You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Identity Politics’ tag.
In an age that demands shame from the West, Douglas Murray deploys the ultimate counterstrike:
“I don’t especially think of myself as being white and don’t particularly want to be cornered into thinking in such terms. But if you are going to corner me, then let me give you an answer to the best of my ability.
“The good things about being white include being born into a tradition that has given the world a disproportionate number, if not most, of the things that the world currently benefits from. The list of things that white people have done may include many bad things, as with all peoples. But the good things are not small in number. They include almost every medical advancement that the world now enjoys. They include almost every scientific advancement that the world now benefits from. No meaningful breakthrough in either of these areas has come for many centuries from anywhere in Africa or from any Native American tribe. No First Nation wisdom ever delivered a vaccine or a cure for cancer.
“White people founded most of the world’s oldest and longest-established educational institutions. They led the world in the invention and promotion of the written word. Almost alone among any peoples it was white people who—for good and for ill—took an interest in other cultures beyond their own, and not only learned from these cultures but revived some of them. Indeed, they have taken such an interest in other peoples that they have searched for lost and dead civilizations as well as living ones to understand what these lost peoples did, in an attempt to learn what they knew. This is not the case with most other peoples. No Aboriginal tribe helped make any advance in understanding the lost languages of the Indian subcontinent, Babylon, or ancient Egypt. The curiosity appears to have gone almost entirely one way. In historical terms, it seems to be as unusual as the self-reflection, the self-criticism, and indeed the search for self-improvement that marks out Western culture.
“White Western peoples happen to have also developed all the world’s most successful means of commerce, including the free flow of capital. This system of free market capitalism has lifted more than one billion people out of extreme poverty just in the twenty-first century thus far. It did not originate in Africa or China, although people in those places benefited from it. It originated in the West. So did numerous other things that make the lives of people around the world immeasurably better.
“It is Western people who developed the principle of representative government, of the people, by the people, for the people. It is the Western world that developed the principles and practice of political liberty, of freedom of thought and conscience, of freedom of speech and expression. It evolved the principles of what we now call ‘civil rights,’ rights that do not exist in much of the world, whether their peoples yearn for them or not. They were developed and are sustained in the West, which though it may often fail in its aspirations, nevertheless tends to them.
“All this is before you even get onto the cultural achievements that the West has gifted the world. The Mathura sculptures excavated at Jamalpur Tila are works of exceptional refinement, but no sculptor ever surpassed Bernini or Michelangelo. Baghdad in the eighth century produced scholars of note, but no one ever produced another Leonardo da Vinci. There have been artistic flourishings around the world, but none so intense or productive as that which emerged around just a few square miles of Florence from the fourteenth century onward. Of course, there have been great music and culture produced from many civilizations, but it is the music of the West as well as its philosophy, art, literature, poetry, and drama that have reached such heights that the world wants to participate in them. Outside China, Chinese culture is a matter for scholars and aficionados of Chinese culture. Whereas the culture created by white people in the West belongs to the world, and a disproportionate swath of the world wants to be a part of it.
“When you ask what the West has produced, I am reminded of the groups of professors assigned to agree on what should be sent in a space pod into orbit in outer space to be discovered by another race, if any such there be. When it came to agreeing on what one musical piece might be sent to represent that part of human accomplishment one of the professors said, ‘Well, obviously, it will be Bach’s Mass in B Minor.’ ‘No,’ averred another. ‘To send the B Minor Mass would look like showing off.’ To talk about the history of Western accomplishments is to be put at great risk of showing off. Do we stay just with buildings, or cities, or laws, or great men and women? How do we restrict the list that we put up as a preliminary offer?
“The migrant ships across the Mediterranean go only in one direction—north. The people-smuggling gangs’ boats do not—halfway across the Mediterranean—meet white Europeans heading south, desperate to escape France, Spain, or Italy in order to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities of Africa. No significant number of people wishes to participate in life among the tribes of Africa or the Middle East. There is no mass movement of people wishing to live with the social norms of the Aboriginals or assimilate into the lifestyle of the Inuit, whether those groups would allow them in or not. Despite everything that is said against it, America is still the world’s number one destination for migrants worldwide. And the next most desirable countries for people wanting to move are Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The West must have done something right for this to be the case.
