| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 01/31/22 Posts: 194 Last seen: 1 month, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
Section 6; Trans-Identification:
“In a thousand years there will be no men or women, just wankers.” Irvine Welsch A person is nothing but the sum total of all projects they engage in throughout their lives. If any responsible adult decides, for whatever reason, that they want to live according to the social mores conventionally assigned to the other sex, or even have their genitals surgically altered to resemble theirs, this project is by definition a component of them, their subjectivity, who they are. Anyone who discriminates against or makes life unnecessarily harder for people based on this project of theirs are, as far as I am concerned, degenerate fuckwits and the world would be a better place without them. That said, the concept of gender identities has no coherent content and can only pass as coherent so long as traditional gender norms remain so thoroughly ingrained in our society that we pretend as if they were more real than our own bodies (all the while this is presented as an attack on gender norms). This poses a genuine problem for us because the fact that those who engage in these “gender transition” projects have been assigned an identity status within the conceptual hierarchy of Intersectional Feminism as a “marginalized group” (which they technically are) has provided a rationalization for dismissing any and all criticisms of the development of the concept of “Gender” within Gender studies departments in the Academia as “trans-bashing or “trans-phobic,” so that no one is allowed to criticize this concept of “gender identities” and anyone who does is labeled a “bigot” and effectively silenced. This is why I think that we should go back to using the old term “Trans-sexual,” in order to simply refer to someone's desire to assume the roles attributed to the opposite sex. Conceptually speaking, however, we are posed with an even bigger difficulty. What is the significance of these transformations? Why is any criticism of this mode of thinking equated to hatred of those who have engaged in the projects these gender theories were supposedly developed to explain? What is the status of Gender and Biological sex in all of this? This transformation is occasionally associated with Simone de Beauvoir’s claim that “one is not born but rather becomes a woman,” but in fact it is entirely incompatible with the existentialist sense in which she wrote this. What Beauvoir meant was that the concept “woman” as has developed socially, is a nonsensical abstraction manufactured by men enable to gain power over women by pretending as if this abstract concept above actual, concrete women. Deriving from an instinctual fear of the female sex, she claims, men delude themselves into thinking their concepts capture the “essence” of all actually existing biological females, and use this as a justification for confining them to particular roles which are supposed to “reflect” this “essence” which exists only in their imaginations. As she writes: “Woman? Very simple, say those who like simple answers: She is a womb, an ovary; she is a female: this word is enough to define her… The term “female” is pejorative not because it roots woman in nature but because it confines her in her sex, and if this sex, even in an innocent animal, seems despicable and an enemy to man, it is obviously because of the disquieting hostility woman triggers in him. Nevertheless, he wants to find a justification in biology for this feeling… Man projects all females at once onto woman. And the fact is that she is a female. But if one wants to stop thinking in commonplaces, two questions arise. What does the female represent in the animal kingdom? And what unique kind of female is realized in woman?” The only kernel of truth to this interpretation is that Beauvoir does then expound on the nature of this categorization, and identifies it as consisting in the concept of “the female sex,” but here the similarities end entirely. This misunderstanding seems to come from a failure to understand a very sharp distinction made in Existentialist Philosophy between “Being-In-Itself” and “Being-For-Itself,” a distinction which is the basis of both all Existentialist Philosophy as well as all of Beauvoir’s Feminist arguments. In Existentialist Philosophy, “Being-For-Itself” (also known as Consciousness) is itself a relation to being which sets itself apart from “Being-In-Itself” (which he also refers to as “the principle of identity”), and it does this by constituting itself as a lack, by imagining some hypothetical missing [blank] that would unify the For-Itself with the In-Itself without eliminating the For-Itself, allowing us to become a “For-Itself-In-Itself,” a non-existent being (basically god) which could possess both a unified and stable identity as well as Consciousness and Freedom. If we were to take up Sartre’s approach, there wouldn’t be any way around this issue because all of human reality is centered around this impossible and doomed to failure project and any decision we make or perspective we take on the subject is itself defined by what we make ourselves out to lack in the process, spawning endless doomed projects to achieve this nonexistent state of “Being-For-Itself-In-Itself,” which supposedly haunts our being. Because of this, Sartre concludes that lack itself comes into being through human reality and that human reality is itself a lack, writing that: “Human reality by which lack appears in the world must be itself a