Let's Apply the Precautionary Principle to Liberal Gender-Bending!

A thoughtful reader sent me an important Spiked article about “We Are More Than  Gender.” Author Joanna Williams rotates through the ritual liberal positions on sex and gender that takes for granted all the gender-bending dialectics we have learned to know and love. Then she cautions her readers with the science from evolutionary psychology. Still, she says:

Today, dominant understandings of gender disregard people’s own sense of agency in making their own life choices and shaping their own personality…

Of course, not everyone gets to react to biology and society in conditions of their own choosing, and we might not always approve of the choices other people make.

Do you see what is going on here? The author takes for granted the worldview of the People of the Creative Self, one of my reductive Three Peoples identities. She worries about “dominant understandings of gender” from the point of view of a creative person that wants a world in which she determines her own “sense of agency,” “life choices,” and “personality.” She also covers the lefty victim line that not everyone gets to act “in conditions of their own choosing.”

Quite so. But, because Williams is a Person of the Creative Self she completely misses the notion that there are other people in the world besides creative people and their desire for agency and life choices, and that these other people would not have a clue what she is talking about.

For instance, if you are a Person of the Responsible Self, you just accept that your religion’s cultural rules and the government’s laws are what they are, and that to step outside these guard-rails is not only unthinkable but evil. And for you the meaning of life is to live as a responsible individual inside those guardrails and thus earn your place in Heaven. So, for you, all the liberal gender-bending is the moral equivalent of driving the family car through the guard-rails and over the cliff.

If you are a Person of the Subordinate Self, worker or peasant victim, you don’t think about getting creative; you don’t even think about rules and laws. You unreflectively do just what you need to do to survive another day; your world ends with the family members, bosses, government officials, policemen, and gang members that keep messing you about.

By the way, our liberal friends that are so insistent about us getting creative about sex and gender and the avant-garde in art are notably noncreative when it comes to government programs and the economy. In fact, you might almost call them deplorable reactionaries.

Hey liberals, let’s challenge the “dominant understandings” about Social Security and let the creative types at Vanguard and Fidelity gin up a new one! Let’s junk the whole dysfunctional health care system, get the government out of the way, and let creative souls invent a new one. And let’s let the Internet get creative without “net neutrality” enforcing a dominant understanding.

Oh no, say liberals, like the most bigoted deplorable. Touch health care and you bring down the country. And as for the evil cable guy…

So on some things, liberals are complete subordinate victims; they are terrified by any world other than the world of their archetypal welfare state.

I’ve been reading the Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann recently in The Great Mother, all about the matriarchal archetypal unconscious epoch before the advent of our modern patriarchal consciousness. It is a reminder that our human conscious selves and our beloved reason may be no more than the slime mold on top of a mountain of unconsciousness. Suppose all the brilliant liberal creativeness about sex and gender touched off an eruption of some archetypal volcano in the deep unconscious, of which we previously knew nothing. And like the actual physical super-volcanos, the Yellowstones, the Crater Lakes of which we have heard tell from scientists, any one of these eruptions could completely erase life on Earth as we know it.

Liberals make a big deal about engineers and scientists observing the Precautionary Principle when doing energy projects. But they are utterly blind to the notion that their social experiments might accidentally violate some archetypal coding deep in the human unconscious and lead to the extinction of the human race, the human equivalent of the Mouse Utopia experiment.

Yes, liberals, bend gender all you want. But remember that your froth sits on top of our conscious civilization, and that sits on top of our archetypal unconscious, and that sits on top of the DNA of life. And then, of course, it’s turtles all the way down.

And don’t forget the awful truth known by every serious creative person: she might be barking up the wrong tree, and the whole thing turn out to be a dreadful failure.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

A thoughtful reader sent me an important Spiked article about “We Are More Than  Gender.” Author Joanna Williams rotates through the ritual liberal positions on sex and gender that takes for granted all the gender-bending dialectics we have learned to know and love. Then she cautions her readers with the science from evolutionary psychology. Still, she says:

Today, dominant understandings of gender disregard people’s own sense of agency in making their own life choices and shaping their own personality…

Of course, not everyone gets to react to biology and society in conditions of their own choosing, and we might not always approve of the choices other people make.

Do you see what is going on here? The author takes for granted the worldview of the People of the Creative Self, one of my reductive Three Peoples identities. She worries about “dominant understandings of gender” from the point of view of a creative person that wants a world in which she determines her own “sense of agency,” “life choices,” and “personality.” She also covers the lefty victim line that not everyone gets to act “in conditions of their own choosing.”

Quite so. But, because Williams is a Person of the Creative Self she completely misses the notion that there are other people in the world besides creative people and their desire for agency and life choices, and that these other people would not have a clue what she is talking about.

For instance, if you are a Person of the Responsible Self, you just accept that your religion’s cultural rules and the government’s laws are what they are, and that to step outside these guard-rails is not only unthinkable but evil. And for you the meaning of life is to live as a responsible individual inside those guardrails and thus earn your place in Heaven. So, for you, all the liberal gender-bending is the moral equivalent of driving the family car through the guard-rails and over the cliff.

If you are a Person of the Subordinate Self, worker or peasant victim, you don’t think about getting creative; you don’t even think about rules and laws. You unreflectively do just what you need to do to survive another day; your world ends with the family members, bosses, government officials, policemen, and gang members that keep messing you about.

By the way, our liberal friends that are so insistent about us getting creative about sex and gender and the avant-garde in art are notably noncreative when it comes to government programs and the economy. In fact, you might almost call them deplorable reactionaries.

Hey liberals, let’s challenge the “dominant understandings” about Social Security and let the creative types at Vanguard and Fidelity gin up a new one! Let’s junk the whole dysfunctional health care system, get the government out of the way, and let creative souls invent a new one. And let’s let the Internet get creative without “net neutrality” enforcing a dominant understanding.

Oh no, say liberals, like the most bigoted deplorable. Touch health care and you bring down the country. And as for the evil cable guy…

So on some things, liberals are complete subordinate victims; they are terrified by any world other than the world of their archetypal welfare state.

I’ve been reading the Jungian psychologist Erich Neumann recently in The Great Mother, all about the matriarchal archetypal unconscious epoch before the advent of our modern patriarchal consciousness. It is a reminder that our human conscious selves and our beloved reason may be no more than the slime mold on top of a mountain of unconsciousness. Suppose all the brilliant liberal creativeness about sex and gender touched off an eruption of some archetypal volcano in the deep unconscious, of which we previously knew nothing. And like the actual physical super-volcanos, the Yellowstones, the Crater Lakes of which we have heard tell from scientists, any one of these eruptions could completely erase life on Earth as we know it.

Liberals make a big deal about engineers and scientists observing the Precautionary Principle when doing energy projects. But they are utterly blind to the notion that their social experiments might accidentally violate some archetypal coding deep in the human unconscious and lead to the extinction of the human race, the human equivalent of the Mouse Utopia experiment.

Yes, liberals, bend gender all you want. But remember that your froth sits on top of our conscious civilization, and that sits on top of our archetypal unconscious, and that sits on top of the DNA of life. And then, of course, it’s turtles all the way down.

And don’t forget the awful truth known by every serious creative person: she might be barking up the wrong tree, and the whole thing turn out to be a dreadful failure.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

RECENT VIDEOS