Skip to main content

The Western Hero System and Its Dogmas: From Religious to Feminist

*The following entry is currently an academic conference paper due to be presented this spring at:
The 2018 Joint Meeting of the South Carolina Society for Philosophy and the North Carolina Philosophical Society at Winthrop University: 3/23
Long Island Philosophical Society (LIPS) at Malloy College: 4/14

**This entry is also subject to removal from the blog upon going under peer-review in the near future.

           The Western Hero System and Its Dogmas: A Detailed Abstract
I argue that a concept we shall refer to as 'biologic skepticism' has entailed consequences largely antithetical to its promulgated aims for social justice. The reason for this antithesis extends largely from an essence of collective narcissistic melancholy (Butler, 2007) in Western or—interchangeably—Northern society. Roughly, understand biologic skepticism as skepticism of what the biological sciences have to say about things like ‘gender’ or ‘race’. In particular, understand the biologic skeptic or skeptic as adjudicating a view of gender and sex (or, following radical skepticism, sex and body) as being distinct and therefore mind-dependent kinds from social constructs rather than natural kinds arising via self-replication (Haslanger, 2000; 2002; Bach, 2012). All things equal, the skeptic espouses doctrine that—roughly speaking—seem to equate sameness and equality.

As I will demonstrate, an example of this lies in so-called 'intersectional feminism' with its project of biologic skepticism, which, I argue, is merely an extension of what Becker calls the hero system or, properly speaking, the Western hero system. Understand the latter as being responsible for acts of 'slaughter' and the accumulation of 'ill-gotten gains' from those slaughtered across an intergenerational timeline from colonialism to contemporary globalization. To be clear, this extension from hero to heroine system is a changing of the guard or hero (if you will) from the religious hero to economic hero and back to a something appearing suspiciously similar to the former only in a heroine qua 'feminist' form. Although her concept sounds benevolent (albeit somewhat divisive in tone), her skeptic's strategy is suspicious as well as damaging to the majority of those she claims to want to help or, rather, 'save'. All things considered, I will show the dubious ways in which the skeptic and what I will refer to as its elitist savior project aim to overthrow her rival hero system through tactics to mute discourse inclusive of the biologic sciences, and via assimilation of women of color.
In the following, I argue biologic skepticism has contributed largely to what seems an expanding essence of collective narcissism in (interchangeably) Western or Northern society. Undoubtedly, events surrounding the 2016 election for President of the United States (POTUS) were impelled by self-absorbed emotion against reason. Questions over the future POTUS’s lack of experience, suspicious business practices, on top of what could arguably be described as his ‘sexism’ and ‘racism’, led many to question his electability. Calls to ‘resist’ the new president soon gained additional power due in part to what seemed his literal attempt at ‘undoing’ the legacy of his predecessor or perceived rival. This prompted members of a self-proclaimed “resistance” led by what some might call intersectional feminism, which labeled the new POTUS’s actions “narcissistic” insofar as engaging in such behavior, attempting to erase his rival’s legacy without just cause, seemed perniciously selfish. After all, a notable consequence from this attempt to erase his perceived rival’s legacy entails cutting millions of people off from access to medicine, a move that denies individuals of a basic need—bodily connectedness to the biologic sciences, a move this philosopher regards as immoral. My appreciation for the debate over health care as a right notwithstanding, we will accept that it is morally wrong to deny health care to individuals for the reason that, and if for no other, this is a point of agreement between the skeptic and I. After all, both the skeptic and I are writing for social justice, or so the former thinks.
In general, there’re at least two varieties of biologic skepticism. First, there’s radical biologic skepticism or radical B.S., which is simply biologic nihilism, a project that talks about humans as ‘bodies in space’.[1] Roughly, bodies in space journey through something like ‘lived experiences’ via ‘performative’ social roles. On this view, these social roles include ‘gender’ and ‘sex’, and race such that these classifications are based on scripts purporting to represent natural kind or normative ‘what it is’ performances for each ‘assigned’ body type while in private, social, or political spaces. Although one must not commit performances of these ‘purported’ normative roles to concepts linking actor to stage, it’s argued these roles aren’t fixed, but are ‘fluid’ such that one could flow in or out of each one. For example, one who is not born a woman could very well become a woman so long as their psychological states or ‘feelings’ tick the boxes of ‘what is woman’ qua personal narratives of femininity, that is, since social identities are nothing natural. Consequently, this condition holds the same for race. Accordingly, bodily transition from male to female—or, say, from phenotypic ‘white’ to ‘brown’—is unnecessary insofar as biological sex—or race—is merely an ideal, an illusory thing holding no reality.
