That Trans thing part 3.. the legal and moral bit.

Hi,

Way back in September of last year I started a three part blog entry all about how I see the issue of trans gender in today's world. The first two parts dealt with the sociological implications of "trans" and the physiological and psychological questions around the existence of the trans thing in the human species.

You can find the articles below :

Part 1
Part 2 

So it'll come as no surprise to you oh perceptive readers of mine that this here entry is the long awaited part three:

Legal and moral questions concerning "Trans" gender stuff in the human population. 

So, the obvious question is: "why the large gap from Sept last year until now to write part three"? Quite honestly because I've been researching, questioning and figuring out in my own mind what the situation is and what it perhaps could and - depending on ones POV - should look like.

The recent events in America on which I've written extensively over the last few weeks, my own philosophical musings plus questions directly to my trans peers have all served to shape my view. The keen observers amongst you will note I've added in "moral" to the title as well as legal, which is an addition that owes its inclusion directly to these influences.

So first a brief explanation of law, and the first conundrum with "Trans" phenomena. Laws are by their very nature utilitarian, and universal. They are made to be applied equally to all based on specific defining criteria, or specified exceptions. For example the sale of goods act will define what it means by "goods" and "sale" and anti discrimination legislation will set out what it means by the terms "employee" "contract" , "duties" and so forth. This avoids ambiguity and creates universally understood language so that these terms carry distinct meanings in law and their interpretations can thus be somewhat fixed. Also within these legal definitions are elements of known causality, known origins, thus known and accepted definitions of the terms themselves.

Of course this is in part due to common language. But it highlights a major issue with "trans".

Recently the 2010 equalities act included "transgender" and "gender reassignment" in the legal word pool, and intimated that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person based on these terms or their "gender"

The transgender equality report (which you can see here) Made a few recommendations, and is a positive step in a broadly well meaning direction for trans people. However a bill was tabled in parliament late last year to add in "gender identity" to the legal nomenclature of protected characteristics. (see here) This gave me significant pause.

Why? you might ask? as a trans person surely you'd be in favour of such a move. Well perhaps in principle, but remember what I said about law being universal and utilitarian, and that legal terms need to have solid foundations of clear definition and unambiguity?

"What is Gender identity?"

Ask a dozen trans people, be that M2F F2M or NB, post, pre op, medicated unmedicated etc and you will get a dozen differing definitions ranging from "nature" to "its an intrinsic part of me" to "it is what i say it is"

Ask a dozen cis gendered people and you're likely to get variations on a theme of  "sex" "physicality" "woman" "man" etc etc.

So my question is:

"How can we protect something in law when we cannot define critically and clearly what that protected thing is? "

Plus a cis persons "gender identity" is rarely questioned since it follows that its perceived as physiological, and assumed to be thus. Its only the validity of a trans persons "gender identity" that is often called into question because it "appears" to have no basis in commonly held belief systems of the general populace relating to the causality of "gender"

This is at the heart of what I believe has for the last 30 years or so kept "trans" as an issue somewhat murky for the population at large and ill defined even for those more aware of its nuances. It's very diversity of nature appears to be its undoing. (That and being lumped in with LGB issues and then
seen erroneously by the well intentioned unknowing as merely an orientation)

One cannot have "gender identity" protected in law under a basis of "its my opinion" because quite simply that opens the door to the likes of "religious freedom" discrimination exclusion clauses in legislation through legal precedent. "opinion" is subjective. In order to be fair the law MUST be objective. So what to do?

I attempted to define causality of Gender Identity, rooting it in some grounded scientific fact and/or tested theories, and thus giving it a definable nature.

This brought me back to Dr Robert Salpolsky's lectures and the work on the human brain. Heres a link to a short piece by Francine Russo (2016) about the work of Antonio Guilimon et al

Click through to the article here

The original research report in the new scientist was from 2011

See here

(Recap: In essence it suggests that there is a significant and consistent difference in the brains of trans people, when compared to cis. In that the brain of a trans person more closely resembles that of the male/female gender they identify with, or is somewhere in between. This is based on a measure that is routinely and widely used to "sex" brains and has been for sometime.)

So, we have a potential if relatively new scientific explanation for what this "trans"phenomena is. How then can we link this into "gender identity", and how the person "feels"? Behavioural biology is something of a mine field. Correlation often being mistaken for causation and vice verse. It's obvious that a lot more work is required to unpick this, and as such one humble blogger is unlikely to come up with the revolutionary answer in 5000 words or less.

BUT. Here's where it gets interesting. Lets assume this physiological link is valid. Even Dr Guillamon himself said brain scans may not always detect these differences. The result of which is that proving an individual person has the brain structure to "validate" their "gender identity" is still fraught with unknowns. It merely leaves us with the possibility that "gender identity" when applied to people exhibiting a trans trait could be anatomical/biochemical and physiological in nature.

