The Anti-Woke Movement doesn’t know what it is yet
Illiberalism is a two-way street
By
“Liberty is not the same thing as equality, and that those who call themselves liberals are far more interested in equalizing than in liberating their fellows.” - Sir Roger Scruton
In my March 5th post I discussed the need for the anti-woke movement to be united. The general idea: the woke are successful because their movement is united. In order for anti-Woke push back to have any effectiveness, it also must emanate from a point of unity. But recent events have made it clear that the anti-Woke movement doesn’t know what it is yet.
Given the heterogeneity of the opposition to woke, it can be difficult to define anti-woke, but the following offers some relevant ideas.
First off, the term “anti-woke,” just like the term “woke,” is a shorthand, a colloquial convenience. These terms serve well in an elevator pitch setting when getting the point across with brevity is required. But once interest in the anti-woke project has been established, as demonstrated by a curious and questioning response to a “pitch,” it's time to offer more meaningful terms.
Left Modernism
Left politics have evolved to a state which Canadian political scientist Eric Kaufmann has dubbed "Left Modernism," describing the ideology of current day liberals, a term intending a hybrid between liberal ideas and "a culturalized version of socialist ideas around oppressed groups and oppressor groups." Left Modernism is a more meaningful term that can be used in place of “woke.” Or, when asked to explain what “woke” is, you can say that it is basically Left Modernism, and offer Eric Kaufmann’s definition.
It is the “culturalized version of socialist ideas” from which emerges a false dichotomy splitting society into oppressed and oppressor categories based on immutable identity features. This is the illiberal component of Left Modernism. In calling it a hybrid ideology, Left Modernism can be thought of as liberalism plus Social Justice ideology. Or, liberalism + illiberalism.
Regular Woke Watch Canada contributor, Mr M, wrote an essay early this month called The Utopian Whimsy: Left Politics of Nowhere in the Here and Now. In this piece, Mr M promises, and delivers, “a coherent explanation of what it means to be ‘left of liberal’.” The area left of liberal is illiberal. However, on the opposite side of the spectrum, the area infamously known as the “far right” is also illiberal. In my view, being anti-woke is to reject the illiberalism of the far right as well as the woke illiberalism of the left. This does not necessarily mean to take up a hard line classical liberal/libertarian political position. Although, if an anti-Woke movement is to be united, it will include that position and other political positions that hold different views, like social conservatism, as long as those views and positions remain philosophically consistent with liberal principles.
To be anti-Woke is to be anti-illiberal, or to put it less clumsily, is to advocate for a principled liberal democracy. That is, to fight for the traditions and institutional pillars of the great modern liberal societies of the West. Not necessarily to support a liberal, or even a conservative political party, but to advocate for a liberal discourse as opposed to the subversive left modernist political jargon which has made identity politics and racial and gender activism the new institutional norm.
Being anti-Woke does not mean being ignorant or naive of the fundamental weaknesses of liberalism. Unchecked freedom and the tendency toward unrestricted inclusivity can be exploited in a liberal system. This has resulted in liberalism's general susceptibility to subversion. In theory, we could have a very inclusive and entirely liberal social policy (that is, enforced equal opportunity). Equal outcome inclusivity and the degeneracy of morals is not an inevitable outcome of liberalism, it very much did not happen in the US for some 200 years (1776 to 1960). It’s happening today because of the left’s fixation with the utopian vision and its willingness to sell itself out to the illiberal and radical far left.
The Great Illiberal Subversion series that Mr M and I are publishing as essays on Woke Watch Canada offers a deep dive investigation into the mechanisms, processes and history of this Western subversion that other writers have called “the long march through the institutions.”
Controversy Abounds!
At the top of this post I mentioned that “recent events have made it clear that the anti-Woke movement doesn’t know what it is yet.” What I was referring to is a controversial video clip of a conversation between three Lighthouse members, Julia Malott, Chanel Pfahl and Catherine Kronas.
Here is the clip:
Here is the background: Julia and Catherine met up with Chanel in Ottawa and decided to film a conversation around gender ideology and trans rights. Because Julia is an open minded and reasonable trans woman, I was very interested in the outcome of their conversation. So far, Julia has published a 4-minute clip. The full conversation will be published soon.
What was surprising to me was the negative reaction the clip received on Twitter, especially the part of the conversation where pronouns were discussed. Apparently, some people took issue with Chanel and Catherine’s explanations for why they chose to use female pronouns when referring to Julia. Individual choices they both made, free of any compulsion.
I asked Chanel what she made of the negative reaction some people had to the video. Somewhat exasperated, she proclaimed, ”I am against gender ideology, obviously, but pro-civility and humanity, and very pro-free speech!.” A conversation I had with Catherine revealed she feels very much the same, she said - “pronouns are not the hill I’m willing to die on, free speech is the hill I’m willing to die on.”
It should be reiterated before we go any further, that both Chanel and Catherine support the rights of all individuals, not to compel others, but to use or not use whatever pronouns they like. In all of their interactions with Julia, they did not receive or comply with any requests around the use of speech, including pronouns. In other words, every syllable spoken by Catherine and Chanel was of their own volition, and not in any way coerced.
So, what exactly is the problem with Chanel and Catherine freely choosing to refer to Julia with female pronouns?
Before I attempt to answer that, let’s get a few details straight:
Julia is Trans
Julia claims to be a trans woman, not a woman
Julia is not asking others to participate in a fantasy or in any un-truths around Julia’s identity or biological sex
Julia did not ask Chanel or Catherine to use female pronouns
If Chanel or Catherine had referred to Julia with male pronouns, Julia would not have taken issue (according to a comment Julia made addressing the issue)
Julia is critical of gender ideology, trans activism, and against practices like compelled speech
Julia self-describes as a classical liberal
Here is a video of Julia speaking about liberal values:
One Twitter user remarked that Chanel’s use of female pronouns when referring to Julia “may be polite but it's tacitly embracing Gender ideology that gender is a ‘thing’ separate from biology and that leads to the erosion of sex based rights which we all know affects Women the most.”
