I think its about time we start to look at this period in history as a truly horrible, dehumanizing experience of soviet totalitarianism and imperialism.

​@ventssilis same as inhumane ideologies of "social equality and social justice "warriors"" think it's better to die than have a chance to work in sweatshop for 5-10$ a day and not go hungry and have a good chance for next generation to advance to 20-100 a day. Socialist ideas have room only in a laboratory of philosophy to give a idea where to go with other methods and ideologies. If allowed to also touch implementation eventually always leads to human and humanitarian catastrophe

Thank you for your question. Let's clarify the distinction between biological sex and gender. Biological sex is an empirical fact, determined by physiological characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct influenced by cultural, societal, and historical factors. As Durkheim argued, such constructs are a specific type of facts - "social facts", shaped by the collective beliefs and practices of a given society. When we discuss the number of genders (whether it be two, three, or more), we are reflecting the prevailing social and cultural views of a particular time and place. These discussions often become part of the political landscape, as differing perspectives are debated in public forums - that is what I meant to say. Science plays a role in these debates, providing empirical evidence and insights. The key difference between empirical facts and social facts is that the latter are shaped by collective agreement. For instance, whether Napoleon is considered a hero or a villain is a matter of historical interpretation, influenced by societal values and perspectives. Ultimately, public consensus determines the official historical narrative. I hope you see my logic.

@@ventssilis Thank you for your response. I appreciate the clarification regarding the distinction between biological sex and gender, and your reference to Durkheim's concept of "social facts" is helpful in understanding how gender is influenced by societal beliefs. However, I feel that your reply doesn’t fully address the specific points I raised: While you touched on the political aspect by suggesting that gender discussions often enter the political landscape, you didn’t clarify what specific political motives you were referring to when you made your earlier statement. Additionally, you did not directly address whether you believe in a binary view of gender or recognize the possibility of more than two genders. I would appreciate further clarification on these points, as I feel they are central to understanding your position more fully. Thanks again for engaging in this discussion, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

@@ludwighofle890 Since Marx, science is used a weapon in the struggle for power, hence the book about "politics of knowledge" and "politics of medicine". My stance on sex/gender issue remains unchanged: while there are only two biological sexes, gender identity is a more fluid concept with various expressions that are culturally constructed. Some of these expressions hold more prominence in society than others, then the political climate changes and other views come into favor. It's often the marginal groups that advocate most vigorously for recognition and respect. The way I see it, we live in an era of meta-modernity, which is an attempt to find a dialectical reconciliation between modernity and postmodernism, and our civilization is entering into a period of increasing uncertainty and flux. Seizing this opportunity, marginal groups are actively pushing their agendas in the context of a somewhat apathetic post-democratic society.

​@@ventssilis Thank you for your answer. It did help me understand your position better. The reason I initially commented was because of your suggestion that the movement (or ideology?) of "political correctness" is promoting a non-scientific and completely fabricated concept of non-binary gender existence (I'm paraphrasing here, but that’s how I understood you). Today, the term "PC" is primarily used to criticize what is perceived as an increasing censorship of language aimed at protecting marginalized people. This narrative seeks to attract those who feel overwhelmed by the new social norms and believe that the "other side" is trying to blame or shame them for not adhering to these new rules, ultimately branding them as racists, sexists, queerphobic, etc. The anti-woke agenda positions non-marginalized people as the ones being discriminated against. This creates a sense of victimhood among them, which is then exploited to oppose any ideas proposed by the other side (mainly the political left), such as advocating for social and economic equity, combating climate change, and more. I am glad to hear that you accept a more inclusive interpretation of gender, recognizing people who do not identify with the binary genders. However, I find your assessment of our society as "post-democratic and apathetic" not only disturbing but also inaccurate. I described the culture war earlier, and I don’t see any side being apathetic to the ideas of the other. Your suggestion that marginalized groups are leading us into a post-democratic world implies that it’s not the majority, but only these groups, that are dominating the political discourse and leadership. Democracy doesn’t mean that the majority is always right. It’s crucial to protect those who are marginalized, as it’s very easy for the majority to marginalize and discriminate against people who deviate from the norm. The protection of marginalized groups has been a foundational principle in the formation of modern democracies. A prime example of this is the abolition of slavery. Advocating for these groups has gone hand in hand with the implementation of human rights and has consistently led to an enhancement of democratic standards.

