Ethnocentric accusations and western thinking: trans-generational dogma or recency bias—the case of gender (Zizek, 103)
Gender is a debatable topic these days. For the liberal side, gender and sex are different aspects of the human condition. The two are separate. One can be born a girl and identify as a guy. One’s birth does not designate their expression in society. The religious side says otherwise. Their dogma inherently cultivating a binary between men and women. What you are born with is what you identify as. It is a fluid extension of the self. Is the biblical record scientific or is it holding back the truth?
Two much of this is falling into a culture war. No one is actually looking at the facts. People claim to identify otherwise and God only believes in man and woman. Reducing the dubious proposals will begin with the strawmannirg episodes. For the gender advocates their proof cannot simply hinge on feeling. While autonomy is provided this does not mean that such individuals are sane. Just as one can claim anything so too on the other side can claim it’s delusional. One can feel their leg broken but that does not mean it is true. The science is not all too hopeful for the latter. Feelings mismatched with facts is lying on the delusional train. Life isn’t fair but that does not mean that edging out with a personal vendetta, is the sole choice. Emotions are not logical but manifestations of expected aspirations. Thus the desire to be otherwise is a rejection of societal implications. A need to be different. A need to spread out. Are these feelings genuine or dangerous? It is too soon to tell but the feelings for personality change do not do justice to the honest inquiry of fact.
On the other hand, the religious appeals to authority are not correct either. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Not only can it not be used as a historical project, it has little credibility in the realm of gender. The dissatisfaction is the liberal movement away from traditional norms. It goes against their tradition. It goes against their beliefs. Thus, it must be incorrect. The weaning christianised America is now exposed to other forms of human experience. The religious mind is stuck in a dogmatic pale. It cannot accept the possibility of otherness. Religious facts are not scientific facts. They rely on scriptural translation. Translations that are notoriously misaligned with the original Hebrew. Explanations that fit better with archaic societies than the liberal agendas of the day. At odds causes even stronger reactionary rebuttal. The loss of the traditional mantra places the religious in a bind. Having to salvage and protect their heritage. For history there has been two types of people and that it is. A man marries a woman and they procreate. The simplicity of logic may not hold in the scientific community. Despite the obvious logic of the evident private parts. The lack of neurological understanding deviates from such a simplistic assertion with little scrutiny.
An honest sentiment must first wash away much of the liberal reading into the biblical record. Attempting to override the religious with worrisome tedious explanations. A famous attempt is man’s creation where it says “he created them”. This means Adam and Eve not a third entity. This faulty translation fails to understand the the context. Yet even if their translation is correct that Adam was an a hermaphrodite, his condition did not last long intentionally. It was an imperfect condition. In the talmud, such an individual is unable to fully commit the divine deeds. It also says “male and female he created them”. A binary is created thus there are two ways to be not a hundred ways. The religious mind is void of any of this iteration. That does not refute it scientifically just does so religiously. Though the religious were also against homosexuality despite its prevalence in other cultures. It may have been disgust from outside cultures. Thus their antagonism is the act. Procreation is sacred do not mess around with other men. It is not a natural point but placating against hellenistic art. Other cultures do possess more genders. Monotheism is not the sole authority on gender.
Mesopotamia and Akkadian myths present extra-gender categories. The issue is many of these are not switching their sexes but isolated for their life choice. The irregularity is an ontological choice for barren women or celibate priestesses. They may have had gender characteristics of both but it is unclear of what this means and if it just means certain energies. Modern scholars who categorise these individuals as eunuchs and hermaphrodites are irregular biological conditions. Ancient greeks believed in a third gender of eunuchs fitting the ontological irregular category with less rights. Indians played into the same identity. Their third gender seemed to play more on masculine versus feminine. Even the hermaphrodite makes another appearance, though with a little more pizzazz. For natives, such an individual was the ideal. The goal is to return to primordial Adam not the split with Eve. Mayans may have been open to more gender and sexual fluidity. Apparently there was less dogmatic structure for where to stand in society. Eastern groups make small reference but similar to the others these are irregular categories of sexual identity. Such people exist but this is less a manifestation of the norm. Nor does it imply a shift in gender. Even with all this data, there is little visualisation of human condition in everyday life. How people acted in plays and costumes worn does not necessarily exhibit the day to day.
