« Talking about freedom only makes sense if it is the freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear.

George Orwell(1).

« Whoever promises to free mankind from the difficulties of sex will be hailed as a hero, no matter what nonsense he may utter.

Sigmund Freud(2).

The ideological movement that is today imposed on the debate by an active minority presenting itself as the bearer of the good word and condemning to the stake heretics who deviate from the sacred path — immediately associated with « conservatives », « reactionaries » or « phobics »(3) — is not the manifestation of a lucid access of individuals who would have finally understood the real springs of the domination. The obsession with identity at the root of this movement is, on the contrary, the perfect translation of the values of the neo-liberal model, which has worked to equate any question of limits with fascism. From now on,  » recodifying bodies, reconfiguring sexes, particularizing languages, re-assigning identities, re-designing affects, proliferating genders, making them recognized as fluid and thus shaking up all known borders are all imperatives of a kind of transidentitarian movement that everyone is now confronted with in almost all institutions « (4). Making themselves the spokespersons of a productivism that is now investing the most intimate sanctuaries that are the body and motherhood, the laissez-faire thurifers do not realize that under the guise of fighting male domination, they are only consecrating its new avatar, conveniently forgetting about technological totalitarianism and its grip on our lives. More than tolerated in the mass media, these new libertarians paradoxically demonstrate how any possibility of thinking freely has become extremely difficult. Welcome to the best of all worlds.

It was not long before the imperative of equality was transformed, in our post-68 societies, where it was now « interdict to forbid « , in identity claim concretized in the form of a business card continuously deployed in various social contexts, where the greater the number of « dominated » traits (woman, black, homosexual, handicapped…), the more important the comparative advantage seemed to become. The drifts were obvious in a competitive, unequal society where the illusory law of the self-made man reigned: the minority character was paradoxically transformed into a dominant identity trait, the class struggle giving way to skin color, gender, sexual orientation or appearance. Formidable mistake, because as Hannah Arendt said, « […] the existence of a common world does not require any identity, only the ability to dialogue(5) ». To paraphrase the French leftist intelligentsia of the time, who thought it was better  » To be wrong with Sartre rather than right with Raymond Aron « , it seems that today it is better to be wrong with minorities than to defend a universal ethic, especially when it  » would play into the hands of the fascists « .(6).

If the protection of the weakest must indeed remain a principle that dictates our conduct, this does not automatically mean that the desire of a few individuals makes them a dominated minority category whose defence should be defended without regard to any ethics(7). To make an essential digression here, it is necessary to add that it would be wrong to automatically associate minority with subjugation. While Ash’s experiments show that individuals conform to the larger group, the influence of minorities is nonetheless a reality.  » From this perspective, minorities are a force for innovation because they consistently advocate their position with confidence and conviction, thereby disrupting existing norms and generating uncertainty. Because they won’t moveThey demand attention for their alternative position, and the majority is forced to accommodate them and consider their point of view on a number of issues. Minorities influence the information (…) « (8). This status of the minority is essential, and to return to what concerns us, it would be dangerous to automatically defend these  » desiring minorities « In a world where the domination of living nature has become an imperative to ensure the growth of capital, the mastery of what is most intimate to us, the body, offers lucrative segments that the logic of productivism could not leave fallow and which, in order to become profitable, must be carried by desiring subjects independently of any ethics. The body, especially that of the woman, became progressively an object of presentation of oneself to invest, improve, repair, was going to bring in a lot of money for a fashion industry which had pushed to its peak the transformation of the latter  » in visual object, that is to say in image « , intrinsically subjected to the glance of the man.(9)

It is not surprising, then, that this reification has led, under the lobbying of a liberal « feminist » sector relayed by media propaganda, industry and, as we shall see, the majority’s fear of « bad thinking », to the questioning of sexual difference and procreation. As Fabien Ollier notes,  » of all the obsessions with identity which are now causing a violent fragmentation of society into countless rival communitarian groups, formations or sects — each of them claiming priority for new rights to their difference, institutional testimonies of recognition and positions of power in all the key sectors of public life -, the one related to sexual model of the self takes on an unexpected and disturbing scope « (10). What until now seemed to be self-evident is no longer self-evident and, according to the dominant logic that any change would necessarily be a progress, this one is inaugurated as an overthrow of an old patriarchal order, whereas, we will see it, this movement is only a « change of the world ». permanent putsch « (11)This is the outward sign of a productivist system that has reached its apotheosis. Before his fall?


