Romantic Non-Duality and the Gender Debate.

I have found every single public conversation about the role of genders, penises, vaginas and bathrooms in society to be a completely cringe experience, regardless if the views have ethical validity, political validity, or cultural validity.

I include in this both the voices expressed by Jordan Peterson, Dave Chappelle as equally as I do the many strong voices in the LGBTQ community.

All of them suck and are cringe.

Right, wrong or indifferent, every single viewpoint expressed has simply inflamed society with zero resolution on the horizon and they all truly suck at solving the issues and concerns that each are raising.

Why do all of these conversations around the roles of gender, sexuality, and bathrooms absolutely suck and more importantly, who am I to even say they do?

I suppose I have some explaining to do.

Well, for one I am the designer of a consensus building algorithm, so I probably pay far closer attention to public debate than most.

Of all the social and cultural conversations, the one around gender are the most interesting to me since genders already have this binary and non-binary quality inherent in all of the discussions, making it ripe for misunderstanding but also easy for resolution.

My main focus as a “discussion” engineer are the psychological dynamics between conflict and resolution as a one whole system. That is actually my own area of expertise, “whole system design and engineering”.

But this would only partially explain why I have the view I do.

The other explanation is that I wish to represent a horribly underrepresented view in the gender debate, the view of the “romantic”.

By view of the romantic, I of course mean the thrill of idealization, to be romantic in society is to idealize our values.

A “romantic” society is a society that would, in principle, support the shared ideals of all citizens.

While “romantic” of course could refer to the classic “pitching of woo” or courting between mutually interested and attracted individuals, “to romanticize” society or civilization would mean to view each role in its idealized form, many of which having nothing to do with any Valentinian ideals.

Being romantic to me is just “fun” and part of what makes life not tolerable, like political positions only hope to achieve, but enjoyable.

Here is the kicker, historically speaking, orthodox cultures tend to suppress not just homosexuality and women, but also suppress romantic love between both men and women.

Even recently a dancing couple, man and woman, were arrested in Iran for expressing their love publically while kissing in public is against the law in many eastern and asian countries.

Historically speaking, the tendency of the orthodoxy is to suppress the romantic and I propose that homosexual relationships emerge from romanticism itself, so all individuals should embrace the Romantic for designing celebratory solutions to deep cultural issues.

Coming out as a romantic is quite liberating

All this means in terms of my own personal relationships, I romanticize the type of emotional and sexual bonding experience I would like to have in my own personal life, and everything else is none of your business.

I fully and proudly admit that I am a mature romantic man. There, I said it and it felt good. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury, but Romanticism encourages that everyone should.

But I also romanticize culture, languages, all sorts of things that have nothing to do with mating.

I’ll even be honest and admit that it even makes me feel kind of noble to become such a romantic, I can even descend into romanticizing my own romanticism!

Coming out as a “romantic man” is something I owe thanks to the public debate on penises, vaginas and bathrooms…because I had to ask myself, why do all of these discussions on gender on all sides make me want to cringe?

Why do they make me want to feel so…so…so offended?

Is it just the lure of social media compelling me to feel offended so I can fit into the national conversation, or is it something deep that I have tucked away in the darker recesses of my own psychology?

So I had to do a lot of “soul searching” to find what part of me wanted to feel so offended by every single Tik Tok clip, Jordan Peterson soapbox, LGBT Twitter activist I encountered.

I quite enjoy diversity, am I that shallow to be offended because I am a man attracted to women, a “noble romantic”????

Please, say it ain’t so.

And that’s when it hit me, the reason I felt so “offended” was because the term “CISgender” sounds to me like something that needs to be removed in an operation. Gross!!!

I discovered that I am somewhat superficial in this regard, I found these discussions unappealing because I could not find anything that I could idealize.

Completely erased in this term “cisgender” is any kind of ideal that would appeal to anyone of romantic inclination or romantic idealization.

