Ecological and Social Implications of Trans and Climate Change

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-jensen/58288/ecological-and-social-implications-of-trans-and-climate-change

Ecological and Social Implications of Trans and Climate Change
Gender Equality | Sexual Equality
by Robert Jensen | September 13, 2014 - 7:43am

We are biological creatures, part of an ecosphere, living in communities. Like any other organism, our genetic code sets parameters within which we live. The ecosphere is governed by laws of physics and chemistry that set the parameters within which all organisms exist. And we encounter the world not as isolated, independent individuals but through social systems that affect how we understand ourselves and the possibilities for our lives.

Stated this generally, few people would disagree. Yet in practice, contemporary high-energy/high-technology society ignores these ecological realities, and people routinely endorse practices—or ignore the need to change practices—that leave us dramatically out of sync with the larger living world.

In short: There are limits, to our bodies and to the ecosystems of which we are a part. A denial of these limits is one of the greatest threats to the possibility of a continuing large-scale human presence on the planet. The threat is magnified by our fears of challenging—and our uncertainty about how to challenge effectively—unjust and unsustainable social systems that dominate contemporary life.

In this essay I argue that the success of the trans movement and our collective failure to respond adequately to climate change are both manifestations of this inability to accept limits and the fear of challenging systems that distribute power and wealth. When we ignore crucial questions about complex problems, from the most personal to the global, we find ourselves adrift—not only confused about policy but unable to advance important conversations about our most basic conceptions about the world.

[hunter]

1. He's overthinking this, and I know where he went wrong.

This approach to alleviating people’s sense of discomfort, distress, and social dislocation assumes that the ability to chemically and surgically change a body means we should use that ability, ignoring the ecological reality of limits.

What are the "ecological reality of limits" in this analogy? There are none. The comparison is possibly offensive. People who decide to alter their own bodies by chemicals and surgery are not a tremendous burden on the earth's environment. (People who choose to drive cars, on the other hand are...)

Yes, some people are alleviating their "sense of discomfort, distress, and social dislocation" that might not exist in a utopian society, but what does that matter? We all form our own identities and there will always be people who don't identify with their "biological" sex. Evidently, that's just part of our human nature. It's wonderful that modern medicine allows transgender people to modify their bodies to match their identity. Since gender identity is usually established before the rapid growth of adolescence, I also think minors, with guidance, ought to be allowed to make that choice. And there, all done, love and acceptance and kindness. No deeper philosophical issues. .

So far as humanity's relationship with nature, this old planet has seen some heavy shit go down. At the moment we are that shit, trapped in exponential growth that we can't seem to control. One way or another that growth will end. It's a very common theme in nature; in that sense humans are nothing special. Our civilization will end up as a curiosity in the geologic record, just like the dinosaurs. We have no choice in the matter for the simple reason we are animals. Our species will die, just as we ourselves as individuals, die.

There are choices to be made along that path, just as we can choose to smoke or not smoke as individuals. As a smoker we increase the odds of dying from something wretched like lung cancer or emphysema, but we're all still going to die of something.

As a civilization we are choosing the smoker's death for now. If that's not the death we want we can quit fossil fuels, and begin to reduce our birthrates.

I'm not a fatalist, I have a couple of causes; expressions of my own humanity.

For many reasons, LGBT rights are important to me.

I think sex education ought to be mandatory in schools from an early age. If you enter kindergarten not knowing where babies come from, not knowing how to recognize and report child molesters, not knowing how to get along with others of various sexual orientations and sexes, then your parents have failed you and the schools have to catch you up. Schools also ought to be teaching about birth control and "safe sex" as kids become interested in it. Etc.

Public health and education are another cause of mine. I think they should be free for everyone, and supported by progressive taxes.

As an aside, in comparison to those more important issues, I loathe automobiles and many other aspects of "consumer society." My wife and I have avoided automobile commuting since the mid-eighties, part good fortune, part watching for opportunity. In my personal, imaginary, utopia the automobile culture is dead. I also don't watch or pay for cable, satellite, or broadcast television.

The author talks about being "unable to advance important conversations about our most basic conceptions about the world" but it seems to me his own "basic conceptions" about these issues have made it difficult for him to see how his comparison might be offensive.

[nomorenomore08]

2. Excellent response. I've always had my doubts about Jensen, and this only confirms them. n/t