Offense Justification

 

Let's talk JK Rowling. This subject has been on my mind since the day of her latest tweet that garnered international attention as highly offensive and bigoted. Honestly, I agree with her that the world's gone mad. That's evident in how her tweets have become so misinterpreted, deliberately. First off, she uses sarcasm which obviously has become so little used that much of the world fails to recognize this. Secondly, in her older tweets (when she originally caused offense) she clearly stated she is a supporter of anyone who wishes to identify as the opposite gender but goes on to differentiate between that socio-cultural gender identification versus biological sex and why the distinction is important. In the case presented, Scotland Police "will record rapes by offenders with a penis as being committed by a woman if the attacker 'identifies as a female'" [Source]. Scotland law states that rape is defined as being an action only men may perform as a penis is required for rape to occur [Source]. Because there is no distinction between biology and gender from this 2021 law of gender identification, what this means is that if a masculine-identifying biological male rapes a female, gets caught, and decides to identify as feminine-gendered upon arrest, he will be free to commit as many rapes as he feels, alternating back and forth between female and male identity as needed to thwart the law [Source]. (Because of the discrepancy between the gender identification in one law and biological male genitalia in another, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.) In countries in which rape is not identified as occurring only when a man performs the act, it could mean he, if prosecuted, would have a full run of a female prison. In the world of sports, too, the lack of distinction is causing a crisis in the longevity of female sports [here, here, here, here, here, here, here] for biological males are physically stronger.

In the strive for minority recognition and acceptance, has common sense become obsolete? It seemed only a couple of years ago that the idea of labeling the self was no longer desired and, yet, now it appears to be a supreme mark of distinction. Everything must be labeled now, at least if it's considered under-represented, misrepresented, exploited, and/or oppressed. Only a year ago, there was an outcry of cultural appropriation if one displayed or wore a culturally-aligned emblem of any kind from a people other than one's own biological ancestry, and yet, here we have a deliberate suppressive trajectory of the female through the misuse and deliberate misinterpretation of feminine and female or gender and sex.

But, the difference between sex and gender wasn't actually what I wanted to talk about.

I've come to the realization that one's justification of offense is more important than finding out that the entirety of the argument was based upon a mistaken premise. So, in the case of JK Rowling, when I brought up the problem with the controversy with anyone, the other person was more keen on keeping up the premise of offensive bigotry even if they loved her books. I mean, if you loved an author, actor, politician, or whomever but something they said was taken out of context, wouldn't you be happy to know that you're mistaken? In this case, it's the opposite. The continuation of hatred towards her is more justified because the offense is a worthy cause??? I'm confused about this honestly. I'm not sure anyone understands where any of this is leading us. Moreover, I can understand the fear about CRT (Critical Race Theory) being employed in schools NOT because of the absolute justification and promotion of a diverse history other than Caucasians undeniably falsified supremacy. There should be a balance. However, becoming prevalent is the over-labelization of society which is creating more division than unification. My nephew asked me the other day if I like the analogy of the "melting pot" or the "tossed salad" better. I said neither. Never have. In his eyes, the melting pot denoted that unification whereas with the tossed salad idea, through compartmentalization, any item not wanted could be tossed out. I'm against both analogies (in this context) as one promotes division and the other promotes the eradication of difference. Otherness is important for it is in difference that we create newness and evolve society into something greater. But, division, which seems to be on the table currently, sets up boundaries and fails to promote the unity of the whole.

If we were a society that promoted individualism through teaching self-care, self-worth, critical thinking, formulation of self-identifying ideas free of censorship, and the integration and interconnection between all things, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't need the external validation of thought or identification to justify our existence. The freedom found in individualism creates unification. No fucking need to ride each new trending wave of self-righteous justification of worth. Maybe the next new trend could be to just be - just learn to be the truth of who we are, without any input, or care for someone else's input, about how we should think or who we should be. If we're learning moral value through other people's ideas of ethical ideology and behavior, instead of analyzing our heart of its soul truth... man, we're fucked. One's moral compass will never be found through someone else's directions.