I would like to expand for just a few words on the fluctuation between postmodernism and post-postmodernism and where gonzo journalism relates to the death of some archetypes in our fictional narratives. I may go off into a few tangents on 1) the role of authenticity in fictional narratives, and 2) decolonial v. post-colonial readings of some of the conflicts in queerdom and the law, using a few hypothetical legal experiments. Drawing upon a Hegelian rationale, I will try and provide a few conclusions and leave this discussion for now with a few un-answersble legal questions for anyone to consider who enjoys this material and would like to join in on any further discussion through social media.
Please note this post will contain what is considered adult content by the Blogger platform. I will be using some images of lewd emails in the discussion to provide some real life context and relevancy to this discussion. They have been censored and redacted to make sure this post fits within certain content guidelines. Also, this doesn't really hinder our discussion because I do not include them for the purpose of drawing attention to the redacted details inside; I am more concerned with how language and the law of the land - at national and international levels - have a causal affect on the struggle we currently see in our legal world to create some amiable direction for the incoming wave of 1st amendment issues that can be drawn out these hypotheticals.
For those who have a few more hours to look deeper into the nuances of postmodernism, I recommend listening to Episode #67 of Waking Up with Sam Harris and recommend that you have a basic foundation for how a bimodal reading of sex and gender under post post-feminism and Germaine Greer. I couldn't find the exact Greer speech I originally wanted to when I started out writing this article, but I'll use what I can find to help illustrate my point. The YouTube clip can provide some understanding into how Greer might read into the following legal hypothetical models.
If you want to understand more about gonzo journalism and you'd rather experience learning about gonzo journalism through a modality other than books, I recommend watching any of the following films, being careful to avoid watching with an overly nostalgic enthusiasm for the genre. While these movies are a lot of fun to watch, I recommend them for reasons other than entertainment. More important than the "fun" competent of these films are the fundamental questions about the pragmatism of attempts to translate gonzo journalism into film or television. I recommend you watch them while keeping in mind the assumption that if we can no longer trust postmodernism to solve our problems, we must also admit that gonzo journalism is a failure, unless it can be revived in a crisis of post-postmodernism. So, what is the value of gonzo journalism for our discussion if it is attacked by discussion of post-postmodernism? Does the value of "drugs, liquor and violence" in Hunter Thompson's work mitigate the harms of his anti-Prohibitionist ideology? The modern brand of postmodernism, in my view, never reaches a level of consciousnesses to work through some of these questions. But, rather than rambling on for too long about this, I will leave you to think about these questions when you get a chance to watch these films:
Tangent 1:) Authenticity
One metacognitive quandary that comes out of the Greer bimodal approach to law and feminism seems to be that it takes a woman to know what a woman's legal needs are. As a gay man, I do not feel the need to tell Greer what feminism means. If she feels it is connected indivisibly from our understanding of sex organs, I am inclined to believe her, and it is rational to do so from a legal perspective. It makes a lot of sense to both sexes, in the interest of both pecuniary and linguistic economics, to be opposed to a Bill like C-6. In the United States, the authenticity of one's sex is interwoven with the discussion of how fundamental a right truly is, such as the right to terminate a pregnancy. The outcome of the level of scrutiny determines the restrictions that the government can place on that right. In the United States, the federal government's interests in due process and equal protection requires an intermediate level of scrutiny when rights concerning sex are abridged, as opposed to laws restricting sodomy, which rarely pass the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny.
If the C-16 Bill, as discussed in Harris' podcast, were to be applied to the way sex is read into the US Constitution, it would hypothetically require that gender values, in addition to sex, would elicit at least an intermediate level of scrutiny or even a lower, rational based level of scrutiny. Would that be authentic to your view of queerdom?
Tangent 2:) Decolonial v. Postcolonial Perceptions of Legal Analyses
Race receives a higher level of scrutiny than either sex or sexual act because American society has agreed that race-based discrimination deserves the highest level of constitutional scrutiny when race may be abridged as a fundamental right. So, then I must ask the reader, what constitutional value are you assigning to gender in this conversation with regards to race? Is that important to represent authenticity? What are the reasonable limits to subjectivity in defining how fundamental is a right when it insists on non-bimodal uses of gender identities? And lastly, does the conversation about a bill like C-6, or my Canadian hypothetical model, take away from more critical issues, like decolonialism and postcolonial? What a strange ironic paradigm it creates when writers cannot discuss issues of race because doing so would come in violation with the ideological rules of non bi-modal gender language-based discourse.
Hypothetical Comparison 1: Bill Sigma v. Bill TauSuppose a law is passed which requires public and private employers to include a third general pronoun in the Crown's interest in protecting harassment at work ("Bill Sigma").
The Problems with Postmodern Legal Reading of Canadian "Bill Sigma".
Suppose a lawyer is working in a court under Bill Sigma and he comes across this piece of evidence in e-discovery in an employee's claim of sexual harassment. Would Bill Sigma further protect this client's interests? What if the client were referred to by "zher" preferred gender identity in compliance with the law during all stages of zher job negotiation process...would the inclusion of that term have had any bearing on the content of the harassment? On the motivations of the harassment? I'm not compelled by any arguments that it would.
Are there additional client interests which might outweigh the Crown's interest in procedural and judicial economy? And if the law does extend to employees of the Crown, does zher's interests in requiring the Queen face fines and jail for refusing to call the client zher outweigh the Queen's interest in telling zher to fuck off?
A postmodern reading of the law would argue that yes, zher's interest in having the Queen call her by gender-specific term would be worth the costs of enforcing this interest at the Crown's expense. This argument makes no more sense than Mexico building a wall. We have enough brute force in our lives already. Is there even a rational basis for requiring this to be outcome of all future court proceedings?
Potential Scope of Un-answerable Legal Questions Under the Postmodern Legal Reading of USA "Bill Tau".
If you read this using a postmodern lense, you would argue that the President and the Supreme Court's interest really should be that strong, but I am not compelled that this argument is valid when it requires an inauthentic valuation of scrutiny. I also do not believe the Federal government's interest in preventing hate speech is prevented under Bill Tau.
Synthesis of Rationale from the Hypothetical Premise
I think to achieve some conclusion from this exercise, you must conclusively ask how fundamental is gender to the concept of human rights? Are we capable of placing differing values to the legal regulation of our concept of gender, as opposed to our social regulation of the concept of non-bimodal gender identities? Can we draw that line in our public debate without outrage? This balancing act, and how the scales tip according to our perceptions of reality, can potentially determine our governments' abilities to use brute force, to surveil, to gerrymander, and plenty more other ancillary legal powers, not just the ability to call a man or a woman by a more specific gender term.
Hypothetical 2: Tribal Counsel Resolutions Alpha and Beta
Suppose a Truth and Reconciliation Committee, like Canada's, were to seek to enter the use of the phrase "two-spirited" in adopting a procedural resolution ("Resolution Alpha"). A strong argument against this rule would be that non bimodal uses of sex and gender identity would not be valuable to the interests of evolutionary biology. A strong argument for this rule would be that allowing "two-spirited", male, and female to discuss gender identity - in non-bimodal terms - would be more authentic than the bimodal model. Who wins in this hypothetical argument? What about if a similar resolution ("Resolution Beta") suggested using the Mormon-specific ethnic term "Lamanite"? Would your analysis be different?
What would be the consequences of this resolution under the Canadian Bill Sigma? How will issues of sovereignty and conflicts in laws resolve some of the sub issues which you might imagine would come out society if such laws were passed?
And what about US policy? What would be the consequences of sovereignty and conflict under the US Bill Tau?
Those are some further questions for thought I will leave you with for now. Thank you for reading.