“So if you ask me what is good about being white, what white people have brought to the world, or what white people might be proud of, this might constitute the mere beginnings of a list of accomplishments from which to start. And while we are at it, one final thing. This culture that it is now so fashionable to deprecate, and which people across the West have been encouraged and incentivized to deprecate, remains the only culture in the world that not only tolerates but encourages such a dialogue against itself. It is the only culture that actually rewards its critics. And there is one final oddity here worth noting. For the countries and cultures about which the worst things are now said are also the only countries demonstrably capable of producing the governing class unlike all of the others.
“It is not possible today for a non-Indian to rise to the top of Indian politics. If a white person moved to Bangladesh, they would not be able to become a cabinet minister. If a white Westerner moved to China, neither they nor the next generation of their family nor the one after that would be able to break through the layers of government and become supreme leader in due course. It is America that has twice elected a black president—the son of a father from Kenya. It is America whose current vice president is the daughter of immigrants from India and Jamaica. It is the cabinet of the United Kingdom that includes the children of immigrants from Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Uganda, and Ghana and an immigrant who was born in India. The cabinets of countries across Africa and Asia do not reciprocate this diversity, but it is no matter. The West is happy to accept the benefits this brings, even if others are not.”
-Douglas Murray from the Conclusion of War on the West.
James Lindsay’s *New Discourses* podcast (July 9, 2020) contends that Marxist-inspired critical theories—queer theory, critical race theory (CRT), and postcolonial theory—undermine childhood innocence to destabilize Western society. According to this view, “innocence” is not a universal good but a social construct, one that maintains oppressive structures such as heteronormativity and white privilege. In this framing, schools become the frontline where innocence is dismantled, often through social-emotional learning (SEL) and comprehensive sex education, exposing children to adult categories of sexuality and race earlier than previous generations.
This essay acknowledges the conspiratorial risks of Lindsay’s framing but nonetheless argues that there is a coherent intellectual genealogy behind today’s educational shifts. By situating them in the work of Lukács, Marcuse, Gramsci, and Freire, and by engaging primary texts and empirical evidence, the essay concludes that premature sexualization and racialization of children carry measurable psychological risks and are best understood as destabilizing strategies with ideological consequences.
—
Queer Theory: Liberation or Destabilization?
Judith Butler’s *Gender Trouble* (1990) famously argued that identity is performative, “a stylized repetition of acts” rather than a fixed essence.[^1] For advocates, this opens liberatory possibilities, freeing individuals from restrictive norms. Eve Sedgwick similarly contended that destabilizing binaries allows marginalized groups to resist cultural oppression.[^2] In practice, queer pedagogy has translated into inclusive curricula—GLSEN (2022) reports that 43% of LGBTQ students feel safer in schools with gender-affirming materials.[^3]
Yet destabilization comes at a cost. Lindsay connects Butler’s performativity with Herbert Marcuse’s *Eros and Civilization* (1955), where liberation from sexual repression is imagined as a step toward a “non-repressive reality principle.”[^4] Marcuse’s focus was on adult emancipation, but his call for “mature individuals” leaves ambiguity when applied to educational contexts. Graphic materials such as *Gender Queer* (Fairfax County, 2021) in school libraries illustrate how theory, once filtered through activist pedagogy, risks exposing children to sexual content beyond developmental readiness.
Empirical concerns are not negligible: the American Psychological Association (2004) found that early sexualization is associated with depression and anxiety.[^5] While proponents highlight empowerment and reduced bullying, Lindsay’s point stands: identity destabilization in children risks long-term psychological harm.
Sexualization in Schools: Protection or Premature Exposure?