While I do not expect nor assume everyone should view the world through the eyes of a romantic, I think most are moved or influenced by what are romantic ideals and I think that is what is making parts of our culture feeling “protective” of.

This is just marketing 101. If the LGBTQ community wants large adoption and acceptance of their positions, y’all just need better branding.

Consider who wants a cis on their gender? Utterly unappealing proposition and impossible to idealize. Not to mention, good luck convincing billions of males that they are “cissies”. Never going to fly. You are doomed to Facebook ad buys for the rest of your life if you somehow think that one will go over.

Cisgender is a technical and clinical term, absolutely appropriate when used in clinical analysis, yet entirely inappropriate as any type of cultural signifier. And thanks to social media, clinical and legal terms become weaponized as misinformed Twitter rants, amplifying confusion about these terms.

We need to idealize the resolution

This is a cultural thing, so we need to address cultural idealization of form and use it to our collective advantage so we can build consensus quickly.

But before your wicked little political mind goes there, I am not putting the blame on the LGBT community for this any more than I am putting the blame on Jordan Peterson. Remember they both suck at this, they both are distributing more and more confusion about sexual and gender relationships in society.

And they both suck for this not because of the views they are expressing, the underlying issues, but because they both are using the same crappy form of dialectics that has its roots in Karl Marx’s Dialectical Materialism.

And while dialectics themselves are supposed to follow elegant ternary structures, we don’t get that any more, we get dualistic white or black arguments and shouting, win or lose, this side versus that side.

This is why Jordan Peterson makes me cringe in these arguments because he should know better, his grand assault against “socialism” and the progressive left is using the same faulted dialectics he criticizes.

Jordan Peterson is using Marxist dialectics to confront other Marxist dialectics that have since evolved into Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Critical Gender Theory.

And he cheerfully does this by being fit into very handsome fashion-for-men tailored suits, building his audience with his lean frame and style sense that would give any gay man a run for his money.

Jordan Peterson is selling society on the “fight” and the critique, making it look good even, for him to stand-up and build a large monthly activated audience on his podcasts and videos.

Would Jordan Peterson have this much attention if he was just talking about the deconstruction of the modern male psyche? No of course not, what puts Jordan Peterson on the map are his public confrontations, and these are simply just great for business, great for distribution, great for awareness building, but utterly failing in any workable and practical way.

So it becomes like theater, basically.

Marxist theater, of all things, is the coup d’etat of the postmodernists.

Someone please, drain my blood.

Thesis, Antithesis, Antithesis, Antithesis ad nauseum, thank you social media

When it comes to Peterson and the LGBT, both are using dialectics that confront a strong “thesis” entering society, a “critique” of that thesis, or an “antithesis”.

The focus is on “critique”, independent of the underlying debate.

Now before your wicked little political mind goes there, I am not putting the blame on forming critiques of structures in society, not by any means, nor does this have anything to do with the political concepts of socialism, capitalism, or communism. Zip!

I am suggesting that by focusing on the critique in a “critique versus critique” battle which erupts cultural division is simply incomplete and in many cases irresponsible and it's also social media 2023.

Karl Marx never ever foresaw something like the internet, which is keeping society stuck in an “antithesis” phase spiraling downwards into dystopia.

Because Karl Marx could not foresee the internet, his prediction of a homeostasis that would eventually emerge from historical dialectics is now moot.

It is pointless to even attempt to apply Marxist dialectics in our current global mass media/tech landscape because our environment is already applying it at scale, albeit in a haphazard non-resolving fashion.

Karl Marx never saw that a technology could emerge which would be influenced by all the forces he discussed but would prevent the resolution of those discussions from ever forming.

Why? Because everyone is focused on the critique, and power and fame and influence only support the critique, and never the resolution.

Why? Because the resolution to the critique destroys the power structure that creates the critique, or at least it appears that way to those invested in the struggle, the anti-thesis, the thorough deconstruction of the other.

