Created as a spin off of the older Spoken Sprocket Cycling blogs that I've written, Stubbornly Optimistic is all about life, philosophy and positivity in the face of our everyday challenges. The intent is to kindle thought, discussion and exploration of ideas through my own musings and those of yourselves, the readers. Have any feedback? hit the twitter link and let me know!
So, The last 7 days has seen the "unthinkable". Genuine, openly National Socialist and white supremacist marches on the streets of America.
It has left a young woman dead. Heather Heyer. One of 20 people hit by a person who thought it wise to drive a car into a group of protestors because he felt his rights were threatened. Heather was 32, and exercising her own right to protest. That decision cost her far too much.
Over the last 206 days since Donald Trump took office there has a been a insidious creep in the kind of separatist, "blame all our ills on others" talk that the world has seen on a number of occasions throughout human history.
Whether that be a north Korean dictator, LGBT people, blacks, hispanics "immigrants, or whoever else comes to the mind of 45 at the time, it seems there is always someone to point the finger at.
In recent years much of the worlds human right abuses have been in what we like to call the developing world, or places that have vastly different moral codes to our own western "enlightened view" Yet here we are in 2017, 99 years on from the end of the "great war" & we seem determined to walk a path towards yet more conflict. One that seemingly will originate not in a small unknown country but in the very heart of our own western society.
Those of you who know your history will know it was an assassination, that of the arch duke Franz Ferdinand, that sparked the conflict a century ago. Yet what kept it going over four bloody, grief stricken years were the allegiances and divisions, nationalism and some measure of imperialist doctrine. It is these sentiments that we now see coming to the fore.
Led by a mouthpiece who has an indefinable hold over a large number of people, with an agenda that is only partially exposed to the harsh light of publicity, the 45th president of the USA is systematically undoing that which - publicly at least - put him there in the first place.
Democracy, freedom and the simple premise that all humans are equal.
Truthfully at his inaugural speech I had grave concerns over the language used. I wrote about it back then in January . Twice.
Jumping forward in history - if you'll forgive the contradiction in terms - to a situation that arose from the ashes of the great war, I am reminded of a speech by the then UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. 1938 "peace in our time...."
The single biggest danger that Trump now represents is not "who he is" but "where" By which I mean he is placed within a tolerant and forgiving "civilised" society that will seek to make reparation and to "work with" rather than "oppose"
Sadly 1938 showed us that this approach has some flaws. The rise in openly separatist and nazi rhetoric is testament to the influence that trump has. Perhaps in time we may see this as a knee jerk reaction to the 44th present and the fact that along with a myriad other qualification and qualities the man happened to have darker skin than his predecessors. Whatever the driving force, this is not an over night problem.
45 is the now visible symptom of a festering sore that has failed to heal in American society. This situation is the manifestation of years of covert under ground malice. Sleeping, waiting for that chance to rise again, when the world just starts to get comfy and thus averts its gaze long enough to allow the infection to spread.
Trump is perhaps a sacrificial lamb. The man himself is too great a buffoon to have any real power willingly vested in him by those who do have an agenda. He has little real skill, save one. He can control or at least incite the mob, as a self publicist and narcissistic showman, and THAT is his greatest asset. and should be our greatest fear.
For once that mob starts to move, and I believe we are seeing the slow gatherings of speed, events will spiral. 45 has been invested with an authority he deserves less than he understands. So when events begin to spin out of his control as they inevitable will, those who could manage the situation will be left powerless by virtue of the office of the President of the USA being held by someone with none of the required skills. Some might even say that 45 lacks will to calm the coming storm, since it is he who brought it forth.
It could be said that the democratically elected ruler of Germany in 1932/3 was the ruin of both his country and it's reputation for generations thereafter.
Donald Trump may yet prove to have a similar destiny and place in history. One can hope not of course, but if it is to be so, then the question is: how much of the rest of the world will the US take down during its own implosion?
Anglo german relation were important in 1938. In 2017, are the US/UK relations any less so? The most powerful nation on our planet is - currently at least - the greatest threat to humanity.
If you're not worried by that, then I suggest you take a closer look.
So it has been a while since I sat at my desk with an intention to write my thoughts. So much is going on, personally, professionally, politically that I've felt just little overwhelmed.
Political.
Over the pond in America the trans gender issues continue to be a cause for concern. Seemingly my predictions of a theocratic underlaying doctrine are bearing fruit. The military personnel angle is one that carries some weight with me, since I am an ex military individual, albeit in the UK armed forces - not US.
The manner of my leaving the forces was painful, and left lasting scars born of the of betrayal, resulting in an inability to trust that still plagues me to this day.
Back in 2010 when the ink was barely dry on the new drafting of the equalities act I went from a "successful" individual to a "broken" one in the eyes of the army very very quickly. Their treatment of me as a result was shoddy to say the least, but that story is one I will leave for another time.
Since then, almost a decade has passed. It's been decade of lessons, some harder and more painful than others. It's been a necessary "transition" (see what I did there?) from where I was to where I needed to be.
