#and i think the problem is with adhering to a strict binary | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ardenttheories · 4 years

Text

turnfagshithead replied to your post “I'm honestly very close to writing a post on how the trolls coming out...”

wait dont the trolls have both slimey dicks and coochies or am i misremembering something??? how would they transition??? how would...they have an assigned assigned assigned gender?

They do, and that’s part of the problem.

In a species with sexual dimorphism, males and females are determined by the characteristics that define their sex - most prominently that males have penises and females have vaginas, but it can also include things such as antlers on bucks or brightly coloured feathers on birds.

This distinction is used to understand which member of the species hosts the babies, essentially, and which fertilises the eggs. It’s an important distinction only in so far as it’s important for the propogation of the species, and (for instance) in the wild, you’d need to keep an eye on the ratio of males to females to ensure that you have a stable population.

(This is also how you can calculate if a species is going extinct or not. Not only can you take into account the general population drop, but also if there are enough males/females to breed without the issue of inbreeding.)

The problem with sexual dimorphism in a developed and sentient society, however, is that we then start putting values of importance on one sex over the other. This is where you get the concept that “men are the superior species and women are the frail sex”, because testosterone allows for an easier time creating muscle mass and because (as a general rule of thumb) men tend to be taller. It’s also what allows for the perpetuation of male aggressiveness, and the oppression of women through supposed “biological” fact. We then enforce these concepts as assigned gender.

The point of this being, of course, that when you make a society structured entirely around the genitalia someone has and whether or not that makes them capable within your society, people are going to start fighting back against those structures. E.g. butch lesbians, who are considered to portray more masculine traits, or femme gays, who do the same but for feminine traits. They begin to act “outside” of their assigned sex, which honestly just means “outside of the way society has structured and understood sex to work”, because all sexual dimorphism actually does is state the whole baby thing. There’s no other implications to sexual dimorphism than what we put onto it.

So, as an intelligent species, we then have the ability to consider the gendered structure of our society and decide that it’s not sufficient. It’s also just our prerogative to understand what “gender” as a concept is, and to figure out what we think or feel about the sex we were born with and how it conflicts or agrees with how we understand ourselves. This, naturally, is when you start to see trans identities coming forward!

In our society, where we present sexual dimorphism, being trans is a legitimate event because our sex doesn’t always align with our gender expression. Someone can come out a transmasc because we have a specific set of biological, physical, and society factors that make up what a “man” is, and we have ways to help someone transition from one state of sexual dimorphism to another. We also simply have ways to express our gender identities outside of transitioning, since once we undersand that our gender identity can be anything regarding our sex and how we societally view it, you can start considering nonbinary identities as well.

Or, I suppose to put it more simply, we can transition because there’s something to transition from and to - but we can also just disconnect our sexual dimorphism from our own understanding of us.

The trolls, however, aren’t a species that present sexual dimorphism. I’ve gone over this before, actually, and you can probably find it on my blog under “#homestuck biology”, but the gist of it is that:

As a species based heavily on insects (which have a different gender system based on their roles in the hive), with an outside factor that allows them to breed (the Mother Grub), and with a canonical explanation that every troll has a nook (vagina) and a bulge (penis) that is only used for sexual gratification/the creation of the genetic slurry and isn’t used to have the species birth their own young, there’s literally no reason for sexual dimorphism to exist within the trolls.

It’s at this point in reading that you usually click with the idea that Hussie didn’t know how to write a species that didn’t adhere to a strict male-female divide. It’s not surprising, as a cis male, that he immediately leant towards what he knew: girls and boys, with the girls having tits (and most of the time, lipstick) so that you can recognise them as girls. It’s a fairly solid choice in a cis viewpoint. Not so much from a trans one, and definitely not when you then consider the actual lore he provided with us to begin with.

Trolls quite literally cannot transition - not in the way we understand it. There is no male sex or female sex, and therefore they’re not transitioning from one thing to another. There’s not even an inherently strict binary that they can then exist outside of (or on a spectrum of) that allows for nonbinary identities as we understand it. In all technicality, there shouldn’t even be a male-female divide in the trolls at all - it serves genuinely no purpose in a species that doesn’t bare their own young and doesn’t have sexual dimorphism as a result.

So, there’s this really big issue when the writers then try to say that the various characters are trans, or that they do or don’t face transphobia. Why would Vriska have a dead name? Why would that name be gendered when there’s nothing to inherently define her as male or female? Why would her lusus - or Eridan’s, for that matter - care what pronouns their charges use when there’s nothing to state what assigned sex or gender they are? Why would these trolls face anything like the genuine transphobia we experience in daily life in a society that has no structures built around gender presentation?

