latest

Book/Chapters/Modern_Woke.md

@@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ Let us now examine the modalities through which this is posited.
 
 ## 1. __Gay/Lesbian__
 
+!TODO: Is this all with respect to children?
+
 ### Constructivist Project
 
 It's difficult to unpack the ideas of comprehensive sex education and how they produce discursive dialectics in classrooms and regulatory institutions without taking them in the context of the Queer praxis through which academia and international organizations have come to demand their inclusion. It's especially important to think about this with more normal subjects, such as homosexuality, which by now almost everyone agrees is a natural phenomenon or not something that's worth groveling over - which is to say that, if adhering to liberal principles, we shouldn't have a say in who people choose as their romantic partners so long as they are adults making their own choices. Queer theory focuses on attacking normativity, but Queer praxis as common activism works through confusing normies and attempts to initiate them into a Queer worldview by pretending there is controversy over the completely normal, like homosexuality, and using that as an implement to defend something abhorrent, like pedophilia.
@@ -66,19 +68,23 @@ Thus, if the assumption is that children are innocent and non-sexual, then one m
 
 How can a child have a sexual orientation? Well the Queer theory's assumption is that a child not expressly gay is heterosexual, but is that really the case? Sexuality suggests sexual attraction, but a child is not reaching states of sexual arousal, and far less a state of sexual arousal associated with reproduction. One might suggest that children may demonstrate fondness for one another that is wrongly differentiated from romantic feelings conjured between adults, as the related mechanisms and the experiential elements are intuitive, pure or primal. But romantic feelings or sexual preference are something more than excitement and vasodilation. They require the element of one's awareness to their capacity to practice discernment, and the awareness to such a capacity requires a knowledge of consequences which can't be conveyed by spoken word or written letter.
 
-Indeed, romantic feelings requires a level of sophistication consequent to life experience and some understanding of the world. A child simply hasn't existed long enough to know real world ramifications of events in a human life, body, or broader relations of humans and society. A reasonable understanding or attitude would be to say that children are not yet developed in a manner and to the degree that sexual arousal manifests. That children may be fond of one another but that the relation and dynamic of that fondness is not sexual whatsoever and is, thus, much simpler and of less impactful consequences (particularly with respect to commitment and accountability).
+Indeed, romantic feelings requires a level of sophistication consequent to life experience and some understanding of the world. A child simply hasn't existed long enough to know real world ramifications of events on a human life, body, or on the broader relations of humans and society. A reasonable understanding or attitude would be to say that children are not yet developed in a manner and to a degree where sexual arousal manifests. Children may be fond of one another but the relation and dynamic of that fondness is not sexual and is, thus, more simply managed and yielding less impactful consequences.
 
 >"In 1991, Eve Sedgwick (1991) published an essay that may be said to have initiated contemporary queer theory’s consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
 
