have all these different groups living in harmony!" is going to be more pluralist - and thus more receptive to LGBT stuff - than one built around "we are great because we are all the same race/ethnicity/religion/etc." (This thesis is incidentally supported by South Africa, the "rainbow nation," being a big outlier in the data here.)
So I don't think it's wrong to suggest that white supremacists are going to look harshly upon LGBT stuff - both the benign iteration (gay marriage) and the less popular stuff (your Lia Thomases et al - and btw, I consider her a woman and have no problem with her competing in women's sports) - just based on the logic which undergirds literal white supremacy. I am... somewhat skeptical The Nation is using "white supremacy" in its literal sense here. But the argument incidentally resembles something sensible imo.
I'll have you know that effeminate homosexuals aren't the only third gender! There are also women in patrilineal societies with no surviving male relatives who become notional males for purposes of family and inheritance law.