These are all great questions, Carolynn. Much food for thought here.
Here's my penny's worth (Carlin--or his estate--can keep the change):
In the same way that brains "make" minds (or consciousness and self-awareness)--that is, unwittingly, as a sort of by-product of its natural activities--so a culture or society "makes" a citizen or a member of that society or culture. Again, unwittingly. Nobody, for example, sets out to mold or shape boys and girls as if embarking on some great social experiment; they do so upon little or no reflection, as citizens or "social units" that have been themselves conditioned in the same way. In other words, it seems unlikely to me that there's any malicious intent involved here, even though we've often enough heard phrases such as "I'll make a man out of him yet!" (or some such cruel and creepy nonsense, given that no two people can agree on a definition of what a man actually is or is supposed to be).
I think what happens when an individual develops a gender-variant or transgender personality, despite having been "subjected" to a "standard" socialization process, is one of three things (or, more likely, a mixture of any or all of three of the following things): 1) there exists some as yet undiscovered--but eventually discoverable--physiological process (genetic, neurological, or endocrinological) at work that serves to short-circuit the socialization process; 2) there occured a "hidden" or "shadow" or "micro-" socialization where the child received mixed signals regarding gender-appropriate behaviour (usually from a parent or other significant figure of authority very early in the child's life); and 3) some "non-traditional" psychosexual process occured at or around or even before puberty that leads a child to be attracted sexually to a variant love object (namely, to himself or to herself--if Freudian psychotherapeutic theory is anything but pure hogwash, that is).
As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out. More research is needed.
Having said this, none of the above should prevent people from embracing who they are, given that they are, precisely, who they are. It matters little, I think, who or what dealt you the hand you're holding; you ought to focus your energy on playing it as well as you can. This is what it means to have the courage and the strength to be who you are... even in the face of players who appear--objectively--to be holding better hands. Ultimately, these players may not have yet learned how to play their own hands as well as you do yours.
About existentialism and Elizabeth's quote from Waking Life (a film I consider an absolute must-see, by the way), I beg to differ... slightly. I've read some of Solomon's books. He's a good philosopher but he suffers from the same condition Sartre, amongst others (including Plato, for instance), suffers from; namely, that he comes from a fairly priviliged (read: white, middle or upper class, male) social background. For anyone who doesn't come from such a background, reflecting on the meaning of existential responsibility won't come as easy. It may even be perceived as a luxury that only those who aren't directly involved in the struggle for their own material (or social) survival can afford to indulge in. An underprivileged quadriplegic Latina lesbian will have quite a different take on the whole matter, affirmative action programs or not.
As for the whole ego thing, well, I'm not so sure that it's being a so-called "maverick" that makes a person stronger as it is a painful awareness of difference. You're often shunned when you're different. Moreover, this shunning can be so subtle sometimes that someone can make you feel shunned while actually avowing to an openness to cultural and social diversity. You know, the whole "some of my best friends are ______... not that there's anything wrong with that!" Heavens, no, indeed. Not that there would ever be anything wrong with who I am... can anyone on this forum hear the barely audible word "but" at the end of that sentence? Yet, that quasi-inaudible "but" speaks volumes about the attitude of the multitude to different ways of being.
Knowing that I am different--knowing it in my bones and in my soul--makes me suffer. But here's the catch: it only makes me suffer because I'd much prefer to be like everybody else, i.e., "normal." Well, here's a news flash: there ain't no such thing as "normal." Oh, statistically speaking, of course there is. But individuals--persons--are not reducible to statistics. Although pain and suffering have the great virtue of inscribing some indelible wisdom into the heart, they dissipate the day I understand it's much more to my advantage to want to be who I am (or who I feel I need to become) than to be like everybody else. After all, it's certainly not the case that everybody else has already learned to take responsibility, in good faith, for their own lives and existence. Everybody else is not a good model, to me. Heh. Call me a maverick.
Great thread, folks. Thanks for starting this, Carolynn.
Love,
CJ