It comes across as very fake and hollow. No, Vriska and Eridan and Sollux can’t be trans. They quite literally cannot understand what it means to be trans, to have an assigned sex that determines everything that people who see you believe of you. They do not know what it is like to be misgendered on face value because of a lack of tits or because of facial hair, or becuse of a rounded or sharper jawline. These differences just don’t exist for them. They do not face the same experiences or the same issues that trans people do. Trying to force our identities onto them - onto their society - waters down the issues we face in real life.

It also just ruins the actual lore behind the trolls and their biology, and the fact that we could have had an entirely different understanding of gender and gender expression shown through their society.

It’s like, great that they’re trying to give us representation through the trolls, and I’ll admit that it’s nice to see the attempt done at all, but it’s quite literally only being done because a cis man could not imagine a society without sexual dimorphism and the effect that would have on the society’s gender expression.

#turnfagshithead #homestuck critical #long post//#ardenttheories #homestuck biology

77 notes · View notes

themadcapmathematician · 4 years

Text

I think a huge part of the problem when it comes to falling for ideas like that transm.eds accept nb ppl or that androgynous nb ppl are gender conforming or w/e is people dont actually understand the social issues and theory about gender identity that make being nonbinary possible - namely, that you have to junk the whole binary gender system for us to exist and live safely and happily. We exist outside of the binary, inherently, it's impossible for a society that adheres to a worldview of strict binary gender to accept us and integrate us into itself. It tries maybe, but it can't succeed. And being nonbinary means it's really hard to maintain the illusion of thinking that could ever possibly be the case, as much as we all try to varying degrees

That means that it's not enough to say you accept us, or do things like not misgendering us and remembering to draw our flag during pride; at some point you have to start thinking Big Picture if you care about our rights and safety at all, and that means challenging the things you were taught about gender and changing your view on some of those things. It means realizing its not enough to make small changes to integrate us - those are just fine and dandy, but at the end of the day they wont be enough to protect and accept us. A society that organizes its people using a strict adherence to binary gender, or a strict adherence to gender at all, will always be hostile to nonbinary people

#actually nonbinary #nonbinary #nb #genderqueer #actually nb #madcap rants #lgbtq #nbphobia #lgbt #transgender

34 notes · View notes

eruthiawenluin · 5 years

Text

Probably because trans exclusionary radical feminism is an ideology and not a state of being ?? You don’t morph into a gay man just because you reblog from one. But you can accept ideas when you reblog them. Science might be a hard thing for you to grasp, but your brain stores information.

I so love getting vagued (/Sarcasm), but it’s much better than being liked or tolerated by this bunch. Obviously you think trans exclusionary radical feminism isn’t transphobic, so you can just admit you’re a terf, right??? No problem???

First of all, this shit could’ve just not picked up my post to begin with. But she’s a terf and they’re a pushy, conservative bunch. It’s sad but I’ve met a few Republican lesbians in my lifetime, and that’s what this is. Someone who’s so intent on bringing down another minority, she’s fine with damning herself and others along the way. That’s how Trump got almost as many votes as Hillary— he appealed to the hatred of EVERY group, so that even hated minorities would be pulled in by their hate of others. We all saw it happen. Trump assaulted women, but he got 53% of white women’s vote. We saw white gay men campaigning for him, and antisemitism at a Chicago women’s march (squints at OP’s name).

Also, love how she’s saying trans and nb is white and westernized (as if a couple sjw-sounding phrases are going to change the root of the argument) when the strict gender binary that’s currently enforced in westernized countries is… western. And specifically western, because not a lot of places even had these ideals of what’s attractive in women and attractive in men. Ever notice how having a lot of hair is so hated here, or girls being big? And I mean, a shitload of non-white cultures have more than 2 genders and trans people, and it’s been recorded for thousands of years. And it’s white people who have tried to erase that history. But sure, sure, it’s all white people who are trans or nb, even though it’s western cultures who historically oppress them, and then spread it everywhere else like a disease (which they spread a whole lot of, too). Real-life people are a much better sample size than whatever you’re getting! Your blog has selfies of a random trans girl who’s apparently, in your eyes, not performing femininity well enough to “count,” and you say “they all look like this.” Which is a lot to unpack, for someone who “cares” about women and sexism. And don’t get me wrong, I’m sure you have actually seen a lot of the diverse and beautiful trans people in the collective of Tumblr, and you chose one who doesn’t adhere to your idea of femininity enough because you needed easy pickings to justify your gross agenda! I get it, I do. It’s just that you literally have no positive beliefs besides women’s sexual freedom, and even then it’s not about freedom, it’s about exclusion. So it’s safe to say that although, like I said, straight skinny people are going to get the spotlight, the community is much more diverse than what you’re going to see on tv or wherever you get your ideas from. And you can’t use cishets’ idea of what a trans person should be to claim that’s what all trans people are.

