Discussion about this post

User's avatar
dd's avatar

I don't know if you are familiar with the short story called "Brokeback Mountain" by Annie Proulx.

Almost 20 years ago there was a big cultural kerfuffle about that short story and a film that was to be made about it. I generally don't read fiction, but decided to read it and it is extraordinarily good, up there with O'Connor, perhaps Flaubert.

I think about that short story alot, and its 2 cowboys who are so in love with each other. They themselves remark at a couple of points, that what ever this was, it was something overwhelming. Yet they had not name for it......they didn't say, "Are we gay, or musical, or friends of Dorothy?"

In other words they lived completely in signified and not at all in the world of signifiers and signs. They simple were: identity not needed.

I think of "Brokeback Mountain" alot these days because it's really astounding to me how much trans/gender movement is so signifier dependent. So many genders luxuriate as signifiers with the names, pronouns, flags, but peter out as signified.

At one moment you are being told that "sex" points to biology, whereas "gender" to social conventions. And then you find a few sentences down that the 2 terms are being conflated and confused. Really something.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

The intro to this essay was correct. It's silly and beneath the adults in the room that this conversation even happens.

To borrow from an analogy in the middle, these people are the sort to label trees "cars" based on the notion that language is arbitrary, and then as soon as someone agrees, they assert that we've further agreed that trees contain spark plugs and transmissions.

And as always, I've never seen anything worthwhile from Richard Hanania. Not a single tidbit. It's mind-boggling to me that that midwit has a following.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts