A Pair of Duces

By: Jonathan Seidel

The science of binaries and modern fluidity: is emotion corrupting the intellect? (Watts, 26)

Humans tend to see the world in binaries. The world is up/down, left/right north/south, light/dark and on/off. In the modern consciousness spectrum is the standard for fluidity or colour. There may be opposite extremes but there is a lot of room in the middle. Are binaries an archaic uncentered outlet or unemotional honest reflection?

The world is perceived in binaries with some exceptions notably gender and sex.  While people say the world in black and white there is always an argument for the grey in the middle. Whether this is biological or generational it is embedded in human psychology. Something is defined as one or the other. One is either up or they are down. They either turned left or turned right. Despite the appearance of psychological defence, the choice is either or. There is only two choices. When asked if one completed a task yes and no are the only answers. The inclusion of maybe is a cop out to save face. It is lacking memory of the event but when the event is checked it was either done or it wasn’t. Even partial completion is not completion so the answer is no, not sort of. Sort of means no. Even this case where there is room for grey that being a task was partially completed still fits the no category because the task was uncompleted. The grey in between is at times part of the journey, a means to an end. Dusk exists where it isn’t really light or dark, morning or night which is where evening enters. It is a stage of limbo. Yet by design the sun is technically still out so it is day. Moreover even on its own terms it is a stage to night. Dusk is a part of the cycle to pitch blackness. It doesn’t exist in its own right but as a part of the downward process.

The past two examples do display a reverence for greyness in their own right. Partially completing a task has completed a sector of the task so it’s not uncompleted but it also is uncompleted. Though this is simply semantics. The grey is based on the question asked. When one asked was the task completed and one answers yes or partially the task hasn’t been completed. Folding half the laundry and folding all the laundry are two different points. The task was for the all the laundry if it was for half than it was. Terminological use to create greyness is a fool’s errand. It is unpersuasive and solely mental gymnastics. Dusk is a grey area between day and night. Yet its greyness also may result from misdefined characteristics. The appearance of greyness results from aligning certain characteristics with progressing aspects. Evening exists between afternoon and night. It is technically still daytime since the sun is still out. For dusk, since the sun is not out and the light no longer shines, it is the onset of nighttime. Even if there is a rudimentary grey area it is for a second and then moves on. The spectrum idea is the existence in its own right as an end of itself. Dusk isn’t. Dusk and dawn are processes of sunrise and sunset. 

Yet the grey area may also reflect one’s personal perception. Meaning that the binary is instinctive of relative sensation. Turning right or left is relative to the person watching. It depends on which direction one is looking. Turning onto a roadway from the right side is turning left and from the left side is turning right. Though relatively inverted for the observer, the vehicle is stilling turning right or left. Good and evil are classical archetypical elements. Yet what is considered good may change. Killing civilians is bad but killing in war is okay. The grey area that is created by mismatching good v evil attempts to demonstrate that these imperatives aren’t absolute. Accidents happen and extreme measures gravitate to inverted conclusions. Yet this grey area are exceptions not the rule. Meaning that in certain cases situations fall into a middle ground but they are few and far between. The existence of a moment of greyness does not mean that relativity rules the day. It only means that classifications aren’t perfect. So killing in war is good. While that sounds terrible because killing never seems to okay, it is good insofar as it prevails over the enemy. Stealing to survive is considered bad because it is stealing but a legal exception may drop the charge. Just because killing is permitted in war doesn’t make it good, it can still be bad but yet permitted. 

In some regard the greyness is the intersection of misaligned tropes. Good usually goes with permission and bad with prevention but that is not always the case. Still note that these are still binaries just conflated. There may be a third option but that doesn’t derail binaries. The binary is not either or it is what is the best option. Someone may project a binary but that doesn’t mean that reality is a binary. Constructed binaries are different than empirical ones. The choices presented are humanely deduced binaries so there may be more options but one them is either correct or incorrect. These binary of the correct answer on an exam may be none of the above but that is the result of the tester providing a binary picture. To this extant, binaries are wrong. There is more than human restriction would prefer to allow. Something is true or false but the embellished record may add deceptive notes to it. Conspiracy theories are a temporal aspect of greyness. Was 9/11 an inside job? Did the CIA assassinate JFK? It was falsely reported that covid came from a lab. Many pushed back with partial truth claims. This grey area of conspiratorial thinking believed truth but was in the process of unveiling. Whether the public knows or not, it either did nor didn’t come from the lab. Recent revelation seem to suggest in the conspirators favour. 

