Leftism increasingly functions as less of a political ideology and more of a superstitious cult. Many examples could be presented to prove this point, but today’s “controversy” should suffice.
For a little bit of background, Maya Forstater is a researcher in the United Kingdom who recently lost her job for stating the scientific and indisputable fact that men cannot turn into women. Forstater went to court to win back her job but an employment judge ruled against her this week, declaring that Forstater’s belief in biological science is “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” He also ruled that her views on biology do not “have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.” On that point, he’s correct. It is not at all a “philosophical belief” that men can’t transition into women. It is a scientific fact. But a fact that, in these times, cannot be stated publicly.
J.K. Rowling was next in line for cancellation. The author came to Forstater’s defense, but did so in the mildest and most leftist-friendly way possible (or so she thought). Writing on Twitter, Rowling said: “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”
Rowling here affirms the relativistic, libertine position on every point, except she is not willing to profess biological sex as a figment of our imagination. So, simply for suggesting that sex exists, Rowling has found herself in the middle of a leftist firestorm. Thousands of science-hating lunatics are calling her bigoted, transphobic, and so forth, all because she relayed a fact as indisputable and uncontroversial as “two plus two equals four.”
You could argue that Rowling deserves to be eaten by the alligator she’s been feeding all these years. Perhaps she does. But it is worth highlighting her plight because it underscores the point I made at the top. Leftist gender theory is a superstition and leftism itself is a cult. That is certainly how anthropologists of the future will categorize it when they sift through the wreckage of our once-great civilization.
On a related note, and inspired by this latest bit of madness, I am repeating the challenge I have made to the Left several times before. Only now I am upping the ante a little bit. As I announced on Twitter this afternoon, I will give $100 to the first leftist who can provide me with a coherent definition of the word “woman” that permits biological males to be included yet still maintains womanhood as a distinguishable and objective category.
It is my contention that this simple question — what is a woman? — completely dismantles left-wing gender theory in its entirety. I claim that everything the Left says about gender can be discredited just by posing this question. After all, a statement like “I identify as a woman” has no meaning if the word “woman” has no meaning. Indeed, all statements about women are rendered incoherent if we do not have a working definition of the term itself.
The problem for the Left is that they need the word “woman” to mean something in order for feminist and LGBT rhetoric to have relevance. But any attempt to define the word must result in the exclusion of biological males. There simply is no available definition of “woman” that legitimizes transgenderism. If it means anything for a woman to be a woman, then it cannot mean anything when a man says he is one. I submit that transgenderism is both scientifically and logically invalid. This is a very important point. It’s not just that the Left is promoting a crazy new scientific theory. It’s that they are making a claim that is logically incoherent and thus dismissible and out of hand.
To review: The phrase “I identify as a woman” requires that the word “woman” mean something. But if the word “woman” means anything at all, then men who identify as woman must be mistaken. All you have to do to prove me wrong is offer a definition of the word that successfully navigates all of these obstacles. If you can, I’ll pay you for your trouble. But you can’t.