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

Uncharted waters, but dangerous?

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

Sarah .

The Basics of philosophy.

Hi all.

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 

Lets see what happens eh? 

;-) 

Sarah 

Who's Gender is it anyway?

Hello again. 

Tis a sunny, blustery Wednesday afternoon here at Optimistic HQ. T'was whilst going on a few errands this morning and pondering the flurry of quotes, anecdotes and articles that were the response to recent comments in the Sunday times by Dame Jenni Murray, presenter of womans hour and columnist for the aforementioned newspaper, that I came up with "a question". 

Before Dame Jenni made her comments I'd recently completed a piece on the legal and moral issues of trans gender as both a concept and a societal "thing" as it were. In it I made the comment below, when applying the oft quoted "why do you have to be so openly gay" question to the trans phenomenon. 

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

It's the later half of that statement thats been rattling round in my head since Dame Jenni's article, and gave rise to this question....

Who's gender is it anyway? 

An imperfect analogy. 

Lets suppose a "gay guy" goes to the store to buy biscuits. He selects what he wishes to buy, has a brief discussion with the cashier and then leaves. At no point is his sexuality actually on display for all to see.

Lets suppose he is followed some minutes later by an effeminate gentleman, a flamoyant character, who buys orange juice. The same thing occurs. 

Finally a Trans person, lets say a trans woman walks in. Her status as trans might not be visibly obvious. she might "pass" as a "cis gender woman" quite well physically, but as soon as she speaks to a member of staff asking where the biscuits are her "Trans-ness" is out there ...

So, here we have three different scenarios, that will each have very different verbal and non verbal communication outcomes in terms the reaction of both the customer and of the shop staff. 

The gay chap in the first example may not choose to say anything related to sexuality in his quick conversation with the cashier. Thus the cashier, dependent on their internal world view will make  assumptions (unconsciously) about that person. However if in the course of the conversation the cashier asks "any plans this afternoon?" and he chooses to say "I'm off to lunch with my boyfriend" that removes ambiguity, and thus perhaps changes the internal assumption of the cashier, based on what has transpired than their individual take on it.

Let's take the second example. The cashier may make the same (unknowing) assumptions based on his effeminate manner. But when he says "I'm off to see the wife"... they may change. Again "to what" depends greatly on the observer.

When the trans woman asks her question, the cashier once again has to mentally readjust dependent on what was initially expected from the brief interaction. Since the non verbals & visual evidence  says "woman" but what is heard says "man".

Now, you might say hang on, but people dont make unconcious assumptions based their predisposed idea of the world? 

Ok, so how many of you assumed the cashier in all the above examples to be female, young and probably heterosexual? Indeed, all who read through this will have created a mental picture of the cashier according to their own internal expectations of the world around them. 

That's my point. Perceptions. Peoples perception and thus interpretation of what is presented to them are so interdependent on both external and internal factors and opinions that to try and control them is nigh on impossible.

In the third example, where the trans woman speaks, it's not what she says thats the issue, but rather how she speaks and sounds. Her choice of whether or not to disclose her trans status is lessened when compared to the other two regards their orientation if she wishes to interact with the world at all.

Like I say this, is an imperfect analogy Since questions of identity are different to those of  orientation, but nonetheless it serves to highlight the issue.

Let's consider "discrimination", in light of this question of "perception" and its interpretation. Imagine the same trans woman, visually one who passes as cis gender, but who's voice is a bit of a give away of her trans-ness. During the course of her trip to the shops she leaves the house, almost bumps into an unfamiliar  passing workman on the way out the gate who gives a cheery "sorry love" she smiles an apology and walks on. Getting into her car she continues to drive the shop, arrives and parks, having to go up to the window of the pay station to pay... "yes love" says the security guard on seeing her walk up..."parking for two hours please" she says, The attendant gets her the ticket and change, handing them over, and then says "there you go mate"

On getting to the shop the cashier, after being asked where the biscuits are, dutifully points them out, then returns to her work, but grins at her colleague and points out the trans woman when she believes they are out of ear shot. 

After buying the biscuits our trans woman then leaves the store and on so doing a polite gentleman holds the door open for her, letting her out first, she utters a quick "Thanks", only to see the chaps face change when he realises he's been "duped" into letting "a man" out first. Our trans woman returns to her car, drives home and bumps into the postie, who she knows well.... "Hiya, there you go three letters", "Oh thanks" she says with a smile. 