-It's unfortunate that this needs to be stated, but perhaps this is the sort of cyclical issue in human evolution that needs to be touched on every so often to make sure we're not trying to aim towards the catastrophic, but it seems quite apparent that it is a common perspective among Queer theorists that childhood is an opportunity to intervene in the formation of various unconscious forms of oppression which come to be seen as "normal", such as humans believing that heterosexuality, which is an aspect of sexual reproduction (and thus the reason why the human species has existed for more than one single generation) is a normal practice, and that this view of its normalcy leads to the oppression of homosexuals. Now, the focus on homosexuality as a domain of oppressive peoples has come to be a bit antiquated, as the insistence on viewing gay and lesbian as the alternatives to heterosexual living have come to be labelled as a form of hegemonic oppression in its own rite. What rite is that, and ho w might it be referenced? As homonormativity, of course, and though it might sound jarring to some, it's become a common enough concept which makes sense when you realize that all forms of collectivism are aiming at the same thing: removing limits from existence en route to a state of being where the human is not going to be denied any possible form of existence. To flesh that out just a bit more, it might be best to describe homonormativity as the forced categorization and annulment of Queer liberatory potential into structurally enforced roles. That is to say, homosexual identity as a limited and assimilated role which mimics and adheres to cisheteronormative practices.
+It's unfortunate that this needs to be stated, but perhaps this is the sort of cyclical issue in human evolution that needs to be touched on every so often to make sure we're not aiming toward the catastrophic, but it seems quite apparent that it is a common perspective among Queer theorists that childhood is an opportunity to intervene in the formation of various unconscious capacities for oppression which come to be seen as "normal", such as humans believing that heterosexuality, which is an aspect of sexual reproduction (and thus the reason why the human species has existed for more than one single generation) is a normal practice, and that this view of its normalcy leads to the oppression of homosexuals. Now, the focus on homosexuality as a domain of oppressive peoples has become antiquated, as the insistence on viewing gay and lesbian as the alternatives to heterosexual living have come to be labelled as a form of hegemonic oppression in its own rite. What rite is that, and how might it be referenced?
+
+Queer theorists construe the acceptance of "vanilla" gay and lesbian relations as homonormativity, and though it might sound jarring to some, it's become a common enough concept which makes sense when you realize that all forms of collectivism are aiming at the same thing: removing limits from existence en route to a state of being where the human is not going to be denied their belief about the possible form existence has, can or will take. To flesh that out just a bit more, it might be best to describe homonormativity as the forced categorization and annulment of Queer liberatory potential through structurally enforced roles. That is to say, homosexual identity as a limited and assimilated role which mimics and adheres to cisheteronormative practices.
 
 #### Agency and Accountability
 
+> "My argument begins with the premise that developmental theory and its attendant model of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can be destructive to some children’s imaginative and social capacities when not attuned to their possible queer presents and futures."
+> "..."
 > "There is a paradox that arises when the child’s rights to agency and participation in the world are secured while it is suggested that they are innocent and lacking complexity. I invoke this dilemma to highlight what is at stake when queer theory speaks about childhood as social construction but forecloses a consideration of actual children. In not thinking about children’s material rights, there are issues that get forgotten. As I write in Canada, I am considering, for example, the history of residential schools and their devastating effects on children’s lives as just one issue that may be elided or repressed when queer theory evades recognition of how the preservation of innocence (in the name of rights) has not protected all children equally." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
 
-> "My argument begins with the premise that developmental theory and its attendant model of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can be destructive to some children’s imaginative and social capacities when not attuned to their possible queer presents and futures." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
+The dialectical juxtaposition being presented here works to introduce children to comprehensive sexual discourse. Its function is to remove the idea that they are innocent because it keeps them from having true agency. But agency for what? For sex? That is the common criticism coming from those who associate themselves as "right-leaning", but I think that though its a concern, it may be misleading and that maybe that's just a side effect that the Queer theorist isn't too concerned about. I contend that the thrust of Critical praxis utilizing the dialectic is that the fact of any children having had a conceivable right violated predicates that the belief that any effort to protect the rights of children has only resulted in selective protection of some children, and any distribution of protection has been conferred as a form of privilege. These privileges and selective application of protected rights serve in the structure of oppression which allows for some children to be violated to the exclusion of others. In fact, the framing as to what constitutes a violation is also based on normative expectations and, by extension, the expectations around protection of children serve in the composition and enforcement of the matrix of hegemonic forces in which the children suffer..
 
-There is quite the dialectical juxtaposition being presented here, in that on the idea is to introduce children to comprehensive sexual discourse in order to remove the idea that they are innocent because it keeps them from having true agency. But agency for what? For sex? Well, maybe that's just a side effect that the Queer theorist isn't too concerned about, but the real focus is that some children have had rights violated thus children shouldn't be selectively protected from having their rights violated, and how is this done? By giving them every right. By having supposed that some children have the right to innocence, we've also not afforded them the complexity to have agency in how all children have a role to play in addressing issues of social justice. Put another way, introducing children to idea that they are sexual beings early on will help them address social justice issues and prevent the possible violation of rights that might otherwise be experienced by their more "marginalized" peers.
+How is the issue of the selective protection of children's rights, as evidenced by asymmetrical distribution in the violation of children's rights, addressed? By giving the children rights; identifying what rights are necessary for protecting and empowering those who are marginalized and taking action to educate the community to desire them while also championing changes in culture and institutions to enforce their recognition and administration. Not only has our practice of supposing children's right to innocence borne the effect of worsening marginalization and racism, we've also not permitted the deep and profound complexity of the more privileged subset of children to be revealed to society, hence causing harm to their agency. Children's true agentic nature corresponds with depth and sophistication and understanding this grants the imagination to envision them with greater faculties. Put another way, introducing children to idea that they are sexual beings early on help them address social justice issues and prevent the possible violation of rights that might otherwise be experienced by their more marginalized peers. As with most Critical praxis, contradictions are baked into the arguments, so their sexual agency can be referenced both as the feature of a more serious being while also being the element which reduces the degree of severity by which potential consequences will be construed, such as the consequences of pregnancy or promiscuity.
 