This is of course an imperfect solution. It is however better than simply saying "self definition is a mater of opinion and this opinion should be enshrined in protections of law" Taking that route leads to an animal farm-esque "some opinions are more equal (and thus legal) than others"

Let us assume the physiological link isn't true, what then? Well since we can prove it to be neither true nor untrue at this time (on living patients) one must assume the ethical standpoint that does the least harm to persons exhibiting the conditions being considered. I.e. accept that it may be true and act accordingly, in light of evidence based best practice.

So we come to the morality question.

Opponents of "trans rights" and of theories of gender that break from the general populace's perceived wisdoms of an XY/XX chromosomally defined dichotomy often cite the harm that could result from affirming what they see as erroneous expressions of gender or in extreme cases mental disorder. (as a side note trans gender is now close to not being regarded as mental illness by the forthcoming WHO ICD-11 revision in 2018 and in some cases nationally it already isn't see here)

Some of these objections may come from genuine concern regards the scientific legitimacy of the condition, after all we humans often doubt that which we cannot see. However most come from either religious conviction, or positions of ill placed fear, ignorance (such as the  bathroom debate) or it has to be said plain simple old fashioned discriminatory "othering" of that which we don't understand or approve of.

It occurs to me therefore that if more of the trans community took an interest in their causality, as society moves towards being more open to exploring this once taboo area of our genetic, anatomical, physical and psychological beings, then we could turn those well intentioned critics into allies. Not all disagreement comes from a place of hate, some eminates from a genuine desire for the truth.

Once those questions of causality have well known answers, then dependent on those answers we humans have direction. It is possible we may find that trans is not directly linked to anatomy. It is possible this could all be a dead end in the evolutionary tale of human knowledge. But given what we already appear to know I personally feel that outcome is unlikely. Sure it'll feed into the nature and nurture arguments, and we may never fully unravel that which is our building blocks, but every little helps.

The questions of the morality of legal protection for trans people is therefore one that bears striking similarities to the fight for gay and lesbian rights, simply because those opposing the legal protections are the same people, and often using the same arguments.

Dr John Corvino gave (in my view) a brilliant series of lectures entitled "Whats morally wrong with homosexuality?" There much of his work on youtube but if you have an hour of so I heartily suggest a listen.

Dr John Corivino's website

Dr Corivino is a philosophy professor, and is in no small part responsible for my growing interest in the subject. (see my other blogs for that)

So with Apologies and thanks to Dr Corivino"

"Whats morally wrong with "trans"if any thing? and if nothing whats all the fuss about? 

Currently we know via evidence that reversion therapies don't work, and gender identity affirmation does work for the benefit of the Patient, with better outcomes. So that would seem a no brainier in allowing trans patients to access medical care. 

Trans people have identities thats have scope way beyond just that gender bit. (or their body parts) They are sports people, academics, therapists, nurses, bus drivers and all sorts of things. So why focus just on the biology?

There are Male people, and Female people, then there are Non binary (+ other) people (and they mess up our neat categories . That the biology of those categories is now not as clear cut as it once was believed to be has already been covered, regardless of that they remain people. 

The bible condemns it. Christian doctrine is a mixed "blessing" and worthy of a blog all of its own. But suffice to say the bible says less of trans gender than it does of homosexuality, which isn't itself all that much. Plus religion is a matter of faith, and thus opinion, and as I've already said, we know all to well how legislation for one opinion above another ends up.

You might think trans is gross. That's just aesthetics. One cannot tie morality to that. Some of us look odd, and thats the way it is. (earlier transition may address this particularly in the M2F group, so if  we can have better access to medical care as per my first point society perhaps wont have to deal with this one much longer) 

Why do you have to be "publicly trans" ..err Derrr! We kinda have to be cos unlike sexual orientation, trans is intrinsically an externally obvious social, verbal and non verbal conversation. 

You get the idea. Many of the historical objections aimed at LGB through the years are now being used on trans people. Perhaps one can hypothesis this has more to do with the accusers than the accused but i'll leave that issue alone for now.

So, where does this all leave us?

Legally trans people now have some growing protections in various places across the globe. Those protections are still so new it's painfully obvious the birth pains of the legislations are still subsiding. In America the legal protections are being rolled back by what is at best a questionable regime, wrapped up in race hate and all sorts of terrifying doctrines.

