Friday, May 18, 2018

Comparison

The arguments of the Sovereign Citizens about self-definition trumping societal intrusion are remarkably similar to the arguments transgender people make.

11 comments:

Sam L. said...

Could you expand on this? I have no idea what you're saying. I suspect others may not, as well.

Christopher B said...

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

What Christopher B said. There is an idea that one can make something about oneself be true simply by asserting it and rejecting any counterargument out-of-hand. Sovereign citizens believe they are not subject to the laws of the nation and states where they reside because being born anywhere is just an accident they had no control over. They think that by renouncing that fact they become some independent entity. It's an interesting idea, worth looking at for whatever else it might reveal about humans, independence, and society. But it has a couple of major fatal flaws, which they reject by saying "no it doesn't." All explanation is met with changes of subject of greater or lesser degree in order to get back to the few overriding impressions they have about how things should be and really are, - sort of like Nigel Tufnel saying "But this one goes to 11."

People who believe they are another sex have a strong impression about what their true identity is. What their biology is (down to the cellular level), what their parents, siblings, and other family say, what others who know them think, any research into the normal variation in each sex, or sexual dimorphism in general - these are all rejected (unless they accord with the individual's opinion). The feeling is all.

I'm not a citizen because I say so. I'm not a boy because I say so. Dale Kuehne's writing on sex and individuality covers this in more detail. http://qideas.org/contributors/dale-kuehne/

Aggie - said...

There are still, in this day and age, strong arguments for public floggings. Shows how far we still have to go.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Only private floggings are allowed now.

Sam L. said...

I take it, then, it's much like the Monty Python Argument sketch where the respondent continually simply negates the question/assertion/whatever.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ Sam L - my son spent (or wasted) some time looking at the sovereign citizen court fails. You can see them at youTube. I have a friend who is an occasional commenter here who had the misfortune to be the hearings officer for over two hours with one of them. They have a network which reinforces these beliefs to each other.

I guess that's sort of the same for transgender people, come to think of it.

David Foster said...

It's an interesting analogy, but, I think, an imperfect one. There are times when one should reject one's citizenship...Germany 1933-1945 being only one example...and, fortunately, being a German (or whatever) isn't a cellular-level immutable characteristic in the way that gender is.

Texan99 said...

It's so backwards. We can all understand someone's saying, "It's silly to claim I'm hot-headed because I have red hair. Even if there were any truth to the generalization that redheads tend to lose their tempers easily, I'm not the category of redheads, I'm an individual. You know me, and I'm not in fact hotheaded." What if the redhead instead says, "I feel very strongly that there is a disconnect between the hotheaded identity society foists on me and my true self. Therefore I assert that my hair is not, in fact, red"? The hair is red or nor red, regardless of the individual's opinion or even bone-deep conviction. Similarly, the individual is either prone to losing his temper or not, regardless of anyone's preconceptions about the temperament of redheads in general. Both ought to stop imposing their private fantasies on the reality in front of them.

The right answer to the assertion, "You're a girl; you must like dolls instead of trucks and have an ambition to be a stay-at-home mother," is not "Then I'm not really a girl; I need surgery," it's "I'm a girl, and I'm telling you what I like and what my ambition is. You haven't that much to say about it."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@ David Foster - point taken, and I will have to modify my thought somewhat. There may be an extremity at which it is reasonable to renounce citizenship. How that is declared (sovereign citizens seem to think the way to do this is to file papers at the county clerk's office) is less important than how one acts afterwards. Renouncing citizenship usually implies leaving, or seceding beyond merely claiming not to have to pay taxes or follow laws regarded to operating a motor vehicle. Citizen or not, if you make money in France you owe tax on it, or in your country of citizenship.

Christopher B said...

T99 - The concept of 'toxic masculinity' requires the gendering of behaviors. I'm always amazed by the casual stereotyping that is displayed in the name of generating equality. Like a man said, the way to stop discrimination is to stop dicriminating.