#object gender

So this is something pretty similar to its denial conceptual scheme that it posted about forever ago, here if you wanna read that.

But this is for those whose gender is, like its, object. it haphazardly thought of some meaningful issues that can help with categorizing what kind of object one is.

This is ver. 0 cos it hasn't really run this by anyone yet, nor is it even sure who else has the autistic urge to categorize and break down anything and everything, but if anyone else finds this interesting maybe it can get some feedback some time.

A lot of the axes/planes it thought of are pulled from the denial conceptual scheme because they not only apply, but they're often the source of those reasons for denial. So here are some familiar old friends (though possibly renamed):

What is well-being?

What is ultimately good for a person? Pleasure, desire satisfaction, or several things?

Whose well-being matters?

Are those things still valuable when it's an object's well-being?

Aesthetic or carnal?

Is objecthood beautiful or hot? A way to think of this is that hot is individual and up to taste, but beauty is universal and a matter of better appreciation.

Realistic or natural?

Is objecthood treated as something biosocially created, or an essentialist reality?

Moral or prudential?

Even if the object doesn't want it, does it have a reason to remain an object?

But here are some unfamiliar faces:

Individuality or interchangeability?

Should the object be stripped of its uniqueness so it can be replaceable, or should it be perfected as one of a kind?

How analytic should it be?

Should the object be stripped of its capacity to understand or make cogent insights or should this capacity be developed?

How autonomous should it be?

Should the object be guaranteed multiple meaningful choices or none?

How respected should it be?

How much does it matter how much it's okay with something or what its boundaries are?

How much does objecthood need to be enforced?

Does objecthood need to be maintained, or can it be left alone because being an object is a natural resting place?

Familiar Faces

Because the first list, the familiar faces, can largely be elaborated upon in the denial post, it'll make short work of them here by just talking briefly about its own experience.

it feels that it is obligated to be an object whose pleasure and desires don't matter because it's beautiful. There's a lot it can't really discuss on this account, but suffice to say that it feels its objecthood challenges a lot of mainstream norms as well as norms within kink communities which need to be challenged, and which brings forward really remarkable insights. it wishes it didn't have to suffer, but the outcome of that suffering has been too great to see how things could be any other way.

it thinks it could have become a person, once upon a time. But given the way its brain works and the way it's been conditioned and groomed its entire life, it just has to accept now that the best version of itself is an object. it's not really fully okay with that exactly, but it trusts that it's disciplined enough that it will follow through with that.

Enforcement

Let's kick the unfamiliars off with a fairly straightforward one. For some, objecthood requires constant maintenance. it for instance specifically surrounds itself with peers who know what to do to keep it an object. If it calls them sobbing and wishing it could be a person, they know just what to say to dash its hopes and dreams.

But other objects feel like objecthood is just where they belong. There's no resistance, they're just objects.

Individuality and the Aesthetic

One of the most natural ways you can visualize this axis is in terms of where you'd find them in an object museum. There are objects being tortured in glass boxes for you to sit and reflect on as they are banging on the glass. These are each highly individual, their own particular suffering made unique by the contours and contents of the box. If they are destroyed, they're destroyed with purpose, and otherwise the one who destroyed them must face consequences from the museum.

But then you finish the coffee you bought at the front of the museum, and find yourself needing to relieve yourself, and you find a row of indistinguishable objects serving the same role.

That raises the question of how individuality interacts with aestheticism. What would it mean to be an object with little individuality, but still meant to be beautiful? Well, there is more to beauty than novelty. There is beauty in work, the blood and sweat it takes to conform to a fungible role. There is beauty in design, a robotgirl part of a manufacturing line who nonetheless, like all her sisters, is such an efficient and well-oiled machine that one cannot help but appreciate her, replaceable though she may be.

Autonomy, Respect, and Understanding

So, isn't autonomy like freedom to make your own choices? Doesn't that mean being autonomous implies respect, since being violated is a removal of freedom? And doesn't removing one's capacity to think for themselves mean they can't make decisions, thereby implying low autonomy? How do these three axes interact?

In truth, they're totally independent.

This is because autonomy is distinct from freedom. This distinction is often made by psychologists to mark out to different experiences that agents have. The experience of having many meaningful choices (autonomy), and the experience of having few constraints (freedom).

We actually give up freedom for autonomy all the time. We form obligations and bonds which constrain us, rule out certain things for the foreseeable future, but which give us options--however fewer they may be--which we recognize are meaningful.

The other distinction is between the capacity to decide and the capacity to understand. Having both is required for the capacity to meaningfully consent to something, but one can make decisions without understanding and one can understand without being able to decide.

So what does it look like to be an object with a great deal of autonomy but who isn't respected? It means having a bunch of meaningful options even if all of them involve being violated in ways it isn't okay with.

What about the other way around? Low autonomy, high respect? That's like a pillow princess quadrant, treated with a great deal of paternalism and what's best for it, but never anything it wouldn't be okay with.

ver. 1?

It'd be cool to improve this some time. Imagine a questionnaire that mapped you on a bunch of triangles where you could see where others were mapped and how they identified themselves? Maybe even let you contact one another.

ʚ♡⃛ɞ SHASHICUBEIC ·.·♡·.

dicean