One can never go back of course, but as T.S Elliot said, "the result of exploration is to arrive where we began and know it for the first time". Coming back home and reconnecting with myself, re discovering that person I was before all the labels, and titles, was a necessary thing, and as a certain Vulcan once said, "what is necessary is never unwise".
I'll write more about the situation in America, and it's insidious knock on effects on the political scene in the UK, with something of a discussion piece in a few days.
So much of the political, what of the other two P's in my list?
Professionally there been alot of activity which is the main reason I haven't written in here. SnS has a new workshop that's slowly taking shape. It's planned to re launch a smaller revamped bespoke bike service & wheel building consultancy in the fall.
In a few weeks I start my first year of teacher training. In a few months I can apply to return to practice as a nurse. So perhaps some form of closure is approaching that may allow me to heal the wounds of my past and move on to whatever is to come.
My Youtube channels have been similarly neglected, but there are some exciting developments in the wind regarding a couple of podcast ideas.
The workshop build video is still a work in progress and once it's done I'll post a link in here..so you can actually see what I've been up to.
Allied with the bikes I of course need to bring in some coin whilst doing both teacher training and nursing. That's where the assessor side drop in. So assessing vocational work and fixing bikes whilst doing my two profesional courses and keeping up with CMI stuff should keep me pretty occupied for the coming months.
"The plan" is shaping up nicely. Lets see if it survives first contact with reality.
And we come to the final P. The personal stuff.
When I write these articles or blogs, it's part update for those who follow me, and part cathartic process for my head. Since I aint Dumbledore and don't have a pensieve, I pour my thoughts onto the page and upload it to the web, to hang there just like a mental map of a moment in life.
The head has been quite full of late. Life threw me a curve ball I wasn't expecting and was not really prepared for. Life does that sometimes, when quite out the blue "your whole wide world in a moment, comes undone"
Whilst I didn't drop the ball per see, I certainly got winded making the catch. Can I run all the way up the field for a touch down? Who knows?
I wasn't ready. I wasn't even on the field. But if one waits until one feels ready, then the opportune moment is often past, and "could have" becomes "should have"
At the point where life surprises you, one has to decide which of two outcomes one wishes to live with. Either the consequences of the action we take, or the regret for the fact we didn't take it, through fear of it being the wrong choice.
So now the consequences are unfolding. So I guess I'll just have to learn to "trust" that things will work out.
I didn't write much on here during our recent election campaign since I was busy writing in other places, and filming stuff.
So we have a hung parliament. Great.
Although I did mention my thoughts during the campaign regarding Mrs Mays actions, or rather lack of them. It's odd that she seeemingly did much to wilfully derail her own campaign.
Now given the result.. and her knee jerk readiness to align herself with the DUP, who at best are a morally questionable party and at worst merely government sponsored paramilitary forces, is further cause for alarm.
I dislike conspiracy theories as much as the next person .. twisting facts into theories and being different for nothing more than notoriety. Truth dies just as much there as in fascist propaganda.
And yet...
The parallels between the actions of Trump and May are staggering. Her speech that barely acknowledged her own role in the situation is unbelievable. Neither of these two individuals seem capable of taking responsibility for their actions and error. Narcissistic much?
Two close advisors have been given the boot ... but isn't that just cutting off the wagging tale of the dragon instead of killing it properly? After all there is a whiff of scape coating here.
So. Do we have a situation where britain is now seeing its own "Trump" That is an egotistically inclined person blind to their own faults who merely wishes to remain in power, driven by some extreme version of "christian" Ideology.
Across the US 45 just "celebrated" LGBT month by addressing a conference of religious evangelical opposed to LGBT rights. In fact from a ideological POV they are opposed to LBGT existence.
Theresa may aligning herself with the DUP is no less worrisome. Our one hope comes from the fact UK politics is (thankfully) set up vastly different to across the pond. There are those in her own party who oppose this move. Liberal conservatives who will do what is ethical, not politically expedient.
It's easier to remove a PM than a President.
Dragging up the past.
Some parts of the media berated Jeremy Corbyn for his past role in working "with" the IRA. Some others with whom I speak remember that time and served in it. Draw sharp ethical distinctions between the loyalist and Republican armed efforts.
But if one looks back dispassionately, consider that the ONLY difference between these organsiations was that one parties aims coincided with the government of the day.
Ergo "this action is right and therefore good because those in control say it is so"
Heard that before... "cough" Atheist doctrine "cough"
Whydid JC work with these people? Because fundamentally bearing arms to solve disputes is counter productive. Yes one can argue it's morally this or morally that, but in plain logical terms it just doesn't work long term.
These major political shifts of the power base to the right wing ideology and alliances with people & organisations who's viewpoints are examples of a polarised world vision are worrying. Chiefly because many will simply brush them off as "legal and lawful and therefore right" Or in the same vein a necessary evil.
BUT. When power, or it's retention is obtained "at any cost" without recourse to ethics and the reasons for that power to exist in the first instance, we begin to walk a very very dangerous path.
