We are living in a Postmodern world. This Substack exists to help people understand postmodernism and it’s connection to what is now often called the “woke” movement.
I have really appreciated your posts over the past two years, as well as your explanations of postmodernism on Benjamin Boyce's podcast. I went to art school in the late 1990s and 2000s, and have been a working visual artist since then... and could not figure out why art and culture had become what it was post 1968, obsessed with identity and devoid of beauty. Questions to professors were left with blank stares or outright derision, so I just muddled along for years, trying to make conceptual art and fit into that world. In 2017, after experiencing both misogyny and antisemitism from the art groups I had become involved with, I started to get the picture that maybe this wasn't the world for me. After reading your threads and listening to your explanations, it started to make sense. I now understand post-Structuralism, postmodernism, gender theory, critical race theory-- THANK YOU. I think you are right to diversify your platforms. Looking forward to more enlightenment. :)
YESSSSSS! These longform "deconstructions" are sorely needed from someone who knows the woke movement as well as you do. I will gladly support you in any way I can. I absolutely love your talks with the Boyce of Reason and Lindsay.... I have a small group of friends I met through clubhouse... Would you have any desire to join us for an extended chat on refining our tactics in this fight? It's a motley crew and we compliment each other so well in the rooms we hold combatting the SRJ (social revenge warriors) and other lefticals... We would be honored if you would join us for a chat.. would you?
Your Substack was discovered a short-time ago. I appreciate your efforts at helping the rest of us figure out what the weirdos peddling this postmodern bullshit is spreading around. Your essays provide a straightforward and quick summary of the postmodern movement and provide us with the tools necessary to destroy the factions of the Democratic Party responsible for spreading garbage and poisoning the minds of both young and old. Thank you again.
A very warm welcome here Wokal! I’m so stoked you added Substack to your arsenal as sooner or later(unless Elon gets his ducks in a row) Twitter will likely shitcan you for the very truth you reveal! Anyway, again, excited to have you safe amongst the hallowed halls of Substack! Cheers from deep behind enemy lines in blue-blooded, elitist, Libshit Nor-Cal…..
I'm so glad you're here! I used to follow you on Twatter before being suspended for making a non-controversial, medically-correct, but politically incorrect comment (I'm a retired clinical and public health physician). Will you possibly be putting some of your old threads over here? I have shared your Decision Dilemma one, via Threadreaderapp, many and many a time, and in fact was looking for it again to append to a new post, when I found the link to this account. Thank you for all you have done and are doing!
Wokal, my twitter handle is Woke_Ass_Person. I have been locked out for months for calling Jennifer Rubin a [word I should not have used, I admit]. Twitter is demanding I supply a personal phone number to unlock the account. I prefer to remain anonymous, but Twitter support has ignored all my emails seeking for a workaround. I tried to use burner numbers, or Google Phone, but Twitter doesn't accept those numbers.
Of note, within a week of me using the word, Keith Olberman called Marjorie Taylor Greene *the exact same insult*. I'm quite certain, his account was never locked. Twitter Support, in their silence, has offered no explanation for this, either.
However - here's where it gets sticky - A, B and C are all different from each other. For example:
- Woman A has XY chromosomes but developed as a female. Therefore it can't be on chromosomes.
- Woman B has XX chromosomes (i.e. normal) but has a rare DSD and was born with a penis. Therefore having or having had a penis can't disqualify somebody.
- Girl C is from the Güevedoces people and may develop male genitals at puberty (I kid you not). Therefore people can change sex.
Though it's plainly a load of bollocks, it's pretty easy to muddy the waters using these cases: a TW can be framed as "Woman B with Woman A's chromosomes, undertaking the reverse of the path taken by Girl C".
Looking back up at the list, what the edge cases all have in common is that they are all *physical*. Irrespective of genitals, woman A and B both have female bodies. However, that opens up more edge cases, and also accusations of sexism.
Help?
(Context: I had a conversation with an old friend that really pissed me off, but also left me feeling stupid.)
I think it was Wokal, actually, who made this point about such cases as you're bringing up: "The fact that you're bringing up edge cases is because you know there's a line." Basically these are genetic anomalies (and univariate fallacies) that, yes, create unique questions for where and how a biological gender line is drawn. But the fact that we know to summon these oddities like Pokemon for our argument tells us we know somewhere about where the line is.
And yes--trans are none of these things, as you note. A trans-person is not someone in that blurry middle that your examples are. So they talk about the rare complicated cases between male and female in order to justify summoning a full male into full female, or vice versa. It's completely dishonest.
> "The fact that you're bringing up edge cases is because you know there's a line."
That's why I posted here. I was hoping Wokal or somebody else better than me at this could help come up with something equally effective.
The problem is that W's slapdown works to defend the concept of a woman as not just culturally defined.
However, when I tried that, my friend more or less said: "Yes, I agree there is a line. But *you* agree these are edge cases. TWs are also edge cases. Therefore TWAW."*
> So they talk about the rare complicated cases between male and female in order to justify summoning a full male into full female, or vice versa
And of course, my friend would counter, "Indeed, TWs are also rare complicated edge cases..."
