Gender_heretic.md 14 KB
Interrogation
So who are you to judge
Transhumanism, Transgenderism, Autogynephilia, Parapilia, Attraction to what we please, Attraction as it naturally manifests. Is it a fetish if it's our natural inclination? Why should we fight it? The manner in which we conceive of something might arouse us, as arousal is interest, and thus we are elevating that very thing, are we not? We bestow upon them the symbols which connect them to our truth, do we not? Can we criticizie the impetus of society towards transgenderism? Is it not normal that we would wish to master our own limitations? That we would wish to transcend them and enter into a new age with new possibilities? Is that not progress and evolution?
To deny this must be a form of hate. To hate progress out of fear that one would be left behind. An inferiority complex, perhaps, or just a general and paranoid disposition which causes one to expect that anything organized is not working in his favour. Particularly if that which is being organized is beyond the intellectual grasp of the person in question.
Because, certainly, nothing is asked of you. You are simply being asked to show the most minimal of respect. To allow something to exist, is it not? To allow someone to be, as it were.
Well, perhaps, but that assumes that we are negating an erroneous or destructive action. We are, however, not negating anything. The proof that they are respectful of the proposed truth is by their active participation. They must become an active participant and perform a set of necessary, and almost holy, actions in order to keep peace with the other participant(s).
Of course, in this way, the person being quested is being compelled to perform action, and to perform it with pre-selected parameters such as to maximize the particular type of ideas being communicated through the action. This is to be done on the basis of assuming that the meaning of the language is ...
Can you prove that you do not hate by being compelled to perform an action with pre-selected parameters, in spite of what the action and its parameters mean to you? Do you not create hate and distress by becoming the plaything of intolerance and inauthenticity? To be normalizing the production of actions that are not borne of one's beliefs, and not borne of the result of a resolving dialogue, but only as a means to resolve threats? What we normalize are threats and violence, and to participate in a process which normalizes that is to value them over reason and open discourse.
If it's already understood that open discourse is undesired and even despised, then even if one were to perform the task out of intimidation, it would be with an understanding that any hope of eventual discourse is being diminished, thus giving reason to expect that they that are being demanded to act will have a strong rationale for not obliging.
If we are to suppose that the party making the demand is significantly intelligent, then we should also expect that they understand this as well. With that in mind, it becomes reasonable to ponder whether the choice to compel was done so for the purpose of evoking violence, rather than a form of compliance that could be undertaken without violence. If violence is the goal, then the cloaking and obfuscating of it is most insidious, though this is not out of character with related behaviours.
The meaning of the task
Some would presume that the intention of the task is to adhere to a minimal standard of human rights and courtesy, and that to have fulfilled the action will reinforce every party's ability to derive meaning from the event, which can be healing and conducive to development and flourishing. But if a party feels coerced, and if there is an understanding that means of rationality and open discourse are not to be utilized, then the primary meaning of the task becomes the implications of the transaction as it relates to survivability and the recognition of violence in the life experience. These do produce meaning, as life is full of thresholds and challenges, the pursuit of which leads to transformations which incur increase or reduction of strength, increase or reduction of vitality, and increase or reduction of survivability, and so forth. These changes do cause the organism to infer meaning, as the biological reality of mortality becomes referenced and evaluated in the face of changes to one's survivability.
It's seldom possible to evade the meaning of survivability, so it should be harnessed in such a way which benefits all powers, rather than to the detriment of any one party. The moment a detriment becomes clear, the more the organism evaluates the proposition of life insofar that pain and frustration are traded for the ability to consciously experience and act.
Retort: What do you mean? What's wrong with the meaning? The meaning is that of being accurate, that of choosing the correct terms bound to the right qualities'
This assumes that one is unaware of the full set of qualities, and that the qualities being proposed as have not yet been completely understood, perhaps even less understood as a consequence of the explicit and direct presupposition that we are engaged in transactions where the interlocutor is satisfied to direct actions without understanding the full set of qualities associated with that action.
To think that there is meaning in the word being chosen, and that the meaning itself is not affected or diminished by the disregard for agreement about the action and its implications, is ignorant at best and quite possible malicious.
Meaning is something which is produced through our relationship and the interactions contained therein. The reality of the interaction produces meaning, through our active participation, and through our specific actions leading to an agreement, or lack of it.
We gain and propose meaning the choice of which structures to illuminate, our understanding of these structures, and our understanding of one another's perspective on those structures.
Structures
Structures? What silliness. There are no structures
Structures are a configuration of symbols and a degree of significance. Some might call this a hierarchy. Also, necessarily, the choice of symbol affects the set of symbols, as it implies relationships between the other symbols as they interface to the common construct to which they are being applied or compared.
Given that these have value in making determinations about that which is being understood, they also affect the vaule of one another in the choice of context for analysis. With that in mind, we can't really get around our choices of symbols without also performing the analyse of their particular relationships amongst and between one another.
Performing an analysis which determine the symbols and their given relationships is, of course, one of infinite complexity. Not only that, but there is an infinite number of interpretations for aspects that can be enumerated (there rae likely more interpretation and more symbols and relationships than can be observed).
That being said, it's still necessary to enumerate the symbols and relationships, or the task will not have any degree of coherence or predicted utility.
