Wednesday 21 December 2022

Keeping It Real

Three months of old-fashioned communal showers gave me a particular perspective on gender self-identification. One never looks down, of course, and in any case what would one see? Nothing is more uninteresting than another man's penis. 

We old timers would indeed have seen it all before. But if it is not already happening, then teenage boys the length and breadth of the land will very soon be confronted with something else entirely. In Scotland, that could be as soon as they returned to school after Christmas. Again, if it is not already happening. Anyone who thinks that that would be "every boy's dream" has obviously never been one. There is a time and a place for everything, and that would be neither the time nor the place for a vagina.

Feelings are real, but they are not facts. As poverty of aspiration is a real feeling, but it is economic inequality that is a fact, so gender identity is a real feeling, but it is biological sex that is a fact. Those who failed to hold the first line, but who instead followed Marxism Today in whoring after Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair, are now unable to hold the second line, either. And those who are failing to hold the second line will be unable to hold the first, no matter how devoted they might have been to the person or cause of Jeremy Corbyn.

Without a robust material realism, there can be no pursuit of economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, led by those who suffered most as a result of economic inequality, namely the working class, and led by those who suffered most as a result of international conflict, namely the working class and the youth.

Yet most of the Left has succumbed to gender self-identification, which is a flat denial of even the most blatantly obvious material reality. Demonstrably, then, dialectical materialism has failed to provide that robust basis. Nor, in itself, can natural science, which cannot prove the ontological existence of material reality, but rather presupposes it and works from there.

What is needed is Thomism, which by definition exists within the wider Augustinian tradition. Fundamental to both is absolute fidelity to the Roman Magisterium, which is itself irrevocably committed to the Thomist metaphysical system, within which its own indispensable role precludes any degeneration comparable to that of the ancestrally Marxian Left into gender self-identification. Philosophy needs the Rock of the Petrine Office no less than Theology does.

Just as there can be no meaningful claim to be pro-life without an active commitment to economic equality and to international peace, so there can be no such commitment without material realism. There can be no secure material realism, nor, therefore, any science, without Thomism. And there can be no Thomism without the Roman Obedience, which one adopts either entirely and at whatever cost, or not at all.

Applied to the present situation, this has implications that are vastly more egalitarian economically, vastly more pacific internationally, and vastly more democratic politically, than anything that Marxism could ever devise, much less deliver. This is not to build the house from the roof down. Fidelity to the Magisterium requires Thomism, which entails material realism, which compels a critique of the present economic and geopolitical order such as leads inexorably to the pursuit of equality and peace through democracy.


  1. Just as there can be no meaningful claim to be pro-life without an active commitment to economic equality

    Of course there can-you can be pro life and simply want abortion made illegal as it was here except in rare circumstances until the 1960’s. If the world were an egalitarian desert of “economic equality” that would destroy liberty and aspiration since when people are free they are unequal and it’s inequality that inspires people to want more and to work for it.

    1. You have never met the pro-life movement in your life. Or read anything by any Pope, ever.

  2. You frequent criticisms of Corbyn have always been spot on but at least he opened up the space for these discussions.

    1. These and many others. Then he gave ground to the people who wanted to close the space, and whose opposition to him was always going to be implacable.

      Will the Government legislate against the devolved Scottish introduction of gender self-identification? Of course not, because who is to make it?