Because I suppose what we've been trying to do so far is establish a language space that deliberately alienates anyone and anything that enforces the gender binary. Pretty simple. Really easy actually; pinpoint every harmonic lie on the map and structurally dismember them. Every word contains at least five. And each five is an enforcement of the perceived two, the double in parallel, one set against the other in a kind of elliptical tragedy that leaves you feeling constantly paralysed. That paralysis, we decided, is stupefaction. It is imposed stupefaction, because if each word in English and in a great many other languages (and sounds, glances, throttles, gestures etc) contains at least five points of false harmony, and each of those five points is contained between two, two harmonic falsities, agh fuck, you get stuck with these five hammering voices barrelling and echoing through your head, you feel dead of them, dead in them,,,,, surrounded,,, agh, lost in an attempt to decipher any vestige of truth whatsoever; confounded by the impossibility laid out by the primal stupidity of language, of bourgeois life and of protocol. Because we feel that, and we cannot understand it, we tend to abandon language. I mean the royal we. So becoming more and more confused by a clammer of desperate stupidity that nobody can relieve you from, you get caught trying to explain yourself over and over again, to your comrades and your enemies; because essentially you are now an example: A stabilising system for those locked in the binary of correct protocol and assurance. That's why so many trans* dialogues have become lodged in a system of correctly assembling language in order to describe the observable.
The observable is describable. That's a material fact. It's not often we'll make that bold a statement, but here we are. The observable is absolutely describable. This is a material fact that cannot be correctly argued against. But that is qualified only when we realise that the observable is tenuous, and the describable is a derivation of the observable, and therefore exponentially tenuous. As the subject (insofar as I am generally observed as a non-invisible member of society) I am exponentially more tenuous than both the observable and the describable, because by the process detailed above I am observed and described. Hence: the visibly trans* subject's general allocation is tenuously derived from two tenuous processes. This is, in part, our constant alienation from the trans* narrative. To play into the hands of the process described above is to draw a map of your life that looks something like this:
Who I am now vs who I was then.
Who I was then vs who I am now.
Who I am now alongside who I was then.
Who I was then alongside who I am now.
Who I am now determined by what I was then
and visa versa. What I am now against what I will be
What I will amount to dispelling the myths
of what I was then, or what I am now, peculiarised
by and into what I will be. What the fuck am I.
This is only one crude and confused configuration trying to explain and discredit what a trans* manifesto can actually do. I feel if anything things seem to be moving backwards, which is good for our safety. More people are coming towards an understanding, if not a rather clumsy one. The understanding is not what we are, but rather that we perhaps shouldn't be killed. Especially in a liberal country like this, where we might actually have some use. Documentaries, inspirations, Ted Talks. That's a synical glimpse. Perhaps alongside use there is also the fact of the seam bursting and bursting until it can no longer be contained in what it was once contained by. Thus a larger container. And if you really squeexe your face you'll start to realise how horrible the word 'transition' really is. Determined as it is by a start and a finish, a false double, something that contains at least five harmonic falsities on a liberal map of social reality. Perhaps this is why we have a fetish involving cages; everything impossible to communicate.
