Within the past several decades, as people take an increasingly nuanced look at their identity, many more identities have risen to the public awareness. These different identities aren’t new to the human race. There have been many representations of people identifying as queer and transgender etc. since people have existed. Whereas before, Western and specifically American culture has shunned and punished those who wore these identities proudly, there are more consequences to acting out hate and prejudice against queer and non-cis people. (I won’t talk about the rest of the world.)
However, as with all other types of prejudice, it can manifest in very subtle ways. Besides the sign-wielding, megaphone type of prejudice, the far more insidious half-suggestions and denials is more damaging in the long-term and harder to snuff out.
The refusal of people to use one’s chosen pronouns and name.
The refusal of others to recognise your partner, rather labeling your relationship as “good friends”.
The “it’s just a phase” from your parents
It’s the implication that you as a person is “ok” just as long as you’re not “too gay” or as long as you’re “reasonably passing”. Basically, what it means is that as long as people are able to assume that you’re cishet, then you’re good. This was the idea behind Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
People keep saying, “I’m okay with gay people, as long as…” To me, there are two points wrong with this. Besides what I said in the previous paragraph about performing “normality”, they’re identifying people first as gay and using that label to decide what they think about them before anything else. Not being cishet shouldn’t be a person’s identifying characteristics just as being cisgendered or heterosexual isn’t. Because having a particular sexual identity or sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily tell them any information about that person other than how they identify within/out the gender binary and who they find sexually attractive. That’s it. Second, just the fact that they have to say “you’re okay” with a person’s existence. You and I exist independently of what others think of us. It shouldn’t be within the ability of a person to judge another’s existence.
That is tolerating. Tolerating is you don’t get in my way, I won’t get in yours. There is still a sense of separation, an uneasy truce. Tolerating is my mother knowing my friend is bisexual and letting her stay the night but would disown me if she knew I was bisexual. Tolerating is the “equal but separate” treatment which everyone knows isn’t equal. It’s “you can exist as long as you don’t think you’re equal to me”.
That is why true acceptance is important. The response to “I’m gay.” should be “Cool.” and move on. It should be as easy as telling people your favorite color or pasta sauce. You don’t say, “It’s okay that your favorite color is yellow,” because it doesn’t need to be said; it’s not controversial, the other person wasn’t really expecting anything otherwise and it doesn’t say anything about you as a person besides the fact that you like yellow. This is what needs to happen not only for LGBTQ but also for things like mental conditions, disabilities etc. These are normal parts of being human and they need to be normalised.
That’s it for this time. I have a link for a 2016 essay on the intersection of race and sexual orientation that I couldn’t fit up there so if you wanna read it, check it out. This is Lieutenant and we’ll talk to you next time!
I recently finished Pure, a book about the purity movement in evangelical Christianity (and beyond)and the psychological effects it has left on the generation of girls that grew up under it. It’s a really good read and offered me a lot of insight into the minds of a community that I have always had a hard time understanding. (I don’t have firsthand experience being immersed in this sort of culture so please read the book if you’re interested in learning more.) In it, there was one idea that really struck a chord with me — a lightbulb went off:
Othering (n.) – The process of perceiving or portraying someone or something as fundamentally different or alien.
So today, we’re going to explore a little part of the purity culture with the concept of othering as well as some other topics to explore a little more about the human condition. **To be clear, in relation to our discussion about purity culture, I will be focusing on the effects on women; for some sources exploring how it has affected people more broadly, check out the bottom of the article for additional resources.**
In the book, the concept was introduced when the author pointed out that many within the communities that adopted the purity movement saw how it was affecting their children negatively with none of the benefits that it was supposed to guarantee (lower sexual activity, delayed sexual “debut”, lower teen pregnancy rates, etc.) and yet did nothing about it. The leaders of the communities often also refused to acknowledge the damage done to the members of their community. Even those close to victims could often found to be unsympathetic or worse, judgmental. Why?
There is a prevalent sense of shame associated with any deviation from this culture. Those who deviate aren’t worthy, unsaved, dirty, used, and somehow less. To further enforce these ideas, some communities associate the deviations with biases and prejudices the community may hold, subconscious or otherwise. These biases/prejudices may be based on race, class, ethnicity or religiosity (and obviously, being a gendered issue and also affecting women disproportionately, gender). This, then, introduces a strong divide in what people perceive that those that are like and those that are unlike themselves. Since much of the US’s, and indeed, the world’s Christian communities are heavily influenced and dominated by those considering themselves Caucasians and evangelical, the out-group will be made of those who are decidedly not those things. Subconsciously or not, people who are sexually active, sexually expressive, sex positive, have been r*ped/assaulted etc. will be thought of being black/brown, poor, uneducated, atheistic, etc. and therefore, not the image of a good, white Christian so these sort of things will never happen to them. This obviously will play out in the many ways these beliefs can manifest in racist acts etc. but we won’t talk about that now.
