How Transgenders Reinforce Gender Roles

 My position on transgenders might surprise those who would think my views are conventionally liberal.  As you may know, my father changed his sex some time before I met him.  Twenty years later my mother met Roger, who lived with us from 2000-2005.  They ultimately split up because he wanted to be a woman too.  It shattered her heart in more ways than one.  She loved him deeply, and I think there was no better match for her in a long line of disappointing relationships.  Roger was also the second man she loved to have a sex change, a unique thing to be victimized by.  It had made her feel like there was something oddly manly about her, something that would make men want to reverse their roles, despite her having many relationships with men who didn't. 

Every time we talk about it, she insists that they did this because they were born in the wrong body, that they'd felt like women their whole lives and couldn't be happy with themselves unless they had physical operations.  It never made much sense to me though.  It seems like a rather materialistic approach to the problem.  As a man who is more feminine than most, and who is entirely comfortable with his own sex, I feel like the problem is social rather than physical.  We are all raised on gender roles, meaning we are raised according to the social norms our sexes are bound to give us.  The conflict comes when we falsely assign "feminine" virtues to a single sex, and vice versa.  By this I mean that compassion, emotional expression, wearing certain clothes, etc. become feminized by social constructs.  If you are so troubled by expressing yourself in a "womanly" manner as a man that you would need a sex change to feel comfortable, it more reflects your insecurity with being the sex you were given than being born in the wrong body.  Sex is an innate, physical characteristic, no more than eye color or skin type.  To deny your sex is every bit as strange as someone like Michael Jackson having operations to change his skin color. 

Men who are comfortable with their manhood have no problem appearing vulnerable where a woman would be socially accepted.  In a way, becoming transgendered is sexism in reverse, because it reinforces the stereotype that men shouldn't express anything described as feminine unless they change their sex.  These people are in fact contributing to the gender problem rather than fixing it.  If they'd just be comfortable with who they are instead of trying to hide it, others would do the same, and eventually no one would consider it outlandish to see a man behaving in a feminine manner.  It would become the norm. 

I hope you won't accuse me of being bigoted or intolerant.  I have no problem with transgenders, and don't think the operations should be banned.  If someone really wants it done, I won't stand in their way.  It's entirely possible that knowing two transgenders who tried to be father figures for me has tainted my view on the subject.  I'm not even sure I'd hold these views if I'd had a normal father to begin with.  But my experiences have forced me to reflect on this more than others, and I do feel like my point is a good one for those seeking sexual security in a society that laughs at men who dress up like women.  You wouldn't hear any laughs from me.  I'm not the problem; society's intolerance for gender role reversals is.  We need more people comfortable with their sexuality to fix this, and not just gays.  Even macho guys would do well to wear a pink shirt from time to time.  I have no problem wearing pink- I think it's lovely! 

The Two Rapes That Segmented the Roman Monarchy

    I've just read in Mary Beards SPQR that the founding of the Roman monarchy and the end of it were both marked by the raping of women.  To begin the early monarch, in roughly 750 BC, it was the Rape of the Sabines that marked its beginning, while the end came about after Tarquin's rape of Lucretia, in 509 BC.  Whether this is fact or legend isn't relevant so much as the symbolism is.  It symbolizes the male dominance over female passivity in pagan Rome.  Later Romans were notoriously against tyranny, so the fact that both the beginning and end of the monarchy were viewed as catastrophic examples of tryrannical power must have reinforced their beliefs in a pagan mythology that still valued feminine virtues over male ones.  This marked a period before Christianity, when male-dominated politics became largely the norm, and the rule of tyrants more common.  The rapes served as a warning against tyranny; after Rome they seem to have been forgotten.

The Two Best Adventure Books

    Today I read one of the most intense segments of any book I've read.  It was near the middle of Valhalla Rising by Clive Cussler, when Dirk Pitt is being chased down in an airplane carrying 15 disabled children and two attractive women.  He had to fly over East River, under the Brooklyn bridge, and through the buildings of Manhattan before crashing in dramatic fashion in Central Park.  It reminded me of Will Smith being chased by the alien in Independence Day, when he meanders through the Grand Canyon- another famous American site- toward the end of the chase.  Someone should really work on turning these books into movies, because they are great.  I'm thinking about reading the whole series, starting with Pacific Vortex.  In these books there's a fine balance between the raw adventure of world sites and academic mystery that often involves scientific research.
    Incidentally I am also reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne- another amazing adventure.  I can't believe it's taken me this long to try reading.  I think I never dared trying because I've always been afraid of the deep sea, and the shop owner's description of the giant squid attacking the Nautilus from The Never Ending Story.  I've read the other Jules Verne classics, all when I was a child.  He probably would have been my favorite writer if I'd grown up in the late 19th century.  He must have had a profound influence on Clive Cussler.  It's so fitting that I may be reading the two best books from the two best adventure writers in history.  Captain Nemo and Dirk Pitt would be proud!

Can it Happen Here?

I have never been prouder of the media and the judicial branch of our government.  They are saving the country from a maniacal tyrant by standing up for truth and justice at a time when we need it most.  When our president burst on the scene after his inauguration by sticking to the radical tenets of his base instead of working with the opposition, I and many others feared the possibilities of a totalitarian state coming into existence.  The president censored his own media outlets, tried to close our borders, and intimidate the opposition by threatening with enemy lists.  Fake terror was also used in places like Bowling Green and Atlanta- textbook methods of using fear to work out an agenda of attaining control.  When a judge stood up against the travel ban and the media refused to be intimidated, it proved to me that our bill of rights has stood the test of time.  And that Sinclair Lewis was wrong- maybe it can't happen here: "it" referring to a fascist dictatorship, like in Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. 