 > "Early childhood studies are based on the hegemony of what is scientifically known about children’s development without adequate attention being paid to how childhood is socially and culturally constructed.
 ...
@@ -87,15 +93,15 @@ The work of Butler (1993) creates a space to challenge, shift, create discomfort
 In essence, we do (perform) gender whether we want to or not and implicate children who may not fit normative expectations of what we expect as acceptable behavior. Kumashiro (2002) has argued that the norms of schooling and its manifestations can be perceived as oppressive, arguing, “changing oppression than requires constantly working against this norm” (p. 11). The propensity to focus on developmentally appropriate practice seems overbearing and indeed oppressive. Children’s identities would be better understood through a critical deconstruction of Western theories of child development and of the normative
 pedagogical frameworks that dominate early childhood practice." - Zeenat Janmohamed (Queering Early Childhood Studies: Challenging the Discourse of Developmentally Appropriate Practice)
 
-A sensible understanding of a child's agency and the level of accountability that is imposed on them by their family, peers and society at large is already well established in Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Early Childhood Education, but this has been the focus of criticism by Queer theorists who believe that Early Childhood Education should explicitly attempt to "Queer" development through creating different norms, reifying Gender Identities and conceiving of a child's identity through critical deconstruction, which is to say, to view it through a lense of understanding how a child's development is an opportunity for applying Critical Theory to deconstruct the social environment in hopes of producing something different which, based on the history of Critical Theory, and its origins, would mean producing Socialism en route to a Communist Utopia.
+A sensible understanding of a child's agency and the level of accountability imposed on them by their family, peers and society at large is well established in Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Early Childhood Education, but this has been the focus of criticism by Queer theorists who believe that Early Childhood Education should explicitly attempt to "queer" development by creating different norms, reifying Gender Identities and conceiving of a child's identity through critical deconstruction, which is to say, to view it through a lens of understanding how a child's development is an opportunity for applying Critical Theory to deconstruct the social environment. Through the energetic act of tearing something down, we hope to produce something different which, based on the goal and history of Critical Theory, means producing Socialism en route to a Communist Utopia.
 
-Of course, as much as Queer theorists talk about giving agency to children and making us all accountable, the accountability is only insofar as we are able to potentiate collectivism. At the moment that a form of accountability is discerned as tacitly indicated through the overarching proposals of the Queer theorist, they will deny any form of individual accountability or commitment and move towards the reification of a group by claiming everyone is responsible for all the world and that, that this representation as an understanding of the real is an actual form of accountability that can be concretized, as opposed to an individual accountability which is a form of fallacy due to a contradiction in the outcomes of different children. In this way, we see again that the eschatological endpoint through a Hegelian process of becoming both removes accountability and makes the individual vulnerable to being consumed as a fuel cell to be discarded in the historical engine.
+Queer theorists may also talk about giving agency to children because of how it leads to accountability and this will often be interpreted by the uninitiated as though it leads to a more capable and responsible child, but this is manipulation by equivocation. Any accountability referred to by a Queer theorist is only insofar as we are able to potentiate collectivism. At the moment that a form of accountability is discerned as tacitly indicated through the overarching proposals of the Queer theorist, they will deny any form of individual accountability or commitment and move towards the reification of a group by claiming everyone is responsible for the goals of Queer theory, which is made interchangeable with the goals of the children. Furthermore, it will be stated that the domain, practice and corresponding institutionally-embedded initiatives of Queer theory are all accountable to the goal of transcending normative oppression, and that the educating of children to understand their sexual nature is a means of fulfilling this accountability.
 
