I have points, but not as good a title

A bunch of pointed thoughts about cultural conformity, “science” and gender.

A short response to an article by Mike Oppenheim became large enough that it should be posted as an article. Sorry if my post won’t have the same level of humour – my background is in computer science/etc, while he is a published author. 😇

E Before I Makes It Weird.

• Was this article labelled weird, and not a personal essay, because it is in bullet form? Are personal essays wired?

• Why do some people actually want blind conformity and consistency, all while claiming to be observing (or even aware of) “experts” or “expertise”?

• Why are some people unable to understand that “science” is a process and not a fixed destination? That "science" should be understood as a verb and not a noun?

• Why don’t some people understand that science, as a process carried out by humans, is subjective given humans are subjective? Why don’t they understand that they need to further the process across different cultures/worldviews/etc in order to move beyond cultural silos and confirmation bias?

• Why do so many people believe that confirmation bias only applies to individuals, and not also groups, cultures, etc.

• Why do some people believe that "English" and other human languages are universal tools to express all ideas, rather than only being efficient tool for communicating culturally conforming ideas? Why don’t they realize that English changes to match culture, and ideas that are outside of a given cultural context will always be much harder to express?

• Why don’t those who insist “they/them” pronouns are grammatically incorrect recognize that gender diversity is real while the English language is made up?

• Why aren’t English speakers aware that not all languages have gendered pronouns? I wish the solution to conflict generated by the myth of a gender binary was solved by removing the existing binary gendered pronouns from languages such as English, rather than adding new pronouns to try to memorize.

• In the 1990’s I was told that “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus”. I still believe the notion of a gender binary is from Uranus.

• We in this culture (Canada/USA, British North American, Anglosphere, Western – pick your generalization) are indoctrinated from a very young age, from parents and in institutions (education, religion, law/governance) to blindly believe and conform to what we are told by social/cultural hierarchies. Why are we then surprised if the most *successful* at this indoctrination aren’t able to unlearn that and become critical thinkers as adults?

Set of "Eugenics Quarterly" issues from 1965-1970. It was renamed Social Biology in 1969, as a result of the term "eugenics" falling out of fashion. It is a fashion/cosmetic change, as the mindset/worldviews behind this “science” remains consistent.

• Is it surprising that there is a desire of Western governments to ban “Critical Theory” (Systems Theory, etc) given that non-conformity is regularly pathologized in Western culture/medicine/science?

• Why isn’t there a greater outcry at some governments currently claiming that infringing the rights of transgender people isn’t an infringement “because they target a medical diagnosis—gender dysphoria—rather than sex or transgender status.” Gender dysphoria is a social/culturally/environmentally generated stress on an individual for non-conformity with social constructs around gender and gender roles.

Transgender Rights Cases Reopened After Supreme Court Ruling—Even Ones It Didn’t Touch

• How is what some governments are enacting in the context of transgender people any different than if we were discussing infringement of any other group differentiated human rights (say, women’s rights), where infringements can similarly be claimed to be targeting a “medical diagnosis” of "feminine weakness” (Socially imposed treatment of females as a “weaker sex” who are incapable of the thinking power that would enable them to make their own decisions, vote, have bank accounts or any other property, etc)?

• Try that thought experiment with the rights of any group that is “different” from the alleged ideal (tops of supremacist hierarchies) in this culture, and see if it becomes obvious the concept of Human Rights is meaningless in cultures that adhere to a Eugenics mindset. In that mindset, "Femininity", “Autism”, “Gender Dysphoria”, “Melanin”, “lack of being Old Stock English”, “Not European” can be all claimed to be diseases that need to be eradicated/cured/controlled/etc.

• If you believe any of this is about “individuals” or “human nature”, then you won’t be able to see the cultural/worldviews/systemic dynamics and will be unable to imagine any workable solutions to the vast majority of what you are even able to perceive as a problem.