For that reason, although I am pleased to see the conservative have lost out right political power, I am deeply troubled by their reactions to that loss. Mrs Mays reason to sit down with the DUP are far far removed from those of years ago when JC met with members of Sinn Fein and the IRA. About as far from them as its possible to get.
I like many will be watching with bated breath for what happens next, and should there be another election called in short order, another call to action of the UK population, we need to be awake as to what our choices could mean at that time.
Dragging up old political issues, and "who sat down with whom at which table and when", without considering "why" is a sure fire way of repeating the same errors of our past and needing many more tables and chairs in the future.
It's not who we sit down and discuss differences with that matters.
It's whether we - and our detractors - choose to do so, and why.
The act of instilling fear in a population and/or its leaders to bring about your own ends, be they political or otherwise. The aim is to be as divisive as possible, creating "in fighting" in your target population thus preventing a coherent response, and effective counter action.
Strategically the perpetrators don't want an effective response mounted against themselves for obvious reasons. So they create straw man arguments and deflect the investigation into their motives by pledging false allegiance to ideologies other than their own.
To vilify an entire faith for the actions of its extremists is not only wrong, it is precisely what the perpetrators wish to achieve.
Extremism begets extremism. Be that dressed up as Muslim, Christian, Jewish or anything else you care to mention.
Historically being wary and fearful of those who are different to us has lead the human race to labour under the yoke of bias.
I wonder when are we going to start calling spades what they are and stop using the euphemisms like "manual labour single person digging implement"
Humans, or if you like "mankind", has ultimately caused this cycle of violence many many times by virtue of his own blindness.
We will only ever eradicate the effects if we deal with the cause.
Throwing up more boundaries, and hiding behind walls be they cyber or otherwise will change nothing and save less. It merely perpetuates the "us and them" that began this in the first place.
Forget euphemisms like left or right wing for a moment. Consider common human decency and integrity. Compassion for ones fellow humans.
As I have written before "war" can be thought of as the failure of politics. Thus any politician who jumps towards a war footing too readily probably isn't a very good one.
The US elected a buffoon who believes nothing and cares only about his own self aggrandisement. He is just as much a preening peacock of a man as the tin pot dictators of the African countries who adorn their chest with a rack of medals they never won .
Except much more powerful, and infinitely less predictable.
The UK currently is vulnerable. It stands isolated, since its uneasy initiation of divorce from the EU and the unpalatable relations with the peacock leave it with an uncertain future. A future the direction of which we are about to decide in a few short days. These attacks therefore destabilise the process, which in all honesty is probably their point, regardless of who the perpetrators are. They will almost certainly influence the outcome.
So politics at this point isn't about where whatever country you happen to live in ends. It has become something of a global knife edge. Deportation and retaliation will remove the problem. not solve it. Like the many headed hydra of legend, the beast will return more powerful and dangerous than before. Even Hercules needed help to kill the beast, to cauterise the wounds and prevent regrowth...
So before getting fearful & angry. Instead of throwing blame and insult and accusation, calling for security measures and yet more protection...bigger walls and more division, we need to THINK!
It is the one thing, the one ability, that right minded people have over perpetrators of these actions.
I hope mankind learns to use that ability, and apply it, before its too late.
A philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war
I haven't written much in a wee while, at least not on here. (although you may find my writing elsewhere on the net if you look really really hard ... )
It occurred to me last night after the leadership debate that we have a great metaphor currently going on in the uk political arena for something that often occurs in the the business world.
A few months back Theresa May rose to the position of leader of the conservatives. As a result she also got a key to number 10 and the UK premiership to boot.
The Main stream media and related outlets like to set caricatures of our political leaders, more often than not based in a set of stereotypes. The reason for this is very likely because it make the process of writing about them a little less human and little more formulaic, I mean even the very word "politician" conjures up many a satirical image in the minds of the average person. For me, being just over the 40 hill, it's the cartoonish drawings of the "yes minister" intro.. and Sir Humphrey Appleby dealing with the matters of government in lunch breaks and at the club over a brandy.
But this over simplified version of the political posturing and deal making in Westminster is only a part of the story. It's fair to say that politicians of whatever colour do not get to certain elevated positions of influence and power without themselves having the personal means to get there. By which I mean they cannot be unthinking and un skilled people. (yes even Boris Johnson....)
Yes, ok , of course we all know that networks and old boys clubs are useful, in that regard politics is no different multiple business arena's. Networking and knowing where your allies are is key to success in any business. After all John Donne pointed out way back in the 17th century that no man is an island.
So where does that leave our elevated PM? Well since the election was called we have seen a vastly different approach between the Party leadership styles and their effectiveness. It puts me in mind of the X-Y McGregor management model. Essentially there are two types of management style that sit at the ends of a sliding scale. An X-type manager is authoritarian, and the Y at the other end is more of a collaborative and discursive type.
