Big Blog Post #2. Due Sunday 3 November @ 11:59PM; Comment Monday 4 November @ 11:59PM. The Impossible Dream: change somebody's mind about sex / gender / sexuality

Why do we need more sexes? Should there be an LGBT club in my high school?  Why should boys be 'allowed' to wear dresses?  Why should the US taxpayer pay for Chelsea Manning's HRT?  Should Melissa and Chip have supported Skylar's double mastectomy?  Should middle schoolers take puberty-blockers? Should medical insurance cover birth control?  HRT? (for older people? for trans people?  for anybody?)  How about Viagra?  How about abortions?  Should I modify my breasts?  When and why?  How about my pecs or my glutes?  Who pays for it?  Is a 'nose job' the same as a 'boob job'?  How?  Why? (and what about those ugly slang terms?)

In our last post we read (described) and theorized culture hard at work in constructing sex / gender / sexuality.  In this collaborative project, we'll engage the 'THIRD DIMENSION: CHANGING CULTURE.' (syllabus, 2) by exploring the ethical /moral / spiritual / political dimensions indexed by all the shoulds in the preceding questions.  

We probably won't change culture — yet.  But we'll be ready.  

Steven Crowder, Comedian and Fox News commentator offers this opinion piece on why 'waiting' (and total purity before a monogamous marriage) is a perfect fit with natural law.  He doesn't care if we like it, and he says so.  Read his complete piece HERE.

The Preparation:

• Find a powerful text or practice active in constructing sex / gender / sexuality.  It may be one you used for the previous post.  It may be several.  It can be different, entirely.

• Tease out and define the ethical /moral / spiritual / political dimensions involved.  What are the stakes?  Who cares (whose interests are at stake)?  How do you know—from the signification, the site of production, the assumed audience, the operating rules-and-regulations?  In short: from all the circuits of culture.

• Do it with a partner—and get both voices in. If you disagree, sketch out and clarify the terms. 

• Take a position. Find a small, manageable, concrete, specific part of your big issue that you think you can explain and get some agreement or understanding over.

• Do it theoretically—use our analytical apparatus and readings explicitly, extending our arguments and ideas.

And finally: The Deliverables:

Write it up as a illustrated, theorized, smart, passionate position statement explaining why your view should hold, addressing an audience who doesn't share your view: doesn't care, doesn't understand, doesn't like, hates — or otherwise was sitting across the room from you when we did our initial 'trans' spectrum. The goal is to try to convince or establish empathy—even though Robin has written that it usually doesn't work.

 It could look like a long letter-to-the editor (about a piece the Strib ran, say).  It could look like that piece — an editorial.  It could look like a letter to your Dad.  Or to a friend's Dad.  Or to your Pastor.  Or your school Principle.  It COULD even go to the Daily (extra credit if you can make it real).  

HOW WE'LL GRADE YOUR WORK: 

The Project is worth up to 10 points toward the final grade.  We will grade you as a team in the first two categories, and individually in the third.  (As always, everything will be curved, and we will report the results.)  The points will be divided as follows:  

Illustrations (the stuff and your account of it) (up to 4 points):  What did you find, and how well did you use it?  Are the clips, vids, images, words, quotes, and so on appropriately linked to your case (or did you just click-and-drag off of Google Images)?  How much detail did you present (in describing, backgrounding and explaining it)?  Did you make it interesting, accessible, and understandable for those of us who don't know it or the issues at all?  How well did you engage the various sides of controversial issues?  Did you leave obvious material out? Was there evidence of good, old-fashioned work? 

The Write-Up (up to 4 points):  Is your position clear, compelling, and important?  Are both team members represented?  How well did you pose—and answer—challenging questions? How clearly did you structure your post?  Did you put your material together with ideas from class in productive and interesting ways?  How did you recognize and accommodate your audience's views?  Were you respectful? And: did you make us care? 

Comment (up to 2 points):  How does your comment contribute to the work you’re commenting on?  Did you add something the team missed?  Clear up something they left vague?  Elaborate upon a point they could’ve taken further?  Make another connection with material from class?  Challenge a conclusion they drew?