Chanel’s response to this was: “No. I can acknowledge biology and stand for women’s rights and still not be unnecessarily harsh with the person standing in front of me.”
A surprising comment came from a children’s advocate that Woke Watch Canada supports. However, I disagree with Billboard Chris on the following tweet where, referring to Julia, he said:
“Why can’t he go along with being called he?
The ideology is what leads to children transitioning. When we uphold this lie, we’re active participants in promoting the ideology.
If he wants to help kids, he should embrace reality instead of making it about himself.”
It’s possible that if Chris had known the seven points about Julia I listed above, he may not have made this comment. But either way, if this line of thinking were to be enacted into public policy, it would be highly illiberal and tending toward intolerance and authoritarianism. However, there is nothing wrong with Chris, or anyone else on Twitter, expressing their opinions, even if I disagree. Free speech is also a two-way street.
Where I fully agree with Chris is that kids need to be protected from gender ideology, because it does lead to unnecessary transitions. I also share his view that all sex reassignment transitions of children are unnecessary and immoral. However, to make the gigantic logical leap that the private uncompelled use of pronouns between three adult friends, will somehow lead to the transitioning of children, is a little paranoid in my view.
An interesting comment I agree with came from Twitter user @Bina_Booth, who said:
“When an individual asks for an accommodation, you can assess if you’re willing to give that person that accommodation. Chanel, and many others, are fine calling Julia SHE. Others aren’t. Neither are morally superior, they’re just using their individual discernment, & that’s ok.”
Twitter use Paul Rossi said:
“Like @CatherineKronas, I don't like ‘hard lines’ on this issue either. But the forced use of pronouns has not only become a new social norm, but is codified in policy and law.”
And Catherine Kronas’ response was:
“I appreciate this thread, Paul. To be clear I advocate against all compelled speech including forced pronouns. I respect the refusal of preferred pronouns.”
Twitter user @KerriMarie113 said, in a dialog with Chanel about Julia and pronoun use:
“I get what you’re saying and there are definitely some cases where it should be ok to accommodate out of compassion, however, that same compassion is used against us. If we give an inch they take a mile, so for now at least it’s time to hold the line. It’s unfortunate.”
Chanel’s response:
“Thanks. I get it, but I believe holding that particular line will not work out well for us as a society. We can oppose the indoctrination of children, transition for kids, pronoun rituals, or forced pronouns, etc and still choose to use someone’s preferred pronouns, when that feels right.”
I agree with Twitter user @impalethetyrant, who said:
“I will defend your right to use the pronouns that feel right to you, if you defend my right to use the pronouns that feel right to me. Deal?”
Chanel’s response:
“Yup”
That’s just it, isn’t it? The issue is not so much about pronouns or gender ideology, as it is about unconstrained, uncompelled, liberal, free speech. No matter which way you go, it is illiberal to compel or restrict speech. This is the case whether one supports or criticizes gender ideology and trans activism. In my view the choices that Catherine and Chanel made regarding Julia and female pronoun use, were entirely free of constraint or restriction, and so are consistent with the expectations of a liberal society.
I reached out to Julia for a comment. Here is what she (Lord get the fainting couch) wrote:
“The negative response to Chanel’s use of she/her was certainly disappointing.
It’s easy for us to presume that individuals who share alignment on a particular matter or policy hold the same motivation and objectives. The response to our video snippet makes it pretty clear that we do not all share the same motivation.
There is an important difference between those who have taken a stand in defence of liberalism and those who align with the anti-woke circumstantially because they hold distaste for a particular woke ideology. Watching hundreds of individuals crack down on Chanel and try to compel a particular usage of pronouns is the perfect example of this intersection. For the anti-woke in défense of liberalism, free speech and freedom of thought is paramount.
I stand for classical liberalism, and I believe it is where Chanel and Catherine position themselves as well. This is in contrast to some individuals who are not motivated to protect liberalism and truly are looking to eradicate transgender individuals. For the latter group, the ideology isn’t the problem—it really is that simple fact that some people live a transgendered life.”
I noticed in response to one of Jula’s many tweets regarding the controversy that Twitter user @Charlie49298774 holds the same sentiment that I do. He said:
“I am on the ‘other’ side and I love listening to Julia’s ideas.”
I’ll leave it at that for today. The anti-woke movement has a lot of work to do to figure itself out. I hope it choses a liberal approach to counter-woke resistance, because everyone knows two wrongs don’t make a right.
___
Thanks for reading. For more from this author read, When the woke double down
There are now two ways to support Woke Watch Canada through donations:
1) By subscribing to the paid version of the Woke Watch Canada Newsletter for - $5 USD/month or $50 USD/year
2) By donating to the Canadian School Board Investigation fund, which is raising money to expand Woke Watch Canada’s research and investigation into dysfunctional Canadian school boards.
 | A guest post by
|
This is a movement that contains some unlikely alliances like radical feminists and conservative religious groups agreeing on the need to safeguard children from trans ideology and protecting the fact of biological sex.
Thank you James you took the words right out of my mouth, I will go a bit further though, Julia is an awesome person, very few understand the risk she is taking as she will have people that are straight hate her and as well members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ will hate her for not towing the radical members line, reality is Julia has a friend in me for life as she has put her life and her families life at risk for even speaking on the points she does. If we all could just learn to be open and talk like Julia, Chanel and Catheine do is where we will find the solution to all the craziness our children have to deal with in their only time to be free of all societies weight.