It become increasingly obvious to more and more that the seeming double-standard of the Left is actually a single standard of the “heads I win tails you lose variety”. However, it would be to simplistic and unfortunate to chalk it up to mere selfishness. Beneath every double standard is a single standard a person, or at least a person’s chosen ideology, holds to.
In the case of gender identity, as it is with race or other collectivist identity, it is a dialectical one… of sorts.
Hegelian dialectic, as reviled as it may be, was still a method to get to the truth, not a truth itself, let alone a proscriptive or even deductive determiner of the future that it degenerated into beginning with Marx and continuing abasement into a faith based belief of being on “the right side of history”. An example of this can be seen in modern “gender theory”, specifically Critical Gender Theory, from which gender is a social construct and a non-essence that acts like an essence.
In the woke dialectic—the 19th Century’s dialectic degenerate decedent—the thesis is the invented social construct of “cis-heteronormativity” sustained by a system of oppression that is imposed on society, thus creating form and effect. The antithesis is the equal and opposite imposition of “trans-homonormativity” that must be imposed by deconstruction systems of oppression. The synthesis, then is not the prior unknown result of applying antithesis to thesis, but the immanentized eschaton that the antithesis is constructed and thus derived from.
This can be seen in the superficially contradictory approach of “conversion therapy bans” that seem to go only in the “queer” direction, or even the introduction of doubt of one’s “straightness” but never “queerness”.
Being “cis-gender” is the oppressive thesis and can only be combated, not by the purported synthesis, but by the antithesis of “trans-genderism”. Indeed, they believe that the synthesis itself is a form of the thesis, similar to how non-racism is considered a form of racism because it isn’t explicitly antiracist. This is why conversion therapy bans must only ban convincing people that they aren’t “trans” but really “cis”, since conversion therapy strengthens and supports the “cis-heteronormative” thesis, which is considered the evil. Similarly, grooming and convincing a person that they are really “transgender” is is necessarily good, not because their transgenderism is an essential trait, but because it serves to destroy the oppressive system and its related superstructure, thus making it necessarily good.
Thus, in contrast, a “transgender” individual, who “de-transitions” must necessarily be wrong, if not outright evil, for strengthening the oppressive thesis. Even a straight person being straight or a “cis-gendered” individual being “cis-gendered” is being oppressive because they are not tearing down the systems of oppression, so they must embrace the “queerness” of not being “cis-gendered” (hence the plethora of invented “genders”) in order to reject the preemptively determined social construct of “cis-heteronormativity”.
A person who comes out as “transgender” must then be though of as always being “trans” or “queer”—and thus not a conversion—because otherwise it would be to admit that the desired synthesis to be correct and thus a form of thesis that will prevent the desired synthesis from ever happening, thus rending the antithesis, and thus the entire ideology and world view that accompanies it, not only incorrect, but null and void. Justice, then, is not the synthesis, with is the outcome of antithesis, but the antithesis—and moral good—itself. Synthesis, then is post-justice.
Immanentizing the eschaton isn’t about the eschaton, it’s about the immanentizing. Even in a manichean worldview, good does not combat evil in order to achieve a nihlistic utopia. No philosophy or ideology in practice works to negate itself. Justice does not and can not seek its own post-demise aftermath and still be justice.
Rather than clarification by opposition, it is an insertion of certainly into a philosophy that brooks no doubt. As Decartes said that to doubt one’s existence proves that you must exist in order to doubt, this lack of doubt of the veracity of nihlism vis-à-vis the destruction of the thesis by antithesis results in—poof—synthesis that itself is a non-thesis which does not and can not exist, since the synthesis itself is, in this regard, contra-Cartesian in it’s existance, being a circular proof, in a way, that this was all a social construct and a complete rejection of any essential aspect whatsoever.
It is a seductive embrace of nothing.
