5 ms·

It's the Aboriginal version of 'transgender / queer'. The paradox is - if there isn't an objective way to identify these groups, then arguably they do not exis

It's the Aboriginal version of 'transgender / queer'. The paradox is - if there isn't an objective way to identify these groups, then arguably they do not exist other than purely in terms of 'self identification' which is a serious blow to the legitimacy of anything, really. So if LGBTQ+ were formal categories, then we could just use those instead of adding 'Two Spirit'. We wouldn't use the Aboriginal, German or Japanese words for them, because that would make no sense, we have words for things which exist already. But because categories are culturally defined, but more paradoxically - self-defined - then it exposes a serious problem of postmodernism. Everyone should apply to the position as 'Two Spirit' - there literally is no material definition for the categorization, and the Canadian Supreme Court would be bending itself backwards in Asana Yoga poses to find out how to apply the Woke Terminology that lacks any definition. The Law is inexorably funded on objectivity, it can't very well function otherwise. Pulling the thread on this Sweater will undo it completely, the best thing to do is start pulling on it hard because it will expose the inanity of it all. I actually do support people in vulnerable situations, and getting people from marginalized communities into systems which they feel they can't participate in, but this isn't the playbook we should be using.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Is there an objective way for the government to identify gay people that isn't based on self identification? If a gay man's rights are being violated on a protected basis, does the court refuse to hear the case until he has sex with another man in front of the judge and jury? Self identification is entirely how social categories function. Postmodernism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive - it describes how things already work.
- causality0 5y ago
  I think that's his point, that an institution is discriminating in such a way as allows the people ostensibly being excluded to use the discrimination to rebel against slash punish the institution for the discrimination.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I'm not worried about someone 'punishing the system'. My point is that there's an obvious legal and moral conundrum with identities that are entirely self applied, which is made evident by someone making a claim to said identities and being rejected of those claims. Try it: Identify as Two Spirit, get rejected, sue on the basis of discrimination that UBC would not recognize your (completely arbitrary) claims to Two Spirit. Then force them to make the argument, in court. It'd be impossible other than to demonstrate the absurdity of the reasoning: "I define myself as this kind of gender, which is my right, therefore I deserve this privilege" "But that person over there cannot define themselves as this kind of gender, because their ancestors are from a different continent" It's Monty Python all the way down the rabbit hole.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The objective way to identify gay men is to ask if they have slept with gay men over a certain period. The gov. actually do this in some cases i.e. when donating blood and on some other surveys for research. Of course, you can be gay and celibate, for all intents and purposes (or can you? That's another question) ... ... but we do have a set of objective behaviours for what constitutes being gay. With Nonbinary trans, Two Spirit, and some of the more exotic categories - we don't. This is where the Trans effort is going to fall apart: 90% of citizens will accept someone who 'Roughly looks, talks and acts like a woman' - as 'Basically a Woman'. Trans people could win the war instantly on those terms. And I'll bet about 75% of Trans people would be happy with that - most of them want safety, equality, dignity. I believe the majority of Trans people are not hugely concerned that the Pharmacy row for Feminine Hygiene uses the term 'Feminine'. I will go further: the majority of Trans men and women actually want to be identified as those genders in more traditional terms, and they are not offended that our normative, popular view is that 'Women Have Babies' and 'Men Don't Have Babies'. But a lot of the people (I believe the minority) promoting the movement want to push it further by dereferencing all popular ideals of 'Male' or 'Female' to make it entirely self-referential. For example, some want to expunge normative ideals such as 'Women Have Babies', because of course '(Trans)Men have babies as well'. And since 'Trans Men' are '100% Men' in every way, and to contemplate otherwise is bigotry, an erasure of their identities, and therefore a form of 'harm' and 'violence' - the type of language those people use. It's bit sad actually because the most aggressive voices in the community I don't think are pushing for material progress. Much like regular politics in the US I suppose. As for UBC, I think they need a better way to accomplish their objectives, which are complicated by the fact that minorities are already technically hugely over-represented at the school.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > The objective way to identify gay men is to ask if they have slept with gay men over a certain period. So what's the objective time period? And if a gay man has an unlucky streak for that length of time, do they auto default back to straight? What about bi or pan people? If someone identified as bisexual but you have only ever seen them in relationships with the opposite gender, can you reasonably say "you're actually objectively straight"? The idea of objective metrics for social categories falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. The government can assign objective markers but only for things that are objective - the whole "gay men not being allowed to donate blood" thing for example is meant to screen out HIV right? So the metrics are aligned around that goal (also it's a messed up system but that's another subject). The government measuring certain metrics does not make them the objective definition, because the government is not the definer of reality. I think you're confused by a lack of understanding of some of these ideas, plus a healthy mix of "there are quite a few insane or poorly reasoned progressives", but mainly the former. For example, sex and gender are different things, and some of the things you have said confuse the two, but also some arguments from trans activists also do that.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Is there an objective way for the government to identify gay people that isn't based on self identification? If a gay man's rights are being violated on a protected basis, does the court refuse to hear the case until he has sex with another man in front of the judge and jury? Self identification is entirely how social categories function. Postmodernism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive - it describes how things already work.

