Personal Advocacy

One thing I really hate is when people simultaneously try to convince me that religion is an “answer” to my problems and tell me that “god doesn’t make mistakes.” There are quite a few things wrong with this approach.
First of all, religion (no matter which one, but I’ll specifically use Christianity, as that is the religion I encounter most in my daily life) is not supposed to be an “answer,” even if you look at the religion internally. For Christianity, the “answer” already happen. Jesus died, “answering” everyone’s sins. Religion is a journey through which insight might be found (depending on who you talk to). If religion was all about being an answer, things like faith, mysterious ways of greater beings, and cryptic allusions wouldn’t be needed or used.
Secondly, “god doesn’t make mistakes” is just about the least helpful way of saying anything about being transgender. So, since god doesn’t make mistakes, my gender dysphoria was intended? And he also intended for me to have the means to correct that so that I can use my personal advocacy to improve my life? Okay, I could be on board with that (but it’s just a way of inserting god extraneously into the conversation). Or maybe they mean that god just doesn’t make mistakes with physical forms (this is the interpretation that they seem to imply), and so we shouldn’t mess with that part of a person. So either they believe messing with the mind (where I guess god made a mistake?) is okay, or they believe that severe depression and dysphoria should just be suffered through (probably resulting in suicide, as statistics show about untreated individuals). Now, even ignoring the fact that trying to correct gender dysphoria with mind-alteration has been tried in the past (and the fact that it is not recommended by the DSM as proper treatment), what gives them the power to “play god” in such a selective way? So I’m just supposed to trust that you have a better idea of how to deal with this than the professionals who have training and schooling and research and experience to back them up? How is that a good way to convince me of anything?
And while I’m on the subject of convincing people of things, this has come up multiple times as someone is trying to sell me on their religion. This is where they go first after “you should believe in god.” Now, I might give your religion a chance if you are accepting of me for who I am, and then offer me a compelling or interesting reason to look into it. This process does the opposite of both.
One thing I am glad about is the fact that some parts of popular media seem to be moving away from this kind of thinking. In Fringe (I told you I’d write more about it), I really appreciate the fact that all of the problems in the series have human origins and also have human solutions. There is no “greater power” who fixes things, nor is there some “greater power” who causes all of our problems. I like to call this “Personal Advocacy.”
Personal Advocacy means that we have the power (individually and in a group) to create our own problems and solve them.
One of the major themes across the first four seasons is Walter dealing with the consequences of crossing between universes to save Peter. In the end, though, Walter is able to fix what he messed up (to be fair, Peter does the fixing, but by using Walter’s machine, and with Walter also helping him to realize what choice to make).
This theme of personal advocacy is reiterated across the series from the problem of the Observers in season five, to Olivia making her own escape from the alternate universe in season three.
The most wonderful part about this theme is the fact that it supports thinking which enables trans people to be an advocate for improving their own lives. But it does so in a way that doesn’t seek to alienate the trans person from those who would lend support.

Fringe – First Three Seasons

So, lately I have been binging on episodes of the TV show “Fringe.”  For those unfamiliar, it follows a division of the FBI called Fringe Division as they investigate extra-ordinary events, which often appear paranormal or supernatural, but which all end up being able to be explained by the science within the show (which definitely goes well outside the realm of recognized scientific fact).  I’m about halfway through season four, so I’ll probably do another review once I’ve finished the series, but I feel like there’s a lot to talk about in the first three seasons, anyway.

One of the best things about the show is the fact that there are three distinct major female characters, all of whom feature significant character development, screen time, and who frequently interact with each other in meaningful ways.

Olivia Dunham is the main protagonist of the series, and she’s a great example of a strong female character that isn’t just “thrown in” as a token strong female character.  She is never portrayed as a character who is “overcoming” being a woman, or succeeding despite being a woman; nor is her character portrayed as being better because she’s a woman.  I think that is absolutely wonderful.  Too many series and films let the genders of their characters matter more than the characters themselves, often resulting in sexist portrayals and places where otherwise captivating characters fall flat.

Nina Sharp is the second main female character.  She is cunning, mysterious, and completely outside the realm of being defined by her gender.  Singlehandedly (one of her arms is cybernetic), she runs the largest corporation in the world of the series.  It’s often hinted at that her ethics might not line up with what most people would term “good,” but there are other points (mainly in flashbacks) that hint in the other direction.  Either way, she is deeply self-motivated and in control of her own character’s progression.

Astrid Farnsworth is the third main female character.  At first (and throughout most of the first season) she seemed like a throw-in character.  Her role within the world is as an investigative research assistant to Olivia and the two Bishops (Peter and Walter), so she is often tasked with the grunt work.  This led to most of her dialogue and interactions in the first season being mostly technical and about progressing the individual episode’s plot line for the other characters.  However, starting in the second season, she is written in as an actual character, with her own story and plot pieces.  She’s still subordinate to the other major characters, but that mostly seems a victim of limited space to expound upon individual storylines.

Overall, I feel like the show is very positive towards women.  There are, however, a few moments which bother me.  The show basically ignores the existence of LGBT persons.  While it doesn’t negatively portray LGBT people, it also doesn’t even acknowledge their existence, which I think is a huge flaw in the overall writing.  Additionally, the entire way to resolve the conflict between the two parallel universes in season three is described by one of the characters as “if Peter Bishop chooses our Olivia, our universe survives.  If he chooses their Olivia…”  Literally the fate of two entire universes hang in the balance, and the writers put it in a perspective of a man has to choose between two different women (parallel universe copies of each other) to resolve the conflict.  Except that choosing between the two Olivias doesn’t even end up being the resolution to the conflict.  It’s a complete red herring, and, in my opinion, an interchangeable element to the plot (as in, any kind of red herring would have worked in its place).  The plot line didn’t have to line up with typical patriarchal paradigms, and I believe it would have taken very little effort (with no negative effect on the plot) to pursue a different line.  Of course, this isn’t the most grievous of offenses, especially coming from a show that already is doing so many things well without going down those lines.  However, I think it is important to point out and realize instances where even wonderful things fall short.