Air Squadron

The long sobs of the violins of autumn….

The right and wrong that we both know (Part 2)

with 3 comments

Becoming a man or woman has been understood as a natural process grounded firmly in biology, absolutely certain, immutable and indisputable. It can’t be a complex matter as they are simply descriptions of how matter naturally behaves and let alone self-evident.

How to know whether you are man or woman? Feel free to run this simple test. Take off your pants, and see what’s in there. If it’s vagina, you will most likely have a soprano voice, Mezzo-soprano or Contralto voice, as refers to typical female voice frequency ranges, if otherwise mean penis, most likely you have a countertenor voice, tenor voice, baritone voice or bass voice, as refers to typical male voice frequency ranges.

Too complicated? No. I’m not trying to insult your intelligence through any means, rather remind you about the things that you may have forgotten . Take the above test, we human have an odd tendency; to state the obvious. We normally does that when we have nothing better to say or trying to explain something to an idiot. But in my case, I’m assuming my reader know little bit of here and there about simple scientific process. So don’t be insulted if I cover what you have known, unless otherwise; you have your education level or system to blame, not me.

We both know and believe refers to above example, its clearly shows that if you have penis you are male by right, otherwise you are female by right. That’s is indisputable fact that we both know, hence there’s no need for argument. Eventually, ‘the right and wrong’ that we both know are quite consistent isn’t?

It is a simple matter after all.

But wait. Apparently, the problems we face is beyond the consistency of ‘the right and wrong’ we both know. You want us to agree the ‘against norms and violates the natural law’ acts are right to practise. What’s right to you are spared and what’s wrong to us are falsified. Hence that’s how it starts; from right to wrong, from wrong to right. Hence your understanding of what is ‘right to me’ is neither based on ‘what is wrong to you’ nor the judgments based on which evidence is ‘rightest’, but solely due to exercise your right that simply justify your actions .

Despite high acceptance of many cultures and many non-discrimination countries particularly western world to where homosexual acts have been legal, up to the right of marriage, LGBT people are still subject to social rejection, prejudice and discrimination in many parts of the world.

As of May 2011, there remain 75 countries worldwide notably throughout the countries that incorporate religious ethical and moral codes into their criminal law, criminalize consensual homosexual acts, which the maximum up to the death penalty. 75 countries can’t be wrong.

We have a big load of bullshit to deal with. Your bullshit allowed you to hold your viewpoint that free from other’s viewpoint, but not vice versa. You expect others to be a positive minded, and to have a world-class imagination to accept you as who you are, but not vice versa. You want others to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, but not vice versa. You want your voice to be heard and understood to the people of the world, but not vice versa. You value freedom only if it’s in line with your desires and fulfill your needs, but not vice versa.

You see, exercise your right can only exist with the absence of the right of others. Bloody hell isn’t?

(to be continued)


Written by Air Squadron

October 27, 2012 at 6:19 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. First of all, it is not true that one person can only exercise their rights by violating the rights of others. If I openly proclaim a religious belief, for example, that does not violate your right to your own different religion or to reject all religion. If I wear yellow that does not violate your right to prefer blue – only any idea you might have had to impose wearing blue on everyone.

    Secondly, some homosexual behaviour actually does occur naturally in several other species. As far as I know, no other species includes individuals that are predominately oriented towards the same sex, but we simply don’t know if this occurred in other hominids. Most likely it’s something that has happened as a side-effect of the rapid changes in the human brain. Abstract thought is also apparently confined to hominids and might even appear unnatural, but that doesn’t, in my book, make it wrong. The argument from physical attributes would also suggest that anyone such as a monk who chooses not to use their sex organs must be wrong. I don’t think that assumption can be made.

    As for “75 countries can’t be wrong”, surely you can’t intend this as a serious argument, or others could simply respond that the much larger number of countries which take the opposite stance also can’t be wrong.

    I did hold off on commenting on your first post on this subject, airsquadron, because for me the thread of the argument wasn’t very clear and I hoped it would become clearer.


