Feeling a little odd...

Hi all you lovely people.

I had planned to add to the mini series on the basic's of philosophy this afternoon. But tbh my mind is wandering off down tracks a little less structured, so I decided to let it do so and just figure things out as I went, leaving the more academic stuff for another time.

I was out and about at a local college today, finishing up on small program designed and operated  jointly by the DWP and the college. Its one of those  "Back to work things"

I dont mean to be brash when I say that academically its of no use to me, since its far below the level at which I'm already qualified. However it was of benefit in other more subtle ways.

Meeting people, and just being out and about is very much under rated. Sure we all love to chill out at home, but after seven dark winter months of partially forced and partially welcomed hibernation It's obvious that this grizzly need to get out more.

Why have I written so much in recent months? Well because the end of  my college courses coincided with the end of my job and the end of the summer so, thankfully I hooked into something that took my interest and it's kept me sane.

Years ago, when i was first seeking jobs and stimulation from the world at large the last thing I wanted was a steady 9-5. I wanted challenge, adventure, interest, excitement and to use a technical term, to "find out about new shit" that I didn't yet know. So after wandering around fora few years I signed up in the uniform of UK plc and went off to play in the big wide world.

What I didn't know of course is that the "big wide world " largely fails to examine that which it doesn't know outside of  the abstract or academic. That, and others acceptance of the questioning of same whilst wearing said uniform depended greatly on the level of badge one held.

Now in my early 40's I would be quite content with a 9-5 sort of role. Although going to the same place each day would be fine i think i'd still struggle doing the same thing. Repetition without challenge or growth is simply dull. and this is where my blogs have been a bit of a cathartic life line.

I may be severely limited by lack of resource, resulting in a  very humdrum existence and largely empty routine, but "the mind" is a great thing. It needs little to produce much. Thought can allow us to escape any physical prison you care to mention. A fact that was brought home to me the other night during a rare occasion where I found something of interest to watch on Einstein's favourite time waster.

"Amazing spaces" hosted by George Clarke were building a caravan. Not just any caravan, but one designed and planned in meticulous detail by a former POW who had, for nearly 4 years, suffered horrendous treatment at the hands of the Japanese.

Sadly the designer, "Reg" died having never seen it built, but his daughter - herself now a pensioner -  had found the notebook containing the planning that had kept her father sane during this period. I also learnt of the underground university. Where the men would pretend to play cards whilst sharing knowledge of all sorts of subjects.

My time in the medical world allowed me to bear witness to the incredible feats of human resilience. Mental willpower. How one meets problems has a direct bearing on the effect those problems have on us.

My life is not even in the same ball bark as someone with a terminal illness, or suffering extreme deprivation like that seen by POW's in the eastern conflicts, but it occurred to me the approach to the challenges brought in each case have been similar.

I sure you've all heard it before:

"It's not the problem thats the problem, it's your attitude to the problem that is the problem. "

Reg's drawings:

 And the finished article:

So:

When life is a bit odd, and you feel a little weird, things aint going like they should and you're left wondering what path to tread,

Consider Reg's attitude to the problem, and ask yourself, "is the answer already in my head?"

'Cos which ever way you cut it, In Reg's case and those like him, that was a bloody great attitude.

Till next time,

Sarah

Something different...

Ola,

Of late I've been aware of a darker tone creeping into this blog. It is probably inevitable, since every person who examines what life, and "being human", actually means might come up with some ....err.... disheartening revelations?

Anyhow, in an attempt to redress the balance, and focus on the positive narrative for a while......

........Actually having sat and thought, staring at the blank page for a good 5 minutes, I've realised that nothing immediately jumps to mind as wholly positive.....or wholly negative. which ...oddly is a kinda positive?. :-)

Things just "happen' these days. I rarely describe much meaning to them, beyond that of the moment. Perhaps I'm becoming an Existentialist?

Except for one thing. In precisely 4 days I get to go and collect my daughter for the week.

That is Good.

The title "Stubbornly Optimistic" was initially meant as something of a tongue in cheek comment on the situations in which I found myself after life imploded in early 2010.

Some 7 yrs on from that point, and despite a world of random occurrence and mishap, or the discriminations both big and small I am still here.

"I" &"I am" are powerful concepts. Whilst the world might not know who "I am" and those that I work, discuss & argue with whilst generally existing alongside them might criticise or question, it's becoming clearer every day just  who "I am"

• I am that kid who always drove teachers mad asking "but Why?
• I am the adult that continues to ask that simple question, constantly and infuriatingly, but now with bigger words and more syllables
• I am something the world defines as a parent and my daughter defines as her "mad dad" in a way that often makes me chuckle. 
• I am teacher, mentor, guide and go getter of food when the daughter runs out of sausages.
• I am terrible at singing but can pull of a mean car dance shuffle
• I am the narrator of a world of funny voices, that make the "wee princess" laugh in the car.
• I am Stubbornly optimistic.

Which is almost everything. At this point in my life, 7 years on from the bubble bursting and dumping me quite uncerimoniously on my arse, wet, worn out, and severely whipped by life, what "I am" still occupies a part of my mind that will never ever give up:

Out of the night that covers me, 

      Black as the pit from pole to pole, 

I thank whatever gods may be 

      For my unconquerable soul. 

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

      I have not winced nor cried aloud. 

Under the bludgeonings of chance 

      My head is bloody, but unbowed. 

Beyond this place of wrath and tears 

      Looms but the Horror of the shade, 

And yet the menace of the years 

      Finds and shall find me unafraid. 

It matters not how strait the gate, 

      How charged with punishments the scroll, 

I am the master of my fate, 

      I am the captain of my soul. 

Now be honest, how many of you read that and heard Morgan Freeman's voice in your head?

So, the positive bit in todays musings is that I suggest we are all captains, we all have agency, and we all have ability to use that which we have to its best effect. The first part in changing any given situation is the mental acceptance of one's own refusal to be bound by the circumstance's in which you find yourself.

I haven't quoted Dr Dyer in a while, but this seems apt.

"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change"

And to finish heres a random cool video i found on Youtube the other day ... I've been following Steph Sanjati for years now, and this made me smile... (trust me).

