Ablowing Chaz Bono
Sex and Gender arguments are good for the same reason that abortion arguments are good: People really, really care about these issues. And, usually, that care translates into an impenetrable veil of emotion that clouds any semblance of reason. So, while the arguments descend into nonsense quite quickly, it is a passionate, visceral, argumentative nonsense with raised voices and finger pointing.
You know, fun.
So, when “Dr.” Keith Ablow starts discussing Chaz Bono’s inclusion on Dancing with the Stars, we know we’re in for good times.
Now, I should say that I am not entirely opposed to Ablow’s “position”. You see, as an individual with a faculty of reason, I can discern some problems with the notion of transgendered persons: they do not play nicely with our binary categories. Transgender invites ambiguity and subjectivism / relativism into our clean division between male and female. We’ve had these categories for quite some time, most languages contain the division, and a vast majority of persons fit neatly into one or the other. With that recognition, I can agree, to a point, with Ablow when he says shit like this:
It is a toxic and unnecessary byproduct of the tragic celebration of transgender surgery that millions of young people who do watch "Dancing with the Stars" will have to ponder this question: Maybe my problems really stem from the fact that I'm a girl inside a boy's body (or a boy inside a girl's body). Maybe I'm not a tomboy; I'm just a boy!
Yes, inviting that possibility is potentially hazardous; allowing unformed, uncritical minds to ponder the option that they can craft a self-narrative contrary to the norm invites a problem into our organized, ordered society. Little tammy was born with a vagina and has a Barbie Playhouse, but maybe she really wants a weiner-dong and some G.I. Joes. Providing children with the option means that some might take it, and that can be argued to be problematic, if only because an increase in gender ambiguity might eventually require that businesses provide more bathroom options than two.
Additionally, disolving cultural norms usually dissolves culture. Or, at least, particular aspects of culture. While some changes are beneficial, it is usually good to ponder the consequences of significantly retooling the organizational structures by which human beings self-govern. For example, do you really want to wait until your child is thirty to ask it what gender it feels like, and so name it accordingly? I mean, we can’t name every child “Pat”. But if we take seriously the notion that gender is a self-narrative, that every person gets to decide who they are, then we’ll probably have to rethink how naming works.
That is a trivial example, but it does show one possible consequence of dissolving our gender categories. When we invite ambiguity, we’ve invited ambiguity, and ambiguity destroys binary categorization, which is a fairly significant feature of reason; it’s kind of how we think.
So, in that respect, I can go along with Ablow: Letting an eight year old decide what gender it wants to be is probably not the best idea. Unless, of course, you are comfortable with your child’s gender being “Batman”.
But here’s where I part ways with Ablow:
We really don't know how these behaviors influence people when they are mainstreamed and celebrated. But I would say during the very vulnerable times when kids are forming their identities, as well as their sexual identities, yes, it's possible that if someone is celebrated and lifted to heroic proportions like that of a civil rights leader that someone who is somewhat uncomfortable with his or her gender might say, "You know what? I'm going down that road." And that is a very tortuous road that we know very little about. And it's still the subject of tremendous debate.
Here’s the problem: “someone who is somewhat uncomfortable with his or her gender”. Ablow recognizes the reality of the situation, that there exist people who are uncomfortable with the gender they have been assigned, and he blows right past it. Ablow has moved from, “Chaz Bono might cause children to self-describe as Batman” to “Chaz Bono may help someone.” That’s no longer invoking a genuine, rational discernment of a problem; that’s just being an asshole.
If persons actually do feel uncomfortable with their gender, and they genuinely struggle with self-description within our cultural binary categories, then we need to be sensitive to that. And if Chaz Bono can invite a conversation between parents a children about gender, about sex, about self-identification? How can that possibly be detrimental to the structure of society? How is that conversation, in itself, problematic?
Sex and Gender are very, very complicated issues. For most people, living within a fixed social category shall never be a problem. But for others, who struggle with self-identity and genuinely suffer in the attempt to feel normal, why not offer role models, offer conversations, offer an ounce of care? The conversation is difficult, but that does not mean that we should refuse to have it.