So I'm afraid it's still down to finding a succinct way of explaining how TWs aren't edge cases, without having to explain my way out of resorting to stereotypes.
*(He also did the whole "Sport is decided by genetic advantage. That woman with broad shoulders has a genetic advantage and you are OK with that, so logically you must be OK with TW's competing in sport..." It's bloody annoying, and the kind of smart arse logic you get out of a child. But half the people I know and have history with have turned into this. There's something darkly fascinating about the way this works.)
He needs to prove this. What makes them edge cases like a female that grows male anatomy? How does the way someone feel make them an edge case? The 'anorexia' comparison is, I think, apt. There is definitely a grey line between 'normal weight' and 'underweight,' or between 'underweight' and 'dangerously underweight,' and so there are definitely 'edge cases.' This doesn't mean that an anorexic person's self perception of being overweight *makes them such an edge case.*
> "Sport is decided by genetic advantage."
Ask him if we should no longer have sexed/gendered sports. Why have the categories at all? If he says, "Well the Patriarchy did it so that men wouldn't have to compete with women," say, "Fine, then let's open up the competition." If he thinks there should still be sexed/gendered sports, ask him why.
Further, there's no logic to "You accept some genetic advantage in sport, so you must accept ALL genetic advantage in sport."
It is darkly fascinating, because it's purely deconstructive. Any argument they make about men and women, you could use the same tactics to blur the distinction between hands and feet. .
Thanks for taking the time to help me think this through:
So, I say, "What makes you say TW's are edge cases?" neatly shifting the burden of proof.
Presumably, he says, "Clearly they are extreme and tragic versions of XY women with DSDs. How masculine does an XY/DSD woman have to be before she stops counting as a woman? Who are you to judge?"
If I argue, "The threshold is, 'do you have a male body?'" he'll counter, "Which is why puberty blockers and youth transition are so important."
Hmmm. Looking back at all this, I feel as if I'm approaching it from the wrong direction.
Should I be saying, "You can't *identify* yourself into an edge case" then go reductio ad absurdum?
Thanks for these articles - cannot afford paid subscription yet - no am I a twitterer cos of all I've heard from the beginning. So thanks again - extremely useful. I will def recommend you to others who have more dosh!
I have really appreciated your posts over the past two years, as well as your explanations of postmodernism on Benjamin Boyce's podcast. I went to art school in the late 1990s and 2000s, and have been a working visual artist since then... and could not figure out why art and culture had become what it was post 1968, obsessed with identity and devoid of beauty. Questions to professors were left with blank stares or outright derision, so I just muddled along for years, trying to make conceptual art and fit into that world. In 2017, after experiencing both misogyny and antisemitism from the art groups I had become involved with, I started to get the picture that maybe this wasn't the world for me. After reading your threads and listening to your explanations, it started to make sense. I now understand post-Structuralism, postmodernism, gender theory, critical race theory-- THANK YOU. I think you are right to diversify your platforms. Looking forward to more enlightenment. :)
YESSSSSS! These longform "deconstructions" are sorely needed from someone who knows the woke movement as well as you do. I will gladly support you in any way I can. I absolutely love your talks with the Boyce of Reason and Lindsay.... I have a small group of friends I met through clubhouse... Would you have any desire to join us for an extended chat on refining our tactics in this fight? It's a motley crew and we compliment each other so well in the rooms we hold combatting the SRJ (social revenge warriors) and other lefticals... We would be honored if you would join us for a chat.. would you?
Your Substack was discovered a short-time ago. I appreciate your efforts at helping the rest of us figure out what the weirdos peddling this postmodern bullshit is spreading around. Your essays provide a straightforward and quick summary of the postmodern movement and provide us with the tools necessary to destroy the factions of the Democratic Party responsible for spreading garbage and poisoning the minds of both young and old. Thank you again.
A very warm welcome here Wokal! I’m so stoked you added Substack to your arsenal as sooner or later(unless Elon gets his ducks in a row) Twitter will likely shitcan you for the very truth you reveal! Anyway, again, excited to have you safe amongst the hallowed halls of Substack! Cheers from deep behind enemy lines in blue-blooded, elitist, Libshit Nor-Cal…..
I'm so glad you're here! I used to follow you on Twatter before being suspended for making a non-controversial, medically-correct, but politically incorrect comment (I'm a retired clinical and public health physician). Will you possibly be putting some of your old threads over here? I have shared your Decision Dilemma one, via Threadreaderapp, many and many a time, and in fact was looking for it again to append to a new post, when I found the link to this account. Thank you for all you have done and are doing!
Wokal, my twitter handle is Woke_Ass_Person. I have been locked out for months for calling Jennifer Rubin a [word I should not have used, I admit]. Twitter is demanding I supply a personal phone number to unlock the account. I prefer to remain anonymous, but Twitter support has ignored all my emails seeking for a workaround. I tried to use burner numbers, or Google Phone, but Twitter doesn't accept those numbers.