-To summarize, though the norm is to understand children as bearing some form of inherent innocence, the collectivist, particularly one who is implementing a dialectical methodology descendant to Hegelian thought, will say that the innocence is an illusion derived from:
+In keeping with the Marxist view of the "real" as the direction to a better future, the "real" in the Queer context takes its actual form of collective accountability posited as what can be concretized, as opposed to an individual accountability which is a fallacy due to the contradiction in the outcomes of different children. In this way, we see again that the eschatological endpoint through a Hegelian process of becoming both removes accountability and makes the individual vulnerable to being discarded as a fuel cell consumed in the engine of history.
 
-As we are simply used to engaging this concept as though it were some form of a universal norm, we perpetually fall into a form of fatalistic reasoning about the limits and simplicity of children, which negates our opportunity to grow and evolve as a society towards some of the Utopian destinations that were previously identified by some of our greatest thinkers. The fatalistic expectation is imposed through conservative reactions to any attempt which tries to lift up our children from the endless cycle of capitalistic and normative conditioning and is furthermore a marker of privilege in the sense that those who participate in this way haven't the critical consciousness afforded to them from possessing a more marginalized perspective.
+To summarize, though the norm is to understand children as bearing some form of inherent innocence, the collectivist, particularly one who is implementing a dialectical methodology descendant from Hegelian thought, will say that the innocence is an illusions which reinforce dominant positions in the social hierarchy. For example, it will be said that it's derived from placing children in proto-heteronormative roles because it reinforces capitalism, or that it was a side effect of having disseminated vilifying mythologies about people of colour and queer folk.
 
-As a result, they reify a false consciousness because the ascription of innocence is actually positioning them to reinforce the cisheteronormative structure which they intuit as holding them up in an advantageous manner in the hierarchy of social strata. Our failure to recognize that acceptance of identities has been an inauthentic and lost opportunity for social justice is therefore our borne of the selfish dispositions which repress humanity and keep us from truly adopting the knowledge necessary for us to thrive.
+As we are simply used to engaging this concept as though some universal norm, we perpetually fall into fatalistic reasoning about the limits and simplicity of children, which negates our opportunity to grow and evolve as a society toward Utopian destinations previously identified by some of our greatest thinkers. The fatalistic expectation is imposed through conservative reactions to any attempt that tries to lift up our children from the endless cycle of capitalistic and normative conditioning and is furthermore a marker of privilege in the sense of not being able to see the need for change, such as would be otherwise be the case with a more marginalized perspective. They reify a false consciousness because reinforcing cisheteronormative structures through ascription of innocence is simply a natural intuition of their being held advantageously in the hierarchy of social strata. Our failure to recognize that acceptance of identities has been a lost opportunity for social justice and such intolerance, borne of the selfish dispositions, represses humanity and keep us from adopting the knowledge necessary for us to thrive.
 
 ## 2. __Non-Binary Negation__
 
@@ -103,18 +109,21 @@ As a result, they reify a false consciousness because the ascription of innocenc
 - Grounding of human reality
 - Questioning evolution
 
-Biological essentialism is instantly in the crosshair because whatever criteria was previously used and believed to be sufficient for identifying real, actual aspects of human biology are being made to seem unproven, inaccurate and insufficiently argued for. The reasons for this are of both conscious and unconscious origins, and this is argued with the perspective that those in favour of a biologically essentialist view of the world are assumed to follow through in having been influenced by entities which favour those same things as well, such as a history of capitalistic exploitation to keep industry moving and demand increasing, as well as the imposition of hierarchy, particularly as a consequence of Patriarchy.
+Biological essentialism is instantly in the crosshair because whatever criteria was previously used and believed to be sufficient for identifying real, actual aspects of human biology are being made to seem unproven, inaccurate and insufficiently argued for. The reasons for this are of both conscious and unconscious origins, and is argued with the perspective that those in favour of a biologically essentialist view of the world are assumed to follow through in having been influenced by entities favouring those same things as well, such as a history of capitalistic exploitation to keep industry moving with increased demand, as well as the imposition of hierarchy as a consequence of Patriarchy.
 