lack. For lack can come into being only through lack; the in-itself can not be the occasion of lack in the in-itself… human reality is before all else its own nothingness. What it denies or nihilates in relation to itself as for-itself can be only itself. The meaning of human reality as nihilated is constituted by this nihilation and this presence in it of what it nihilates; hence the self-as-being-in-itself is what human reality lacks and what makes its meaning.” However, this by definition impossible project to become a “Being-For-Itself-In-Itself” literally defines and constitutes Consciousness (the “For-itself”) so that it remains a permanent possibility of it, and the consequence of this is a recurring philosophical error wherein someone confuses the For-Itself with the In-Itself in order to pretend to have either approached or achieved a state of being both for-themselves (conscious of their being/activity) and in-themselves (having an absolute identity/significance) which Sartre calls “Bad Faith.” One of Sartre’s classic examples of this is a cafe waiter who, as Sartre points out, is not a cafe waiter: he is a cafe waiter in the mode of not being one (being a cafe waiter does not exhaust his being) and not a cafe waiter in the mode of being one (he does work a job we know as “cafe waiter”). Following this distinction, Bad Faith would consist in our non-existent waiter claiming or believing either that he isn’t a cafe waiter (in that he doesn’t work that job) or that being a cafe waiter exhausts his being (that he is just a manifestation of some mysterious Platonic Form of “cafe waiter” and nothing else) It is based on this insight that Beauvoir develops her theory of how women are objectified in society and what the consequences of that might be. For her what this meant was that male children are raised to identify with their bodies and to see their bodies as an extension of their subjectivity, whereas female children are raised to see themselves as objects and to externalize their subjectivity and desire for a coherent sense of self onto men. The primary way by which this is expressed is marriage and the social significance it conventionally has for women, but as Beauvoir explains this tendency has infected all of their thinking, including the structure of their dreams and imaginations, even their sexual fantasies. Gender Ideology cannot allow its claims to be pushed to their logical conclusion because its very existence is based around a refusal to do just this. Every key ideological point which constitutes it is turned against each other and the conclusions which it draws from them can only be arrived at by specific combinations at specific stages of the concept, which are themselves frequently non-sequitur leaps in logic. This internal incoherence is then partly maintained by the fact that most criticism of Trans-Ideology are Conservative and make the same basic assumptions as Trans-Ideology, such as that there is such as thing as intrinsically masculine or feminine traits or that we can understand all or even a significant portion of our personalities by reference to this concept. Gender Identities are nothing but a development on the concept of Gender Norms, and both Gender Ideology and its reactionary critics can only make sense of their claims with reference to some abstract concept of “Traditional Gender Roles” which never actually existed in reality (although they imagine different versions of these “Traditional Gender Roles” and one side claims to be against them). “By itself, the species is nothing, and if the individual raises himself above the limits of his individuality, this is rather just he himself as an individual; he is only so long as he raises himself, he is only so long as he doesn’t remain what he is; otherwise he would be finished, dead. The human being is only an ideal, the species only something thought. To be a human being doesn’t mean fulfilling the ideal of the human being, but rather showing oneself, the individual. It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, etc. Perhaps I can make very little out of myself; this little, however, is all, and is better than what I allow the power of others to make out of me, through the training of custom, religion, law, the state, etc. Better—if we’re to talk of better at all—an ill-bred brat, than an overly mature child; better a reluctant human being than one who is willing to do anything. The bratty and reluctant one is still on his way to forming his own will for himself; the prematurely knowing and willing one is defined by the “species,” the general requirements, etc.; this is law to him. He is defined by it: then, what else is the species to him than his “definition,” his “calling”? Whether I look upon “humanity,” the species, as the ideal to emulate, or upon God and Christ with the same desire, what essential difference would there be? At most, the former is more wishy-washy than the latter. As the individual is the whole of nature, so too is he the whole of the species. Everything that I do, think, etc., in short, my expression or manifestation, is indeed qualified by what I am. The Jew, for example, can only want thus or so, can only present himself thus; the Christian can only present and manifest himself in a Christian way, etc. If it were possible that you could be a Jew or a Christian, you would certainly bring only what was Jewish or Christian to light; but it is not possible; through the most intense change, you still remain an egoist, a sinner against that concept, i.e., you are not = Jew.