If we were to be able to « reassign » the natural assignment of a sex at birth, repairing what some considered to be an error, this new capacity — illusory, as we shall see — to change sex would automatically open up the « right » to the child for all, since sex would become the only result of an individual choice and that certain combinations, or the fact of being alone, would not allow procreation. From this commodification of bodies and procreation logically followed the commodification of the child:  » In these circumstances, the child is calculated, simulated, the object of an order. Before taking it in hand, we want to choose it from a catalog, to be sure of counterfeits and surprises « . In this new framework,  » the child is dissociated from sexuality, from the couple’s desire (desire has become will), and from the woman’s body (which has become a more or less reluctant vehicle for the child’s coming into the world) .(12)

Pregnancy reduced to an incubation function, this was all it took for some feminists to demand an end to this  » history of inequality and injustice « , of this  » difference between men and women with regard to this extravagant act of giving birth « .(13) of which women are victims:  » Women will not experience true autonomy until they have the opportunity to get rid of it : « of pregnancy and child rearing »]. »(14) Nancy Huston, Canadian writer, novelist and playwright, opportunely questions:  » What a divine power, decidedly, in us human beings: in all other mammalian species, females quietly manufacture in their bosom the offspring of both sexes; in us, probably because we speak, it is necessary to « forge » the « idea » that they « must » do so. « (15) Under the pretext of reducing inequalities and freeing people from this « straitjacket », it was therefore necessary to abolish all differences. Emphasizing that, from time immemorial, the baby has never been greeted with a cry  » Nancy Huston adds to what isa « hard » reality for some, that this difference, whether we like it or not, brings crucial information, still today:  » For example: if the baby’s body has a uterus, it will later be able to make other bodies, both male and female, within it; if it has a penis, no. Even if everyone nowadays (me first) admits that it is valid for a woman not to want to generate, that does not mitigate this massive fact: men cannot do it(16) ».

The difference of the sexes is a reality that imposes itself on us, and the psychotic delirium of our time is measured by the fact that it is necessary to specify such an obviousness and « to insist on such trivial truths(17) ». Let’s put the nail in the coffin, on the subject of the biological difference of the sexes:  » These are real differences: non-resorbable, inescapable, timeless « (18),  » no other primate species has felt the need to invent myths, tales, stories, legends and religions to explain the difference between the sexes, whereas all human cultures have done so. To attribute a meaning to this difference is one of the fundamental, not to say founding, traits of humanity « (19); » notwithstanding the queer proponents , the fact of being born a boy or a girl continues to be perceived and experienced, everywhere in the world, as significant. By the companies. By the boys. By the girls. And rightly so « (20) Those who thought they saw in the work of Simone de Beauvoir the beginnings of post-modern delusions of negation of sexual difference are quite mistaken, she who said:  » It is clear that no woman [ni aucun homme] can claim without bad faith to be beyond her sex. « (21)

