Just a micro-rant.
I assert the right, and the normative precedent, to refuse to treat a man as a woman. I am under no obligation to entertain the notions of the insane or the hostile.
Now this is not a license to be rude. I treat everybody with some respect, more when I remember my manners, and less when I am misbehaving. As an example, I furiously oppose the gay agenda, but I have no problem maintaining friendly social interaction with gay individuals.
“A person is not a policy” is one of my handy formulations for as Dennis Prager says, separating the micro from the macro. It is not inconsistent to treat the two regimes differently. Rather, it is entirely consistent with a larger truth, that each of us is an individual composed of that within the skin and whatever animating force you may perceive. Self-perception is a limited and murky thing — how much moreso must be our percetion of others?
Yet good manners and civilization itself are aspects of the great bargain between the self and the other. Every individual is always outnumbered by the other, on the order of nearly eight-billion-to-one these days. We as humans have inherited and developed complex social abilities; perception, assumption, recognition, dissembly, acceptance, alliance, opposition, warfare, economics to include any fashion of value-based decision-making (including sexual market value and a host of things denominated in currencies other than money), and so on. This machinery hums along in the background, largely unperceived by us. We operate day-to-day as being who believe in free will and who believe that we make our decisions, but who mostly follow rails laid down in our DNA. In my pocket analysis of free will, I would say that we do possess it, and may at times, *given sufficient volition* exercise it in any realm, but that we rarely do. We cruise about on autopilot most of the time. Subroutines. We reserve our front-of-the-brain no-kidding thought for those most rare of circumstances.
Societal norms, like fashion, constitute a language or a system of languages, which we all inherit and/or acquire. We all speak this language, or this type of language, to differing degrees, and with different accents. Boundaries are hard to pin down — “wash” vs “warsh”. Yet boundaries do exist, clearly at a sufficiently zoomed-out perspective. “Lavar”.
When a man with societal, perceptual, and mental issues decides to live as a woman, he has that right. But we are not beholden to play along. Why? What this person is doing is as much an offense as a salesman who will not go away, will not shut up, and who insists that you let him into the house. His foot is in the door, and now his briefcase, and he shoves and cajoles his way in, all the while insisting that you are just being rude for trying to keep him out. By exploiting various social insecurities, a hostile actor will make you feel guilty, as if you have greatly wronged or are now wronging the hostile interloper.
We cannot have a society if we have no social norms. We cannot live a life except as a pre-social hunter-killer (there will be no safety in which to gather, nor place to bring that which is gathered), if we have no power to levy expectations upon each other. Well, which expectations? Those which have been proven to work by millions of years of figuring out that very problem.
Conservatism in my hands is that which asserts the factual correctness of our “traditional” answers to the burning questions of evolution: What are we? How shall we be? And so we are as man and woman, with form following function, and function following form, optimized but only to an optimal degree for different sets of tasks. Societal roles both give and take, and only a fool tries to ignore half of the equation in the name of answering the whole Only a mighty collection of fools attempts to re-define the mathematical operators in order to make the first fool’s answer somehow correct. To attempt to enforce this “blue math” requires a degree of hostility to society and the individuals within it that justifies a firm, resolute, refusal to even entertain their arguments.
It is neither rude nor anti-social to insist that the insane do not dictate reality to the sane. The damaged and broken should be tolerated as the individuals that they are — they can perhaps be nothing more. But an army of enablers with nothing more broken than education/information or moral standing are due nothing but a cold shoulder or hot lead.
The salesman is now in the foyer, and we have some decisions to make.