Monday, 21 April 2014

Paradox De Goodman

Nelson Goodman is philosoph.  Co conceiva de concept que captura my spirit annies muches pasate:  "grue".  Tamben is concept "bleen" un de Goodman.  Ces verbs son naturalment English e no Anglese, partment a cause language Anglese no exist.  "Grue" is definite qua "vert pre temp T e azure post temp T" e "bleen" qua "azure pre temp T e vert post temp T".  Certe person observe que esmeraldas son "grue" e que ceil is "bleen".  Herb is tamben "grue" e sapphires "bleen", et cetera.  Ces persons assume que esmeraldas, sapphires, ceil e herbs va ster respectivement grue, bleen, bleen e grue post temp T, ma nos alters credem que ces va changer de grue a bleen o de bleen a grue post temp T.  Ni is possible a user argument que person que cred que grue e bleen son concepts valids is non-scientific, a cause pow tamben creder que perception de colours o frequency de luce is similarment "variable", i.e. que nos nos credem que cos changen e "grue" creditor no.

Goodman no intenda que ce concept era ster ducate seriousment, ma usate ces qua illustrations de nature de concepts.  Nos considerem que concepts "azure" e "vert" son projectible in future e no concepts "grue" e "bleen".  Ma porque?  Nos tainem que distinguisher inter generalisations que son legal e generalisations que no son, ma no savem quels generalisations son quels.  Nos appearem ster forceate a considerer solement moment present e location currente.

Consider now my situation.  Sto marriate, e my spouse e marriate a me.  Co assumea que my gender era rester identical trans noster total vite.  Jo pow argue que ce actualment is case, ma obviousment ca argument is complex e peraventure strange.  Ma consider Labrus mixtus e Amphiprion species.  Ces pisces son similars a muches alters species de animals e plants a cause in certains circumstances changen sex naturalment.  In ambs cases, piscis de un sex pow changer a alter sex, exempli gratia si son severals Amphipriones in anemone, senior is female, ma si senior mor, junior change de male a female.  Labrus is, jo cred, alter via - female.  Ma details no son point - jo pow referer a Wikipedia o alters sources e tamben powes vos - ma que change de gender occur trans vite.  Existen verbs por ces phenomena: protandry e protogyny.  Plus generalment, "sequential hermaphroditism" is term English por icests: hermaphroditism sequential in noster language factitiouse.

Regard situation in ce via:  my spouse marria personage male ma a no point era disate que ce personage va ster male eternalment.  Person que marria era protandrous.  Ce is similar a "grue" e "bleen": co feata assumption de me que era incorrect.  Jo pow tamben arguer que a no point jo era male, ma co ovrer muches alters issues que jo no vol discusser now.

Saturday, 19 April 2014

Progress Super Language

Vos notice change in orthography in icest entry.  Verb por conjunction tain solement un letter - "e".  "T" no is pronounceate, e jo have omitate.

Que son mys motivations por usant ce language, vos pow ben poser.  Alor, jo suppose que son tres reasons actualment, o peraventure plus.

Prime, jo realise que no person li ce blog, e consequentment no important sy people me comprehenden - no que people me comprehenden in alteres circumstances!

Second, inside language que is parlate in ce nation son minimum de dos languages que attempten a emerger.  Un is plus explorate par me que alter - "Proper English", i.e. "English" sans verbs que originaten in Francese.  Sans barricade, have altere language in co:  opposite of "Proper English", que jo claim "Anglese".  Co consist de verbs e grammar trovates in English, e jo vol imaginer que co is approximatement manner in que Anglonorman soy, sy no soy extinct.  Co no is a position viable, naturally, a cause verity is que is si extinct.

Terciem, jo me interest por language Portuguese, e jo attempt a feater ce language petty similar a Portuguese.  Exempli gratia, jo have decidate a feater lexical verb de feater (jo require verb novel por "verb" in English, a cause jo co use qua verb general e is supposate a ster "verb" - jo no sabe approach correct) "tainer" e no "haver" a cause verb Portugues is "tener", no Castilian (e.g.) "haver" o Francese "avoir".  Son probablement alteres examples severals ma jo no pow creder.  Unfortunatement co is affectate par fact que jo no pow parler Portuguese.

Quateriem, e icest is particularment interesant, jo vol feater language que is gender-neutral.  Jo so supposate a explainer: jo vol maintainer gender grammatical ma discarder gender "natural".  Exempli gratia, jo have decidate que pronouns personals terceims son demonstratives similar a Latin a cause pronoun "co" (que is supposate a tainer cedilla incidentment) in Francese Ancient is neuter.  Jo no have decidate alters demonstratives.  Pronoun personal second is modelate de Portuguese.  Co use "dom" o "doms" por form polite.  Portuguese use "a senhora" et cetera, ma sy jo co use, introduce gender, e.g. "madam", "sir" e alters forms.  Portant, jo use "vos" por informal (singular e plural a cause Anglo-Norman use "vos" por singular e plural) ma "dom" (por "domine") e "doms" por formals.

Ultra icest, jo plan a user terms neutrals por genitalia, e adjectives a modifier.  Sans barricade, jo no co tain totalment planate.

