Disclaimer: I identify (or much rather disidentify) as queer and genderqueer rather than bisexual and male. I don’t want exclude anyone from potential emotional or sexual interaction based on their gender or sexual identity or anatomy.
Second disclaimer (16 November 2013): Some people seem to construct me as being conceited based on this profile. I hope I’m not. I’m going to try to adapt my profile in order to try to appear less conceited. Does this make me seem disingenuous to you? Maybe I should adapt this paragraph in order to try to appear less disingenuous. ;)
17 November 2013: Finished. Please tell me whether you think I’m conceited and disingenuous if you feel like it. :)
Wieauchimmer. Things that are important about me. How would I know what’s important about me? Should I be privileged in asking and answering this question? I guess one thing that may be relevant (depending on the context) is that I strongly question individual agency (as in ‘free will’). I believe I have reason to believe (what a conceited popourri of reason and belief!) that people are ‘determined’ by external factors: Which non-external factors could ever influence us? Our genetic make-up is external – insofar as ‘you’ cannot influence it because you’re not an agential subject yet. And from then on, all kinds of external influences (social, environmental, biological) shape ‘you’ and fully determine your agency: at no point during this process are you more than the result of such external factors. Every time you encounter a new external factor, your reaction to it is determined by the combinations and interactions between all the external factors that came before this new external factor. So you’re the agglomerate of external factors. That doesn’t mean you don’t have agency, but that agency isn’t your own.
What I think follows from this – and that’s why it’s part of ‘my’ ‘self-summary’ – is that it means that the infliction of violence (which includes verbal and symbolic violence) on others is problematic even if ‘they’ have done something that you consider ‘wrong’. Not only are your understandings of right and wrong not really yours – neither are their actions really theirs. I think this is one foundation of my thinking and living which affects many aspects of my life/lives. That’s another thing about me: I find the idea that people have just one unified self highly unconvincing. Much rather, it seems reasonable to me to assume that we’re all multiple and contingent, that different ‘selves’ come to the foreground in different situations/contexts. These two aspects occur in various combinations. For example, I generally don’t hold grudges: because someone’s ‘mistakes’ are not their fault, and because I think that judging people based on past ‘mistakes’ would do them wrong. Similarly, I generally try to not simply feel sorry for my mistakes, but rather focus on alleviating their effects and not making them again.
As you may have guessed (if you actually read this far), ‘I’ am very political. I can’t and don’t want to offer a neat label for my personal politics. It would probably be considered very left-wing in many respects, maybe partially anarchist. I’m heavily influenced by social constructionism, queer theory, and more recently science and technology studies. I strongly dislike nationalism and other forms of ‘we’ identities. I dislike assimilationist movements of deviant people who want to force deviant people into social norms (like marriage and monogamy and generally being ‘respectable’) in order to get privileges for themselves. I want equality for everyone, not privileges for ‘myself’ or ‘my’ special-interest group. I don’t want to be part of a special-interest group.
Continuing with the theme of contextually contingent multiplicity, I'm in multiple, temporally and spatially contingent, committed, open, not necessarily sexual, not necessarily non-sexual, intentionally diffuse and not neatly labeled relationships with peterpansexuell, DGriffy, and CoKoCo. I'm not necessarily looking for friends or sex partners or love interests or any other categorised kind of relationship but simply anyone whom I might like and who might like me in some way or another.
Also: If everything is contextually contingent and if meaning isn’t a property, but an inter-active process, then so is your potential construction me as conceited, humble, disingenous, honest, boring, interesting, repulsive, attractive, dichotomous, non-dichotomous. So if you think ‘I’ ‘am’ attractive and someone else thinks ‘I’ ‘am’ repulsive – which one is my true self?