causality0 5y ago
I think that's his point, that an institution is discriminating in such a way as allows the people ostensibly being excluded to use the discrimination to rebel against slash punish the institution for the discrimination.
- jollybean 5y ago
  I'm not worried about someone 'punishing the system'. My point is that there's an obvious legal and moral conundrum with identities that are entirely self applied, which is made evident by someone making a claim to said identities and being rejected of those claims. Try it: Identify as Two Spirit, get rejected, sue on the basis of discrimination that UBC would not recognize your (completely arbitrary) claims to Two Spirit. Then force them to make the argument, in court. It'd be impossible other than to demonstrate the absurdity of the reasoning: "I define myself as this kind of gender, which is my right, therefore I deserve this privilege" "But that person over there cannot define themselves as this kind of gender, because their ancestors are from a different continent" It's Monty Python all the way down the rabbit hole.
jollybean 5y ago
The objective way to identify gay men is to ask if they have slept with gay men over a certain period. The gov. actually do this in some cases i.e. when donating blood and on some other surveys for research. Of course, you can be gay and celibate, for all intents and purposes (or can you? That's another question) ... ... but we do have a set of objective behaviours for what constitutes being gay. With Nonbinary trans, Two Spirit, and some of the more exotic categories - we don't. This is where the Trans effort is going to fall apart: 90% of citizens will accept someone who 'Roughly looks, talks and acts like a woman' - as 'Basically a Woman'. Trans people could win the war instantly on those terms. And I'll bet about 75% of Trans people would be happy with that - most of them want safety, equality, dignity. I believe the majority of Trans people are not hugely concerned that the Pharmacy row for Feminine Hygiene uses the term 'Feminine'. I will go further: the majority of Trans men and women actually want to be identified as those genders in more traditional terms, and they are not offended that our normative, popular view is that 'Women Have Babies' and 'Men Don't Have Babies'. But a lot of the people (I believe the minority) promoting the movement want to push it further by dereferencing all popular ideals of 'Male' or 'Female' to make it entirely self-referential. For example, some want to expunge normative ideals such as 'Women Have Babies', because of course '(Trans)Men have babies as well'. And since 'Trans Men' are '100% Men' in every way, and to contemplate otherwise is bigotry, an erasure of their identities, and therefore a form of 'harm' and 'violence' - the type of language those people use. It's bit sad actually because the most aggressive voices in the community I don't think are pushing for material progress. Much like regular politics in the US I suppose. As for UBC, I think they need a better way to accomplish their objectives, which are complicated by the fact that minorities are already technically hugely over-represented at the school.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > The objective way to identify gay men is to ask if they have slept with gay men over a certain period. So what's the objective time period? And if a gay man has an unlucky streak for that length of time, do they auto default back to straight? What about bi or pan people? If someone identified as bisexual but you have only ever seen them in relationships with the opposite gender, can you reasonably say "you're actually objectively straight"? The idea of objective metrics for social categories falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. The government can assign objective markers but only for things that are objective - the whole "gay men not being allowed to donate blood" thing for example is meant to screen out HIV right? So the metrics are aligned around that goal (also it's a messed up system but that's another subject). The government measuring certain metrics does not make them the objective definition, because the government is not the definer of reality. I think you're confused by a lack of understanding of some of these ideas, plus a healthy mix of "there are quite a few insane or poorly reasoned progressives", but mainly the former. For example, sex and gender are different things, and some of the things you have said confuse the two, but also some arguments from trans activists also do that.