all 13 comments

[–]jkfinn 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Postmodernism is excellent for de-constructing and critiquing dominant power relationships and socially constructed inst.s and systems, but it went too far and too deep to the point of collapsing the ground beneath. It’s one thing to see hierarchy operative everywhere, and another to dismiss basic truths, objective criteria, and all certainties. This is the philosophical thought that Queer used to push its extremely relativistic and individualistic sexual views in the academy and out. Subjects (male) were to have full sexual license to enact any sexual expression on demand. And this included the right to sexual identities, the promotion of performative sex, and an expanding list transgressive sex acts centered around sado-masochism. And of course, LGBTQ made it an effective delivery system. It was almost entirely male in membership and its mainstream acceptance was never greater. So, Queer took hold and its first hook-up act was with transgender...

[–]unexpectedly_local[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. So to summarize, Queer Theory was created and/or accepted as something beneficial to the male sexuality or sexual demand? In recent years, it seems that the strongest proponents of QT have been heterosexual and bisexual women, but I wouldn't deny that the main benefactors are males.

[–]DistantGlimmer 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Speculating I'd think it has to do with the general individualism in neoliberalism and the discrediting of any collectivist ideologies and the idea, enthusiastically pushed by neoliberal elites, that we can't really change neoliberal society in any radical way ("the end of history" was an actual phrase which cropped up in certain academic circles in the early 90s) and then we have various economic changes that make people feel even more powerless Now we also have this pandemic that no one can do anything about - that just makes it worse. So people look at self-empowerment, I can see how QT seduces people even though it doesn't make sense. "You can be whatever you feel you are. The mind is what is important." "If you're a woman, you don't have to be oppressed. We can solve female oppression just by identifying as something else ." It's silly but like other cults I think they do have a message that if you take it at face value comforts people and gives them the illusion they have more control over their own lives. The same with all the sex-positive "sex work is work and empowering!" nonsense. It is framed as just people making choices and expressing their desires even though that is usually patently deceptive,

There's a whole fear I have about how this is actually about pushing transhumanism and the gender shit is just the first step in that. I really think transhumanism will be terrible for anyone in the world who isn't extremely wealthy but I imagine the same sort of rhetoric will be used to justify it and this is probably a test-run for what the public will swallow.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Martine Rothblatt (once heralded as "the highest-paid female CEO in America," though not female) has written From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom of Form. I would like to get around to reading it one day.

[–]unexpectedly_local[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the reply. Do you have more info on the "end of history" idea (an author or a body of text)? Is it something that came out of postmodernism? Underlying this current libfem movement, I've felt that those who would benefit most were those who had the privilege of "options". Like, in a feminist context it would be the middle upper/upper class women, or with LGBT it would bisexuals/pansexuals. I never understood why it was called "Queer" Theory if it fundamentally argued that sexuality is a choice to be deconstructed and examined.

I appreciate your thoughts on transhumanism, it's something that's cropped up on my radar as well. As a teen I was very into cyberpunk in an aesthetic and "rage against the machine" type of way, but now it just seems very sinister to me. There is a dark irony in the fact that the people who now heavily tread that transhumanism line are the type who would be the cyberpunk villains of yesteryear.

[–]DistantGlimmer 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

I don't think Francis Fukuyama who coined this would be considered a post-modernist but many of the postmodernists believed similar things about how all ideologies were discredited (even though I imagine they would view Fukuyama's ideas as a grand narrative themselves). Yeah, I agree with you about this ideology really benefiting privileged people with options at the expense of others. It seems to be a lot of more working-class women who are rejecting trans ideology (not exclusively but largely from what I've seen) That is another reason I think it is associated with neoliberalism.

but now it just seems very sinister to me. There is a dark irony in the fact that the people who now heavily tread that transhumanism line are the type who would be the cyberpunk villains of yesteryear.

Yes. :)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It replaced women’s studies, gender studies used to be women’s studies.

[–]unexpectedly_local[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I went to college during that transition time, as it was called "Gender and Women's Studies". I kind of wish I had challenged myself to take a class (almost did but decided against it). I think I'm missing a lot by having avoided that transition.

