I suspect the Wheel of Time tv series is infected with trans ideology.
It may be a small point, but the first episode opens with Moiraine saying that the Dragon Reborn could be one of five children from the Two Rivers.

This makes no sense. The Dragon is male. He is always male. He will always be male. The Dragon is the avatar of maleness.
The Wheel of Time does reincarnate people, but it is *always* the same sex. Because “being a man” and “being a woman” in WoT is to have a connection to the Divine Source, which has a Yin-Yang male/female complementary structure. The connection is EXPLICIT in Aes Sedai & Asha'man.
Interestingly it *is* possible in Wheel of Time to have a sexed soul be in the wrong sexed body. But this is never a “mistake.” The Wheel doesn’t make mistakes. It is, the only times it happens, a deliberate perversion by the Dark One, bringing one of his minions back from death.
So, specifically, there are WoT characters that can be read as “trans.” They are explicitly understood as unnatural abominations wrought by the Evil One, having no natural birth, but using a stolen body, the soul of which has been torn free.
The Dark One seems to find it amusing to reincarnate the Forsaken Balthamel as a woman, likely because Balthemel was a serial rapist/abuser of women.

Making him the only “trans” character we know of.
I just saw a “pro trans in Wheel of Time” argument — which is to admit that souls are sexed, but to say that this makes no difference in those who don’t channel the One Power (and thus touch Saidar or Saidin + an argument from silence.
That is “we know of exactly *no* examples of trans people in the Wheel of Time universe (unless you count Balthamel/Agan’gar); THEREFORE they must be there.”
But this idea requires that the Wheel of Time makes mistakes, and it doesn’t seem to. Nor the Creator who created it.

Anything that goes wrong is due either to the Dark One’s influence or human evildoing.
It is unclear whether Wheel of Time’s Dark One is a creature of the Creator. He is clearly not an “evil opposite” to the (good) Creator — he is imprisoned, for one thing, having been imprisoned by the Creator.

Not unlike Satan being cast into hell.
The Wheel of Time’s “radical” view of sex essentialism could be happy story trope, inviting us to examine a world in which sex is real and essential and *matters* to every character.

Or they could wreck the story world in order to conform to contemporary gender prejudice.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

4 Dec
The more I look into the feminist critique of gender ideology, the happier I am that trans ideology is *utterly steamrolling* feminism. That old horror needs to die — trans ideology does need to be opposed, but in this case the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.
Gender ideology and feminism are close kin in some ways. Both are Kantian — or rather, feminism is Kantian and Gender Ideology is post-Kantian, via Nietzsche to Foucault.
Feminism posits that a woman’s “true” self is her immaterial, autonomous self, which is, sadly, stapled to a natural body, which is a kind of detestable burden and hateful oppressor.
Read 9 tweets
3 Dec
More medieval libel.

The so-called Scold’s Bride was never used during the Middle ages. It is, of course, a modern invention. It was invented when Galileo was using telescopes, the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, Francis Bacon was inventing empirical science, and so on. Image
I would love to know how often this device was used and for how long.

I’m willing to make a blind bet that the answer is “almost never” and “it was a fad that died out in one generation.”
“This term and the punishment for it appears to have gone out of use by the early 17th Century.”

Which is funny, because it also *started* in the early 17th Century.

Also, the thing was ILLEGAL.
Read 10 tweets
1 Dec
The argument from evil requires premises which cannot be established, such as

P1: We are in an epistemic position to know that God could not possibly have a justification for permitting certain evils.
P2: We are in an epistemic position to know what God would or would not do.
Note very well that the argument from evil requires establishing a NEGATIVE EXISTENTIAL, that is, it must prove that there is NO POSSIBILITY of there existing a justification for evil that God could have.
Note further that proving this Negative Existential “there is no possible justification that God could have for permitting evil” carries with it “there is no possibility of there being such a justification which is beyond human comprehension.”
Read 6 tweets
1 Dec
It should be evident, I trust, that the ENTIRE POINT of the Logical Argument from Evil is to generate a SET of propositions, a Triad, Tetrad, howevermany-rad, in which “There is evil” + “there is a God” + [various things about God] ⇒ Contradiction.
That is why it is the LOGICAL argument from evil. Because it purports to find a LOGICAL contradiction between propositions.
Read 6 tweets
1 Dec
I can break the Argument from Evil down schematically. It comes in two flavors: the logical and the evidential.
The logical form of the argument from evil claims to find an inconsistent triad in

1 God is wholly good
2 God is omnipotent
3 There is evil

But this is not an inconsistent triad. So that fails.

Next move is to add premises, and go for e.g. an inconsistent tetrad or pentad.
But that doesn’t work. There just isn’t a robust and non-question-begging set of evident premises that one can generate a logical contradiction from.

People *have* tried.

Philosophers nowadays don’t try.
Read 18 tweets
1 Dec
Found a silly thing, fixed it.
You could add an arrow off of “Then why is there Evil?” that points to a “There isn’t” box.

But there is evil.

“So?”

“So it is false that there isn’t evil.”

“No.”: line to “God is omnipotent” box.
If the atheologian insists on the understanding of “omnipotent” that God can effectuate logical contradictions, very well.

In that case, NOTHING FOLLOWS from anything the atheist puts forward.

“There is evil” doesn’t preclude “there is no evil.”
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(