Comprehensive sex education is promoted as a health intervention. The Guttmacher Institute (2022) notes it is implemented in 39% of U.S. states, with studies showing reductions in risky sexual behaviors and teen pregnancy.[^6] Organizations like SIECUS (2021) argue that early, inclusive curricula protect sexual minorities by giving them language and resources.
The counterpoint, however, is about **age-appropriateness**. Some curricula, such as exercises in North Carolina’s 7th-grade program requiring public discussion of bodily changes,[^7] cross into territory that can be experienced as intrusive or shaming. Materials with explicit depictions of sex, regardless of intent, blur the line between protection and premature exposure.
Here Lindsay’s thesis holds: while not designed as “grooming,” the net effect can mimic destabilization. Children’s innocence functions as a developmental safeguard, and undermining it—however well-meaning—risks exploitation rather than empowerment.
Critical Race Theory: Equity or Burden?
Critical Race Theory reframes “racial innocence” as an illusion, a shield for systemic racism. Charles Mills’s *The Racial Contract* (1997) argues that white society maintains domination through unacknowledged compacts.[^8] In educational practice, this has meant materials like Ibram X. Kendi’s *Antiracist Baby* (2022), which encourage young children to see themselves in racial categories early. Advocates such as the American Educational Research Association (2021) claim this reduces bias, and SEL programs aligned with CRT have been adopted in roughly 35% of schools.[^9]
But here too, risks surface. Children may experience racial labeling as destabilizing, especially when framed in terms of guilt or privilege. The National Institute of Mental Health (2022) reports a 25% rise in youth anxiety,[^10] though causation is complex. Lindsay interprets this trend as evidence that CRT primes children for grievance and division. Whether or not one accepts that conclusion, the risk of prematurely burdening children with adult racial narratives deserves scrutiny.
Lukács and the Frankfurt School: The Intellectual Roots
George Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* (1923) criticized Christian morality as an impediment to revolution. In the short-lived 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic, he promoted radical educational reforms, including sexual education programs, which opponents claimed encouraged promiscuity.[^11] While some historians downplay this episode as exaggerated,[^12] it remains clear that Lukács saw morality and family life as barriers to revolutionary consciousness.
The Frankfurt School developed this trajectory further. Marcuse in particular fused Freud with Marx, arguing that capitalism relies on sublimated sexuality.[^13] Though intended for adults, modern applications—whether in SEL or in the normalization of explicit material in schools—echo Marcuse’s suspicion of repression, sometimes at children’s expense.
Gramsci, Freire, and Pedagogical Inversion
Antonio Gramsci’s *Prison Notebooks* (1971) emphasized that family and education sustain cultural hegemony.[^14] Paulo Freire’s *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* (1968) reframed education as a site of liberation, recasting students as oppressed subjects.[^15] These ideas empower marginalized voices, as bell hooks celebrated in *Teaching to Transgress* (1994).[^16]
But Lindsay notes a darker possibility: that reorienting children as political subjects destabilizes family authority and primes youth for activism before they are developmentally prepared. Historical parallels, such as Mao’s Red Guards, show how youth mobilization can lead to intergenerational rupture and social turmoil.[^17]
The Family Under Pressure
Modern legislation such as California’s FAIR Education Act (2019), mandating LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, is framed as inclusive and affirming. Surveys support benefits: GLSEN (2022) found reduced bullying in such schools.[^3] Yet CDC (2023) data also show a steep rise in youth mental health crises—up 30% in a decade—raising questions about unintended consequences.[^18]
Gramsci’s prediction that family would be a central site of ideological struggle seems borne out. When curricula bypass or override parental values, trust between parent and child can erode, leaving children caught between competing moral frameworks.
Addressing Conspiratorial Risks
It is important not to collapse every educational reform into a single Marxist “plot.” CRT, sex education, and SEL are diverse movements with many non-Marxist motivations. Critics such as Angela Harris note that CRT is primarily a legal framework for examining structural racism, not a revolutionary program.[^19] Similarly, sex education advocates highlight empirical successes in health outcomes.