So to proceed for this task, there must be a set of ground rules. First, it must be agreed upon that though there are an infinite number of possible concerns and interpretations insofar that we can attempt to enumerate every possible option with respect to our target of study, we can also agree that there exist some concerns and interpretations which require greater attention than others. This is because we can certainly each come into establishing a rationale for a particular concern and a particular interpretation of the issue. Furthermore, we are able to identify a concern or an interpretation which we believe to be superfluous. Given this, it is obvious that we must also agree that we have made a discriminatory assertion and that, as such, we are, by virtue of our own actions, reasoning that there is an ordered precedence inherent in the set of concerns and interpretations.
If we can agree that there can be different positions in the ordered precedence of concerns, then we must agree to use objectivity to guide our analysis. There are ways of thinking which posit that objectivity is either impossible to achieve, or completely non-existent from reality. If either of these positions are adhered to, then no agreement is possible, as it is technically impossible to establish veritable trust in the good faith of each participant. Regardless of taxonomy used to reason about the decision to relinquish any expectation that an objective mechanism can be used to judiciously improve the quality of discourse, there is no avoiding this one insurmountable feature of the transaction. The only alternative means to objective discourse is violence.
If we do agree to these principles and we maintain a process which does no defy them, then the natural step is to resolve our understanding the requirements of maintaining the integrity of our mechanism. We must do this, not out of an expectation that the process is futile, but out of respect and empathy for the perspective that it is natural for a party to be apprehensive, both due to logical reasoning, and due to emotionally-mediated thinking and cognitive biases. We do this out of an expectation tha we can cooperate in utilizing a process which minimizes the impact of cognitive biases. This is, in a sense, an admission that one has cognitive biases, and that is a necessary component even for a theoretical objective thinker who performs a technically perfect analysis. It is especially with a perfect execution that one must consolidate the potential of a problem which has the power to impact the quality of process.
In restoring the utility in our ability to choose a subject among many, we identify targets for understanding the behaviour of our subject in a way that can be systematized, with defined terms for evaluation and study. By choosing the terms as a cooperative process, we reduce the prospect of unfairly framing one another's arguments. The defined terms become the formal taxonomical tool of reference for the objects relevant for discussion.
Without an agreed upon objective process by which to determine which subjects to choose, we are left in a state where every choice will certainly not be trusted, be it at least from one side, therefore it will become nothing but a war for power.
If one side bases their reasoning over presuming a moral failure in the face of an environment with no process by which to objectively reason about our transaction, then the transaction is one of violence. All paths would lead to that end, as the avoidance of objectivity is the insistence on violence. The necessarily produced disengagement makes this apparent; the fact of one side declaring that the process of reasoning has ended is an explicit uncoupling from any agreement to pursue fairness.
One might ask why this is; what qualifies this need to adhere to objectivity?
The natural state of conscious interaction is one where reason is demonstrated at even what some might call the most basic levels, such as with animals who can't communicate abstract concepts. That is, to apply the reasonable amount of survival force with respect to the survival needs of each participant. At this "basic" level, which isn't actually basic at all, but basic in the sense of the removal of linguistic dialogue, there is a transaction about what sort of behaviour is tolerated given the resource requirements for a given context. Once a certain threshold is surpassed by one party, the behaviour of the interaction changes to one which involves violence which threatens survival for one or both participants.
In such a case, we can see that it is a reasonable transaction to the extent that the participants are capable of affecting material expression. This is a system in that we see that there is a continuity of these organisms or entities. If there was no success in the chronology of the relationship, evolutionarily speaking, then we woulnd't have the demonstration fo their continued existence. One might say that it could very well be the case that there have been other relationships which ceased to exist, and that this had nothing to do with the logic of the interactions.
But the logic is that there is a predisposition towards survival. The actions which are undertaken by the organisms are ones which are chosen given their impact on survival. Whether or not it can be established that they are primarily driven by an understanding that survival is the most important factor is inadmissible, because we understand that the organism is aware of the need for survival, we understand that evolution demonstrates survival, and we agree that an organism is capable of acting or reacting such as to consolidate its need for survival. Thus our expectation of a logical behaviour concerning impact on survival is implicit.
To elaborate on the logic of a conscious, biological system acting for its survival, consider even just the unconscious neurological activation and disinhibitory patterns that are performed without deliberate thought. Even these demonstrate logic and are, particularly in some cases, initiating or affecting the interaction of the participant. That these pulses of natural biology potentiate survival is an obvious indication that it is reasonable to potentiate one's survival, and that these impulses potentiate the survival of an organism in the presence o other organisms. The fact of there being a plurality of organisms who experience an impact on their survival by unconscious neurological impulses suggests that the reasonable and logical engagement of each organism in its interaction with another is one which is perpetually evaluated by each organism on its respective survival impact.
It is with this understanding and reasoning that it becomes clear: there is only one feasible choice of methodology for analysis and resolution of a concern shared by multiple organisms, and it is one whose specification declares most explicitly the expectation of equal application and discrimination for each participant.
There is no other conception of a system which expresses by nature of its specification a desire for equal relationship among participants. Regardless of whether there exists equality, there can only be an expression for a desire to have equality by making available the explicit choice to value a system which could ever possibly enumerate the possibility of selecting equality.