To summarize my understanding of Keith’s and Jensen’s position:

1. Keith’s and Jensen’s stance begins with the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed.
2. Under patriarchy, everyone’s gendering is largely (even entirely) a product of patriarchy.
3. They envision a world without patriarchy, and therefore one where patriarchy would not contribute to anyone’s gendered subject formation.
4. Therefore, they envision a world where it’s likely far more (perhaps all) people would be comfortable in the bodies they were born with.
5. Based on this, they therefore hope that those persons not rely on the medical-industrial complex’s pharmacology and surgeries to become comfortable.
6. Their motivation is partly because they want to do away, entirely, with the medical industrial complex.
7. But they are also motivated by seeing these pharmaceutical and surgical procedures to be a physical torture and mutilation in response to the psychological torture and trauma of patriarchy.
8. They take a turn here, though, by taking their imagined future situation and projecting it into the present, to guide the way people can and should behave now.
9. On this basis, they think that it’s wrong for people to use hormone treatments, have surgeries, and so forth, now.

I’m disregarding many other aspects of their transphobia and only attending to these. (For instance: the ridiculous idea that ftm transexuals are betraying feminism and mtf transexuals are coopting feminism.) Most of their other positions are much more problematic and even hateful, particularly Keith’s version of radical feminism that creates a paradox when squaring it with her constructivism — we’re all constructed, and yet if one is born with a penis, “he” is always a man? I’m only retaining the positions that emerge out of a particular variety of anti-civilization politics. Most of their ideas related to trans persons that are not included here aren’t worth taking very seriously, and that’s the primary reason for the exclusion.

I feel like I have an understanding of these positions as a result of ongoing attention to their work, to controversies that have emerged, and especially from direct interaction with them (more so with Jensen). I also feel like I understand these positions because I have strongly agreed with some of them, and had general agreement with most of them, even rather recently. My prior thinking on these matters was largely influenced by the anti-civilization politics I used to share more with the very general aims of (among others) Keith, Jensen, and DGR. From here, rather than doing a close reading of their texts, I will explain why I think some of these steps are problematic, mostly by explaining my more recent thoughts that have undone my past thinking on these positions.

1. Gender entirely socially constructed? That gender is a social construction is not in dispute. But I reject the idealist position that they are constructed from nothing. All of our social constructions are influenced by the material objects and their relations that fill out our experiences. I strongly agree that discrepancies in the genetic definition of sex make it impossible to establish a reliable definition of sex – much more of gender – on the basis of genes. There are what should be seen as obvious problems with anatomical definition of sex (though Keith seems to be rather paradoxically convinced of this), and using reproductive capacity as determinant of sex is even more unreliable. The same goes for the inadequacies of hormonal definitions of sex. It gets even worse if you try to say sex is determined by the aggregation of these – and other – markers, because the problems of each merely multiply one another. We end up not with two sexes, but many. Nonetheless, our identities are not purely constructed without these being factors, even very powerful ones. We haven’t unmediated and complete access to our own bodies, but they play a profound role in our gendering that is ignored by absolute versions of social constructivism. This is a point where their entire argument unravels, but we need not overdetermine the extent to which their position is undermined here. There are other problems.

2. We are completely formed as subjects by patriarchy? We are indeed products of patriarchy. Even by resisting patriarchy, it in-forms us. That doesn’t mean we should try to resist the subject formation of patriarchy by not resisting patriarchy itself. In fact, to some trans persons, their very bodies and lived reality is the negation of patriarchy. I think that’s a very compelling position. But it’s also a body and a way of life that then requires patriarchy for its (present) coherence. (Of course, these meanings of all of our bodies are dynamic and would change in different contexts. So this present coherence would take on another coherence in a radially different socio-political context.) This is absolutely not to say that being trans is shoring up patriarchy in any way. A bigger problem with this idea that we are completely formed by patriarchy is that it denies the extent to which we are the products of many other things. Patriarchy sediments most everything, but it does not fully constitute everything. The idea that there is no outside to patriarchy forecloses all liberatory potential. While there are limits to what we can be and do in the continued presence of a dominant patriarchal order, there are fissures everywhere, places where its hold is weak — particularly so in trans cultures. These are the sites of resistance. If a crack forms, it does not immediately fill with patriarchy; sometimes it’s filled with its void, and this is also true of our subject positions.