The stronger critique, therefore, is not that Marxists control education, but that Marxist categories—sexual liberation, identity destabilization, cultural hegemony—have been influential in shaping educational trends. Once filtered through activist practice, these categories can be misapplied to children with destabilizing effects.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Development
From Lukács’s early experiments to Marcuse’s liberationist theory and Freire’s pedagogical inversion, critical theory has consistently targeted family, morality, and cultural transmission as barriers to social change. Applied to adults, these ideas invite debate. Applied to children, they risk harm.
The evidence suggests that early exposure to explicit sexual material and premature racial labeling correlate with increased anxiety and depression in youth.[^5][^18] Protecting childhood innocence is not a reactionary fantasy but a developmental necessity.
Parents, educators, and policymakers should insist on transparency in curricula, ensure age-appropriate content, and preserve the family’s role as the primary context for moral and cultural formation. Resistance is less about conspiracy-hunting than about reaffirming a principle as old as education itself: children deserve protection while they grow.
References
[^1]: Butler, J. (1990). *Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity*. Routledge.
[^2]: Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). *Epistemology of the Closet*. University of California Press.
[^3]: GLSEN. (2022). *National School Climate Survey*. [https://www.glsen.org/research](https://www.glsen.org/research)
[^4]: Marcuse, H. (1955). *Eros and Civilization*. Beacon Press.
[^5]: American Psychological Association. (2004). *Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls*. [https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report](https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report)
[^6]: Guttmacher Institute. (2022). *Sex and HIV Education*. [https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education)
[^7]: Wake County Public Schools. (2021). *Healthful Living Curriculum*.
[^8]: Mills, C. (1997). *The Racial Contract*. Cornell University Press.
[^9]: National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). *School Survey on Social and Emotional Learning*.
[^10]: National Institute of Mental Health. (2022). *Youth Mental Health Data*. [https://www.nimh.nih.gov](https://www.nimh.nih.gov)
[^11]: Tormay, C. (1920). *An Outlaw’s Diary: The Hungarian Revolution*. London: Allen & Unwin.
[^12]: Anderson, K. (2010). *Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies*. University of Chicago Press.
[^13]: Marcuse, H. (1955). *Eros and Civilization*, p. 87.
[^14]: Gramsci, A. (1971). *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*. International Publishers.
[^15]: Freire, P. (1968). *Pedagogy of the Oppressed*. Continuum.
[^16]: hooks, b. (1994). *Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom*. Routledge.
[^17]: Dikötter, F. (2016). *The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976*. Bloomsbury.
[^18]: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). *Youth Risk Behavior Survey*. [https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs](https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs)
[^19]: Harris, A. (2001). *Critical Race Theory*. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
The atheist movement, once a beacon of skepticism and rational inquiry, was significantly disrupted by the emergence of Atheism+ in the early 2010s. Atheism+, an attempt to merge atheism with progressive social justice ideologies, particularly feminism and identity politics, shifted the focus from critiquing religious dogma to enforcing ideological conformity on issues like gender and sexuality. This pivot alienated many atheists who valued the movement’s original emphasis on evidence-based reasoning. As Amarnath Amarasingam notes in The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism, the integration of identity politics created tensions within the movement, with activists like Jen McCreight, who spearheaded campaigns like Boobquake, highlighting the schism by prioritizing feminist concerns over universal skeptical principles. The resulting infighting, as seen in online forums like Reddit’s r/atheism, fractured the community, with many feeling that Atheism+ mirrored the dogmatic rigidity it once opposed.
This ideological shift led some atheists to adopt tactics reminiscent of religious apologetics—name-calling, shaming, and deflections—particularly when defending progressive stances on biological sex. Rather than applying the same skepticism they used to dismantle theistic claims, many “woke” atheists embraced gender ideology without rigorous scrutiny, treating it as an unassailable truth akin to a new deity. Posts on X from 2021 highlight this irony, with users like @SwipeWright observing that a significant portion of the atheist community “fully bought into gender ideology and sex denialism,” abandoning critical thinking for ideological loyalty. This uncritical acceptance echoes the blind faith atheists once criticized, as arguments about biological sex are often dismissed with moralistic fervor rather than engaged with empirically, revealing a departure from the movement’s foundational commitment to reason.
