According to the Outsideists, the existence of people who identify with non-binary conceptions of gender and sexuality does, and righteously, proudly should, pose an active conceptual threat to the Insideists who decry/deny/pathologise said existence.
The fear that animates human beings to wail, ‘these people are all mentally ill! it’s going to destroy our society!’ is the fear of the concept of life expanding beyond the arbitrary limits of information that their entire worldview exists inside (and revealing those limits’ artificiality in the process). The fear of humanity becoming – nay, having been all along – something unknown, unfamiliar, and infinite. At its core, this is a cosmic horror.
As an Outsideist might bluntly put it, they’re scared of turning into tentacle beasts. The end point of all this gender transgression is Yog-Sothoth.
Why else would they convince themselves they understand the inner life of a complete stranger, whom they’ve never listened to, enough to conclude that they are unfit for accommodation in society? Or in cases of “this can’t be real”, why else put such an inordinate level of faith in the alleged perfection of the body:subconscious duality – a borderline religious disbelief in biological variation?
The Outsideists do generally agree about the ‘it’s going to destroy our society’ part though – the only difference is that they view this as something actively desirable, so that a better society might replace it. Fragmenting all categories of gender and sexual attraction into a terrifying, chaotic, fractally idiosyncratic maelstrom would be a huge step on the way towards an empathy-driven and creative understanding amongst humanity. An inability to categorise severely hinders the ability to caricature, and the breakdown of arbitrarily constructed Insideist social codes means the erosion of structurally imposed suffering.
But what to make of someone who claims they are already, in fact, a squid? Or a different being whose consciousness is utterly foreign to the human brain; perhaps even a fictional or mythological creature? The noted Outsideist monk/cultist crackpot Artiquo O. Ogeny was once confronted by a strident skeptic on this matter. “You say you embrace people whatever their identity. But where do you draw the line? You claim fealty to observable reality,” he pressed, “but will you humour even blatant mental illness?!”
Ogeny massaged their bald, multicoloured scalp for seven seconds, then replied.
“The line is drawn only where suffering begins. We bear no scorn for the Inside that by nature defies material circumstances – only for the Inside that by weakness denies them, and so wilfully propagates suffering.” As the skeptic went to blusterously reply, Ogeny raised a thick finger to hush him. “We deem ‘ill’ not simply that which breaks the codes of human behaviour and creates petty terror in your kind; only that which creates inescapable suffering. Our creed is empathy. Compassion. If that means treating someone who says they’re a dog like they’re a dog, then so be it. I’m sure we’ll live. Now piss off.”
More recent study suggests Ogeny was in part covering up for the underground facility in their basement. Irrespective of this, Outsideists to date still refer to Artiquo O. Ogeny’s statement regarding the ‘petty terror’ of identities, electing not to join the hounding and mocking Internet mob, and adamantly subordinating the (historically fungible) definitions/associations of mental illness that are so often used as an empathy-blocker in rankest Insideism.
[The results of the experiments have not yet come to light.]