First proper podcast. Coffee Table Talks (without the coffee or table!)
Topic: Binary Theory
Hosts: Irina & Nicolas
On my YouTube Channel -@irinaduplessis with @nicolas13vh
Original Text - From which we of course deviated, but still keeping to the main ideas:
Nico: "Hi, could you introduce yourself briefly?"
Me: "Yes. I'm Irina, padawan author and somewhat of a social analyst."
Nico: "What is your background and education?"
Me: "I'm a Psychology graduate from the University of South Africa. I've worked in multiple domains including journalism, modelling, catering, businesswoman, agent and construction worker."
Nico: "What makes your opinion worthy of an audience?"
Me: "Unadulterated sincerity mostly. Besides that, my mind palace, to quote Sherlock Holmes, filled with books and micro-details."
Nico: "What would you like to discuss in this video?"
Me: "Binary theory."
Me: " Once upon a time in twelfth grade, binary was a word used to teach computer science. Now it is an abstract term used to indoctrinate gender ideology."
Nico: "What do you mean by indoctrinate?"
Me: "I mean, a premeditated manipulation towards the fulfilment of the needs and wishes of a certain group of people."
Nico: "This needs more fleshing out."
Me: "Binary and non-binary is now a manner to describe gender and no longer a scientific array of null's and one's. We have essentially modified the meaning of a word to suit the discourse of one group of individuals."
Nico: "But what about gender as a topic?"
Me: "My opinion is that gender is NOT a social construct, contrary to the proclamation of many academics today. The representation of gender is a social construct, yes, but not gender itself. A man can wear a skirt if he wants to and a woman can wear trousers. A man can grow his hair long and a woman can shave her head. Those are representations of gender that can be bent according to will, fashion, politics and so forth. Gender itself is a biological construct. We are all born male or female or some anomaly between the two. Biological anomalies are not the norm, it is a blueprint badly followed in the process of human creation in the womb. Using an anomaly to justify a norm is flawed. A norm is represented by generalisation (right or wrong) not by exception, hence the need for distinction between the two terms."
Nico: "The narrative today is that nothing is fixed."
Me: "Well summarised."
Nico: "How do you process that conundrum?"
Me: "It isn't science, it's opinion."
Me: "Biology can be altered, scientifically through surgical procedure. However, biology cannot be reversed scientifically. In order for a baby boy to be a baby girl, scientifically, one would need to tinker with the process already unfolding in the womb. One would need to modify the blueprint before construction. Altering it post-construction is possible, much like the refurbishment of an old building. However, the foundations remain the same. To have an entirely new building, from an existing one, you'd need to destroy and rebuild it, which then entails that it is no longer linked to the old one at all. That is the difference between reversing and altering. A person claiming to be non-binary is simply painting a façade in a different colour. It still remains the same façade."
Nico: "What's the point to fighting this movement towards greater acceptance?"
Me: "I'm not fighting it, I'm criticising it. I wish I could fight it because fundamentally I do not agree with it. I am, however, a liberal at heart and my mantra of live and let live overrides all other logic. After all, life is not logical."
Nico: "No it isn't. And yet..."
Me: "And yet it is dangerous to indulge self-conceit, self-doubt, self-loathing or self-destruction."
Me: "Because it sets a scary precendent. It creates an intellectual environment of socially acceptable untruths. In the past, homosexuality was deemed unnatural simply because biologically it did not lead to pregnancy and religiously it did not conform to dogma. Those reasons were never clearly spelled out and a lot of persecution came instead from personal loathing towards the type of sex physically possible between same gender participants. There were, however, genders involved in that case and that was never debated. Now, if you follow this non-binary trend, homosexuality or bisexuality doesn't even exist because gender doesn't exist. Which is untrue. In the past, homosexuality obtained its legislative freedom not by claiming it didn't really exist but by asserting that it did in fact EXIST!"
Nico: "Then the same can be true of the trans or non-binary movement."
Me: "I draw attention to the fact that trans has Latin roots and means across...like transcontinental means across continents. It means moving from male to female, and female to male. Binary and non-binary is one and null and none. It means one person has a gender (male or female), while another one has none. This isn't true. In biology, there is male, female and the trans of the two (speaking of intersex for example). There isn't, however, NO gender at all. I await the biological proof of a living and thriving baby that is entirely genderless. At the heart of this debate, however is not whether something exists but rather that something is claimed to exist and NOT to exist at the same time. A fallacy.
Nico: "So what is the conclusion?"
Me: "If it were up to me I'd say what I've always said, which is live and let live but with a disclaimer in this case. The oppressed should not become the oppressor. Just because something is justified in theory does not mean it should be indiscriminately applied in practice. In layman's terms this means justice should remain blind, serving truth and not individual agenda's. This also means that one group of people cannot impose their law on another but that a majority rule should apply in order to have a functional social structure and not romanticised anarchy. No, you cannot force someone to believe in your god, accept your gender representation or to be attracted to your sexuality. The genderless toilet debate is not a difficult one to solve: if two-gendered toilets plus a disabled one were able to be added to the building plans, so can a fourth non-binary one, BUT, considering that the budget for this is not in only one person's pocket, the majority decision rules and the result needs to be accepted. Until the next rounds of debate that is!
Nico: "Thank you! In a nutshell."
Me: "Thanks to you too for indulging my debate."