    November 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm

  2. I’m sorry to interject on this discussion, but your point of view is not very clear to me, nor of your first commenter, apparently. In most subjects, clarity and a firm personal stand are not necessarily conditions to talk or write about anything. In the case of sex and gender identity, it is.
    The first thing that’s not clear comes in the second graph when it seems that you believe that there’s a ‘normal’ clear division between genders, based on physiology. There’s no such a thing. There are millions living in the world today who can not be considered either male or female based solely in what nature has assigned them.
    We also now know that it’d been a common (unfortunate) practice by doctors throughout the 20th century, when faced with a physiologically gender-neutral baby, to make a surgical and hormonal choice on their own, which often ruined that person’s emotional sense of themselves for years to come. That ‘procedure’ was often done without consulting even the parents, or even worse, with their secret approval.
    Remember, we’re not talking specifically about hermaphroditism here (which, along with a multitude of other sexual physiology deviations, has been documented in nature, humans and animals, for several centuries), but of perfectly healthy babies with undeveloped, multiple or undetermined genitalia.
    Though we don’t claim to have a ‘solution’ for these kinds of ethical and medically sensitive instances (there’s not a one-size fits all solution to them, anyway), they’re medical facts and challenges worth tackling with the utmost sensitive approach, so to preserve the person’s emotional integrity.
    I don’t mean to be argumentative, but knowing that physiology in itself, can not determine gender throws your whole theory of what’s male or female astray.
    Those millions who either have been ‘assigned’ a gender not of their choosing, if they even had had a choice, or simply do not agree with what ‘nature’ may have seemed to indicate, have the unalienable right of self determination that we can not ignore. One can hardly imagine the suffering and torment such people go through in life, often in secret and without support, to have us all, ‘normals,’ piling up upon them on pre-concepted notions of gender normality.
    You say that ’75 countries can’t be wrong,’ and I’m not sure that that’s what you really mean. Because, most definitely yes, 75, 100, 200 countries can be and are often wrong, and the individual’s right of choice concerning his or her own sexual identity should always precede theirs.
    Finally, I must say, I do not agree with your statement that ‘your right can only exist with the absence of the right of others,’ at all, unless we’re talking about murder or anything that would cause physical or emotional harm to others. That excludes, of course, your own opinion.
    For that’s essentially what Greek philosophers were blabbing about what democracy is supposed to be, so many centuries ago; you’re free to exercise your right, as long as it doesn’t come to the cost of the rights of others. Otherwise, we simply can not live side by side in society.
    Of course, you have the absolute right to say or express whatever you believe, specially on your own blog. So, don’t take this as a criticism of your personal position or beliefs. I’ll always have the prerogative of my own opinion, and the choice to simply not agree with yours. We’re fine and there’s no such a thing as a consensus over everything.
    But facts are facts and, in many cases, we may hurt people we don’t even know by just expressing an uninformed opinion. In other words, ignorance about a subject is no excuse to be offensive.
    And since I’ve already taken a lot of your time, this will be all I’m saying about this subject. There’s no need for anyone to start a long string of ‘for or against’ opinions here, since I’m sure you’re more interested in having a shared learning experience with this blog. Thanks for the opportunity. Wesley


    October 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

  3. When somone has a somataform disorder and decides that a part of themselves is “wrong”, even in the extreme such as an arm or a leg and desires to have it cut off, or when a person is a hypochondriac and requests multiple surgeries , or when they have a Munchausen disorder and simulate different illness so that they get cared for, we do not ideally cater to their illness. Instead we try to treat them and help them adjust to the idea that feeling a particular way does not mean that they are correct. But when people grow up in an environment where roles are not specific, or where they have no good instruction that variation among the roles are perfectly normal, when they decide that they way they feel about themselves is going to be fixed by surgery, we cater to the fixation and stereotype and jump through hoops to assist the ill person in that catering. This is one of the few illness where we do that. And a greater number of people end up worse after this than helped. Suicide is common when the end does not match the fantasy.
    Just thinking that maybe the current popular solution that is currently being given may be rather a patch for a person that is reacting to a greater symptom of the way that our society has organized itself, in an unhealty way. The weak link breaks first. Sensitive people react to an environment that is not healthy. Overcrowding and uncrontrollable stress causes all kinds of very abnormal behavior in other animals.


    October 27, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: