[MD] Painting

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
It just might be that women and men have a very different way of 
structuring 'self'.  Arlo, no matter how many times I read your 
posts, they are like a foreign language.  I can't agree with you 
because you do not make sense to me.

[Arlo]
What doesn't make sense? At the very simplest I am agreeing with your 
statement of "ever-changing, overlapping patterns", and merely adding 
(or I'd argue "emphasizing") that  this "ever-changing, over-lapping 
pattern ball" has (1) many faces that are (2) context dependent and 
that (3) none are more real or less real than any other.

I've given you the following example, and used it to demonstrate our 
differences.

I've said repeatedly, the form of your body has no relevance to me as 
to whether "Marsha" is a woman. "Marsha" is, for me, a woman 
regardless of the shape of the body she inhabits. That is, I suppose 
our core disagreement here, you would feel "deceived" to learn my 
body is shaped like a woman's if you thought "Arlo" was a man.

You might not agree, but I'm not sure what you don't understand here. 
"Marsha" for me exists here. "Her" reality is "here", right here and 
right now. "She" is the person that exists to me in this social world 
we call "MOQ Discuss". "She" has no real relation to me to any 
particular body or any thread of continuity she shares with other 
"selves" that inhabit her gray matter.

[Marsha]
I am fully aware of playing multiple roles.  A woman would be far 
more aware of this than a man.

[Arlo]
I disagree. I don't think gender has anything to do with this.

[Marsha]
The very reason I bolted is the fear of 'being labeled'.  I want the 
ability to see what is going on underneath all that external labeling.

[Arlo]
And this is a source of confusion for me. You seem to be the one 
demanding "labeling" here. I am pointing to a self that is amorphous, 
contextual, fluid and social. You seem to be pointing to a "real" 
self, or at least a self that has "real" attributes that can be 
independently seen or described ("Mark is really a man, he only 
pretends to be a girl name "Julia").

[Marsha]
And I would like the ability to choose my own labels.

[Arlo]
Well you can certainly proclaim what you want those labels to be. But 
whether or not others accept that and respond as such is what I mean 
by the self being a socially-negotiated phenomenon. I can say "I am a 
girl" until I am blue in the face, but if you don't believe that, or 
don't accept it, and treat me in every way as you'd treat a man, then 
my proclamations really don't mean much, do they? I would be, despite 
all my efforts to get you to see me as a girl, for all intents and 
purposes a "man" for you.

[Marsha]
Honesty is important to me whether it be honesty from others or 
honesty within myself.

[Arlo]
I disagree with your tieing honesty to "real" things about the self 
that are independent of the self-as-constructed. I do not believe, 
for example, that a "self" that felt female should be "honest" about 
its physiological host's form. The shape of the body has NO relation 
for me in determining the gender of the self. "Arlo" IS a man, 
whether or not his body is physically female or male makes NO 
difference to me. So it is NOT a matter of honesty to reveal this. 
The "honesty" is if "Arlo" presents himself as a man, and you accept 
him being a man, then he is a man. Period.

[Marsha]
Of course, it's dangerous to overgeneralize, but it sounds to me like 
you're saying dishonesty is no big deal because there is no self.

[Arlo]
Dishonesty is a "big deal" when there is an deliberate and knowing 
attempt to deceive. To be so, I have to tell you something that I 
knowingly do not believe. When this happens, the inevitable outcome 
is a distrust that impairs the future possibility of long-term social 
relations.

If I really believed myself to be a girl, but told you I was a man 
(possibly to win your favor sexually, or con you out of money, or 
something else like this), that would be a dishonesty that all would 
(and should) find appalling and malignant.

However, if I really believed myself to be a girl, and told you  I 
was a girl, then the shape of my body is not the determinant for 
honesty here. Indeed, I am being MORE honest by presenting you with a 
self that is "who I believe I am" then if I pretended to be a boy 
just because my body has male parts.

Can you see the difference here?

[Marsha]
I understand there is no-self, but I find that all the more reason 
for being honest.

[Arlo]
If there is no-self, what exactly is it that one should be "honest" 
about? I say the best one can do is be honest to how one feels. You 
either accept what that is, or you reject it. But there is no 
"honesty" in some objective sense that others can tell me what "is 
really me" apart from this. You also have to ask yourself, what is it 
that you feel someone should be "honest" about in terms of why that 
particular thing has value to you.

If you tie honesty to one's belief about one's gender to the form of 
one's body, then you are objectifying gender. "Arlo" is a man because 
his body has male parts. And when you ask me what my gender is, if I 
don't say "male" I'd be lying. The only way this works is if YOU 
value gender as a function of physiology. For me, I place no value in 
such a correlation. YOUR gender is how you FEEL, and your body is 
irrelevant. So if I ask you what your gender is, the honest answer 
has nothing to do with your body, but only with your perceived sense 
of self-identity.

[Marsha]
What do you want?

[Arlo]
Right now? A root beer float.