Finally, our main opponent is moderate biologic skepticism or B.S., which is moderate—properly speaking—since it acknowledges rather than rejects the reality of biological sex.[2] Nevertheless, this view espouses the now infamous ‘sex-gender distinction’, which, arguably, began with Beauvoir’s Second Sex (1949) where she famously says, “one is not born a woman,” but instead via matters of culture and socialization only, she “becomes one.” On this view, a subject becomes a woman if and only if she is subordinated via presumptions about her role in reproduction by reference to female sex. So, if some subject fails to meet this criterion, she is not a woman. Nevertheless, this view also holds that ‘woman’ is an eliminable social position, which should be eliminated insofar as it attainable strictly by way of oppression.
As for race like gender, these are also strictly social identities that arise from something like a dominant cultural context. So, like radical B.S., the view here is that social identities should not be based on something like anatomy, since although having reality, are distinct from behavior or agency. So, this in effect seems a rejection of masculine or feminine predispositions emanating from biological sex. This is fitting considering this view’s lone condition for these groups is ‘historical social markings’, which signal how a dominate ethnocentric and androcentric context used markings on the body to thereby mark human groups as ‘races’ or ‘genders’. Accordingly, then, we will refer to historical social marks as ‘his marks’, since these identities were socially constructed by something like a ‘patriarchy’. All things considered, the skeptic’s project is a push for something called ‘intersectional feminism’, which is precisely the movement underpinning the (so-called) resistance to the current POTUS.
Intersectional feminism is a movement whose theoretical underpinnings arise directly from the body of work—i.e., biologic skepticism—just explained in the foregoing section. Clearly, there are differences of opinion in terms of epistemic credulity due to biology. Nevertheless, each espouses skepticism of the biological sciences as far as race and gender as natural kinds are of concern. But, that’s not all. Recall, each school of skepticism calls into question the normativity of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ type agencies. Well, by extension, they both question the legitimacy of heterosexuality’s place as a ‘naturally occurring’ or mind independent normative sexual practice among the sexes. Moreover, since a ‘cosmic dualism’ seems to be missing between the masculine and feminine gender types (Rogers, 2007), and since these concepts hold no reality as anything more than mere archetypes, it seems there could be more than two genders. All things equal, the overall B.S. thesis seems to be ‘There are no men, women, or races. We are all the same and must be equal. Therefore, acknowledging and applying principles of sameness will lead to equality.’ The claim is that all current gender and racial identities produce social injustice insofar as these arise not from something like essential historical lineages via self-replication (Bach, 2012), but are instead products of his marks. While this message may seem admirable, its actual applications and consequences as well as its divisive tone are anything but. The reason is quite simple: It’s wrong.
Again, the mantra seems to say ‘There are no women or men, just people.” This appears to be the thesis of Joel & Fausto-Sterling’s (2015) Sex beyond the genitalia, which purported to have not found differences between male or female brains significant enough to justify categorizing them into two “distinct classes”, yet had its findings refuted not once but twice. According to one team of respondents who detected differences in up to 77 percent of the sample, ”Joel et al’s ‘method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences (Del Giudice et al, 2016).’” Within months, another study using a larger sample found classifiable distinctions detectable in 93 percent of their sample (Checkroud et al, 2016). Granted, brain organization on its own may not allude to natural kind difference of gender qua gender, this is debatable. Studies of brain regions demonstrate organization differences in areas including but not limited to the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis as well as its central subdivision. These differences fall into a hierarchy based on size. For example, both the bed nucleus and its central subdivision are larger in heterosexual males followed by homosexual males and then smallest in transsexual male-to-females followed by heterosexual females. The significance is that this part of the brain plugs into (if you will) the endocrine system. The endocrine system is what induces hormones—e.g., estrogen or testosterone—into the bloodstream. Which hormones we produce and to what degree are what profoundly influence personalities or behaviors we call gender.
