I will make it quick.
Ah, but first a very nice video with music and some happy people, and ice.
Back to the matter at hand,
The paper from a previous post was, in a convoluted sense, supposed to be about determinism. But, when it came down to the crunch, I did not have the time to form a third branch to the whole thing. And so, unwritten parts of that argument affect what is written… like a sort of literary/intellectual dark matter; it is not there, but what we can see calls for its existence… somewhere.
I digress. Without further ado (beyond this ye-old saying), a “quick rebuttal”
I seemed to have taken the position that we’re all just little pieces of plastic vibrating along an industrial conveyor belt. What shapes we are, what sizes, forms, and even our position along the belt are not determined by us, but by our initial circumstances. And lo, we awake on this turbulent ever-forward world, the state of the conveyor, toward the end of the journey, surely to be thrust into the ‘I do not know’, the void of experience from which we came.
And along so many waves of these many little pieces, there forms patterns, and currents, and clumps. And these structures act as baffles where some shapes or characteristics are better rewarded than others with regard to the ease, length, quality of their time down the belt. Now, this is not to say by the initial circumstances of these pieces, along with the social interactions that we are defined absolutely; what is not seen is the will of the pieces.
Pieces, yes I have been using a crude analogy for man’s rising from mere animalia (the stuff we love but cannot talk to, the stuff we eat, the stuff we kill with bug zappers, the stuff that lives inside our bodies in great numbers) and into this current form fit with languages, long standing customs, and biologically and socially bizarre characterises like that of sexual reproduction, and modern day courting (as the modern day changes).
What has gotten us this far has formed us and our customs, and even the boundaries of thought (though, with time these can expanded by the intellectual frontier of experience, reflection, and imagination).
My argument then that we should recognize the mountains, the valleys, the barriers and the through-ways and… I am not saying that we should line up and march through with the line, rather we should observe the structure of the flow, and then exist with that in mind — however one chooses to do so.
The objection appears when we apply this idea to those who are in such a physical emotional configuration of which I cannot speak.
I am a male, and I am fortunate to be attracted to the opposite sex. Life, at least in this regard, seems to be simple; I know that I am a man, and I live in at a time, in a place of the world where there are many of the opposite sex who share an attraction, but not necessarily in what attracts me (women, of which I am not), and them men (of which they are not). Moreover there are traditional ‘rules of the game’, expectations, and institutions more than happy to aid me, a heterosexual male.
And so when I speak of the situation of the transgender person, those who are confused or uncomfortable with their embodied sex, it is because I am touching the idea from a distance. Could I know enough to speak on it?
Such challenges are not understood by me.
This would be the counter-argument I would use were I to split into two discrete but identical halves, and this other half me were to write the prior piece on gender. I would say no, you know not of the various genders, you know only your own.