Part Two: Musing of a different sort
May. 10th, 2006 03:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptRecent events in the 'net world and the real world have me thinking again. You may run like hell now, if you so choose. You'll make it to the bunker before I say anything that could be strange.
Anyway, I was pondering the decision made by D.C. Simpson recently to express herself as a female to the public and society at large. (Have to be careful with those pronouns - first thing I typed was "himself", and then I realized, while that would make the point and cause the appropriate double-take, it's not really worthwhile. This probably figures into a point somewhere later.) The reaction from the commentators in his journal has been overwhelmingly positive and accepting. May be a matter of preaching to the choir (and her statement that she has nothing to fear from the comments probably confirms this), but the case is that Dana finally decided that it was time to tell the truth.
Welah knew much earlier than he told me. He, too, eventually decided it was time to tell the truth and stop hiding. These are decisions with large ramifications, many positive, many negative. I've met a lot of people who don't orbit anywhere near what American society considers "normal", for whatever reason. These people are interesting, and they have considerable courage to be what they are publicly.
What I find equally interesting, though, has been my reaction (perhaps more accurately, lack thereof) to these decisions and new information. Specifically, it doesn't bother me. While it may take time to make my pronouns reassign themselves properly (the example above proves that point), there's nothing intrinsically odd or bothersome to me about someone identifying with a different gender. (Until I get hit on by another man, and realize it as such, the jury's out on whether or not I'm disturbed by that. I don't think it will, though, once I get over the initial shock of someone thinking I'm cute.) Nor about someone who is attracted to their same gender. Or someone who identifies as androgynous or hermaphroditic. There's no intrinsic revulsion at finding out any of these things. (Must be Ann Arbor's influence. Around such people too much, starting to think they're okay and normal. I'm straying from my roots and young-age influences. Does it show too much?)
That's interesting, as it appears to be a counter-normal thing by itself. At least, according to the ways that people voted, according to the ways that people act, according to people who claim a religion, contort it, and then their programming on the airwaves. They have enough like minds that they receive enough in money to continue their plague. According to what one hears at water coolers, reads in newspaper stories of brutal degradations, according to what one sees on the faces of those still trying to find the courage to live their own lives without fears. According to what the apparent normal is, being okay with these things is very not normal (sinful, even, some of them might say, or "morally relativistic").
It shouldn't be. The injunction "Go and sin no more" comes after the declaration "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." Those who would throw stones are reminded that they, too, have non-normal behaviors, things that their society would probably frown upon. They are called to work on their own difficulties before condemning others for theirs. "Brother, there is a speck in your eye." only works when you've taken the plank out of your own.
So, in any case, I wonder whether this really is not-normal, or whether I'm just not seeing how normal it is, and if it isn't normal, then is it a good deviance or a bad one? Both from the "society" standpoint, as well as personal standpoints. It's stuff worth thinking about - so tell me what you think.
Anyway, I was pondering the decision made by D.C. Simpson recently to express herself as a female to the public and society at large. (Have to be careful with those pronouns - first thing I typed was "himself", and then I realized, while that would make the point and cause the appropriate double-take, it's not really worthwhile. This probably figures into a point somewhere later.) The reaction from the commentators in his journal has been overwhelmingly positive and accepting. May be a matter of preaching to the choir (and her statement that she has nothing to fear from the comments probably confirms this), but the case is that Dana finally decided that it was time to tell the truth.
Welah knew much earlier than he told me. He, too, eventually decided it was time to tell the truth and stop hiding. These are decisions with large ramifications, many positive, many negative. I've met a lot of people who don't orbit anywhere near what American society considers "normal", for whatever reason. These people are interesting, and they have considerable courage to be what they are publicly.
What I find equally interesting, though, has been my reaction (perhaps more accurately, lack thereof) to these decisions and new information. Specifically, it doesn't bother me. While it may take time to make my pronouns reassign themselves properly (the example above proves that point), there's nothing intrinsically odd or bothersome to me about someone identifying with a different gender. (Until I get hit on by another man, and realize it as such, the jury's out on whether or not I'm disturbed by that. I don't think it will, though, once I get over the initial shock of someone thinking I'm cute.) Nor about someone who is attracted to their same gender. Or someone who identifies as androgynous or hermaphroditic. There's no intrinsic revulsion at finding out any of these things. (Must be Ann Arbor's influence. Around such people too much, starting to think they're okay and normal. I'm straying from my roots and young-age influences. Does it show too much?)
That's interesting, as it appears to be a counter-normal thing by itself. At least, according to the ways that people voted, according to the ways that people act, according to people who claim a religion, contort it, and then their programming on the airwaves. They have enough like minds that they receive enough in money to continue their plague. According to what one hears at water coolers, reads in newspaper stories of brutal degradations, according to what one sees on the faces of those still trying to find the courage to live their own lives without fears. According to what the apparent normal is, being okay with these things is very not normal (sinful, even, some of them might say, or "morally relativistic").
It shouldn't be. The injunction "Go and sin no more" comes after the declaration "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." Those who would throw stones are reminded that they, too, have non-normal behaviors, things that their society would probably frown upon. They are called to work on their own difficulties before condemning others for theirs. "Brother, there is a speck in your eye." only works when you've taken the plank out of your own.
So, in any case, I wonder whether this really is not-normal, or whether I'm just not seeing how normal it is, and if it isn't normal, then is it a good deviance or a bad one? Both from the "society" standpoint, as well as personal standpoints. It's stuff worth thinking about - so tell me what you think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 05:06 pm (UTC)I like the bumper sticker that says, "Christians aren't perfect; we're just forgiven." It can become an excuse to sin, but that is not it's intent. It was meant as a demonstration of transparency: "I am no better than you, but I found a way to get out of the trap."
Have the best
-=TK
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 05:15 pm (UTC)It's just strange to see people concentrating on such minor issues when there are much more major ones yet to be taken care of.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 05:21 pm (UTC)Have the best
-=TK