Because in addition to reason, human beings have empathy; we care about how other people feel. And that, unlike gender, is probably not an evolutionary mistake.
5 comments:
1.) I agree with you that Ablow is being rather heartless.
2.) I find the idea that "dissolving cultural norms usually dissolves culture." is problematic.
Culture is a fluid and ever-changing concept and the statement dissolving culture injects a negative perception and bias into the concept of culture.
3.) The idea of transgenderism as an evolutionary mistakes is similarly problematic. Humanity evolved in such a way so to survive on a purely physical status. Evolution becomes problematic as a concept among fully-sentient self aware beings such as people. Evolution cannot really apply to the thoughts and feelings of a being.
The concept of being transgendered being credited to evolution also becomes problematic, because then it is easy for people to identify it as a "sickness" or "genetic defect" (see eugenics. Conversely the problem with it being a "choice" is that this comes across to the big fuck you to "cultural norms".
However, the only people that get upset about an attack on cultural norms are those who do not realize that culture is not static.
2.) “Culture is a fluid and ever-changing concept and the statement dissolving culture injects a negative perception and bias into the concept of culture.”
I think different aspects of culture are differently fluid and “ever-changing”. Music is popular now that shan’t be popular in ten years. I think conceptions of gender, and gender roles, tend to change over a much longer timescale.
My suspicion is that it has to do with the role these things play in life. Hanson probably isn’t as consequential as adding Gender-X to passports, which is an entirely different rant. While they do change, the consequences of these changes need to be noted and considered prior to the change, whenever possible.
3.) “The idea of transgenderism as an evolutionary mistakes is similarly problematic.”
That final sentence was intended to convey the idea that gender, as a whole, is a mistake. "Gender" is the problem, not "transgenderism".
“Humanity evolved in such a way so to survive on a purely physical status. Evolution becomes problematic as a concept among fully-sentient self aware beings such as people. Evolution cannot really apply to the thoughts and feelings of a being.”
So, you take issue with meme theory? Cause meme theory treats lolcats as viruses, subject to evolutionary trends. I’m quite surprised that you would take evolution as a purely physical process that has nothing to do with thoughts or feelings.
“The concept of being transgendered being credited to evolution also becomes problematic, because then it is easy for people to identify it as a "sickness" or "genetic defect".”
Again, my point wasn’t that Chaz Bono is a problematic result of evolution, but rather that gender, the notion itself, is probably an evolutionary mistake.
We note that some people have vaginas and others have penises, we posit some traits onto those biological organs, we construct two general classes to hold those traits, we reify the classes, and herp a derp we have gender.
That whole project will probably end up being labeled as a mistake.
“However, the only people that get upset about an attack on cultural norms are those who do not realize that culture is not static.”
Probably not “only” those people. I think persons can note that culture changes and at the same time recognize that some changes do not behoove society. So one can take Chaz Bono’s plight seriously while at the same time recognize the problematic aspects of transgenderism and how proposed solutions to the problem, or modification to the categories, might cause further problems.
I don't really have an issue with the idea that there is a progression of ideas within a culture...my only point was that while this is a type of "evolution", it is separate from a biological understanding of evolution.
Darwinian evolution was never mean to apply to peoples ideas, thoughts , or feelings. While similar it isn't Darwinian evolution. My confusion stems from whether or not
When you talk about gender as being an evolutionary mistake, are you attributing it to Darwinian evolution or are you discussing it in the terms of Meme theory?
My only point was that if you are discussing the idea of an evolutionary mistake in the Darwinian sense is a silly notion.
It may be a semantic argument, but saying something is an evolutionary mistake is an anthropomorphism of an idea. Where as the term "evolutionary mistake" is usually a judgement statement based on a persons particular point of view.
There is no Darwinism but Darwinism and Evolution is the messenger of Darwinism.
Also,
Yes, I'm the real Darwinism. All you other Darwinisms are just imitating. So won't the real Darwinism... Please stand up, Please stand up.
Post a Comment