Finally she's is home.

So, at no point did our trans woman tell anyone she is trans. But, because people throughout the day with whom she interacted made assumptions based on their perceptions, and interpretations, which then had to "recalibrate",  due to "mixed messages" regarding who or what they were perceiving. Our trans woman is therefore constantly having that "unspoken" (no pun intended) dialogue of justification and validation of self with every person she meets, less those who already know her. 

So where is the morality tale in this? The workman simply took her for a cis woman, and was polite and apologetic. Since she didnt speak we shall never know if, were he to be informed of her trans ness, he would view his actions as wrong. The parking attendant then initially assumed her as a woman visually hence the "love" comment, but revised their appraisal in light of "new evidence" of a male sounding voice. giving rise to the "mate" at the end. The shop worker pointing out the trans woman to her colleague, what did she say? was it complimentary or not? We shall never know. The chap who held the door, again changed mental perceptions half way through his encounter with our trans woman, seemingly not in a complimentary manner. Finally the postie, who simply wasn't an issue, since they knew each other well, and were just talking about the post. 

All of these encounters serve to highlight that trans people, merely by virtue of existing in our shared real world environment, face a daily challenge presented by something they cannot easily control. At no point thus far in the discussion have we looked at what the trans woman did in her former life, how old she was or what her views are. Yet by virtue of the above examples her very legitimacy of existence is continually questioned. 

It's this non verbal/verbal conversation that I was alluding to in my comments from the other blog. Suppose we changed it up and the trans woman in question is 6ft 2inches and 18 stone? In other words she doesn't pass for a cis woman due to size and perhaps facial features. In this case all she has to do is physically be in a space for those around her to have a perception of her, subsequently forming opinions based on that perception. Change things again and assume the trans woman to be entirely passing as cis gender, in physicality, mannerisms and voice and we have yet another social conversation going on regarding the interaction "from her to the world" and "from the world to her". 

Each of these trans women will perhaps experience discrimination differently. Some might experience multiple types at once in an intersectionality type vibe, but crucially their opinions of those experiences are still valid, along with the lessons inherent. Thus no platforming or excluding trans women from a discussion on discrimination, particularly as it pertains to cis women, is short sighted. Believe me trans women know what it's like to be constantly judged on appearance, constantly attempting to justify your place at the table or indeed any table, despite legitimacy of knowledge etc. Some of us even know what its like to be discriminated against based on societal perceptions of women, given that some of us are perceived as and thus interpreted to be exactly that, though on ocasion not in complimentary ways. 

This then is the crux of the issue. It occurs to me that since those of us who are late transitionee's have had the boot on the other foot so to speak, post transition we notice a difference in peoples behaviour towards us. One might say from a certain POV this is a "true" experience of pro masculine societal constructs. I am not in this case referring to those who know us as trans or even know us as people, but just the general perception of a woman verses a man. It is not required to actually be either to experience treatment in line with societal predispositions towards men or women. It is merely enough that one is "perceived as"  

Oddly this premise both aids and debilitates Dame Jenni's point, since trans women pre transtion are "perceived as" men by others during this time, then yes they may experience greater "negative freedoms" than cis women, commonly known as societal privilege. But conversely, post transition, if they are unknowingly "perceived as" women by the observer, thus excluding intersectional 'trans" bias, they will also perhaps experience the societal constraints & biases inherent to "being" women

So Gender is an odd thing. So much of it is based on perception (by others) of what we look and sound like, and whether that matches the internal expectations of what the observers experience before them. It's no wonder therefore that trans people, be it trans woman or trans man, are hyper aware of this appearance element, for it is at the very heart of their being "legitimised" by other members of society day in day out.

As a result it is quite interesting to hear Dame Jenni condemn two trans women for concerning themselves with getting this aspect right. No-one wants to look like a caricature , but similarly trans people really don't want to look like the social gender they are trying to leave behind, Is it any wonder then that many initially over compensate? 

There are those who would exclude trans women from debating"single sex issues" based on the predisposition that they are not "real women" (in whatever way they wish to quantify "real", be it looks, biology, science, anatomy or sociology etc etc...) These people miss the simple truth that actually being real or not is irrelevant to discrimination. It is being "perceived" and "interpreted" as real or otherwise that's the issue. 