So it's now more than ever important to look not just at the legal standing of trans, but the moral implications of denying healthcare and employment and discrimination protections and housing etc to these people solely on the opinion that they are "doing something we don't agree with"

Whilst my arguments above on the legitimacy of a legal definition and causality for "gender identity" that goes beyond opinion still stands. from a moral standpoint it really is secondary. "Trans" people are trans "people" and as such deserve the same level of consideration, respect and validity as any others group of people.

In considering the terminology, and the words "Trans" & "Gender identity" and given the arguments I've put forward for a causality of what I've called "trans trait" I'd suggest that "trans"as we know it, in those who make a permanent life changing affirmation of who they are, is perhaps merely a symptom of that which we already know as "intersex". But rather than being focused on the gonadal physiology, has it's origins in the structure and "wiring" of the brain. More research is undoubtably needed to flesh out that theory, but its an intriguing thought.

To finish on a another point made succinctly by Dr Corivino and one that can be applied in my view equally to trans:

Acknowledging they are trans gender makes some people happy(ier). 

You may disagree with their decision & thats fine. I hate liver and onions.. but since it doesn't harm those who don't eat it you can still legally and publicly buy it, and I'm told some people even like it.

My opinion does not make the buying and eating of liver and onions "wrong".

So, if you have questions about trans, about what some of it means, or maybe just want to find out more, Get to know a trans person, not just their trans-ness, you never know you might find you have more in common that you thought possible.

until next time keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic.

Sarah

The meaning of unemployment.

Welcome to a sunny, lazy Sunday...

This morning I rose from my sleep after a late night playing D&D at a friends house. (For those in the know I was the dungeon master and will be for the next game, the third in a series of three)

As I was wandering around doing the usual stuff, washing clothes etc, my mind went back the conversation I'd had with one of my friends in the car whilst dropped him off after the game. I've been out of regular work for some time now, since Sept last year, so almost 6 months. My friend has had similar periods of "unemployment" a few years back and although now very much back on track with his career, we batted back and forth ideas and experience about the best way to write a cv etc, to get noticed amongst the pool of applicants. Given I'm six months in, common sense would suggest mine needs a reshuffle.

This lead to a thought this morning, as I pondered that word.

"Unemployment" 

What does that actually mean? Occasionally I get myself down hearted due to my lack of resources currently and thats - pretty obviously - down to my situation as regards paid work. However, am I actually 'un-employed" ?

If you look up the definition of the word the first hit on google is:

It's the synonyms I find most Interesting. "idle" being one of them. And "Jobless". One could suggest I am neither, since I am writing this blog, (plus others) and spend a number of hours in academically inclined contemplation of philosophical thought & research plus doing my D&D planning. Occasionally I fix the odd bike, advise a friend of mine with a fledging bike business, and just last week I serviced the brakes on Vanessa, my old combo van, currently much battered and much loved . So one could argue I'm neither idle nor jobless. 

Yet given an accusation levelled at me a few days ago, of being a "Pseudo Intellectual" and societies propensity to label people and assign veracity to their arguments based on somewhat arbitrary qualifiers, it's made me think. For example to be seen as legitimately knowing and understanding management principles one must be in a management job, thus I cant help wondering what qualifiers people place on me, an "unemployed, Trans-woman"? and moreover I'm questioning do they apply? 

I would argue that since I'm "employing my time" doing other things I'm certainly not "unemployed" in that sense, yet it's very much true that what I do does not pay me directly, other than perhaps the  link between searching for a (better) paid method of employing my time, and proof of that search being linked to a substance renumeration called benefits. Am I thus then being paid to look for work and therefore am "employed" in that capacity? (which would mean i wouldn't be unemployed and as result couldn't claim the benefit....yeah thats weird? ...) 

Furthermore, unemployed has become shorthand for Idle in the minds of some, a perception of literally "doing nothing" and thus my financial constraints are seen as by choice. Whilst it's true that my choices in life have lead to this point (how could they not have?) I'd not say I would "choose" to remain in this situation were other options presented or discovered. This perception of unemployed = idle then brings in the skewed morality of the deserving and undeserving person. Those who actively seek to better themselves being seen perhaps as deserving of more assistance in doing so and thus achieving that aim. 

All in all it's just a bit of amusing word play. I am reminded of the words of Tom Cruise in "The last Samurai", where he plays a conflicted American soldier struggling with memories of questionable actions. 

"I am beset by the ironies of my life"

Side note, it's one of my favourite characters, and movies. It speaks to the shifting historical context of  morality, remorse, honour and respect for culture, plus the concept of finding personal peace and redemption. The examination of which is sorely needed today. 

Thankfully I haven't chosen the route Nathan Algren, the central character in the film did, initially climbing into a whiskey bottle to escape his memories, but believe me when I say at certain points in my life the option was more than just considered.