So. Despite all my recent words to the contrary, the word isn't all dark, doom and dreary. Just bits of it. When dealing with all those bits don't forget to come up for air occasionally and look at the other stuff. The view is pretty amazing.

Till next time,

Sarah

Ethics, Maxims, and activists, Epilogue

Bonjour!

I recently had cause to write a blog article which I entitled, Ethics, Maxims, and Activists.
You can see it here

It pertained to this article in the Daily Lion, which was the source for the piece and all the  related discussion that was to follow. 

I had reason to revisit that blog this evening since one of the main threads contained within it came to something of a conclusion. I'll say no more about that save this:

Quod erat faciendum

&

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

However in the course of revisiting the arguments and my own previous work I made two discoveries:

The original piece that my arguments were based upon is somewhat ambiguous as to the student bodies motives, this then leads to a weakening of the reasoning within my article. Secondly I spotted a byline under the picture in the original article that had been added. 

It reads:

"Editors Note: After evaluation, the school has decided to not change their ceremony"

It would seem that the student body protested against the change to the gowns, but their objections were somewhat different to those which I originally suggested.

Here's a different link to the same story. 

In it David Kilmnick (LGBT network) is quoted as saying:

“Nothing is really being taken away from any student, the students still are able to be their own unique individual and express their talents, except what’s going to happen now is they’re going to be able to do that as one community,” Kilmnick said. “The decision for students to all wear one gown means that there’s unity, there’s safety, there’s inclusivity, and there’s going to be moving forward together in a safe way.”

In light of this I wanted to outline a few points in the context of the arguments pertaining to the ethical nature (or otherwise) of the proposed change and examine whether  the  conclusions that I drew with regard to the ethical nature of the schools action still hold up to scrutiny.

• Firstly is the statement by David Kilmnick above actually true? 
• Did the timing and implementation of the change affect its ethical nature? 
• What are the implication of the outcome of this going forward for LGBT inclusion.

So is the statement above true? 

"Nothing is really being taken away from the students.." 

It seems to me the problem with this initial statement is that it is somewhat obviously untrue and also undermining of the whole argument for change at the same time. What is being taken away from the student body is the historical context of the school colours and the aspirational nature of something that they may have individually looked forward to for some considerable time. Also the "choice" argument applies here. That removal is as real as the removal of choice for the unrepresented LGBT students would've been had no action been taken. The counter argument to that is that the "evil" of discrimination of the LGBT students outweighs the "evil" of the removal of choice for all.  If one accepts this it then confers an ethical premise on the actions of the school as a justification of the "lesser of two evils argument"

But, let us assume the minority LGBT students had approached and asked for a colour change or to be allowed to wear whatever colour they best identify with (A flawed premise for sure when one considers NB but bear with me) This statement can very well be used against the trans inclusively model as for it.

"Wear whatever colour you wish, Nothing is really being taken away from you..."

Thus it inherently misunderstands and misrepresents the argument(s) at hand, which as I stated in my first blog are choice, with perspective and the motive preceding action. 

So, if the initial justification of the action in the above statment is questionable, then what of the rest? Well non of the individual statements that follow are entirely "wrong" per see, but they are inherently weakened by the false premise that precedes them. 

The second point, of timing, is interesting, since other (originally unseen) articles cover the fact that there was only one weeks notice of the change and many families had already bought the original gowns at considerable cost. I suspect many many people would baulk at a last minute change that asks them to swallow a $400 loss, so yes, it's a no brainer this had an effect. This factor is entirely unrelated to the issue of representation and becomes one of financial inconvenience, since its fair to say any last minute change for any reason with similar penalty would illicit a similar response. 

Finally we come the last point, implications for the future. 

The school implemented this badly, in a poorly thought out fashion, and thus the decision to instigate a change on the grounds of representation has been dropped, leaving the status quo in place.

In my initial blog I suggested any perceived benefit brought about by a false premise of inclusivity would be short lived. 

Consider this. 

If inclusivity and representation were at the heart of the issue then consultation s/w/could have begun months in advance, negating the (wholly justifiable) financial argument above. 

We do not know for how long the LGBT school members had been petitioning the school authority to address the issue, but it would seem a last minute change was poorly thought out, and, we might speculate, implemented as a reactive measure - perhaps to a student's long term unheeded requests being marginalised until they "had to be dealt with" 

Whatever the causality, the planned change and its somewhat inevitable failure has now damaged the chances of real inclusivity being addressed in the future at this school, because the argument can be brought forth of "Oh we tried that and it didn't work" It's almost as if the LGBT cause in this instance has snatched defeat from the jaws of potential victory, and thus made the entire battle for true representation that much harder when next fought. 

Both articles lauded the proposed change as a progressive move, and whilst prima facie arguments might support this view, the lack of actual meaningful discourse and organisation to the process gives the lie to that statement. For all the appearance of it being progressive it was anything but.

There are only two conclusions. Either the whole thing was intentionally botched to kill the LGBT representation issue and retain the historical colour references. Or, the school authority is almost criminally incompetent. 

Which option is closest to the truth, I'll leave to your own thoughts.  

"The call"

The call.

Time. Tis endless and formless,

An obvious abundance.

Fill it we shall with thought and deed,

no matter the reason or how slim the need.

We wake, to endeavour to toil and do.

We sleep to recover, then to repeat anew.

An endless processions of bytes and bits

pass by our eyes, under fingertips.

Filling our time with that we don't need

till a call is missed that we failed to heed.

Observed with closed minds, the signs often were

Distracted by working and earning a “share”

“But we didn't know!” rang the voices of many,

“We were too busy just earning next penny!”

“How could we know that doom was at hand?”

“By raising our heads and appraising the land?”

“How could we know that our bubble was false?”

“Or realise soon enough that promise was lost?”

“The rise of destruction was so silent you see”

“So really how aware could you expect us to be?”

American, Russian, British too

Be you Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jew,

raise up your minds and seek that call,

for on hearing it early,

rests the fate of us all.

Time. Tis endless and formless,

A necessary illusion

Filled it we did with nought and collusion

And when it ran out, like it inevitably would

can we then say:  "we did all that we could?"

