Guest Column by Riff Mattre
The compartmentalization of social identities works well for many and not so well for many others. Since infinite diversity exists in all groupings why not just eliminate social labeling? There’s a better way.
Coming soon to a future very near you is a reality in which instead of saying I’m this and you’re that, we’ll ask, “Where are you at?” If as a general rule we can agree that each individual is actually somewhere on the spectrum of every single category one can imagine, so the most White among us is only 99% White … the most Christian, 99% Christian … the most heterosexual, 99% straight … the most effeminate, 99% feminine… then we all fall somewhere between 1% and 99%. It’s simple, really.
As an identifier, I understand the word race as referring to biological traits measuring a person’s skin tone along a gradient of pigmentation. Similarly, as an identifier, I understand the word sex as referring to biological traits measuring a person’s chromosomal, hormonal, and anatomical makeup.
As an identifier, I understand the word ethnicity as referring to cultural traits measuring a person’s identification with historical, geographical and racial populations. Similarly, as an identifier, I understand the word gender as referring to cultural traits measuring a person’s identification with normative behaviors associated with each sex within specific ethnic cultures.
Accepting the above grammatical framework to be sound, a person could factually and honestly state, “While I am not biologically black to any significant degree, I strongly identify with black ethnicity.”
Again, accepting the logic and reason of the above context, “gender reassignment surgery” is actually “biological sex reassignment to match cultural gender identification.” A transgender sex reassignment in one culture can equate to opposite reassignment in another culture with opposite gender associations. To choose sex reassignment surgeries is to make a choice to alter one’s biological sex to equate with cultural tides very susceptible to rapid change. At the very least, this direct reasoning indicates cause for exceptional caution on the part of the individual engaging in such contemplation.
First things first, now that laws are moving toward protecting personal freedoms to live in equal measure and explore or not explore such connotations and implications at personal discretion, what message is being transmitted to new generations now entering this cultural transformation?
To imply there are as many “ethnicities” or “genders” as there are people negates their definitions.
Gender and ethnic roles, whether inherited or chosen, are rich cultural building blocks of human society.
Choice of identification supports both individualism and constructive community ties.
As an identifier, I understand the word sexuality as referring to a measurement of physical impulses that lean a person’s attractions to a range in combinations of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and appreciation.
If I’m right in my understanding of sexuality, what qualifies sexual attraction includes four additional traits beyond impulses toward one biological sex or the other. Does this unnecessarily overcomplicate? When it comes to an awkward society, riddled with fear and prejudice, desperate to cut to the chase when it comes to hooking up? Oh, most definitely. When it comes to sensibly exploring with whom to share a life and grow a family, it actually makes the undertaking a lot more approachable.
When discussing labeling of attraction, desirability, magnetism, taste, hunger, it only makes sense the story is a bit more complex. It’s very much like asking, “Do you like hamburgers or hotdogs?”
I can say most generally I like hamburgers. I can say, “It depends.” I can say, “I only like hamburgers done right and definitely no fast food.” I can say, “I like both equally.” I can say, “Hotdogs, hands down.” Add context into the mix and it gets more interesting. I might ask, “Every day, or just now and then?” Camping, or dining out? And, add to that, when it comes to labeling appetite, palate, appeal, partiality, and fondness, each can change with time and experience. (Cue George Takei.)
Really? Yup. Well that muddles things. Not really. Once free of bucket thinking, it’s simpler, really. What’s “bucket thinking?” Bucket thinking is dividing spectrums into opposite “buckets.”
When I identify as, “I lean liberal” (accurate) rather than, “I am liberal” (inaccurate) I open a door for people to appreciate both how I am similar and how I am different (rather than the same or different).
The limitations of bucket thinking are tremendous. How so? No one is 100% anything. We are each somewhere along a spectrum of every identifying classification we can imagine. And, yet, we limit our expressions and communications of these modifiers to gross over generalizations.
