Despite their frequently pompous styling, the arguments of gender identity ideologues have always been profoundly immature, a strange mixture of some first-year undergrad realising that how we choose to define things collectively shapes our experience of the world (while forgetting the “collectively” bit) and a teenage incel trying to own the feminists by asking them how they really know he’s a member of the dominant class (do they, like, want to see his dick?). The conflation of “redefining women” in the sense of re-evaluating the intellectual capacities, bodily integrity and political status of adult human females, and “redefining women” as “a group that can include men”, is frankly idiotic, yet this is the logic upon which Capraro’s assertion about “fixed and distinct roles” relies, not to mention similar assertions in texts such as Judith Butler’s Who’s Afraid of Gender? and Amia Srinivasan’s The Right to Sex. The trouble is, it’s so stupid it can make you believe you must have missed something. The high status of those pushing this nonsense has made too many people believe their misgivings are misplaced, proof of their own — and not the speaker’s — moral and intellectual inferiority.
It’s true. The stupider it is the more people think it’s so opaque it just has to be right. It can’t be what it looks like – large numbers of once intelligent people telling enormous absurd lies – so instead it must be deepity piled on deepity. which is why we peasants don’t understand it.