People who know me will be aware of the fact that I am in a long-term stable relationship.
I hope it goes without saying, but it may not so here I am saying it anyway, that I am talking about my own situation here and nobody else's, and I cannot transfer my own views over to someone else's situation. This is just about Sarada and me.
Here is a report from the Scottish Transgender Alliance (www.scottishtrans.org) on trans experiences of domestic abuse: http://www.scottishtrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trans_domestic_abuse.pdf
Some of the behaviour described as emotionally abusive is very familiar to me. Two in particular, namely refusal to use my pronouns of choice or my current name, are things that Sarada does. Whereas I'd be lying if I said I was OK with it, I don't think it's OK to call this emotional abuse, for several reasons which doubtless reveal my false consciousness. You know, that same false consciousness that I might be accused of having by being a rapist, AKA gender dysphoric male-assigned person, by certain people. So you may want to skip over the rest but in doing so you might want to consider that I spent a lot of time skipping over what I considered to be inevitably junk science about androgen receptors and brain anatomy and physiology, and that you might be doing it in the same spirit. I don't know, maybe you've been through this and come out the other side.
So she deliberately misgenders me and refuses to call me by my real name, and yes I do find this extremely distressing and yes, it has a massive impact on my self-esteem, confidence and self-acceptance, and yes she knows all this. That's all entirely clear. Along comes the label of emotional abuse. Right, so we can call it that and follow a prescribed course of action which is simplistic and knee-jerky (don't get me started on deep tendon reflexes). OK, so what about all those other bad bits of behaviour which occur in relationships which don't have labels? They don't count as emotional abuse so they don't have a prescribed course of action. However, in my faith of choice the text in John 8:7 comes to mind - for those of you without an imaginary friend, feel free just to take the point that none of us are perfect and that relationships are not perfect and accept the New Testament as a piece of Hellenistic literature.
There was of course a time when I was lonely and looking for love. I found it and heaven knew I was miserable then, to the extent that I eventually concluded that there were two types of misery in the world, the misery of single life and the misery of sexual relationships. Being single has the advantage that you are not making someone else who cares about you a lot miserable. This is an exaggeration of course, although at the time that was exactly how I saw things. I have since moderated my opinions somewhat. Even so, I still maintain that a certain moiety of misery must enter all committed sexualoid relationships, and in fact all relationships. In my case, this misery includes the above, labelled as emotional abuse by these folk in Scotland.
What would you do then? Hold out for a perfect relationship which will never happen and cannot exist? Why even bother to call this emotional abuse? If this wasn't happening, something else would be and doubtless something else is, and in all likelihood it's me doing it and being in denial about it.
I should also put this in a bit of context. Famously, this relationship is a marriage even though I don't agree with marriage (although I do believe in commitment), and a marriage which has lasted twenty-one years and produced two grown up children, and a lot of happiness. Many people might ask, why is this a marriage? Why the heck am I married when I don't agree with it and it goes against the very fibre of my being? Well, the answer is for similar reasons as my failure to do anything about the GID.
I was of course against marriage from adolescence onward for several reasons although nowadays I wouldn't seek to impose that on anyone else. The reasons are that it is an intrusion of the state and organised religion into intimacy between two people when there seems to be no reason for that to happen, and that the very basis of marriage, historically speaking, is filthy and appalling, to do with legitimising rape and gender-based division of labour, and making women men's property. It completely escapes me why someone would approve of it, and even if they would in an ideal world it seems like very bad taste to me to seek to engage in an institution with such a revolting history. It amounts to giving the finger to one's ancestors, one's peers and kin.
Nonetheless I am married, and I believe in this marriage, sullied though it is by the fact that it is a marriage. The reason I'm married is, all the above notwithstanding, it was a woman who asked me to marry her at a time when I had been browbeaten into believing that I was male and therefore inferior and unable to think properly. In my view at the time, a male-assigned person was essentially and irretrievably incapable of intelligent cognition, so in spite of all those beliefs, and no matter what the reasons for believing those, it was automatically trumped by the workings of a woman's mind, because women were of course men's intellectual superiors.
