“Knowing the self, being a place of limitation, being then what a human is. A source of imperfection. Inclusiveness is, therefore, not the way to involve the everything or anything of the world.”
– Modern Romanticism
Inclusiveness resides upon the involvement of those who are said to not be respected for “who they are”. Yet, their involvement is not ever thought upon, in regards to their capability. A fault with equity is to involve a person, though only upon the supposed knowledge of “who they are”. And, just what is a person known by? If not for their limitations as humans, then perhaps for their drive to be perfect? If to “know a person” does not revolve around comprehending another, as a human, then what for?
It is always the knowledge of another person or of oneself, that relates to them or the self, as a human. Though, the LGBTQ community are there to encourage the world to “involve” those who are never accepted for “who they are”. And, is it in our place to understand “who they are”, if we can believe their limitations should be voided? If not to understand a person by their limits, then perhaps we are simply arrogant and delusional.
If it is not mental illness to be a transgender, then is the former, not the latter, not delusion? And, if we are never delusional while being mentally ill, then is merely the acceptance of certain sorts only there for the inclusiveness of pure incapability? Those who are mentally ill are mainly incapable, though more-so because we are ignorant of what they are capable of doing.
Capability and incapability sticks as the back-to-back resonation for “knowing who a person is”. As we are incapable of understanding someone for their perfections, then it should be comprehensive enough to believe we are instead capable of knowing them for how they relate to us. However, with differing identities, that is more often the case, among the LGBTQ world, as an impossibility. An introduction should not be forced. Diversity is not meant to be forced. That is because an introduction from someone else, in relation to themselves as a fellow human, comes to us as simply natural. It is voided of the artificial nature of force.
Does life force itself? No, though death does. Death is the only thing forced upon. And, since this resides among the place of fear, then the word “tolerance” encompasses the same. As it is, we can only ever tolerate what we are forced to bear with. We can accept what we are friendly towards, because the naturalism of its introduction was never forced. Instead, that naturalistic way was an example of ourselves, as well. As in, it was an example of what should be, not what shouldn’t.
For what should be in this world, is the person who believe they can be everything. Even among those who dream or are ambitious and delusional enough to think they are never incorrect upon what they do, always end up at a point where they discover sheer impossibility.
To be capable or to be its opposite, shows ourselves, in contrast from LGBTQ, that life is a stockpile of what we can do versus what we cannot. It is never to “know ourselves” nor to “know another” in the belief they are a human, when we’ve kept comprehending them as capable of doing anything. As it is, that’s the same thing as using them.
Modern Romanticism 