To call back to reality those who defend theses of total indistinction, is worth for the intrepid ones who dare to express it the risk of physical and verbal attacks. Our friends from La Décroissance were able to see this while holding a stand at the Bure’lesques festival where opponents of the radioactive waste burial site meet:  » As soon as I arrived on Saturday morning, I was attacked by a dozen people who objected to the sale of newspapers, stole them and destroyed them. These individuals were very upset, claiming to be transgender or friends of, had not read the newspaper, but the blacklisting that circulated on the festival in paper format. « (22) Sylviane Agacinski, who recently published The disembodied man. From the carnal body to the manufactured bodyThe author of The artificial reproduction of the human(23), Alexis Escudero, or Tomjo(24), were able to avoid the aggressions that they have directly suffered in the past. While she was invited to the University of Bordeaux Montaigne for a conference on the theme of  » the human being at the time of its technical reproducibility « , in front of the threats of the associations (GRRR, Riposte trans, Mauvais Genre‑s and WakeUp…), the trade union « Solidaires étudiants-e‑s Bordeaux » qualifying the positions of the philosopher of  » reactionary, transphobic and homophobic ‚ » the university decided to cancel the event,  » not being able to fully ensure the security of goods and people « , or resigning themselves in order not to tarnish the image of the institution…


« I know there are some who are probably horrified by what we’re doing, but if there was a group of Nazis in there, trying to have a « discussion about ‘Jews’  », would they tolerate it? I don’t think so!
No decent person would tolerate it.

Remarks by a member of a group preventing a debate on transsexuality.

The Nazis burned books whose content did not correspond to the totalitarian doxa. Fascist « anti-fascist » transgender militias, a minority in number, are sometimes inspired by them. But their aura goes beyond the circle of their actions, supported by media  » who have understood for a long time that sex and everything that revolves around this subject made by their care « scabrous and idle » sell « (25)This was tacitly supported by a part of the population that feared being accused of the crime of « ill-thinking » and labelled with various terms that drew a caricature of a soldier of the Third Reich.

 » Already at the time[année 70], when the « gender theory » was much less prominent than today, Symons(26) knew that the results of her work on innate sex differences would be interpreted as insulting to women, so ingrained is our habit of perceiving any difference as a hierarchy and any description as a prescription « (27). Those who forbid debate, and therefore the risk of encountering another word, are caught up in an omnipotence of thought, while at the same time being unable to recognize certain obvious facts. Are they, for example, likely to accept that one can  » to admit the existence of innate differences without being a Nazi, because one can draw different consequences from Nazis: not to oppress/exterminate the weak, but, on the contrary, to help and protect them. Women must be protected from men not because they are « inferior » to them, but because they can rape them, and impregnate them against their will; this is a simple fact, which all human societies have understood (and interpreted, each in their own way) up to our own « (28). But the new soldiers of these post-modern struggles inscribed in the capitalist system, which most often disregard the class dimension, are incapable of admitting that one can hold the same observations as extremist groups, without having the same intentions or drawing the same consequences. It is impossible for them, for example, when you state that massive immigration is a weapon used by employers to destabilize national workers and ensure « wage moderation », not to immediately label you as an  » anti-immigration racist « . They will not hear that you are not « against » immigrants but think of society in a systemic and radical vision, with the aim of curbing the causes.

In this sense, they have perfectly integrated the neo-liberal software that evokes society only in terms of individuals («  there is no such thing as society « , said Margaret Thatcher in 1987… Well, she still recognized that there were  » men and women, and families « …). Focusing only on subjective feeling, these harmless fighters for the capitalist order cannot detach themselves from the subject and its emotions without feeling that they are judging it. The lack of global perspective and their silence and absence of clear positions against the real evils of our societies, gives them the individual pleasure of always being able to play the good samaritan. Constantly dividing the world into categories, they are a world away from the humanism of George Orwell:  » This refusal of abstract categories and ideological masks, this desire to rediscover the face of our common humanity, even in its most singular, most disconcerting or most odious incarnations « (29). But perhaps our post-modern heroes would have refused to allow Orwell to express himself today, if he had dared to criticize the new ideology where, nowadays,  » one can thus be bigender, trigender, pangender, genderfluid or even agender. […] This fluidity is supposed to open up new emotional experiences and put us on the path to total human emancipation. Or a terminal human collapse « (30). We will come back to this Pandora’s box that man opens with his new, unwelcome, but « logical » delusions.