Altres features de ce language includen omission de pronouns in certains circumstances, omission de articles e omission de copula.

Parl advec vos in di proximal - Dominic Paschal.  Peraventure.

Friday, 18 April 2014

Practice Por Psych

Couple dis pasate, jo visitay amate que jo usay regarder frequentment.  Sy mama mora recentment, et jo havet expectate focus a ster super icest.  Bon, jo creday, a cause my proper focus is trop much super my proper problems.  Sans barricade, icest no fut case.  Peraventure icest fut a cause my amate vola a diser de alteres coses de mort de sy mama.

Portant, nos parlames de my transition.  Icest fut prime occasion que jo havet state regardate presentant in my role feminine.  Jo trove que co appeara no ster sympathetic a my decision, que me surprisa a certain extent.  Sans barricade, no is surprisant que hostility exist, et de quarter que co represent.  Icest is naturalment no just a cause chacke person is individual, et co is individual.  Co is entitlate a sy viewpoint et is a viewpoint que jo me mesem have tainate in pasate.  Havet dos themes actualment, o peraventure tres o quater:
  1. My transition fut regardate qua similar a paraphilia.
  2. My asexuality fut regardate qua sign de disease.
  3. My behaviour fut credate narcissistic.
  4. Jo fut nonable a escaper de sy view de me.
Naturelment, jo no icest regarday qua very promisant.  Ma plus tard, post que jo havet visitate, jo realisay que in fact ce interaction fut realment util.  Jo have mentionate previousment que nos totes viv in "tunnels realities":  nos exclude people que disagree advec nos et surround nos advec people que have views similars.  No case advec my amate.  Icest is plus bon et exactment manner co is supposate a ster.  In my situation co is particularment util, a cause in future proximal jo va haver consultation advec psychiatrist, et views de professions concernates advec me aidant son probablement suspicious et hostile a my long lines similares.  Por ce reason, is actualment idea very bon sy jo attempt a discusser ce subject advec co.  Is practice por diser advec doctors et cetera.  Sy jo pow co persuader, peraventure is possible persuader psychiatrist et alia que jo tain condition por que jo require diagnosis.

Havant disate icest, fact remain que my amate have requirements a cause de mort de sy mama, et jo have requirements no ster very obsessive advec me.  Is very difficult.

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Powent advec Disappointment

Have now decidate que cose optime a feater advec icest blog no is ceaser scriber ma scriber in language factitious que no person comprehend.  Language va changer probablement por cause que jo no taine idea firme de nature de coses variouses, e.g. grammar, vocabulary etc., et is difficult a saver exactment manner de lu scribent.  Reason que jo icest feat is que jo so conscious que no person lir verbs que jo scribe in icest blog, et is passive-aggressive por me a feater.  Jo pow haver scribate icest in "Tesor Language" ma ce is very difficult.
De quelker mode, jo taine subject super que jo pow scriber icest jour:  disappointment.  Icest tardy nos haven planate promenade de herbs advec uns infants que son educates domesticment.  Jo no cred que persons van plicker et ce is very difficult a maintainer my enthusiasm sub icests circumstances.  Problem advec co is que sy jo no have credit o enthusiasm que persons son probable a plicker, et consequentment jo no va planer alcun cose special.  Jo va puter very petty effort in.  Et sy jo puter very petty effort in, ce is very probable que sy persons venen, session no va ir ben.  Jo so entirement conscious de co, ma no pow feater alcun cose por cause que peril de expectant session a occurer is que mi ego va damageate et va plus difficult a recoverer de co.

Situation is que jo va ir a locale de event et pow ster feater quelker cose que is idea bone de quelker mode.  Exempli gratia, jo pow collecter uns herbs que jo require et co feate exercise valuable.  A ce moment, sans embargo, jo ste sedent in robe, stole et collant delicat et jo so obligate a changer mies vestments pre jo va ir a location, por cause icests vestments no son suitables por activity.  Ce signify que vestments in que jo va tainer va acter de subvener de my failure a feater event occurer et absence de interest in icest event, et co is difficult tamben.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

Giving Up For Now

I've felt ambivalent about this blog for a long time.  On the one hand, it works as a place to dump things in an accountable manner, in the sense that I'm aware of the possibility that they will be read but also that it's quite unlikely that they will be.  I don't set it to private because that could be achieved by simply writing a journal, which I do anyway.  Another good reason for its existence is that it stops people elsewhere from having my ramblings inflicted on them.  For that reason, it persists.
On the other hand, whenever I post something on here it's ignored, so far as I can tell, and I don't even think it's any good.  In fact, I think that posting on here usually leads to a somewhat depressed state of mind for quite some time.  At least with a notebook you know it's not for others to read.  I don't think it does my mood any good to stick stuff here though, so for now I'm going to stop I think.  I don't know what the answer is to having people read  or notice your stuff - I've never succeeded here or on YouTube.  Maybe I should just start vlogging again, I don't know.

Another reason I think I'll stop is that my ex sees it as pointless narcissism, and to be honest that's fair comment.  So for now, that's it.

