Mystree_Machine Authors Yeerk.P 🦆
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
You did not 'know' that you were 'cis' at age 11 lol- you learned the term 'cis' as an adult and then retroactively applied it to yourself- it's not the same thing
This 'knowledge' (which is akin to the knowledge that your arm possesses 'armness') was *socially produced* through your introduction to the discourse of 'gender identity', through your introduction to a conceptual distinction founded upon 'identifying with one's assigned sex'
Ironically, the fact that you've never felt a dissonance between yourself and your 'assigned sex' becomes evidence for the legitimacy of the distinction in the first place i.e. you assume that because *you* experience a unity of 'gender' and 'sex', this implies that others don't
By teaching young children that they *can* experience a dissonance between their 'inner selves' and their 'assigned sex', you actually invite them to 'consider what this would be like'- and this objectless rumination then becomes the 'evidence' for the necessity of transition
Since there are no actual tangible standards by which a person can verify that their gender 'matches' their assigned sex (literally none whatsoever), in the absence of such standards, the mind's process of enquiring into itself *becomes* the standard
A large part of education is giving students language to define and explain things. That is precisely what you\u2019ve described. Eg, I knew I was cis gendered and heterosexual at 11. I didn\u2019t have the language to express it. If I\u2019d have been given it, I\u2019d have used it. This isn\u2019t odd
— Jo Grady (@DrJoGrady) July 6, 2022
This 'knowledge' (which is akin to the knowledge that your arm possesses 'armness') was *socially produced* through your introduction to the discourse of 'gender identity', through your introduction to a conceptual distinction founded upon 'identifying with one's assigned sex'
Ironically, the fact that you've never felt a dissonance between yourself and your 'assigned sex' becomes evidence for the legitimacy of the distinction in the first place i.e. you assume that because *you* experience a unity of 'gender' and 'sex', this implies that others don't
By teaching young children that they *can* experience a dissonance between their 'inner selves' and their 'assigned sex', you actually invite them to 'consider what this would be like'- and this objectless rumination then becomes the 'evidence' for the necessity of transition
Since there are no actual tangible standards by which a person can verify that their gender 'matches' their assigned sex (literally none whatsoever), in the absence of such standards, the mind's process of enquiring into itself *becomes* the standard
When people say 'stop thinking about it' or 'stop being depressed', they actually mean 'stop producing depressed discourse'- the 'inescapability' of these things is in their recursive self-production via 'thinking about them'
Beckett's 'The Unnamable' is practically a demonstration of this- written from the point of view of a disembodied voice (it's only embodiment is 'in the text') self-generating its own claustrophobia through its inability to cease
Lest anyone think I'm being dismissive of mental anguish, I suffered from 'depression' and 'anxiety' for a long time- in my early 20s- before I developed the spiritual confidence to affirm what I'd intellectually always suspected: that these things have no actual existence
On my 1st ever podcast appearance w/ @kaschuta, I describe evil as 'nothingness eating itself into the world'- the fact of a thing being non-existent doesn't mean it doesn't inflict harm- the harm it inflicts its the friction of the non-existent entering an existent medium
This is true.
— In The Flesh: Philosophy for Living (@live_intheflesh) July 6, 2022
But like other things that fit this language-first mold (i.e. "depression") just telling people to "stop thinking about it" only works for some people.
One the term gets memetic legs they are hard to chop off.
This proves the original assertion: language 1st.
Beckett's 'The Unnamable' is practically a demonstration of this- written from the point of view of a disembodied voice (it's only embodiment is 'in the text') self-generating its own claustrophobia through its inability to cease
Lest anyone think I'm being dismissive of mental anguish, I suffered from 'depression' and 'anxiety' for a long time- in my early 20s- before I developed the spiritual confidence to affirm what I'd intellectually always suspected: that these things have no actual existence
On my 1st ever podcast appearance w/ @kaschuta, I describe evil as 'nothingness eating itself into the world'- the fact of a thing being non-existent doesn't mean it doesn't inflict harm- the harm it inflicts its the friction of the non-existent entering an existent medium