3. I won’t quarrel with the idea of imagining a world without patriarchy, and one where our identities are not formed by it. I think this is a wonderful thought experiment, even if it’s unthinkable in its fullness. This unthinkability is the point where basing a utopian politics on it becomes problematic. As we act, new conditions emerge, and so too should our visions adapt and morph. Our envisioning work we do today can help us deal with our present reality, but probably should not be the basis of a long-term strategy. This is a major departure from Keith and Jensen.

4. I especially follow the thought experiment of the world without patriarchy to the end of imagining a world where gender is dynamic, fluid, and open, but one where this would not necessarily require extensive chemical or physical modification of the body. In such a world, experimentation would likely be more not less common. [I don't intend to insinuate that I believe being trans is an experiment, but that I would like it to be more of one.] This may be even more troubling for some trans persons, if only because some of their modifications might be so invasive to the chemical and physical structure of the body that they are quasi-permanent. I’m not suggesting that a rather stable gender identity is not ever personally or politically preferred, but that I imagine in my thought experiment – the world without patriarchy – that gender and sex identities would be both more radically plural, and much less fixed in appearance. But that’s just my imaginary world, and one that presents some inherent philosophical and political challenges to many anti-trans positions and even some of trans culture. But I need to emphasize the extent to which this is only a thought experiment and not reality — this is precisely where Kieth and Jensen overextend their argument far beyond what is useful. Their position verges on utopian and this very sharply collides with position 5, 8 and 9, which I’ll come to below.

5, 8 & 9. Stop gender transformation, now? There’s a fundamental problem with Keith’s and Jensen’s political vision in that they routinely get prefiguration wrong. They correctly recognize that simple lifestyle changes (shorter showers, driving a hybird) will accomplish little or nothing. They overemphasize the importance of immediate and direct assaults on the industrial infrastructure, and place little value in transition — clear it away now, they say (a position I directly debated with Jensen). They are interested in building cultures of resistance. If you look at their writing and their less public communications, they have little visions for building communities in the here and now — the cultures of resistance they will build offer little to how they would prefigure new communities. In fact, they occasionally lump this demand together with taking shorter showers — a position I routinely tested in online discussions with Jensen. “Never mind prefiguration, smash civilization today, before it’s too late!” and, “build relationships with salmon, not people” is not too violent a reduction of the positions at work here. I think the problem with their position on opposing medical transformation is rooted very much in their approach to political change and failing to understand that we begin from where we are. We are not in our imagined future, and there are many steps to getting from here. We have to cope with and live in the world that is here and now. And merely clearing away everything that stands between the here and now with our utopian vision is dangerous. So too is demanding that trans persons not recognize and live in the situations they are now in. While trans people’s (and all of our) gender identities would likely be very different in the total absence of patriarchy, denying them (and all of us) their capacities and methods of expressing and living with their subject position now is much like saying “fuck the village that is built in the dry river bed, I’m going to blow this dam and flood the fuckers out — it’s for the salmon!” And both are decisions they readily act upon. I think this is the source of the justified anger of many trans persons toward Keith, Jensen, and DGR.

6. Get rid of the medical-industrial complex that enables medical gender transformation? I’m not a trans person. I don’t know what it would be like to want to have my sex reassigned and not have those technologies available. I was rather favorable and even deeply engaged with anti-civilization thought and politics when my daughter was born at our home. Within hours, she was taken by plane to a hospital and hooked up to millions of dollars worth of medical equipment. She was in a morphine induced coma, her body cooled by about 10 degrees, and her heart and lung functions were essentially shut down while a machine replaced them for over a week. Neither then nor now would I very readily approve of the industrial and economic processes that these machinery and techniques rely upon to exist. I love my daughter, but the world in which I think humans must live likely wouldn’t include the tools and techniques that saved her life. That doesn’t mean that I pulled the plug, nor would I. It also doesn’t mean that I would blow up the hospital she was in. This is the move the Keith and Jensen make. I don’t know how related these issues are, but they draw me into a situation that I wasn’t involved in before: I’m now forced to consider technologies that wouldn’t exist if my political vision were manifested, technologies my daughter depended upon to be alive today. I would have readily traded my life for hers in the absence of these technologies, if such a decision would have saved her. Still, it’s not the same situation, but I think the point is clear. I would be willing to accept some rather significant future trade-offs in order to live in a world I think would be better. In the future I think is most possible and most free for all, my daughter would likely not have survived, and trans persons would likely not have access to surgical and pharmaceutical technologies and techniques to reassign their sex.