Of note, within a week of me using the word, Keith Olberman called Marjorie Taylor Greene *the exact same insult*. I'm quite certain, his account was never locked. Twitter Support, in their silence, has offered no explanation for this, either.
Glad to see you here! Perhaps one of your articles could cover counters to a weird tactic I encountered recently?
"A,B, and C are edge cases for [Definition of Woman]. TWs are also edge cases. Therefore TWAW."
Seems to me that assumes that
A). TW *are* an edge case.
B). TW are the same kind of edge case as A,B, and C.
Thanks! Yes, that's where I should have gone.
However - here's where it gets sticky - A, B and C are all different from each other. For example:
- Woman A has XY chromosomes but developed as a female. Therefore it can't be on chromosomes.
- Woman B has XX chromosomes (i.e. normal) but has a rare DSD and was born with a penis. Therefore having or having had a penis can't disqualify somebody.
- Girl C is from the Güevedoces people and may develop male genitals at puberty (I kid you not). Therefore people can change sex.
Though it's plainly a load of bollocks, it's pretty easy to muddy the waters using these cases: a TW can be framed as "Woman B with Woman A's chromosomes, undertaking the reverse of the path taken by Girl C".
Looking back up at the list, what the edge cases all have in common is that they are all *physical*. Irrespective of genitals, woman A and B both have female bodies. However, that opens up more edge cases, and also accusations of sexism.
Help?
(Context: I had a conversation with an old friend that really pissed me off, but also left me feeling stupid.)
I think it was Wokal, actually, who made this point about such cases as you're bringing up: "The fact that you're bringing up edge cases is because you know there's a line." Basically these are genetic anomalies (and univariate fallacies) that, yes, create unique questions for where and how a biological gender line is drawn. But the fact that we know to summon these oddities like Pokemon for our argument tells us we know somewhere about where the line is.
And yes--trans are none of these things, as you note. A trans-person is not someone in that blurry middle that your examples are. So they talk about the rare complicated cases between male and female in order to justify summoning a full male into full female, or vice versa. It's completely dishonest.
> "The fact that you're bringing up edge cases is because you know there's a line."
That's why I posted here. I was hoping Wokal or somebody else better than me at this could help come up with something equally effective.
The problem is that W's slapdown works to defend the concept of a woman as not just culturally defined.
However, when I tried that, my friend more or less said: "Yes, I agree there is a line. But *you* agree these are edge cases. TWs are also edge cases. Therefore TWAW."*
> So they talk about the rare complicated cases between male and female in order to justify summoning a full male into full female, or vice versa
And of course, my friend would counter, "Indeed, TWs are also rare complicated edge cases..."
So I'm afraid it's still down to finding a succinct way of explaining how TWs aren't edge cases, without having to explain my way out of resorting to stereotypes.
*(He also did the whole "Sport is decided by genetic advantage. That woman with broad shoulders has a genetic advantage and you are OK with that, so logically you must be OK with TW's competing in sport..." It's bloody annoying, and the kind of smart arse logic you get out of a child. But half the people I know and have history with have turned into this. There's something darkly fascinating about the way this works.)
>TWs are also edge cases
Why?
He needs to prove this. What makes them edge cases like a female that grows male anatomy? How does the way someone feel make them an edge case? The 'anorexia' comparison is, I think, apt. There is definitely a grey line between 'normal weight' and 'underweight,' or between 'underweight' and 'dangerously underweight,' and so there are definitely 'edge cases.' This doesn't mean that an anorexic person's self perception of being overweight *makes them such an edge case.*
> "Sport is decided by genetic advantage."
Ask him if we should no longer have sexed/gendered sports. Why have the categories at all? If he says, "Well the Patriarchy did it so that men wouldn't have to compete with women," say, "Fine, then let's open up the competition." If he thinks there should still be sexed/gendered sports, ask him why.
Further, there's no logic to "You accept some genetic advantage in sport, so you must accept ALL genetic advantage in sport."
It is darkly fascinating, because it's purely deconstructive. Any argument they make about men and women, you could use the same tactics to blur the distinction between hands and feet. .
Thanks for taking the time to help me think this through:
So, I say, "What makes you say TW's are edge cases?" neatly shifting the burden of proof.
Presumably, he says, "Clearly they are extreme and tragic versions of XY women with DSDs. How masculine does an XY/DSD woman have to be before she stops counting as a woman? Who are you to judge?"
If I argue, "The threshold is, 'do you have a male body?'" he'll counter, "Which is why puberty blockers and youth transition are so important."
Hmmm. Looking back at all this, I feel as if I'm approaching it from the wrong direction.
Should I be saying, "You can't *identify* yourself into an edge case" then go reductio ad absurdum?
Thanks for these articles - cannot afford paid subscription yet - no am I a twitterer cos of all I've heard from the beginning. So thanks again - extremely useful. I will def recommend you to others who have more dosh!
Good to have you here!