Implying that I’m a non-gay policing gay folks in your response earlier is kinda funny, too. I’m not gay enough, apparently, even though I’m afab, even if I’m using they/them! The “biological males” aren’t gay enough, because to you, everyone’s self is based on what role they play in reproduction. You’re acting on the idea that hetero is the default, and you don’t even know it! I don’t like to throw the word pathetic around buuuuut. Well, when you get this swept into an ideology that it becomes your whole identity, you’re lost.

Anyways, don’t give her or any of these other terfs any attention, don’t respond, it just gives them more room to talk. I responded and I just got more of her piss on my post. Just block, vague, inform, and move on. She can have fun living in a bubble, but I’m not having any sort of conversation with her. Instead, you should look at this post and ask yourself if you’re doing any of these things, and how you can improve.

Example:

She reblogs things from radfems, you can blacklist the tag to make sure you don’t do that. Even if you don’t know it, you might be taking in their rhetoric.

You can also make sure you’re not being pulled in by anything like “Well, trans/nb people are actually oppressing X group” like she does here regarding poc, women, and lesbians. Alternatively, blaming that group for the actions of conservative Christians. (“They’re the reason conservatives think sexuality is a choice!” That kind of thing.)

Be wary of dogwhistles, such as reference to biological sex, unnecessary use of male/female (especially paired with homosexual, which they use to emphasize the sex bit), shifty opinions on what gender is, calling people homophobes without stating why that is (the “homophobe” is probably trans or anti-terf), and generally speaking on everyone’s behalf.

Watch for argumentative tactics recycled from your typical right-wingers, like rephrasing any debate into the kind of language above^, not addressing the questions and instead moving on to dismissal, dogpiling, hints at any kind of exclusionism, etc. Sometimes people don’t want to give away what they are, they just want their opinions to spread. A lot of people who are exclusionary of bi, ace, pan, and nb people end up becoming terfs.

Feel free to add on.

Just because they use leftist language doesn’t mean that what they’re advocating is leftist. There are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

#tw terf #tw enbyphobia #tw transmisogyny #tw transphobia #tw discourse #tw homophobia #tw sexism #tw misogyny #my stuff #not spn

4 notes · View notes

bravestage-blog · 6 years

Text

The Dangers of Binary Identity Structures in the LGBTQ+ Community

Note: At the end of the post, I have included a glossary of terms which explain some of the identities that I reference.

The LGBTQ+ community is a complex group of individuals with a variety of different identities, experiences, and opinions. While mainstream media and individuals outside of the community often like to talk about queer experience as a monolithic entity, this practice fails to acknowledge both the diversity and hierarchical systems which exist specifically within this community. Intersectionality is a crucial thing to consider when examining the experiences of people, whether they are members of the LGBTQ+ community or not. The overlap of race, class, ability status, sexuality, and more all tie in to how we, as human beings, experience life. While our societal issues of racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, and more are commonly associated with conservative values, they are by no means absent from the LGBTQ+ community. While these are complex, multi-faceted issues, they are crucial to understand because they develop structures of power and oppression within our world. Different societies have different norms and acceptable behaviors put forth by groups in power. Today, I would like to discuss a norm which permeates the general perspective of identity: the binary.

The insistence on binary systems, both generally in our country and more specifically within the queer community, is both problematic and diminishing to individuals with more fluid identities. This post will delve into binary structures and attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community which impact the experience of bisexual, pansexual, and queer sexualities, as well as trans//non-binary gender identities. My argument ultimately discourages binary-only thinking. It examines the dangers of binary norms which further marginalize and alienate people who exist along a spectrum, rather than at the ends of it. Such issues remain prevalent even within a community that is supposed to protect and validate queer identity. I believe that commitment to binary systems and rejection of fluid identity ultimately hinders our ability to grow, open our minds, and understand one another. It is counterproductive and illogical to put people into boxes, especially within the already marginalized LGBTQ+ community.

