This piece was originally written on behalf of the Queerness, to be posted this month. However, since some conversations with a few local trans people and emerging divergent views, it would appear to be the case that this publication route is no longer open to me via the individual who requested I write the peice.
I have written previously on the temptation of ardent proponents on one view or another to withdraw from debate on the basis of "indignation" and "principles" Yet as ever in doing so we damage the process of debate and discussion itself.
So here's a thought:
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
Edit. 4/4/2017.
Since writing the above, and posting this yesterday the individual concerned suggested that I have misrepresented the views of "the queerness" Fair comment. After all there is a team behind that particular publication. So perhaps on balance that was overstating the case here. It's not "the queerness" as a publication that is at fault. Merely one of its curators for putting personal opinion before open debate. A fact made abundantly clear by the fact that their Facebook page and twitter accounts were blocked to me long before this could be discussed via more appropriate means.
All this stemmed from a Facebook discussion of a recent India Willougby piece ... Sadly the thread has now been deleted .
By all means read the queerness, its usually rather informative and thought provoking. I mentioned the entire publication in an effort to keep this on an impersonal basis. Maybe that was somewhat naive, so, with no other recourse I must single out the individual responsible for condemnation. Gatekeeping of articles on the grounds of personal opinion and miss representation of the content therein is poor form. It was suggested that the article below, and by extension me, are things the individual had no time for, since it was merely rehashing of the old women are men debate. Read it. I'll let you all decide.
So, here's the "dangerous" article make of it what you will and by all means, let me know.
__________________________________
Brexit, leavers, remainers, Britain, The EU, Gender, man, woman, sex, black, white, hispanic, Republican, Democrat, rich or poor.
I'm sure on reading the above various people will have rolled their eyes at least once and thought:
"Oh lord, not again!"
Humanity loves it's categories. Science thrives on them, learning, discovering and clarifiying collective wisdom on the basis of experiments, proofs and the categorising of it's results. Sadly there are also those who would use categories as a means for social and economic division.
Thinking and explaining outcomes by use of a system of categories is a useful tool, just think of the elements and periodic table for example, or behavioural studies of chimpanzee's. Even consumer product marketing surveys. However categorical thinking is also occasionally problematic. One should bear in mind that the existence or evidence of a phenomenon isn't dependent upon the category into which it is placed. Rather the category exists as result of the observation and existence of what has been observed and thus is a measure of our collective understanding it at any given time.
Medicines and the categorising of drugs is a perfect example, by being a reflection on their observed effects on the body, and the changes and alterations to the categories over time reflecting how our knowledge may change.
When it comes to legality and politics, it would seem that categories take on an importance far outweighing their actual purpose. With inclusion into one or other category inferring a legitimacy and implied view of the world that may or may not be the case. As an example just look at the Republican verses Democrat categorisation in the US currently. Many people assume all republicans have a universal view of things like race, religion, and certain civil freedoms, yet this is not always so. With regard to legal protection, being defined as "included" in one or more categories often confers certain rights and/or protections on people. The important point here is this:
Humans are always individuals. That fact cannot be altered as a result of changes to categories, their borders or definitions, since those borders are arbitrary thus we remain unchanged by them.
However the same cannot be said of the effects on humans. Imposed inclusion or exclusion to and from a category, and the resultant change in other's perceptions of us is very real. While we are not directly changed, the interaction with the world can - and often does change - dramatically. (Just look at a typical work promotion or lottery winner scenario, or lets say a trans person coming out and losing their well paid job)
This months topic at queerness is "Gender". One of these categories, & one that has seen much debate in recent months. Various positions and definitions exist, both of what "gender is" and what we should do about it. If you like, this is the debate on how the human race should subcategorise itself, and who should be allowed to occupy which bits of the subcategories be they man, woman, NB, agender etc.
There are many in the trans population who (for very justifiable reasons) at the mention of these arguments will do what I predicted above. A tired weary roll of the eyes and the thought "not again". Some do not wish to discuss the matter, fed up of hearing over and over the counter arguments to their existence and validity.
It's hard to argue incessantly in the face of constant recrimination and dissent. It's hard, after rolling ones eyes and mentally ticking the list of things we've heard time and time again, to pick up a pen or a keyboard or a leaflet or a protest sign and rebut these arguments again and again and again. And. Again.
However I would argue that we must.
We must continue to engage the likes of Murray, Greer, or other elements of the not so complimentary press, and to continuously, ceaselessly state the case of a more appropriate categorical system that takes into account new levels of knowledge and understanding since the original "gender" term and its subdivided boxes were first labeled. No matter how boring, dull and repetitive or reductive this seems there must always be a ready answer to those who would use categorical thinking, or even its abolition, as basis for an exclusionary policy.
So what does that mean for those who stand outside these old original boxes, or have the legitimacy of their being in them questioned?
It mean's giving consideration to definitional and causality arguments. It means citing historically and culturally different views of gender, as examples of humanities variety and wisdom. It means acknowledging and debating the legal disparity between current legislation for "Sex"and "Gender" (Legal definitions that were obviously built on the old category system, thus may require revision)
It means that rather than discounting every single point that our opponents foist upon us whilst yelling "bigot" and "transphobe", because we assume everyone knows them to be false, poorly constructed arguments, we must subject each to critical examination and structured philosophical, scientific rebuttal, to once again prove our point. We simply cannot afford to close down the discussion by means of an outstretched palm and "no we aint going there" responses. Not any more.
It's dull, it's repetitive and in some cases can lead those who engage opponents in the gender debate to being somewhat ostracised by other, more entrenched sections of their own "category" Since by giving ground they lay themselves open to accusations of exclusionary views themselves. (guilt by association if you will)
But consider the alternative.
To disengage from the unpalatable discourse, and to assume the debate is over because "everyone knows better now" is to invite those opposing views which we give so little credence to have an unchallenged voice with free reign to an audience that still doesn't know.
The Greer's and Murray of this world are not speaking to us, They are aiming at an entirely different audience. The ones who don't know. If we don't reply in kind, those words go unchallenged. The social standing of our critics confers implied legitimacy on their words allowing the myths and exclusionary rhetoric being pedalled as informed opinion to gain an authoritative credence it frankly doesn't deserve.
Theres a good reason Modern day philosophers still study and apply the 3000 yr old writings of Socrates, Plato, (Circa 399 BC) and Epicurus (307BC). Various models of ethics and 19th century examples of thinkers such as Decarte, Kant, Rousseau and a host of others. How humans think about, and therefore categorise, themselves has been the subject of debate for at least that long.
It would seem then, that assuming "the debate(s) regarding gender(s) are over" is perhaps a tad arrogant?
With respect to gender itself. Whilst questions of causality and scientific discovery are important, they themselves will not tell us what to do. Scientific arguments may clarify where we place our category boundaries as descriptors, assisting a legal argument. However the ethical debate still continues, since the scientific & legal arguments cannot solve the ethical ones. All are equally important however, if one views knowledge, learning and parity for all as being the ultimate goal, rather than "being proven right"
That our species still have problems with this concept is a sad reflection on the Human Condition. Being born black, white, gay, straight, trans, cis, rich, poor, or whatever political persuasion you ultimately gravitate towards. These are not problems. It's our collective attitude towards the meaning and validity of each catagory that are problems.
Dont believe me? Just look at America. After 8 years of a progressive president who happened to be Black, people had stopped believing that old outdated rhetoric had any power. They stopped engaging. Result? A white supremacist in the oval office. Brexit? Need I say more?
So, whatever the category, whatever the conversation, we must always engage the debate, because ones thing is for sure. Your opponents definitely will.
Sarah.
No comments:
Post a Comment