Thus it is that in seeking to exclude trans women these very people are themselves at the very heart of the problem that prevents all women, Cis, Trans NB, informed, or otherwise from moving forward to discuss the real issues of  combating discrimination at its many sources. 

Sure we trans women may be different. but that doesn't make us wrong or irrelevant to the debate.

Right, must dash, I'm off to buy some biscuits....

:-) 

The lived experience?

Hello online world!

How are you all? life going well? Yes? Great! No? Keep looking for the lessons! Either ways I invite
you to pull up a seat and chew the fat for a few moments with yours truly, blogger, thinker, tinkerer
and doer of lives wonderful collection of "stuff"

We started today's musings over a cuppa in bed whilst reading through that stream of consciousness that is Facebook. In so doing I came across this.....

A link to a pink news article featuring dame Jenni Murray

It was linked via a friends profile who is (like me) trans and thus predictably might take issue with the view that trans women aren't "real women". (For those that don't know, Dame Jenni is the presenter of woman's hour on radio 4)

Ok, thinks I, heres an interesting read and seemingly omnipresent question.  So I read the article and it seems theres an intriguing thread here. Dame Jenni comes from the same era of the feminist movement that is arguably represented most strongly in the public consciousness by Professor Greer. I'm going to pull a few extracts from her original article below, simply because its worthy to note that Pink news is not known for its objectivity in reporting what could be construed as challenging viewpoints.

The original Sunday Times article on which the pink news piece was based can be seen here

Pink news extracts

Head line: BBC woman’s Hour host Dame Jenni Murray says trans women aren’t ‘real women

Sunday Times headline

Jenni Murray: Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a “real woman”

Dame Jenni ask's:

"Can someone who has lived as a man, with all the privilege that entails, really lay claim to womanhood? It takes more than a sex change and make-up"

This - is in my view - a wholly justified question. Trans people often start their journey towards
transition with exactly this burning in their heads. It is a question born of the reality that people often
live in the gender assigned at birth, whichever of the usual two options that might be, before taking any actions to alter societies perception of their gender.  

In years to come - and indeed currently - we are seeing a trend towards transition of individuals in their early to late teens. This means that by the age of forty or thereabouts the person has lived roughly 2/3rds of their life in the gender they identify with. As the time living in - and being perceived by others - as the "orginal" gender diminishes, so too does the argument that Dame Jenni alludes to for having developed societal wide opinions based on that gender. 

Caveat: However this theory does predispose that whilst living in the gender which they identify with, they pass as that gender. Since the lived experience of a non passing trans woman is perhaps very different from a passing trans man, when both are compared to their cis gender counterparts, intersectionality of discrimination does come into play a little here. (ergo discrimination based on being seen as trans or false or gay etc muddies the waters somewhat of that lived experience being applicable/transferable to cis gender counterparts experiencing sexism) 

So back to younger transtitionees, it's a simple and fair generalisation to say that most teenagers, by virtue of their being teenagers are not all that fussed about political stuff or "boring" things outside their own peer group. (for the sake of simplicity I'm not addressing pre school transition of children at this point, since that is something of an emotive issue, but none the less the long term societal effects are broadly similar) In this regards trans teens may be slightly more aware of the world around them on a personal level but not all that different from the cis counterparts as they grow up. 

Dame Jenni:

I firmly believe that transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence so many of us have suffered

Admirable sentiment, but this is an erroneous lead in, since it references both sex and sexual preference you are assumed at birth. I'm sure the first thing anyone assumes on the brith of their child is that they will be heterosexual? Or then again maybe not. Maybe they dont even give it a thought, and just want to focus on now. After all the age of consent and the "birds and the bees" talk is at least 16yrs (??) from this point. So why bring it up? It plays to the LGBT tag. Sure LGB is a thing, but trans is a different thing. Trans is not and never has been a preference, so this simply muddies the waters once more regards nature/nurture and the biology verses choice arguments. It present the reader with an unconscious conflagration that trans is an orientation, which it isn't.  Oh and anatomical "sex" isn't gender...that old trope, inferring science again but we shall revisit that in shortly...

Dame Jenni goes on to say...

