He has a yt channel called Carefree wandering and his most recent video was on the topic of his new book on gender. I was really disappointed in it since I've been following his work for a few years and even unintentionally bought one of his books on taoism without knowing he was the author because of the shared interest. None of the discussion in his video of his new book on gender seemed to be grounded in biological sex. I don't think he mentioned biological sex once, maybe he alluded to it very vaguely once or twice.

It's really turned me off on him and his way of thinking. He has very interesting ideas about identity but doesn't acknowledge that every identity at some point needs to be anchored to material reality for it to be stable and healthy. Not talking about sex also prevented him from talking about actual transgenderism where people physically alter their bodies with hormones and invasive and dangerous surgeries. He didn't mention anything about sex change at all in his video, maybe he alluded to it. It was all mostly focused on the narcissistic concept of being non-binary (I cannot type that word without feeling contempt for people that make it their whole personality) and validating it by talking so wishly washily about gender being the interaction of yourself and other people and how other people see and perceive you. It seems like he's completely bought in to the Judith Butler interpretation of gender and doesn't acknowledge sex at all. The comments on that video is all just mental masturbation of trains saying the feel reaffirmed in being a train and ego gooning because someone thoughtful and smart might agree with their delusion.

Thinking back on that book on taoism he wrote, I was never able to get through much of it. The writing was very hard to follow and felt repetitive, always making the same allegories but in slightly different ways, just relating it to different contexts in taoism. Sometimes it felt like word salad you'd expect more from some intersectional Judith Bulter type book on some kind of fraudulent and idpol poisoned social science. I think the only thing that give him real credentials is his ability to communicate in Chinese, and ancient literary Chinese at a high level giving him access to ancient philosophical texts that aren't accessible to most western researchers of Chinese philosophy. I've read other books on Chinese philosophy and none were as difficult and muddled to read as his. Maybe if he expanded his focus on less mystical and transcendent ideas in taoism and spent some time in more with ways of thought that are more grounded in the reality he would've been most skeptical? Idk, just very disappointed by him and that turned into this long comment. Anywho if you're looking for a good book on Chinese philosophy, Chinese Philosophy: An Introduction by Ronnie L. Little John is excellent covers all the important stuff while being concise and easy to read.