A transvestite cis-story of the Left.

Discussing different topics without being aware of the underlying general framework operating in silence and at a higher abstract level of thinking increases the amount of nonsense that we can perceive at a low immediate level of debate.

Below you can find the conceptual skeleton of trackable dogmas from which the political Left derives most of their ideas. Such dogmas are most time largely overlooked and not discussed by those who disagree with the political Left.

We could also say that most of the political Left conceptual framing comes from neo-Marxist postmodernist ideas especially the ones anchored in Michel Foucault understanding of the relationship between knowledge and power and Jacques Derrida ideas on phallocentrism and deconstruction.

Dogmas:

1 — Reality is a mental or social construct.

2 — Nurture plays a bigger role than nature.

3 — Social and cultural factor are more relevant than biological or physical factors.

4 — Everything is relative because everything is relational and subdued to a context.

5 — Ideas are not black and white (binary) but part of a continuum messy cluster.

6 — How a person feels and makes others feel is more important than how a person think or question other people thinking.

7 — Everything we do or say can be directly connected with who we are regardless of whether a pattern of behavior is detected or not. Any topic is connected to our character in one way or another.

8 — Morality is defined by negative privileges. The combo, weak and discriminated has de facto more moral value than the combo, strong and non discriminated. Privilege is defined not by people’s merits but by how they are less discriminated.

9 — Comprehensive understanding of things happens when things are fuzzy and complex. A simplistic understanding of things happens when things are precise and simple.

10 — Not being discriminated is more important than changing the way you are for the better. So, whatever you are, be proud of it because it is more important to change the way people treat you than to change yourself even if it were to make things better for you.

These ten fundamental dogmas of the political Left should be enough to question the foundation of most of their practices. It is my belief that if we keep in mind these ten dogmas and inquiry in that direction every time we are discussing with a Leftist there are more chances to turn the exchange into a more productive dialogue.

One last thing to clarify is the non-binary logical fallacy of the Left. Obviously, this non-binary logic is not even a strong match to stand opposite to its mathematical and computational counterpart, the binary logic.

In fact, there are not only more permutations in binary logic than all the messy permutations that the non-binary Leftist logic could ever dream of, but the non-binary logic of the Left is merely a bastardized version of the computational binary logic.

The non-binary logic disguises under the fuzzy metaphor of the infinite continuum gender spectrum, but there is no such thing as the infinite continuum gender spectrum. The non-binary logic is a binary logic with male and female at one and the other end of its spectrum.

But let’s break down this non-binary logic. First, it is called non-binary because it dispenses itself of the duality by kicking it out of gender and literally appending it to our sex as if gender in our body were a kind of anglerfish that manages to manipulate its body and append the male gender as a sexual organ to its body.

Thus, once the duality is out and appended to the sex, gender manifests its fluid platonic nature. That’s right, it is platonic because it is no longer defined by biology or social conditions but by the pure subjective inclination of the child mind. This platonic gender fluidity is also more feminine than masculine.

People who are gender fluid have an overarching masculinity but the axis of their gender identity tend to be more feminine than masculine. Thus, the idea that the binary relation vanish is fallacious. There is a continuum in the feminization of the body and masculinity just enhances it.

Let’s keep, however, something extremely clear, the dualism and the binary relation still exists, but it is no longer part of gender. It is the binary relation between the way you were born and the metamorphosis you might be undergoing. Gender starts overspilling beyond its own duality to embark on an orbital journey around the very duality it believes to have left behind.

The very dual nature of sex keeps bijecting itself as a ghost across a spectrum of a seemingly endless embodiment of gender taxonomy. The word male and female acquire exponential adjectivation. There are endless types of male, female and in between but the binary status of the endless permutations still orbiting around the axis of its duality as a feminine duality.

Why would we assume that because now we have embarked into a spectrum of gender diversity such spectrum has stopped having as driving force one of the two gender at both ends?

Genderfluid is a Lilliputian fetishization of both, diversity and differentiation away from the prevailing dominant taxonomy. This overemphasizing of diversity and baroque queerness, this fetishization of difference and of wanting to be different by all means go beyond gender issues but due to the binary nature of our gender, it lends itself to channel in quicker ways our desires for diversity and uniqueness.

If the spectrum of our gender is so fluid, why do we fail to call out such fluidity anchored explicitly in one of the two sexes without needing to change our gender status either for ourselves or publicly?

Gender is fluid, but not as a particular quality of an extra type of gender, but as a quality of both, male and female. Some of us develop more fluidity and some of us less.

The spectrum of our genders doesn’t show a variation of many genders but variations in the manifested forces of both, males and females. A man feeling like a woman or a woman feeling like a man or any of them feeling like both don’t create more genders, but just variations of any of the two existing ones.

It would be a legitimate question to ask, however, why some people would like to create new genders. I assume that people want to feel complete and full and being an unlabelled mix of male and female wouldn’t make them feel so.

If we look deep enough we start seeing a pattern that goes beyond the gender labeling euphoria. For instance, instead of female and male, let’s take two other contrasting words like rape and courtship or racist and offensive.

If you bear in mind the kind of logical distortion that the gender fluid concept created by giving the impression of vanishing the distinction between male and female or making it irrelevant while simultaneously the feminine keeps being the driving force, the same is done by the political Left with many other contrasting terms.

In rape and courtship, the political Left would create a non-binary relation between rape and courtship

There is a continuum in the perception of rape and male courtship just enhances it. This time the suppression of the binary relation between rape and courtship is done to almost criminalize courtship and create new labels of many types of rape.