Where some advocate the defense of individual liberties, institutions work to keep information from being revealed that would allow for an impartial judgment. There are moments when research must stop, when it endangers the profits of multinationals in particular, and this at all levels of research(31). James Caspian, a British psychotherapist, noticed this the hard way, as he worked for 10 years in a gender clinic and studied the long-term effects of transition. When he wanted to look at this small group in the trans community, called the  » detransitioners « (32), he explains,  » I enrolled at Bath Spa University, to research the experience of those who had reversed their gender reassignment surgery in the first place. Later, my research also included those who had reversed their gender transition without necessarily reversing the surgery, at which point the university told me that I could not continue with this study « . The university will explain to him that his research  » could attract criticism on social networks, which would harm the image of the university and that it was better to try not to offend anyone . The psychotherapist will say:  » This reason amazed me. I spent over a decade working for and with people who were making gender transitions. This is obviously a discussion that is censored. And yet this is a discussion we must have « .

The filmmaker, who interviews James Caspian in her documentary about trans children, tried to get answers and understand the censorship around issues like lifelong medication and its effects on young people, contacted a lot of different groups, » charities that support children in transition, lobbying groups, private physicians and the NHS(33)and yet not one of these groups agreed to participate in this documentary. They gave many reasons, including the very heavy allegation that I am trying to question trans rights, or the existence of trans children, which I am not trying to do. Of course trans people exist and need rights, but it is also a right to ask legitimate questions about who might regret their transition, or about the lack of research on the effects of drugs, so that we can be sure we are not harming children. At the end of the day, I can’t help but think that they don’t appreciate the fact that I exist. They don’t appreciate the fact that I had gender dysphoria, that I was that child, and that I eventually became a woman. And, in a way, it’s scary « . Heather Brunskell Evans, who has written a book about « trans children, » also believes that  » We need to have a public debate about some of the issues surrounding the medicalization of children. But we can never talk about it, because the transactivists prevent any discussion « .(34)

It is not astonishing that the transactivists repress all words contradicting their ideology, because the word takes for them a totalitarian form and this in two ways: first, this omnipotence of the word takes shape in the negation of the precedence of the life on the thought, namely that we are beings of flesh, endowed with a male or female sex, even before being able to speak and to say us and even to represent us girl or boy. We are at this biological level determined by nature; secondly, their statements would be performative, realizing by the simple saying the action that the verb expresses. Only their words would reveal the truth and, crucially, without their having to prove it, the stigma being self-sufficient. The famous English trans Miranda Yardley, clearly expresses this madness:  » Self-declaration reduces being a woman to a feeling in a man’s head. « (35)


Behind the prohibition to speak lies the prohibition to think, and therefore to understand. When you prevent Sylviane Agacinski’s debate in France, or Heather Brunskell Evans’ in England, you are depriving people of hearing things that might disturb them. For example, she rejects the idea that a child could be born « in the wrong body » and therefore need medication:  » It is now virtually accepted that there are « trans children », yet there is no medical evidence that a child could be « born in the wrong body ». Children should not be constrained by gender. To engage the child in a way that puts him in conflict with his body, when the most emancipating, liberal, progressive thing that should be done, would be to encourage him to feel good in his body, to make sure that the body is not a constraint for a little boy who would like to identify himself with things considered as « feminine », that should not be a problem at all.  »

The dogmatic denial of the difference of the sexes, under the specious defense of equality, also prevents the existence of fundamental distinctions between men and women, as Nancy Huston dares to say when she says that  » the female orgasm is a wonderful experience, it is not me who will say the opposite, but it is not required for the conception of a child and women support relatively well the sexual abstinence, whereas the ejaculation of the men is necessary for the fertilization and, especially when they are young, the abstinence makes them suffer physically. Such statements are shocking in this day and age. We don’t want to know about it. Because we have pronounced the divorce between eroticism and childbirth, because we have decided to promote this absurdity according to which men and women are « basically » the same, we do not notice these remarkable differences. « (36)

