One of the tricks of the PoMo ‘university’

Readers of this site won’t be much surprised at the following clip, but its important anyway to understand the consistency, degree, and authority of Postmodernist thought within institutions that were once the very heart of Greek thought.

The temptation, and understandable one at that, is to assume that the teacher is just crazy. Anyone can see there are only two “genders”. But I suspect there is a sort of logic to the game that is being played here.

Growing up in Canada, determining sexual dimorphism on forms was typically done with the word SEX and two check boxes. M and F.

You would check the one that applied to your biological reality.

At one point it became the norm to equate the word sex as a noun, with the word sex as a verb. On forms, people (like me as a young teen for instance) would write after the question SEX: with a new checkbox that said “yes please” or some other play on the noun-verb thing.

The trick that was played was when postmodernist thinkers infused the culture with the word “gender” which rapidly replaced the word “sex” because it seemed to eliminate the titillating aspects of using the noun, “sex” as a verb.

But it was not a direct replacement.

Gender is a postmodern trick, in nearly exactly the same way Islam uses words in a fundamentally different way than we understand them (and then blame us for our failure to know what they meant). Gender means how you identify inside as your role relating to reproductive behaviour or anything related to reproductive identity as you imagine it to be at any time and for any reason, with perfect equity applied to that imaginary role to all others.

So when the student said there are only 2 genders, he of course meant, there are only two sexes.

When the professor acted as if he had committed a thought crime, she (probably) was acting on the false assumption that he was saying no one has a right to feel any other way than how they want to, yet  knowing full well that he meant biological reality.

This is much like the Islamic trick on a dozen important words and concepts. Like “defending the faith” for example, which muslims know to us means the right to protect our own religious and cultural beliefs and customs from violent attackers, but to islam means the right to impose their law and beliefs and values on all non-muslims as all resistance to Islam is in fact an affront to them so, ‘defending the faith; actually means imposing it.

We aren’t to know that though so that we will reasonably defend their right to do it, based on our understanding of the phrase.

“Justice” of course is a classic example. To us it means the application of reason and the scientific method to determine what actually took place, the truth of the events or statements and then the application of measured punishments to satisfy the community and address the objective reality of the situation to the best of our ability “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

In Islam it means application of sharia forced or otherwise and the truth of the matter is not even a factor. But that didn’t stop many in the West from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom and Justice” party in Egypt headed by Mohammad Morsi, who’s sole mission was the implementation of sharia and creating the centre of the new Caliphate. Again, because of our understanding of the word.

Freedom in Islam also means the freedom to impose the sharia on all people whether they want it or not.

The left uses the same rhetorical devices although sometimes a little differently.

The word “capitalism” nearly everyone has been tricked into using when what they mean is a free market economy. Capitalism is a Marxist term where attributes that are patently false are imputed onto free markets, the most important of which is the critical distinction between what is a zero sum game and what is not. Free markets are simply not zero sum. When a transaction is informed, then both parties win.

The farmer needs money to live and make the farm go, and the person who has money finds it tastes rather bad and prefers to trade it for food.

Marxism would have us believe that free market transactions are all zero sum with an oppressor and a victim. Much as how they created race relations, sex-relations and all possible divisions of humanity in order to bring down what has been the most robust and cornucopia-like, low-suffering and environmentally friendly system the world has ever seen.

Along with its current ally, Islam, who also seeks the collapse of classical thought. And more and more it becomes clear exactly why.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

3 Replies to “One of the tricks of the PoMo ‘university’”

  1. This is one of the reasons I say Civilization has been destroyed, the radical left has control of the educational system from K through Collage, with the next generations being indoctrinated like this there is no hope for Civilization being saved. All we can do is fight to retain our freedom.

  2. My 1934 Oxford dictionary defines gender as ‘Grammatical classification’, then elaborates on that; almost as an after-thought says ‘(joc) sex.’ In other words, its use as a synonym for sex was a joke!

    • Before I saw your comment, I scrambled to my own OED!

      “Gender” – I understood it as a linguistics term most of my life. Weird how that changed. Who? When?

      ‘Jocular, playful’ – That still fits, If guess. If someone asks, “What gender is your parakeet?” Silly.
      (Usually it’s: “Is Beaky a boy or a girl?”)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.