I can’t agree with Julie Burchill or Germaine Greer, whose language in their expression of revulsion at the trans woman (a man who becomes a woman) claiming to be a real woman has been unacceptably crude. Why demean yourself and the feminist politics to which you’ve devoted your life by saying, cruelly and distastefully, “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman,” (Greer) or referring to transgender females as “screaming mimis” and “bed wetters in bad wigs” (Burchill)?

Equally, I’m appalled at the repulsive misogyny evident in the response of trans activists who have accused Nimko Ali, a Somali and a courageous campaigner against female genital mutilation, of “practising white feminism” or who have demanded the “no platforming” (banning from speaking in public) of women, such as the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, who have questioned the claims of trans women to be real women.

But my concern, which I know is shared by numerous women who are now to be known as “cis” (short for “cisgender” — natural-born women, in the language that’s more familiar to most of us), is for the impact this question of what constitutes “a real woman” will have on sexual politics. And for who has the right to be included in gatherings or organisations that are defined as single sex.

I wholeheartedly applaud Dame Jenni for her comment in regards to the language used by Professor Greer, and agree that on the opposite side of the issue many are guilty of wilful failure to engage in debate, preferring mudslinging and personal attacks. The issues at hand are far too important to the  wider human race to be trivialised by tit for tat bickering. Her final point, one of the implication for  "sexual politics" as she puts it is again a valid one. 

Indeed the question of inclusion is at the heart of the entire issue, but viewed from Dame Jenni's perspective is only a half story, since she only deals with trans women. (pretty obviously because she is approaching this from a feminist POV and as a woman of course.) Let us not forget the trans man in this argument. Broadly speaking, trans men do have one massive "advantage" over trans women. On average, with their clothes on, it is harder to differentiate the trans man from the cis man, than it is trans woman from cis. Late transitioning trans women "stand out" in society and thus fall victim to misogyny, homophobia (based on the idea they are gay men), mental health stigma, the list is endless. Trans men, whilst getting much the same I am sure, are less visible, thus less discussed. Trans is an issue that needs to focus on the whole picture, not just the feminist perspective. That trans men are  often "invisible" is evident in the bathroom bill arguments raging in America, but thats another story for another time. 

Dame Jenni references a vicar who transitioned in the 1970's and a recent transitonee, India Willoughby, News reader and presenter. 

Both are held up as examples of "unknowing" Trans woman, who have limited to no knowledge of  women's specific political issues at the time of their interview by Dame Jenni. There are two faults with this argument. Firstly, in 1970, the over all perception of "A woman" in society was very different to todays version. Arguably Professor Greer and her contemporaries have had a considerable hand in changing those attitudes, for which they are to be rightly commended. Second, not all "Cis gender" women are clued up on these defining issues of woman hood as Dame Jenni puts it, nor care much about them either, thus knowing/unknowing is not a universal argument. 

For a link to my "cis/trans explanations see here)

Sure both Carol and India didn't know all that much, and whether they perhaps "should" have known more in their positions is open to debate, but had they done so would that then make them qualify as real women? Or by extension can a cis women who is uniformed be deemed to be not a real woman? So much of what Dame Jenni levels at Carol and India is irrelevant unless one assumes they didn't know because they lived as men pre transition. This is huge leap and quite an assumption. So, one has to ask, what is that assumption based on? 

Dame Jenni goes on to say that India in particular is quite "stereotypical" in her attire choices, and preferences, thus pandering to the societal idea of a man's opinion of what a woman should look like. Recent court cases where employers have attempted to implement dress codes obligating women to wear heels at work or as is the case in the article Dame Jenni references, "always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs" have highlighted the issue of appearance politics as it is applied to women in the professional work spaces. 

The issue here, that Dame Jenni seemingly misses, is "choice". A woman may choose to wear heels to work. A woman may choose to wear make up, or shave her legs. When that choice is removed and appearance is directed by coercion then there is a problem. Concomitantly if a woman chooses to wear such items because she like them, and this is in agreement with a policy that other women disagree with, that must also be a valid option, since to deny her the choice to do so is to denigrate the other argument. Men and women have through the ages changed their looks, attire etc for reasons of practicality, preference, attraction of companions, uniformity, etc etc. But yet again this does not imbue any legitimacy of  "real" woman hood or otherwise, so is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, unless one assumes the decisions India makes are due to her former perceptions whilst in a societal male role. Again quite the assumption. So again, what is it based on? 