But in the age of « post-truth », nothing seems intelligible anymore:  » This is what the age of post-truth is all about: the blurring of the boundaries between truth and falsehood, honesty and dishonesty, fiction and non-fiction (…) The fictional world that is taking shape with the emergence of post-truth is working on the ruin of the faculty of judging, this faculty that allows us both to differentiate and organize reality and to configure the common by sharing our sensitive experiences. « (37) This is the drama of the current situation, in which the mass media are the main protagonists. This difficulty of judgement is furthermore fed by the intellectual poverty of a subject little aware of power relationships, often steeped in a condescending and charitable occidental-centrism (the two often going hand in hand), ignorant of the child’s psychic construction (which contains that part of the animality of the human being in the making, an unbearable narcissistic wound for some), fed on the bottle of  » the gender theory [qui] denies the Darwinian discovery and refuses to place the human in a biological continuity with the animal world. « (38) This perfect cocktail for the great confusion, makes socio-constructivism the privileged ideology of this type of subjects who think they are self-constructed and the only masters of what they have become. They are like these young children who believe that from their desire is born the object of satisfaction, assured of their omnipotence and unaware of the unconscious forces which move them; however,  » although we love to believe our will is all-powerful, we are far from being the « we » we think we are, and only imperfectly understand the motives of our own actions. « (39) This humility is difficult for the new inquisitors of the society without limits: little able to perceive that we are moved by unconscious forces, they identify in any expression of a will, a  » I want  » systematic proof of an emancipation, without even imagining that this will is perhaps only the sign of a subjection to the impulsive forces. Believing to liberate the subject, they confirm in fact his submission.

Fortunately, not all of them fall into this inane conformism, this dumbing down of which certain movements claiming to be feminist have become faithful representatives and propagandists(40),  » the mind reduced to the state of a gramophone (Orwell).  » Annie Le Brun refuses the bureaucratic petrification in which feminism has closed itself in the name of female liberation and « vaginal guerrilla ». Not only does she show, with supporting texts, the totalitarian foundations of neo-feminism, which wants to build new empires from « a woman’s point of view », but she also elucidates all that is hidden behind the sophistications, reversals, modifications, and legitimizations of the neo-feminist way of thinking. « It is, in fact, in the totalitarian nature of neo-feminism to play on the two complementary tables of spontaneous stupidity and concerted stupidity, so to speak. To such an extent that the bad faith of some seems to compete with the narrowness of the others so that today we are able to see in the neo-feminist awareness the equivalent of a gigantic enterprise of cretinization. To do this, nothing new yet: to the arbitrariness of the unjustifiable positions, one tries to give a justification of scientific appearance » « (41).


Strange times that are akin to pure madness. As this ideology of fluidity of identities takes hold in the debates, our loss of autonomy has never been greater. The majority of us, westerners, are not able to provide for ourselves, create and invent tools, grow fruits and vegetables, raise our pigs, repair our cars or bikes, while our sense of direction, sustained attention, reading, physical strength, endurance…, are being lost with GPS, smartphones and various screens, video games, electrification of all means of transportation, previously mechanical, and sedentary television.

Some would perhaps say that it is necessary to save what can be saved, and that the negation of the sexes will at least be a means of curbing the ancestral domination of the man over the woman. However, this will not be the case. First of all, it must be said that this categorization as « woman » (or man) conceals profound disparities. In a capitalist class society that claims to be egalitarian, there are always those who are more equal than others. The re-establishment of a form of intra-class equality (for example, in a couple, when a woman stops doing the housework by paying for the services of a cleaning lady) is always at the expense of an inter-class inequality (the economic exploitation of a cleaning lady)(42). This reflection made, and returning to this claim of negation of the sexes, we think that behind the discourse of liberation of the woman, it is a trick of prestidigitation where the male domination and the patriarchy, fired by the door, return by the window under the same or another form (Bernard Charbonneau evokes that of the « neutral »). Dany Robert Dufour(43) shared with me the story he heard during one of the conferences he organized in universities in Canada. As the discussion was ending, a student came to him and explained that she had started a women’s group for victims of assault, and that this group had a serious problem that he was not sure how to solve: one day, a man came to them and asked to join their group, arguing that he was a woman and had the right to do so. Soon after, another one made the same request. If the women of the group responded to these surprising requests by accepting these new recruits, their decision soon turned to their disadvantage, as the new « women » had an obvious physical superiority and took control of the group, to the point of stating that they had more rights, being more women than the first ones, because the latter were born women where the others had to « choose ».

