American Philosopher Deirdre McCloskey on "Crossing Over"

In one of my recent graduate seminars, we read a paper by Deirdre McCloskey, an American philosopher and economist who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Aside from her intriguing defense of consumerist culture, I became interested in McCloskey for another reason: she was raised as a boy.

It's rare enough to find genderbending success stories in our rigidly dichotomous male-and-female culture, but to find one in my own field of study is particularly heartwarming. McCloskey is a Distinguished Professor at UIC, lecturing not only in Economics and Philosophy, but also History, English, Communications, and Classics. She's also received two honorary doctorates since 2007.

The quotes below are from her autobiography, Crossing: A Memoir. I found these statements profound in their simplicity, brilliantly shedding light on the ignorance behind our current beliefs and policies surrounding gender reassignment. Read these passages and then try to tell me she's confused or crazy. I won't believe you.

On identity:

It's strange to have been a man and now to be a woman. But it's no stranger perhaps than having been a West African and now being an American, or once a priest and now a businessman. Free people keep deciding to make strange crossings, from storekeeper to monk or from civilian to soldier or from man to woman. Crossing boundaries is a minority interest, but human.

I visited womanhood and stayed. It was not for the pleasures, though I discovered many I had not imagined, and many pains too. But calculating pleasures and pains was not the point. The point was who I am.

I say in response to your question of why?, "Can't I just be?" You, dear reader, are. No one gets indignant if you have no answer to why you are an optimist or why you like peach ice cream.

On barriers to medical care:

[I] had complained to Blue Cross: "The DSM-IV you rely on calls transsexuality a 'disorder,' and, unusually among such 'disorders,' this one has a cure - surgical, including facial surgery'. But then you won't pay for it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a personal choice, in which case the psychiatrists should butt out, or it's a disorder, in which case medical insurance should pay for the cure.

Anyway...we need to ask whether we want to invite psychiatrists to have power over all the comparably important business of life. Having a baby is well and truly irreversible, more so than gender reassignment. A new human being is brought into the world. Well, shouldn't everyone have many years of psychological counseling before having a child?

[I] started lying. [We] all do it. A psychiatrist proposes to withhold a desired and harmless life from a free, sane adult based on no scientific evidence and no intelligent empathy for the patient and no understanding that the DSM's list of symptoms rewrites the society's myths about gender. ... "Oh, yes," [I] said to the Free University psychiatrist, "I've always had these desires. Oh, yes, Doctor, ever since I can remember. Oh, yes it's just like being a woman in a man's body. Oh, yes, I hate my penis." Oh, yes, Doctor, whatever your dopey list says.

From an actuarial point of view, there's no moral hazard. It's not as if millions of men will step forward to take advantage if gender reassignment and jaw pointing are paid for. The policy is sheer, stupid crossphobia. Sweet land of liberty and of stubborn, self-justifying hatreds.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the 'F' bomb

Especially in light of my previous post about the abortion debate, I like to think I'm fairly sympathetic to the feminist cause. Unjust inequality of any form riles me up, and I'll jump to the defense of any disadvantaged group, at any time. So I was surprised when I found myself being (mildly) rebuked by a feminist friend of mine. Specifically, she took issue with a video I linked to on Facebook:



The video shows a lot of gays and gay allies saying "Fuck off!" to opponents of same-sex marriage. There are also two children in the video (about 11 years old, I guess) who drop the 'F' bomb in defense of their gay parents.

My friend left this comment:

While I want to like this because I agree with the sentiment 100%, the feminist in me cringes with the casual use of the word "fuck" (especially by children! oh my). "Fuck" implies getting "fucked" or "fucking" someone, which implies penetration (for better or for worse) and, beyond that, penetration with little respect for the person getting "fucked" (i.e.--my boss fucked me over). If you don't agree with me, think of any synonym for "fucked" (screwed, pounded, whatever)--it all goes back to penetration which goes back to penises used as weapons, not for the betterment of society ;).

Really, I have no idea what to think about that. I like the word 'fuck'. It's versatile, emphatic, and thoroughly enjoyable to say. It can express a wide range of emotions and function as just about any part of speech. Actually, I think there has been no better addition to the English language since 'doucheknuckle'*. This video sums up my feelings on the word fairly well:



But I'm going to open this up to readers. Is 'fuck' anti-feminist? Anti-woman? Okay in some circumstances? Appropriate for the video above? Discuss!

*Not yet recognized by most dictionaries.

Two Concessions to the Right-Wing Fringe

Those of you who know me well can attest to the fact that I despise anti-abortion wingnuts. My own state of Colorado currently has a pro-life amendment on the ballot that would apply the term "person" to every sperm and egg that happen to bump into each other. If the amendment passes, a fertilized egg will have the same legal rights as your Uncle Bob, and a lot more than your pet dog Jolly.

It would be funny, except a depressing 27% of Colorado citizens voted in favor of the amendment the last time it was on the ballot. It honestly frightens me to think that almost 1 in 3 people I meet on the streets think this is a good idea.

So why do I care about this so much? Partly because it's wrong and stupid, but mostly because I can't stand bullies. We've all heard the horror stories about the prostitutes and rich women who use abortion as a form of birth control, but even if these are true (and I doubt that most of them are), they do not represent the majority of women who consider abortions. Many women entering abortion clinics are undereducated (thanks, abstinence-only sex education!), or poor, or young, or victims of rape. Some were just careless, but I doubt they're any less frightened about the prospect of becoming mothers by accident. By and large, women considering abortions are at one of the most vulnerable and difficult times of their lives. And then you have the lousy right-wing fuckheads telling them they're murderers. My blood fucking boils at the thought.*

But I have to make two concessions to these retards campaigners. With the November election drawing closer, there are many arguments flying around (from both sides) that simply don't make sense. Here are two from the pro-choice side that I feel obligated to put down.

