I came across this Marxist commentary regarding the historical roots and development of Critical Queer Theory, which is the root of the philosophical socio-political disease of our times. I haven't finished reading it yet, but it has good info that I want comment on at some point (from my own adamantly non-Marxist view). I'm putting the link here in case I lose track of it
EDIT: guess I'm posting info after all.
https://archive.ph/aAX1R 'Marxism vs. Queer Theory'
Simone de Beauvoir’s [partial] remark: “One is not born, but rather becomes, woman" is a precedent for Queer Theory
The entire quote:
"One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological, psychical or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called feminine. Only the mediation of another can constitute an individual as an Other.” (The Second Sex, p. 330.)
Pretty sure the today's stage 4 cancerous trans-tyrannical zeitgeist would take issue with the biological bias of the "human female" that Simone de Beauvoir is referencing!
Here, we already see the roots of what will later become central ideas of Queer Theory: 1) the “Woman” as such does not exist. 2) She is only shaped and brought up to become one by society.
But if “woman” (which shall no longer be narrowly defined by biology) doesn’t exist – who is this subject that is meant to fight for its emancipation? The search for the true identity of woman, for the new revolutionary subject, occupied the professors and writers of that time. In their quest for the “female essence”, some discovered the burning of witches and viewed shamanism and witchery as an oppressed manifestation of femininity. Others saw “womanness” hidden within the realms of irrationality of emotion or poetry; still others found that only lesbians could truly fight for women’s emancipation as they refuse heteronormative relationships with men, and so on. Now, the question was posed as to who should have the right to represent women? Thus, during a period of declining class struggle, identity politics sank ever deeper into a crisis.
Oh it's sunk alright, today we have grown men parading in their fetish drag as clownish and (sometimes bearded) 'motherly' figures, grooming toddlers, pre-K and Kindergarteners in public libraries with the approval of the kids' braindead biological 'birthgivers' LOL
Remember Hillary bragged that 'The future is female"?
In 5 short years we are witnessing the destruction of woman's sports by men, women rejecting their bodies and mutilating themselves to 'be' men, male rapists wanting to be put in women's prisons (women who object are vilified), and mentally ill biological males [in online 'support' community forums] claiming to be female and fantasizing about brutally raping, torturing and even killing (in explicit sexual ways) lesbians who don't want to date men! Nothing proves one is female more than that! /s
We also have a supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in a colossal act of cowardly cop-out claimed that she can't define what a woman is because: ‘I’m Not a Biologist’. The list goes on and on, but the result is the same, biological females (the ones I assume Hillary was primarily praising in 2017), are getting fucked on every front, by Globalist progressives institutionalizing Critical Queer Theory.