In truth, behind the desire to deconstruct what is at the very foundation of humanity, lies thehybris (excessiveness) that is  » the true quest of the deconstructionists and transhumanists.  » (44) For  » Transhumanism also promises to deliver from sexuation. He knows neither men nor women, only « persons », free to modify their body as they wish. « (45)  » The postmodern creature knows no limits either to its bodily envelope or to its desires of omnipotence, which no reality comes to hinder — since the real does not exist. (46) To do this, one must refuse the reality principle, become external to nature and master it. In their struggle, however, trans-identifiers seem  » more obsessed with their narcissistic quest for visibility than with the growing destructiveness of the techno-capitalist mode of production applied to so-called ‘cyborg bodies ’  »(47). Is it a coincidence? No, on the contrary, the disconnection is part of a coherent continuity, because while refuting the intrinsically natural part of man, we are concomitantly developing technologies to master nature. This focus of the transactivists on the identity struggles and the individual desire is far from being of the domain of the accident, they who « forget » the criticism and the fight against the technological totalitarianism. As Christopher Lasch puts it,  » one way to deny our dependence on nature (mothers) is to invent technologies that will make us masters of nature. Seen in this way, technology embodies an attitude towards nature that is the exact opposite of an exploratory attitude, according to Melanie Klein’s expression. It expresses a collective revolt against the limitations of the human condition. It appeals to the residual belief that we can shape the world to our desires, exploit nature for our own ends, and achieve a state of complete autonomy. This Faustian view of technology has always been a powerful force in Western history; it reached its zenith during the Industrial Revolution, which enabled astonishing gains in productivity, and in the even more astonishing advances promised by the information explosion of the post-industrial era « (48).


« We have eliminated from the whole of the imagery of the modern West the unique irreducible singularity of the woman in relation to the man. We have succeeded so well that we are not even aware of having done it ».

Nancy Huston(49)

In order to achieve indifferentiation, one of the singular characteristics of women must be abolished:  » The difference between the sexes in the face of procreation is cancelled out by the suppression of that which primarily concerns women.  » (50) Christopher Lasch rightly brings the nature of mothers, on whom we depend, closer. This similarity is essential to understand where we are, because the destruction that the Earth is undergoing since the industrial revolution, especially since the 80’s, is perpetuated in the destruction of the woman and of what made her singularity, the natural fact of giving life, to which we cannot reduce her obviously. This delusional chimera of the negation of the sexes goes back a long way, carrying within it, under the modern and deceptive sign of equality, an ancestral hatred of the woman’s body as a life-giver. From now on,  » with the medical fantasy of the artificial uterus that some doctors are pursuing, the woman is evicted from one end of the process, from conception to pregnancy.  »

 » The spite for the man to be born of a woman comes from far, but it was necessary to wait for the contemporary technologies to remove the « defilement » of the maternal body in the birth « (51), says David Le Breton. But there is also something contradictory between motherhood and a society that worships the image:  » To say that motherhood is no longer, as it was throughout history, the culmination of femininity, is an understatement: it has become its opposite. Why? Because childbirth is one of the rare moments in a woman’s life when she ceases to be an image. (…) A woman who gives birth no longer controls her image. (…) But without a mirror, without a camera, without a screen to reflect ourselves, we are lost. So… quick, quick, erase this exceptional moment and let’s go back to the rule: look at me! « (52)

It is also because motherhood  » reminds us, both men and women (even if it is not really the fault of the latter!), of the tragic finiteness of our existence: it is because we are born that we will die. This is why motherhood is so frightening and has always been treated in all cultures as something dangerous: sacred and profane, adored and hated, venerated and feared, associated with death. (…) Our secular and cybernetic societies are the first to exclude it radically from representation. « (53)


