Progressivism’s Peak Lunacy image

Progressivism’s Peak Lunacy

0
19
2
So the week before last it was all, “Gender is meaningless – it mustn’t even be mentioned; it is the distinction that knows no name,” as London Underground instructed staff not to use the phrase ladies and gentlemen. But last week it was all, “Gender is everything – it must be relentlessly focussed on,” as the fact that there are more highly paid men at the BBC than women has caused sputtering outrage.

The internal incoherence of the liberal project should be blindingly obvious. If gender really is irrelevant then whether broadcasters are male or female should not frame the debate about salaries: rather it should focus on whether individual broadcasters are worth what they are paid. But gender (or, more accurately, sex) does matter – which is why the BBC is so embarrassed that “only one third” of its highest paid slebs are women; and why the broadcaster is so relentlessly pushing the cause of female sport. Not that female sport will mean anything if enough trans women get involved.

The scary thing is how many people take the incoherence unthinkingly, like frogs blundering into the kettle.

We need to be braver about pointing out the inconsistent and the lunatic. Doing so can feel intimidating though. London Pride the other week was launched by the mayor of London and members of the emergency services – a demonstration of how the LGBT cause receives state endorsement to an extraordinary degree. When the whole machinery of the state is demanding one way of thinking it takes genuine courage to point out how flawed that thinking is.

But we need to ask the questions: Does gender matter or doesn’t it? Do women really want their space colonised by trans women – isn’t that just men again seizing control, which again reduces equality? Don’t most teenagers experience identity confusion – and if so how is it morally right for activist groups to be present in schools ‘helping’ pupils transition? Does the current shape of ‘diversity’ actually create a culture of diversity or is it in fact simply narrowing the bandwidth of what is deemed acceptable? Is a sexual free for all really better for society than stable, heterosexual, marriage? Is biology really separable from identity or behaviour or performance – or is it all down to social conditioning? But if so why is it that pretty much every women’s athletics world record has been bettered by an English schoolboy? And on and on and on.

We have to ask the questions. And then we have to get to the place where we help people see that the things our culture claims to value most – human rights and tolerance and diversity – are insupportable without a coherent foundation. These cultural values would not exist without Christianity: they did not originate in Rome or Athens or Babylon but in Jerusalem; and without Christianity as the foundation there is no way they can endure. Progressivisms peak lunacy is leading us to a place where human rights are not respected, ‘diversity’ becomes depressing conformity, and tolerance is deeply intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to ask the questions. We need a firmer foundation.

← Prev article
Next article →