The world is very complex but many times it is more perplexing that necessary. Using words like better, safer and faster seem to suggest a spectrum. Instead being fast or slow one is faster than someone else. There is the spectrum of being the fastest. While there is no denying the spectrum of speed being faster is binary. The observer sees multiple runners and graphs their time. Yet for the runner he is faster than the guy behind home and slower than the guy in front of him. Compared to those ahead he is slow and they are fast. He can get faster pass them and then he will be fast and them slow. The use of motion to describe one ahead of the other doesn’t discount their own abilities to everyone else. The slowest runner will beat the audience. So he is indeed fast but compared to his peers is slow. Brian Scalabrine responded to the twitter trolls who believed they could beat NBA players with the scallenge. He torched each one of the challengers remarking that he was closer to the LeBron than they were to him. He rarely played in the league and people called him a scrub. On the spectrum of capability he is both bad compared to his counterparts but better than the average Joe. The spectrum itself is relative. It depends who is worse than other professional players but better than twitter trolls. To make the NBA he must be good but against fellow competition he was bad. This is not anachronistic both can be true at the same time without resulting some grey area. There is no grey area, it depends on the variables at hand.   

Relativity does not mean break binaries. The binaries are still adequate it simply depends on the statement at hand. Is NY a safe city? Well it depends what do you mean by safe? Overall based on statistics one could argue yes or no. Then again what is considered unsafe? How much crime reaches that standard? There is a certain complexity. Yet if you ask people they will tell you whether they feel that the city is safe or not. Certain areas are less safe than others. NY is less safe than the suburban areas surrounding it. Does it mean it’s an unsafe place to live? No. Yet in relation to the surrounding suburbs it is less safe. It isn’t safe comparatively. Using words like more or less better or worse to cheapen the blow. Florida is hotter than NY. NY can get hot but NY is not a hot city. Other measures are taken into account namely frequency and consistency. The observer will gather multiple places and determine the safety of the areas. If NY is at the bottom of the list it is unsafe comparatively. It may be safer than other places, it may consider itself safe but relatively it isn’t. Two variables square off and one is mightier than the other. Nevertheless, a city can be unsafe and still live there. There two aren’t mutually exclusive. A city can be safe with the exception of a few bad eggs. Saying a place is kinda safe isn’t very reassuring it seems more a cop out. Though there is an aspect of social engineering into the statistical or emotional magnitude of safety, it is still categorised into binaries. 

These themselves are human projections. Something is safe by brute of human dedication. Qualifications are more arbitrary than scientific certainty. Travelling diagonally, heading northeast is still either a right turn or a left turn. People themselves are right handed and left handed. While there may be some exceptions and others with some interesting imbalance, most are righties. The anti-lefty brigade does push more right handed environmentalism but there is genetic output to a dominant hand. A comfort with a single hand even if the other hand is used for other skills like sports. Though people need both hands and religion has blackballed left-handedness it does necessitate more than projected monism of the scientific binary. Punnet squares provide various sequences. Blood type provides more than two solutions. A parent with type a and the other with type b can still produce type ab and type o. The fact that both parents possess an o allele allowing a twenty five percent chance that a child will be o as well as a quarter for every other blood type. If there are three children, each one could have a different blood type. In this situation the blood type is either of the four. It is not binary that hair will be black or that eyes will be green. Genetics may fumble and provide red hair and blue eyes. Thus the spectrum may be for biological conditioning. Physics may have its binary positioning but that doesn’t mean that biologically people are.

If genetics can be construed in a multitude of ways then the binary falls. Though binary may simply mean entrenched categories. Even if there are multiple categories namely blue brown hazel or green, it doesn’t mean that it is therefore non-binary. Binary doesn’t necessarily mean the spatial symmetry between two possibilities but the established foundation of scientific reflection. Attributes to humanity differ in scope. There are various magnitudes which point to a spectrum approach. The world at large may be binary but that is not the same for the individual themselves. The complexity of DNA and execution aids this cause. Yet to some extent it still falls. It is all relative. It is still either or. Whether one has this colour or that colour. Whether one is compassionate or not. Cheerful or not. Could they be projected on a spectrum with others to demonstrate their elevated quality, certainly. Yet this is itself a marker of construction. Who is more compassionate is decided by selected variables. Yet in the same breath from the compassionate person’s perspective they are while others are not. It is a rather clear motivation. It isn’t about demonisation but realistically recognising the clear rationale for proper attributes. Though emotions may have more a spectrum since they are fluid in their own right. One who is not happy is necessarily unhappy. Neutrality does exist insofar as unhappy means sad. Though unhappy more as being not happy is a binary. It all depends on the definition. There is a binary matter. There is a spectrum to levels of happiness but the individuals execution is in line with the sentence or not. Are they happy or are they, it is a simple yes or no question. Cheerfully smiling whispering maybe is an obvious ploy at truly being happy but undercutting it with mystery and humility. 

