There is a notion in our society, and particularly among the neo-leftists, that conflates the terms “progress” and “improvement.” Progress is inevitable. Time passes, things change, people grow older, what is “it” changes, to quote Abe Simpson.
But the idea that the changes are inherently good, or rather, that the change is an assumed improvement is where the neo-leftist argument on why institutions must be torn down is where much of my Libertarian and formerly conservative ire spawns.
The Equality Act, for its noble intentions, is a nightmarish piece of legislation that exemplifies the differences I am talking about. I have friends that are trans. I wish them well. I wish for them to be prosperous and happy. I use preferred pronouns in polite conversation because I enjoy getting along with people, and I think that manners still matter. However, to enshroud into law gender identity and sexual preference as legally protected classes in the Civil Rights Act creates a myriad of problems and unforeseen consequences.
The majority of our laws on the books are written in deference to our biological differences as a species: male and female. We do note the existence of intersex individuals, but for the most part they generally fall into one of the two categories. When it comes to sports, restrooms, changing areas, and safe spaces, we are deferent to these biological differences. This is the legal and social framework into which the wrench of gender as a social construct falls into.
Personally, I don’t care. Make all the restrooms single-occupancy, and make a separate league for trans athletes to compete in. Instead of two leagues (men’s and women’s), we’ll have four (add in Trans-men’s and Trans-women’s). This, in my opinion, would still recognize the inherent humanity of trans people, and still protect the framework that our laws and social systems are built upon. Safe spaces can operate much in the same way. Add more, but still respect the biological differences between trans and cis women.
Government centralization and control is another area in which this progress vs. improvement conflagration occurs. HR 127 comes to mind rather quickly. History shows us what often happens to populations that become disarmed. The changes on social media, and the regular blocking and banning of unpopular opinions is another. Sure, we are progressing, but if 62% of people feel like they have opinions that the can’t share (per the Cato Institute), is it really an improvement?
The deconstructionist foundation of the neo-leftists is based on the inherent fallacy that progress equals improvement. While we are advancing and becoming less dependent on our biology and more dependent on our technology, we still have hundreds of thousands of years of biology and human civilization to reckon with. The neo-leftists wish, more and more it seems to do away with our entire human history, and start anew. That naïve notion leaves us wide open to repeating the atrocities of the past: genocide, war, racism, fascism, and mass destruction loom in the future if we continue stumbling into the bright light of the future, unmoored from any landmarks by which we can guide ourselves.