Altering language to suit one's self can lead to unethical paths. That said, if you want to expand a definition, or construct an identity you certainly have a right to do so. And you have the right to correct a mis-definition applied by others, in fact perhaps an obligation to do so.
Much of the problem here falls under what I've called "xaxlebax problems" in the past, where certain definitions contain bundled self-contradictions. Much of these problems come from blurring the line between identity and definition. If someone wants to define "man" as "that which has a penis" that's fine. But they cannot then say "you must also have X,Y and Z traits because you are a man" - this is a subtle point that unfortunately is too difficult for most people to follow. Most language is corrupted* and contains hidden implication statements that are usually not true. (the hidden implication in my example is that "that which has a penis, always has X Y and Z traits")
* this corruption may or may not be intentional, depending on the circumstances... in the case of gender constructs, there are certainly reasons for the Powers That Be to wish to corrupt the language this way, but perhaps the current PTBs are merely the ones that exist because of the corruption.
I too suffer from this, all the time. I feel coerced to alternately hyper-feminize or hyper-masculinize myself inconveniently in order to relieve social pressure. I feel like I can fight this, but only in small, gradual ways.
People act like seagulls or fish swarms, they react based on the transmission of others. Reality constructs itself around identifiable groups, who contain enough transmission power to alter the behavior of others.
In time, one person being firm enough in their self-construction can warp the behavioral reality field, but in the meantime (and it is a mean time indeed) they will be under considerable pressure to re-enter the fold.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 04:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-01-06 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:1. the philosophical answer
Date: 2007-01-06 06:52 pm (UTC)That said, if you want to expand a definition, or construct an identity you certainly have a right to do so.
And you have the right to correct a mis-definition applied by others, in fact perhaps an obligation to do so.
Much of the problem here falls under what I've called "xaxlebax problems" in the past, where certain definitions contain bundled self-contradictions. Much of these problems come from blurring the line between identity and definition.
If someone wants to define "man" as "that which has a penis" that's fine. But they cannot then say "you must also have X,Y and Z traits because you are a man" - this is a subtle point that unfortunately is too difficult for most people to follow. Most language is corrupted* and contains hidden implication statements that are usually not true.
(the hidden implication in my example is that "that which has a penis, always has X Y and Z traits")
* this corruption may or may not be intentional, depending on the circumstances... in the case of gender constructs, there are certainly reasons for the Powers That Be to wish to corrupt the language this way, but perhaps the current PTBs are merely the ones that exist because of the corruption.
2. the psychological human answer
Date: 2007-01-06 06:59 pm (UTC)I feel like I can fight this, but only in small, gradual ways.
People act like seagulls or fish swarms, they react based on the transmission of others. Reality constructs itself around identifiable groups, who contain enough transmission power to alter the behavior of others.
In time, one person being firm enough in their self-construction can warp the behavioral reality field, but in the meantime (and it is a mean time indeed) they will be under considerable pressure to re-enter the fold.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-07 04:21 pm (UTC)Thanks...