It would seem to me that Theresa May is in the former camp and Jeremy Corbin very much the latter. If you like, this is the difference between a "Boss" and a "Leader"
During their respective careers in politics one can also see shades of this in their records and the negotiations that have been publicly put on record. Much has been made of JC and his negotiations in the irish peace process. I suspect that the outcome might have been a little different if a young bullish Mrs May had been given that task...
But this also raises another parallel with business and also oddly, many a local government office. In any organisation you will have competent people. Those competent people do well, and are thus promoted. There comes a point where they cease to do so well having been promoted into a position that they are competent with but no longer shine. Some even go one stage further... (networks again?) Ergo they are promoted to their level of "incompetence" This is known as the "Peter principle"
It is here that I feel Theresa May may have hit her zenith. Her style of management is too authoritarian and perhaps a little brittle for the massive arena of debate, discussion, compromise and conundrum that is facing the UK in the weeks and months ahead. She is no doubt probably well aware of this, as a result of her experience since she took office, and thus now rueing the day she ever stepped into Number 10.
As I said, Politicians do not get to high levels without the ability to think and manage their relationships with those around them. So what to do? Imagine you're Theresa May sat in the PM's office, knowing a little too late you've been handed a poison chalice, which the other leadership candidates decided not to sip from, and that seemingly you're not the right person for this job.
What do you do? You can't resign, that's political and career suicide. You can't push anything contentious through the house all that easily due to a very slim majority. You know you're gonna go down in history as the PM who did the brexit thing, for good or ill. So how do you give yourself an exit strategy?
You call an election, which you had previously ruled out before you knew all the above, and then refuse to fight it. That's how.
As I see it, There are two possible under lying motivations for calling this election ...well actually three..
Theresa May believed she could, would & should win.
TM felt back into a corner and wanted out
TM looked at the world wide situation and realised not only was she not up to the task but for reasons of avoiding world conflict Britain needs a shift to the left...The currently "trumped up" US is not a wise bed fellow.
If she truely believed she could win and further more wanted to, then I believe she would have fought, argued and stood her ground. But instead she has sabotaged her own campaign and tarnished her own public image as a means to saying she was removed from office by the elctorate, rather than her own hand.
Of course there is another possible side to this. That the woman is so unspeakably arrogant that she won't publicly debate and lead her own party, that she is scared of unscripted things or deals them unpalatable, ...and under values real accountable discourse. This ties in neatly to the X-type manager example, those who cannot deal with debate as they see it as merely dissent and thus a challenge to them, rather than constructive means to progress. But It's my position that were she this arrogant she wouldn't have been able to rise to the level she has, since she would have fallen on her sword of ignorance long long ago.
Furthermore, if she were so utterly incompetent to have made all her recent mistakes actually by mistake then once again she would have been sidelined years ago, so I get the impression she knows exactly what she is doing, although of course I can only conjecture as to why.
As part of that conjecture I watched with interest Theresa May's recent appearance in areas of religious opinion that would make Trump proud. Was this a late sign of personal opinions and and that in the early days of being in number 10, she thought - erroneously - that the UK special relationship with the US might herald a new right wing era, with changes to the global standpoint on certain freedoms and closer links to a harder line christianity. Could that be the underpinning reason for her transatlantic dash..?
Who knows? but as they say a week is long time politics, and since Theresa May took office on July the 11th last year a great many things have changed around her. Regardless of affiliations to party and political leanings, every recent UK PM has visibly aged, without exception. It is not a task to be taken lightly nor is it ever going be an easy ride.
So no, Peter in this case, is no fool, although there may be an argument for (deliberately?) having flown too close to the sun, after being dazzled by its size.
Let us see what happens when the electorate go to the polls. And if the conservatives do ultimately remain in power, I cannot but wonder how long that power will continue to rest in Theresa May's hands.
We simply must keep talking .... I videoed the piece below a week or so before the attack, and added a foreword saying much the same thing, far less eloquently..
Perhaps "safe space" ideology needs to take something of a back seat whilst we deal with the unpalatable questions. However that does require all participants to be grown ups, and therefore responsible. Currently that rules out both the UK PM and the US child in chief.
So, with the 8th June fast approaching, history will judge, and not on who's suit cost more, nor on whether one was born wealthy or otherwise. It will judge on negotiation ability, moral character, outcomes of ones actions and the application of the true meaning of the words:
Manchester, A suicide bomber. Children, at a concert.
22 dead and 50+ injured on what should have been a fun filled and family night out.
There are some days when, within the space that is my head, Philosopher, Nurse & Soldier all stand in sober and abstract horror at what the world places before us.
The reaction of each however...
Robert burns
Truly, on this day there are no words sufficient, just an ever present sense of sorrow.
I've been busy over on you tube, so its been a bit of break from the writing, but I realised I had to come back to "the basics of politics" to finish off the comments on the current US/UK scene.