Most agree that there are two sexes. Male and female. One has a penis that produces sperm and the other breasts and a vagina that produces eggs. Some disagree on the dichotomous relationship. Either there are various sexes or there is one sex. In both cases the duality is ridded for more nuances. While these nuances may be genuine, the procreation mechanism as well as boldly structure find sufficient interaction. Whether this be a social constructed history, there is little historical legitimacy for more sexes that do not hinge on physical misgivings. The sex line is consistent to be binary. Brith denotes someone’s play in the machine. Is one a giver or a receiver. Do they possess the magical puff to sprinkle or do they possess the uncreated organisms. Potentiality exists for both sides. There is a mission for both sides. Thereby undercutting the expressive agenda. The goal is to procreate. Gifted these tools use them correctly. Understandably, the neural link may desire something different but such urges are apparently disinterested with the constructed nexus. Although a simplistic argument, it stands beyond the religious claims. This is simple science. A penis entered into the vagina ejaculates sperm fertilising the eggs creating a foetus that forms into a baby.
Whether people should be compelled to act a certain way does not negate the robotic profession. Then again, the gender split may offer a way out. A way beyond the biochemistry. Anatomy is the root of creation but the way someone acts is their own. The brain need not follow the body. Though one is not one’s brain nor one’s body. One is a soul, that is the most promising guess. The brain and body are detached from the individuals wit. Though the “soul” only survives if the brain and heart work. The soul is the orchestration of neural networks pumped with blood. Seemingly, a brain donation would emerge with the former’s conscious. Yet probably compromised given the bodily differences. A person is more than just their brain. If able to transcend the graft and host dilemma, such a new individual will be overwhelmed with the second body’s personification. While this is mere speculation, there is a high chance the individual is more than just a brain. What makes them whole is the holistic coordination. The brain expresses and reflects. Moving to a new body with different eye and hair colour seems minute but is a big deal. The second body’s memories may pour in. Messages are sent throughout the body and thus part of them remains intact. In such a case where a man’s brain is placed in a woman’s body, it may cause a funky conundrum of mixed energy. The former brain loved woman but now they are in a woman’s body would they be straight or gay? It is possible the brain may be overridden with bodily hormones or vice versa.
Any ancient data that has been criticised demonstrating relics deploying some transgender or intersex individual must hold up to scrutiny. The apparent reality of a male in a female grave may not mean what the archeologist of the twenty-first century believes. Such an archeologist has not only an agenda but also a perceptual bias. They see men dressed as women thus if some evidence proves in the past, it must be symmetrical. Yet this is considerably ethnocentric. Little knowledge of said culture undermines the validity. Maybe his burial in a female grave was a punishment for throwing like a girl or maybe it was a final wish. The lack of extensive analysis paralyses the cultural backdrop. If anything it is deplorable to make such a claim with no more intake. Archaeologists have field day using their modern visions of society to either manhandle or misconstrue ancient models. This is only the newest step. Is the archaeologist incorrect maybe not, but her position is clearly ideological without more evidence. A commonality may have more to do with that cultural bias than any current cognitive dissonance and ignorance can possess. Even though the religious have no monopoly on truth, there is considerable unity on the latitude of gender. Applying the current transgender model to Mayans is incongruent. Using them as a typical nation must extend sufficiently.
Feminist theories who wish to rid sex and gender all together as arbitrary and constructs seemingly nitpick their examples. There are various body types but the dichotomy remains consistent throughout the world. There are a few exceptions but the social aspect fits more in the gender sphere than the sex sphere. It is not clear what these other physiological orchestrations are. Doctors may decide the sex but most accept the binary. It is not as if doctors are tricking their patients. Patients already buy into this philosophy. Is everyone duped into this binary? Westerners and easterners alike? Apparently so. People have acted quite consistently. There may have been exploration but the structural creations are congruent throughout. Such a grand theory must have evidence backed up prior to any ground norm. The foundation is in the perceptive conclusions of sexual parts. Is that a flawed binary? Potentially but it does categorise humanity. The social and political aspects stand beyond the test of time. Ironically, it is the opposite that may be the case. Are these anti-sex believers motivated by social and political gain? They blame others for their dissonance. Buying into a matrix hindering their autonomy. Yet is there some deep seated reasoning they think humanity is lied to do by the ancestral history going all the way back to Mesopotamia? Where did it all begin and where are these differences?