Description: Macintosh HD:private:var:folders:sl:rf20ymb106j1jj3rdys4q7880000gn:T:TemporaryItems:8-biology-of-sexual-identity-6-728.jpg
Description: Macintosh HD:private:var:folders:sl:rf20ymb106j1jj3rdys4q7880000gn:T:TemporaryItems:tumblr_inline_oxmatq72bF1v1dyly_540.png

Notice the three charts above (Zhou et al, 1995; Savic & Lindstrom, 2008; Zhu et al, 2012). As one could tell from plain observation, brain organization and cognitive function each demonstrate a binary system. To be fair, we could call organizational differences ‘sex’ and cognitive differences ‘gender’. On that note, studies on confirmed cases of gender identity dysphoria reveal natural-kind gender binary behaviors. In a study measuring reactions to olfactory stimulation in young gender dysphorics via measurements of hypothalamic response to chemo-signal androstadienone (an organically derived steroid) subjects demonstrated reactions congruent with peers of their experienced gender. Bakker et al (2014) subsequently conducted a study of reaction to auditory stimulation, which revealed male-to-female dysphorics as responding similarly to ‘typical’ or natal females, yet their female-to-male counterparts also responded in a manner similar to females. Consequently, if nothing else, there seems a positive way in which an objective female response is, and a negative way in which an objective male response is to same kind auditory stimuli. Accordingly, other Scientists in the field say, sex differences in responding to things like odors (or sounds) “cannot be influenced by training or environment (” Put another way, there is at least some sex-based reactions or resulting gender behavior to physical stimuli antithetical to mind-dependent constructs like purported sex-scripts imposed entirely by his marks.
But then, there’s a favorite object of argument amongst biologic skeptics of both parsed varieties, intersex people.[3] In order to understand this phenomenon, we first understand the biological process by which sex-based differences occur—sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism begins at the prenatal stage when gonadal development subsequently influences fetal brain exposure to gonadal steroids such as testosterone or estrogen.[4] [5] Brain circuits are organized at this time, which will be activated later during the onset of puberty. Surely, activation becomes a matter of individual freewill via psychosocial factors, yet, I posit, the organization already shaped from prenatal development to postnatal development seems to have setup a DNA sequence that places some kind of determined limit on the variability of epigenetic tags (for example) for possible gene expression. Moreover, when sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals occur independently of one another, rare cases could emerge in the form of either an intersexed or gender dysphoric individual.[6] Specifically, either an individual develops masculine genitals and feminine brain organization, or vice verse, or the extent of bodily feminization may not reflect the extent of feminization of the brain. Hence, what comes is an individual amalgamated by the feminine/masculine gender binary system. Prima facie, these are not counterexamples to the binary gender system. Analogically, for example, if S is racially composed of one part-X from mom and one part-Y from dad, then it makes no sense to say S is neither X nor Y and therefore racially nonconforming, rather S is an amalgamation of X and Y. Therefore, S is composed of a biologically based binary system even if S’s phenotypic traits are somewhat or otherwise entirely racially ambiguous.
What is more, this prima facie case demonstrates gender as a thing beyond the control of something as artificial as his marks. Finally, this case also shows promise for putting to bed the idea that ‘women are not born’ insofar as a more in-depth explanation could further substantiate ‘what it is woman’ from the collective level of essential historical lineages to explanations offering insight into more individualistic considerations such as what sociologists call the lifespan or biologists call psychosocial from organization to activation.
To be sure, I will delve deeper into this matter in a current work-in-progress fixed on a philosophy of biology and gender. For our purposes here, I wish to remain focused on the social-political aspect, which includes what seems a “resistance” to allow such discourse to take place in the first place.
Recall, Joel & Fausto-Sterling’s Sex beyond the genitalia, which, contrary to its published claims, failed to show a lack of differences in brain organization between male and female brains. The media as well as social media, including popular blogs were abuzz with this news. Upon performing a basic keyword search, one will find a plethora of media and social media outlets headlining plaudits for this victory for social justice. Sex beyond the genitalia tallied 135 citations, which, for a paper that had its findings refuted almost as soon as it was published is pretty sizeable. On the other hand, the papers authored by equally esteemed researchers systematically refuting its claims share 23 total citations between each of them (11 and 12 respectively). This is not surprising, however. Individual blogging and Op-Ed efforts by some scientists reveal the fear many within the scientific community share over conducting research that could be labeled ‘dissidence’ against B.S. groupthink. Why such resistance against biology?