7. I’m not going to address this, partly because I don’t have resolute thoughts on the matter. I can appreciate many sides on this perspective. I think Keith has had one or two good things to say on the matter. It’s rather difficult to discuss these issues once they’re surrounded by transphobic hatred. I’d be interested to hear or read about some queer and trans people’s systematic and serious thoughts on the issues of the invasiveness and violence of gender reassignment. I’m not interested in entertaining such a position from someone who clearly hates trans people.

This issue is much bigger than what I’ve dealt with. In some ways I’m contrasting two positions that are in tension. On Jensen’s and Keith’s side there is a muddled utopianism that causes all sorts of ethical, political, and practical problems when they turn toward the moment and try to find synergy. Opposed to this is not a side articulated by any people, but one that I’ve created to challenge Jensen and Keith: the position is rooted in prefiguration and living in a patriarchal society. It would seem that many people who have criticized Keith, Jensen, and DGR are coming from a position that they are more oriented in their lived realities of today, and feel that their lives, their strategies, their bodies are under assault by Keith’s and Jensen’s utopian politics. I think this position is neither inaccurate or overstated. I think this is a routine problem for Keith’s and Jensen’s politics, too. They have a vision that is generally commendable. Most everything else is wanting.

[Note: I don't have anything to gain in posting this and a lot to lose. This situation since the Law & Disorder fiasco is a minefield, full of a lot of problematic thinking on both sides, and much worse behavior. This is particularly exemplified by the fact that there are two clear sides to begin with, and more so by the online behavior by those who have taken sides, behavior which is frequently vitriolic and unproductive. There are certainly exceptions, but they are exceptions. Also, Derrick and I have a history, and one that is also not particularly friendly (mostly on his side).]

It would seem to me that not using every means at our disposal to prevent this amounts to a monumental evil of which the human species has never seen. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that a world-wide, multi-species Shoah looms. And yet, more commonly, people speak only of pragmatic and feasible solutions. These have more to do with discursive and ideological battles (i.e. stressing education, research, etc.) than material rearrangements of our communities.

The energy and oil industries, the cultures of mass production, and those who would defend the status quo are condemning billions to death, and eradicating the Earth of countless species.

What would be a symmetrical response even look like?

How many gigatons of Carbon Dioxide...?

I appreciate your contribution to the conversation, no matter how much I might disagree, and no matter how reservedly or otherwise I might confront that contribution. I generally appreciate disagreement as much as or more than agreement. Sometimes I’m frustrated by my finding a lack of agreement, and some emotively charged communication is such in part as an expression of alienation. I lack competency in many conventional social skills. I also generally respond to someone’s words as reflections of an idea and discourse that is quasi-autonomous from the person articulating them. If I think one of these articulations is flawed or problematic, that is not a reflection of what I think of you as a person. I have pretty thick skin, and struggle with tending to people who are more fragile. I have never felt much presence of endorsement, and (perhaps this is related) don’t understand those who expect prefatory recognition of their expression as valid, even if their ideas are being challenged. While I might rationalize it when I’m not taking greater care around those who are more sensitive, this is partly an attempt to cover for my frequent poor perception of the sensitivity of others and even poorer ability of adjusting to it. Even those ideas or discourses I most aggressively critique are not as flawed, in my eyes, as I am as a person.

Second, the advocacy of uniform codes of civility and interaction seems suspect at best. While it can be frustrating to deal with someone who hasn’t been socialized the same way we have, or if they have some barrier to such socialization, the diversity of personalities is a wonderful thing — even in these frustrating moments. I’m far more inclined to welcome these frustrations than to applaud someone for regulating those who do not conform to these standards. Witnessing (and experiencing!) processes of organized exclusion of those who do not behave in accordance with these prescriptions is one thing that often fuels my skepticism toward self-professed radicals.

Third, with the prevalence of learning disabilities, mental illnesses, and so forth in contemporary culture, I find the demand for civility and the regulation thereof to be an obnoxious and ableist enterprise. The derision dealt towards those who do not maintain decorum exemplifies very little understanding that a sizable portion of the population simply cannot and will not be socialized in the same ways as the majority. That radicals would pontificate the virtues of regulating civility and many more would embrace such a position, I think, undermines their claims to radicalism.

originating from the late 1300s, meaning “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,” and deriving from the Anglo-French “legaunce”. It was not until the 18th century that the figurative idea referring to “recognition of claims to respect or duty” gained use.

Merriam-Webster places “devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause” as the secondary definition to the following as primary definitions:

a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

Children are made to pledge allegiance to flags. This pattern follows many throughout their lives.

Allegiance in a non-feudal arrangement implies deference. The same dictionary cited above uses the following quotation as an example:

“Deference to leaders and intolerance toward outsiders (and toward “enemies within”) are hallmarks of tribalism …”

This quote, taken from Benjamin Barber, is illustrative. We are, indeed, tribal creatures. In a contemporary setting where our tribal affiliations transcend geography, we form the most peculiar of bonds, to fetishized niche consumer products, to ideologists, to celebrity, and so on. Yet these bonds are often no less strong than subjects’ to their lords. Under a fantastic delusion that this new tribalism is somehow as decentered as the networks that enable them, the postmodern subjects often believe themselves without a king, while nonetheless serving him with extreme devotion.

Outstanding student loan debt now stands at $956 billion, an increase of $42 billion since last quarter.  However, of the $42 billion, $23 billion is new debt while the remaining $19 billion is attributed to previously defaulted student loans that have been updated on credit reports this quarter. As a result, the percent of student loan balances 90+ days delinquent increased to 11 percent this quarter.

Let’s face it, one of the major impediments to radical political change is that those committed to it lack the resources or access to mobilize them. Here we see a rare opportunity, where some of those who are struggling have considerable leverage. You don’t need to band together by the thousands and take to the streets (though that would be helpful). You merely need to not pull out your checkbook for the next year and let your student loans go into default. Refuse to repay your loans, because in an opulent society like ours, free education should be standard. Force the banking institutions into a crisis, and demand a jubilee through loan forgiveness programs.

We are now hearing that degraded satellite and other weather monitoring equipment is likely to impact the accuracy of prediction. The infrastructure hasn’t been maintained as well as it should, and glitches and poor data quality are probable.

What they used to call ‘global warming’ had transformed into ‘climate change’ since, after all, weather wasn’t merely heating up, it was also cooling, and other weather events were significantly altering. It eventually got so out of whack that many now call it ‘global weirding,’ which seems to me an appropriate phrase. But when a National Weather Service meteorologist referred to this unprecedented storm that is about to ravage the East Coast, he called it ‘a monstrous hybrid vortex.’

Such a description seems to describe the climate events we should anticipate, not only over the next few days, and along a few hundred miles of coastline on one particular continent. Instead, we might recognize that in what some are calling the Anthropocene, the atmosphere around this planet is an aggregation of monstrous vortices that rejects accurate modelling, not purely because of our decaying technological infrastructure, but because the unfolding events confound human cognition and the devices we use to scaffold our feeble minds to an unhinged and uncontrollable natural universe. In this age, our monsters are the air we breathe, and they are far more restless than Frankenstein’s.

This image, shot from the Curiosity rover on Mars, should be the symbol for our post-space age.

We are no longer looking at ourselves as a part of a whole, residents of a biosphere. Rather, we now see ourselves disappear into the distance. A flicker of light. A candle flame about to drown in a pool of wax.

Update: I’ve been notified that this is not an image shot by Curiosity, but a software- rendered or modified image, based on one shot by the rover. This only adds another dimension to its appropriateness as a symbol for our time.