I was then confronted by cognitive dissonance. I was, as I saw it at the time, a married "man" who was completely against marriage. I resolved that dissonance by compensating mentally for it thus: a married man is his wife's property. She has the power of life and death over him. He has no rights. No matter what his interests are, they are subservient to her will in all circumstances. This would mean, for example, that if a man has an operable tumour which is otherwise fatal and his wife doesn't want him to have anything done about it, it is his duty to leave it alone and die of cancer. I had to adopt this extreme position in order to deal with the guilt and shame of being married.
This means, of course, that "my" reproductive system is not my property but my wife's. She can do what she wants with it. It's not mine at all. It just happens to be situated on this body. The fact that it makes me miserable is irrelevant because it's not my place to interfere with it. I gave up that right when I was married.
So this relationship is not abusive, and in fact it cannot be abusive. I could theoretically be emotionally abusive to my wife but there is no way she could be abusive to me. It doesn't matter how distressing I find her behaviour. All of that became irrelevant the day I committed the shameful, disgusting act of getting married because that is the only way I can deal emotionally with the fact that I have committed this abomination upon her.
So don't call her abusive. It's impossible for her to be abusive to me because any abuse is dwarfed by the appalling act of me marrying her.
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
What If It Were A Fetish?
It's very difficult to know what to write here without violating the privacy of people I care a lot about. I know I tend to overshare. I'm going to try not to here.
This is provoked by a frequent claim made by certain people, probably often those who give me funny looks, that M2F trans is a fetish. For instance, Germaine Greer describes us in that way and so of course does Janice Raymond. There is in fact a whole taxonomy based on the idea. What gets me about this is that in spite of their apparent position on the relationships between men and women, they consider that to be a criticism. I will explain this, but before I do that I'm afraid I'm going to have to bore you with my life story and make oblique references to my sex life. In a way, I could be said to be sinking to their level in doing this.
So let's start with me. I can still remember the moment when I realised I was a "pervert", i.e. that what turned me on had no apparent connection with what I'd heard about what people do in bed. In fact it was so different from what happens in the bedroom that until you-know-what happened, I didn't even realise it was sexual myself. No, I am not going to say what it is, not entirely. This is because I don't want to rub your faces in my sad twinges. Suffice it to say that there were two things and neither of them had anything to do with wearing "women's" clothing in any way, shape or form. Nor are they anything to do with having anything chopped off, removed or added. A few of you might know what they are, and you can confirm that it's nothing to do with wanting to change sex, to put it bluntly.
Once this had happened and the full horror of the situation hit me, I became aware of the ominous silence in my loins concerning other human beings. I experimented with thinking about them in supposedly sexual situations but nothing happened. It just bored me and it couldn't grab my attention. This led to a lot of anxiety. I wanted to want sex but I didn't. The reason I wanted to want sex was that I wanted to be normal, I wanted to be wanted and I wanted to show affection in that way so I could build some kind of love affair on it, one appropriate for an early teen anyway. I so wanted to hold hands, to kiss, to cuddle, all that, but what I did not, could not, want, as such, was to make the beast with two backs, not even a little bit, not ever, not in itself. Except that I did. I did because I wanted to want sex. And that's what all that was about, all you people who will never read this passage but whose names I am tempted to check but will resist.
Eventually I solved the problem, although I'm not going to tell you how. However, at the same time I became aware that there was a positive aspect to all this. It meant that whereas it was possible to accuse certain people of behaving disrespectfully towards women or objectifying them, I had the option, even the compulsion, not to do so in a sexual way. The complete absence of lust for people has an up side there. Also, it makes sex itself very special indeed as a positive expression of how I feel about someone. It means there is never any temptation to be unfaithful. As well as all that, I do also realise that you can get closer to people emotionally through sex, so that is another good reason to do so. Mine is a life devoid of lust, temptation by others, stupid decisions driven by thinking with your genitals and staying with people merely because I fancy them. None of that is in my life, to my great relief. Incidentally, none of this means I lack passion for people, or that I want to be single as such. Anyone who knows me will be aware that this is not so.