[193] Now, because the egoistic always keeps shining through, some have asked for a more complete concept that actually fully expresses what you are, and that, because it is your true nature, contains all the laws of your activity. The most perfect thing of the kind has been reached in “humanity.” As a Jew you are too little and the Jewish is not your task; to be a Greek, a German, is not enough. But be a—human being, then you have everything; look upon the human as your calling. Now I know what I am supposed to do, and the new catechism can be written. Again the subject is subservient to the predicate, the individual to something universal; rule is again protected by an idea, and the foundation of a new religion laid. This is a step forward in the religious, and especially Christian, realm, not a step beyond it. The step beyond leads into the unspeakable. For me, miserable language has no word, and “the Word,” the Logos, is for me a “mere word.” One seeks for my essence. If it isn’t the Jew, the German, etc., then, at any rate, the human being. “The human being is my essence.” I am abhorrent or repugnant to myself; I am horrified and disgusted with myself, I am an abomination to myself, or, I am never enough for myself and never do enough for myself. From such feelings springs self-dissolution or self-criticism. Religiousness begins with self-denial and ends with completed criticism. I am possessed and want to get rid of the “evil spirit.” How do I get started? I confidently commit the sin that to the Christian seems the worst, the sin and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. “He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty before the eternal judgment!”I want no forgiveness and have no fear of the judgment. The human being is the last evil spirit or phantasm, the most deceptive and the most intimate, the craftiest liar with the honest face, the father of lies. Since the egoist turns against the impositions and concepts of the present, he relentlessly carries out the most unbridled—desecration. Nothing is sacred to him.” Max Stirner “The world can be validly construed as forum for action, or as place of things. The former manner of interpretation – more primordial, and less clearly understood – finds its expression in the arts or humanities, in ritual, drama, literature, and mythology. The world as forum for action is a place of value, a place where all things have meaning. This meaning, which is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, is implication for action, or – at a higher level of analysis – implication for the configuration of the interpretive schema that produces or guides action.” “The man readily uses the pretext of the Hegelian idea that the male citizen acquires his ethical dignity by transcending himself toward the universal: as a singular individual, he has the right to desire and pleasure. His relations with woman thus lie in a contingent region where morality no longer applies, where conduct is inconsequential. His relations with other men are based on certain values; he is a freedom confronting other freedoms according to laws universally recognized by all; but with woman—she was invented for this reason —he ceases to assume his existence, he abandons himself to the mirage of the in-itself, he situates himself on an inauthentic plane; he is tyrannical, sadistic, violent or puerile, masochistic or querulous; he tries to satisfy his obsessions, his manias; he “relaxes,” he “lets go” in the name of rights he has acquired in his public life.” “There are different kinds of myths. This one, the myth of woman, sublimating an immutable aspect of the human condition—namely, the “division” of humanity into two classes of individuals—is a static myth. It projects into the realm of Platonic ideas a reality that is directly experienced or is conceptualized on a basis of experience; in place of fact, value, significance, knowledge, empirical law, it substitutes a transcendental idea, timeless, unchangeable, necessary. The idea is indisputable because it is beyond the given: it is endowed with absolute truth. Thus, against the dispersed, contingent, and multiple existences of actual women, mythical thought opposed the Eternal Feminine, unique and changeless. If the definition provided for this concept is contradicted by the behavior of flesh-and-blood women, it is the latter who are wrong: we are not told that Femininity is a false entity, but that the women that are concerned are not feminine. The contrary facts of experience are impotent against the myth….To pose Woman is to pose the absolute Other, without reciprocity, denying against all experience that she is a subject, a fellow human being.” The Second Sex
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Drafts for Introduction and First Section of my upcoming Book | 1,209 | 0 | 04/23/23 08:26 PM by Shrooms4menow | ||
![]() |
Drafts of the Second and Fourth sections for my upcoming book | 1,154 | 0 | 04/23/23 08:28 PM by Shrooms4menow | ||
![]() |
book of the dead | 2,633 | 12 | 04/23/04 07:59 PM by faelr | ||
![]() |
People who model their life after some book ( |
3,011 | 48 | 05/29/03 11:38 PM by atomikfunksoldier | ||
![]() |
Books | 1,743 | 11 | 07/07/02 05:50 AM by davidgergen | ||
![]() |
Jean-Paul Sartre ( |
3,130 | 34 | 01/04/03 06:04 PM by Adamist | ||
![]() |
Sartre Quote: Need interpretations | 3,828 | 14 | 03/14/06 11:10 PM by it stars saddam | ||
![]() |
Gender confusion or not? | 1,476 | 11 | 02/23/05 11:02 AM by Phluck |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 686 topic views. 1 members, 16 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