One commentator, a neuroscientist, says she has had proponents of B.S. willing to admit in private that “neurological sex differences do exist,” but they fear conceding as much publicly would justify female oppression.[7] Another commentator, a leading researcher and educator in neuropsychiatry, had presented findings from a study she recently conducted showing differences between men and women recalls this anecdote.
When I presented the study to our medical school students, very accomplished (my emphasis) young women came up to me close to tears. Women don't want to be seen as different from men, and here we are saying that there are in fact biological differences. But I don't believe these findings are the problem. The problem is that society places value on which trait is better.[8]
Women, she says, namely, elite or elitist women, I add (my emphasis), do not want to be seen as different from men. Biologic skepticism seems to stem from an elitist vantage point, for consider the fact that applying it to reality would necessitate a philosopher queen class in order to lead and maintain the masses post- “revolution”. Why? It seems the masses from a purview of common sense mistakenly perceive what they merely ‘imagine’ positioned before them such as a ‘man’ at the door or a ‘woman’ sitting at a cafĂ©. It seems a wonder how our primitive ancestors managed to get by without the skeptic throughout evolutionary history. This view seems a bit offensive, namely when we consider the epistemologies of those in most need of social justice. But then, I am reminded that the intellectual needn’t necessarily be concerned with those who happen to fall under the umbrella of justice, she need only seem sincere and consistent, as evinced by Orwell’s (1937) critique of early 20th century socialist intellectualism.[9] For it may be that the elitist skeptic realizes that in order to achieve her aims, she needs willing participants who will help her overthrow society as we know it. That is, overthrow he who she enviously perceives as sitting atop the social hierarchy. In what follows, I shall offer my argument against the skeptic’s claims of social justice for all via her doctrine of equality as sameness. In particular, I shall call her out by using one of her own devices against her—the concept of narcissistic melancholia.
Elitism in the West (or North) holds a racial component insofar as the standards by which we adjudge something or someone ‘accomplished’ or ‘knowledgeable’ begins via an Anglo-centric purview. This is after all how indigenous cultures like their peoples in places like the Americas have largely died off. This does not mean that all is bad with Northern society, however, that is, not when there is some epistemic overlap between so-called ‘civilized’ and ‘primitive’ cultures. One object we may abstract from each culture is that of a gender binary system. Like their Western conquerors, the Aztecs held to a binary gender system. The main point of departure, however, is the civil manner in which the Aztecs, not the Spanish, tended the relationship between ‘Mars’ and ‘Venus’ (if you will). According to evolutionary biologist Barbara Smuts (1995), parallels between primates, and primates to humans, all demonstrate the following as necessary conditions for females to thwart attempts of male domination.
      a) Remain in close Proximity to kin
      b) Form strong female-female coalitions
      c) Have male companions or otherwise strong bonds with males of the group (Ibid, 1995).
There is so much to say about this from an evolutionary standpoint, but that is for another project. At minimum, I can reveal that Aztec women ticked all of these boxes insofar as both archaeological and historical evidence of economic endeavors outside the home provide evidence of women’s ability to effectively organize various female-run coalitions. The Aztecs believed participation on the part of women was essential in creating balances between men and women, which promoted harmony within society, allowing it to properly function. Call this view ‘gender parallelism’ (Rogers, 2007). Ergo, binary genders were a matter of social justice and common sense amongst the forbears of contemporary ethnic Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. Alas, in hopes of being treated more humanely, Post-Colombian Aztecs eventually capitulated (albeit haphazardly) to the ways of their Northern conquerors and its elitist doctrine of sociopolitical right and wrong. What caused the Elitism espoused by the Aztec’s conquerors?