The implosion of the atheist movement, driven by these internal conflicts, underscores a broader lesson: skepticism must be consistently applied, whether to gods or to fashionable ideologies. The New Atheism, once galvanized by figures like Dawkins and Harris, faltered as it became entangled with identity politics, losing its coherence as a unified force. Today, the movement’s legacy is a cautionary tale of how even rationalist communities can succumb to ideological pressures, adopting the same dogmatic tactics they once decried. For atheism to reclaim its intellectual rigor, it must return to its roots, questioning all claims—divine or secular—with unflinching skepticism.
The recent protests at McGill University, where anti-Israel activists physically blocked access to lecture halls and disrupted classes, represent a troubling departure from the principles of free speech and Canadian values. On April 2, 2025, as reported by B’nai Brith Canada, masked protesters in the Bronfman Building prevented students from attending classes, with chants of “McGill, McGill you can’t hide, you’re complicit in genocide” echoing through the campus. While protest is a protected right, these actions crossed into intimidation and coercion, as students were denied their fundamental right to education. Free speech in Canada is about expressing ideas without fear of retribution, not about obstructing others’ rights or creating a hostile environment. Such behavior is distinctly un-Canadian, as it undermines the nation’s commitment to mutual respect, dialogue, and the rule of law—values that have long defined Canadian society.
McGill University’s response to these protests highlights a glaring abdication of responsibility. Despite the disruptions, which forced some classes online and led to acts of vandalism, the university’s initial reaction was tepid, only implementing ID-based access controls on April 4, 2025, after days of chaos. Advocacy groups like the Canadian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and concerned individuals have called for decisive action, pointing to the hostile environment created for Jewish students and the broader student body. McGill’s failure to swiftly address the physical blockades and ensure safe access to education sends a dangerous message: that the university prioritizes appeasing disruptive activists over protecting the rights of all students. This inaction not only erodes trust in the institution but also sets a precedent for tolerating intimidation under the guise of activism, further emboldening such behavior on Canadian campuses.
The protests at McGill reveal a deeper issue: a two-tier system of justice that is profoundly divisive for Canadian society. While the protesters faced little immediate consequence for their actions, students attempting to attend classes were left to fend for themselves, as seen in videos where individuals were physically blocked from entering lecture halls. This disparity in treatment—where one group’s “right” to protest is elevated above others’ rights to safety and education—creates a fractured campus environment. Jewish students, in particular, have reported feeling unsafe, with advocacy groups framing the protests as antisemitic. Meanwhile, some individuals with differing views supported the protesters, accusing Israel and its supporters of enabling genocide. This polarization reflects a broader societal trend where identity-based grievances are weaponized, pitting groups against each other rather than fostering unity, a core Canadian ideal.
My blog post *The Oblivious Irony of Canada’s Progressive Left* provides a stark illustration of this trend, noting, “The progressive left’s obsession with identity politics has created a hierarchy of victimhood, where certain groups are given carte blanche to act with impunity, while others are silenced or vilified.” This observation captures the essence of the McGill protests, where the activists’ cause—framed as a fight against oppression—seemingly justified their coercive tactics, while the rights of other students were dismissed. Identity politics, as I argue, has become a divisive force in Canada, eroding the shared values of fairness and equality that once united the nation. The McGill protests are a microcosm of this larger societal shift, where the pursuit of “justice” for one group comes at the expense of others, deepening divisions and resentment.
In conclusion, the actions at McGill University are not a legitimate exercise of free speech but a violation of the principles that define Canada as a nation. By allowing protesters to intimidate and obstruct, McGill has failed its students, particularly those who felt targeted or unsafe, and has contributed to a two-tier system of justice that undermines Canadian unity. The divisive impact of identity politics, as highlighted in previously, underscores the urgent need for a return to shared values—respect, dialogue, and equal treatment under the law. Canadian society cannot thrive when one group’s rights are prioritized over another’s, and institutions like McGill must take responsibility to ensure that campuses remain spaces for learning, not coercion. Only by upholding these principles can Canada reclaim its identity as a nation of fairness and inclusion for all.
