*The following entry is currently an academic conference paper due to be presented this spring at:
**This entry is also subject to removal from the blog upon going under peer-review in the near future.
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.
Introduction
Introduction
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.
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 (biotechin.asia).” 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 café. 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]
Conclusion
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? Oprah.com. 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
Comments
Post a Comment