I edited the essay, “Briefly Touching a Third Rail” to be a little more direct about what I meant. This comes after listening to a very interesting talk given by Mary Harrington at Hillsdale College, titled “Our Crisis is Metaphysical.”
After listening to her I realized I was being a bit too timid in extending my observations of self-knowledge and identity to gender identity and gender change, although I support the right of anyone to experiment on themselves as they see fit, because I don’t believe in any kind of moralizing Superego of a state or enforced cultural norm intruding on our right to make mistakes and learn from them.
So, now I’m going to stop treading so lightly on this third rail and say how I see it and let the chips fall as they may.
Here’ is the essence of what has been sharpened to a clearer point. (Admittedly, I made these changes in 15 minutes and haven’t given the new form of the essay time to sort itself out. So, I may end up refining all this as time goes. But I wanted to erase the timid version that was already there):
The following is only a changed portion of the essay, not the whole thing:
———
… … … “Every person is free to make mistakes in order to learn what is not possible. It’s nobody else’s business if they wish to experiment on themselves. But the inquiry into Identity is my business, since I’m a human being in the stanchions of various constricting identities like everyone else.
By “identity” I’m not referring to the true nature or substance of you and I. That true nature exists beyond the reach of both conceptual certainty or image (social constructs) and therefore also beyond the reach of negotiation. I am a man, not because I identity with manliness in some culturally defined image, but simply because it’s a description of the body — of its actual forms and functions. Self-identification has nothing to do with the body’s actual gender. Gender identity is the social construct; the body’s actual gender is not a social construct. That is, an identity is negotiable, because it is imaginary. But the actual gender is not negotiable.
Identification is a constructed imagination of a body (and the imagination of a “Self” viewing the body as if from above), which has been given cultural permission to supersede the importance of the actual body. Everywhere in this culture, the Self and its waking dreams have been given permission to supersede the reality of earthly life (biology and planet). It’s a general permission slip to discount reality in favor of a pretense of soul.
And this Self is not a soul but only the body’s imaginations of itself as if from the outside. It is a secular conception of soul, minus the traditional soul’s connection to a nested hierarchy. The soul was not conceived as the atomic essence of a separate self, but as an idiosyncratic expression of a universal being that can’t be identified in any positive sense, except through metaphor and myth. This humbling sense of a soul is lost when it’s converted into a separate Self, who doens’t have to answer to anything, including the reality of its own biology.
This capacity to imagine ourselves outside our bodies is less real than the body, because imagination is only a derivation of the body and is in no position to tell the body who or what it is. (Again, people are free to make this mistake, just as I am free to call it one).
The imagination of a Self (or conceptual identity) who is distinct enough from the body to alter its inherent being is therefore absurd. It’s a reversal of a nested hierarchy. It’s a playful imagination pretending to be in charge of its own material source. Thought is not more substantive or real than material reality. Thought is only a tool invented by the body to test what might be real. Thoughts (and the feelings that derive from thoughts) are not reality itself, just as dreams are not reality itself. So, the alteration of gender to conform to a socially-constructed dream of oneself (socially constructed even if it’s a rebellion from other social constructs) is like putting a very small cart before a very big horse.
So, a new gender identity is not a soul-equivalent being freed from a socially constricted definition, as if biology had no reality. It’s the far more real biology being told what to be by its own derivative, socially-prejudiced thought of who it “should be.” … … …”
The rest of the essay can be read here.







