Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
Joanne Rowling made an unreasonable statement that hormonal “treatment” of minor transgender people who change their sex with medication is evidence of the laziness or incompetence of doctors who are called upon to examine the psychological and mental state of patients, rather than giving hormones to them instead. For which she was justly criticized by the transgender people themselves.
Obviously, latent authoritarianism and cheeky traditionalism are hidden behind such rhetoric. I believe that the true motive of Joanne Rowling is not concern for young individuals, but a poorly veiled desire to put new people on the reproductive stream.
“To be fruitful and multiply" is precisely an authoritarian slogan, a biblical-socialist imprint, unacceptable to a free-thinking society in the modern world. Therefore, Rowling supporters are increasingly guided by emotional rather than logical arguments.
That is why I argue that the scandal that erupted around Joanne Rowling is primarily associated with her traditionalist message, which hides the usual authoritarian coercion of reproduction, albeit pretty camouflaged by pseudo-humanistic concern for young people who want to change their gender.
So the old world resists the new, not being able to legally control it. Thus, the appearance of various kinds of minorities, albeit very extravagant at first glance, as well as their demand for more and more freedoms, is a natural reaction to the traditionalist dictatorship.
The life of a traditional family can be called more tragic than comfortable, given how many conventions they did not have to comply with whoever decided to formalize an official marriage. Not to mention the fact that the family is becoming a kind of social prison, a closed guesthouse with strict rules. Every individual inside him loses significantly in the possibilities of any free person.
In fact, people like Rowling want to always reproduce their own kind so that the world, God forbid, change and they do not lose their existing statuses and privileges in it.
In addition, political correctness diversifies the glamor market. Not only glamor, but the whole market. On the example of the beauty industry, everything becomes clear. In this market, some part of society is satisfied and becomes the buyer of certain goods and services. For example, new standards dictate the appearance of atypical models on catwalks and magazines, but delete or ignore the “classic” format 90-60-90.
Therefore, all ordinary moralists involved in the discussion, currently serving this trend for free, will remain fools. That is, they will not receive any financial benefits and social privileges. Simply put, people dissatisfied with their appearance, in a certain general socialist almost impulse, serve exclusively their neuroses, thinking that they serve society. Alas, most likely, they also will not get rid of neurosis.
In this game, even such a large beneficiary as Joan Rowling can remain a pauper after claims from certain groups. And he can win, which is less likely, but also with the support of certain groups. Do not rely on the sincerity of the participants in the game. Therefore, Rowling supporters are increasingly guided by emotional rather than logical arguments.
The problem with people like Joan Rowling is that they don’t understand the obvious fact of modernity — individuals no longer need imposed identities. That is, the modern world with its scientific discoveries, an abundance of information and huge opportunities for everyone literally indicates previous identities as fictitious. A girl no longer feels like a girl, a boy - a boy, a woman - a woman, a man - a man. They dump off all that burden of social roles that previous generations were forced to drag. And then the parents of others start to resent the fact that the daughter of Angelina Jolie dresses like a boy and wants to change sex. They are also outraged that Elon Musk called his son X Æ A-12. And in my opinion, a beautiful constructivist modern name!
For those who continue to insist on the sacredness of the sexes, I propose to rewind time back when reptiles (hermaphrodites) dominated among living beings. Or even earlier, when there were more primitive aquatic semi-bacteria. Is their identity holy too? To demand from a modern person reproduction as the first and only necessity is a real savagery. The more developed people are, the higher the education, the less they breed and multiply. Rousseau wrote about this. Evolution is a process that cannot be stopped by social and cultural constraints. In the best case, it can be adjusted and directed. To impose former forms of life as the only relevant ones is regressive and totalitarian. And most importantly, it is absolutely pointless.
For the sake of objectivity, it is worth noting the fact that in addition to the traditionalist dictatorship on the one hand, there is no less rigid politically correct dictatorship on the other. The victim of this terror was the professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson. He was actually harassed by the very “warriors of social justice”. Thus, we have a situation where the dictate of political correctness turns into censorship, including political censorship. Anyone who has not had rights for so long immediately strives to become a dictator. This history is as old as the world and can be qualitatively changed only through free public discussions on all issues.