About the roots of contemporary civilization, Becker (1975) rightly says, man qua Western man (my emphasis) setout to conquer his own limitations by ‘civilizing’ the world thereby transcending his self-image as the cosmic nucleus of all creation.[10] Call this endeavor ‘the hero system’, a project to transcend man from mere animal to something metaphysical. Inspired by its origins in the primitive warrior-hero system, the Western hero system is a project of thwarting death, or, put simply, death denial. Death denial of this sort is impelled by what Becker identifies as ‘guilt’, the latter of which roughly speaking is underpinned by man’s feeling of being “bound” or restricted to limitations imposed by his body. Unfortunately, as Becker laments, Western personhood a model of “frightened creature” tries in vain to secure victory over his biological limitations at the expense of others in general and egalitarianism in particular. How? For starters, death denial requires that one reject self-knowledge about his bodily limitations. In turn, the conjunction of self-aggrandizing and death denial amalgamate into an emotional and psychological divorce from the realities of which he may be a part such as hunger, suffering, and death of others. In the same vein, the patriotic and religious hero systems respectively embarked on crusades and built military industrial complexes to spread ‘Christianity’ and then later ‘democracy’ to those he actually conquered. Lastly, the religious hero system fetishizes objects of ‘evil’ that suspiciously mirrors one’s biological limits and spins them into myths and scapegoats such as ‘the Devil’. The Devil represents the defeat of the spiritual dualism wished for by the Western hero system in order transcend man from his limiting body. Yet, insofar as the price for this endeavor is imposed on the lives of others, I posit this move to be something of narcissistic preoccupation.
Narcissistic melancholia as framed by Butler (2006) after the manner by which a species of the Western hero system the post-9/11 United States waged a violent and illegal attack on a sovereign nation for acts of ‘slaughter’ the latter had no part in committing against the former.[11] The slaughter of thousands suffered by the U.S. was a response to the countless ‘losses’ that were ‘slaughtered’ by its hands or through its support.
Alas, the groupthink echoed by the U.S. mainstream media (even so-called “Liberal outlets) and high-ranking politicians ignored (at best) these realities as legitimate reasons for such acts of mourning. Violence, I assure you, is not a reasonable reaction. But then, what if your mourning or your losses go unacknowledged? What if, instead, these atrocities are enabled? Such is the reality for those suffering under Western or Northern globalization whereby entire regions are destabilized under pretenses like ‘development’ or ‘spreading democracy’. This is analogous to the religious hero system of old-world colonialism.
Analogous to how we ought to treat destabilized regions of the world—i.e., issuing formal apologies for contributing to their current states, developing exit strategies to help free them from our imperialist and colonialist practices, and otherwise staying out of their efforts to stabilize (unless asked to contribute)—racialized groups in western society should be afforded similar respect in terms of being allowed to self-direct their own collective futures. Anything less seems like an attempt to ‘civilize’ or ‘assimilate’ these groups into an image of whiteness, even if merely under the status of something like what Lopez (2006) frames as the ‘honorary white’. Understand honorary white as the contemporary form of classic colonialist statuses afforded to some members of colonized peoples—e.g., the ‘house negro’ and the ‘noble savage’. Noble in its adjective form (like above) connotes one’s ability to learn and demonstrate upstanding personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. One’s ability to exhibit such elitism thereby earns his/her place in the Master’s house. Once in the Master’s house, the honorary white is expected to echo the elitist ideology of the day within its walls.
In modern times, as religious fervor has largely declined via a growing blithe toward it, it seemed an economic hero system had replaced it with its nucleus also seeming to hold a kind of deified place in this system as ‘the Market’ qua the Divine. Lately, though, as disdain is growing toward even this latter hero system, and insofar as these systems were male invented, it seems a new one is emerging in the form of a heroine system. This heroine system promises revolution for the wrongs its predecessors distributed or imposed on others. But this heroine system already fashions some traits made familiar by its allegedly androcentric predecessors. Below I explicate what I argue is its five central tenets based on Becker’s criteria.
(1) It is a system bent on overcoming fear of self-knowledge by aiding and abetting its adherents in the impossible task of ‘securing victory’ over her bodily limitations.
(2) Its leaders (like Becker’s political patriot) live existences of ‘death denial’ such that their causes are detached from concrete realities requiring actual social justice—i.e., hunger, suffering, death. She seems to operate in autopilot when responding to these atrocities, a sort of “emotional and psychological divorce from the realities of what [she] is doing.”
(3) Like the religious hero system, it so obviously denies reality, builds abstract mechanisms predicated on ideological warfare, and banishes bodily connectedness with nature with a kind of dedication to established ideology over common sense.
(4) It legitimizes unheroic or antithetical ideological wars, and simultaneously sanctifies intergroup hatred and intragroup victimhood as virtuous binds of collective identity.
