logicp_writings/queer/WhatIsAWoman.md

What is a Woman

A very important point has to be made about it, which everyone has seemed to have missed. Everyone has missed the point of weaponized Post-Modernism and Queer Theory/Queery Marxism. That's the point to understanding to landscape/battleground.

Correct definition of Woman is "Adult Human Female", but we don't need to go through that right now. We are going to focus on understanding the Marxian view of Woman.

Marxian Definition of Woman

Note this is a definition of "woman" and not "a woman"

• Woman is a state of identity that is associated with but not limited to being female.
• Socially constructed state of identity created by people.
• A woman is anybody who identifies that way, so long as the identification is deemed AUTHENTIC

Ketanji

Even Ketanji declined to ask a question about her own being, as a woman, and instead she chose to defer to an expert ("I'm not a biologist")

• Implied it's impossible to answer a question of her own being (she is unambiguously a woman)
• Chose biologist - trap of biological essentialism. That one's biology answers the question of whether they are a woman
• Woman is a state of socially constructed identity

Excusing Ketanji

• Fumbled the body but didn't miss the point: the right answer is "I have to defer to an expert"
• Doctor inscribes a socially-constructed category of sex onto you and your body, which you might not identify with
• Identity is socially constructed
  • Sense of self
  • When authentic, is your true sense of self (uncovered from socially constructed morass we all live in)
• True Gender-Soul comes through and escapes the socially constructed prison
  • Being assigned sex
  • Reinforced of arbitrarily assigned gender through family/friends
• Affirming that the genitals you were born with and developed through have something to do with how you feel inside and, thus, identify
• Imposed beliefs about genitals force you connect a particular set of feelings to its associated gender identity, but this might not be your true self

What she taught us

• We can't answer the question without deferring to an expert
• Identification has to be authentic
• Reflect the true gender identity inside - that you realize as you get old enough
  • completely independent from a socially-constructed category

Consequences

Trans-Bullies

Invincible on social media

• Lends to relentless one-sided bullying
• Targetting families, doxxing
• Psychotic/Psychopathic/Narcissistic behaviours are ignored
• Social media giants won't allow you to call them out
• They can get away with any level of harassment
• Victimhood campaigns

Experiments

• Accounts have been made to test this theory
• Need scalable experiments

Zuby

• They ignored Zuby, even though you can self-identify your gender
• It was deemed inauthentic

Hierarchy/Caste System

• Woke flaunt the fact that they get away with things that others cannot
• Status over others in the society they create
• They decide what is authentic, and thus what is true

Social Community

• Socially constructs the rules
• Defers to experts: self-appointed people
• Marx: bourgeoisie arrange society by constructing rules from which we derive all social circumstances
  • Iron Law of Woke projection:
  • That's how they think society works
  • They get power, and then use that power to manipulate or game the system

Queer Marxism

Complicating

• Subset of "Queering"
• Water down what the words mean
• "Trans-woman are women"
  • Women = women, and some men are women
  • Anybody who authentically identifies as a woman (socially-constructed category associated with being family)
  • Queer Theory does this too:

Gay/Straight

• Straight with a little gay, but still identify straight
  • Straight bisexuals or closeted gays who have gay sex but wish to identify as straight (with a little gay)
  • Supposedly common - now we need an expert
  • Expert: determine when someone who is bisexual is actually straight, because the claim is deemed to be veritical
  • How to Tell ~15:45

A Woman is a Circle

August 19, 2022 There cannot be an overriding factor for the only factor we need is language and an agreement that subjectivity exists. We agree that people can arrive at different conclusions because of the vast difference in perspective and that absolute truth is sometimes unattainable and possibly never attainable.

We also agree that conflicts of interest cause people to act for their own self-interest, and that language should be expected, by default, to function best for those who already have advantages in society, thus I am rationalized in seeking to use language which elevates the marginalized. It just so happens that, in this case, claims of marginalization are being made by those who otherwise occupy the center as per the same ideology. It just goes to show you that when you don't have universal rules that track consistently from low to high level, you instead enable those who have the personality type that games systems for their personal gain.

What else of those who claim a universal principle is not or cannot be applied? Is it the case that we have a universally recognized procedure/methodology for applying it? You may claim as such, but your standard is likely something which you allege is only theoretically achievable once your preferred set of conditions (perfected matter) have been met. So you are, in essence, hijacking this issue as a means to achieve a complex array of goals, while neglecting the fact that we do not agree that the universal principle is being respected, approached, considered and achieved.

Moral failure is alleged upon rejection of a proposed set of moral standards - for example, a moral standard about making it more permissive to declare that one is a woman and is suitable for exclusively-female spaces - but to suggest that it is a test of morality for one to adopt your preferred standard (and I'm sure those who take such a position would say it has nothing to do with a change of standard or a preference of a standard, but that it is the only humane or reasonable standard that could have ever been) is a moral failing in having to enslave people to your will in order to not be deemed a moral failure. If truly the position were as reasonable as might be suggested, then reason alone would be all that were necessary in order to make the best case for it.

Put yet one more way, it will be claimed that refusal to take a proposed set of initiatives is tantamount to enlaving to one's will or the will of those who wield an ideology, but the standard of a lack of action being an unacceptable "action" is itself a complex proposal requiring scrutiny.

The Act of Inaction

Possible asociated terms or factors:

• Decision not to act
• Acceptance that Action is mandatory
• Action is the only socially acceptable option
• You must act to maintain coherence/cohere to your standard of logic or espoused values
• The "Social Contract"
• Requiring mass-action (unprecedented)
• You already benefit

Deciding not to Act

Though one might have more evidence with which to predict or assert one's rationale for something, we ultimately cannot ever know someone's intention or reasoning except as a matter of faith.

This already must be an allegation through projection because an assumed act of inaction could only be seen as an explicit action if teh evaluation is believed to have taken place. Since there can be more than one set and order of concerns for one's lexicographically formulated evaluation, claims that purport to understand it having taken place in spite of lack of action would need to fill that void, thus if it must be made precisely of the concerns of and biases of the person making the allegation, then a high likelihood for variance.

Taking this matter further, one would have to conclude that we are in a constant state of performing an infinite number of inactions.

Mandatory Action

What are some mandatory actions which we currently accept as being real and let's critique their legitimacy. Mandatory actions: getting your birth recorded, having a birth certificate

• Is there truly any mandatory action beyond that of physical survival?
• Perhaps to the extent that one wishes to attain access to certain institutions, like places of employment or a cshool, with the latter having always allowed vaccination exemptions except now for just this one special treatment, for the deadliest pathogen of all time

Socially Acceptable Actions

This is ironically the conservative lense on society, though it comes into contact with the Social Contract which is generally cited when compeling that someone have resources taken from them for redistribution. In this case, we are looking at the claim that one must reduce risk for all society. But this is an unmeetable standard with heuristics that aren't meaningful when realistic. For one, we will always be using statistics with complex interpretation of evidence, which never proves whether you did or did not put someone at risk.

Immunological adaptations are also complex and affect overall disease outcomes, the aging process, and a sleugh of other factors, many of which are troublesome to have regulated by the state. Even if you undergo an effective therapy with low risk, there is no telling whether it worsens outcomes with other events.

But, you have already decided that this concern takes precedence over all others. Why? Because authorities declared it is novel, and thus no amount of evidence or understanding is sufficient to say we can expect how bad it is, or that it is reasonably no worse than X, for it can always be alleged that it will bring on future threat Y of unknown significance.

Irregardless of the fact that mitigations of the novel threat also bring along its own threats, it will never be as wild as the novel threat capable of anything and everything!