Type

I’m a ‘type’ of person. Just before Christmas I was pulled to the side at the airport to be asked a bunch of security questions about where I had been and the line of work I was involved in. Quite accurate type recognition, as I was ‘a person of interest’ in regards to these questions (just getting back from Iraq and the border of Syria) – so well done to them who identified a type. Secondly, on a plane under a week ago, I was sitting rather closeted up in my seat and the trolly came down the isle. I was immediately asked if I would like a cup of tea, which I immediately said yes believing that because I ordered an in-flight sandwich the tea would be free too. But no, it wasn’t and from what I could tell, no one else was offered a cup of tea down the isle in front or within earshot behind. I identify as a tea drinker – which I am. Now this ‘type’ is not always accurate mind you, but it is the formation of experience and identification which creates it. For example, in Dubai just before Xmas, a guy came on to me thinking very strongly that I was gay. It took him some time to accept my claims that I wasn’t and he left stating that I broke his ‘gaydar’. So there is two things at work here – an inner identity and an outer one.

Now, relatively recently there has been a huge effort on behalf of the liberal leftists to campaign for identity being completely in the hands of the individual. I’m not sure if i can support this argument in its full. Identity is a lot more complex than that. For instance, you can believe that you are a goldfish, and you may behave like a goldfish in your mind and perhaps go about swimming more regularly than normal folk, though from the outside you are not a goldfish. It would be insane to think you are a goldfish – no fins, thousands of times heavier, not a fan of fish food etc… So, to refer to someone as a goldfish is nonsense – it is not referring to the thing you want to refer to at all! Now, this isn’t the same as the LGBT wanting to be recognised by terms applicable to them and not by how they are perceived by society, I know. But it is leading that way. Where does this come from? – the sense that they are marginalised and victims, and not giving in to the terms is being complicit too. I have no problem with having conversations with people and using vernacular to suit the purposes of the discourse to make that person feel more comfortable. Though, I do have issue with the leftists pointing of fingers of shame to those who do not abide with their terms. This is how extremism comes about, and one of the reasons why fascism is on the rise. The labelling of people is so high on the list of concerns for the leftists that as soon as someone says something, anything which can be construed as inappropriate, labelling comes out to brand these people as fascists, racists, sexists etc… There is no argument or discussion in this, simply the charge of contempt and/or hate for those who are deemed intolerant. Now, isn’t that a rather hypocritical stance?

I recently followed a few videos about this debate; particularly one with a man called James Peterson. He’s frequently attacked by the left for not giving in to demands from the left to use the pronoun terms which have been attributed to people who have an identity which differs from their genetic appearance. The reason why he doesn’t give in to this, is for very good reason. The first main one is that, as he says, ‘there’s a very real and major difference between things which people can’t say, and those which people have to say’. It’s fine not using swear words in public spaces and using racist terms, yes, that’s fine. What’s not fine is to say there are things people have to say, otherwise they will be ostracised, and brandished in hateful contempt. There is another reason why Peterson doesn’t give in on this issue; and that’s because the list of divisions of a person is limitless; after race, sex, creed, class and nationality, you then have things like height, attractiveness, intelligence, age, strength, hair colour etc… The list of possible sub-divisions goes all the way down to the individual level, and therefore, trying to codify this in policy is meaningless. Respect, as the word has been used, should not be freely given out, otherwise again, it becomes meaningless - you dilute it; like inflation happens when you produce too much money (Germany after the war - By November 1923, the US dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 German marks due to producing too much money to cover expenses).

Another point I want to make is that the word and reality is not the same. For instance, you can call me Candy, but other people call me Tina. It’s ok to have groups of people who refer to you in different ways so long as you understand it. To be contextually sensitive you have to have context, otherwise you’re left guessing – leading to confusion and an awful lot of insecurity about referring to anything at all.

There’s a real problem when it becomes insensitive and ignorant to discuss and argue things. It is intrinsic to understanding to do so, to simply follow the crowd is a very dangerous strategy – far left as we know turn society into communist states. Strong communist states put unity at the expense of personal freedom. One must conform or be punished. There are people who exist today who argue about identity so severely that they insist a whole array of identity revisions which on an outwardly perspective is crazy. For instance, a white male stating he/she is a Philippian female. There was an example of how extreme this can become; a member of a class in university stands up, a student who is male and white in appearance and says, ‘Actually I identify as a short, black, Asian female, does anyone have a problem with that?’. No-one says anything. ‘Why’ it was asked following. Answer – ‘I didn’t want to be singled out by the others for having my views’. This is a shocking example of how far this can be taken- that you cannot raise your voice or have an opinion unless it conforms to the leftist’s stance of liberal totality.

There’s in recent years been a huge movement of individuals to brand others as bigots, racists, sexist’s elitists – something which only fuels anger and discriminatory behaviour and does nothing to fix anything.

Clearly being able to talk about something is the major contributor to understanding and tolerance. I’m not saying we should hold in equal value everyone’s opinion – this is just not true. There are some opinions based in sense and then there are those based in nonsense. Opinions are there to be discussed and argued about, otherwise they are in fact natural laws; and natural laws are beyond belief – they exist and function outside belief. One of the most dangerous things is censorship. Even Fascists can have their parades, their rallies, as well as racists can have their say, homophobes can have theirs and creationists can have theirs. Of course, I don’t share these viewpoints, and it makes me uncomfortable to hear them. But, if it is an argument or an opinion and not just a hate exchange, then listening to any of this should not be threatening. It only becomes a threat when you feel that what is being said will manipulate others into having similar thinking. Well, if that’s the case, and you don’t like that, come up with a batter argument against it and if people are really listening and are allowed to listen, then they will, by themselves work out what best to believe. It is not good enough to shut down ideas simply because they don’t fit with what you already believe.

I give anyone the freedom of self-expression, and self-identity. What I won’t give is full reign of how I refer to things. I am happy to have discussions about what I believe in, what I think about and why I think about it. I just don’t want to be told that just because someone tells me to, I need to refer to them in a special way, simply because they want me to. You could replace one of the words with ‘princess’ or ‘king’ or ‘majesty’ and it would ring the same bells with me. To be recognised for special attention one needs to earn it and not just have it given freely as a matter of course. If it’s about respect, again, what Peterson explains, that’s a thing which should only be given after having earnt it. The rest of us don't have particular titles just because they want it - sir, madam, him, her. These are generic and should remain so. I do accept allotment of a third state – non-female and non-male. But beyond that, the waters become incredibly murky and there is no end to any of it.

I respect people who respect debate. I am intolerant of intolerance and am very suspicious of those who put their identity above their humanity. I actually just begun this because I wanted to talk about the time I was offered tea on the plane and no one else was directly offered anything, other than ‘would you like something from the trolly’ kind of thing. Then it became a stream of consciousness. I am very aware that I don’t hold all the cards and so my views here are not ultimate in any sense. This is just my thinking right now. Days change us like we should daily change our pants – ‘stagnation is death’ as Rousseau said.