The reason all this is possible is that I had a strong sexual deviation for something very unusual. If I wanted sexual gratification, I could use that.
So to return to Miscs Greer, Raymond and the like, who criticise us because of the possibility that we might be autogynephilic or really into wearing dresses in a kinky way. Two things about that:
Speaking for myself, I can place my paraphilias next to the desire to be physically female, and of course I am sitting here in tights, a bra, knickers, a dress, a scarf, nail varnish, with jewellery and make up etc, none of which is turning me on even slightly but which you could be forgiven for thinking is, that's fair enough, and be startlingly aware of the gulf of difference which exists between the two types of desires. I want my body to match my gender in the same way as an amputee might want their limb back, in the same way as a prisoner might want to be out of jail and in the same way as a diabetic might want their body to be able to control its sugar metabolism. I do not want my body to match my gender in the same way as someone might want to be tied up and whipped, and when I say that I say it with the utmost respect for people who are in fact into BDSM. Which leads me to the second point
Something I can agree strongly on with the people who tend to equate what I'm doing here with a fetish is that I don't want women to be objectified sexually. Incidentally, if they want to be objectified, someone else can do that job. It's not like it makes sense for me to do it just because someone wants me to and in any case it's very far-fetched and irrelevant to imagine such a situation arising. I'm not into being trivially and superficially interested in people's bodies in that way thank you. It interests me about as much as football or watching paint which has already dried. Anyway, in order to achieve that end, a "man" might want to indulge "his" fetish of dressing like this and "he" might find it a turn on to do so. Surely, if that happens, the response of a woman who does not wish men to be objectified ought to be approval, should it not?
So they don't want men to lust after women but they also don't want these people they insult by calling "men" to indulge a supposed fetish which would mean they weren't. Why exactly is that? Would they prefer them to be objectifying the people they think of as women instead? According to them, that's the alternative.
Finally, not wishing to embarrass anyone and therefore mentioning no names, here is a list of what the last few transwomen I saw were wearing at the time I saw them:
A loose-fitting plain black cotton tunic made with a black knitted cardigan on top.
Shorts and a T-shirt.
A blouse and jeans.
A checked shirt and jogging bottoms.
Right, so they clearly have fetishes for all that then? Yeah, right.
This is provoked by a frequent claim made by certain people, probably often those who give me funny looks, that M2F trans is a fetish. For instance, Germaine Greer describes us in that way and so of course does Janice Raymond. There is in fact a whole taxonomy based on the idea. What gets me about this is that in spite of their apparent position on the relationships between men and women, they consider that to be a criticism. I will explain this, but before I do that I'm afraid I'm going to have to bore you with my life story and make oblique references to my sex life. In a way, I could be said to be sinking to their level in doing this.
So let's start with me. I can still remember the moment when I realised I was a "pervert", i.e. that what turned me on had no apparent connection with what I'd heard about what people do in bed. In fact it was so different from what happens in the bedroom that until you-know-what happened, I didn't even realise it was sexual myself. No, I am not going to say what it is, not entirely. This is because I don't want to rub your faces in my sad twinges. Suffice it to say that there were two things and neither of them had anything to do with wearing "women's" clothing in any way, shape or form. Nor are they anything to do with having anything chopped off, removed or added. A few of you might know what they are, and you can confirm that it's nothing to do with wanting to change sex, to put it bluntly.
