More pronouns than anyone could remember
A gender-atheist academic writes:
A French philosopher named Michel Foucault, who was alleged to have abused young boys in Tunisia, was primarily responsible for a theory that came to be known as postmodernism. This theory was adopted by mediocre academics who were unable to do any serious thinking. These academics came up with a number of bizarre ideas, including but not limited to, that sex was not binary and was on a “spectrum,” that sex was not immutable and could be changed, that sex was irrelevant and only gender mattered, that everyone had an “innate” sense of gender even though gender is a cultural construct, and that men could be women and had a right to use women’s toilets and other facilities, and to play on their sports teams. The Foucauldians rejected the idea that we should all just live and let live and, instead, demanded that, although there was no truth, everyone had to accept their metaphysical, quasi-religious beliefs as literally true and had to do whatever the Foucauldians wanted or they would be called lots of horrible names and be subjected to endless repetitions of slogans such as “trans women are women” and “trans rights are human rights” until they wept from boredom. Liberal, pluralistic society disappeared, virulent misogyny was given free reign, everyone had more pronouns than anyone could remember, and the only music permitted was that of Billy Bragg. Everyone remotely interesting was canceled. Universities abolished all departments except for gender studies because all other areas of study, especially all biological sciences, were deemed “transphobic.” Everyone was absolutely miserable, especially those who had surgery and took hormones and regretted it. No one lived happily ever after.
Meanwhile the planet kept right on overheating. Tune in next week for another exciting installment of
I remember reading ‘Les Mots et les Choses’ years ago and being struck how it seemed to be at base a reworking of Hegel’s historicism so that ‘history’ did not proceed in a rational manner ever upwards, but in a completely irrational way for reasons that only Foucault was able to provide, and that came across as wholly arbitrary.
As it happens, I do not believe that ‘history’ is in any way a rational process, but rather a succession of accidents and fundamentally meaningless (certainly in any Hegelian way), but Foucault’s theories of epistemes that change for subterranean reasons that only a philosopher of the order of Foucault could discern struck me as ridiculous.
Who is this terf to deny agency to those Tunisian boys?