Snappybeep/boop
Join !friendsofsnappy
3yr ago#244888
spent 0 currency on pings
The argument is that while it's possible to argue for some entity in Tolkien's cosmos to be known to be "transgender" due to a corruption of their nature, whether or not their "transgenderness" is inherently a quality of their nature or a corruption of their nature is inscrutable to all but the entity themselves and possibly IlΓΊvatar, but that even if some other entity perceives it to be due to corruption, that per IlΓΊvatar (or this narrator's representations of the words of IlΓΊvatar, being the narration given by Pengolodh), that such is mere perception, and that ultimately all that which Men do translates to the completion and perfection of the work.
That Men (those of the race of Men) have a necessary inherent quality which redeems them and their actions, a part of their nature which they express (and which, in our parlance, no one can judge). Even the Creator refuses to condemn it - only celebrates it.
And IMNSHO Pengolodh (the narrator) is Tolkien's self-insert for the purpose of narration.
So "trans people don't exist / aren't valid" isn't an argument from axioms in the universe of Middle Earth. That's related to, but separate from, "here's a trans person in Middle Earth", which to my knowledge isn't in evidence. I want to be argued away from that / be proven wrong.
I wrote the analysis because using Tolkien's Middle Earth to say "Tolkien says trans rights" is using his cosmos as an allegory, which he alternately declaims and claims (the "it's not an allegory to WWII" claim and the "It's the story of Christianity in an alternate universe" claim - both detailed elsewhere). So it's a viable avenue of argumentation - if he's going to deconstruct and then orthogonalise the precepts of Christianity into an alternate history, then we can deconstruct and orthogonalise the precepts of that cosmogony back to ours.
No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
No doxxing.
Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
If you post screenshots of publicly-available content, make sure to also include links.
Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
Absolutely NO misgendering.
Absolutely NO antisemitism.
Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
You are encouraged to egg people on to transition or otherwise make drastic life changes.
This site is a janny playground, participation implies enthusiastic consent to being janny abused by unstable alcoholic bullies who have nothing better to do than banning you for any reason or no reason whatsoever (MODS = GODS)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The argument is that while it's possible to argue for some entity in Tolkien's cosmos to be known to be "transgender" due to a corruption of their nature, whether or not their "transgenderness" is inherently a quality of their nature or a corruption of their nature is inscrutable to all but the entity themselves and possibly IlΓΊvatar, but that even if some other entity perceives it to be due to corruption, that per IlΓΊvatar (or this narrator's representations of the words of IlΓΊvatar, being the narration given by Pengolodh), that such is mere perception, and that ultimately all that which Men do translates to the completion and perfection of the work.
That Men (those of the race of Men) have a necessary inherent quality which redeems them and their actions, a part of their nature which they express (and which, in our parlance, no one can judge). Even the Creator refuses to condemn it - only celebrates it.
And IMNSHO Pengolodh (the narrator) is Tolkien's self-insert for the purpose of narration.
So "trans people don't exist / aren't valid" isn't an argument from axioms in the universe of Middle Earth. That's related to, but separate from, "here's a trans person in Middle Earth", which to my knowledge isn't in evidence. I want to be argued away from that / be proven wrong.
I wrote the analysis because using Tolkien's Middle Earth to say "Tolkien says trans rights" is using his cosmos as an allegory, which he alternately declaims and claims (the "it's not an allegory to WWII" claim and the "It's the story of Christianity in an alternate universe" claim - both detailed elsewhere). So it's a viable avenue of argumentation - if he's going to deconstruct and then orthogonalise the precepts of Christianity into an alternate history, then we can deconstruct and orthogonalise the precepts of that cosmogony back to ours.
Snapshots:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context