Many years ago I walked into a car dealership. It was to collect business cards for a school project. I was 16 ish. The first time I walked in I was summarily dismissed by the sales guy, who saw a scruffy kid. The next time I walked in and happened to be wearing smart clothes. I received much more assistance. Why? 

Perceptions. Same person but a different image, Thus it is with "unemployed" "trans-woman" and "pseudo" intellectual. 

These labels merely define a point, a discrete snapshot of our lives, and cannot ever encompass the whole. Confucius died believing himself a failure since no monarch took up his words, and Socrates was sentenced to death and executed by the very athenians he had sought to educate. Yet after their deaths both men gave rise to institutions that carried their ideas forward for centuries. 

"Failure" for both was but a temporary thing. Their success lay in their "knowledge". Knowledge of humility, humanity and the importance of each, with their employment of these and other traits. There success was not defined by themselves at least, on whether they were paid well because of it. 

Perhaps here then is my mini epiphany. Employ what knowledge you have to your greatest effect, and you shall, in time, see results, regardless of your current situation and other peoples definitions of it. Or, to put it another way, 

"If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life that he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours."

Henry David Thoreau

Until next time keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic

Sarah 

Socrates, Confucius and Buddha

Hello! It's been a while!

I've resisted the lure of the keyboard for a while so I could really think of what it was I wanted to write.

I've been doing a lot of watching, thinking, pondering and just general "being" as is my way. I've had my 13yr old daughter with me over her half term which has been nice. Watching her grow up, and question things is quite enlightening, I now know what my own Dad meant by his comments about my bedroom when I was her age. Plus her questions to me, about me, family, about the world and her place in it invariably oblige me to re examine my own thoughts on so many things.

I've had a lot of time on my hands, since I've now finished much of the regular work of my two college courses, and am awaiting events for work this coming year. I had planned on writing something about the recent downfall of Milo Yiannopoulos, but never got round to it. As a result of all this free time my mind wandered off down paths of its own making and I found myself watching and re watching a mini series that the BBC produced. "genius of the ancient world", Narrated and presented by History Professor Bettany Hughes.

In this series Prof Hughes looks at Socrates, Buddha and Confucius, and examines their teachings in light of their relevance to the modern era and how human society has shaped and moulded itself over the intervening 2500yrs since these three men walked the earth. I took this further and completed a  short course with OU on philosophy, and I intend to take things still further and pursue this line of enquiry going forward. (perhaps an MSc I dunno .. )

Have look at the series here...

So why did I choose today to break my self imposed writing pause? Predominantly due to a Facebook conversation I had earlier this afternoon, and the fact its now snowing, so I'm certainly not going out.

It started with my reading a post from the guardian about a chap by the name of Trevor Phillips

This one here...

Essentially Trevor Philips is  questioning not so much what the  left  says, but  how it  says it, plus the  relationship the politcial left has with the political right.

The show in question airs tonight, and I'll be watching, 9pm channel 4, since many of the central tenants agree with my own forming views and also with some satirical and pointed remarks of the guy below. As the saying goes humour often has a grain of truth in it.

Now, Here is a case in point. The Facebook discussion that ensued when I posted this in response to The Trevor Phillips article. 

'Actually, one has to respect that he openly follows his changes in thought. The idea of "controlling" how people think or the expression of ideas as per the report is flawed, and is in no small part responsible for trump et al. As I said yesterday about milo yana"can't spell the rest" oils he was silenced for entirely mercenary reasons. While the man was silenced, his ideas were not. They have yet to be challenged widely, significantly and openly intelectually thus they persist. The general shift in recent years has been one of the main parties becoming shadows of each other such that their differences are minimised, coupled with policing of "left or right " viewpoints that harm re-election or upset status quo in the corridors of power. These are the conditions that breed an electorate screaming for change. And trump et al hear that, leverage it. Then set about their own agendas. We cannot control the expression of ideas. We need to cultivate the populations ability to discuss and critically debate them. Apathy, disenfranchisement, a belief/acceptance that "politicians are all, self serving" and a widely held view that "it's nothing to do with me" coupled with the idea of never stepping outside your own opinions to challenge their underlying principles gives rise to something akin to feudal society, with little micro groups that will fight amongst each other for the privilege of being "right"..." 

One observer pointed out that Milo Yiannopoulos advocated genocide, amongst other things....which of course which any morally responsible human being would have issue with. Heres my response to that remark ... 