The resolution to the critique is an environment of shared power between the thesis and antithesis. So in principle, no power is lost in the resolution, it is merely shared, and by shared, thereby expanded.

Unfortunately, Google and Facebook have optimized all algorithms for the rather annoying “antithesis” building stage which simultaneously dampen all resolution building channels.

And this last part is where we are stuck circa 2023.

Social media rewards the critique or “antithesis”, and enables any view to build a “network of support”, at scale, that will enable that view to “double-down” and “fight hard”, all measurable in clicks and CPMS.

Is it ironic that “social” media has turned everyone into a Marxist dialectician, distributing their critiques of society which become amplified by media buys and algorithms?

This means we are stuck in a cycle of division, “thesis versus thesis” or “viewpoint versus viewpoint” which never actually get to “come to meetup” to create a synthesis, but become empowered to become aggressively dominate in an oscillating cycle of up or down in a non-resolving and recapitulating struggle where everyone just kind of loses and no one comes out ahead.

With the exception of our influencers, the psycho-social-political thought leaders whom define the boundaries of the cultural conversation.

We tend to ignore that our influencers are usually wrong and fail; yet our political influencers already know this vulnerability and here is where they make their only guaranteed deliverable; they promise their followers and those influenced by their thinking that for as long as they follow them, they will always be “right” in the social battle for “right and wrong”.

And this is where anger, rage, even emotional breakdown, become very effective yet highly manipulative tools used by many of our political and social influencers.

Indeed, most movements in history may start out valiant, purposeful and quite necessary, but once attention forms around social leaders; a new incentive opens up.

And through it all they will always believe they are right and so are all of their followers always right.

Now, a whole system designer is going to look at the environmental and psychological forces happening and say “wow- Jordan Peterson and the most inflamed of the LGTBQ community both need each other to maintain their power within their own communities.”

Social leaders of ideological movements now require their “opponents” in the struggle to maintain power!

Social leaders have power because of the struggle, and will lose power when the resolution to that struggle presents itself.

This means that social leaders have zero personal incentive to seek and build resolution and every incentive to maintain the struggle, and likely many of these motivational psychological forces are even unconscious.

Why does this always happen? Simple, by focusing on the antithesis, the resolution can never form.

The critique is just a step in the resolution in all dialectics.

However, the media rewards the critique and never the resolution, thus, here we are with one huge cringe conversation.

The critique makes you famous, while the resolution becomes the enemy to your fame.

And it is the resolution that culture and society requires, not the critique.

So here we are.

So as a whole system consensus designer, I want to know what the resolution looks like, not the critique.

And as a romantic, I want the resolution to have cross boundary appeal to every single individual, something that everyone would want to adopt, and ideally adoption that is natural, requiring neither law enforcement nor protest to emerge, rather something we can all celebrate.

The Romantic Liberation

And as a romantic I hope all types of minds, personalities, sexualities or genders can have and express “romantic” relationships too, I don’t think that being “romantic” is something that is “gender serving” by any means.

And I can acknowledge that, in comparison, my view is very narrow, I am a romantic man who keeps falling in love with women, over and over. Foolishly even. And that’s about the limit of my experience in this matter.

Yet I happen to know that many gay men and women also enjoy romantic experiences, and many of them also make very very foolish choices that I can relate to.

And all one needs to do is grow up reading Marvel comics to know that romantic experiences can be had between any “two” individuals, normal or strange, for any reason any of us could never even imagine, the variations of this are as likely as varied as our imaginations.

Romantic seeking is our “oneness”, our “non-duality”

Gay, straight, weird, bizarre, who cares. What we all share in common is having or seeking romantic experiences with another person, we all wanna tango at the end of the day.

So if we are seeking to build cross gender consensus building, we need to appeal to our common shared ideals, independent of penis, vagina, or bathroom.

So here is where I introduce “Romantic Non-Duality” as opposed to the dualistic, non-sexy, non-romantic, political and clinical terminologies and labels being used in one large obnoxious conversation.