I would suggest that's a masterclass in understatement. When I wrote my piece on the US scene, President Trump wasn't facing the beginning of an impeachment process, and hadn't fired the boss of the FBI for digging too deep into the "Russian issue"
How things change eh? It's interesting how there's an alignment with Russian and US positions on LGBT issues, all be it one publicly, and the other under the table so to speak. One can't help but wonder if a few years ago, a white, christian fundamentalist viewpoint has been shared in some quiet hotel room somewhere and a plan hatched to gain control and "remake the world..."
Too fanciful? you decide. However what of the UK?
During my military career I refrained from political opinion, since I kinda figured that I worked for whoever was in charge regardless. Since leaving, and looking at a wider section of the population, myself included, there is definitely cause to suggest that those who work within and for the military are perhaps shielded from the wider domestic actions of their political bosses by elevated wages etc. Of course there are other genuine difficulties and it's far from an easy ride, but my point is that I didn't see how difficult life is for some people day to day until I stepped outside of that sphere of influence, and many that remain within it still don't.
So where are we in the UK?
Campaign wise PM may is doing a great job of not doing a great job. Whatever you might think of the policy delineations of the the Labour and Conservative parties, one has to question the actions of the individuals concerned.
Actions telegraph attitudes, and as such give a window into motivations...
From what I can see the Conservatives are thinking one of two things:
We will win anyway thus we don't need to bother
We can't fix this and therefore wish to pass the buck by throwing this election.
I said I refrained from political opinion in my former life. But that doesn't mean I didn't observe. I can't remember quite such a distinct difference between the political parties since the days of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock.
With such a slim majority in the house of commons, (just 6) and the country facing such monumental issues as those that now lay before it, the PM I think took the only wise option, i.e, that of calling an election.
Why do I say that? Well because the UK doesn't exist in a vacuum. The EU, & the US, both have a huge bearing on our future, and whilst the election itself may well be fought on domestic issues of health, social welfare and other such points, the international relations question looms large.
The UK election may well have a huge bearing on the global political mood in the coming years. Tensions are high to both the east and west of us, and I for one do not assume that any impeachment of 45 will be a smooth process free of violence. "They" i.e. the "Trumpettes" have already tested the homeland security issues.. and we have seen that certain sections of the American government would side with 45 in contradiction to the judicial process. It begs the question... just how quietly do civil wars start...
Yeah yeah I know...hyperbole and fear mongering... but I am sure those who lived through 1937-8 couldn't foresee what was to occur....so there nothing wrong with being ever watchful..
For reference.. anyone seen Star Wars? ..republic/separatists becoming rebels/empire... with the definitions of right and wrong switching sides in the process dependent upon viewpoint...its not a difficult principle to understand, hence why its in a movie....
IF we have an election that brings about an ultra conservative government in the UK with (albeit not publicly admitted) shared Ideals with 45, then would the "UK special relationship" be used as reason to go to the (military??) aid of 45?
On the other hand if we elect a more socialist left wing government, lead by a distinctly different set of principles, I suspect that would be unlikely.
And what of the UN? would it intervene? could it? and would the UK stand with it against a belligerent US at war with itself?
After all the western world has practiced "regime change" a number of times.. is it so hard to envisage a situation where that might be needed or actually happen on US soil? Perhaps the manoeuvrings of 45 have lead to this point, and he "wants" to be impeached to then legitimately stage a coup..now theres a scary out the box thought. The man sure is unpredictable enough, that we do know.
This is something of a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" argument here. Domestic political outcomes having a world wide bearing. As such one can see the obvious parallels with the individual voter and the wider outcome of the UK election itself.
So, come the day, make a difference, go, vote, be part of the answer, whether you be conservative or labour matters a little less than actually showing up. Inaction is not "no action" & Should the world steer itself towards choppy waters, your going along for the ride regardless of whether you bought a ticket or not...
I thought it was high time I revisited my mini series on the the book by Nigel Warburton. "The basics of Philosophy"
In this case: Politics.
I have taken a while to write this compared to the other two or three articles I've done from reading Nigel's book. That's because I've been watching. The UK and US political arena's are currently very very ... interesting. So I've been watching and thinking about the points made by Nigel in his book.
Dependent on your POV The US Republican & UK Conservative Party policy's are either "get stuff done& cut the beuracratic BS" or becoming "scarily autocratic" regimes. TBH It's most likely that people are somewhere on that scale, liking some stuff and disliking other bits.
We are just over 100 days into the current POTUS tenure and now heading into a UK election. To say the situation is volatile and unpredictable is ....imo putting it mildly.
Unlike the previous articles where I go into huge detail on the terminology and sections of Nigel's book, I'm not going to do that here. But if you want to do some further reading, look at these concepts.
Equality: Why? between whom? and with reference to what exactly?
Democracy: Direct or Representative? Does voting work? is democracy an illusion?
Freedom: What does this mean? how is it limited and why so? Negative freedoms?
So here is a potted guide to philosophical politics, or the philosophy of political debate, and also my thoughts on where were are at currently in the UK and US.
The basics of: Politics.