When I speak of the hierarchies which exist within the queer community, I refer primarily to the influence possessed by white, cisgender* gays and lesbians. There are plenty of queer individuals who exist within a binary themselves, and that is their truth. But that reality does not apply to other LGBTQ+ individuals, and should not be forced upon them. The experiences of bisexuals within the queer community is perhaps the most frequently discussed example. Their experience can best be summarized from Youtube channel “Bisexual Real Talk.” Alex Anders makes the important point that “Every time we tell young people who are bisexual to go and search the LGBT community, we are creating certain expectations in their mind. And what do you think does more damage: when a person who knows they are going to be discriminated in a certain group and then gets discriminated in that group, or when a person is told that they will be able to find solace in a group and they lower their guard and then they’re discriminated against?” This statement perfectly frames an ongoing issue within the queer community.

A variety of studies have been conducted surrounding biphobia in LGBTQ+ spaces. As a bit of explanation: “biphobia seeks to undermine the legitimacy of bisexual identities and comes in many forms: jokes, stereotypes, non-inclusive language and even abuse. The fear of being dismissed as “too gay” or “too straight” often makes it hard to be open” (HRC). In a study conducted by Corey E. Flanders at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, “Many of the participants reported not only encountering professionals who were clueless about bisexuality, but also feeling unwanted at Pride events just for being bisexual. The results indicated “young bisexual women perceive monosexism and biphobia as significant challenges to their mental health at the institutional, community, interpersonal and intrapersonal level” (Flanders). Additionally, a study by Tangela S. Roberts and Sharon G. Horne of the University of Massachusetts, and William T. Hoyt of the University of Wisconsin surveyed 745 bisexuals of various ages, genders, and ethnicities to share their stories of experiencing biphobia. The study found that “although the bisexuals surveyed experienced more biphobia from straight people, they also experienced an alarming amount of biphobia from lesbians and gays” (Roberts). A common argument that people, queer and otherwise, like to make about bisexual individuals is that they are confused. There is an idea surrounding bisexuality that women just experimenting or men are gay but afraid to fully commit. While this mentality is shifting, it is still undeniably present among queer and straight people alike. Hurtful terminology within the LGBTQ+ community has even developed surrounding the bisexual identity. Pride.com created a list of terms/phrases used by gays and lesbians against bisexuals. Examples include “Hasbian,” and “bi now, gay later.” Terms like this suggest that bisexuality is a transitional phase which people use to ease themselves into the queer community before assuming a “real” identity, which falls within the binary of either gay or straight. So, why does this matter so much? According to the Bisexual Resource Center, approximately 40 percent of bisexual people have considered or attempted suicide, compared to just over a quarter of gay men and lesbians. Additionally, according to The Williams Institute, “bisexual-identified people make up approximately half of the total population of the LGBTQ community — but only 28 percent of bisexual people report being out to those closest to them.” This represents a clear, pressing issue on the dangers of binary identity structures and biphobia.Biphobia is closely related to “monosexism,” which is “a belief that monosexuality (either exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality) is superior to or more legitimate than a bisexual or other non-monosexual orientation” (Everyday Feminism). Monosexism also invalidates pansexual* and other queer sexualities that are not as binary as gay or straight. While binary sexuality research has primarily focused on bisexuals, there is also the experience of transgender* and non-binary* individuals to consider.

Discussions of transgender identity have been a more prominent topic of conversation in the United States over the last couple of years. The ongoing debate argues whether or not there are more than two genders. Many people, within and outside of the LGBTQ+ community, believe that the body that we are born into dictates our gender and how we are supposed to act/present ourselves. This is again representative of binary identity modeling. Transgender and non-binary identities exist contrary to this mindset. Transphobia is a huge problem in the LGBTQ+ community, despite the T representing transgender people. Pride, a well-known celebration for the queer community, is meant to commemorate the transgender-led Stonewall Riots back in the 1960s. However, transgender people are often forgotten in these celebrations today. Trans and non-binary individuals do not receive nearly as much support or recognition within the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, such individuals are struggling at alarming rates. According to the New York Times, a recent survey of more than six thousand self-identified transgender people showed that 41 percent have attempted suicide, a staggering twenty-six times the rate of the general population. There is conversation within the queer community that trans and non-binary people are “hurting the movement.” These people fail to acknowledge the work done by courageous trans women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, work that has greatly benefited the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

The common understanding of gender as a binary system is not one that includes all people. It is also one that leads to deeply rooted problems for queer and straight individuals alike. Strict adherence to a gender binary and, subsequently, gender roles, can perpetuate issues of misogyny, hypermasculinity, domestic violence, homophobia, transphobia, and more.Identifying within the binary is not the problem. The problem is believing solely in the binary. It is the belief that things must only be one way or the other which complicates and oppresses individuals in many ways. Existing in the binary model may work for many of us, but forcing it onto other people is neither fair nor beneficial. Humans are not meant to be diminished into narrow categories with little room for expansion or exploration. We should not be limited by binaries, especially surrounding gender or sexuality.