Sarah Ellis 2017

Firelight and shadow

Sunday, March, 2017. A little village in the North East of England on Planet Earth.

At Twenty-five minutes past Two in the afternoon.

Today I find myself detached, unable to write much of consequence or focus on any of the larger  projects I have at various stages of completion.

Yet the Sun shines, the weather grows warmer and I get the feeling that just round the corner theres a sea change coming. Spring, it would seem is a great herald of hope.

Yet doubt clings at my mind like an oily residue, I've been here before, with all indications looking favourable, yet I ended disappointed. It takes an act of blind faith on occasion to keep going, to "do" when you feel more "don't".

Often times when we find ourselves in these mental places, it is our friendships that assist in navigation of choppy waters. Our sense of place amongst peers that guides our ship back to calmer seas and a firmer heading.

Sadly, I find myself unable to avail myself of that help this day, thus I turn to the blank page of the internet blog, a keyboard and my own thoughts whilst staring out the window at a sunny, warm and  inviting but ultimately indifferent day.

I am intent on the problem at hand, my detachment. It's causality, and thus its resolution. It would seem that the allegorical story of "Plato's cave" is quite apt.

Pato's cave

But what of myself? Free soul? or returning cave dweller? The answer to that depends on the outcome of the internal conversation between hope, faith, fear and doubt.

Plus, I guess also how hard those people aiding my escape pull on the ropes.

I'll let you know.

Sarah

History, morality and judgement.

So, Martin McGuinness, the recently retired Irish Deputy First minister, has passed away.

Some of my readers may know I spent some time in uniform. My time was mostly after the major PIRA years, although I caught the tale end as it were.

My Mother however, was out in Northern Ireland when it wasn't all that nice. Just 19 yrs old and married to a British soldier. I didn't come along until she was 23, the next posting, and out in Cyprus.

The passing of such a controversial figure as McGuinness put me in mind of the passing of Margaret Thatcher, since many might have had cause to celebrate the death of such a man, as they did our former premier, for very different reasons. Indeed some of my longer serving army colleagues certainly did have some opinions.

A moral dilemma if ever there was one.

On the one hand McGuinness was an outlaw, murderer and responsible for immense suffering.
On the other he was one of the first people with the drive and crucially sufficient clout in the PIRA to bring about the peace process we now have.

Who the man was perceived to be, and peoples subsequent opinions of him, are shaped not just by what he did, but when he did it in relation to our own lives. There are people alive today in Ireland who wont remember the troubles, and thus remember "that bloke on the telly" as one politician amongst many. My own daughter is 13, and thankfully has no concept of living under such conditions. Similarly there are also those who for very intense personal reasons cannot forget those troubles and see McGuinness in a very different light.

Consider the first and second world wars, or other engagements that the British armed forces have been involved with over the years, many of which don't actually have the title or status of "war" but nonetheless lead to death and suffering. When we remember these distant and long ago battles, we often remember those who fought, however justly or unjustly, and died on both sides of the given conflict. Spitfire or Messcherschmidt ace, British or German, free french or Vichy,, military or civilian alike.

I can only speak for myself on these occasions, but the overriding emotion is one - perhaps - not of pride, but of regret. Regret for man's continuing capacity for inhumanity to his fellow man, and that we seemingly rarely learn the lessons inherent.

I wonder with, the Irish "Troubles" is the grief, anger and resentment at all that was done, on both side of the issue, still too near? To close to living memory?

Those that have lived through armed conflict or seen its impact first hand, up close, know the cost. Some front line troops much, much much more than others, including I have to say, myself. As I once said to an officer many years ago, I was there to patch up the holes other regiments made, thus my view was less dramatic than others. However the cost is not one borne exclusively by those in any given uniform, rather it is paid by all who fight for what they believe to be right and just, how so ever they may choose to "do" and "believe".

To slightly miss quote Protagoras, one of the greek Sophists who was around way back in circa 450BC

"A man is the measure of all things"

History then will Judge the actions of the man, For I find that oddly, I cannot. But I am reminded of an article I read recently about Joe Biden, where he gave an insight into how he deals with extremely divisive, sometime downright discriminatory policy in US politics.

"Question a man's judgement, never his motives"

McGuinness' motives might not have changed all that much, but his judgement sure did and for that I am, and I'm sure in time many others may eventually be able to be, thankful. 

For all the 3,600. 

S

One does not have to know the path, to walk the path.

Morality. Right and Wrong. Ethics.


That's the next chapter in the book I'm currently reviewing, Nigel Warburtons "The basics of  philosophy"

I say "reviewing", what I really mean is reading with a thoughtful mind as a relative novice and forming ideas on this thing called philosophy.

But what is Philosophy? It occurred to me I hadn't really covered that, so here's a potted version.

The word itself, if you're not aware comes from an amalgamation of the greek for love, "philo" and 'Sophos" which is wisdom. so Philosophy is literally a word meaning

"lover of wisdom" 

The word has two contexts in modern language use. It can mean an idea or code that one holds to:

"My friend's philosophy is never to drink whilst driving, as it risks spillage"

or as its the case with Nigel's and my own use of the word, It can refer to a search for the meaning behind certain viewpoints,  using rational, critical, and (crucially), open mined, debate about any given topic.

So, as one might imagine the practice of discussion and arguing one's point is a distinct skill that a philosopher must embrace, hone and polish, as are the mental disciplines of both critical and uncritical rational thought, analysis of the underpinning concepts of a given statement and the presentation of that analysis in the form of arguments.

What Philosophy is perhaps not, at least in my view, is a means to change the other persons mind in a debate as a winner/loser scenario. Although of course one or other of the participants might choose to change their position on a topic as a result of the debate, but that's an effect, not the goal, therefore not quite the same thing.

If knowledge could be said to be the product of observation, then Wisdom could be said to be born of  the thoughtful examination of that which we observe, namely the knowledge we've acquired.

After all, the internet is an abundant seemingly limitless source of knowledge, but it can hardly be said to be wise in this sense.

So, if philosophy's true purpose isn't to "persuade", or "brow beat" or "Win" what could it's purpose be? In my view it's simply this:

To make one think, and in the thinking, navigate your own "Path of Sophos". 

Or then again......