Better language is better understanding

As a romantic man who is also a whole system consensus designer, the “language” both sides are inflaming the other with is just “bad” use of language if your intention is to get other viewpoints to understand the nuances of the topic and debate.

What does the language of the resolution look like as opposed to the language of the critique of the other?

The “labeling” of both “male or female only” viewpoints to “cis and multi-gendered labels” that seem to change with trends and fashion, they only have meaning by the sides they are inflaming, forcing spite to define identity in a political-cultural war that is going nowhere for anybody.

All viewpoints expressed so far seem to push other viewpoints into a label or naming system that becomes one huge straw-man debate that avoids the underlying cultural and very real concerns, yet builds audiences at scale!

The problem with all the labels that are being used, from scientific or social studies to cultural norms, is that all of them offer very incomplete views of the “whole system” of human sexuality and psychology.

It is for this reason I think the “romantic” view needs to be introduced into the discussion, and now I can speak freely as both a romantic man and a whole system consensus designer, coming out of the closet at last :)

So, ladies and genders; allow me to introduce Romantic Non-Duality as a resolution to the horrible non-working political-cultural debate on penises, vaginas and bathrooms.

Covering the whole dynamic spectrum of sexuality, we introduce a non-dual organizing system that bakes “resolution” into its organization.

Non Duality as a ternary organizing principle

If we are talking about sexuality, the root of human sexuality is sexual/emotional bonding experience, not any “political identity”, duh.

And human sexuality is rooted in nature, which is both biological and well understood, and psychological, which is far more complex and less understood and thereby open to far more interpretation than the former.

Mother and Father

On the side of nature, nature produces organisms with the potential to be fathers or be mothers, not male or female.

Male and Female are simply abstractions, while mother and father is both scientifically accurate and…a bit romantic. Perfect!

When it comes to mammals, us humans specifically; nature breaks it down very simply, we are born with a body that potentially can become a mother and contains a potential womb and vagina or we are born with a body that can potentially become a father, with a penis.

If there is some condition that nature is not producing this, nature is producing some variation of this.

Nature does not produce “males or females” but “mothers and fathers” and nature only cares if mothers and fathers are making babies, everything else is up to our own social design.

All “genders” and political identities all come from a mother and a father, and this has nothing to do with human sexuality or what individuals may or may not be attracted to. This is simply biological functionality and this is what the romantic view would idealize, naturally.

If we all emerge from mother and father not male or female, then mother and father become a natural ideal for society.

But this has nothing to do with complex human sexuality, psychology, nor even gender, it only has to do with making babies, making “products” of the union of a mom body and a dad body.

Mother, Father, Child

“Mothers and Fathers” create children, fusions of mother and father, variations of mother and father. Mothers and fathers create homosexual men and women, ladyboys, transgenders, and cross-dressers too. All are just variations of biological mother and biological father expressed via psychologies.

So while “mother and father” are foundational to the species, the “child” is the product, and a part of the whole system, making the whole system “non-dual”, or even “non-binary”.

Ha! You probably were not expecting that one coming either.

Ironic that human sexuality and bonding to become exalted and idealized in a way that would make Jordan Peterson smile is a non-binary system of gender expression and social acceptance. Men get to be men, women get to be women, and anyone can combine any possible combination of both to arrive at new novel variations of a theme all humanity shares in common.

In a non-dual system of gender and sexuality, all roles are equally celebrated.

A non-dual whole system means that we should be able to predict “novelty” to emerge from the union of mother and father, novelty including variations of sexual roleplays as we find in homosexuality, but also complexity in gender psychology and with the modern 21st century, transgender physiology.

This keeps things socially and scientifically valid, neat, and of course and most important, romantic.

Romantic is the key ingredient, because it creates a movement that tends towards celebration as the goal, a much higher standard than simple, political, non-romantic tolerance.

