The irreplaceable Tom Woods offers an excellent observation that dovetails well with my post yesterday concerning the validity of social contracts. Recall that as typically described by statists, social contracts are implicit agreements that you consent to with or without your knowledge, contracts in which the terms are decided by a mystical, unspecified “will of the people.”
Yet how does this fit with the current propaganda we hear from these same people regarding gender binaries and other ridiculous concepts in which people can “choose” to defy biological and reality and others are required (for reasons never fully articulated) to embrace their identities?
It would seem that if you want to identify as the queen of England, feel free; but you don’t have a right to expect anyone to throw you royal welcome at Buckingham Palace. You can think you’re Napoleon or Alexander the Great, but no army is going to follow you into battle.
So calling a female a female amounts to “coercively assigning” female.
Yet the very same people defend the idea of the social contract, and expressly say: sure, you didn’t individually consent, but we as a group made a majority decision!
So the state and its social contract aren’t coercive at all, even though they’re justified on precisely the same grounds to which these folks object when it comes to gender.
As I’ve written repeatedly over the years, there is no logical consistency to the modern leftist ideology. Whether something is coercive, aggressive, valid, or legitimate entirely depends on whether it fulfills The Vision™ they have for society.