A metaphor for life

I often come back to this quote, as it's a deceptively powerful metaphor and so bears repeating: 

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. 

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.” 

― Bruce Lee

Ethics, Maxims, and Activists.

Hello!

Today's foray into philosophical thought continues with a few meandering musings on ethics, maxims, otherwise known as motivations, and activists. In this specific case activists in the field of gender diversity, but broadly speaking any area of activist work, be it animal rights, nuclear disarmament, even philosophy, or whatever you might envisage.

Recently there was a case over in a US college where the graduation ceremony came under scrutiny for reasons of Gender Identity. In essence it boiled down to a long standing tradition of girls wearing gold gowns and boys wearing green gowns. This as you might imagine can be somewhat problematic to those who transition, be it from one side of the gender conversation to the other, or somewhere in the middle, whether between the two or neither of each.

So. The school principle asked the student body what it's member's wanted, and it appears that the feedback received was for trans people to wear the colour they identified with. Simples.

But wait a minute, theres only two choices, so what of those who are partially or wholly in the category of both or neither?

So the school now has a choice of routes it might take, given the wishes of the student body, that all gender identities be recognised.

• Introduce a few new colour options for those who associate outside a "two party system" 
• Decree everyone wear the same colour, regardless of gender be it cis, trans,binary or otherwise. 

Here's where it gets a little unclear dependent on ones viewpoint. What is the ethical option for the school here? Do as the student body asks, or make everyone the same by way of elimination of the colour difference that brought up the question in the first place? It could be argued that the first solution addresses and solves the problem, where as on the other hand the second, dependent on its method of application could do so, from some perspectives, or is it merely removing the problem while presenting no actual solution to the issue of recognition? Furthermore, gender identity is for some a private matter, as such is it ethical to broadcast this diversity?

Thus we arrive at the questions of perspective, motive, and choice.

Choice first. If the students choose to wear a robe that celebrates their diversity in a public way then that is their choice and thus carries no ethical implication in so far as  privacy concerns. If they wish to do so but are denied that choice that would be ethically questionable at best or discriminatory at worst.

Perspective. Some of the student body might be ok with the one colour solution or a two colour solution, since it fits their requirements. But hold on, if it unethically disadvantages the choice of other groups then that too would also surely be morally questionable? Indeed it's the whole premise on which this argument of representation is based.

Motive. "Why" is either option chosen? Was it to celebrate diversity, promote inclusion, or simply remove an administration headache that the school didn't really want to deal with? Who's wishes are to be taken into consideration here? Are all views given parity or are some of the stakeholders in this question of representation accorded greater value? If accord must be reached can it be done so as to cause the minimum disruption to the minimum number of people, yet still be ethically sound?

let's look at each scenario and see who the winners and losers are:

The one colour solution, 

First of all the problem is which colour? If one choses the historically male associated green colour then its arguable those who don't identify in that way are unethically disadvantaged even discriminated against. Similarly so if one chooses the historically female associated colour. Those who identify out side the binary are adversely affected in both scenarios. A problem with this approach is therefore that it could be said to erase the gender representation of for all, and removes choice. Perhaps then one introduces an entirely new none gender associated colour scheme? Ok, that works better, but still doesn't allow choice or representation, although it admittedly removes the historical gendered connotations thus the potential for individuals to experience dysphoric complications arising from a one colour solution could be lessened as a result. 

The two colour solution

This "could" work by virtue of allowing students to wear the robe they most closely identified with, but clearly doesn't deal in any way with the group of individuals who are both, neither or fluid. Thus again denying them choice, representation and of course leaving open the question of discrimination. 

The multi colour solution.

This presents an option for male, female and NB identifying people, perhaps with variations on the NB that reflect where people might see themselves to be on the oft quoted gender continuum. It allows choice for all, and crucially deny's none of the groups representation. Each group can celebrate it's individuality without adversely impacting on another group, thus the need for compromise is lessened. The down side of this solution may be that it's the most complicated and costly to implement and requires the highest level of engagement with the school authorities. 

So what did the school authorities actually do? 

They imposed a single colour solution whereby all students are to wear the colour that was previously associated with male identifying students. 

Consider the words "imposed" and "solution"

The result, perhaps unsuprisingly, was that the student body was unhappy, since most of the students including cis, trans and NB ones did not want this course of action. Imposition of an unwanted  solution on an unwilling student body unsurprisingly caused dissent. This was then directed at the trans and NB people, since they were seen as the drivers for the need to change anything in the first place.

Was this a "solution" in the true sense, or did it just paper over the issue so the school authorities could ignore it and move on claiming to be diversity inclusive? 

It's at this point "motive" once more rears its head. 

The 18th century philosopher Emmanuel Kant described the intent behind any action as a "Maxim" "A thought" if you will, that is the reasoning behind any action. So for example the "good samaritan' might have been acting on either of the maxims "help thy neighbour" or "help thy neighbour and you shall be rewarded" Two very different things in terms the ethical nature of the action brought about by the maxim, even though the action itself might be near identical in each case.

So what was the "maxim" in the case of the school authority? 

"Celebrate gender diversity, promoting freedom of gender expression regardless of gender identity" 

This seems doubtful as it would logically lead one to choose a three or more colour system, or the one colour system that is unrelated to the gendered colour markers of history, although as  previously stated that second option deny's choice thus is poorer fit to this mxim

How about:

"Act in the best interests of the students, to minimise sources of discrimination based on gender diversity"

Nope. Since that is arguable on the basis of the chosen system being an imposed and unwanted one that it discriminates against a huge number of students, specifically non male identifying, be they cis or trans alike, NB or otherwise.

Having given this some thought the only maxim I can come up with that adequately covers the imposition of an unwanted male associated single colour scheme is this:

"Make them all wear the same colour, and make it green since the school colour is green"

or the longer version...

"Make them all wear the same colour, so we appear inclusive and gender conforming, Make the colour Green since the schools colours are green, and the problem will go away. If anyone complains then we can shift the blame onto the transgender student body" 

As one can see, either version of this maxim is ethically questionable, since it puts school and public perception above student welfare and true parity of gender diversity. Although the flawed (IMO) "solution" that this maxim gives rise to could actually be argued to benefit a small number of students, namely Male leaning NB, and/or Cis male, it still disadvantages everyone outside that demographic. Also, it's the imposition on an unwilling student body that is the crux here as I said  before. were it not imposed, but requested by the students, then arguably things could be viewed differently, although still not without flaws. But I'll come back to this point. 

