Over the last week I have been reading an author from my youth: P.D. James Death of an Expert Witness. This book was set in the 1970s, when the traditional ways of Rural England were dying, and the misery of our modern ways were becoming apparent. There is unfaithfulness, divorce, childhood misery and murder. There is a good discussion of the tawdry politics of civil service. But James writes with an assurance, an sense of moral code, and an ability to describe men and women, heroes and villains, as flawed. This is unlike modern books, where the hero has to be some form of superman, without flaw. We have moved from fiction to myth.
A bit more on why the whole notion of "gender" is altogether nonsensical:
If you (the progressive) define "gender" as being the same thing as biological sex, then you are committed to either 1) conceding that gender is a biological, objective, observable reality that is determined by genes and genitalia and not feelings, or 2) conceding that you ARE in fact asserting that objective, biological sex is an illusion and are claiming that sex is determined by feelings.
If, on the other hand, you claim that "gender" is real, but is the biological sex that you FEEL like rather than the biological sex you are, then you are making an incoherent claim, because you are attributing physical properties to an abstraction. If male and female are objective, physical, biological properties, and gender is a subjective, abstract feeling that you have, then it is logically impossible for gender to be male or female. If sex is objective and biological and gender is abstract, then "My gender is male" is a category error and a nonsense phrase, the same as saying "My self-esteem is twelve kilograms" or "The number five is cold."
And finally, if you claim that "gender" is real, but try to divorce it entirely from biological sex, you end up with a circular definition. If having "male" gender doesn't refer to the male sex, but merely a feeling of being "male," then it becomes meaningless. The answer to "What does 'male' mean?" becomes "to feel male," which is circular and a tautology and hence meaningless. Furthermore, if gender has nothing to do with sex at all, then there's no reason your gender can't be "attack helicopter" or "waffle."
So no matter how you try to define it, the whole concept of "gender" is either complete nonsense or a completely redundant way of referring to biological sex. Of course, progressives never actually choose a consistent definition and stick with it. They are deceitful, remorseless sophists who switch between these three definitions on the fly as the needs of the moment demand. The truth doesn't matter to them, and the ends justify the means.
--Ian Bibby, Facebook
The problem is that this sophism never satisfied. It is akin to the official soviet realism -- novels produced to be pulped and ignored while people read samizdat. The soviet virus, sadly, has now infected Hollywood and the big publishing houses, and I now walk out of bookshops, not with a bag full of reading, but not even a note to acquire the text for my e reader.
Thanks to the accelerating erosion of the West's Christian foundations, the converged entertainment industry can't tell a good vs evil story anymore. See the mewling sub-pagans who denounce Tolkien for depicting orcs as morally inferior to elves.
Generating catharsis by appealing to the audience's shared sense of right and wrong is right out when you hold your audience's morals in contempt. Post-Christian storytellers must endeavor to scratch a different fundamental human itch. No, I don't mean smut. Lust certainly has a profitable track record, and you can bet it'll show up as window dressing, but it's a poor substitute for good triumphing over evil. The best postmodern alternative to justice is pride, and a Smrt Story is the favored vehicle for massaging the audience's ego.
Your boilerplate Smrt Story follows the basic mystery template with a key twist: The answer to the mystery involves debunking a central tenet--or perceived central tenet--of Christianity. I call such propaganda "Smrt" instead of "smart" because the author's theological knowledge is usually so deficient that the "dogma" he's debunking is a nonsensical straw man. But his ignorance sets a vicious frame wherein Christians may be lured into defending one error to refute another. Think of all the Dan Brown critics who argued that it didn't matter if Christ survived the crucifixion.
Baiting Christians into tilting at windmills isn't the main point of a Smrt Story. The Smrt author works his evil spell by taking the reader aside and whispering, "Look at all those rubes stumbling around in their superstitious fog. I can tell you're not like them. You can handle the truth, and here it is..."
Here's how the trick works. The Smrt author presents himself as a sort of Gnostic oracle who's got the dirt on some formerly sacred Western tradition. He doesn't break the fourth wall and make these claims overtly. Instead he establishes his credentials by portraying the skeptics attacking the fable as cool, informed characters the reader wants to emulate. At the same time, those who cling to traditional Western beliefs are mocked as credulous--often violent--dupes. The Smrt author carefully frames the window of allowable debate in his world to exclude any compelling arguments for the defense.
The left lies. It cannot help themselves. They have taken over mass media: mass media is now dying. They have redefined eligibility for sports – and women's competitions are now fixed so the transgender athletes will win. (I don't mind them competing – like men who juice – in a separate enhanced catergory. It would give amateur sports back to those of us who train unaided and like a tad of competition).
But it is now infecting general medical journals.
Ok, first, you can’t put a phrase like “gender-diverse person” into a definition without defining it. I have no idea what one of those is. The mind boggles. Please help me with that.
Next, a phrase I’ve never seen in a medical journal: “this term should be used to describe distressing symptoms rather than to pathologize.” I was previously unaware that the word “pathology” could be used as a verb. Pathology essentially means disease. I think they’re saying that when you “pathologize” something that you’re describing it as a disease. And I think their point is that we shouldn’t do that to common, normal, healthy behaviors, like transgenderism.
Just as a reminder, this article was written by physicians, in a scientific journal. Or apparently, as Andrew Klavan would say, a former scientific journal.
I won’t review the entire article. I have better things to do than write silliness like that, and you have better things to do than read it.
The modern left is beyond satire.
And now, their experienced dysphoria has pathologized my beloved medical journals. It’s tragic. It really is.
So now, I’m not even allowed to study medical research without having Democrat talking points shoved down my throat. It’s everywhere. Like a metastatic cancer.
With a similar impact on the host.
Dr Bastiat, Ricochet
We are now communicating by blogs, obscurely. I am writing my research notes on paper. And carefully selecting my journals.
The only saving grace is that the left is so clueless that they can no longer write a believable myth.