| |
When do Appearances Matter?
In absolutely every other sphere of life, Objectivists define who and what an individual is as a matter of choice, of the mind, of accomplishments, and relegate mere physicality except perhaps for fitness to almost pure irrelevance. Although certain parties deny it, it is claimed and I find it plausible that Rand said to Branden in regard to their affair that if she were truly his highest value, he should be attracted to her even if she were 80 and confined to a wheel chair. Why, then, is the topic of transsexuality the one topic where a person's identity is defined by his external genitalia to the exception of all other considerations? Who here can see into the brain of a transvestite or transsexual and say that there is not some congenital condition which makes him transsexual or transgendered by nature? Why on this topic alone is external appearance of such importance?
I myself have no transsexual drives, I don't claim to understand it or even to be comfortable about it when thinking of my own body. I am perfectly happy with my physical nature, except for the fact that I am aging and have always tended towards obesity. (And by the way, who would make a big deal if I wanted to have a face lift, hair grafts, or liposuction?) Having been attracted to both men and woman for as long as I can remember, having liked the smell of men and woman - something that is certainly biologically mediated - I can abstractly imagine that a person might see himself as mentally oriented as the opposite gender. This may or may not have to do with the gender to which they are attracted and it may or may not be just a hobby or essential to his being. My murdered boyfriend Jay, a very masculine 6'4" black man, enjoyed dressing up as a woman and except for his height he did not look like the freak that so many on this list seem to assume a transsexual. Indeed, many slight people and many non-Caucasians are physically constituted in a way that gender reassignment surgery can be quite successful. I have also seen plenty of big-boned women, especially Caucasians and Negroes who look mannish. What does any of this matter?
Gender reassignment surgery is only a recent possibility, (excepting the ancient practice of eunuchism) and as Brede has mentioned, it has very strict protocols. I have seen some transgendered people whose surgery is miraculous, and some who are much less fortunate. This is a modern phenomenon, and perhaps the modern prevalence of this possibility leads to the prevalence of wide shouldered (presumably Caucasian) transsexuals such as Teresa mentioned and therefore public attention to more and more people who don't become Barbie-doll ideals. But isn't it precisely the transsexuals who do pass and who therefore don't come to our immediate attention who prove the value of this procedure to those who have the mental makeup and financial resources to make of themselves whom they wish.
Much of the discussion on this thread has been less than philosophical. Robert made a bizarrely irrelevant comment, presumably about Sanjay from American Idol, who is effeminate, but who surely knows it, and whose obvious comfort with himself and easiness with which he finds joy is a much better example of happiness so far as I can tell than Robert's own posts here are. Robert might present his own favorite artistic accomplishment here if he wants to prove whether he or Sanjay is the better artist. Not having actually heard Sanjay, I'll withhold judgment.
Bill Dwyer then commented on a friend who had had (unprotected?) sex with a man who was a bisexual, implicitly arguing, I presume, that having sex with bisexuals is dangerous. I have two comments. First, what does bisexuality have to do with the topic of this thread? And much more importantly, isn't Bill's complaint not with bisexuals, but with liars who happen to be bisexual? I dated a woman for years who knew I was bisexual. I did not come out to her at first, but I did after a year and a half, and in the meantime I was faithful to her and knew I was HIV negative.
I had posted some very personal information above in a good-faith effort to explain my boyfriend's occasional transvestism and my own encounters with people who in some way differ from the fully heterosexual poles of expression and attraction. I deleted that information because I did not want the memory of my boyfriend (murdered in a carjacking) intermingled with the non-philosophical personal statements of distaste and insensitive jokes that have marred this thread.
I will conclude by suggesting that anyone who truly wants to understand non-exclusively heterosexual matters broaden their investigations beyond the perverse displays of Mapplethorpe and so-called Gay Pride Parades, consider the sexuality of the Bonobo, recognize the universal existence of homosexuality and transvestism in all cultures and throughout all of know history, among philosophers, artists, and statesmen, study the phenomenon of the Amerind berdache and the transsexual old-world shaman, and, most especially, consider the possibility that your own perhaps unquestioned preferences, whether for the opposite sex or for chocolate over vanilla may not necessarily be universal, necessary, or ideal.
Biological Exuberance addresses animal sexuality. I believe that it definitely overreaches, but it still presents valuable information. Michael N. Henry's Studies in Siberian Shamanism addresses homosexuality and especially transsexuality in cultures which predate ours by millennia, showing that such phenomena are not unique modern aberrations of the West.
Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/06, 4:31pm)
|
|