Policing in Canada has historically been grounded in the principle of equality under the law, where all individuals, regardless of identity, are subject to the same legal standards and enforcement practices. However, recent shifts in policy, training, and public discourse suggest that Canadian policing is increasingly adopting a model that applies different standards based on identity categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. This evolution is driven by a combination of social justice movements, government directives, and institutional reforms aimed at addressing systemic inequalities. While intended to rectify historical disparities, this approach raises questions about consistency and impartiality in law enforcement.
One clear indicator of this shift is the implementation of race-based data collection by police services across Canada. Initiated in response to allegations of racial profiling, agencies like the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police began collecting and analyzing data on the race of individuals stopped, questioned, or arrested, starting with pilot projects around 2019 and expanding since then. The stated goal is to identify and address “disproportionate” enforcement patterns, particularly against Black, Indigenous, and other racialized groups. While this data has confirmed higher rates of police interaction for certain communities—such as a 2020 Toronto report showing Black individuals were 2.2 times more likely to be involved in use-of-force incidents—it has also led to tailored policing strategies that adjust scrutiny or leniency based on racial identity rather than uniform application of the law.
Training and policy changes further illustrate this trend toward differential standards. Following high-profile incidents like the 2020 death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, Canadian police forces have overhauled training to emphasize “de-escalation” and “cultural competency,” often with specific focus on interactions with Indigenous and racialized populations. For instance, the RCMP introduced mandatory “bias-free policing” modules by 2022, which instruct officers to consider historical trauma and systemic factors when engaging with certain groups. While these measures aim to reduce harm, they implicitly encourage officers to alter their approach—sometimes reducing enforcement rigor—based on an individual’s perceived identity, diverging from a strictly neutral standard.
Legal and governmental frameworks also support this shift. In 2023, Bill C-92, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and families, effectively granted Indigenous communities greater autonomy over child welfare, including policing-related interventions, creating a parallel system distinct from mainstream enforcement. Similarly, hate crime laws and sentencing guidelines increasingly factor in identity-based considerations, with offenders targeting “vulnerable” groups facing harsher penalties, while enforcement in marginalized communities is often softened to avoid perceptions of over-policing. This dual-track approach—tougher on some, lighter on others—reflects a deliberate move away from universal standards toward identity-specific policing practices.
Finally, public and institutional pressure continues to reinforce this trajectory. Advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and Indigenous rights organizations, have successfully lobbied for policies that treat identity as a mitigating factor in policing. Reports like the 2021 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry explicitly called for reduced police intervention in Indigenous communities, alongside increased accountability for officers dealing with these populations. Meanwhile, urban police forces face scrutiny for “over-policing” racialized neighborhoods, prompting initiatives like Toronto’s 2024 “Community Crisis Support Service,” which diverts mental health calls involving racialized individuals away from police entirely. These developments signal a broader trend: policing in Canada is increasingly calibrated to identity, balancing equity goals against the traditional ethos of equal enforcement. Whether this enhances justice or undermines fairness remains a point of contention.
In Maoist China, the regime employed a rigid system of identity categories to divide and control the population, most notably through the “red” and “black” classifications. The “red” category included those deemed loyal to the Communist Party—workers, peasants, and revolutionary soldiers—while the “black” category encompassed perceived enemies of the state, such as landlords, capitalists, and intellectuals. These labels were not mere descriptors but tools of social engineering, designed to pit groups against one another, justify purges, and dismantle traditional societal bonds. By fostering resentment and mistrust, Mao’s identity politics eroded community cohesion, replacing it with a fractured hierarchy where allegiance to the state superseded all else, ultimately destabilizing Chinese society for decades.
