• The Antinomies of Tolerant Reason To many a Western historian of religion, Islam is a problem – how could it have emerged after Christianity, the religion to end all religions? Its very geographic place belies the cliché on Orientalism: much more than belonging to the Orient, the location of Islam makes it a fatal obstacle to the true union of the East and the West – the point made exemplarily by Claude Levi-Strauss:
»while a man can only pretend to be a woman, only a woman can pretend to be a man who pretends to be a woman, as only a woman can pretend to be what she is (a woman). To account for this specifically feminine status of pretending, Lacan refers to a woman who wears a concealed fake penis in order to evoke that she is phallus«
Isn't this the very point of femininity that is so vehemently defended by 'women' against trans women? If women are the only ones who can pretend to be women only insofar as they are the (authentic) masquerade of women themselves, then the feminine essence lies only in their representation of their pretence of being women insofar as that which is substantial is only preserved if the moving act of pretence remains consistent. In other words, on the flip side, should this movement be technically cancelled in some way, a transgression appears that can be conveyed as a reduction of pretence in technological progress. As a result, femininity is nothing other than a technical intervention. This intervention takes away the very sublimity from which the randomness of gender difference derives its necessity to be a sublime position; because there is no indeterminacy as to why a certain person must necessarily be a woman by chance - it demystifies this very mysticism. It is therefore not surprising why monotheistic religions are against such progress, because dialectically, it is only because of the neglect of such sublimity that a stabilisation of these religions can be guaranteed at all if this mystification remains at their core.
»while a man can only pretend to be a woman, only a woman can pretend to be a man who pretends to be a woman, as only a woman can pretend to be what she is (a woman). To account for this specifically feminine status of pretending, Lacan refers to a woman who wears a concealed fake penis in order to evoke that she is phallus«
Isn't this the very point of femininity that is so vehemently defended by 'women' against trans women? If women are the only ones who can pretend to be women only insofar as they are the (authentic) masquerade of women themselves, then the feminine essence lies only in their representation of their pretence of being women insofar as that which is substantial is only preserved if the moving act of pretence remains consistent. In other words, on the flip side, should this movement be technically cancelled in some way, a transgression appears that can be conveyed as a reduction of pretence in technological progress. As a result, femininity is nothing other than a technical intervention. This intervention takes away the very sublimity from which the randomness of gender difference derives its necessity to be a sublime position; because there is no indeterminacy as to why a certain person must necessarily be a woman by chance - it demystifies this very mysticism. It is therefore not surprising why monotheistic religions are against such progress, because dialectically, it is only because of the neglect of such sublimity that a stabilisation of these religions can be guaranteed at all if this mystification remains at their core.