User:RD/9k/Q50,45

Main entry

I think therefore I'm trans
/ Transgender people think therefore transgender people are / Trans people think therefore trans people are -> this is the crux of my problem with current theories on gender identity. this Cartesian construction was overturned for crusty old White men within their own groups' philosophers so it seems strange we should be using it for anyone else.

"I think, therefore I am" + gender identity = this.

I think therefore I'm trans / Appealing to an authority justifies that authority's legitimacy, therefore people choosing what is right for themselves is better and unless it is harmful it is true (anti-normative queer theory) [1] -> there are so many things wrong with this that my main remark is, "is this... a new set of truth values?" that's almost what it looks like. 'individual self-expression that is not harmful', or something like that. 'authentic self-expression that is not harmful'. I don't know what the opposite or opposites would be.
my second remark... have you read Chouette? it's not exactly about gender but it is about the idea of what is harmful. the concept of what is harmful doesn't come from individuals having freedom and having freedom in parallel, it comes from collisions between individuals and society in which the collision itself contains all the harm coming down in both directions and it's actually really hard to determine what is harmful or isn't. purely by rooting itself in real anecdotes the book ended up being superbly dialectical.
Waiting for a disclosure of meaning gives the one who discloses it power / Appealing to authority for legitimacy always reifies the legitimacy of that authority more than of the ones who appeal (anti-normative queer theory)

I think, therefore I am / The writer cannot be the writer's hallucination / The writer cannot be a proposition inaccurate to reality -> classic, famous proposition used by Descartes as a basic axiom. one good argument against it is that by Gödel's incompleteness theorem no computer or logic book can reason about the actual computer or things outside the computer and certainly be correct. there's always a causal separation between computer, brain, or logic book and reality itself in the sense that one can say physics "is" the separation between objects.
promotes freedom (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful (truth value) / (9k) -> this would be the truth value that is being promoted here.
does not promote freedom (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful (truth value) / (9k) -> according to blue and charcoal anarchists this is the truth value of genuine allegiance to either Liberal-republicanism or Communism.