Genocide: adocacy of that is a thorny one agreed. However not debating it does not allow one to bring morality to the table. Thus we assume all rational viewpoints would be against genocide without any argument actually occurring. Also, consider that governments throughout history merely call genocide "war" and legalise it. Both are morally questionable yet this is not up for debate? Milo has been effectively silenced by a restriction of his audience. To silence an idea one must explore it and expose it to reason such that those listening can see it as illogical, unfounded etc. In other words debate must occur. Of course humanity being what it is we are unlikely to reach accord, but the debate occurring is the key. Visible meaningful debate. As your comment regards men, on that I'm confused. I reference milo, Trevor and trump "et al". Trumps administration has a few women, notably Kelly Anne Conway? ive previously advocated for professor Greer though I disagree with her style and some of her substance. So your extrapolation that my comments exclude men is I suggest an erroneous reading of my original text. Intellectual and critical thinking is available to all humanity, and while formation of opinion and experience may be linked to gender, the ability to examine them is not. Neither is the expression of that examination via debate.

Note the text in bold. Thus ensued a discussion whereby the observer pointedly requested me to make rational observations defending the act of genocide, and in particular the holocaust. 

I wont go into the whole long thread, for reasons of brevity, but here's another extract from my reply...

the Iraq war. Debated in the law courts. Afghanistan. Debated in parliament. Britain going to war with Germany, debated in U.K. Parliament, to name but three. All these decisions lead to mass death, which dependent on your POV counts as a form of genocide and anyone who thinks politicians don't know that ahead of time is a fool. Therefore they are debating the morality of sending their armies to fight, kill and be killed. One could say for the greater good. in the case of Hitler/fascism that's fair, but Iraq? This is the reason pacifists exist. They see all war as genocide thus oppose it. Others just see one form of war as more morally defensable than another. Killing becomes abhorrent or justified based entirely on your internal morality. ( an indivdual case being that of Sgt Blackman. He shot an insurgent. His "crime" was not the shooting. But HOW he shot him and WHEN) also, since you suggested you're all ears, yet initially said genocide wasn't up for debate I guess I've proved my point?

Remember this discussion started over a point raised about whether censoring of extreme or even differing viewpoints and labelling those who hold them as "bad people" is in some way responsible for the condition that brought about americas trump etc. The opening comment from my respondent was thus:

ok but milo advocated genocide - that's not up for debate.

Yet, 48 replies later, and some 3 hours in the respondent was still debating that which they intimated was not up for debate. There was even a point at which i was accused of being: 

"i think you're a psodo-intelectual, an illetist, a right wing crack pot and an anti-semite." 

Interesting. Here is an educated, rational and moral indivudal, who - based solely on a short single exchange between myself and themselves - concluded they knew exactly who and what I was, simply on the basis that I disagreed with some of the provisions of their preceding arguments and presented a  differing definition of what genocide is and it's causality. 

(For the record I'm not denying or justifying what is and always will be a lasting stain on humanities history, namely the holocaust. Rather I'm stating that war in and of itself is a form of justified genocide made legal by means of a uniform and things called governments, the pure unadulterated horror of war, while not beyond discussion is well known and its morality always questionable) 

Now you may ask why do I share this? Is it to be all holier than thou and go "ha you're too wrong" NO. In fact neither one of us was proven right or wrong, since there was a central issue of difference on the meaning of "genocide" thus we were to some extent talking past each other. No, to claim I was right would simply be crass egocentric bafoonery. I share this to highlight that which Jonathon Pie so eruditely encapsulated in his video above. 

Consider that someone judging another so harshly and erroneously based on minimal info and their own internal view of both the world and their own virtue is an example of the very thing that Trevor Philips is seemingly observing and questioning. A lack of a critical thinking,  evidence based mindset. A lack of  research based aproach and consideration that one's own viewpoint is not sacrosanct nor does that viewpoint give one the legitimacy to denigrate others. 

(Unbeknownst to the observer and respondent in my above conversation we very likely agree on many political things, since I'm a left leaning centrist if i had to box myself as anything and about as far from a right wing crack pot as one can possibly be. But that's besides the point) 

Politicians and people of either persuasion who seek to censor meaningful debate do harm to the process. Of course Milo was an ass. Of course his ideas are reprehensible, and of course the holocaust and any genocide for that matter is awful. BUT not all people think like that. Not all people will ally rational thought with moral consideration or courage. It is for this very reason that we must debate theses issues HOWEVER distasteful... indeed it is their very import, distastefulness and scope of consequence that require us to do so. 

How do we know these distasteful things are morally wrong? How do we know where that line is? Because the generations before us had discussions and debates on these very issues, and set the guidelines. Socrates, Plato, Confucius, and the Buddha. These questions have been debated for 25 centuries. 

It is the hight of arrogance to believe we no longer need to do so because the debate "is settled". 

