Yin-yang 2 - seriously not

In Part 1 of this article, I explored the well-known, but often misunderstood, Chinese philosophical symbol of yin-yang. The symbol represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.

To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says: you might think that two things are opposites, but they are not in reality. It warns: do not being misled by false dichotomies.

But we often do, and we often are. 

Source: Deviant Art

Because it is so often misinterpreted, in Yin-yang - not what you think I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:

• not about opposites
• not about achieving balance
• not a feature of things or behaviour
• not an inherent nature of an object or person
• not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
• not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.

But people make these various misinterpretations all the time. 

People often refer to yin-yang to make claims about the world being made up of natural opposites needing to achieving balance for harmony. Perversely, this is the ‘opposite’ of what yin-yang actually means.

One common misinterpretation is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid dichotomy of gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world. 

Two wrong dichotomies do not make a right! 

TATKOP 116

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think in boxes and those who think about those boxes.

See more in the TATKOP series.

Yin-yang - not what you think

Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it. 

In particular, I find it useful to look at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.

The previous article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits and behaviour as either feminine or masculine. A simplistic dichotomy, given how varied and complex human beings are. 

This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (see more on dichotomies in Gruntled). 

The strange thing is, many of our dichotomies are false, simplistic and unhelpful. 

False dichotomies often lead to false debates about false and sometimes brutal choices in society. We could do a lot better.

Gendered adjectives 2 - human needs and traits

In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the words we use to refer to our gender - our traits, behaviours and social role -  make it such a difficult topic to write about. 

The problem is, we divide most human traits and behaviours according to a dichotomy of masculine or feminine.

The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and 'how a person should be'. Using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'. 

But, how can we talk productively about gender if we have to use words that always carry a concept of normal or not normal.

Using feminine about a man's behaviour or masculine about a woman's traits implies they are not a 'real' man or a normal woman. The words can be threatening to our sense of being okay as a person. 

Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender without feeling threatened or criticised.

I want to find other adjectives to think about and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

What other adjectives could we use? How else could we talk about humans?

Gendered adjectives 1 - circular definitions and stereotypes

Gender is a difficult topic to write about, and I've long wondered what makes it so tricky.

Because this is Wordly Explorations, I am going to focus on the words we use; more specifically, the adjectives that cloud the topic of gender.

There are very basic definition issues. We get people mixing up the meaning of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity and role). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) gender as though it had the same definition as biological sex, e.g.: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!' Um, what? These are two very different concepts. 

But the real drama happens when we try to debate gender. There are (again) very basic conceptual issues when we try to discuss how humans act (human traits and behaviours) which is the key aspect of a person's social identity and role (i.e. gender). 

We discuss human traits and behaviours with two gendered adjectives: masculine and feminine. A sign that these words are not up to the job is the proliferation of new words; recent examples are gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, as descriptions of gender. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.

I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leave gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human. Words that make it possible to discuss this topic and increase shared understanding.

In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.

TATKOP 115

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think they really do deserve a little treat and those who don't see advertising.

See more in the TATKOP series.

The settings - they're all wrong!

Senior research officer Edo checked the dials again. The settings were all wrong. 

With mounting panic, he started through the checklist of the Sentient Life Research Protocol for planet Sol972P3 for the third time.

The vast array of dials and flickering lights on the control panel didn't change. All the settings were way out. The planet was in deep trouble. And so was he.

Walking along the well-worn corridors of the Academy to see his supervisor, Edo tried to think back to his last review. He couldn't even remember the last time he checked P3. Had he made a mistake with the adjustments back then? Did his hand slip on the dials? Did someone else touch the settings? 

Edo scrolled back through the research review screens, looking for the reason for the mess. The pages of data outputs showed P3 gradually had become more and more unstable under the extreme settings. Dangerous settings. Settings that had probably voided the whole research program, more than likely contravening all sorts of research ethics. 

But it didn't matter really why. It only mattered that it had happened. It was Edo's responsibility to keep on top of the adjustments. Zolic, the program coordinator, would be furious. 

The implications were clear - obvious to any student of Sentient Life Adjustment 101. The settings on P3 had created conditions that were sending the dominant sentient life form to self-destruction.