Solutions to Postmodernism

The False Equivalence Trap: Why Debating Postmodernism Legitimises the Illegitimate

When faced with claims that reality is merely subjective or that biological facts are social constructs, many fall into the trap of engaging in detailed debate. This well-intentioned response actually undermines truth by creating a false equivalence between established facts and unfalsifiable claims.

Consider how scientists handle flat earth theories - they don't engage in lengthy debates about the earth's shape. Why? Because debating nonsense gives it unearned credibility. The same principle applies to postmodernist claims that deny objective reality.

When someone asserts that truth is merely relative or that basic biological facts are "social constructs," engaging in philosophical debate implicitly suggests their position has merit equal to empirical evidence. It elevates unfalsifiable claims to the same platform as testable, observable reality.

The most effective response is straightforward: Decline to debate established facts. Point to evidence. Reference reality. Move forward. Just as we wouldn't debate whether gravity exists or if the sun rises in the east, we shouldn't debate whether objective truth exists or if biological reality is real.

Never Ever Say That You Are 'Gender Critical'

Labeling oneself as "gender critical" inadvertently legitimises made up "gender identity theory" as a valid belief system, reducing the immutable reality of biological sex to a mere opinion. While many hailed Maya Forstater's 2021 tribunal victory as a triumph for free speech, it was not because it paradoxically reinforced the notion that 'gender identity' is a credible belief deserving equal consideration. Prior to this, "gender identity theory" was often dismissed as incoherent jargon. By asserting a "right to hold gender critical views," we risk conceding that reality itself is subjective - which it is not. Instead of saying that we are "gender critical," we must assert our commitment to objective reality and established biological science.

This isn't close-mindedness - it's intellectual clarity.

By refusing to treat the unfalsifiable as worthy of debate, we maintain the crucial distinction between evidence-based knowledge and mere assertion. Sometimes the most powerful counter to confused thinking is simply to decline to pretend it makes sense.

The path forward isn't through endless debate with those who deny reality's existence, but through clear affirmation of what we can observe, test, and prove. In the face of postmodern obscurantism, clarity itself becomes revolutionary.

Don't debate the absurd with the intellectually ignorant, simple.