(5) Nature as the Devil: Nature represents the biological determinism of the body, which, if right, would be the death of biologic skepticism’s gender-sex (or sex-body) dualism.
Case in point, as described above, bodily limitations seem to have inspired ideological bents against them, that is, against fixed restrictions on the body. Fate determined by foreseeable death is definitely a source of restriction. For example, what if it is simply the case that one dies having been “only a woman” (assuming she felt this way, of course), a being primarily fixed to ‘woman-typical’ or ‘feminine’ traits? The heroine system seems to hold the same fixation with freewill as its religious predecessors, while at the same time framing life or “lived experience” in an analogously dualistic fashion. From where does all of this death denial come?
Recall, Becker says ‘guilt’ is the nucleus of what he penned ‘human death denial’. On this view, we are to understand guilt as a humble attitude of gratitude that comes from basic human experiences of being nurtured and cared for. Also recall, guilt is also a symptom of feeling bound in relation to one’s body in a manner most restrictive and appalling. Becker gives mention to [anality], for example. Further, she may feel bound to others in a manner that similarly renders her feeling equally fated to her anatomy, or as being equally responsible for taking up space and in effect may be (at least partly or collectively) responsible for those she may have unintentionally harmed.
But, there is one point of departure I wish to take up from Becker. In order for guilt to arise from a feeling of gratitude, this latter condition must be present. Also, she must show some form of guilty remorse for the harm she may’ve indirectly doled out to others simply by virtue of, say, her consuming things. Insofar as skepticism and its resistance movement is merely an attempt at literally manipulating history in a manner that erases the “master’s tools”, as Gilligan says (Hoff-Sommers, 2013), or discoveries of things like biology and evolution and each one’s application to social life from memory, I argue that ‘guilt’ is not what is being experienced here by the leaders of this movement, but instead it is ‘shame’. Shame is the nucleus of narcissistic behavior, for it is this state of shame that causes her to protect herself by deflecting inconvenient realities that threaten her grandiose self-narrative. Guilt, I argue, is what enables minority women to get caught up under this movement in hopes of achieving intersectional sisterhood. However, I argue, this is impossible under the skeptic’s feminism. Why? Below, I shall finish off any hope for this program as a truly benevolent force for real social justice. I will argue that this heroine system with its cult of elitist death denial is yet another form of Anglo-centric conquering that endeavors assimilation of women of color to achieve its aims.
A Summary of Intersectional Feminism’s Narcissistic Melancholia
Recall, POTUS or POTUS (45)’s perniciously selfish acts to erase the legacy of his perceived rival POTUS (44), who happens to be African-American. Individually, POTUS, a white man, typifies the American image, an entity that consumes more than it produces, is largely oblivious to this fact such that it moves about without a care amidst an environment of injustice and death of which these ravenous habits render it substantially responsible, even if or when indirectly. The movement to “resist” POTUS fits precisely this image. For example, intersectional feminism’s narcissism has contributed “Fat Studies” as a new academic field of study aimed at social justice, for those who have opportunity to access enough resources to become overweight or obese, even amidst the fact that Northern overconsumption of goods is part of what creates injustice through neo-liberalization “development” in the first place! Social justice for whom, I ask? Want a more specific example? I have many, too many, yet I only have space to print one.
You may be asking: Rape culture? Gender pay gap? Which example will I take to task? I could soundly refute all of the above another time. Yet, most salient to our discussion is the so-called transgender bathroom law and Canada’s Bill C-16. The premise underpinning these pieces of federal legislation, and the self-absorption demonstrated during each one’s timing, respectively exemplifies the skeptic’s claims about gender and her collective narcissism.