@@ludwighofle890 Your skills for setting forth an argument are excellent (a rare thing these days). Also, your thoughtful manner of analysing the arguments you don't agree with is what makes this discussion possible. This is why I aim to elevate our reflection to a meta-narrative level: to reveal how these sociological reflections not only describe but actively shape the very social reality they seek to analyze. Let's begin with the analysis of minority/majority relations in democracy. You mentioned abolition of slavery as example for "protection of marginalized groups" - and, indeed, it was back in a day (1830s - 1860s). But abolition is hardly a good analogy for current culture wars, where the minorities are constantly trying to weaponize the "victim identity" and exploit the rhetorical power of it. Aren't the criteria of entering the role of "victim" too loose? Should democracy accept that any representative of minority identity/opinion could rhetorically identify with "oppressed slaves", and thus instantly win a discussion? Another aspect of abolition analogy is that slaves never chose to be slaves, that is, slavery was violation of their human rights. Modern minority identities/opinions often express the exactly opposite - they become minority by exercising their rights and freedoms of being different. Responsibility about one's life choices implies that if someone chooses leading radically different life, they are marginalizing themselves and they are ready to accept the difficulties that come with it. Victimhood, on the other hand, implies that one is marginalized by others against their will and are hurt by that. Do you see the contradiction? And here we come to the concept of "apathetic democracy" that you find disturbing and incorrect. I agree with you that the rhetoric of discrimination and victimhood of "non-marginalized people" is false. Their discrimination is a direct result of their own apathy, i.e., it is their choice. And that is how the social struggle for power works: if there is no resistance, the more vigorous minorities can indeed drive the political process. And I see this as a sign of democracy's fragility, not its success. In fact, I perceive this as a failure of democracy. So, it is here I find myself aligned with Slavoj Žižek’s analysis. As he points out, "Europe’s former liberal pacifism, its apathy, is running out of time. Radical acts will be needed again - not just against military threats, but also to cope with looming ecological catastrophes, disease, and hunger" (from "Too Late to Awaken"). In other words, our times demand action and cooperation, rather than the passive indulgence in comfortable consumerism, what Žižek refers to as "melancholic apathy and frantically doing nothing." To clarify the language I’m borrowing from Žižek, here is a passage from him: "Where does this passivity come from? Today’s global capitalism generates apathy precisely because it demands from us permanent hyperactivity, constant engagement in its devastating dynamic - but are we aware how thoroughly our daily lives have changed in the last few decades? So, to open up the path for a real change, we have first to put a brake on the mad rhythm of continuous change. We are never given a moment of respite to think. Apathy is thus the other side of extreme dynamism: things change all the time to make sure that nothing that matters really changes" (from "Too Late to Awaken"). What does this lead to? It results in the life of the ordinary citizen - one who formally subscribes to the right "European democratic values" and believes in equality, justice, and environmental protection. But this is insufficient without actual, radical changes, far more radical than just participating in election. As Slavoj Žižek observes: "We all rail against global warming and the pandemic, but very few people seriously want to abolish them. So long as it is merely a question of ameliorating the lot of ordinary people, every decent person is agreed. But unfortunately, you get no further by merely wishing global warming and the pandemic away... your wish has no efficacy unless you grasp what it involves. The fact that has got to be faced is that to abolish global warming and the pandemic means abolishing a part of yourself. Each of us will have to alter him/herself so completely that at the end s/he will hardly be recognizable as the same person." In this passage, Žižek highlights the issue not in terms of the values we proclaim but in the actions required to realize them - the embodied values. He merges the language of psychoanalysis with that of social transformation. As we confront new global crises, we must act swiftly and decisively, but such action is only possible if we relinquish the illusion that the world owes us anything, be that welfare or respect for our individuality. We need to re-examine and re-define ourselves in terms of responsibility and sense of purpose, otherwise the paradox of democracy will continue: the "silent majority" will forever remain the actual self-appointed minority, rightfully ignored (discriminated?) by both the current ruling elites and power-seeking marginals.