If we do not teach our children and young people to critically analyse, debate and think for themselves, and if we continue to no platform those who hold views diametrically opposed to "right thinking liberals" then what we hold to be obvious truths are lost in a generation or two and we descend once more into the Trumps and (to a lesser extent perhaps) the May's of this world having created a situation where previously right wing candidates are seen as moderate, and actual Nazi type extremists gain false legitimacy. If we cease to debate these things, our ability to discuss and advocate for the ideas we hold as incontrovertible and universal truths, things like liberty, freedom, morality, justice, is reduced. When the extremists rise and question "why" we then only have a weak defence of "Because we believe it to be so". and "it has always been thus in our life times"

I was also accused of being elitist. Perhaps this one is true. The core values I hold to certainly include wisdom, thought, education and learning amongst others.  I have during my life been to University. Twice. I continually learn, explore and think. Is that elitist? As for being pseudo intellectual, I'm not entirely sure what that is? Do we place legitimacy on the qualification or on the knowledge that one learns to aquire the qualification? can one have knowledge without qualification? of course, since Socrates and his compatriots couldn't simply go to university and study philosophy, they invented it. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and discussion for the sake of learning are at the heart of any intellectualism. Qualifications? They're nice, and I have a few, but "needed" to define legitimacy? not so much. 

So is the left in danger of becoming anti intellectual except for those ideas that mirror the perceived wisdom? if so, be wary, for we are at the edge of the map and there be monsters.....

President Obama in 2016 on Donald Trumps err. . . . style and substance? 

Back to that Milo guy....

My original Facebook post mentions Milo Yiannopoulos and like I said at the top of this article I had intended writing about him a little. I was as relieved as the next person to see Milo Yiannopoulos have his platform shrink. However the manner in which it was done was in deference, not to morality, but rather to mercenary things like saleability and political "collateral". He was cut loose not because his views were reprehensible, although they undoubtably are, but because he was no longer marketable. 

So I take no joy in any perceived victory that his demise may bring to others who share my political leaning. The real fight isn't with Milo. It is with the ideology he is a proponent of. One cannot as easily no platform an entire ideology. (although a few short decades ago the LGBT left was on the receiving end of a fair few attempts) One has to debate it, consider it, discuss it and if required discount it,  and KEEP discounting it, never assuming the job is done and that we can pack up and go home cos "everyone knows we are right". 

Democratic process doesn't require apathy, it requires action, advocacy and tireless exchange of  ideas. EVEN those ideas we may on occasion find abhorrent, immoral and repugnant.  As Prof Bethany Hughes  commented recently in the documentary series I mentioned above. 

"it's not so much that "man" is the measure of all things, 

but rather his relationship towards his fellow man" 

I leave you all to ponder with a classic, from pink Floyd...

Until next time keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic 

and keep talking to each other, much may depend on it. 

Sarah 

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing

Socrates

It is ok to disagree with trans gender stuff.

Hi world.

Tonights blog from the keyboard of yours truly is based around a simple thought I had the other day.

For those who don't know, I'm a trans person. That simply means I was born with a presumed Gender that didn't quite fit, thus I transitioned to one that does back in 2015...

But why is this important? It's simply to give the reader a perspective on what follows. Make of it what you will.

During the course of my life, work and my research whilst traveling through this trans gender process, I've come into contact with many people. As you might expect there are a wealth of various opinions on the trans gender "thing" in the disparate group of people.

My closest friends haven't been all that bothered, on the  whole showing a mild and polite curiosity, since they wish to learn and to avoid offence in conversation..

My family similarly, though theres been a rockier road to understanding and acceptance for some. In one case a family member choosing to sideline me, if not exactly fully ostracise.

Professionally, I've met confusion, acceptance, awkwardness, well intentioned questions, and in some cases overt or covert discriminatory practice, with a few odd looks from customers.

So whats my point?  It's that word. "wealth" a wealth of opinions is just that. Consider the phrase. It's intrinsically stating that wealth and value is to be found in a diversity of opinion. From that diversity, and crucially the questioning and discourse that is borne from it, come our greatest treasures as a species. Scientific thought, art, poetry, mathematics, politics, music, sport, to name but a few.

So often when one speaks with elements of the trans population, be they activist or otherwise, one gets a very polarised view of one person's transition. One persons journey. The opinions inherent are therefore often at odds with others. Indeed if you speak to two people who have both traveled to the same country for instance, you often get two differing opinions of that country. Why so? because opinion is borne of experience and examination that experience.

The experience is going unique to the person.
The examination is going be unique to the person.

So it's fair to say that the average probability... (using that there "maths" I spoke of earlier) of two people having exactly the same opinions is fairly low.