[–]Sun_bear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was once part of a vegan group where the members started sharing videos of shocking abuse. I remember there was one with a TIM being beaten to death which the caption claimed was because of transphobia. I think the TIM-as-the-ultimate victim campaign has been very successful. Most people believe TIMs have an average life expectancy of 25, get shot at in the street for their mere existence and are likely to kill themselves from the stress at any moment. Most people can't see that TIMs are mostly privileged men demanding concessions from women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are trying to invade every space...

[–]anfd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sheila Jeffreys argues in her Unpacking Queer Politics. A Lesbian Feminist Perspective (2003) that "In the 1990s a phenomenon developed within sectors of the lesbian community known as ‘packing’ [...] This entailed the wearing of a dildo down the trouser leg to suggest the existence of a penis. This practice signalled that, for the lesbians who adopted it, the worship of masculinity had triumphed over the lesbian feminist project of ending gender hierarchy. At the same time a cult of transsexualism developed amongst similar groups of les­bians. [...] I shall argue here that the most significant reason [for this] was the influence of a powerful male gay culture which, from the late 1970s onwards, rejected the gay liberation project of dismantling gender hierarchy and chose ‘manhood’ as its goal. [...] The harmful practices that have developed in this period have all been given theoretical justification within queer theory and politics. I argue that when queer politics in the 1990s attacked the principles of gay liberation and lesbian feminism, which required the transform­ation of personal life, there was a backlash against the possibility of radical social change. The new politics was based, quite explicitly, upon a repudiation of lesbian feminist ideas. Queer politics enshrined a cult of masculinity." (p. 1–2).

I don't find her account convincing on its own (and is not intended to be: it's a "lesbian feminist perspective"); certainly a larger view on e.g. the rise of postmodernism must enter the picture. I would think it's also connected to the language and culture of "inalienable human rights", the cultural legacy of Nazi atrocities and (in the US) slavery and the resultant horror against any accusation of discrimination. That's just a feeling though.

[–]unexpectedly_local[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for your response. Can you elaborate more on it's connection with inalienable human rights? Do you mean that QT advocates an individualistic perspective and the growing idea that "attacking" anyone on their individualistic perspective is somehow an attack on their basic human rights?

[–]anfd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So this is just thinking out loud (like before), and might be a bit long-winded, so sorry about that. But inalienable human rights is a bit like the existence of god was back in the day. It's (socially) difficult to deny that universal human rights "exist", even though it's just politics about how you should treat or should not be allowed to treat people (and which people in which ways). So if something can successfully be claimed to be a human right — and it's always a political struggle what gets into that position and what doesn't, not a matter of "that's just the way it is" — then that removes it from the arena of (legitimate) political discussion, or at least makes it a lot safer than other more "every day things".

The UN declaration of human rights says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", but that's clearly not true, as some people are born straight into grinding poverty or actual slavery. What the declaration can be said to mean is "well, people should not be enslaved or otherwise treated badly in this or that way". But the "human beings are born free" is just a secular — though equally idealistic — way to say what the US declaration of indepence put in religious terms, "all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

The difficulty with human rights talk is — at least for me — that of course I think some things should most definetely be protected from the whims of everyday politics more than other things. People lives and people's bicycles should not be on the same line. Even if they're both important, they shouldn't be equally important. Today one of the most effective ways to protect things is to campaign for them as a human right, even though personally I don't find it intellectually honest all the way. To me it's almost the same as to say, "God wants it this way" (which is another way of removing issues from the arena of politics in societies where religion is hegemonic). Pragmatically I won't be arguing most of the time, "don't you realise there's no 'human rights', the only thing there is is political struggle about who gets what (not necessarily in a narrow interest group sense)", even though that's closer to what I think than the human rights discourse is.

So I guess my (tentative) idea here is that — without commenting about its good or bad consequences — TRAs have managed to attach their political aims to the human rights discourse, which gives them an extra protective layer: now it's not just another interest group whining anymore. It wasn't inevitable, but it was hardly surprising either because — at least so it seems to me — it does have similarities with ending the (legal) discrimination of homosexuals, language minorities etc., and at first glance the logic is compelling: if these other groups already have human rights, why not this other group that looks awfully similar?

Something like that :-)