May 13, 2016 the so-called transgender bathroom law was legislated into federal policy by POTUS 44. Bear in mind, transgender under this law does not refer to post-op male-to-female women. A visibly biological man claiming to be a pre-op lesbian has the right to use the women’s bathroom under this policy insofar as to deny him this right would qualify as discrimination under the code. On a reasonable interpretation of the facts surrounding the biological basis for gender, which I demonstrated earlier, such a person is not a woman and therefore should not have access to public facilities designated specifically for this class. Consider a case in which S yearns to be an ‘elite athlete’, but S—whether due to a lack of opportunity or motivation—fails to follow through on the bodily transition necessary to becoming an elite athlete. Nevertheless, S’s psychological states render her ‘feeling’ as though she is an elite athlete worthy of the title and its perks, including social and political representation—proper.[12] Yet, this is precisely who is stipulated at minimum as ‘trans’ under these pieces of legislation insofar as the target subject is largely gender “non-conforming” or non-binary. Again, implications of my argument show this latter concept to be nonsense. The Aztecs would have agreed. Nonetheless, the elitist skeptic adjudges such common sense as ‘barbaric’, maybe even ‘savage’, or ‘uncivilized’ or ‘under- developed’. So, it seems each of the rivaling hero systems holds something in common after all—the need to civilize and assimilate those who they perceive as savage.
It seems fitting then that three days later when POTUS 44 doubled down on his record-setting mass deportations of Hispanic families, a move that was said to put affected ‘women’ and ‘children’ at great risk, this went virtually unnoticed as intersectional feminists and progressives alike were still buzzing over the victory for social justice—the “trans” bathroom law. Meanwhile in Canada, C-16, roughly, a bill mandating the use of “preferred pronouns” for self-identifying gender “non-conforming” people like newspeak terms ‘Zi’, Zer, Eir, etc. C-16 was debated and passed amid similar fan fare even in light of concurring criticism levied at Canada for its efforts in contributing to the economic warfare aimed at overthrowing Venezuela’s democratically elected leader in favor of a Pro-Northern, pro-neoliberal regime. Intersectional feminism was nowhere to be found in either of these cases, that is, not so long as the overthrow of her perceived rival via erasure was going according to plan. And, in case it wasn’t already obvious, neoliberal actions like Canada’s are a large part of what causes mass immigration viz. illegal immigration of the variety 44 was aiming to punish in the first place. As an aside, one of the proponents of the U.S. bathroom law the Anti-Defamation League financially supports Israeli efforts to train police forces of foreign nations in a collective effort to thwart “terrorist” or “extremist” organizations.[13] Through this same program, Israeli officials have trained Mexican police in Chiapas to combat the Zapatista uprising, an Indigenous group (largely Mayan) based in southern Mexico whose aims are to thwart elitist Northern domination facilitated by the Mexican government via transnational neo-liberal policies. In their own words, subsequently to having officially nominated a woman for president of the National Indigenous Conference, this influence of these coercive forces will grow until they have “finished with the last trace of the people of the countryside and the city.”[14]
            In the foregoing, I argued that intersectional feminism’s skepticism of biology has contributed largely to the air of collective narcissism endemic in Northern or Western society. I demonstrated how this contribution stems from its own collective shame of being something different than men, which is at odds with not only what biology has to say on the matter, but it is essentially an affront to the contrasting collective guilt of their sisters of color. Intersectional feminism or, as some feminists of color have come to call it ‘white feminism’, with its white savior complex,[15] is a heroine system that merely extends from its allegedly patriarchal old-world colonialist counterpart with its religious and economic hero systems. All things equal, individually each appears to share a project conquer, assimilation, and development of those it deems underneath its elitist ideals. Only upon being reeducated by the elitist dogma is one permitted to enter the Master’s House, which in effect could explain POTUS 44’s actions against his brethren of color. That aside, the point for the colonial masters and their imperialist aims is to transcend themselves beyond their bodily limitations and into something metaphysically significant or necessary. In the end, however, all that is really accomplished is the construction of a cult of death denial, which paradoxically leaves a trail of death along its path, whiting out the world by draining it of its colors.[16]

[1] The view of biologic nihilism delineated here is based entirely on Butler’s body of work. For the sake of space, I shall only cite each author once. Abstracted ideas are ‘denoted’ as such.
[2] Except where noted otherwise, this view is based on the work of Haslanger.
[3] Both Butler and Haslanger frequently reach for these types when arguing against the reality of gender normativity. The work of Fausto-Sterling is a favorite of the latter when making such arguments.
[4] Alicia Garcia-Falgueras & Dick Swaab. Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation. Loche S, Cappa M, Ghizzoni L, Maghnie M, Savage MO (eds): Pediatric Neuroendocrinology. Endocr Dev. Basel, Karger, 2010, vol 17, pp 22–35
[5] Wilson C.J. Chung & Anthony P. Auger. Gender Differences in Neurodevelopment and Epigenetics. Pflugers Arch. 2013 May ; 465(5): 573–584. doi:10.1007/s00424-013-1258-4.
