warning: unhinged essay incoming! apologies in advance, the election is driving me a little crazy. sorry i’ve been away for a while, exams were killing me too 🤠
Humans can’t seem to see the shades of grey between two opposing sides. Perhaps it’s something that wires us to be predisposed to simplify opinions or events. These days, particularly in politics, you’ll find people are becoming more and more polarised to extreme ends of the spectrum. As people edge away from the centre, they become less willing to hear the arguments or perspectives of other viewpoints, creating echo chambers that just repeat the same sentiment that bounces off mirrored walls. Yes! Yes! Yes! The battle of a cartoon hero and villain is always infinitely easier than seeing people for what they are: complex, contradictory beings. But when it comes to reality, there is rarely one definite right or wrong answer. There can be a better answer, but thanks to subjectivity (and our own biases etc.) we often can’t agree on that either.
As I’m writing this I’m thinking of the US election (despite being thankfully Australian) which is filling me with fear. The map is currently flooded red but I can’t stop checking every few minutes just to see if anything’s changed. Even if it does, I don’t think the outcome will.
Recently Chappell Roan came under fire for saying ‘there’s problems on both sides’, referring to the two candidates, Harris and Trump. When I read the article, I found myself agreeing with her, not seeing much of a problem with her statement. It’s true, after all—neither candidate is perfect. Sure, one is better than the other in regards to keeping America a somewhat stable democracy while the other is more focused on gaining power for himself and changing everything to fit his worldview. But so many on the left refused to accept that Harris has her own unsavoury issues—her staunch defence of Israel, for example. Some people immediately equated Roan’s comment to mean that she was pro-Trump (she actually had to clarify this by saying the words ‘yes I will be voting for Kamala’—what happened to media literacy? Or just general literacy?). This is where our inability to see nuance glares brighter than a spotlight. Just because Roan critiqued (lightly, mind you) Harris, who is the paragon of virtue for many leftists who lean further towards ignorance and blind worship than anything else, doesn’t mean she is above criticism. In fact, this is necessary to try and enact the change and policies that benefit those who the system holds down. I do think Harris is more open to change (though perhaps less on some issues than others) than Trump, who happens to be a convicted felon who continually spews lies that have been verified to be completely false. You don’t need me to tell you any of this. It’s concerning that this is the person that the majority of Americans trust to be their leader after he rid the right for millions of women to choose to have an abortion.
Why can’t so many people think critically? Why can’t we correctly weigh pros and cons? Of course, electing Harris and having the option to campaign for change from someone who will listen is worlds better than not voting at all, or voting for Trump. Just as people who thought Chappell Roan was a Trump supporter, there were those who saw a few problems with Harris that were so irredeemable that they decided to vote for Trump, despite otherwise agreeing with the majority of her policies. I’m not even going to touch on Trump’s loyal fans.
I am probably contradicting myself, especially in this first half of the essay. These are just my opinions, which after all, are subjective. But I do believe that when it comes to the lives of real people in the US and across the world, there is one option that is better. Not perfect—but better by a far margin. I just think that we could approach such serious issues like this with a little more critical thinking, and evaluate holistically. Right now it looks like Trump’s going to win anyway, so I suppose that’s that. I wish the best of luck to everyone in America, especially the women and marginalised communities.
Hilma af Klint’s swans series explores the contradictions of dualities such as life and death, femininity and masculinity and light and dark. The two sides of the same coin, the ‘union of opposites’; they work in tandem and you can’t have one without the other. As the series moves forward, the swans mutate into geometric designs before being joined as one, melting into each other, inseparable. I think there is a lot of truth to this idea of the complementary opposites when applied to concepts such as the gender binary in particular.
As I argued above, humans struggle to see the grey that results from the mixing of black and white. The world and we, as people, are far too complex to simply be just one extreme or the other. It is more comfortable for us to sit in separate categories; to do otherwise is to undergo ‘unnecessary’ self introspection that is costly in both time and pain. We like to reject what is unknown, and especially for many cisgender people, trying to grasp the concept of gender fluidity is too sticky and confronting, because it may tell them something about themselves they don’t want to face.
But no matter how we go about it, gender isn’t binary—and sex isn’t either. People are born intersex, and their existence (though a fair few will try to deny they exist at all) challenges the dominant mode of thinking. Trans people and non binary people also don’t fit neatly into this idea. Even the traditionally masculine or feminine cis person probably doesn’t perfectly embody the categories they try to perpetuate—it’s impossible to be purely one thing; the nature of humanity is chaos, even on a small scale.
The traits we determine to be ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ are not solid or real. They do not truly have any actual link to being a woman or man because they are the product of societal expectations that have been socially constructed over hundreds to thousands of years. (Thanks to Hemani for providing me with this explanation <3) And they are malleable and can change—the ideal man in 10th century Persia wore heels for practicality, though today they are associated with women’s fashion rather than for utility.
There is no true dichotomy between the two. We are everything and we are nothing at the same time: there is no light without darkness (corny, but true). For many, these categories can help them feel confident in how they present themselves or live their lives—which is great, and I support so long as it doesn’t become unhealthy (hello, toxic masculinity).
This essay jumps around a bit and I am certain I have contradicted myself or simplified this whole thing at different points, but it’s important to at least consider these topics. I tried to come at it from a holistic view and if there’s anything you disagree with, let me know! Just like the perfect candidate, the perfect essay doesn’t exist!
hi! thank you for reading <3 i’d love to hear your thoughts—agreements, disagree, a bit of both, all of it! it’s you who makes this newsletter possible, thank you for your support. if you’d like to leave a like or a comment that’ll fuel me to write xoxo
i think it’s also worth noting that each of the three sexes have variation in traits (e.g. afab people can have naturally high testosterone levels, amab people can sometimes be born with an extra x chromosome, etc.) and it’s really important to distinguish sex from gender like you said
so beautiful to frame your point around a series of art, dani. you truly prove that they can, in fact, all be zingers.
the leftist and liberal discourse on the us election drives me up the wall. you have the liberals attacking leftists for having very valid criticisms of Harris (like Miss Roan) and conflating them with Trump supporters, the 'vote blue no matter who' crowd virtue-ing their signals, leftists attacking other leftists for voting for Harris because of her support of the genocide in Palestine (which are 100% valid but Trump has the same stance on Israel plus all the extra horrors his presidency promises. Harris was the reasonably going to be the only alternative that could have been voted in.), talk of boycotting voting (huh???!!), blaming people who voted for Palestine through Jill Stein for loosing the election (when their votes would not have made any difference)... what did any of this do to stop Trump winning? the internet wastes so much energy on attacking random individuals rather than putting all that energy towards something useful. also, how long is america going to be okay with picking the still very evil lesser of two evils? something's gotta give.
the lack of nuance in general on the internet that plagues even the most inane and easily simplistic discussions drives me up the walls. sometimes it makes me want to live in a cave but i'm scared of bugs so i guess i'll keep doom-scrolling.