Gender has more thrust. The brain is independent of the boldly structure. They affect one another. Pain over a bruised area is the brain calling attention to a wounded body part to be treated. It is alerting the conscious soul of the dangers of proceeding forward. Yet the masculine-feminine binary is at times constructed. Boys for blue and girls for pink. Convenience and classification creates a mechanised duality for differentiating the two. There are ingrained aspects, boys play with action figures and girls with dolls. Boys with things and girls with people. The desire for these toys even from the child’s perspective may be from his surrounding desires. He sees girls playing with dolls and says not for me but sees his friend with action figures and says that is for me. Is this psychological in imprinting likes and dislikes on people. A boy sees his father love his mother so he loves his mother/girls. Yet this goes into deeper questions of murder as a social condition or a natural truth. There is an obvious guiding and expectations for the sexes to follow. Men can’t cry and need to provide. Acting tough and being in charge are aspects pf the social condition but what if they are also part of the neural network. If anything the social messaging is attempting to shift the feelings of men. While there is socialising masqueraded as ontology this holds up on the other side of the house. Critical theorists undermine those social norms with their own. Their agenda is symmetrical in attempting to glorify their own vision of the world.
Their reforms are considerably dangerous and problematic. A generous objection is that the dogma has yet to remove itself from the education of man. People choose because they are compelled in that direction. Time to wean off of these for a new order again is replacing one apparent social construct with another. Inducing theirs is somehow superior. Screwing with people’s psyche for their own progressive order. There is not much evidence nor productive tone alleged for their order. If all the metaphysical truths fall then any new order can pass over the old. All older systems are supposedly wrongheaded. They must be cleansed of their erroneous ways. So new policing will commence. Feelings do not reflect science. Not wishing to verge on dysphoria but honest inquiry. The culture war is hot in pushing an agenda that needs to be accepted. People are wishing to live a certain way. They are scrutinised in society. They must be liberated. A feeling of the few does not conclude with the extreme deductions of said theorists. There is an emotional backdrop that is loud. No debate simple acceptance. A new religion on the horizon. Their sanity is at stake. Society has rapidly defended them in the liberal establishment. Individualism is the hallmark in the profiteering business. Comfortability is the garden hope. Comfort from other’s acceptance instead of comfort of shelter.
Masculine and feminine roles are socially ordered. The majority may even wish to live alike but not everyone is a robot. There are differences reflected in genetic and surroundings culture. A male predisposed to motherly love through adolescence may grow to be an empathetic figure. The opposite is true as well. The roles are set to prevail in a harsh society. If things are ordered then people can pass from obstacle to obstacle. Some men are more emotional and others are less athletic. None of this is more masculine or feminine even if cinema depicts as such. Do men possess more aggressive traits? Potentially but that is more trans-generational. A need to be aggressive to survive. Such aggressiveness is still necessary. The scale is one of energies. People do not choose these attributes but are provided with them from birth. Skills can be trained. Aurelius in his famous Meditations discusses perfecting his character. He thanks his family for educating him and then his own experiences for enlightening him. Moulding character is a personal thing. Even if men care more it doesn’t need to be the case. Men can wean off caring and move on. Shame can be subdued with confidence. There are genetic components that cannot easily be turned off but many can be nurtured. Men and women may begin at a fated foundation but that need not last, personal introspection can change that with hard work.