Dame Jenni goes on to reference Dr Zucker, the by now infamous researcher who is a somewhat controversial figure having allegedly (dependent on who you believe) practiced reversion therapy on trans youth, something that is now a universally discredited way of thinking for the medical profession. She also references a person who transitioned male to female and then back again , 

"Others, like Charles Kane, have found life as a woman intolerable. He began life as a man, became Samantha in 1997, and then, in 2004, had the surgery reversed. He believes he saw himself as an unusually sensitive man, but feels that he had surgery too soon. He said recently: “The worst part about being a woman is being treated as a sex object. So much depends on your appearance at the expense of everything else. Even though I was a woman physically, I felt I still had a male brain, but when I tried to talk to men about blokey things they didn’t take me seriously.”

This speaks to someone (Charles in this case) who perhaps hadn't fully appreciated the nuances of social transition, and erroneously thought life would be the same either way. We now know very different, hence the consideration of social elements in transition alongside the medical. The person in question had 6 yrs living in society as a woman. Were they dealing with misogyny? Or was it  discrimination due to transphobia and homophobia? (intersectionality again) Who knows, but either way they reverted back the societal perceptions of man. I feel for them, however 6yrs is not a  representative sample, and neither are the singular experiences on one person a great evidence base, so why bring it up? 

Dame Jenni continues:

"Ah yes, the male brain. How often do we hear about the male or female brain and the oft-repeated mantra, applied to males and females alike, “I was born into the wrong body”. Research carried out by the distinguished scientists Cordelia Fine and Lise Eliot can find no evidence for such claims. They hold to the fact that all children are born with the potential to develop their own unique characteristics of behaviour, talent and personality, regardless of biological sex. They say that the idea that the brain and the body are split, meaning it is possible to have the brain of one sex and the body of the opposite, is very recent and is not supported by credible scientific evidence."

This latter sentence is the point at which Dame Jenni begins to lose something within context of the  article. The statement "not supported by credible evidence" is simply not true... There has been work done in 2011 and published later on that suggests a differential in brain anatomical structure that can reliably sex a brain. This work shows parity with those of a transgender nature. (i've written on the subject quite extensively via the links Dr Sapolsky's lectors on human behavioural biology)

See here.. Scientific American

This work in no way indicates a level of potential on the individual, merely a structure anatomical difference that is reliably consistent with the persons "internal" gender - or gender identity if you will -  be that cis or trans in nature.

So why would Dame Jenni include an inaccurate statement in her report?

She then goes on to quote a Miranda Yardley, giving no qualification as to her knowledge base other than she is a transgender woman... (presumably assuming the reader knows who she is - she is a trans blogger btw, I looked it up)

"Miranda Yardley,.... is a male-to-female transsexual. She explains that some boys who are gay want to adopt the female gender because they’re considered effeminate and bullied for it. Others may simply refuse to become the kind of men they know, or want to emulate the mothers they love. Others, generally those who come to transition later in life, having lived as heterosexual men, are sexually aroused by the idea of becoming a woman or say they simply feel more comfortable living life as a woman."

So, two points here. First to be considered a "real woman" as per Dame Jenni's own criterion, one must be informed about women political struggles. Second, in order for it to be assumed that one knows everything about transgender theory and history, one must simply be trans gender. "Miranda" is assumed to know what she is talking about by virtue of her trans status alone, yet the theories she espouses are as old (and flawed) as Dr Zucker's and the gay conversion therapy ideology that was dropped circa 1950's. The notion that heterosexual men transition because they become aroused by the idea of becomeng a woman is based in the principle of Autogynephillia, which was a theory developed by Ray Blanchard in the 80's and 90's 

Theres not much on it that qualifies as unbiased, but you can read the wiki here

Crucially the theory has many many critics as it lays it's overriding premise in sexual attraction which as we now know is entirely separate from gender.

Wiki extract ...