But I still think it can happen.  I'm about halfway through the Sinclair novel.  What our president failed to achieve in his drive for supremacy is either a thuggish police force or the backing of the military.  In the book, president Windrip was able to mold his "corpocracy" by gaining the allegiances of ex-cons, who solidified into an army called the Minutemen.  This is similar to how Hitler was able to silence his opposition by use of force with the SS.  Immediate promotions were given to criminals and thugs who showed their unyielding loyalty.  Journalists were imprisoned and the courts were over-run.  In our lovely democracy, the military is required to take precedence over judicial decisions, not executive ones.  That is the crucial difference between ours and Lewis' dystopia- he failed to address how the military would be outmaneuvered from these laws by a quasi police force. 

What would have happened if Trump hadn't been leashed in by the media and judiciary branch?  I imagine he would have gone as far as he could go without getting the military involved in domestic issues.  He hasn't even tried reaching out to them, which is a very good thing.  The travel ban would have been expanded until all immigration was likely banned.  Facts would have become meaningless.  Anything he'd say would be true to his base (but let's face it, it is anyway).  The difference is he wouldn't be facing so much scrutiny as a result.  As long as we can fight him with laws and facts, we should be safe.  This will just be a bump in the road, in our long way to progress.  It looks like much of the world realizes that; that after 4 years (God forbid, 8) we will learn from our great mistake and elect someone who is actually qualified for the position. 

 

Why Humans Stretch

After running today, I had a nice stretching session.  In the midst of a stretch, it occurred to me that animals never do it.  Humans are the only species that stretch because we are so hell-bent on perfection that we are constantly over-exerting their bodies, whether for athletic ambitions or just to look good.  The struggle for physical perfection is caused by our unique vanity; winning trophies and looking attractive has inspired so many people to stress their bodies that it's a wonder why we never pause and ask ourselves why animals are so humble that they don't even bother. 

A better reason though, is that we humans also consume an excessive amount of food, which means we have more energy to expend.  Other species usually find food to be scarce, so they are forced to spend more time conserving energy than us.  Being at the top of the food chain has given us this privilege, though it also means that stretching helped get us there.  Humans are famed for being one of the most durable species in the animal kingdom, and stretching has a lot to do with that.  Stretching helps our muscles recover from exercise faster, and helps prevent injury.  It probably began when humans figured out that they could run a lot farther to scavenge food if they stretched their muscles more.  On the other hand, animals probably never had the mental ability to figure out how stretching could help them, so their endurance has always been poor compared to ours. 

This could mean that despite our lazy reputation for seeking comfort in the modern age- and therefore being less active than in the past- humans are actually the most efficient species ergonomically.  Stretching means that our endurance is second to none, and may even have helped us evolve into what we are today.  Evolutionary biologists have said that endurance was one of the key elements that transformed us from cavemen into superior hunter-gatherers.  Funny then how most of us would rather sit on the couch watching television than go on a nice, long run.  The implication is that that Industrial Revolution, which caused all the conveniences of modern living, has caused us to begin devolving into ergonomically useless animals, like every other.  We would be wise to stop this trend, before it gets out of control. 

 

The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease, Daniel E. Lieberman

    Great read if you're interested in the human body and how it's changed through all the shifts in cultural development. It opened my eyes to several symptoms of modern living, like the rise in myopia due to indoor living, and the consequences of sitting around too much. We haven't adequately evolved into these post-agricultural and industrial living conditions yet. Even though our bodies have benefited from medical findings in the last few centuries, they are finding it difficult to keep up with the sedentary lifestyles that machines have given us. You can see this through what the author calls an alarming increase in "mismatch diseases", diseases like diabetes, cancer, and heart failure, which are due to the excesses of our modern diet and the general lack of exercise. From an evolutionary perspective it all makes sense, and reading this was a refreshing wake up call. Keep those bodies moving, like they were meant to. 

The Quiet Intellectual

 He lived a quiet life, yet perpetual noise cluttered his head. 
He spent his life searching for cracks in the edifice of knowledge, 
Tangents a' plenty which o’erthrew his paradigms of study, 
Ripples of scientific revolution that rolled through his lakes of solitude. 
Books he opened, skimmed through, dissected at every angle, 
With all the fortitude of an ambitious warlord slaying the Titans of Earth, 
Lashing his way through terrains of terror, reminding himself 
With each vengeful slash that every ounce of effort would pay off 
In the world to come; that one day he, too, could change it 
In bigger ways than a warmonger ever could. 

Milky Way Reported to Exist in Cosmic Void

    I read in the news the other day that the Milky Way galaxy resides in a void inside the Cosmic Web.  That means our galaxy is a long way from the densely populated "filaments" of galaxies that create the shape of our universe.  It got me thinking:  what would the night sky look like if we were living in a filament instead, like 99% of the other galaxies?  In my estimation, these filaments would either hold a lot more life than our local group, or no life at all, simply because there is so much more light (and therefore radiation).  From a distance, the filaments connect each supercluster of galaxies in a network of light.  We can't even see these networks because they're so far away.  All we can see are the sporadic stars of our galaxy, hanging in the great void, far from what may be a more civilized neighborhood.  To put it in perspective, we might be on the barbarian outskirts of a great intergalactic empire, like Ireland was to Rome.  We may be the barbarians roaming the dark wilderness in the barrens of space, when all along we thought we were the light at the center of it all.