Ask anyone what the "goal" of politics is, and you might get a number of answers. It depends on precisely who's goal we are talking about. The people or the decision makers? Are they in fact the same? How do we know? Let's say we broadly mean "Society". What is the goal of politics in society? What is its purpose?
To answer that, consider what happens when politics fails. Politics "is" the art of talking, discussion and crucially, of making decisions, deals and producing outcomes. Those decisions should be - and mostly are - justified on the basis of being "in the best interests of...." and theoretically at least are reached via compromise, and mutual benefit.
So if we accept that view of politics, when this process fails the alternative is what? Insular and very protective arguments, lack of progression, frustration, removal of common purpose or its recognition, and ultimately if unchecked, war.
Tiny, Small, Medium, big, ....Biggest....
The neighbours fighting over a tree that is blocking light to one of the windows. Cats digging in next doors flower beds. The price of oil on the stock market if bought in bulk. Trade agreements, national boundaries, fishing quotas, even sovereignty. All these examples can and do have an element of political negotiation involved in their process at some level.
So politics can be thought of as negotiation for mutual benefit and thus reward, the societal goal of which is "Peace", or at the very least the "absence of war", which is not quite the same thing.
The Athenians had a very rudimentary political system where anyone could spend a day on the council for decisions. However one man who observed this was .. yes you guessed it... Socrates. He observed two things.
1) Too many people with differing needs results in no decision.
2) Those on the council for the day often didn't really know anything about the things they were to decide on, thus often made the wrong decision.
As a result society eventually comes up with a compromise. An elected representative political system. The "many" actively select "a few" to represent their interests. However this has a few holes and problems as we shall see.
So this is what we call "representative democracy". Something pretty close to what most countries run on today.
But what of the individual living in society? Sure the "absence of war" is to be applauded but there are other simple needs. Food, shelter, work and/or employment, health care, law, order and safety. There are moments in the life of a democratic system where these mean differing things to differing people, for reasons of their own morality..
For example in the present day US we have the recent legislation for same sex marriages. And the resultant religious freedom bills that have been put in place to either "protect" religious liberty and ideology, or "circumvent non discrimination legislation" dependent on ones POV. Both of these legislations are supposedly conceived via the proposers sincerely held moral and ethical judgments & beliefs, yet they are diametrically opposed, even mutually exclusive.
So what do we do here? who is right? and really, is there actually a wrong? With that in mind, It's not hard to see why Politics is so problematic for society.
It really comes down to just two words.
"Interests"
and
"morality"
Both can be "societal" or 'personal" concepts., and in each case their erroneous application causes problems:
Church and state
In the US currently one has to admit that there is a close relationship between religion and state. There is however a constitutional and legal framework for how these two institutions should be kept a reasonable distance from each other.
But why is this important? There is much talk of the first amendment and the constitutional "separation of church and state" in the US, by which one usually means the "Christian" church. However this is often miss interpreted. What is actually written suggests that congress shall:
"....make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The grounds for argument here is clear.
Let's say you fundamentally believe that "marriage" is between a Man and Woman (leaving aside the definitions of each for now...) Well then the constitution should not permit the passing of laws limiting your free exercise of that belief if it stems from religious conviction. So if you as a cake shop owners choose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two women? ....is that ok?
If its a"moral" viewpoint born of religion it may indeed be protected. However, what do we mean by "free exercise" exactly, and to whom does that apply? Furthermore, if you take the parts of Christian teaching that talk of "an eye for and eye" etc, and apply the same logic, can the government therefore legally prevent religious honour killings?
One cannot of course condone honour killings, and nor could we rationally argue that they be legally sanctioned. However it follows from this that if they cannot be allowed, then the cake shop owner is on dodgy ground, since the underlaying premise for each argument is the same? (freedom of religious convictions) This is why the first amendment needs to be looked at in conjunction with other laws to ascertain which of them takes precedent in a given set of circumstance. Why can't we condone honour killings? because it's murder... pretty obvious... In the case of cakes, anti discrimination legislature took precedent, via the 9th amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
in essence .. "its not about cake" or "water fountains".
It's about people, and how we interact with them. One cannot suggest that "my right" to "A" is greater than "your right" to "B" if by carrying out "A" distress or harm is caused and "B" happens to be a protected right under the 9th amendment.
Now consider the other view point. You're "for" same sex marriage. So if the government sided with the religious arguments in favour of a fixed definition of marriage, could it be said to be forcing people to conform to a religious view point ..? I suppose one would perhaps have to oblige them to marry to actually make that argument..but tis food for thought. It certainly would be awkward to explain that away in respect of the 9th amendment.
And of course we can ask in this context what is a "religion" exactly? One could interpret one's sexuality as a religion in the legal sense here, thus the government cannot block the free exercise of that? ... Of course that just becomes a can of worms, & I am deliberately stretching the point....... Jedi anyone?
I jest but you get the idea. Things are rarely clear cut. As a result it is abundantly clear that pure theological arguments of morality are not best suited to use in legal and societal terms. (unless you'd like to go back to loosing hand if accused of stealing of course?) Rule by religious theocracy is by definition exclusionary of anyone not sharing of it's founding beliefs and/or principles.