If the LGBTQ+ community really wants to advocate for acceptance, equality, and human rights, then it needs to extend it’s fight to all of the individuals who exist within the community. This means acknowledging non-binary sexualities and gender identities, acknowledging race, and, ultimately, acknowledging the intersectional nature of human existence. Empathy and openmindedness are crucial to the fight which the queer community continues to advocate for. Feeling a sense of community with those who are similar to you is crucial for support, happiness, and general wellbeing. For this reason, my “Spread the Word” project will delve further into the queer community and how a hierarchy exists even within this marginalized group. Ultimately, I hope that people who get to view parts of this project can identify with or learn something new from the experiences I highlight and examine. To fellow LGBTQ+ individuals: if we cannot look out for each other, how can we expect people outside our community to look out for us? We must fix the problems within our own spaces and find unity if we truly hope for change in our world. Erasing the binary-only mentality is a great way to begin such reforms.

Vocabulary:

Cisgender: identifying with the anatomical sex that you were assigned at birth (a physical male identifying as a man, a physical female identifying as a woman)

Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not align with your anatomical sex at birth (someone who is assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman, someone who is assigned female at birth who identifies as a man)

Genderqueer or non-binary: people who do not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identify with neither, both, or a combination of masculinity and femininity

Bisexual: sexual attraction towards two or more genders (attracted most commonly to cisgender men and cisgender women)

Pansexual: sexual attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

Queer: a reclaimed term used by LGBTQ+ individuals to describe themselves (in terms of sexuality and/or gender identity)

#mine #writing

1 note · View note

aridara · 6 years

Note

have you ever considered your rejection of science invalidates trans ppl? like it could be used to erase our dysphoria and deny medical assistance for us to transition. why do you think sex changes are a thing most trans ppl want?? it sounds like being trans is something we should be ashamed of, like someone with a different agab is bad until they make themselves sound cis. is a dfab boy not as much a boy as a dmab boy? don't i deserve to be on t? is it ok periods make me dysphoric?

have you ever considered your rejection of science invalidates trans ppl?

Science rejects the idea of a strict sex binary.

like it could be used to erase our dysphoria and deny medical assistance for us to transition.

It looks like the problem is “Doctors are convinced you need dysphoria to request a transition, and specifically”.The solution would be “Teach those doctors they’re fucking wrong. You don’t ask someone if they have body dysphoria before going into surgery, why the fuck do you ask trans people.”

why do you think sex changes are a thing most trans ppl want??

AFAIK, for many of them it’s because of body dysphoria.For some of them, though, is because transphobes refuse to treat them as their own identity unless they super-adhere to femininity/masculinity. You know:

TRANSPHOBE: “Trans women don’t act female, that’s proof that they’re really men who badly pretend to be female.” *twirl* “Trans women act stereotypically female, that’s proof that they’re really men who pretend to be what they think is female”.

it sounds like being trans is something we should be ashamed of, like someone with a different agab is bad until they make themselves sound cis.

See the above. Transphobes gang up on any trans people they suspect to be such. For example, the only options they leave to trans women is to:

Give up on being considered a woman, keep acting stereotypically masculine so nobody suspects they’re a trans woman; or

Transition as much as possible (regardless of how much they’d like to), and act stereotypically feminine so nobody suspects they’re a trans woman.

is a dfab boy not as much a boy as a dmab boy?

A dfab boy is as much a boy as a dmab boy.

don't i deserve to be on t?

Yes, you do.

is it ok periods make me dysphoric?

Yes? I don’t really know how you feel about your dysphoria. If you feel that it’s a problem that needs to be solved via transition, then that’s what you need, and that’s ok.

1 note · View note

zabdielorozcooo-blog · 5 years

Text

Blog Post for Educational Reform

Hello! My name is Zabdiel Orozco, a student at Seminole State University. This semester, I have been conducting research on the topic of “Is Our Educational System Failing Us”. If you are seeking a summary of my work, I will supply an over-arching conclusion at the end in addition to my responses to common criticisms. To be forthright, my preexisting experiences and understandings lead me to believe that our educational system is outdated given its focus on unhealthy, comparative assessment techniques, as well as its increased transformation into a for-profit venture.