Criticism of the research and theory has come from Charles Allen Moser, Julia Serano, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, John Bancroft, and others who say that the theory is poorly representative of trans women, and reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction.^{[citation needed]}

The theory has been the subject of protests in the transgender community, which peaked with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003. Following the publication of Bailey's book, Blanchard distinguished between the value of the theory as a behavioral description, versus as an explanation of transsexualism and that only further scientific research could resolve the latter question.^[1] The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) does not support the theory, citing a need for further research.^[6] WPATH also criticize the theory as being stigmatizing due to focusing on behavior instead of distress.^[7]

So Miranda seem a little out of date yet s  held up asa basal of trans knowledge. Why?

So to sum up then, what Dame Jenni appears to be doing is suggesting that in order to be considered a real women one must be informed on gender politics, and hold feminist aligned views. Additionally if a trans woman is not so informed or holds differing views these are obviously due to her being being trans..i'e formerly societally male, not just uninformed.

She furthermore erroneously quotes the scientific research on the issue and to add insult to injury equates the comments of one trans woman, of un explained prominence or knowledge as indicative  of the wider issue and current knowledge base, in direct contravention of her own ruleset regarding the requirement she herself made of trans women Carol and India, in order for them to be considered "real women".

So I asked myself what is this article based on? 

Sadly, I have come to this conclusion

It is based on the assumption that trans women are men, were men and will always act as men. 

It attempts to blur realms of scientific research with use of old outdated and debunked theories, and it includes unqualified opinions of unspecified members of the trans community who may or may not know the nuances of the issue, simply because those opinions agree with the predispositions of the author. It is neither an informed, nor open minded article in its second half content. The first half content establishes the author as a reasonable human being and thus predisposes the reader to seek accord with the more extreme and outdated ideas in the seconds half via the belief that a BBC presenter can't possibly be out of date. Quite simply its a poor attempt at exclusionary rhetoric dressed up as concerned opinion piece.

Why do I say this? Because I'm disappointed. Pink news did an appalling job of dissecting this article, going for headline buzz over content. I so wanted to believe this might be a sign of genuine meaning fully discourse, and a search for truth on the issue. But no. The central question needs to be debated, discussed and defined. It need's to be addressed. But it needs to be addressed unambiguously, transparently, via informed current and relevant debate that does not reduce trans women to mere clothes horses and assume that all their belief systems stem from the inherent maleness of their societal experiences. In short from an unbiased and objective and truthful viewpoint.

What it ultimately proves, if anything is that Trans women are not Cis women. Well no shit Sherlock. We coulda told you that. The issue is that you Dame Jenni, define real women on your own terms. Terms which don't actually apply to all Cis women, and then fail to apply these same requirement to Trans women's legitimacy as you see fit.

You make broad brush assumptions out of nowhere and as I asked a few times in the above text:

"What these assumption are based on?" 

Belief. 

They are based on a predisposed and seemingly ingrained belief that Trans women can never be as legitimate Cis women, and as such their voices have no place in as you put it  "single sex" spaces. 

That Dame Jenni, is the very definition of trans exclusionary feminism.

I Applaud you for your efforts in being non confrontational.....

Shame on you for your dishonesty. 

The Invisible Man.

This a very spontanious blog entry. 

What does it mean to be seen? Do people see what we are or just that which they think we are? 

So speaking as one who was once "seen" quite readily. Soldier, Nurse, Professional, Employed, Educated, Productive, Worthy, etc its interesting to consider that what is seen now is "seemingly" something quite different. 

Still, what is my perception of what others see? In truth nothing but a reflection of what I think they see. That being the case then is it valid beyond my own internal perceptions of the world? 

Depends on the level of objectivity one applies to the self image I suppose. 

I have written before that if one defines oneself by what you "do" and "have", then by extension when you "don't" and "haven't" you "aren't"......

Now while I personally may have gotten some way past all that, realisation dawns that other's perceptions of me are on occasion still based resolutely in that model. 

Thus when one enters dialogue based on the assumption of recognition of that which made me all those things above, its quite the bitter pill to be written off as not on that level. 

To use an analogy, it's like having been required to briefly leave the table at dinner and then whilst out the other diners forget you were once there and when you try to retake your seat you find they don't recognise you any more, nor believe you should be there. 

So, this is the process by which "That which I am", namely all those traits and abilities which allowed me to achieve all those terms above, becomes forgotten. Marginalised and then ignored, to be sacrificed on the alter of perceptions. 

This then is societies "invisible man" And they are legion.