This does not mean “bucket” categorizations do not have very practical uses. (Most certainly, they do.) When it comes to things like distinguishing biological race between Blacks and Whites, there is clear political advantage (and potential risk). Consider that the experience of feeling “hot” or “cold” is different for Alaskan natives than it is Hawaiian natives. Yet, these two “bucket” classifications still come in quite handy in everyday conversation. Simply, in a global population, it is relevant not to mistake bucket classifications as absolute distinctions. They are, and have always been, graduations along an often elusive spectrum in temperature ranges. A similar analysis of sexuality reveals a complex tapestry beyond opposites of “heterosexual” or “homosexual” (even the inconclusive, “bisexual”).
You’re on a desert island for 40 years with only one human being who is not the same ‘flavor’ as you. Over time, the two of you become close… inseparable. When the rescue ship arrives, neither can imagine a life apart. The relationship has truly become a marriage. Just society acknowledges this union.
No marriage law requires a litmus test for the foundations of unions along scales of lust and love.
Psychological underpinnings of attraction bringing two people together, whether for a one night stand or a life of commitment and responsibility, have yet to reach a greater round table of discussion.
Our world can heal once men no longer fear being branded, “gay.” Communicate to new generations the sound roots and future rationale of compartmentalizing nature’s spectrums, and we have a chance.
This will no doubt be considered a home run for the readers and writers around here but I cry foul ball!
I know it’s pointkess making a umpire call in this cultural game these days where everyone is saying there are no lines, no bases and no scores. Just get out there and run around, or don’t, punt, kick, tee off or run the ball…it doesn’t matter anymore.
I am so thankful for the biblical tradition that takes the Word of God to mean what it says in a culture that’s unravelling the garments of historic ethics and morality, gender and sexuality, family and individual identify on and on for a “whatever is right in your own eyes” narrative.
Well, Eric, I generally appreciate your comments, but I’m drawing a blank. It seems
either you just wanted to blow off a little steam (fine by me), or else, it appears you are reacting to what you think you read rather than what I actually said? Hmm. One thing for certain, there is nothing in my piece stating, “there are no lines, no bases and no scores.” On the contrary, I point out distinct, defensible guidelines across a broad spectrum of questions innate to human culture. I ended up finally writing this post to get out of my head my own frustrations with the very dangerous “culture game” of which WE ARE ALL partaking that imminently RISKS becoming “a culture that’s unravelling the garments of historic ethics and morality, gender and sexuality, family and individual identity” as you imagine. If your comment regarding “biblical tradition” is aimed at me, I can say, most definitely, I believe myself to take the “Word of God” to mean what “what it says.” However, I will not respond to dogmatic criticism. Absolute “dogmatism” is “bucket thinking,” and it’s what’s gotten us into OUR cultural mess. I am responding to YOUR comment, Eric, AS A WRITER for FāVS, because I am a GUEST in YOUR arena. I need not defend this post to any a greater circle, because, quite frankly, it speaks for itself.
Well done Riff.
Thanks!
Life cannot be understood and analyzed without the concept of destiny, reincarnation, and soul theory. We must first know that we are not our bodies, we are our souls. You are a soul and I am a soul also. We also reincarnate, life after life. This is not the only life we are living in this world. Similarly, life is completely controlled by our destiny. Destiny only means past is controlling the present. Ask the simple question – Have you ever done anything without a reason? Obviously not, and never. Thus our present actions are controlled by our reasons which came before. Thus we do not have freewill, we are all controlled by our destiny.
Thus race, ethnicity, sex, gender, and sexuality are all results of reincarnation and destiny of our souls. In the next life everything may change. I may be born in another country, in another religion, with different gender, and also different sexuality. Thus every human, since we may change sex, has both kinds of sexuality at birth. Since we cannot control our destiny, we just have to accept our physical and mental conditions.
The important thing is that, although the destiny is a correct theory, but we cannot know what our destinies are, therefore we may try whatever our soul is telling us to do. Listen to the soul and obey its dictates. Best way will be to meditate every day to keep a closer link with our souls. Take a look at the free book here at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the interest, IdPnSD, however, my post does not seek to understand or analyze life. That, as well as the question of free will, would be a topic for discussion in another thread. I would suggest, however, that one cannot “understand” or “analyze” anything without first placing such endeavors, themselves, within a proper framework. For this, I do highly recommend daily meditation. It by such effort that I have arrived at the conclusion that frameworks such as ‘soul’ VERSUS ‘body’ are erroneous notions of counterproductive BUCKET THINKING. You and I cannot have a conversation about ANYTHING unless we first agree to a framework of words and definitions, their relationships and interdependencies. My post simply points out how we embrace concepts/ideas/words/notions as ABSOULUTES (like ‘soul’ and ‘body’) when, in fact, they are reference points along delineations of degrees. Thx, again.
