The recent controversy surrounding Caitlyn Jenner, the affluent transwoman, and Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP official who is Caucasian but identifies as black, has brought an unholy storm upon social media. Those that are easily disgusted find that they are appalled at the seeming blurring of the lines of groups held sacred. The truth is, most neurotypicals are queasy about “out-group” members invading spaces that “do not belong to them.” Whether it is the transman transitioning from female to male or the black individual having a skin condition that makes them gradually look Caucasian, people are easily disturbed by this. What then of the psychopath that wears the mask of the neurotypical in order to avoid the stigma conferred by society? It would make sense that these psychopaths if found out could face their own backlash and gnashing of teeth.
All of this raises an interesting question for the progressive individual. Is the difference between one entering a group out of necessity or fact worthy of different treatment than one that enters a group for predatory reasons, and can different treatments of these individuals be held by an ethical person? That is, what of the transgender antisocial (me) that invades the space of females both out of necessity – due to the fact I had some level of dysphoria – and for predatory reasons – men usually find women to be less of a threat when it comes to interpersonal dealings? Should one like me be categorically disallowed from transitioning out of the fears of bad behavior held by the masses? Do I have to be a saint in order to blur the lines? Does anyone?
The psychopath that wears the mask of the neurotypical holds a simpler “transition” than what I list above, but the logic is the same. Psychopaths can blend in with neurotypicals for two primary reasons, either out of necessity – to avoid the stigma associated with being a creature without empathy – or as a means to act predatory – it is easier to strike when others think you are like them – or both. Do you hunt down those that are wearing the fur of sheep? Do you only strike when they reveal the wolf inside? What is the ethical choice here? It seems that as with the case of Caitlyn Jenner (and possibly Rachel Dolezal), that individual liberty must be honored. Neurotypicals can fear the unknown and grotesque all that they like, but ultimately individuals must retain the option to be whomever they wish to be. Punish actuality, not possibility.
Too many hold binaries sacred. We are either male or female, black or white, genius or moron, and so forth according to many in society. Ultimately none of this is terribly far removed from traditional group dynamics and strife, but the educated individual must look past this. The wolf inside may pose a threat, but the sheep on the outside must be honored as well. Just because someone can act poorly by blurring the lines, does not mean that their individual liberty may be compromised.