This is why I rarely choose to be offended if someone doesn't initially - or even ever - "get" the trans thing. After all they might like gerkins, and I cant see me EVER changing my mind on that score. I am not a fan of "organised" religion, but similarly I don't seek to change the minds of those who choose that path.

On those rare occasions where I do allow myself to "be offended" The root of the offence can usually be found in the "how" of the disagreement. In most cases offence usually is precluded by rudeness, or simply is derived from irritation that the person concerned has an inability to accept that others may have opinions that differ from theirs, and leave it at that.

The concept of "compromise" and acceptance of beliefs different to your own as equally valid is central to any progress.

Consider human "society", the word is defined as:

"a group of people living together in a more or less ordered community."

ANY society usually has rules. Boundaries, limits on people actions, that if one exceeds one is  deemed to have "crossed a line" These rules are particular to a given society, ever changing, legal, moral, ethical, fiscal, and political in nature. Throughout history successful societies all have one thing in common though. The rules are usually of a type that for the most part are beneficial.

Let's take a real basic thing. Murder. Without a now almost universally accepted truth that it is wrong to simply kill a person and take what they have, then our current societies across the globe simply could not exist. We have of course over the millennia gotten very good as a species at giving ourselves caveats for what we call "legal" killing of others. "war" or "self defence" or "religious/family honour" or any number of "get out clauses" each with its own level of validity depended on ones POV and opinion. Morality being something else that is entirely dependent on ones POV and those two things "experience" and "examination"

As a human society grows our wonderful ability of communication gives rise to the inevitability of discussion & ideas. Ideas, which then evolve into "politics" At it's heart political discussion could very well be thought of as the single biggest thing that makes us "humans" a bit different to other  primates.

So I often welcome disagreement, as if it is approached from the position of "what can we learn" it is the birth place of progress. I for the most part believe the trans population has some inherent blind spots, (who doesn't?) The wider population of cis people and the scientific community are opening new avenues of discourse yet we often busy ourselves with internal squabbles. It hardly surprising then that some people just don't "get" us as a concept, since we have little energy left to give to that discourse.

I can hear you guys going .."yeah ok...but you gotta tie this all up into a point..?"

Well my point is very simple really. Our disagreements, or differences are what lay at the heart of the success of the human species thus far.  Or rather, it is our ability to address those differences in a constructive and measured manner, such that all may benefit, that has allowed us to be the dominant species on this earth.

Recent years saw the rise in "no platforming" of those with objectionable views. Mostly these were of the right wing, nationalist variety. Some were advocates of segregation and exclusionist rhetoric that promises much on the mantra "othering". Some will I'm sure have been of the extreme left, but they tend to be the sort that whisper rather than shout.

On the face of it "no platforming" is an entirely rational response to irrational arguments and viewpoints. But consider that in denying anyone a voice they are imediately repositioned as an underdog and victim. this lends them legitimate currency to gather likeminded to their cause. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as it were. Dr Richard Dawkins pointed out that no platforming Professor Greer due to her views on trans women was counter productive to the university way of  free academic thought. The challenge to a viewpoint being the point in and off itself, not the fact you may strongly disagree with hers.

Indeed its not so many years ago trans and LGB people were institutionally no platformed in just such a way.

Socrates, who many people see as the "original" philosopher, and who was the tutor of Plato, did on occasion consider the issue of morality, good/bad etc. He believed that in doing wrong to a person one does not harm them, beyond the physical, but rather one does moral harm to ones self.

He (Socrates) made no distinction between knowingly harming and unknowingly, but I think he'll forgive me a  disagreement. Knowingly harming a person or being deliberately belligerent is a different thing to causing inadvertent offence. Inherent recognition of this difference is why in many civiliations we have two legal definitions in the courts for the same outcome, e.g. "manslaughter" and "murder" We recognise the difference of "intent" and the inherent levels of condemnation and punishment each case might warrant.

It's also worthy of note that although we are surrounded by information these days, with the average 10yr old being exposed to more during that time than an adult in the 1930's, we are becoming more ignorant. Knowledge does not prove wisdom. And just like currency, the easier knowledge is to possess the less it is valued. It is this more than anything that provides the foothold for "alternative facts".

In the flood of info that is out there. Wisdom is the sieve through which we separate truth from lie. via critical thought, and research. Some do not apply this to their sources. Trusting the perception of authority in the source and therefore its implied "truth".

So, we have no platformed the extreme viewpoint, and failed to educate a significant portion of the masses in how to think and examine what is put in front of them. I wonder what Socrates would make of it?

For the issue of trans rights it is important to be heard of course, but on the whole it is a relatively small issue. However when one takes the unquestioning and arguably un educated on a ride of hyperbole and rhetoric that promises much and delivers little, save division and risk of war, it becomes a huge issue. Much of the present circumstance in the Whitehouse is down to lack of  critical thought, though all levels of establishment, from media to voter.