Fast forward to the present, and the “woke” identity categories of today—centered around race, gender, sexuality, and privilege—bear a striking resemblance to Mao’s framework, though cloaked in progressive rhetoric. Instead of “red” and “black,” we have “oppressor” and “oppressed,” with whiteness, maleness, or heterosexuality marking one as inherently guilty, while marginalized identities confer moral superiority. Like their Maoist predecessors, these categories are weaponized to sow division, encouraging individuals to see themselves and others primarily through the lens of grievance or shame. The result is a society obsessed with policing language, canceling dissenters, and dismantling shared cultural norms under the guise of justice, mirroring the Cultural Revolution’s assault on tradition and unity.
The broader point is that identity politics, whether Maoist or woke, are not about liberation but destruction. By reducing individuals to immutable traits or ideological loyalty, they fracture the social fabric, turning neighbors into adversaries and dialogue into denunciation. This corrosion serves those in power—be it a totalitarian regime or a cultural elite—by weakening collective resistance and redirecting energy toward internal conflict. Both systems reveal a timeless truth: when identity becomes the battleground, society itself becomes the casualty, leaving behind a hollowed-out shell ripe for manipulation and control.
“Soon, I learned about nonbinary identities, and that some people – many people – were literally arguing that sex, not gender, was a social construct. I met people who evangelised a denomination of transgenderism that I had never heard of, one that included people who had never been gender dysphoric and who had no desire to medically transition. I met straight people whose ‘trans / nonbinary’ identities seemed to be defined by their haircuts, outfits and inchoate politics. I met straight women with Grindr accounts, and listened to them complain about the ‘transphobic’ gay men who didn’t want to have sex with women.
All around me, it seemed, straight people were spontaneously identifying into my community and then policing our behaviours and customs. I began to think that this broadening of the ‘trans’ and ‘queer’ umbrella was giving a hell of a lot of people a free pass to express their homophobia.
At Columbia, I took classes on LGBT history, but much of that history was delivered through the lens of queer theory. Queer theorists appropriate French philosopher Michel Foucault’s ideas about the power of language in constructing reality. They argue that homosexuality didn’t exist prior to the late 19th century, when the word ‘homosexual’ first appeared in medical discourse. Queer theorists proselytise a liberation that supposedly results from challenging the concepts of empirical reality and ‘normativity’. But their converts instead often end up adrift in a sea of nihilism. Queer theory, which has become the predominant method of discussing and analysing gender and sexuality in universities, seemed to me to be more ideological than truthful.
In my classes on gender and sexuality in the Muslim world, however, I discovered something else, too. I learned about current medical practices in Iran, where gay sex is illegal and punishable by death, and where medical transition is subsidised by the state to ‘cure’ gays and lesbians who, the theocratic elite insists, are ‘normal’ people ‘trapped in the wrong bodies’. I privately drew parallels between the anti-gay laws and practices of Iran and what I saw developing in the West, but I convinced myself I was just being paranoid.
Then, I learned about what was happening to gender-nonconforming kids – that they were being prescribed off-label drugs to halt their natural development, so that they’d have time to decide if they were really transgender. If so, they would then be more successful at passing as the opposite sex in adulthood. Even worse, I learned that these practices were being touted by LGBT-rights organisations as ‘life-saving medical care’.
It felt like I was living in an episode of The Twilight Zone. How long were these kids supposed to remain on the blockers? And what happens in a few years, if they decide they’re not ‘truly trans’ after all, and all of their peers have surpassed them? Are they seriously supposed to commence puberty at 16 or 17 years of age? These questions rattled my brain for months, until I learned the actual statistics: nearly all children who are prescribed puberty blockers go on to receive cross-sex hormones. Blockers don’t give a kid time to think. They solidify him in a trans identity and sentence him to a lifetime of very expensive, experimental medicalisation.
I wondered how different these so-called trans kids were from the little boy I had been. Obviously, I grew up to be a gay man and not a transwoman. But how could gender clinicians tell the difference between a young boy expressing his homosexuality through gender nonconformity, and someone ‘born in the wrong body’? I decided to dig deeper into the real history of medical transition.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…