some thoughts on gender...

[Peter Kropotkin]

it seems to me that the opponents of gender fluidity,
think of gender in a very specific way... that
gender is the result of the physical...that we
think of gender in terms of a man having a penis
and a woman, a vagina... and no other possibilities exists...

that gender is a physical thing.... and has nothing to do
with how we think about ourselves.... the mental aspect
of gender is completely ignored...and gender is strictly
a physical/biological matter....

but isn't how we think about ourselves a major, if not the
most important aspect of who we are....
the truth is the physical aspect of existence is less
important then the mental aspect..... and the concepts
of existence isn't about what is physical but what we
think about existence... If, IF as a man, and I am,
what would happen if I didn't think about myself as a man,
but mentally, emotionally thought about myself as a woman?
then would I, physically as a man, be declared a man, or
would the mental/emotional part of me thinking I was
a woman, decide for me as being a woman?

the right believes that the physical aspect of gender is the right
one, whereas the gay/trans/cisgender/binary side of existence
would hold that gender is a mental construct...

and who is right? now as noted in another thread,
I mentioned this question of identification.... who gets
to identify people? does the person who self identifies gets
to define who they are or does the state/society/culture get
to identify them? Who has the power to identify people in
terms of gender, identity, sexuality?

the individual or the state/society?

the right believes that the state/society has the power to
identify people as male, female, binary, trans, gay...
but the left, the left believes that one gets to choose
their own identity... an individual gets to choose who they
are and what possibilities exists for them, not the state/society...

as gender/sexuality is as much a mental construct as it is
a physical aspect, we need to think about gender/sexuality
as a mental construct as much as a physical thing....

who gets to define who I am? who gets to identify me?
who gets to name me? the state/society or myself....

biologically, I may be male, but mentally and emotionally, I
may think of myself as female? So, who is right? and as usual,
why?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Identify yourself as a Ritz cracker.

Nobody else has to go along with that. And certainly the state should not be forcing people to go along with it.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Identify yourself as a Ritz cracker.

Nobody else has to go along with that. And certainly the state should not be forcing people to go along with it.

K: why does the state get to decide, determine what I think about myself?
and who are you to decide who I am and how I think about myself?
You would certainly object if I were to decide on who you are
or if the state/society were to deem you to be something
you are not.... who gets to decide who we are?
the state or the individual?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Identify yourself as a Ritz cracker.

Nobody else has to go along with that. And certainly the state should not be forcing people to go along with it.

K: why not?

Kropotkin

Why not what?

Why not identify as a Ritz cracker?

Why not go along with it?

Why not force people to go along?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Identify yourself as a Ritz cracker.

Nobody else has to go along with that. And certainly the state should not be forcing people to go along with it.

K: why not?

Kropotkin

Why not what?

Why not identify as a Ritz cracker?

Why not go along with it?

Why not force people to go along?

K: I edited it to make it clear...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

this subject matter, of who get to identify one,
has a very real practical application...

In Nazi Germany, the state by its own definition,
deem some to be Jewish, regardless if you self-identify
as Jewish or not, and if deeded to be Jewish, one was legally
deemed an enemy of the state.. even if you felt you were
a loyal German, that did not matter... the state was allowed
to identify you, to create the ''who you are'',
and not individually.. that path of the state being
able to identify one is the path into dictatorship
and extremism that denies us as human beings...
if we give the state the right to identify who we are,
we have lost, perhaps the greatest right we have as
a human being, which is to seek out who we are based on
our own understanding of our identity... I think of myself
as a philosopher... the state may think of me as a day laborer,
and put me to work in building roads in Mississippi...
and who is right? I believe in the right of a human being
to determine who they are, based on values they
decide, not the state, the individual gets to identify who
they are.... is this not the path of democracy, of free choice,
the path of having a free will?
or do you deny one having free choice in deciding who
we are?

the question is a basic question of who gets to choose
who they are, the individual or the state?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

K: why does the state get to decide, determine what I think about myself?
and who are you to decide who I am and how I think about myself?
You would certainly object if I were to decide on who you are
or if the state/society were to deem you to be something
you are not.... who gets to decide who we are?
the state or the individual?

This is a false dichotomy.

You, as an individual, decides how you identify.

I, as an individual, decide how I react to it.

The state is another factor.

What role does it play? Should it play?

At a minimum, it has to conform to reality.

If you identify as a Ritz cracker, that's not reality. The state ought not be forcing me to accept your imagined identity.

[Peter Kropotkin]

OK, lets try this... let us say the state deems one to
be a ritz cracker... and I say, I am a human being,
who is right? does the state have the right to draft you
to fight its wars, even thou you don't give a shit either way?
you don't identify in a way that allows you to go to war for
a state that doesn't care about you at all?

the question goes both way.... who gets to identify people?

the state or the individual?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

OK, lets try this... let us say the state deems one to
be a ritz cracker... and I say, I am a human being,
who is right? does the state have the right to draft you
to fight its wars, even thou you don't give a shit either way?
you don't identify in a way that allows you to go to war for
a state that doesn't care about you at all?

the question goes both way.... who gets to identify people?

the state or the individual?

