Submission Field : The "Multiple Gender" Video First, I believe it is difficult to have any one group of people dictate what should be done with another. The look of the group was a good cross-cultural representation of their population. Having said that, I also consider that sociopolitical debates stir mind sets of the dominant group to anger, to performances, then to rhetoric. In this case, both the religious and the female surgical advocate resist freedom for intersexed people, leave it to them the intersexual is just wrong, and they deserve no social space. As the group observes the intersexual (which should be more defined in the movie, its cross use was confusing) in their observance, how has the dominant group found behaviors that constitute not allowing intersexuals to have children? In fact, most (not all) gay people or intersexual people were born to heterosexual people. If this thing were a simple case of all intersexuals present a moral dilemma and they should not be allowed to have children, we should straight way line all heterosexual parents up and demand their "card carrying" rights be done away with to have children. After all its the heterosexual people who are having these children who are being born different, right. Maybe we (society) should just band heterosexual people all together and this sociopolitical BS would disappear. No! Oh damn, my bad! That is just how senseless I feel the discussion about intersexuals having children is. So, now the question is "who rules"? Is inequality ever appropriate? Did we discover a kind America when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and thousands of Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps? Was it a kinder America who led with vicious dogs, billy clubs, Jim Crow, lynchings during the civil rights era? No. What did happen was America was put on "front street" for its evil practice of racism. When did America change form an apartheid state of mind, when they were forced to! The same evil kept woemn from voting, from receiving equal pay for equal work, from protection from physical violence AT HOME, from sexual abuse and lots of other things. Rhetoric has its value, but not when its presence is used to make what is intolerable tolerable. To decide the fate of people who were simply born and decide whether they have the right to live freely as human beings is cruel and inhumane treatment. Perhaps we should take a small trip back in time, to steal a people from their homeland, bring them to a new country under force, to breed them by rape and other means, then to make the woman who was raped put her child into the fields for the same man who raped her is beyond comprehension. That is the mentality of the dominant group who tells others what rights they have as human beings. Through social sanctified ignorance we have allowed the powers that be dictate what is acceptable for someone who is born intersexual. No person on earth can make another benevolent about freedom, freedom is no persons to give it is owned by self and whoever that person's God is.
Comments :
Attached Files :
...
3. Finish
Click OK to go back.
.
Yeah I agree! Enough of this denying who a person is inside, who are you to dictate my feelings America?! Why should I constantly have to think of myself in the context of two genders with only two proscribed formulas for life? I was born as a mind-- a lone ball of consciousness without these meme-etic fetters-- without these forms of conceptual discrimination-oppression-mind pollution.
ReplyDeleteAnyone should be allowed to define themselves and should not have to sacrifice their liberties within the community. Why should we make moral judgments about people that differ superficially (if sex is truly superficial as current opinion claims).
We still have many social structures and boxes we are not even aware of. To what extent have we been molded by the limited collective conceptualizations our nation? Is that our society is—a product that slowly comes into being through the limited ideas of the generation before? Each generation is shaped by the ignorance of the previous—you have to be critical, subversive, on the lookout for the offensive, and the feared aspects of our society/existence to overcome that ignorance. The future is only the expression of what we can explore through our own rebellion/subversion.
An expression of the self in all its dimensions is to rebel against the two-dimensionality imposed on it, this is liberalism this is progress.