There is a prevalent sense of shame associated with any deviation from this culture. Those who deviate aren’t worthy, they’re unsaved, dirty, used, and somehow less. To further enforce these ideas, some communities associate those who deviate with biases and prejudices the community may hold, subconscious or otherwise. These biases/prejudices may be based on race, class, ethnicity or religiosity (and obviously, being a gendered issue and also affecting women disproportionately, gender). This, then, introduces a strong divide in what people perceive that those that are like and those that are unlike themselves.
Since much of the US’s, and indeed, the world’s Christian communities are heavily influenced and dominated by those who identify as Caucasians and evangelical, the out-group will be made of those who are decidedly not those things. When being a virgin and untouched is synonymous with being a good Christian girl while those used as an example of a sexual sinner is someone who is homeless, a minority, an immigrant or someone who dresses “immodestly”, then when confronted with a Christian girl who isn’t sexually “pure”, many would try to ignore it in hopes of denying the fact that it could happen within a good Christian community. This is especially troubling when faced with issues like pedophilia, r*pe and other forms of sexual abuse.
Failing to conform to the standards of sexuality makes one as other as someone who is not accepted within the community. Such guidelines create room for other implicit interpretations which leads to ostracizing the “others” instead of addressing whether their inability to conform is their fault or if the guidelines themselves too unforgiving. Someone who is sexually assaulted is at fault for “not fighting back hard enough” or for being a “tease”. Nonconformity immediately places one outside the umbrella of protection offered by the Christian community. No longer are you a child of God being tested by the devil but someone who must be avoided so that the unacceptable behavior does not become acceptable by mere exposure or “infect” the rest of the pious community. The book goes into more detail with personal accounts of how this culture has created an atmosphere of almost constant shame and anxiety even when individuals hadn’t done anything to be ashamed or anxious about.
And the thing is, this doesn’t even touch on the fact that this seems to leave some Christian minorities perpetually with two bad options. If you fit the stereotype, then it enforces their beliefs and is used as justification for ill treatment. If you don’t, there is still a sense of shame and fear moreso because you’re seen as more likely to “succumb” to it. For example, black girls are often seen as more sexually mature and more capable of adult-like thought than their white counterparts and are punished more severely as a result. This happens despite the fact that black girls cannot control the rate at which their bodies mature and are often sexualised at a young age (starting as young as five). This intersection of both race and gender under this religious context creates a doubly toxic environment for those growing up with it.
The effects of interracial dynamics whether positive or negative are well-documented especially between groups that have in contact for thousands of years but those within a race are less obvious and less understood. There is othering within racial groups as well that cause significant social issues. Race has been simplified in large part to skin color in the history of the US and it plays a huge role in how the in-groups are formed within a racial minority. In Asia, colorism is highly prevalent and can be seen in everyday media, marketing and in the popularity of whitening creams. This exists to a large extent in most of the world touched by Western influences. White was beautiful, dark was not. This creates the lighter-skinned in-groups and the darker-skinned out-groups.
This not only impacts people’s opportunities for social and economic mobility but also exposes them to discrimination from their own racial group in an effort to distinguish more markedly the difference between the two groups, though oftentimes the differences were non-existent and based on stereotype. Think of Dr. Bledsoe‘s character in Invisible Man.
Because of these divides within the communities, it undermines any effort to progress the group’s rights or status as some within the group are content to cater to the majority by stepping on others within their group.
I didn’t go into a lot of detail in this second part so I’ll leave some supplementary material below if you would like to learn more.
Let us know what you think in the comments or the contact form, follow us or leave us some appreciation on our Patreon if you would like to support future articles.
In any case, hope you’ve learned something new and we’ll talk to you next time,
Hey guys! So, this time, we’re going look at other methods we can use to construct proofs when just deriving from the premises isn’t enough.