Perhaps then it is paradoxically heartening then that The Donald, and the Bannons of this world are now visible. For in the light of public scrutiny and reasoned discussion their arguments will fail. We have to trust that the tests of logic, and critical reflection by the educated masses across many borders and boundaries will eventually bring the arguments back into balance. Make no mistake we have an uphill battle. For once Donalds and Bannons have power they will do all they can to ensure they retain it. Moral courage is needed now more than ever.

Should Critical thought, reflection, logic and discourse fail, and the veil of ignorance, exclusion and the inability to accept any viewpoint but their own settle on America, France, the UK and others, then we walk towards a very uncertain time as species. If we take that path and survive its consequences, we may be richer for it perhaps. But at risk of a terrible cost, and only if we finally learn what we seem to have missed this time around.

...."....a world without border or boundaries. Where we go from there is choice I leave to you." 

keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic

Sarah

What say you now of Democracy, Wisdom, Truth and Knowledge?

This is very quick, short blog, in the writing of which i find myself quite frankly at a loss for words to adequately express my utter dismay at the drastic turn of events that the world has  seen in less than 2 weeks.

Trump America "officially puts Iran on notice, for  firing a missile, AFTER the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION needlessly closes  its borders  with Iran and  its  main sphere of  influence countries. 

link to the full 44 second video here...

"On notice?"

What does that mean? Telegraph media net had this to say..

The exact meaning of being “on notice” wasn’t defined, but Trump already is on record as being critical of the various promises, payments and commitments made to Iran by both the U.S. and the United Nations as “being weak and ineffective.”

I had a very quick internet search for "on notice" in the same vein that "representation" has a strong diplomatic message when referring to political language. I am sad to say I can find no reference to the term at this time, so i'm going to conclude that this is something of a "Trumpian" truth and very much a knee jerk PR related statement. However, watch this space. 

Its also worth noting that the USA and IRAN are both still bound by treaties, despite what The Trump sputters in outrage into his evening coffee, thus at this stage it is the USA not IRAN that would be in major breach if they start hostilities. 

All in all we've figuratively taken a few steps closer to midnight... and that after 30'seconds just recently... 

see the link here...

...with any other individual incumbent in the Whitehouse this might be seen as unfortunate. With The trump its down right terrifying. America may yet rue the day....

As ever stay vigilant and keep it  #stubbornlyoptimistic

Sarah 

#officecat takes over the optimistic blog

Hi,

My human is out currently .. she does that occasionally, sometimes getting into that big noisy white thing with "weells", and sometimes she just goes walking...she does look funny with only two legs... tonight she was walking quite fast, which i think she refers to as "going for arub" or something..

So I thought i'd quickly type this whilst she is away, if i get caught i'll just curl up on the office chair and deny all knowledge...

shhh dont tell her? !

Sooooo

life is cool for cats just now.. caught a mouse yesterday.. Its getting easier cos the little buggers are moving around more cos it not so cold. mind you I was out all night and by the time my human let  me back in the house my paws were sooooo cold! oh my poor ears!

I love it when do come in tho'.. she's just got new box of those puuuuurple packets that have food in... I usually convince her to give me at least  two.. humans really cant resist the big eye'd look.. lol

Sometimes, if I'm lucky i get this stuff that comes outta round metal looking things. It was the first thing I got from her when i kinda decided to live here. (well she was really nice and  tbh.. i needed somewhere..) I think she calls it "somt Una"...it nice and after that i let  her  tickle my ears. ... it makes her  feel better ... and to be honest the belly rubs are cool as long as the guys in the garden aint looking through the window....... hey! wait a minute  .. oh really? like thats embarrassing. I mean who takes  picture of  people when their asleep ... I mean .. look....

How embarrassing, how....... uncivilised....ok.. where was i... ? oh yeah...

Like i say my humans cool, but lately I noticed a change though. I have had to make my feelings known a bit more obviously. .. My human sits for hours in front of these two bright square things full of moving pictures, doing what she calls "tipe eeng" so much so she doesn't know i've watched her and learnt how to do it... while pretending to be asleep...sneaky eh?

shhh whats that ? ....oh its ok.. wind.. (too much somtuna)

but where was i?  oh yes on occasion knocking stuff off the desk or clawing the office chair isn't enough... get this..I've had to actually sit in front of the big glowing sqeens and get her  move away and do something else. if it real bad i'll go and sit on the big pad of  buttons... look..

 

So anyways... I wanna tell you guys a story... oh ..! no wait  here she comes back in from that "arub" thing... remember you aint seen me right?

peace out.....

#office cat.