So where do the activists come into this? 

This whole (it has to be said relatively minor) issue of clothing raised a discussion amongst the trans community in my local area. Myself and few others discussed the ethical issues surrounding the schools actions. However some in the community viewed the schools single colour policy as a positive. These people were predominantly, though not exclusively those that identified in the NB area of the gender spectrum and in some cases actually worked within gender diversity teaching provision. 

It became apparent when I attempted to put forward the argument I've just explained in this article that it really wasn't up for debate in the minds of some of these individuals. To the point where I myself was accused outright of being something of a transphobic individual with internalised issues. 

Understandably as you might imagine, I had few "issues" with this, and it put me in mind of yet  another quote from a favourite thinker of mine 

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” 

When Socrates said those words he was referring to the basic human trait of slinging insults when the other party has presented an insurmountable argument. I have written about the dangers inherent in taking too stringent a no platforming standpoint, and in accusing me of biased thinking and poor judgment this was a case in point. It was simply an attempt to shut the discussion down, perhaps one might suggest due to perceived seniority of social position and knowledge base, but that's conjecture. 

As you might imagine. It didn't work. Such tactics  rarely do. As ever I asked myself "Why?" "Why is it the case that others wish to shut down the argument?" 

After some reflection, the answer seemed quite obvious, so much so i at first discounted it. The small number of individuals that the ethically questionable actions of the school does "appear" to benefit is indeed the NB identifying students. So one could, as these people did, view this is as "good" outcome. 

There are models of ethics that subscribe to "good" and "bad" regardless of consequences. Specifically religious type models. Other more commonly understood models of ethics are motive based, as in Kant's view which I outline above or consequential, best known as utilitarian arguments. (Bentham and Mill being two proponents). In this case the actions of the school authorise fail both a Motive based approach as demonstrated, and also I'd argue consequential one, be it positive or negative. Thus in essence the only remaining justification for taking a position of describing the outcome as a good action is "because I believe it to be so"  

But I'd suggest this is false/flawed logic. For without fully examining the intent behind the schools actions, - those  "maxims" upon which they were working - acceptance of a perceived benefit is a fools bargain, for it is transient and without real substance. Additionally, since the other members of the student body are wholly disadvantaged in terms of their choice and representation within this scenario, then those who see this as a "good" outcome are championing the very thing that they would actually decry were the situation reversed and NB/other people excluded. Why did they attempt to shut me down? In my own humble opinion, it was so that they didn't have to contend with the ethical holes in their own argument, and ironically, deal with their own internal bias.

So, that set me thinking. (again? yeah things do that) 

Surely one of the central tenants of being an activist and agent of discourse, change, bi partisan progress and societal evolution is to be open mined and to dispationately critically evaluate what is put before you? To look beyond the obvious? 

The requirement to do so and be practiced at it is the reason why student philosophers/lawyers and those who engage in professional discourse often indulge in framing arguments for positions with which they actually disagree. 

One could reasonably say that any given activist has an end goal in mind, thus they are inherently predisposed to perceive actions that move towards and align with that goal as positive. If we accept this premise, then any activist, in any field, must have an agenda, and therefore cannot be deemed impartial. 

This is not a problem as long as they remain aware of this trait & actively compensate for it. After all we all fight for what we believe in. 

BUT. 

It would be nice to think that we humans could all do this activist stuff ethically, logically and insightfully without resorting to knee-jerk reactions, criticisms of opposing viewpoints and down right unjustifiable insults. Particularly when that criticism is based on well founded argument, from inside our own diverse membership.. It is this "knee jerk stuff" that tears the trans movement, be it binary NB gender queer or whatever, apart from the inside. It invites the question: 

How effectively can we discuss issues with our real detractors? 

We do not exist in a vacuum, particularly in America, where this decision was likely taken by a white, cis gender guy, who may or may not have had sympathetic views on "gender transition". Believing that our own "informed" view is the underpinning motivation of every seemingly good outcome is a grave grave error, as is uncritical acceptance of the false progress born of indifference to our diversity. As a result every "success", no matter how well intentioned or hard fought, born from that error will surely end in failure, for any change will be short lived, easily reversed and superficial. 

NB as an identity grouping is the most marginalised of our trans trait human characteristics it deserves to be championed. However that does not confer on those who champion it's rights the legitimacy to do so at the expense of other trans trait identities, binary or otherwise and, as in this case, certain members of the cis gender student body. Indeed the mistake is to believe that Trans/Cis, Binary and NB are mutually exclusive at all.  For even a robe has a middle and two ends, regardless of its length or colour.

Until next time, keep talking, and whatever you do, remember:

"Many of the truths we cling to depends greatly on our point of view"

Ben Kenobi, 

So change it regularly, lest you believe your view is the only one possible, or worthwhile

tata,

Sarah.

Edit, Since writing this  there were further  outcomes. You can read the Epilogue to this wee story Here

The Concept of God.. some thoughts.

Hello! Welcome to another Saturday morn' powered by the human mind and copious never ending cups of tea.

A little while ago I got myself a copy of  Nigel Warburtons book "the basics of philosophy", and did a wee blog saying that I planned on reading each chapter/section and then jotting down my thoughts on the arguments and concepts within.

See here

The first of these that Nigel explores in the book is the question "Does God exist?" OK, for some to even ask this is a big step, however it is a problem thats has kept religious philosophers busy for centuries and is at the very heart of religious teachings.

Some key concepts.

Theists, is a term used to describe those who believe in a classical vision of God as singular being, a person if you will, who is supremely benevolent, omnipresent and all powerful.

Atheists as I'm sure you're all aware do not believe this version of God to be real, they do not believe in this God.

Agnostics reserve judgement, preferring to wait it out a little on the fence.

There's little point in me re-writing Nigel's book here since he has done a much better job of it than I could ever hope to do, so I will limit myself to a brief mention of the arguments pertaining to the existence (or otherwise) of the theists God

The Design argument - such complex beings as humans must have been designed by a supreme  intelligence.

