It’s been a long while since I’ve had the opportunity to write anything so I am going to do a thought experiment where I am having a conversation about current issues that we face in the world. This is not an essay and I have not referenced it although much of what I say can be found in popular and classical literature as well as current affairs so you will have to do some homework. You might call this a caveat where I am making an extended observation and giving my opinion that assumes the listener is familiar with the subject matter.
As you are aware George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World have become something of prophetic insight. It’s not that Orwell or Huxley had a crystal ball that they could literally peer into the future; it’s more that they predicted the future without any realisation that their work was anything more than prose.
Take 1984 for example. Who would have thought that speech would have become so politicised that it could be used to manipulate peoples consciences. Who would have thought that academics could so easily brainwash their students so as to manipulate (socially engineer) the rest of society that they would throw away their ability to think critically and then reinterpret the term critical thinking to mean something that it doesn’t mean.
Critical thinking used to mean that one could evaluate a statement, an idea or an hypothesis to assess it’s truthfulness when weighed against other ideas or accepted truths. It meant we could challenge the status quo or the establishment on any given subject; we could self reflect and ask ourselves the question is this okay or right… is this true? Orwell in 1984 as an anti-establishment advocate warns that when people accept the status quo as truth without questioning it they loose the ability to critique themselves or be self reflective; they lack insight into their own circumstances.
Look at the current situation regarding politics especially relating to gender issues. Is this based in science or is it simply selfish rhetoric dressed up as pseudo science to satisfy a particular group of people? Is gender defined by biology or is gender self defining? If it is defined by biological science then regardless of how one defines themselves the hard data says you are born male or female and no amount of surgery or genetic manipulation will alter that fact.
If gender is self defining than we aren’t talking about science we are talking about what we did as children when we played make believe. The terminology we use to reach this conclusion about ourselves, if gender is self defining, may be dressed up in philosophy or scientific jargon however it is nonetheless fiction. Just today I watched a transgender advocate argue that in America Obama legislated for transgender children to be allowed whatever bathroom they chose which indicted the sex they most identified with so they could feel safe.
Okay so my statement is a little truncated or over simplified but what are these so called transgender children supposed to be in danger of? Being beat up by their peers? A boy who identifies as a girl is just as likely to be beaten up in a girls bathroom by angry school girls as a boys bathroom aren’t they? Isn’t a man who uses a women’s bathroom just as likely to be beaten up by a little girls irate father because he used the same bathroom as the fathers little girl? How safe did the father feel or his daughter feel in that circumstance or doesn’t that matter so long as the transgender man feels safe and has rights?
Why stop with gender? What if a man decides he wants to be an animist and defines himself as a woman’s bra or a pair of panties? Does he then have the right to wrap himself around a woman’s legs or hold her breasts? Am I being absurd? No! If everything is self defining then I can call myself the United States of America and no one can say I am not because that would be discrimination and we wouldn’t want my self esteem to be harmed would we?
So lets move onto the future. Lets say in one hundred years from now all this self defining policy because truth and is law. Now lets say a group of historical revisionists find the past offensive in that how we use to define truth and gender is discriminatory Power brokers threaten to pull support on funding for social programs and education unless all references to male and female or family are removed. References to gender identity must only mention that gender and sexual preference are self defining. Any mention of biological science is only to be framed in derisive language much like saying that it is antisemitic to accuse the Jews of crucifying Christ; even though this was an historical fact until religion was outlawed or censored to the point that state controlled religion removed any reference to the idea of a personal God, sin and personal accountability.
So what would this Brave New World look like? Maybe Aldous Huxley hit the nail on the head where he proposed that genetic engineering took over from where self definition left off. Transgender was not now a philosophical concept but a scientific fact brought about through manipulation of the human genome. Of course there were throwbacks that were genetically inferior that sought out their parents and believed in monogamy. Some of these slipped through the vetting process but were often euthanized at birth or exterminated as subversive influences when they were caught in adult life spreading their speech crimes. There were early attempts to reprogram these malignancies but they proved to be too hard wired into the person’s psyche. At one time they were cast out into the wilderness but these individuals formed their own communities. They proved to be a disruptive influence on the established colonies so the only real solution was complete eradication. These days however they are identified in the incubators and aborted before animation they aren’t a problem anymore!
Isn’t it amazing how accurate Orwell and Huxley have been…. I notice these two books are no longer part of the school curriculum or are given heavily sanitised interpretations and revisions!