My research thus far has reinforced this perspective as multiple studies have shown that imposed costs of schooling demonstratable impede the pursuit of higher education.(“A Study on Effects of and Stance over Tuition Fees” by Yassin Karay and Jan Matthes, and “The Schools Aren’t Broken, They’re Outdated” by Arthur Levine). I have also found rebuttals to those notions in Stephen M. Krason’s “What’s Wrong with Guaranteeing a Free College Education?” and Vince Norton’s “Why Free College Is a Bad Idea”. These rebuttals have helped me develop my stance and have offered some possible consequences of free college that I would like to consider in my final reflection. The sources that support my perspective will be acknowledged in the AFFIRMATIVE section of this post; the rebuttals will be referred to in the OPPOSITION section and addressed in my conclusion.

AFFIRMATIVE:

It was suspected that tuition fees influenced study duration and student enrollment, and it was uncertain whether there were benefits to its existence. Yassin Karay and Jan Matthes of the medical departments of the University of Cologne tested this hypothesis by analyzing the success of 1,324 students for putative influences of tuition fees. Their studies found that students affected by tuition fees were less likely to attend courses as scheduled due to the “increased need to pursue a sideline”; students were forced to find jobs to pay their school fees, ultimately disrupting their schedule and oftentimes barring them from attending classes. When surveyed, a mere 29% of non-payers (those exempt from fees) and 27% of payers believed their schooling was effectively improved by tuition fees. Being an example of the effects of imposed tuition, I believe tuition hampers the pursuit of knowledge.

Arthur Levine’s “The Schools Aren’t Broken, They’re Outdated” tackles other factors of schooling that may be affecting the success of students. He argues that public education is being treated as the next for-profit venture, just like the health-care industry has been; “Rather than educators, New York City and Chicago have hired businessmen.” We have attempted to address the issues with public education by raising tuition, introducing more rigorous requirements for teachers, firing underperforming workers, and “[throwing] out the rascals” in politics via term limits and in education by eliminating tenure. We have deepened our educational underperformance by blaming staff and students, and by raising costs. Instead, we should allocate resources towards supporting students through their financial, mental and emotional needs, as well as update our curricula to suit modern standards and subjects.

OPPOSITION:

In his publication, Stephen M. Krason claims free education may be an attractive idea, but will likely result in multitudes of problems. This includes the notion that free college will belittle the work of taxpayers in-that their hard work will allow students to have a free chance to advance far beyond them. In addition, the expected return of investment in college graduates to society is not certain, and if a return on the initial investment is the criterion, he proposes we should instead subsidize or favor activities that would provide more reliable results. Accessibility would also turn higher education into an imperative, thus pressuring people to earn a college degree even more than they are now. As far as the monetary concern of tuition goes, he provides the example of California, stating they “had to impose tuition and student fees for the obvious reason that the financial burden on the state became too great.” These are very good points that deviate from the strict statistics I have been researching, and their examination will be of the utmost importance.

Vince Norton’s “Why Free College Is a Bad Idea” provides seven reasons why free college is a bad idea: private colleges will suffer enrollment declines, student loan defaults and property taxes will increase, completion rates and student persistence will decrease, and free college does not address occupational shortages or student loan debt. Norton believes that free tuition has “the potential to undermine persistence” considering colleges charge tuition when a student repeats a course. He also explains that students will still need to take loans for the cost of attendance, which is a cost much greater than that of tuition. With their importance, these possible consequences of free college require rigorous consideration given that my affirmative sources cannot dispute many of these points. However, his sources do not directly support his arguments: the current graduation rate at SUNY colleges says nothing about the potential graduation rate of a future with free college and does not consider the exact reasoning as to why students in public schools are failing more than those at private institutions. It is likely that private institutions achieve higher graduation rates simply due to the socioeconomic status of students who can afford attending them. We can also correct the pitfalls of student debt by teaching them how to manage their finances (among other essential life-skills) within our expanded and updated curriculum.

CONCLUSION:

Knowledge is a priority in the advancement of human civilization; educational reform will benefit society as a whole, including those not directly participating in free college. Moreover, we should not levy the burden of free college onto the average taxpayer: we need to reprioritize national spending and disallow a handful of individuals to hoard most of our country’s wealth.

As a rebuttal to the argument of higher dropout rates considering the absence of loss aversion, we should consider why these students are dropping out aside from a lower or nonexistent tuition. It is likely that the existing dropout rate of public institutions is higher than that of private institutions simply because of the socioeconomic status of students who can afford attending private universities.

Studies such as Public Agenda’s “With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them” find the leading cause for college dropouts to be work induced stress (71% of dropouts accord to their given sample). Tuition is just a fraction of overall college expenses, so the issue of working while studying is not completely accounted for in these free tuition criticisms. We have deepened our educational underperformance by blaming staff and students, and by raising costs. Instead, we should allocate resources towards supporting students through their financial, mental and emotional needs, as well as update our curricula to suit modern standards and subjects.