Once this had happened and the full horror of the situation hit me, I became aware of the ominous silence in my loins concerning other human beings. I experimented with thinking about them in supposedly sexual situations but nothing happened. It just bored me and it couldn't grab my attention. This led to a lot of anxiety. I wanted to want sex but I didn't. The reason I wanted to want sex was that I wanted to be normal, I wanted to be wanted and I wanted to show affection in that way so I could build some kind of love affair on it, one appropriate for an early teen anyway. I so wanted to hold hands, to kiss, to cuddle, all that, but what I did not, could not, want, as such, was to make the beast with two backs, not even a little bit, not ever, not in itself. Except that I did. I did because I wanted to want sex. And that's what all that was about, all you people who will never read this passage but whose names I am tempted to check but will resist.
Eventually I solved the problem, although I'm not going to tell you how. However, at the same time I became aware that there was a positive aspect to all this. It meant that whereas it was possible to accuse certain people of behaving disrespectfully towards women or objectifying them, I had the option, even the compulsion, not to do so in a sexual way. The complete absence of lust for people has an up side there. Also, it makes sex itself very special indeed as a positive expression of how I feel about someone. It means there is never any temptation to be unfaithful. As well as all that, I do also realise that you can get closer to people emotionally through sex, so that is another good reason to do so. Mine is a life devoid of lust, temptation by others, stupid decisions driven by thinking with your genitals and staying with people merely because I fancy them. None of that is in my life, to my great relief. Incidentally, none of this means I lack passion for people, or that I want to be single as such. Anyone who knows me will be aware that this is not so.
The reason all this is possible is that I had a strong sexual deviation for something very unusual. If I wanted sexual gratification, I could use that.
So to return to Miscs Greer, Raymond and the like, who criticise us because of the possibility that we might be autogynephilic or really into wearing dresses in a kinky way. Two things about that:
Speaking for myself, I can place my paraphilias next to the desire to be physically female, and of course I am sitting here in tights, a bra, knickers, a dress, a scarf, nail varnish, with jewellery and make up etc, none of which is turning me on even slightly but which you could be forgiven for thinking is, that's fair enough, and be startlingly aware of the gulf of difference which exists between the two types of desires. I want my body to match my gender in the same way as an amputee might want their limb back, in the same way as a prisoner might want to be out of jail and in the same way as a diabetic might want their body to be able to control its sugar metabolism. I do not want my body to match my gender in the same way as someone might want to be tied up and whipped, and when I say that I say it with the utmost respect for people who are in fact into BDSM. Which leads me to the second point
Something I can agree strongly on with the people who tend to equate what I'm doing here with a fetish is that I don't want women to be objectified sexually. Incidentally, if they want to be objectified, someone else can do that job. It's not like it makes sense for me to do it just because someone wants me to and in any case it's very far-fetched and irrelevant to imagine such a situation arising. I'm not into being trivially and superficially interested in people's bodies in that way thank you. It interests me about as much as football or watching paint which has already dried. Anyway, in order to achieve that end, a "man" might want to indulge "his" fetish of dressing like this and "he" might find it a turn on to do so. Surely, if that happens, the response of a woman who does not wish men to be objectified ought to be approval, should it not?
So they don't want men to lust after women but they also don't want these people they insult by calling "men" to indulge a supposed fetish which would mean they weren't. Why exactly is that? Would they prefer them to be objectifying the people they think of as women instead? According to them, that's the alternative.
Finally, not wishing to embarrass anyone and therefore mentioning no names, here is a list of what the last few transwomen I saw were wearing at the time I saw them:
A loose-fitting plain black cotton tunic made with a black knitted cardigan on top.
Shorts and a T-shirt.
A blouse and jeans.
A checked shirt and jogging bottoms.
Right, so they clearly have fetishes for all that then? Yeah, right.
Monday, 1 September 2014
Ach, Sod It, I Wanna Write A Normal Blog Post
It's even in English! Why am I doing this? Dunno. Anyway...
