Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

selver wrote (edited )

I feel like there's a lot of incoherence in this essay. Whole lot of internet-egoist word-salad here.

Doesn't the claim that identity allows me to relate to you contradict Stirner's entire project? In that instance I'm not relating to you as the unique that your are, but as your gender, an abstraction & fixed ideal.

Gender is validating to some, and problematic to others. It can be both the source of gendered violence and the means to survive gendered violence.

As is Humanity, God, Nation, Race, and everything else Stirner railed against. Isn't finding a meaning with a fixed identity nothing more than compensating for a lack of confidence in one's own Uniqueness?

But I'm no expert and I'd like to hear what other people think about it.

4

amongstclouds wrote

Gender doesn't have to be a fixed identity.

4

selver wrote

What is gender if not a fixed identity?

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

You're forgetting about people who are genderfluid, but gender is just some social construct that I can use to my advantage and be whatever I choose to be. I don't see what is so fixed about any of this -- perhaps in relation to cis folks, maybe?

4

selver wrote

If the claim were that the egoist position is genderfluid for all, then that might make sense. But the author doesn't exclude cis folks, or the non-genderfluid. Choosing a gender inherently involves selecting a bunch of attributes to put above yourself as an ideal, no different than the Human or the Christian.

I think there's a difference between using gender as a social tool, and sincerely identifying with it. I don't see how the latter could work as an egoist.

5

amongstclouds wrote

Because identity doesn't have to be sacred. Identity, when viewed as wet clay that we can mold as we please to benefit our unique isn't totally dictated by outside forces.

Well, it benefits my unique just fine and I'm not genderfluid. I don't know how else to tell you that I can think for myself and choose to use whatever identity I feel at the moment until it no longer benefits me.

4

amongstclouds wrote

I also don't see the difference between using something as a 'social tool' and 'sincerely identifying' with someone. Sounds like two different excuses for the same purpose.

4

selver wrote

I'd say it's the difference between "I am a man" and "I identify as a man for the purpose of social convenience, cohesion, etc." One's a claim about the essence of one's being, usually implying some stability of one's I, and the other's an acknowledgement of social context.

5

amongstclouds wrote

Again, I see no distinction between the two. Identity itself is always presented in a social context.

5

amongstclouds wrote

Even those identities I choose for myself -- they only exist in relation to other identities.

2

Advaitanaut wrote

Did you not actually read it, out of curiosity? It describes identity as a tool that we can simultaneously deconstruct.

I see you have a username. Is this a "fixed identity" for you or a facet of your uniqueness?

3

selver wrote

I read it, I just don't agree with it. amongstclouds convinced me it's not inherently inconsistent, but I'll stick with the gender nihilism.

3

Advaitanaut wrote

It's painfully clear you only skimmed it and made up your mind against it to respond with some nonsense about how you think it's calling for an embrace of fixed identity. Just saying, you're painting the essay as the exact opposite of what it says and it comes off in poor taste and laziness.

4

selver wrote (edited )

I wasn't saying they were calling for an embrace of a fixed idea, just that I'm skeptical of gender being reclaimed as anything but. I read it, I get what they are saying, my disagreement was about whether that is actually possible or not.

And as I said, I'll agree that it might be possible for other people.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Gender is validating to some, and problematic to others. It can be both the source of gendered violence and the means to survive gendered violence. It does not need to be a “fixed identity” — we can use it as a playful mask in a reality of aesthetic ontological masks, and kill it simultaneously. We can deconstruct it if we so choose in a rejection of all identity, but in doing so, gender is only deconstructed for us, we cannot force that deconstruction on others, only articulate and explain our meaning. Nor can we force any other perspective. We’re all egoists because we’re all Unique, and, as such, we all live our own cause. I’m a believer in chasing meaning and loving my fellow egoists and taking up collective causes as my own because the well-being of my friends is important to my selfishness, and for that I write this piece in hopes that someone read it and have it set them on a path towards their own gender validation or destruction.