“You and I cannot have a conversation about ANYTHING unless we first agree to a framework of words and definitions, their relationships and interdependencies.” – This is a good idea. I have created such a framework in the book pointed out in my first comment. But I would like to know your framework.
The basic CONTEXT for my post is mainstream western culture, the English language and modern dictionary reference. Within THIS context, the post DOES delineate a simple framework for the juxtapositions of the five highlighted mental concepts as well as any other misplaced polarities. You suggest I reference a context of souls, reincarnation, and destiny to correctly frame such ideas. I simply disagree. Choice comes BEFORE destiny. Alas, again, this is a topic for a different thread.
I do not see any difference in cultures of western, eastern, northern or southern neighbors. The differences I see are on the surface. I see differences in EU and USA cultures, in Greek and German cultures, in UK and French cultures, even between San Francisco and Los Angeles cultures. These differences are due to confusions, lack of inner vision or meditation caused by falsity of science and economics of modern society, imposed all over the world. Deep inside of us, you will find only one culture, which is eternal, constant, and searching for truths, over reincarnations after reincarnations. We are all reincarnated souls, irrespective of our nations, and even planets. The same us were there when Jesus was here, Mohammad was here, Krishna and Rama were here. The memories of those days are with us and are still guiding us.
The framework of my thoughts is presented in the book, in the first chapter on Truth. It can be described along the path Galileo has shown. First, sitting on earth he was the only person in the whole world who could conceive that the earth is moving, a consequence of high level of meditation and yogic power within us. We can never imagine that the earth is moving, but Galileo did. Second, Galileo designed a method to prove his theory based only on the observation of nature.
Thus Galileo has shown that (1) truth is unique and universal, independent of space and time. What is true now was true million years back, and will remain true million years from now. What is true in USA will be true in China. Along the same way what is true on earth will be true on mars or on moon. (2) He also has shown that truth must be detected only by observing nature. Just like computers can never know about humans, similarly creations can never know the creator (nature or our individual souls) by doing some mathematics or experiments in an isolated and controlled environment inside our labs. (3) It is a fact that nature always demonstrates its laws. We just have to meditate and do research, the way Galileo did, to find these laws, which are the only universal truths.
Thus Newton (classical physics), Heisenberg (quantum physics), and Einstein (relativity theory) are all wrong. They did not observe nature; they only did some mathematics which is completely false. Both real numbers and money are false, because they are not objects of nature. How can you create something true using something that is false, like real numbers and money? You cannot. So, falsity has overwhelmed us, we are lost, apparently on the surface. We are all brainwashed.
“Deep inside of us, you will find only one culture,” is to say we are all stardust. This is a RELATIVE notion. “How can you create something true using something that is false,” is in and of itself a false mental construct as its query is based on ABSOLUTE ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood.’
IdPnSD, your comments deal with the NATURE OF OBSERVATION, not the rationale of my post. You can CHOOSE to reject its context, but this does not yield any absolute framework of human perception.
“… is to say we are all stardust.” – Doesn’t Bible say the same thing? Vedas also say the same thing. Just like earth environment is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules, similarly the entire universe is filled with root material (stardust) and root cause (souls). We are all created by such an individual soul using such root material. If you observe nature carefully, just like Galileo did, you will find it to be true.
“This is a RELATIVE notion.” – Truth that is not unique and universal is not truth. Truth must be valid over entire space time. If you accept Relativity concept, then Galileo would still be wrong today.
“… NATURE OF OBSERVATION, not the rationale of my post.” – Just like computers cannot have any rationality about humans, in the same way humans cannot have any rationality about nature, the creator. Newton provided rationality, so he was wrong. Newton’s first law says – an object moves in a straight line with a constant velocity. Have you ever seen such an object on earth or in deep space? No, never. So Newton was wrong. So are all people who injected rationality in math, physics, and economics.