The fine tuning argument - The idea that the chances of us humans existing are so small that it must have been pre ordained by a God ala the design argument.

The first cause argument - Everything has a cause, but what is the first  cause? proponents of this argument suggest the first cause is God. but then what caused God?

The Ontological argument - God exists simply as a result of his definition as an all powerful omnipresent being.

Ok, so in a slight shift of Focus, what struck me in reading the book is that it discusses only one possible version of God, namely the one the theists ascribe to, and the judo-christian view of a  singular entity. There are differing religions in the world, thus many people have come up with differing views of this thing called God. So in that vein I've been exploring the question

"What is God?"

First of all I think its' fair to say that God is or has a concept. This concept varies dependent on the teaching to which you ascribe, but non the less, God, as a "supreme power" and "the creator" is pretty much a  universal view. That this is true does not prove that God does/doesn't exist, merely that our knowledge of God is shaped by the world in which we inhabit, and that we humans have some idea or concept of "God" be that the theists version or other variants. "God" and the "Concept of God" are thus related but different things.

Theists ascribe two other virtues to this supreme being. "All knowing" and "All good" but this is  based on the concept of God being sentient, a person if you will. So I'm going to leave those aside for now. 

The ontological argument for existence of God suggest that God exists simply as a result of being an all powerful, all knowing God. Its a flawed argument in that as Nigel suggests , existence is not a property per see. Rather It is a precondition of having any properties at all. To use the example in the book, being unmarried is an essential property of being a bachelor, but saying bachelors exist is not conferring any further properties on the definition of bachelor. 

However. Lets turn the ontological argument on it's head. We humans exist. So then what are humans? We are a self aware species with knowledge of the past coupled with an ability to envisage the future as we might like it, based on this past experience. ("imagination" and "learning" if you will) As a result we've built things called societies.

This then means the definition of "bachelor" and its inherent properties must exist inside a societal framework and awareness, one must know what a "bachelor" is in the wider context for the term to have any meaning. So, then could the concept of God exist simply because we humans are aware of ourselves? 

Consider the old saying:

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it still make a noise"

and alter it to:

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is aware of it's falling did it still fall? 

In the first saying the answer depends on the definition of "noise". We and many animals perceive noise through the vibration of air on an ear drum. thus if theres no ear drum then the vibration goes unheard. But that which would give rise to noise in the presence of an ear drum still exists. (rather like sending a radio signal out to an absent receiver) 

However in the second we "could" sumise it fell, since the tree can be proved to be on the ground, but as no one saw it fall we cannot prove how it got there. A little like the schrodingers cat conundrum. Since we are self aware and have experience based on what is "likely" to have occurred we come up with a list of scenarios and pick the most appealing. In this case being that it probably did fall to it's current position, for how else could it have gotten there?

Its this last bit, "how else could it have gotten there?" that brings us back to God. The design argument is a reflection of this question. We are so complex, so indescribably wondrous as beings in the frankly ridiculously improbable world that is Earth in the vastness of the universe, that we must have been dreamt up by an all powerful being who kinda looks like us but knows way more. But the design argument has its well documented flaws, and a long time influence on my scientific thinking Dr Richard Dawkins has covered this at length so for me it doesn't quite cut it. 

In indulging this train of thought as I read the book I found myself drawn to what is known as "non realism". An idea that God exists simply as an aspirational concept of humanities' better and more praise worthy traits, which I found to be in essence a reversal of the cause and effect of the design argument. We do not exist because God made us. Rather God "exists" or least the concept does, in some sense because we became aware of the concept of God. 

However. 

What caused this awareness? The first cause argument states that everything is a result of something else. You kick a football, it moves, you cut your hair, it gets shorter, You touch water, you get wet, Causality is a thing that I've been involved with from a scientific viewpoint over many years, first with cellular physiology, then latterly health care diagnostics, and now management theory. Why something occurred and what pre condition(s) caused its coming about is a question that keeps many minds busy. As for the cause of our self awareness? The truth is, other than suposed evolutionary pressures, and speculation, we simply don't know. 

If you'll indulge me in a purely speculative moment, mythology often has its roots in long forgotten experiences. It's not wholly outside the bounds of credibility to suggest that enduring myths of other worldly beings might have something to do with this thousands of years ago. We humans tells stories of all sorts of weird and wonderful things, from superman, to mutant super heroes, giant extra terrestrial robots and stuff like lord of the rings or the avengers. Those are of course modern examples but their lineage is way back round camp fires, eons before 4k telly's were "a thing' and "a thing" was considered an expression. An admittedly "far fetched" thought is that our vision of God as a person may stem from long lost knowledge of some vastly powerful being on earth of unknown origin that has then become legend, myth and eventually ..religion. But, moving away from self indulgent conjecture, its fair to say enduring stories whatever their inception, may well have played a part in how humans evolved the theist concept of God, or even multiple gods as the greeks did.

My point is that somewhere back in our lost evolutionary past whilst sitting round that camp fire re-telling stores of monsters battled or daring feats of bravery we asked a simple yet profound question, 

"Where did we come from?"

It is worth mentioning here that "Evolutionary" might predispose some to think I do not believe in God since the world was created in 7 days. I've always been in the camp of the genesis story being metaphorical, and the evolutionary process being akin to the paint brush not the painter. Way back in 5th year during my school RE  (year 11 for younger readers) I coined the thought that evolution is the "how" and God, whatever that might be is perhaps the  "why" 

Another point that the first cause argument brought into focus for me is the question of God's  relationship with Time. If God is to be considered the first cause then he was arround before the  beginning of what we commonly call time. Usually thought of as the big bang. Could this mean God is timeless, ever present? 

It's here that I began to form the basis of an opinion, or position on the issue of God, since a few threads seemed to be coalescing in my mind. 

• Humans are self aware. We remember, and question. 
• God was was supposedly there at the beginning (big bang)
• Awareness of something does not prove or disprove its existence. 
• Ignorance or unknowingness does not prove/disprove existence.