1. Men should not vote or campaign for a law that will only affect women.

I admit, pro-life men piss me off. Unlike pro-choice women, they never even have to consider what they would do in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. (You can argue that they're affected if their spouse gets pregnant unexpectedly, but I'm talking about having a fucking basketball-sized tumor swimming around in their bellies.) But you must remember why pro-life people are opposed to abortion. They honestly believe, rationally or not, that every tiny fetus is a human being and that doing anything to the fetus is actually murder. Stupid as that is, it is a matter of human rights to them. You can't ban men from the discussion simply because they can't get pregnant. Also, by that logic, men shouldn't vote in favor of pro-choice laws, either. I shouldn't be writing this blog post now. Etc.

Anyways, it's hardly less aggravating that pro-life women are trying to force this law down the throats of other women.

2. It is a woman's choice to abort or not abort.

Okay, wait. I have to add a LARGE disclaimer to this one, because it's practically the pro-choice maxim. Let me say right away that I totally agree with this statement. Read the first part of my post if you have any doubts whatsoever. But I have to point out that this statement does not answer the pro-life claim that abortion is murder. Again, for those on the pro-life side, abortion is a matter of human rights.

Their argument is as follows:

P1. Killing an innocent person is murder.
P2. A fetus is an innocent person.
__________
Therefore, killing a fetus is murder.

If you just respond to this argument by claiming that abortion is a woman's choice, then your argument fails. If a fetus is an innocent person, then killing that fetus is indeed murder. And no one has the right to choose to murder someone else.

So in order to adequately respond to this argument, you have to show that the second premise is false. You can bring in scientific studies that show when a fetus begins to feel pain or becomes conscious. You can argue about what features a human being must have in order to deserve moral consideration. You can attack the idea that there is anything like a 'soul' that every human receives at conception. But you can't just say that abortion is a woman's choice. That is a conclusion, not an argument.

I conclude that abortion is a woman's choice because a fetus is not a person for reasons X, Y, and Z. And that's what I'll argue with any pro-life proponent.

So that's about as far as I'll ever get to defending a pro-life position. Incidentally, if I know you and you vote Yes on Amendment 62, please don't think we'll ever be on good terms. You and everyone else without the goddamn decency to stop and think rationally for a moment deserve every bit of ridicule and contempt I can muster the effort to heap upon you. Go to hell.

*Incidentally, this is probably also a large part of the reason why I'm so concerned about animal rights. Animals are in an even more precarious position because they can't defend themselves at all. Unlike women, every single one of their interests depends on a small handful of humans who can be bothered to consult their consciences.

The Metaskeptic is on Hiatus

Dear followers,

My life is currently moving along at a breakneck speed, and I find it necessary to put blogging and most other recreational internet activities on hold until further notice. I will not be keeping up with Twitter, Facebook, or Google Reader. Please, if I follow your blog and you write something spectacular that you think I'd want to read, email me a link! Thank you for your continued support of this blog. I hope to return to regular blogging activities shortly.

Thank you,

Kai

Dr. Manhattan as God: A Thought Experiment

This is a thought experiment I've posed to several of my Christian friends:

Dr. Manhattan is a character from Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen. He is a human physicist who developed extraordinary powers after he was involved in a lab accident. Dr. Manhattan has the power to create sentient life, perhaps even life with human-like intelligence. Assume he creates another Earth and another human race to populate it. Assume further that many of his creations become monotheistic and worship him as God.

Now, Dr. Manhattan is not omniscient or omnipotent. Actually, in many ways, he's just another fallible human. He suffers from jealousy, anger, and hate. He can fall in love. He often changes his mind, and sometimes has contradictory interests. Overall, though, he's a pretty decent person.

Are the people on the other Earth right to worship him as their creator?

Everyone I've asked has said no, it's not right to call Dr. Manhattan a god. I continue with the thought experiment:

Suppose the alternate Earth shares a similar history with our own Earth. There are several major world religions, one of which is almost exactly identical to Christianity. There is a holy book similar to the Bible. Their Bible is full of false history, mistaken facts, and bad moral advice. They incorrectly attribute certain characteristics (such as omnipotence) to Dr. Manhattan, who is their God. Some of them perform horrific acts of injustice and use their Bible as a justification. Dr. Manhattan, for whatever reason, doesn't correct their mistakes, and actually rarely interferes in their world at all.

Now are the people on the other Earth right to worship him as their creator?

Again, everyone I've asked has said no, only louder and more vehemently. So on to my final question:

How do you know you are not on that Earth? How do you know your God is not Dr. Manhattan?

I've yet to hear a satisfactory response. Anyone care to offer one?

You are religious. Get over it.

Facebook trolls are fun:

im not religious...but yes, I do believe in jesus and the teachings of the bible.

It's not just trolls saying this, either: I can't tell you the number of times I've started talking about religion with a Christian only to be interrupted by, "Oh, I'm not religious. I just have a personal relationship with Christ."

Well, I'm not gay. I just like to suck cock.

Seriously, guys. Saying you're not affiliated with a religion does not absolve you of responsibility for the evils that have come out of having certain beliefs. Man up. It's better to admit that wrong has been done in the name of your religion than to try to squirm away from the label entirely. Oh, and if you still insist that the word doesn't apply to you, read the fucking definition.

It's a Gay New Day

Today, a Californian court slapped down the loathsome and vile piece of legislation known as Proposition 8. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Prop 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license" and that "the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples".

Well done, Judge Walker. Very well done.


CELEBRATORY GAY ORGIES WOOO