Kropotkin

FFS, you never reply to anything.

[Peter Kropotkin]

OK, lets try this... let us say the state deems one to
be a ritz cracker... and I say, I am a human being,
who is right? does the state have the right to draft you
to fight its wars, even thou you don't give a shit either way?
you don't identify in a way that allows you to go to war for
a state that doesn't care about you at all?

the question goes both way.... who gets to identify people?

the state or the individual?

Kropotkin

FFS, you never reply to anything.

K: actually I have.. its just not the answer you were looking for...
so, who gets to decide on people's identities, the state or
the individual?

I am old enough to have signed up for the draft.. it was mandatory...
So, the state can determined if was I eligible to fight for this country...
(ps, I wasn't as I was born with a hearing loss) but
does the state get to determine my intangibles...
does the state decide if I am white? or does the state
get to determine my race or my gender or my sexual
identity? who gets to decide and why?

the state can deemed me to be a ritz cracker... and I
say, I am a human being... who is right and why?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

K: actually I have.. its just not the answer you were looking for...
so, who gets to decide on people's identities, the state or
the individual?

I said that was a false dichotomy.

I presented 3 cases : Individual, other individual, state.

You ignore it.

[Peter Kropotkin]

you asked about the three choices from a theoretical standpoint,
not from a practical application... I have laid out
my points from a practical application... what if the
state deems you to be a ritz cracker, what if you deem
yourself to be a ritz cracker, and I am not concerned with
the "other individuals" until we answer the basic question,
who gets to identify a person? the individual, or the state?

I decide my gender is binary... and who gets to decide?
and why? say the state, denies that, and decides that I am
male, why does the state get to decide and not me?
or why should the society/state deem me to be
male over my own personal choices? that is the
fundamental question in this gender debate....
who gets to identify and why?

that there are many, even here, who deny gender identity
saying there is only male and there is only female...

why are they right and I am wrong, given it is my choice?
the question becomes a question of freedom, who gets to
choose who I am and why?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

you asked about the three choices from a theoretical standpoint,
not from a practical application... I have laid out
my points from a practical application... what if the
state deems you to be a ritz cracker, what if you deem
yourself to be a ritz cracker, and I am not concerned with
the "other individuals" until we answer the basic question,
who gets to identify a person? the individual, or the state?

I decide my gender is binary... and who gets to decide?
and why? say the state, denies that, and decides that I am
male, why does the state get to decide and not me?
or why should the society/state deem me to be
male over my own personal choices? that is the
fundamental question in this gender debate....
who gets to identify and why?

that there are many, even here, who deny gender identity
saying there is only male and there is only female...

why are they right and I am wrong, given it is my choice?
the question becomes a question of freedom, who gets to
choose who I am and why?

Kropotkin

Do you not understand that there are many individuals and one "state"?

It's not reducible to one individual and one state.

[Peter Kropotkin]

you asked about the three choices from a theoretical standpoint,
not from a practical application... I have laid out
my points from a practical application... what if the
state deems you to be a ritz cracker, what if you deem
yourself to be a ritz cracker, and I am not concerned with
the "other individuals" until we answer the basic question,
who gets to identify a person? the individual, or the state?

I decide my gender is binary... and who gets to decide?
and why? say the state, denies that, and decides that I am
male, why does the state get to decide and not me?
or why should the society/state deem me to be
male over my own personal choices? that is the
fundamental question in this gender debate....
who gets to identify and why?

that there are many, even here, who deny gender identity
saying there is only male and there is only female...

why are they right and I am wrong, given it is my choice?
the question becomes a question of freedom, who gets to
choose who I am and why?

Kropotkin

Do you not understand that there are many individuals and one "state"?

It's not reducible to one individual and one state.

K: I am one individual, not ''many individuals" and where is
my freedom to declare that I am indeed a "ritz cracker"
or gay or trans or binary? it is always reducible to one
person, one state.... me.. and the state... and who
gets to decide my sexual orientation, my gender,
my own nature? me, the one or the state, the one?
If I don't get to decide my own gender or my own sexual
identity, then I don't have freedom of choice.. the state
has chosen for me... and once again, who is right and why?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

and given that if my gender, my sexual orientation,
my most personal part of my identity can be determined
by the state, and not myself, I might declare to be
binary and the state says no, then do we even
have a democracy anymore if the state can
decide my sexual orientation?

if choice is take out of my hands, do we have freedom
and the right to decide who we are? No, we do not...
and that means, we no longer have freedom which
means we no longer have a democracy... if free will
or freedom of choice is taken out of my hands,
then I have no choice, no freedom, no democracy....

if you or anyone can tell me what my possibility is for gender
or my sexual orientation, then I have no choice....
if I can only declare for being male, or being heterosexual ,
if I have no other choice, then I am not free.. I have no
free will.... if you have decided my sexual orientation, my gender...
that is a dictatorship.... plain and simple....

Kropotkin