Different energies can explore various options. To some extent imbibing a different style is openly expressing this. For example, cross-dressing is not making a statement insofar as it is magnifying feminine energy. It may be a step to being an outlaw but it also may attempt to convey a certain type of energy. The dress eases the capability to propel such energy. A woman wearing a suit is a sign of pushing masculine energy through authority and grit. Men were dresses for a long time but the female construct psychologically manifests the feminine feeling. The brain oozes with the emotional overhaul of discursive energy. The dress is the vessel to imbue such energy into to manifest. To represent a lucid character different from the norm. A look beyond the regular for an irregular experience. For a piece of nuance walled off in the neural network. Closed off due to social interest. Does the neural extravagance seek difference and uniqueness. Is transgenderism a desire to be something else? Is the neural network screwed up? Potentially not. The neural energy disagrees with the bodily congestion. Yet there is some evident irony in the gender expansion. The transgender individual acknowledges the duality and desires to be of the unassigned. They wish to choose to be the other. Yet if gender is multiple then such a choice is dubious. It is in actuality buying into the dogma. The same goes for gays and bisexuals. Sexual orientation is intertwined with gender identity. The reason to switch is baked into a clear link between the two. A non-binary transgender is an oxymoron. Though it is possible to claim that while sex is binary, gender is not. So having a penis but acting feminine is possible.
There was an interesting character on Boston Legal named Clarence. Clarence was a straight man but was comfortable in female attire. Dressing as a women made him feel more at home, a different person. Able to manifest feminine woes that he could not as a man. His confidence in himself was shattering. Much of his character development hinged on him balancing his masculinity instead of throwing it all away for Clareece. His true self was too ashamed and downtrodden. His new identity was an alarm box. While the show attempted to circumvent this effaced feeling, it is worthwhile to question if it would have been better allowing him to remain Clareece. Clareece made him feel better. He was happy as Clareece, while Clarence brought him shame. A stoic may push the show’s agenda but avoiding pain though instinctive potentially was the correct model. What is wrong with him living as he sees fit? Beyond, the norms and order, happier and not hurting anyone. True, he is covering for a disillusioned self but that may be an over insistent push, an unnecessary desire. While not presiding over the sex-gender debate, the show does provide an interesting case of feminising to be otherwise. A desire to leave the true self for a better falsity. Clarence took it a little more extreme but most people change themselves for others. Hiding or lying for other’s acceptance. Clarence was at least seeking self-approval.
Modern individualism perpetually permits people to mould their own lives. Live by their own rules as long as they fit within the bounds of the law. Wanna wear a dress go ahead, wanna die your hair purple have fun, cover yourself in tattoos sure thing, marry a man happily (though till recently). Society continues to push the envelope of what is possible. This is not about breaking down religious norms but breaking classical social order. Cultivating never before seen norms. Autonomy beyond all means protected by the government. A liberal miasma certain to give anyone’s grandad a heart attack. They lived in a matrix past. This new order is beyond the matrix. Anything is possible. Pushing the boundaries for all to explore their own desires and cultivate them. A truly free society. A free society that defames agitators. Those who wish to strike down this autonomy. Those who wish to cease the endless assault on traditional norms. Autonomy in absolute terms. The government provides the range of possibility. Catering to every need. The old method of order and classification is tenuously screwed up but people are more comfortable. Homelessness wreaks havoc on the street but feelings are accommodated to the outcasts. Society is well-intentioned and may be in the right. Though their agenda is evident. Freedom for all those shackled. Psychically and now emotionally. Breaking down the walls of Jericho opens the dam to release the flood of freedmen. Finally able to explore without scrutiny. To truly be themselves.
The question still remains: How much is this historical and how much is this pandering? There is scant data but maybe that shouldn’t matter. The dawn of humanity has avoided the multiplicity factor. Never has there been such gracious autonomy. A first for such exploration. Yet on the other hand, such a slogan must be discussed. People must understand the blowback. There are bad actors and extremists but most wish to understand. (Insert group)splaining to others simply to accept does sound similar to dogmatic ideologies. It is tyrannical and it does express animosity. Such a condition analysed reflects a potential compromise. Instead of allowing the loony bin loose there is some accountability. Does normalising only further the toxicity? It all boils down to the cause and the effect. Are they legitimate? Even if they are should it be encouraged? Should an entire department be constructed to vaguely engage to pressure a political point down people’s throats? More research and more transparency is necessary from both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment