On Dec. 1, actress Ellen Page released a page-long document on Twitter detailing her intention to identify as transgender — and be referred to as “Elliot.”
“I love that I am trans,” she writes, “And love that I am queer. And the more I hold myself close and fully embrace who I am, the more I dream, the more my heart grows and the more I thrive. To trans people who deal with harassment, self-loathing, abuse and the threat of violence every day: I see you and I will do anything I can to change this world for the better.”
The announcement once again highlights the unmistakable contradiction inherent within the Left’s gender logic. To the Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s), there is an intersectionality hierarchy that ought to dictate our understanding of the roles people can play in society. This hierarchy places people into generalized subgroups, aimed at qualifying our capacities to advance through the “systemically” impermeable, racist society.
If you are a white man, you supposedly reign supreme with endless privilege; if you are a Hispanic female, you are oppressed to some degree; if you are a black man, you’re even more oppressed (unless you identify as Conservative.) If you are a black gender-fluid Pansexual who identifies as ‘they,’ you have now climbed the hierarchy to assume the position as the most oppressed person of all time. You win the game. Congrats. Prepare to be showered with praise.
It’s sort of like a communist version of monopoly.
According to the Left, this hierarchy is noted to be the cause of nearly all iniquities in society. Those at the top “steal” from the vulnerable minority bottom — and those at the bottom will never be able to advance, since the American Dream is allegedly dead. Thus, affirmative action becomes the beacon of hope; judging people based on race and biological factors, not merit or on a case-by-case basis.
But what happens when a wealthy white female — Ellen Page in this instance— now identifies as a white man, Elliot. Does Page retain her position on the intersectionality hierarchy as a white female who is slightly oppressed because of her gender? Or, since Elliot is now a “man,” does “he” jump up the hierarchy chain — thus becoming the most privileged? Or — thirdly — does “his” position as a transgendered person now inevitably place “him” near the bottom of the hierarchy, among the most oppressed?
The identity politics rules are changing every day with the left, and one can be forgiven for not being able to solve this ever-contradicting puzzle. The pieces are flawed to begin with.
This leads us to one primary conclusion. If the left aims to characterize all people as victims of biological factors — how can an individual in this hierarchy magically move up or down on the imposed food chain? It would be improbable, if in fact such a chain of command did ultimately dictate one’s socioeconomic standing. If gender is legitimately malleable and the human race can determine their sex — not barring the genitalia one is born with — then the intersectionality hierarchy chain cannot exist.
The left must choose one side or the other.
It is the “gender theorists” across this nation — such as the left’s coveted saint Judith Butler — who have redefined the rules of our world through unrealistic and anti-scientific ideology. Butler’s notion of gender as performative and not inherent forms the basis for all Gender Studies departments at universities across the world. In her famous “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” she argues:
“. . . gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself.”
If gender is truly an “imitation,” then the intersectionality hierarchy is null. This assumes that gender is nothing but a farce — a relativistic product of the imagination — and we can henceforth choose how to move up or down the hierarchy. This also assumes there is no God, no objective reality or morality, since there is no “original” basis for us to model our behavior. Hypothetically, with zero basis for what separates us at birth, we are all rendered the same.
The hierarchy, then, is nothing but a construct as well in conjunction with accepting people can arbitrarily play God.
This thought experiment is just one way of pointing to the contradictions with leftist ideology concerning gender and sexuality. I have no issue, frankly, with Page’s declaration to be a man. I don’t care whatsoever. It’s a free country.
But what I do have an issue with is the perpetual double standards and endlessly shifting rules of a secular left.
Gabe Kaminsky is a writer and student. His work has appeared in The American Conservative, The Washington Times, Washington Examiner, RealClearPolitics, HollywoodinToto, CBN, and elsewhere.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.