Things that are obvious... got that way somehow

[beccaelizabeth]

I was reading a very *facepalm* argument that seemed to boil down to 'that guy doesn't look like a guy so they're not a guy even if they say so'.
Or, adding a couple of other examples, 'that x doesn't look like an x so they're not x even if they say so'.

This is *facepalm* on many levels.

I think it starts from an assumption about objectivity and empirical evidence, that is that there is a thing which is objectively true and you can gather data from looking at it to prove that thing. Which sounds all well and good until you add subjectivity and identity. Because *you* can gather data... but then you, subjectively, are processing it and making decisions on it. So the missing words in that statement up there are 'that x doesn't look like an x to me so I say they're not even if they say so'.

Truth is subjective because it's all us subjects thinking it up. Yes, even if it comes in through the eyes and can be weighed and measured.

And then all this crashes into identity. The underlying assumption to those statements is 'the identity I give you is more valid than the identity you give yourself', which hello to the obnoxious. Even if it is extrapolated to 'the identity society gives you' or 'the identity given to the individual by the greatest number of other people'. Because the individual has to live with that identity every single day, and the rest of the world, on the whole, doesn't.

And I can see the error. Often, if the individual is outnumbered about a statement they claim to be a fact, the individual is called wrong. If one person says line a is longest and everyone else says line b is longest then the one person is expected to change their mind and agree. And often they do... even if measuring it with a ruler would prove line a was indeed longest. There's psych experiments about it. But some people would be stubborn and require a ruler test, and some people would be stubborn and just believe their own eyes even if nobody else did.

And some things have an impact on other people. If one person wishes to call themselves The Master and identify as the boss of the world, that could be an issue for the whole rest of the world. But mostly we just ignore them until they go away.

Ignoring a group of people until they go away be less than nice. Especially if it's a really large group that is some whole number percentage of the population. And usually it isn't even necessary, because they aren't proclaiming themselves the boss of you, they're proclaiming themselves the boss of themselves. Individual gets to say who their own self is. No other individual gets to say who other people are. Society does not get to tell them who to be.

Except, on the whole, society, and language, is *big* on telling people who to be. It seems to be part of the function. It's tangled up with regulating behaviours and stuff. And power, in a lot of cases, is power to label and define. Then behaviours considered appropriate to those labels can be aimed at or used by the ones that fit the definitions.

Bit abstract? Men be dominant power group in society. Have more money, more positions where they're the boss of more people, more opportunity to make cultural texts, all those things that powerful get to do. Individuals get a label saying they are a man or they aren't. Edges carefully defined, because powerful group needs a less powerful group to be the boss of, and doesn't want anyone sneaking over the borders. If people could change their labels, anarchy! Powerful group would be people-who-call-themselves-men, and everyone could do that! It'd be green and purple drazi all over again, swapping cloths, wearing both, end up all the same side! So the powerful have vested interest in remaining powerful, and therefore in remaining a group, and in keeping others out of that group. And the really clever power structures make the not-powerful also police those borders, make them think it's important too. Then anyone trying to sneaky around the edges get in trouble from everywhere! So, and here's the clever bit, they make it all sound objective - natural - normal. It gets built into language, so there's only two words and one or the other always applies and everyone is told to think of themselves by one of these words and carries them around right as part of their names. Makes it a huge big deal to change that Mr for a Mrs, makes it a question of fundamental identity. Then it's unthinkable to just change chairs and go be the boss people for a while.

Saying what is normal - natural - true is always tangled up with this power stuff. Always already, has been since before any of us got here, will be after we're gone. Individuals standing up pointing at other individuals and saying they're not-true, not-natural, not-normal... they're engaging with structures of power that up and say 'hey, I'm the boss of you, I get to say this!'

So, then they get jumped on by all the 'you' in question who say actually, no, not. Being the boss of themselves. No changing the labels around, we chose them ourselves.

It's kind of fun to see in an academic sort of way, but since each and every time it has an impact on someone's life, it's rather non-fun, and rather important.

Therefore, also-always, not something to ignore or not care about. Tisn't just people saying stuff, tis people engaging in structures of power other people are not agreeing with.
Crunching. As of gears changing.


I am not saying trans people are deciding to go be in the boss group or opt out of it. I am not saying much about trans people at all, due to not knowing. I studied up on language and cultural studies and power as expressed through labels. And, er, if this was an essay marked on those criteria it would probably still fail. But this is what I thought of.

Some people start these arguments about identity with all that up there firmly in the 'of course' portion of the back of their minds. Of course individual has more rights over their own person than society does! Of course identity is plural and changeable! Of course you can't tell by looking!

Other people start with completely the opposite set of assumptions. And don't even notice it.

Makes discussions become arguings, methinks.

Comments

[sparklebutch.livejournal.com]

I was reading a very *facepalm* argument

Where are you reading this, and more importantly, *why*?

[beccaelizabeth]

metafandom is following an argue that started when someone went to WisCon specifically to mock, as far as I can tell. metafandom linked to something saying people were jumping on the original poster without actually reading what she said; I followed links and read what she said... very, very little of it, because it achieved new depths of *facepalm* and nausea inducement. Reading a few sentences of a couple of posts can still seem like a whole argue.

[psychoadept.livejournal.com]

sparklebutch linked me here. Just wanted to say thanks for the very clear explanation of the relationship between labels and power, etc. And bonus points for the Drazi metaphor. :) I friended you on principle, though I'm not really on LJ much anymore. If I ever start posting again, it's likely to be on IJ.