Please use “mother and father” to replace the archaic, non scientific and non romantic “male and female” view of gender? Consider?

Biological MOTHER, biological FATHER, and biological fusion, union, or child of mother AND father.

A child is always some variation of a mother and a father. A novel expression of mother and father.

The child is always born with both a little bit of the mother and a little bit of the father, gender asides.

We (straight, gay, variation) are all children of mother and father biologically speaking and it this has a great romantic flair folks!

What’s more, we need a non-dual or non-binary operator to accentuate the opposites, instead of pitting them against each other.

That is what the “whole system” of human sexuality and psychology gives us, and to lay out this ternary organizing principle for human sexuality and gender could have quick adoption using the “romantic non-dual” view.

Classic Sexual, Classic Homo-Sexual, and Novel Sexual.

You’re welcome.

Classic Sexual/Emotional: Please use this to replace “cis” gendered?

Classic sexual refers to sexual and emotional experience that can produce a biological child. Classic Sexual is vagina and penis sex, can produce a child and produces emotional bonding around the production of a child.

Naturally, people would identify as classic sexual by the types of sexual or emotional experience they have or crave. Those that conform within this are classic men and classic women.

Classic Homo Sexual/Emotional: This refers to sexual and emotional experience, individuals who have or crave same genital sexual experiences and emotionally bond around them, the formal “homosexual, gay and lesbian”.

Those that conform within this are homosexual men and homesexual women, obviously.

Novel Sexual/Emotional: This refers to sexual experience within novel formations of both classic sexual and homo sexual experience, including but not limited to transexuals, ladyboys, cross dressers, drag queens, or any combination that we could never think of, thus novel. Novel sexual is simply any variation both physiological and psychological of homo sexual and classical sexual.

Those that conform within these are by definition novel men and novel women.

Caitlyn Jenner is therefore a novel woman.

And she is a real novel woman too.

She is not a classic homosexual woman, nor is she a classic sexual man, but she is indeed a novel woman!

And such a romantic non-dual system is entirely flexible.

Let’s say there is someone who simply identifies as “both” in some complex way.

Well they can easily drop the “man or woman” and just maintain “novel romantic” or “novel sexual” or “novel non-binary” if one needs to be absolutely redundant.

All of these sexual or emotional identifications have the potential to be mothers or fathers biologically speaking, with exception to individuals who voluntarily go through such a change that they opt out of their biological option or encounter a biological problem preventing such activity.

Some might say..well what about bi-sexuality?

Well, again, it relates to sexual experience and emotional bonding.

If a bi-sexual man is having sex with a woman, he is engaging in classic sex, and if with a man, homosexual sex.

If he is going to the bathroom, “men’s room” should work fine, and a bi-sexual is equally at home in both classic sexual and classic homosexual environments, touché!

Human gender, psychology and biology, like all whole systems, are ternary and non-dual; feel free to use my bathroom if you need.

But large arenas and gathering areas should just wisely have four bathroom types to accommodate any potential awkward social interactions, as a matter of courtesy.

Sports teams? What happens when a male professional wrestler becomes trans and wants to compete?

Well, professional sports already disallows the taking of hormones for competition, and that should cover that debate, anything further not necessary.

Our devious and trickly little political minds will in many cases force multiple social and engineering issues onto one political topic, usually for the sake of voter turnout and social media likes.

Don’t fall into the trap of the devious political mind of confusing concerns around trans-humanism, which is using science and technology to enhance human experience and performance and has its own inherent social issues we have to face, and transgender LGBT issues, which are an emergent social and psychological historical novel social movements and set of challenge but which all have inherent resolution in classic and novel sexuality.

In a large population where the likelihood of competitive novel sexual identifications occur in high number? Create a new sports league. What’s the problem?

Now, if we can have the discussion within a resolving framework like this, I think we will find that 95% of this cultural conflict would disappear overnight.

Welcome to Romantic Non-Duality.

Thoughts appreciated.