[6] Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab . ‘Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation,’ 24
[7] Debra W. Soh. Are gender feminists and transgender activists Undermining Science? Los Angeles Times. Published on Febuary 10, 2017.
[8] Nathaniel Reade. Are Men’s and Women’s Brains Really Wired Differently? Published on [Unspecified].
[9] As evinced in his ‘The Road to Wigan Pier: “On the other hand, you have the intellectual, book-trained Socialist, who under- stands that it is necessary to throw our present civilization down the sink and is quite willing to do so (p. 93).” “It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed (p. 92).”
[10] Ernest Becker. 1975. Escape From Evil. The Free Press, New York, NY. 75-12059.
[11] Butler, J. 2006. The Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. (Verso, 2006) IBSN-13: 978-1-84467-544-9, 168
[12] Bach’s analysis, which I am currently treating in another project, speaks of types of political representation that post-op women are entitled to, i.e., political and ad hoc political representations.
[13] Cite…Democracy Now [1] & ADL [2]
[14] Elena Toledo. ‘Mexico’s Zapatista Rebel Army Nominates Indigenous Woman for President.’ PanAm Post. Published October 16, 2017.
[15] Syed, Jawad & Ali, Faiza. 2011. ‘The White Woman’s Burden: from colonial civilisation to Third World development.’ Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2011, pp 349–365
[16] ‘Great Big White World.’ Marilyn Manson- Mechanical Animals (September 14, 1998). Nothing & Interscope Records


Popular posts from this blog

Gloria Lucas, Part 3 of 4 : A Chicana Girl Leading Women to Colonize the Collective Body of Her People

****This part of the series was accepted for workshopping and presentation at the Public Philosophy Writing Workshop at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which took place between May 18-19th****
For part 3, I'm to redirect our focus a bit from Lucas and her Nalgona Positivity [Pride] by addressing concerns about the body positivity movement in general. Imagine I drive a pickup truck, say, a 1998 Chevy, which requires the action of consuming more fossil fuels than most other types of vehicles. Now, assume I'm a member of a Late-model Chevy Truck Club, whose slogan reads: “Loving my truck means unapologetically filling it with as many fossil fuels as I want.” Clearly, mass consumption of fossil fuels is bad for the environment. However, assume my conscious intent is NOT to pollute the environment, but merely to have fun with my beloved truck. Yet also assume that I'm aware of the negative effects that mass consumption of fossil fuels has on the environmentPerh…

Gloria Lucas Part 2 of 4: A Chicana Girl Attempting to Lead Women

By Jeremy Watkins-Quesada
Recall 'Part 1" of this series in which I offered an anecdote about the spreading of misinformation. The misinformation or 'fake knowledge' in question arose from none other than a world-class, world-renowned expert in evolutionary biology and ethology. Nonetheless, according to Philosopher Erik Reitan, also recall, Dawkins is not an expert in Philosophy, much less the Philosophy of Religion (PoR). This raises the most salient point for our discussion here, for it is not necessarily the case that Reitan's adjudication is the lone basis for doubting Dawkins's philosophic expertise. You see, although Dawkins is a well-trained and likewise skilled evolutionary biologist, he lacks the same kind formal education in Philosophy (in general) and PoR (in particular). Yet, there Dawkins was speaking through his untrained or underdeveloped philosophic skill set as though he were some kind of expert, thereby permeating or spreading through his rea…

The Border Landed On Us

What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? How did Manifest Destiny justify this assault? There are many varieties of this question. However, I think this version best captures what is necessary for a comprehensive answer like what I am to give here. However, I think this question warrants its due before a related question catches steam or whatever. We need to talk about this now! The answers to the particular questions highlighted above are as follow: Q1: What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? A: Racism from what I am coining ‘racial narcissism’ and treason according to the U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3. Q2: How did Manifest Destiny or MD justify this assault? A: Depends on what the question intends to ask. If what is intended is 'how did the means to pursue Mexican Territory justify its seizure, then the answer could suggest an air of collective (racial) narcissism; a metaphysical conception underpinning …