In the Trangendered vs. Cisgender group, we discussed the problems labels created, but also how they have helped recognize these problems.  Humans are geared towards classifying things: it's how we learn and understand.  Label-less things are lumped into a group with other label-less things, most of which are generally overlooked.  So, if we chuck the Transgender label, although we might be able to tone down some discrimination, the issue would get tossed into the "Work on it Later' pile.  Haraway says she would rather be, "A Cyborg than a Goddess," but if that goddess knows exactly who she is and what label she has collected, it doesn't look half bad to me.

 I've been thinking about our discussion on categories. There were arguments supporting both sides of what to do with categories. Most of the class seemed to be on the side of keeping these categories, however there was still some discussion on 'how' we could get rid of the categories. What occurred to me, however, is that we can't get rid of categories. Our nervous system is based on pattern formation. On a purely biological level we work by making categories. I was discussing this with my group and that is partly why we argued for keeping categories. We couldn't get rid of them even if we wanted to, it's in our nature. 

Categorization. This is a concept we looked at in class, and seems to be the topic of many of these posts. I was in the transgender/cisgender group, and I have to admit, I'm still confused. I really don't know what the point of those categories are and if they are needed. I don't know if anyone can provide a solid "this-is-it" answer, and it seems as though our class couldn't come up with one particular solution, either.

After thinking about our conversation in class and reading some of my peers comments online about how to deal with categorization- I've had a slight change in heart.

This is partially a response to leammirella’s post “Identity Strip Poker” and to our discussion of how labels can be valuable because they can be a tool with which to assert and define our individuality. We mentioned that a possible downside to a utopian society without labels or categories would be the inability to identify ourselves. However the more I think about this utopia world I suspect that if labels are no longer necessary then the need for the conception of identity would no longer be necessary. Not all cultures place such a strong emphasis on the individual and individual identity. In fact the conception of the individual we think of today is a product of modern thought.

 Since Wednesday’s discussion I have been thinking about the subject of gender diversity particularly within the context of education. Over the summer I worked at a camp. One of the younger children was gender diverse and often not treated like the other kids. The counselors were rather split on their opinions. Some counselors felt that because the child was so young it was the parents’ responsibility to instill a sense of standard gender expression while others thought it was great that a kid so young was able to express himself without the parents or any other influences attempting to condition the gender norms into his self-expression.

The discussion about categorization between groups with different sexual orientations was very interesting. After discussing Haraway's reading, everyone seemed to agree with her idea that categorization causes lots of problems and it is better to break the barrier between groups that are categorized differently. However, it was little surprising that almost every group came up with the same conclusion that we need the categorization for practical purposes. Personally, as a person who was born and raised in an extremely homophobic society, Korea, I find the discussions about gender and sexual categorizations extremly interesting. In Korea, categorization does not even exist because they are not acknowledged as a part of society.

From the discussions we have had so far, I can’t really get a good feeling about the category abolition argument. It seems like every ‘solution’ is too easy to shoot down, especially with the all-encompassing ‘Well how are you going to implement it?’ Any modification to an existing system is going to cause public outcry or be difficult to physically apply and even creates new polarizing categories (those in favor and those against.)  

In class I said something about not going for the ‘extremes’ of the argument, but after thinking about it, this is garbage- we already live in that kind of society, based on class systems that have probably caused irreparable damage and make total acceptance impossible. The gray area here still applies polarizing categories in some way.

 At the very end of our discussion on Thursday, a question was raised as to whether believing in a “divine script” absolved humans of accountability for their actions. I don't think that this is true. Even if one believes in a divine being, and even if one believes that that diving being has a “script” for the universe, personal responsibility definitely still exists. One can only claim that an even or action was “God's will” if one understands the entire plan, or has the whole script. This idea relates to our dialogue on ignorance – our ignorance of the underlying patterns causes us to believe that everything is merely chance.