Leicester Pride did not go well for me. The day started fine apart from the depressing, time-consuming bath and hair removal just after I got up, which was annoying but something I have to do every day anyway. It even went well until about 11 am, but then it turned out Sarada wasn't coming to the march but just to the fair. At the time, I didn't consciously consider it a problem that I was going unaccompanied, so I left the house in a good mood. However, in the half hour or so it took me to walk down to the starting point of the parade bit, I went from being confident, happy and looking forward to it through a number of other stages. I thought about having to stand around feeling awkward among people who were either strangers or not strangers. That was enough to persuade me to walk around the assembly point, giving it a wide berth, so I could join it unobtrusively at the back. Then it got worse. Just before reaching the starting point, I chickened out and left, deciding to join the march at some point along its route. Then I decided even that was too much and I skulked around the back streets specifically trying to avoid the march. After that, I walked around the park to avoid the fair bit and waited outside the gates, where I'd arranged to meet Sarada. Even that was too much, so I hid round the corner until I saw her and went over. That was followed by about ten minutes' despondent plodding around the park before I left.
Not good.
What was going on? It was odd actually because the whole time I was fully aware of what I was doing, although it didn't stop it from happening. Two things in fact. One is that I felt like I was a complete wannabe tranny (note the offensive word) who just cannot possibly ever pass. In itself that would be OK because why should people even try to pass? There's an argument for people being obvious because, well, why shouldn't I do this even if it doesn't "work"? It works for me and that's all that should matter. However, I also felt like I would be letting other people down by doing that because whereas it may be something I'm at peace with, I shouldn't be imposing that on anyone else. The other is that I still haven't got past the TERF approach. If I go to Pride, I fully expect to be hated and despised as a metaphorical rapist and if people don't hate me it confuses me and I lose respect for them because it makes me feel they have false consciousness, which is not going to help them. Of course, nowadays I don't think that way. That doesn't mean I should be around people I offend or trigger. They are not necessarily in control of that triggering, or if they are it may take them a lot of effort, time and pain to overcome that, and why should I force them to do that?
It now gets worse in a different way. Sarada and I then went home and talked about it. In this situation, in order to be reassured I would need to be convinced that I passed OK, or of course that it didn't matter, which of course it doesn't, not in the end. Petty of me in a way, but I still need it, sad though that makes me. However, for her, me passing OK is a bad thing, which because it's bad and she can be glass half empty although she tries hard not to be, she is more likely to see me as doing than I do. For me, passing OK would be a good thing so I'm more likely for the same reason to underestimate my ability to do so. So, almost perfectly, my good is her bad and my bad is her good. Since our lives are so entwined that they are effectively one life, and this particular good is almost certainly key to my, and therefore our, confidence, happiness and success, this illustrates particularly clearly the problem.
It now occurs to me that all this might only be tangentially related to the thread about Merry. Sorry about that.
Leicester Pride did not go well for me. The day started fine apart from the depressing, time-consuming bath and hair removal just after I got up, which was annoying but something I have to do every day anyway. It even went well until about 11 am, but then it turned out Sarada wasn't coming to the march but just to the fair. At the time, I didn't consciously consider it a problem that I was going unaccompanied, so I left the house in a good mood. However, in the half hour or so it took me to walk down to the starting point of the parade bit, I went from being confident, happy and looking forward to it through a number of other stages. I thought about having to stand around feeling awkward among people who were either strangers or not strangers. That was enough to persuade me to walk around the assembly point, giving it a wide berth, so I could join it unobtrusively at the back. Then it got worse. Just before reaching the starting point, I chickened out and left, deciding to join the march at some point along its route. Then I decided even that was too much and I skulked around the back streets specifically trying to avoid the march. After that, I walked around the park to avoid the fair bit and waited outside the gates, where I'd arranged to meet Sarada. Even that was too much, so I hid round the corner until I saw her and went over. That was followed by about ten minutes' despondent plodding around the park before I left.
Not good.
What was going on? It was odd actually because the whole time I was fully aware of what I was doing, although it didn't stop it from happening. Two things in fact. One is that I felt like I was a complete wannabe tranny (note the offensive word) who just cannot possibly ever pass. In itself that would be OK because why should people even try to pass? There's an argument for people being obvious because, well, why shouldn't I do this even if it doesn't "work"? It works for me and that's all that should matter. However, I also felt like I would be letting other people down by doing that because whereas it may be something I'm at peace with, I shouldn't be imposing that on anyone else. The other is that I still haven't got past the TERF approach. If I go to Pride, I fully expect to be hated and despised as a metaphorical rapist and if people don't hate me it confuses me and I lose respect for them because it makes me feel they have false consciousness, which is not going to help them. Of course, nowadays I don't think that way. That doesn't mean I should be around people I offend or trigger. They are not necessarily in control of that triggering, or if they are it may take them a lot of effort, time and pain to overcome that, and why should I force them to do that?
It now gets worse in a different way. Sarada and I then went home and talked about it. In this situation, in order to be reassured I would need to be convinced that I passed OK, or of course that it didn't matter, which of course it doesn't, not in the end. Petty of me in a way, but I still need it, sad though that makes me. However, for her, me passing OK is a bad thing, which because it's bad and she can be glass half empty although she tries hard not to be, she is more likely to see me as doing than I do. For me, passing OK would be a good thing so I'm more likely for the same reason to underestimate my ability to do so. So, almost perfectly, my good is her bad and my bad is her good. Since our lives are so entwined that they are effectively one life, and this particular good is almost certainly key to my, and therefore our, confidence, happiness and success, this illustrates particularly clearly the problem.
It now occurs to me that all this might only be tangentially related to the thread about Merry. Sorry about that.
Monday, 28 April 2014
Situation Victoriane
Ce is around question de narrative. Nos nos disem stories around nosters vites que changen regularment, e suddenment story novele is verity e no story previouse. 28mo April is anniversary de Victoria, amate de me de passate. Co is tamben example de narratives changeants in my vite.
Annies multiples passate, jo encounteray person sy claim Victoria. Jo no vol doner sy surname a cause jo vol preserver sy privacy. Era case de amour unrequitate. My narrative a temp era probablement similar ad icest: Jo ame Vicky, Vicky no me ame, jo stay depressate. Ma now jo regard ce incident in icest via: Jo tain attraction potente a Vicky a cause Vicky is person que jo vol ster - note tense present, a cause icest statement, no now very, is projectate in past. Icest is via jo view events de tres decades pre 2014.
Question is naturalment, is un o alter very? Deceive jo me advec ce statement now, o deceivay jo me advec prime statement? O, son ambs nonveries? Comprehend dom problem?
Annies multiples passate, jo encounteray person sy claim Victoria. Jo no vol doner sy surname a cause jo vol preserver sy privacy. Era case de amour unrequitate. My narrative a temp era probablement similar ad icest: Jo ame Vicky, Vicky no me ame, jo stay depressate. Ma now jo regard ce incident in icest via: Jo tain attraction potente a Vicky a cause Vicky is person que jo vol ster - note tense present, a cause icest statement, no now very, is projectate in past. Icest is via jo view events de tres decades pre 2014.
Question is naturalment, is un o alter very? Deceive jo me advec ce statement now, o deceivay jo me advec prime statement? O, son ambs nonveries? Comprehend dom problem?
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Correctitude Politicale No Is Equal A Morality
Is plus que un sort de marriage "homosexuale". Relativement bon sort is dos persons de sexes e genders identicals joinen sys vites. Jo dise "relativement" por reasons que jo no vol discusser a ce moment. Ma nonfortunatement, is un alter sort de marriage homosexuale. In occasions certaines, people marrien a cause speren que sy homosexuality is mal e volen que disappear. Tamben creden que va disappearer. Ce is very improbable, naturalment. Fortunatement ces marriages appearen a ster plus rares in ces dis. Ma consider position de person que is "heterosexual" in ca situation (incidentalment, jo va changer ces verbs presentment a cause ces expressen concepts malment). Co havet state deceivate, frequentment por annies multiples, e sy partner - sorry, I'm going to have to lapse into English and since I've resolved not to do that, I'll stop.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)