A Woman In Your Own Right

During a collective moan about clients missing appointments, someone said something which I thought at the time I understood but on reflection probably misunderstood, concerning assertiveness.  It was that many people have issues about women being assertive about anything. This is clearly the case, and it's interesting that they said "people" rather than "men" and I wonder about that too. Leaving that aside, I thought at first that they were referring to me as a woman but later "realised" that they probably meant my friend.  But, thinking of it as being about me changes things.
In 1983, a book on the subject of assertiveness called 'A Woman In Your Own Right' came out.  The early editions had a mirrored cover, so if a woman picked it up, she would see herself reflected, both there and in the text of the book.  At the time, even picking up the book seemed wrong to me, like I was trespassing on female territory.  I was, I thought, at the very summit of the social pyramid:  white middle-class able-bodied male in my youth - choose a category of privilege and I was in it.  Oh, here's a link to it incidentally:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1390287.A_Woman_in_Your_Own_Right

Consequently, reading a book on assertiveness would simply be a white male gathering yet another tool of privilege to himself and using it to bludgeon his way even further up the greasy pole.  So I didn't read it.

Years later, I decided to do assertiveness training.  This was a good idea, as it turns out, although nowadays I have less faith in assertiveness than I had back then.  I found, as usual, that I had made a decision which resulted in me being in an almost completely female group.  I learned a variety of worthwhile techniques but later found that I was unable to apply them because in any specific situation, I saw it as an exception and couldn't bring myself to use them.  A better answer might have been counselling, which I pursued to no avail, partly because they weren't transphobic enough for my tastes and I didn't want to let anyone into my mind who didn't hate what I was.  Not hate me, mind you, just what I was, if that makes sense.

Now I imagine that cover again, and imagine my horribly masculine face framed in that mirror with 'A Woman In Your Own Right' printed above it, and I think that maybe I am.  I also think it may be a big factor in my failure that I didn't accept this fact.  Having said that, this all seems a bit "poor me".  However, there's a problem with that attitude just as there is with its opposite.  If I am in fact in some kind of group disadvantaged because of a shared identity with them, either as a woman or a trans individual, I probably should stick up for myself for their sake, so if I don't do that it's possible that I'm letting them down too.

This was all a lot clearer last night, sorry.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Two Veg

First of all, in a sense it shouldn't matter how we got here.  If it did matter, it would provide an excuse for sorting the sheep from the goats, in other words deciding there are first- and second-class trans citizens, which is not fair.  People are already outsiders and creating another outsider group outside the outsiders is not on.  Also, although there are things to consider regarding causes, that way lies madness.  The phenomenology of the condition is the real point for me, and this is just about me, although I'm pretty sure it reflects at least some others' experiences.

I am very much at peace with the realisation that other people really don't understand.  So much so that I find that very peace remarkable.  Nonetheless, they don't, and maybe an explanation is neither necessary nor possible.  However, I do feel moved to comment on a recent conversation which seemed quite similar to some others I've had.

I could be seen as simply a person who wants to have less persistent body and facial hair, larger breasts and different genitals and generative system, and of course I am that, and it's true that they represent something I dislike personally about myself.  It would also be entirely OK for someone with those issues to seek to change those physical features about themselves.  Clearly this goes beyond physical features too and someone might want to alter their psychological outlook and the way they're perceived and relate to and are related to by other people.  This is not the point though.

This can be illustrated by the discussion I had last night.  Someone asked me why I wanted my penis removed.  I found this question interesting for a number of reasons.  Firstly, that's not what would happen.  In fact the glans would be left and most of the erectile tissue removed before the sheath would be everted.  I very much doubt this will ever happen to mine incidentally, for several reasons.  Secondly, the desirability or otherwise of that modification is not the main point.  It's a symbolic act which, among other things, gives a surprisingly unappreciated ironic finger to rape culture, and I've wanted that to happen for a very long time but that wasn't the catastrophe.

More important are the "two veg" - the gonads.  Now, I cannot possibly say that organs essential to the existence of the two wonderful human beings which have dominated my life for the past two decades are entirely benighted, but once they'd fulfilled that function, they could have been said to be living on borrowed time.  It also has to be said that the whole assemblage is important for another person and that is of course a major consideration.  However, the gonads are constantly producing androgens, and it's the androgens along with their insufficient oestrogen production which was responsible for making me ill in the first place.  When part of your body produces hormones inappropriately, it usually needs to be addressed, and the approach can be physical rather than pharmacological.

The fact is that before I unknowingly started taking oestrogenics, something was clearly making me - well, you know the familiar list but here it is anyway - depressive, irritable, anxious, phobic, obsessive-compulsive and the like - and I had never imagined that that could be alleviated by a combination of boosting the oestrogen and lowering the androgens, but that is what happened.

So my situation is not that of someone who simply wants the offending features of my body to be modified.  It's that of someone whose current hormonal environment, left untreated, would give me a series of mental health problems through a physical aetiology with no psychosomatic or placebo effects, and who would therefore benefit directly from the removal of the organs making the biggest contribution to the askew hormonal environment.  Moreover, the shift in my opinion is based exactly on that realisation.  This is a physical condition, validated by that experience.  Mad it may be, but this madness is not just a psychological process.