-One of the best representations of an argument which, though rather ambiguous to the uninitiated observer, has carried mighty weight in helping to establish a foundation of discourse in Gender and Queer studies, and their related activist endeavours, is a quote we already touched on earlier by Judith Butler. Here's a quick breakdown of some of the primary points she puts forward in her problematization of sex:
+One of the best representations of an argument which, though rather ambiguous to the uninitiated observer, has carried mighty weight in establishing the foundation of discourse in Gender and Queer studies, and their related activist endeavours, is a quote we already touched on earlier by Judith Butler from her seminal work Gender Trouble. Here's a quick breakdown of the primary points she puts forward in her problematization of sex:
 
 > "Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation"
-- It's one thing to say that you're doing employing a radical premise in order to analyze something differently, but it's quite another thing to say that the thing you wish to analyze was itself the employment of a radical premise to begin with, so things are incredibly dubious right off the bat. It would be much more sensible to say "gender was originally intended to describe the corresponding behaviours, social norms and expectations that we associate with people of a given sex".
+
+- It's one thing to say you're employing a radical premise to analyze something differently, but it's quite another to say that the thing you wish to analyze was itself a radical premise to begin with, making the claim dubious right off the bat. It would be much more sensible to say "gender was originally intended to describe the corresponding behaviours, social norms and expectations that we associate with people of a given sex", but hinting that the fact of biology places a limit without specifying in which way keeps it open for the theorist to state that our understanding of the world and the behaviours and roles we accept are rigidly constrained by biology.
 
 > "Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders... When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one."
-- Here she is saying that the very fact humans came up with a concept of gender and gave it a name tells us that sex and gender should, in fact, eventually come to be seen as things that are not related. She would push back on that and say that they are related and that the concept of gender worked as a good start towards freeing us from the imprisoning aspect of our attitude towards the sexed body, but that the fact of us having come up with this concept demonstrates that we are trying to break free of the limiting ideas about human sex."
+
+- Here she is saying that the very fact humans came up with a concept of gender and gave it a name tells us that sex and gender should, in fact, eventually come to be seen as unrelated. She would push back on that and say that they are related and that the concept of gender worked as a good start towards freeing us from the imprisoning aspect of our attitude toward the sexed body, but that the fact of us having come up with this concept demonstrates that we are trying to break free of the limiting ideas about human sex.
 
 > "If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."
-- Quite simply, that we came up with a sex/gender distinction contradicts the immutability of sex, and therefore the distinctions of sex are themselves contradictions. 
+
+- And here she goes all nutty and states, quite simply, that we came up with a sex/gender distinction contradicts the immutability of sex, and therefore the distinctions of sex are themselves contradictions. 
 
 Judy is somehow presupposing that anything we conceive of is revealing some great truth about ourselves and the world, but humans go down useless rabbit-holes all the time, and though there's something to be said for the pain and struggle of some of the hard lessons we teach ourselves, there's no good reason to assume that we have to learn every difficult or even stupid lesson that we possibly can put ourselves through, as there's always an infinite set of additional ones to undertake. While we can theorize as to what reasons we possibly might have had for coming up with concepts such as gender, whether there are competing concepts referenced by that term, which ones are more legitimate, and so forth, it's much more obvious as to why we humans created the means by which to describe sex and the sex differences, and regardless of what psycho-social behaviours we can associate with either of them, the striking and unmistakably distinct physiological differences which correspond with completely different reproductive systems are themselves self-evident. As such, the whole reason we identified the concept of male and female, which definitely refer to sex, regardless of whether you also believe in the concept of "gender", is because we have to deal with our biology. We need an intelligent way of referencing to the fact that there is a difference, as well as a way of referring to the practice by which we find ourselves in the complicated circumstance of a pregnancy, and so forth.