“… but this does not yield any absolute framework of human
perception.” – Absolute framework comes only from laws of nature. Soul theory, yogic power, reincarnation, destiny, eternal recurrence, etc. are examples of such absolute truth and were derived and observed from nature only. They are true all over the universe and for all time, similar to planetary motions identified by Galileo.
You are a stubborn one. While I encourage you to continue your quest, I clarify, one last time, I am not referencing the cosmos, the Vedas, the Bible OR your book on souls. I am referencing common speak vernacular and modern dictionary reference that construct our public textbooks and eventually the very laws of our land. Full stop.
Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was a professor of history at Georgetown University at Washington DC. He was a mentor of US President Bill Clinton, who mentioned his name twice during his presidency. In the book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley wrote, Britain has two kinds of people, classes and masses. The education system for classes has three negatives; one of them is never teach the truth. This has now become the norm for every country in the world in all our textbooks.
Keynes, one of the fathers of the modern economic theory, said – only one in a million knows how economy works. Thus you can understand the level of falsity in economics propagated by the money power.
Ayn Rand said – “Truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.”
Galileo was jailed for telling the truth. You cannot tell the truth, even today. Truth tellers are all either in exile or in jails all over the world. I call it Galileo phenomenon. However, it is a destined path for all souls to search for eternal truth. We will all reach there, or already have reached, in one of our incarnations. I am just a messenger in my book. Only 1% knows the real truth and I collected them there from the internet.
“I am referencing common speak vernacular and modern dictionary reference that construct our public textbooks and eventually the very laws of our land.” – I agree with you, this is the state of the art, according to Quigley. I am sorry; I probably created some unnecessary distractions in your post.
Riff:
This passage is very problematic to me: “To choose sex reassignment surgeries is to make a choice to alter one’s biological sex to equate with cultural tides very susceptible to rapid change. At the very least, this direct reasoning indicates cause for exceptional caution on the part of the individual engaging in such contemplation.”
First things first, for many Trans people, SRS or hormone therapy is not a choice, it is a medical necessity to mitigate the intense psychological distress that can come about as a result of gender dysphoria.
Second, people who undergo SRS or hormone therapy do not take these decisions lightly; nor can they simply have a procedure done because they want it to be done. For most insurance companies, you have to do the following before undergoing *any* procedure for SRS: Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, persistent, well-documented evidence of gender dysphoria, adequate mental capacity to make an informed decision, 18 or older, and for some procedures twelve months of continuous hormone therapy.
I understand the point of this post; but you can make it without minimizing the lived experiences of Trans people.
Hi Blaine,
I believe I understand and appreciate the sensitivities to which you draw focus.
Have you read Sam Killermann’s, “The Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook: A Guide to Gender” (http://www.guidetogender.com/)? On printed page 132, Sam states: “If we want to care for the health of trans* people who are experiencing the mind and body dysphoria I described in the metaphor as similar to transplant rejection (note: this is not to say this is how all—or even—most trans* people may experience their gender but is rather a particular type of dysphoria some trans* people may experience), I see two clear options: One, and this one is my preference, we can create a society that no longer exerts the social pressures and microaggressions that lead to this level of unhealthy dysphoria, a society in which individuals’ minds will always match their bodies because we take individuals as individuals and don’t attempt to force them into molds …” (Sam’s Option #2 is the societal embracement of widening the path to SRS.)
I believe it is society’s RESPONSIBILITY to do everything in OUR power to bring Option #1 into existence.
You contradict yourself (and I do not mention this lightly) when you say ‘not a choice, it is a medical necessity’ and then turn around and state ‘do not take these DECISIONS lightly.’
You are absolutely right that I could have made my point about ‘bucket thinking’ without referencing perceived buckets of gender. However, both sex and gender are foundational to the predicament of dogmatic polarities.
My brothers and sisters who find themselves in crisis mode dealing with these mental illogicalities DESERVE to MAKE THEIR DECISION in clear light that the true disparity is within society, NOT THEM.
Blaine, I understand the nature of this subject matter.
I do not minimize.
Quite the contrary, my post emphasizes the HEART of the crisis in such a way that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US can consciously choose to help those imprisoned by mental anguish by rethinking OUR understanding of identity.
I very much appreciate your choosing to comment. Thank you!
note: please do not take my reference of sam’s book as an endorsement