Someone whose skin colour is half-white and half-black will synthesise at times but also many times look more like the white or black parent. They may call themselves half-black and half-white but don’t look it. If someone didn’t look like their parent, they would deny such a statement. Genetics doesn’t always synthesise into a mixture of the two. Some children look more like their parents and others do not. Some are tall others short. It measures by the replication and evolution. DNA is complex but it also categorises itself. Just because much of reality is diagnosed into binaries does not mean that everything must fit into it. There are exceptions and there are adaptations. Evolutions and revolutions mark a new dawn in the complexity of the universe. It is through human initiative that this is even possible. Forced to develop and adapt to new environments. The freedom to act is itself the intellectual monstrosity to decide the universe’s fate. The classical religious projection of binaries displays their categories whether it be god or no god, truth or false. Yet these binaries apply everywhere. Against Galileo they asserted they were true and he was false but in reality it was inverted. The logos defeated the ethos. Even if Galileo’s approach has been mistaken to some extent that would just falsify it and a new alternative will argued in its place.

The ability to seek beyond the binary is the freedom to do so. Once the world is constructed almost anything can be argued. Though at the base level binaries help categorise. Something is good or evil, east or west up or down. All these fit into whether something is true all false. Even the non-binary fits into the binary itself. The category it is placed in may be more fluid on a spectrum just like speedsters but then again the non-binary nature attempts to establish an entrenched model not a directional process. Non binary fits into the binary of binary and non-binary. Though this creates an explosion of seemingly miscalculated aspects. How masculine or feminine is a binary to determine behavioural types most associated with a certain group. There may be exceptions but clear majority takes shape. Binaries can be made more complicated by adding more words like evening or dusk. Definitionally, if the sun is up it is daytime and if the sun is down it is nighttime. Though the argument of intersex is quite peculiar given that it is a rarity and at times a general defect. A mistake in the evolutionary process. Yet beyond this suitable misunderstanding exceptions exist. The capability to resist the classical uses does not undermine the binary motif. Terminological gymnastics are frequently used to decide whatever people desire. Homosexuality and transgenderism both accept the binary, wishing to be partake in the binary of their choice. Freedom to choose instead of fated to endure. 

Thus the empirical binary is namely that which is inherited by the majority of the group. The famous lioness lion has a hormonal surplus that gives her a mane, looking like a lion though entirely female similar to bearded ladies. It is evolutionary but it is also rare and an exception rather than the rule. Other animals are non-binary in the strictest sense of the word though my ignorance precedes me. Clownfish can change their sex but it is in dire circumstances and cannot be reversed. The XY chromosomal element is adherent to the mammalian creature. For humans to look to reptiles for fluid inspiration it seemingly a long shot. Though to my knowledge, the transgender critique seeks to alter one’s biological chemistry to be the other so accepts the binary. If anything it seems that gender fluidity undermines transgenderism. The gender issue further becomes difficult when exceptions are used to garner a rule. Hey there is an animal that this, it exists therefore it must be normal. Just because something is a reality does not make it truthful in the same regard as it exists. It is not about demonising but accepting that exceptions due to prevailing circumstances are not the same as emotionally choosing to act differently on the basis of this foreign species. 

Reality’s complexity does not deny the faults of cultural histories nor the constructed efforts generationally. Yet in many respects the call to demonstrate more diversity is through emotion. Freedom enables exceptional undertakings. The debate over the LGBTQ community is less about binaries and more about accepting those destined binaries. If one is born a christian shall they remain christian or born an American. Can a girl change her hair colour or a small boy take hormones to grow taller. It is altering biochemistry but it isn’t derailing the binary. It is simply seeking a new outfit. Deciding one’s own destiny. Given the car and repainting it. Adding some new accessories with joy and glamour. The binary isn’t the problem it is the way it is phrased and many time dogmatised to oppress others.     

Free Play

By: Jonathan Seidel

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.