Studies show that tuition costs ultimately hamper students’ abilities to attend college or adhere to a school schedule due to the need to work against the costs of schooling. This imposed stress/interference directly impedes education, and although free tuition is not a fully exhaustive solution to educational issues, it is an important first step. We can freely observe the benefits in states that have already embraced free college: the Tennessean has published that—since adopting the statewide program—3,257 students in the 2015 cohort have earned a degree or certificate within five semesters, which is an 82% increase over those in the 2014 cohort (before the application of free tuition).

My research has led me to believe that the argument of free college is not so binary as we think; it seems as though there are more factors to consider than just the correlation between increased dropout rates and lower/free tuition. To come to a conclusion that considers all possible factors, we should evaluate how students are impacted by the cost of living/having to work, their home and/or learning environment, the pressure of performance, et cetera. However, although studies seem to indicate that tuition is detrimental to a student’s ability to learn, it is important to consider the consequences of free college as well: Krason raises an important point in-that free college will pressure people to earn a college degree even more than they are now, and I would have to examine Norton’s points, especially when he states that free college does not address occupational shortages.

If you have any facts, opinions, or perspectives that I have not properly acknowledged, please feel free to send them my way! I would love nothing more than to inform my position on the subject of education, so I am perfectly willing to conversate about any perspective.

Works Cited

Agenda, Public. With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them , Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 9 Dec. 2009, www.publicagenda.org/pages/with-their-whole-lives-ahead-of-them-reality-1.

Gonzales, Jason. “Community College Graduation Rates Jumped after Tennessee Promise, Numbers Show.” The Tennessean, The Tennessean, 11 May 2018, www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2018/05/11/community-college-graduation-rates-jumped-after-tennessee-promise-numbers-show/603257002/.

Karay, Yassin, and Jan Matthes. “A Study on Effects of and Stance over Tuition Fees.” GMS Journal for Medical Education, vol. 33, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 1–15. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3205/zma001005.

Krason, Stephen M. “What’s Wrong with Guaranteeing a Free College Education?” Catholic Social Science Review, vol. 22, Jan. 2017, pp. 395–398. EBSCOhost, db26.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=124789147&site=ehost-live.

Levine, Arthur. “The Schools Aren't Broken, They're Outdated.” Teachers College - Columbia University, 10 Sept. 2000, www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2000/september/the-schools-arent-broken-theyre-outdated/.

Norton, Vince. “Why Free College Is a Bad Idea.” Norton Norris, 16 Mar. 2018, nortonnorris.com/free-college-bad-idea/.

0 notes

click2watch · 5 years

Text

19 Words Prove Just How Audacious Bitcoin Really Was

Richard Gendal Brown is CTO at R3.

This exclusive opinion piece is part of CoinDesk’s “Bitcoin at 10: The Satoshi White Paper” series.

There is a phenomenon in anthropology called the “Cargo Cult.” It was first observed in Melanesia in the late 19th century and most famously chronicled after World War II when remote Pacific tribes created pastiche airplane runways and mimicked long-departed air-traffic controllers in attempts to stimulate the return of military airdrops.

Cargo-culting consists of groups of people mistaking form for substance, latching on to an easily visible concept without understanding the underlying reason for its existence.

As we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the email that announced the birth of bitcoin, I have been reflecting on the prevalence of cargo-cults in the blockchain industry, what caused them and what we should do about it.

For example, many of the first business blockchain platforms broadcast all data to all participants, or coarsely-defined subgroups of participants. This isn’t how business works – contracts should be private of course. But full broadcast was how bitcoin did it so it sometimes felt like those platforms ‘cargo-culted’ the same concept, even though it made perfect sense for Bitcoin but absolutely no sense at all for business. They have since revised their designs but, as a community, we should ask ourselves: how did that happen? Can we do better in the future?

Similarly, many business blockchain platforms run on something called the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and require developers to program in a language called Solidity. Not because businesses want to learn entirely new languages but because that’s how ethereum did it.

The problem is that, whilst the EVM was an amazing achievement, it was only ever a temporary stopgap: the Ethereum community publicly plan to abandon it in the near future. So it’s hard to think of a reason for adopting it for entirely unrelated purposes, except perhaps for reasons of cargo-culting. This has real consequences: learning new languages costs money and technical decisions made by businesses last for a long time.

If these EVM-based business blockchains take root, one could imagine the world’s business ecosystem could be running the EVM long after the platform for which it was invented had moved on!

This slavish adherence to one specific solution to one specific problem even extends to a core tenet of the enterprise blockchain revolution: the existence of blocks.

Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t wake up one morning thinking: “What the world really needs is for transactions to be batched up and confirmed slowly in blocks!” No, bitcoin is a batch system because physical reality – the speed of light – means it’s impossible to design it any other way if you also want to achieve the system’s design goals around pseudonymous cryptoeconomically-intentivised consensus.

If Satoshi could have built a real-time system he would have done so.

So if you don’t have some of bitcoin’s requirements, what’s the argument for why your solution should look identical and work like a 1960s batch mainframe computer?

An Example to Strive For

I’ve long argued that the world of enterprise blockchains will consolidate far faster than anybody expects, that a “day of reckoning” is coming. On this, the 10th anniversary of the paper that sparked bitcoin, we can, perhaps, use a worked example to see what we can learn from how Satoshi approached this question of design, a design that was truly novel, and free from cargo-culting.

Reproduced below is the email that announced the birth of the entire project. Its first line reads: “I’ve been working on a new electronic cash system that’s fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.”

With that deceptively simple sentence, Satoshi Nakamoto announced the arrival of Bitcoin.

Captured in those 19 words was what amounted to a precise requirements specification. Not a cargo-culted replication of an inappropriate idea from the past, but a specific set of requirements, from which a specific design then followed.

Let’s unpack some of those words to see how Satoshi did it.

Fully peer-to-peer: so no central computers.

No trusted third party: so the electronic cash must be intrinsic to the platform. (Otherwise you would have to trust the issuer.)

This also explains why there is such a focus on network participants running their own nodes: if you can’t rely on software you operate and control, then you’d be reliant on a trusted third party.

Perhaps more importantly, the lack of a trusted third party also implies that the transaction confirmation providers – miners – cannot be forced to be identified or else the need for an identify provider reintroduces a trusted third party through the back door.

This deliberate absence of real-world identities means you can’t implement “one participant one vote” so you need some other way to link to the real world. This leads to proof-of-work that layers one confirmation on top of the last which, in turn, means you have to give time for confirmations to propagate around the world which, in turn, leads to a need for batching, and hence the confirmations must come in the form of blocks. And so forth.

It’s only a small exaggeration to say that the entire architecture of bitcoin unfolds inevitably and relentlessly from those 19 words.

You work through the details and the whole architecture falls into place.

Risks and Choices

In sum, bitcoin is an amazingly elegant solution to a very well specified business problem.

It’s not without its problems, of course. And many of them are deep and fundamental: technical, environmental and cultural. But we can’t underplay the scale of Nakamoto’s achievement. Ten years on, the proliferation of “blockchain technology” would seem to suggest Nakamoto has been highly influential.

And yet… As I argued above, not all of the business blockchain platforms of today derive from a precise requirements specification and arduous engineering process. Instead, they feel very different. Some are, effectively, cargo-culted replicas of systems designed to solve very different problems.

The resolution of this problem lies in engineering.

To see what I mean, let’s look at Corda, the open-source blockchain platform my team supports and maintains, with the help of a large and growing open-source community. I don’t intend this piece to be a sales pitch – so I’ll say up front that there are problems to which Corda is an amazing solution… and problems for which is it not! Study it for yourself – and apply it where it makes sense.

But that is also my point: Corda is an engineered solution to a specific problem.

It so happens that Corda shares a lot in common with other blockchain platforms (cryptographically chained transactions, byzantine fault tolerant consensus options, massive scale and far more). But it also looks different in some fundamental regards.

As a result, we in the Corda community have been criticized for these seemingly unconventional design choices. But I believe this criticism was misplaced. The reason platforms like Corda look different is because they solve different problems and were engineered from the ground up to solve them. The differences are a feature, not a bug, so to speak.

For Corda, our mission is to enable people and firms to transact directly, with legal certainty, settlement finality, strict privacy, and total assurance that “what you see is what I see.” As a result, its design is different. For example, there is an identity layer, transactions are sent only to those with a need to receive them, transactions are confirmed one-at-a-time in real-time and so forth.

Those platforms that have identified a clear problem to solve and engineered a good solution to that problem are in rude health. Fresh off the back of the largest CordaCon ever, we head into 2019 with production deployments under our belts and large-scale adoption just ahead of us.

Thank you, Satoshi, for showing us the way.

Astronaut image via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '472218139648482'); fbq('init', '239547076708948'); fbq('track', "PageView"); This news post is collected from CoinDesk