In a patent offence of reality, the defenders of the difference of the sexes do not perceive their contradictions. As Nancy Huston says,  » No human society, without doubt, has been entangled in such an inextricable contradiction as ours, which quietly denies the difference of the sexes while exacerbating it madly through the beauty and pornography industries. We point to women who cover their hair; we prefer to be blindfolded. « (54)

As Jean-Claude Michéa reminds us, quoting the American feminist Nancy Frazer,  » It is therefore time that the left, or what is left of it, finally becomes aware of the fact that the progress of « neoliberal » capitalism today finds its privileged condition — and, for sure, the most ideologically coherent one — in the « alliance of the new social movements (feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, defense of LGBT rights) and of the high-value-added sectors of the finance and service industries (Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood) ». « (55) It is also time to realize that  » Nature exists and, even if we have a lot of freedom and talent to rework it, until further notice we are part of it. Well beyond sexual difference, this anti-ecological attitude — which postulates a radical disparity between the human being and the material world that surrounds him, that is to say in reality a superiority of the human being on the world — is killing us. (56)

It is therefore imperative not to play this game and to resist the pressure.

Alexandre Penasse

Notes et références
  1. Tels, tels étaient nos plaisirs, Ivréa, Encyclopédie des nuisances, 2005, p.102.
  2. Lettre du 17 mai 1914, in « The complete correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones », 1908–1939, cité dans Leurre et malheur du transhumanisme, Olivier Rey, Desclée de Brouwer, 2018, p.28.
  3. Voir Jean-Claude Michéa, Le loup dans la Bergerie, Climats, 2018, p.28 et suivantes.
  4. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, QS ? Éditions, 2019, pp.48–49.
  5. Cité dans Guillaume de Vaulx, « Apprendre à philosopher avec Arendt », Ellipses, 2012, p.224.
  6. Voir dans ce dossier, « Le Militantisme sectaire », p.9.
  7. Voir à ce sujet les propos éclairants de Jean-Claude Michéa, sur l’impossibilité de débattre et de prendre en compte toute éthique de progrès dès lors que les « problèmes de société » se réduisent à une approche exclusivement juridique. Jean-Claude Michéa, Le Loup dans la bergerie, Climats, 2018, Chapitre III, notamment p.32.
  8. Susan T. Fiske, Psychologie sociale, De Boeck, 2008, p.603. Souligné par nous.
  9. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, Actes Sud, 2012, p.43. John Berger évoque ce sentiment de dédoublement propre aux femmes dans nos sociétés : « Les hommes regardent les femmes. Les femmes se regardent en train d’être regardées. Cela détermine non seulement la plupart des rapports entre hommes et femmes, mais aussi le rapport des femmes à elles-mêmes. L’observateur à l’intérieur de la femme est masculin, l’observée, féminine. Ainsi la femme se transforme-t-elle en objet visuel, c’est-à-dire en image ».
  10. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Ibid., p.31. Souligné par l’auteur.
  11. Pièces et Main d’œuvre, Manifeste des chimpanzés du futur, contre le transhumanisme, Service compris, 2017, p.119.
  12. David Le Breton, Anthropologie du corps et modernité, PUF, 1990/2008, pp.296 et 298.
  13. Ibid., p.300, citant Marcela Iacub, pour la première citation, tirée de l’ouvrage de J. Chasseguet-Smirgel, « Le corps comme miroir du monde », PUF, 2003 ; la seconde extraite d’un article d’un hors-série du Nouvel Observateur, « L’utopie de l’utérus artificiel », juillet-août 2005.
  14. Propos de Peggy Sastre, dans « L’utérus artificiel et l’avenir de la femme », entretien avec Causeur, juin 2017, cité dans Manifeste des chimpanzés du futur, Ibid., p.217.