The same is done with racist and offensive. In fact, the political Left would do this with any contrasting words they might come up. Any denigrating word in a non-binary relation with any other word would work its way to cannibalize the nuanced meaning and reinforce the denigrating one.

The American Democrat Party today as the spin doctor of a wide gamut of voices on the left side of the political divide has risen as the undisputed backer of mainstream values. The pedigree of the left is versatile, crossbred and its offsprings have great variety of mutants and deviants.

The Left is not felt often like it has been in power. Its insurgents have branched out so much to the most outer perimeters of its meaningful existence that to be in power, to be mainstream, to be status quo from the Left or from the Right today is to anchor all values in a Matrix of power that is truly anonymous, neutral, middling, while, as we go wider into its periphery, there is bloodshed and great deal of nonsense fuelled with cheerful, boisterous, violent animosity as if social changes could only come from screaming or killing.

We have Social Justice Warriors promoting socially progressive views; like feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, LGBTQ and identity politics in general.

The problem with Social Justice Warriors is that initially it was viewed as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice. Today, however, is more related to people or groups engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise their personal reputation.

We also have a highly crafted political correctness coming from the mainstream elite of the Democrat party. If only political correctness were based on uttering the right words. Donald Trump vulgarity is a distraction bait. Political correctness is a Matrix of action driven by the laziness of a fast-pace living to always choose the lesser of two evils and display it as the best choice.

Political correctness is based today on the practice of highly crafted lobbyism, which diplomatically prompts those involved to tone down their demands or do the lesser of two evils on the side of benefiting donors.

And as if that weren’t enough, we have a large amount of politically defunct leftists and rightists cynic very disappointed with the Left and the Right, orbiting in the outer perimeters of political activism, going on with their lives and glancing over what for them has become a complete carnival and a bankruptcy of politics as a space for civic action.

The regressive sentiment about Liberal and Western values is something that has been haunting the Left since the times of Marx, passing through Critical Theory with Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze and many others in France and Germany.

But we might wonder, what is so regressive about all these intellectual influences that the political Left has had over the period spawning from the ’60s onwards?

Carl Marx has always been a recurring meme in the narrative of the political Left. Marx, in his most political overtones, hijacked the revolutionary spirit to put it at the service of a very specific ideology: The ideology that considers most of human history a terrible blunder of class exploitation.

From such assumption many algorithms could be built to reinvent the social wheel and reengineer the human odyssey many times over. Unfortunately, it would all end up in something similar to what we already got today.

It is not that changing society radically is impossible, but changing it over the bases of having been wrong for most of its existence allows for the new utopian society to be built only on the grounds of its citizens being haunted by the same wrong doing its predecessors were condemned for. Terror and totalitarianism would be fast knocking down their doors.

To assume that most of human history is a history of misery and exploitation is ludicrous, lacking of common sense and of scientific validity. But, what about the opposite idea? What if human societies were all about an evolutionary process leading inexorably to progress and enlightenment?

The Left has had a particular critical view about Enlightenment, be it 18th century Europe Enlightenment or any other progressive liberal advancement. Many leftists have been jumping into the bandwagon of postmodernism, others have been waving to its passing trains, seeing its wagons derailing into all sort of unexpected ideological locations, even in full complicity with the Right.

The postmodern “deconstructive” skepticism and distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of rationality, including the existence of objective reality as well as notions of human nature and progress have costed the Left much more than all the presumptive benefits many leftists still think they can extract from such critical methods.

It is ok to work with uncertainty, but not for the sake of eroding your own truth or that of others. True uncertainty do not take sides. When we say, truth, it doesn’t refer to ours nor yours nor the truth of others.

Truth belongs to all of us and others. Truth as truth is accessible to all of us and others, even when it might not initially originate in all of us nor others. When it does, we hastily assume it is our truth, but we are just ambassadors of our hearts and minds for us and for others. Our truth, if it is ours, it is gained with the forces of otherness within us, a force that is bigger than us until we measure up to it and become one with it.

It is ok to work with ambiguity and fuzziness, but not for the sake of appearing ambiguous for us and others so that underneath we can operate with our hidden agendas. Ambiguity and fuzziness are great tools for understand particular pattern of complex realities, but not for cheering unclear thinking and half-baked ideas.

When we and others have different values, it is ok to stand for others who are victims, but not for the sake of eroding our own values or that of others. If your values are different to mine, but you still deserve justice by both of our basic standards, my values or yours shouldn’t interfere in the exercise of justice.

Perhaps, the Left should ask itself, what can it learn from the Right that could allow both to unite forces with each other so that what matters most is not where the truth originates, but if it can be reborn and be shared with all the nuances of our individual heritages and still feel its universality across all our divides.

The ripple and trickle down effects of deconstruction, as it has given birth to its own truth and forced it to be reborn in decay, has damaged the political Left in ways which has never been foreseen.

Different kind of nonsensical anarchism and relativism have set in within both, leftist minority groups and leftist mainstream groups. The list goes from anarcho-capitalism to socialist-anarchism. Their internal unity has been fragmented to such lengths that they have been either forced to turn political activism into screaming rants or take the “lesser of two evils” side of things.

The Left has criticised its own Western values, but on doing so it has kept neglecting the fact that more radical and blunt enemies continue to capitalise and radicalise on the very loopholes of criticism and self-deprecation they continue to lousily promote.

Not all critical apparatus is doomed to failure, but the Left has kept using one that not only has kept it biting its own tail, but has kept it exposed for all its enemies to join the biting feast.

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Written by

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Friedrich Hegel.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade