I recently read an article in "The American Conservative" called "Queerness: America’s Post-Christian Gnosticism." In this article, the author, Rod Dreher, makes the argument that "queerness" is modern-day Gnosticism. Now, I recognize that most of you probably have no idea what Gnosticism is. Gnosticism is a primarily first and second century (AD) heresy that claims that material existence is evil, and therefore the world was made by a lesser malevolent deity that isn't God. Not only that, they believe salvation to be given to people based on a special knowledge that only some receive. Those chosen by God. So, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get into the article itself.
The first thing that alerted me to seeing that Rod either understands nothing of what he's talking about or is arguing in bad faith (I will assume in this article that he is arguing in good faith, and therefore I will argue as if he merely does not understand what he is talking about) is the fact that he has three quotes from this article from "First Things" titled "Under the Rainbow Banner." Frankly, it's a terrible article. It's anti-therapy, and the author, Darel E. Paul shows complete ignorance in discussing the LGBT community. I genuinely almost laughed at several points in his article, especially this sentence: "From a therapeutic perspective, the more fantastic a sexual identity, the more it expresses individuality and thus the more exemplary it is." It's genuinely laughable that someone would in all seriousness write this phrase down. No one outside of 15 year old LGBT Tumblr cringe-lords view queerness in this way. Being LGBT has NOTHING to do with "individuality." It's simply who we are. No one chose to be LGBT, it's just what we ended up being. This whole argument by Darel (and Rod in his article) rests upon the notion that people choose to be gay or trans. It's the only way you can come to the argument that being LGBT is about "individuality." So, we can safely say that Darel knows nothing of what he argues about if he's still peddling this view. Now, what about Rod himself? So, his article is based upon the same premise as Darel's article, that queerness is about "individuality," which as established before is a flawed premise. So, already his article's argument has holes. Not only this, but to pretend that this is all based off of some therapeutic value of "individuality" would be to completely ignore queer history in America. It is to pretend that the gay rights movement wasn't created due to queer backlash from oppression such as the lavender scare, conversion therapy, and laws outlawing homosexuality. It is ridiculous to look upon history and come up with the theory that "individuality" is why queerness is so prominent instead of queers overcoming oppression. That said, let's get into the meat and potatoes, whether queerness is "contemporary pop Gnosticism" or not. So, first, go back up and re-read the definition of Gnosticism. Then, come back down and read this section written by Rod in his article: "Queerness is not an aberration of this Grand March to self-liberation, but rather its fulfillment. It is the triumph of gnosticism: the idea that matter is a prison that willful spirit is meant to overcome. At this late stage of our civilization’s self-destruction, I feel that the most important task of us Christians is to keep this gnosticism out of the church. Given how the therapeutic ethos has conquered popular American Christianity, this is going to be a fierce battle." Rod's argument is incoherent, it is merely a word salad written in an attempt to appear intellectual. I will give him this, if he was trying to write an "argument" that could not be argued with, he did it perfectly. In no way does this help one understand how queerness could be modern-day Gnosticism. It's merely a weak statement pretending that therapy creates gnostics, and that bettering yourself is an idea that should be kept out of the American church. It's nonsensical and shows perfectly why conservatism is dying and the youth is fleeing from it. But, the ridicolousness gets only better: "Transgenderism is fullest expression of contemporary pop gnosticism. It is no coincidence that the Wachowskis, the sibling team behind The Matrix, the most gnostic film ever, both ended up as transgendered females. (See this short 2015 Sonny Bunch essay on the siblings’ obsession with the mutability of man, and their recurrent villainization of metaphysical order. This more recent Vox essay, written by a male-to-female transgender, goes much deeper into the trans philosophy at the heart of the Wachowskis’ work; the author says that The Matrix is “a story that is now widely read as an allegory about how immensely powerful it can be to discover one’s true self by getting online.”)" In other words, Rod is arguing that being trans requires you to act as if your assigned-gender-at-birth (from here on out will be referred to as "birth gender") isn't who you truly are, you view matter (a.k.a. your birth gender) as a prison and willfull spirit is meant to transcend it (transitioning). To have this view you must believe that transgenderism is a choice, and something that people become, not born as. Of course, modern science is showing that trans people are in fact born trans, and that being trans is not a choice or something you become. In addition, to have the views of Rod, you must believe that trans women aren't women and that trans men aren't men, which is dead wrong. Then, he goes on to imply that the Wachowski sisters are trans because they are fascinated by tearing down oppressive norms (I'm sorry, "metaphysical order"), instead of the other way around which is they're fascinated with tearing down oppressive norms because they are trans. Before I finish, if I may, I'd like to stay and demolish one more quote of his from the article: "Along those lines, it is interesting to think of how the word “Pride” has been transformed by the LGBT movement from a traditional vice into a virtue in our culture — but of course only when it refers to sexual aberration. I know where it comes from: in the old days, the dominant culture made gays feel shame for their desires; they flipped “shame” around. I get that. Still, there is a reason why Pride is a deadly sin. It is at the root of the primordial sin: asserting that one is one’s own God, not God. The Ur-sin of Lucifer is Pride. " There are three definitions of "pride," one being (definitions taken from the Oxford Dictionary): "a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired." The second definition, and the one condemned in the Bible being: "the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance." What is the definition of LGBT pride? "confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience." It is nothing alike the type of pride condemned in the Bible as Rod would have you believe. In the end, this was an embarrassingly bad hit piece on the LGBT community. In his attempt to be original in his criticism, he went completely off the reservation and made himself to be a fool in the process. He has shown nothing but complete ignorance in regards to anything regarding queerness. He is merely talking out of his ass, hoping that anti-LGBT people who also know nothing about the LGBT community consider him to be an intellectual in regards to LGBT issues, more specifically, arguing against the LGBT community.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHi! I'm Anna, a currently transitioning transgender woman! I started my blog "Ramblings of a Trans Woman" as therapy for gender and identity issues and abuse from my parents and church. Hopefully, someone else out there can get something from this. If you want to talk, just get in contact with me, there's plenty of ways how and we'll discuss the best way to talk! Archives
June 2022
CategoriesAll 2020 Abuse April 2020 Christianity Febraury 2020 Love Marriage |