What I think you want to do, correct me if I'm wrong,
You're wrong.
(Also, this is an example of what's good about the like system. Instead of the dogpilers interjecting with their own posts to cheer you on, they simply like all your posts. This declutters the thread and make the mob-like character of progressive ideology more apparent to neutral readers.)
is claim that gender-as-social construct is a rationale for social and sexual deviancy, and only those already predisposed towards deviance or sympathetic to deviants would accept that gender is a social construct. But, that doesn't follow, any more than it follows that scientists reject Creationism in favour of the modern evolutionary synthesis because they really want to have a monkey for a grandad.
What I'm actually claiming is that (A) it doesn't follow from gender being a social construct that it is valueless, (B) in order to have value, it cannot be freely violated without any consequences whatsoever, and (C) the fact that every single proponent of that theory without exception believes that any self-declared identity should be unconditionally and uncritically accepted as valid. Since all proponent of gender as a social construct would encourage deviancy (and not merely accept it, but work to alter social norms in order to accommodate it), they must set themselves against any gender construct whatsoever.
I would say that this belief being
universally held among scholars of gender is evidence that these scholars aren't in this because they're actually interested in the nature of gender, but because they want human identity to be entirely self-constructed and demolishing the foundations of our current gender norms is a prerequisite to that.
(It's not necessary that they believe that the heteronormative, Protestant nuclear family has value -
any sort of construct would do.)
So let's improve your analogy: imagine if every scientist who claimed common descent to be true also happened to be a proponent of social Darwinism. That wouldn't disprove evolution, of course, but it might suggest that the scientists studying it are not doing so in good faith and their conclusions should at least be held suspect.
I mean this is a wonderful elaboration.
But put more elegantly: Girl Power
I'm not sure how that follows, but thanks for helping prove my original point.
Anyway, much more importantly, the point TF makes stands. Jordan Peterson has in fact managed to avoid a bandwagon that truly does not exist, and the way you’ve described him doing so betrays his appeal, and the appeal of all the Alt-Right.
I tore it down pretty easily. Political doctrines =/= politics. It's possible for contradictory ideas to be advocated by the same movement, such as progressives who endorse Shariah law.
It is a reaction to something imaginary, and a very appealing one that has managed to distract you and millions of similarly frustrated white men from reality in a skillful way. Peterson as an element of this reaction has taken on a legitimizing role, that strengthens your resolve as a reactionary.
I'd appreciate you not commenting on what my beliefs are unless you're heard
what I believe. 'Reactionary' is a wide label, but most of Peterson's audience doesn't fit into it (unless you think the 2000's or 90's attitude towards gender is reactionary, which might be fair going by a strict definition).
Sure. Now, 'lie' is a bit more malicious than 'falsehood', but sure.
But even then to summarize "gender is a social construct" to "gender is a falsehood" isn't an accurate summary. And seeing how quickly it turns (in common discourse) into a severe mischaracterization, I would put it as a negatively useful summary. The summary is a falsehood, so to speak, and then can very easily become a lie.
That's true, but I think that most people who advocate the former are actually using that as a Trojan Horse for the latter.
