I’ve been zinging him lately on other matters, so I wanted to shine a favorable light on Gene Callahan’s posts on the (very touchy) subject of identity politics. For example, in this post Gene writes:
The Incoherence of the Dolezal/Jenner Distinction
I am interested in the sharp distinction being made between these two cases as an example of the incoherence of the progressive worldview, and not because of the cases themselves. And commenters attempts to defend this sharp distinction in response to previous posts leaves me more convinced than ever that I am right about this incoherence.
Gene then explains why he thinks the “duh” type explanations of why these cases are allegedly so different, really don’t work.
But then Gene takes it further, to offer a theory as to why progressives were so quick to embrace Jenner but to reject Dolezal:
What is going on is this: complete sexual freedom, “anything goes so long as it is consensual,” and the identification of traditional sexual morality as a barbarous relic are cornerstones of progressive ideology. So anyone who “transgresses” those traditional boundaries is heroic, whether there is any biological basis for those transgressions or not.
On the other hand, racial identity, and in particular the racial identity of oppressed or formerly oppressed people, is an important weapon in the progressive assault on “Eurocentric” civilization. Thus, crossing those boundaries is a very, very bad sort of transgression, and the person who does it is a “fraud” and a “liar.”
Incidentally, strictly speaking this issue has nothing intrinsically to do with religion, and yet I am posting this on Sunday because in the national discussion, it seems that the two are related. I’ll let you folks hash it out in the comments if you think this is a coincidence.