That is not to say the holding of theological beliefs is wrong. It is the application of them in a legal sense that is problematic. Which is why there must be clear boundaries between the theological and the judicial. An individual citizen in the US has the right to choose their religious belief. They do not however, have an opt out of the legislative process.
Trump's "white" House. Who's ethics are they, and in who's interest?
Yet, as I look at the US, it would seem that a fledgling theorcracy is what is being proposed. There are a high proportion of old school Christian white middle Americans with a certain world view that are populating the corridors of power at present. The rule of law, with properly seperated secular judicial review is slowly being supplanted by moral and ethical judgements based in theological tradition, which are then erroneously passed off as legal expertise & packaged as in the best interests of all, when in fact this is not the case.
Err no Jeff..Sorry...
Traditional party lines seem to have been somewhat circumvented by the need to be White, male and "Christian" in the fundamental sense. Tis a view that sits well with the die hard separatists and those who fervently preach and believe that America belongs to "the white race". (whatever that is) whilst still going to church on Sunday. I have to wonder, will we look back at this time in history as a "knee jerk" to having had a black president? The flurry of orders that came from the pen of Trump seemed at one time to have no purpose other than to eradicate the name of Obama from the legal statute. The only way they made sense was through the lens of a white supremacist cleansing operation.
Of course there are practicing devout christians who are not of this ilk. Some may even disagree with the principles mentioned here in. Thats ok. No one is wanting to outlaw disagreement...(yet) But wilfully discriminating against your fellow human on the sure and certain belief that you're inconvertibly right? That's a whole other ball game right there, and thankfully ACLU et al seem to be doing a nice job of defending those who otherwise would have no means of reparation.
Needless to say all of this worries me. Theocracies are known for being less than forthcoming in the art of political compromise and discourse, suspicious of science and independent thought. Discouraging of education, and controlling of the public access to it, they are based on fundamental beliefs that are often mutually exclusive of competing theocracies, relying very much on the un swerving doctrine of controlled teachings.... otherwise people might start to believe the "bad hombres", or that dinosaurs actually did exist and that the earth actually rotates around the sun.
None of this bodes well for America, or the world. And whilst a country and it's government is bigger than it's "personality" figure heads..."The Trump" as a climate change denier, and his VP as an evolution sceptic, are fully paid up members of that white christian fundamentalist mostly male club. A scary "theory" indeed and the biggest single challenge facing the American political system in decades.
Watch this space.
But what of the UK?
I'll get to that, but I'll save it for next time...
So The PM just announced a snap election. Saw that one coming from a mile off.
June eh?
Consider the issues The PM faces. A slim majority in the house, brexit negotiations that even senior civil servants don't want touch, a looming electoral fraud investigation about to report...(will it do so now in the wake of the results deemed damaging to an election ..with shades of the Hillary and Trump battle ringing in our ears?)
On the other side should the Conservatives retain power it maybe with an increased perception of legitimacy of message. Mrs May has often been accused of being an unelected leader with no mandate for drastic action.
Labour stands ready. Lib Dems stand ready. So the 2/3rd vote in the commons looks pretty good for a yes outcome.
I have to say..were I in Mrs Mays shoes right now, i'm not sure i'd want to win. After all, Cameron resigned and walked when things got really daft. This is a good way out for `May in that if she were to loose she would avoid the accusations of cowardice that followed Mr cameron out the door of number ten.
What happens next remains to be seen, i'm interested in Jeremy Corbin response, though i doubt the BBC will give him much air time, and PM's questions over the coming months might just be worth a look, if only for the comedy value.
In the words of the incumbent of 221B baker street,
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.
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.
In todays blog: Politics. So if you're of delicate constitution(al mindset) .. you've been warned! :-)
So, Scotlands first minister is going to ask for a Section 30 if she gets the backing of the Scottish parliament.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn suggests a vote should go ahead but quotes a labour party position at odds with that statement.
Mrs May is unlikely to want this to happen (if it does), before Brexit, but then effective, binding and lasting brexit negotiations can't really be concluded without the Scottish question being settled.
It would appear safe to say then that we live in changing and unpredictable times. The once solid generational truths now can no longer be taken for certainties
What is Democracy?
Scotland voted via referendum convincingly to remain in the EU, yet narrowly to remain in in the UK. The UK as a whole, via the same process voted narrowly to leave the EU.
This then is the conundrum of modern day politics. To do "the will" of one "people" one must be seen to "ignore" the will of other "people". On the one hand there is just cause to ask the Scottish people what they wish for their future generation, yet in doing so there is great risk to life as we have known it on these isle's for generations.
To deny the Scots a say given the monumental change in the political equation since they were last asked dooms them to follow aboard the lone ship of brexit, not as willing crew, but unwilling stowaways bound to the ships fate but somewhat powerless to direct its course since the tiller is firmly held in the resolute hands of Westminster, and they haven't seen fit to tell even the first class passengers the destination.