So. millennia ago its possible that somehow we humans became aware of Time, mortality, and our species' existence in a way, and on a level that we do not yet see in other primates. (Although by all accounts evolution is still occurring and new things being discovered) Around this point we as a species also became aware of the questions "why are we here?" and "how did we get we here?"

Our respective cultures and story telling ability thus led to accounts, some very likely born of factual events, that have been passed down through the centuries. These stores are thus interpreted and examined, re written and disseminated, ultimately becoming what we know today as "religions" 

Could "Time" perhaps then be said to start for the human race at this point of awareness, rather than the "big bang" and thus so begins our evolutionary tale of the knowledge of the concept of self, species, and thus of God. (The beginnings of known real  time, documented human history?) 

But hang on, what about those trees in the forest? Stephen Hawking has done brilliant job of discussing time as we know it here...

Stephen hawking the beginning of Time

In the article Professor Hawking describes the period before the big bang as having no observational consequence, thus from the POV of physics this can be left out of the equation. The big bang is the beginning (for us) of observable time, observable change. But we know God isn't supposed to be constrained by mere things like physics, other wise that would disprove the all powerful angle and much like that tree in the forest, observation does not prove or disprove existence, Thus one can theorise that a measure of something akin to time, perhaps infinite, existed in a unobserved way before the big bang. 

It is this that has lead me to an oddly simple thought. Could the concept of God be the result of human knowledge of Time itself? Moreover Could God actually Be Time? After all "old father time" is a well known expression?  It dates back to greek mythology "times". 

I tried to test this idea by breaking it. 

It's not unreasonable to theorise that the big bang we humans know as the start of our observable time could well have been the end of something else, unknown and now unknowable, thus the law of unending causality would be satisfied. The mechanism for the continuation of "another time" back before the big bang is simply that there are unobserved trees falling in a unknown forest, due to unknown forces and the passage of "their" time. 

But what of the things I've mentioned at the beginning?, of God being "all knowing" and "all good"?  Well God as Time would certainly "see all" since for anything to exist in our physical world post big  bang it must have, or have had, a greater than Zero time integer. And in "another time" before the big bang one can theorise that though different, and unknowable, this may have been true, since "our time" can exist independently of any observed or actual change and in the absence of the awareness of time  (consider a box of space vacuum, the fact it has "nothing" in it does not suddenly halt time. or perhaps an empty street at night, time still passes.) It's therefore not unreasonable to carry this premise backwards to before the big bang. 

However God as Time cannot be "all good" as it fails the test of the "problems of evil". Since some evil things happen with the passage of time. Probably due to "free will" in the case of humans and "random causality" in the case of natural disaster, time itself could be said to be complicit. 

But this does not in and of itself break the theory, since the premise of God as Good is tenant of the theists definition of God and not that of God as Time. 

If one accepts this definition of God as Time, it has similar ramifications to the non realism argument, indeed it could be said to be a version of it:

• Religion becomes merely a consequence of human self awareness, and societal pressure. 
• Religious morality can no longer be consider divine wisdom since the words of the various religious texts are reduced to merely those of men observing the world as they see it, regardless of how profound and wise they may be. 
• Good and Evil become action based and not based upon the promise of a physical Heaven or  hell. 
• God as Time makes no comment on the possibility of life after death. 

The third of these, the idea of a heaven or hell and resurrection/damnation has never sat well with me. Not because I have issue with the concepts, but rather the religious mechanism by which one enters either place. Moral actions, or "good" actions should be based on the intent to do good, rather than the intent to profit by the doing of good. Thus the idea of accessing heaven though a life of devotion is in my view too close to the gambler argument of Pascals wager. (the idea that its better to hedge your bets and believe in the theists God rather than be proved wrong and spend an eternity in hell.) 

Another place where "God as Time" and the traditional theist view diverge is this idea of "God" being the supreme moral authority. Nigel goes into the arguments surrounding God and morality much deeper than I have here, since I've barely touched them, so if you want to look at those grab a copy of his book, its well worth taking "the time" to read. (yeah its a bad pun, but I couldn't resist.) Handily though the next chapter in Nigel's book is all about Right and Wrong. So perhaps after looking at and writing about it i'll revisit this "loose thread" regarding God in a future article.

In conclusion, and I admit somewhat annoyingly, what really puzzles me is the premise I came up with all those years back in school. God as the "why" and evolution as the "how." God as Time starts to break a little here since Time, like evolution could be argued to be a mechanism for change.

Occasionally it's a driver but sometimes just a facilitator. Thus one can suggest that Time is merely another tool of the theist's concept of God and that God exists in an entirely different way. The only way to answer this is to either accept there is no why, thus Time is just Time therefore God doesn't exist, or that God is something else, separate from time, and that brings us right back to square one...

What is God?

And to answer that we need to figure out if God actually exists.....

;-) 

Have a great weekend, a lovely "Time", and may the  "God(s)" smile upon your endeavours. 

till next time 

Sarah 

Dungeons, dragon, Witches and warlocks. D&D and the LGBT gamer.

Hi!

Recently I was invited to write a short piece for "Queerness" as it was their "Gaming Month". I was only too happy to oblige and you can see the original article article in the queerness here...

Of course those that know me are undoubtably aware I love to wax lyrical, occasionally getting  ..... er..a "little" long winded(?)

So the queerness article was somewhat abridged..and of course some the pictures I'd suggested weren't able to be used due to copywriter questions, thus I give you the long form unabridged stream of consciousness that is my thoughts on - at least one form of - LGBTQ+ inclusive gaming .... Enjoy!

I'm a 40 something Trans-Woman, who through various periods of life has been a video console, and PC gamer, with more recently a foray into table top gaming from the likes of fantasy flight and wizards of the coast.

Gaming is a great way to escape into whatever world we choose, it can be an incredibly immersive and refreshing way to plug into a story and "unplug" from reality for a while,particularly with the recent advent of VR systems.

However, occasionally the truth of our lived reality can bleed into games for better or worse. Many computer based games are "heavy" on the heterosexual male vibe for instance, with female characters often being very much a backstory element or drawn to resemble a cross between Jessica rabbit and Zena warrior princess.