  15. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.75.
  16. Ibid., p.18. Souligné par l’auteure.
  17. Sylviane Agacinsky, L’homme désincarné, du corps charnel au corps fabriqué, Tracts Gallimard, 2019, p.37.
  18. Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.57.
  19. Ibid., p. 8
  20. Ibid., p. 81.
  21. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Ibid., p.42, citant Simone de Beauvoir, « Le deuxième sexe, tome 1 : les faits et les mythes », p.106.
  22. « La peste brune de retour sous un nouveau masque », La Décroissance, septembre 2019.
  23. Le Monde à l’envers, 2014.
  24. Voir son témoignage sur le site de Kairos
  25. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Ibid., p.31. Il ne faut d’ailleurs pas sous-estimer le rôle des médias dans la propagation de ces idées minoritaires, dont le résultat est de donner l’impression qu’elles sont majoritaires et ainsi de susciter le conformisme et la crainte de « mal penser ».
  26. Donald Symons, l’auteur de Du sexe à la séduction.
  27. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.78.
  28. Ibid., p.92.
  29. Simon Leys, Orwell ou l’horreur de la politique, Plon, 2006, pp.62–63.
  30. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Ibid., p.50. Citant Jean-François Braunstein, « La philosophie devenue folle. Le genre, l’animal, la mort », Paris, Grasset, 2018, p.112.
  31. Voir, notamment, « La recherche sur les ondes électromagnétiques censurée par les Universités », Kairos avril-mai 2019.
  32. Ceux qui ont fait l’opération pour changer de sexe et le regrettent, voulant refaire l’opération inverse.
  33. National Health Service, service de santé publique au Royaume-Uni.
  34. « Les enfants trans, il est temps d’en parler », de Stella Omalley.
  35. « Les enfants trans, il est temps d’en parler », de Stella Omalley, Ibid.
  36. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.32.
  37. Myriam Revault D’Allonnes, La faiblesse du vrai. Ce que la post-vérité fait à notre monde commun, Paris, Édition du Seuil, pp.29, 131, cité dans « L’homme artefact », Fabien Ollier, Ibid. p.28.
  38. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.77.
  39. Ibid., p.26.
  40. Pour une illustration de cette entreprise d’abrutissement, écouter à 1 h 21 min 21 s, l’émission Faire Genres !, de Radio Panik, 18/01/19,–5/ .
  41. Annie Le Brun, Vagit-prop, lâchez tout et autres textes, Paris, Éditions Ramsay‑J. J. Pauvert, 1990, p.11, cité dans L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Fabien Ollier, Ibid., p.69.
  42. Si vous n’êtes pas d’accord sur ce dernier point, posez-vous la question si vous avez déjà vu une bourgeoise faire le ménage chez des gens issus de catégories populaires…
  43. Philosophe, auteur notamment, du Divin Marché, Folio essai, 2007, et Le Délire occidental, Les Liens qui Libèrent, 2014.
  44. Pièces et Main d’œuvre, Manifeste des chimpanzés du futur, contre le transhumanisme, Ibid., p.210.
  45. Olivier Rey, Leurre et malheur du transhumanisme, ibid., p.27.
  46. Pièces et Main d’œuvre, Manifeste des chimpanzés du futur, contre le transhumanisme, op.cit.
  47. Fabien Ollier, L’homme artefact. Indistinction des sexes et fabrique des enfants, Ibid., p.58.
  48. Christopher Lasch, La culture du narcissisme, Flammarion, 1979/2006, p.301. C’est nous qui soulignons.
  49. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.292.
  50. David Le Breton, Anthropologie du corps et modernité, Ibid., p.301.
  51. Ibid., p.299.
  52. Nancy Huston, Reflets dans un œil d’homme, ibid., p.238.
  53. Ibid.
  54. Nancy Huston, ibid., p.13.
  55. La Décroissance, décembre 2018-janvier 2019.
  56. Nancy Huston, Ibid. pp.209–291. Souligné par l’auteure.
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Log in