It seems to me, as the casual observer, that the wielders of the reigns of power are now at odds. Each of them serving the more local members of their support base. This isn't in and of itself a bad thing. However due to timing and to some extent co-incidences that one might call synchronicity, it's resulted in a perfect storm where each of those "local" interests are now mutually exclusive.
So how scared or concerned are people? Well....again this mostly comes down to local concern. In many cases wholly justifiable. "will my benefits cease" can I still get EU assistance for my business, will my job be secure?.. can I afford a bed/food/house/car/bills (delete as appropriate)
How does this current state of affairs happen, you may ask?
It seems that as a wholly self benevolent individualistic human nature marches towards "freedom" and it's inevitable "triumph" in failing to learn its own limitations, so the community & social bonds of benevolence for others and shared endeavour for moral purpose that held together generations before us continue to become weakened, stretched, taught and thus begin to fracture.
Then of course other bonds take their place, ones of shared lineage, place of birth, of world view and (again) self interest. Accent, language and borders, us and and them become talking points. We begin slowly to "other" those who don't share our immediate needs, and who see the world as a different array of colours to our own perception. None of this occurs maliciously of course, it all benevolent, well meaning and peaceful. (ish)
Until someone arrives to take advantage. That's game changer right there.
So, am I "for" a 2nd Scottish referendum?
I do believe if the first minister gets her approval then Westminster "should" "allow" it. For to do otherwise would delegitimise the narrow voting margin by which brexit is touted as the will of the people. (since it was similar narrow margin percentages involved in the Scottish independence vote) It would send a message that the "will of the people must be done but some peoples will is more important than others, thus only the right will counts"
That's tantamount to hypocrisy on a huge monumental scale.
However thats problematical in itself since Scotland voted in the EU referendum as part of the "whole" UK and it's the statistical representation of a part of that demographic not the whole picture that would be used to justify the second independence argument in this case.
Such is the nature of referendums and statistics. They tell you little beyond numbers.
Do I wish for Scottish independence. Well, I'm not Scottish. So my knowledge is limited on a first hand basis. What I can say is should it happen, oh lord what change that will be...
Finally, none of this is happening in isolation. I mentioned a perfect storm of synchronicity, consider the global moves to more of the "me" and "us not them" rhetoric and you have at best worrisome rhetoric and at worst the prelude to dissolution of the world as we've known it for the last near century. A dissolution that will not be without it's pains.
If one subscribes to the writing of plato, there exists a staged system of levels to human societal development.
Aristocracy - This regime would be ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason Timocracy - subverts the wisdom of a aristocracy for vested self interest disguised as public service. Oligarchy - An extension of the timocracy that elevates the rich into positions of power even if incompetent Democracy - Freedom is seen as the supreme good but becomes a form of slavery. Democratic man wants to buy stuff with his money, and is somewhat self obsessed with unnecessary material-istic wants. Tyranny - Things degenerate more into a chaotic lack of discipline the result of which is that pursuit of power is all consuming, the power that is needed to preserve order.
The rise of the "alt right" and other nationalistic & not wholly morally motivated political entities with seemingly fractured relationships within the US, Europe, and the UK make me wonder if we - humanity - are perhaps walking, very morally and benevolently but none the less blindly, towards a tyrannical world state in global politics. One where "the government" knows best, and the unquestioning populace acquiesces to the will of those "in power" and 'with power" so that what passes for "order" can be maintained. Of course that's because I live in an area of the world where this isn't (yet) the case, for some that tyrannical vision is already their lived truth.
All done in the name of "the people" of course. But the question remains "which ones?"
Still don't forget, even in the face of all this our greatest strength is one derived from our greatest weakness. Self belief/self delusion.
So lets stay stubbornly optimistic, we might just need that
Welcome to a another sunny Sunday noon on planet Earth.
Today is intended to be something a short blog entry, since it serves an introduction to a bit of a serialisation of my thoughts on a book I'm currently reading.
Nigel Warburton's "the basics of philosophy"
As regular readers of my random musing of the world at large will know I've developed something of an interest in the socratic method of questioning what we human presume to know.
However, it seemed to me that it would be a logical approach to learn more about the central tenants of philosophical thought since my prior experience is based very much in the more scientific methods and well, to be honest, i didn't know know what I didn't know.
In reading this book, aimed at the fledgling philosopher, I aim to find out what I don't yet know, as the author discusses arguments relating to
God
Right and Wrong
Animals
Politics
Appearance and reality
Science
Mind
Art
I thought I would take an approach similar to that of Wayne Dyer in his explorations of the Tao De Ching, Dr Dyer took 4 days to examine each verse of the Dao. Of course theres quite a bit more to this that a single verse in each section. So I plan to read each section, probably re read it a few times and then write about it. Perhaps the arguments may tie into other more personal questions, such as trans, parenthood, and who know what.
So, there it is, my self imposed project for the next year or so, to explore and learn the basics of philosophy
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.
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
(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 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.