Conditional Proof (CP)
Basically, you use this method when the conclusion or a part of the conclusion you want is a conditional. This makes it so you assume the predicate in order to derive the consequent. Here’s an example:
Indirect Proof (IP)
For this method, you use this primarily when the conclusion is a negated statement. You assume the un-negated form of the conclusion and attempt to find a contradiction so that the assumption is false, thus ending at the negated form. It also works the other way around where the conclusion isn’t negated so you make the assumption negated instead and then use the DN rule at the end. It’s also super useful when proving theorems where you have a limited plan of action. An example:
Theorems are formulas that can be proven true without premises so the proofs for theorems have the additional challenge of not being able to build off of premises. Therefore, the above two methods are essential to be able to do proofs of theorems. Here’s an example:
All assumptions must be discharged(closed).
Lines between different assumptions must not cross.
Once discharged, steps within the subproof cannot be used anymore.
“You asked me to teach you chess and I’ve done that. It’s a useful mental exercise. And through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don’t enjoy playing. Because it was a game that was born during a brutal age, when life counted for little, and everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings and pawns. […]Chess is just a game. Real people aren’t pieces, and you can’t assign more value to some of them than to others. Not to me, not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is that anyone who looks on the world as if it was a game of chess deserves to lose.”
This is part two of our little intro to Symbolic Logic. We’re going to expand our repertoire of rules we can employ in our proofs. These rules are all about putting logic statements into an alternative form. A lot of these rules will be familiar as they’re used in mathematics. One of the differences between these rules and the basic 8 is that these are reversible, hence the :: symbol to denote a two-way operation. The format of this post is going to be similar to the last one; the rules will be listed first, then some simple examples and then a couple of practice problems on the following pages.
1. Double Negation (D.N)
p :: ~~p
2. Commutation (Comm.)
p V q :: q V p
p • q :: q • p
3. Association (Assoc.)
[(p V (q V r)] :: [(p V q) V r)]
*applies to AND operators the same way*
4. Duplication (Dup.)
p :: p V p
5. DeMorgan’s Law (DeM.)
~(p V q) :: ~p • ~q
This law describes how a negation gets distributed into a parenthesised statement. It negates the two variables and switches the operator from an AND to an OR or vice versa. It only works on AND and OR operators though so if you have a (BI)CONDITIONAL operator inside the parenthesis, you’ll need to use one of the later replacement rules to make them into one.
Hi y’all! So, if you’re computer science majors/philosophy major/etc., you probably have to take this class in college. I love this stuff because it’s very procedural and the proofs they give for you to solve are like puzzles and puzzles are super fun. Today, we’re gonna look at the 8 basic rules and then we’ll look at the replacement rules and more. I’m going to assume that y’all know the basic structure of sentential logic including operators and truth tables. Let’s get started.
A proof is a procedure which is supposed to derive the desired conclusion from a set of premises. To do this, the proof has to be set up in a certain way. First, all lines of a proof must be numbered. The premises make up the first lines of the proof along with the desired conclusion. Then, all subsequent derivations from the premises are listed below with the justification for each step listed along the right side, noting which rule was used and what lines of the proof were referenced. Here’s an example:
For our purposes on this page, the visualisations for each of the rules below will not be written in this vertical fashion as they are cumbersome to format in the WordPress editor so it’ll be horizontal.
Let’s get into the rules and then work on some examples which will be on page 2.
1. Simplification (Simp.)
p • q /:. p
p • q /:. q
If there is a conjunction, then both conjuncts can be individually represented as being true by themselves.
2. Conjunction (Conj.)
p; q /:. p • q
If two variables are true, then they can be joined in a conjunction.
3. Addition (Add.)
p /:. p V q
This rule is incredibly powerful as it allows you to introduce new elements into a disjunction as long as we have one of its disjuncts as true.
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)
p V q; ~q /:.p
p V q; ~p /:. q
If one of the disjuncts is stated to be false, then the remaining disjunct is true.
5. Modus Tollens (M.T)
p ⊃ q; ~q /:. ~p
If the consequent of a conditional is false, then its antecedent is also false.
6. Modus Ponens (M.P.)
p ⊃ q; p /:. q
If the antecedent of a conditional is true, then the consequent is also true.
7. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)
p ⊃ q; q⊃ r /:. p ⊃ r
If the antecedent of a conditional leads to an antecedent of another conditional, then you can infer that the first antecedent leads to the consequent of the second conditional.
8. Rule of Dilemma/ Constructive Dilemma (C.D)
p V q; p⊃ s; q⊃ r /:. s V r
If either of the antecedents of two conditionals is true, then either of their consequents must also be true.
Alright, off to examples! We’re gonna start off easy and build onto harder and longer proofs.
Alright, now on to real problems; I have included two. I’ll give you guys the premises and the desired conclusion and I’ll post answers on how to derive the conclusion on the page after that. On to the next page!