This also occasionally bleeds over into real world attutudes, I'm sure many many female gamers can attest to accusations of "you only like it cos your boyfriend/brother does", or not being a "real" gamer. (whatever they are) And of course story line driven games often feature creative content that has romantic leads pretty much sticking to a heterosexual narrative.

So, for women, and for any LGBT gamer this can break the immersion from time to time, but things are beginning to change a little.

Perhaps driven partly by social change and partly by gamers feedback themselves, the scene initially began to change from 2000's with Buffy the vampire slayer characters like Willow, who was bisexual/lesbian, all the way up to current day where we have  large film company productions giving a nod via the star trek movie reboots with Captain Sulu and his husband, plus Overwatch from blizzard has been confirmed to have a number of heroes that are LBGT characters, notably "Tracer"

So film, pc and console wise, things are changing, but what of the table top scene? Overall there is a huge range of cooperative and/or strategy games now on the market, from "time stories" to "Xcom" to "dead of winter" and one of many star wars universe games,  "X wing" which has so many female pilots and main characters it's insanely good on the star wars "lore" angle. I've enjoyed playing them all. However over the last 18months I've gotten quite immersed in one particular  table top "computer free" game that many readers may know of.

"Dungeons and Dragons" is a pen, paper & dice based game thats been around since the mid seventies. A group of players choose races and class abilities for their characters who live in a magical world of witches, warlocks, goblins and elves, dwarves and dragonborn, amongst others. Like Bilbo Baggins in the "The hobbit" & "The Lord of the rings", they set off on magical mysterious adventures. These follow either a prewritten campaign book or a "home-brewed" adventure plot. Crucially this game is played as group with up to 5/6 others, with one player as the game master.  (known as GM or DM) The DM is effectively the judge/creator of the world and runs the game from behind a screen, serving up all sorts of stuff for the other players to deal with.

The rulesets have undergone various revisions over the years but the most recent is fifth edition, commonly abbreviated to 5e, all the rules for which are set out in the players handbook, published by wizards of the coast who license the game. In essence the players all role dice to determine success or failure of any actions their characters take and thus the story unfolds as a result.

The great thing about this game from an LGBT perspective is that within the races & classes you can play pretty much any thing you wish. Its a freeform gaming experience, very character driven and very much balanced between narrative and dice roll controlled combat encounters where the team battles other monsters and challenges thought up by the DM. (there are many other online resources and books for this) So you want be a Female eleven princess with a grudge? check! Fancy playing a great big Goliath warrior with a soft spot for Gnomes? check! How about a non binary all powerful dragon based creature? check! Or a singing bard with awfully good powers of persuasion and light fingers? check!

The game progresses on a systems of levels. New characters start at level one and as they gain in experience and strength in the world they level up, eventually hitting level 20 where you can battle such things as gods and titans and still come out on top...

Take me for instance, I have an elven princess, who is part Rogue class and part Monk. This makes her basically like Neo from the matrix (but with a much better hair style), and her back story is one of rebellion against her position in society. It's this back story that is so freeing in D&D, as you can do anything you like with it. However keep in mind that the more loose the threads of the backstory are, the easier you make it for the DM to have more leeway in building your character into a world, integrating things that pop up randomly which makes it more fun.

This all makes for some wonderfully hilarious moments as you all sit around the table telling this communal story, that non of you really have total control over. For example, a player might decide to open a door, for which they have to roll a skill check. That means rolling a 20 sided dice. The higher the number the more successful they are. Obviously a really strong character (meaning one that has a high number on their character sheet that they add to any "strength" roll) can still roll a 1 on the dice, meaning the DM as narrator then has to improvise on the spot and come up with a "spectacular" and often funny fail, for example, "as you go to push the door you trip over the foot of your axe and fall forward, your chin hitting the door with dull thud, and it slowly creaks open as you lay on the floor with a headache..." The rest of the characters then react to this and the story moves on....

If you'd like to see how the game is played I heartily recommend taking a look at some of the "GM tips" you tube series by long time gamer Matt Mercer. Matt, who has been DM'ing games for close to 20 yrs now, set up a game along with a few friends just for fun. They all happen to be voice over actors too, and for the last 18 months the game has been streamed online via twitch tv, with back episodes on youtube, the show is called "Critical role", and follows the fortunes of Vex, Vax, Percy, Grogg, Scanlan, Keylith and Tibs, a band of adventurers collectively called Vox Machina as they each complete their own story arcs within the wider world narrative. There is also the web series "Force grey" following a different band of adventurers but also DM'd by Matt, which is a slightly shorter format to watch and can give you the over all idea if you're new to the game.

On the subject of improvised funny character moments, here's one of the best from Matt that just occurred randomly in the game..."Vicktor the powder merchant" The party have gone unexpectedly to purchase black powder (gun powder) from a local merchant for Percy, ....meaning Matt had to create the character on the spot....enjoy!

Apart from all the tom foolery of the game itself the very nature of D&D's set up, i.e. being a collaborative role play based on diverse skill sets and traits is refreshing. The very ethos of the game is "Diversity, Difference and shared commonality of purpose". It's great to get family and kids into as it teaches them the value of team working to solve problems in a way school lessons perhaps never could, and also fosters an appreciation of the talents of others in their group. By having different races in a fantasy world the players are obliged to put themselves into the shoes of others, and view things from a different perspective. Often people who played D&D as kids cite this as formative in their relations with real world questions of race, diversity and difference. Matt in his games has created NPC (non player characters, like the loveable Victor) that are gay,  bisexual, and None binary. These characters just inhabit the world as part of it. Sometimes the LGBT issue comes up in narrative, sometimes it doesn't. It's just there. The world at large certainly could do with a heavy dose of that type of awareness these days.

To highlight this further, since critical role began as a show, the community that has grown up around the game (known affectionately as "critters") is massive. Many of the art works have been done by fans, and guess what? many are LGBT and/or have other challenges in life. Heres a small selection of the work that has been done..

 

So to sum up, D&D for me really celebrates diversity, has a low barber of entry and is incredibly flexible in what you wish to make it. It's also hugely fun. So grab a few mates, read the books, get the snacks in and in the words of old bilbo himself,

"...cant stop now! I'm going on an adventure!"



See you on the road!

Sarah