Notes

There are a couple of net benefits to this PIK shoutout to Laussen (Im super bad
at spelling, sorry if I butchered it) for coming up with the idea, cuz I was just going
to give you the second portion of the PIK.
Here is your homework, which is DUE Thursday or Friday. I havent decided.
1. Read this article, http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1474&context=umlr take notes if you want. I would recommend it
cuz it helps you retain information better empirics prove. - Buckner 15.
2. Try to write an overview for this. (I know you probably may not be able to, but
you need to try. This is how you will be able to start cutting your own
arguments, critiques, etc.)

1NC
Contention One: Queerness
Increasingly technological surveillance practices in the status
quo force queer bodies to the margins data analysis founded
upon pattern and predictability reinforces exclusion of
nontraditional gender identities.
Conrad 9 Surveillance, Gender, and the Virtual Body in the Information Age,
Kathryn Conrad Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the
Department of English at the University of Kansas. Surveillance & Society 6(4) p
381-385
Tied closely to the surveillance and regulation of sexual behaviour and identity tied
in part because of the ways gender identity and sexual object choice are linked in
the Westis the surveillance and regulation of gender. The genderqueer bodythe
intersexed, the hermaphroditic, the transgender(ed), the transexual, and even the
'effeminate male' or the 'masculine' femaleis one that does not conform to the
accepted biological binary of 'man' and 'woman' and/or its attendant 'masculine'
and 'feminine' behaviours and physical markers.1 1 The history of lesbian and gay activism is
closely tied to that of genderqueer activism (perhaps first and most obviously with the Stonewall Riots in New York
in 1969, which saw the birth both of contemporary gay rights activism and transgender activism), and activism to
challenge the gender system is one strategy for confronting a system into which genderqueers have not fit .

But
even those who are 'out' about their genderqueer status must often 'pass' as one of
two genders in order to survivequite literallyin a two-gendered world. According
to the group Gender Education and Advocacy, the between 1970 and 2004, 321
murders of trans people have been tallied; and 'more than one new antitransgender murder has been reported in the media every month since 1989' (GEA
2004a, c2004b). Although gathering reliable statistics for the number of people killed because they were
genderqueer is impossible, these statistics along with more publicised cases, such as that of the murder of Brandon
Teena in 1993, suggest that being readably genderqueer, at least in the West, still comes with significant risk.
Information technologies, as I have suggested above, have given some gender and queer theorists people hope for
liberation from the sometimes oppressive gendered discourses that accompany biological embodiment. But
surveillance, whether driven by criminology or marketing, has, as I have suggested above, been the engine for the
very informatisation of the body in which these feminist and queer theorists have placed their hope .

Further,
surveillance, particularly the surveillance tied to prediction, is not only a use to
which information technologies have been put; it is also the inspiration for many of
the new developments in information systems technology . And the patterns that
those information systems create, collect, and circulate are, in turn, intricately and
inextricably bound up with surveillance technologies. This, I would suggest, should lead
gender and queer theorists away from information technologies as a tool for the
transformation of the human subject. The predictive models that are at the centre of
current surveillance technologies have been created with the goal of prediction and
therefore control of the future, but they must rely on the past to do so. The past
provides the patterns from which the models take their shape. Given this, predictive models,
and the surveillance systems that feed them, are inherently conservative. By this I do not mean to suggest that
they are particularly politically conservative; indeed, many political conservatives are just as invested in the
ideology of privacy that surveillance constantly transgresses. Rather ,

predictive models fed by

surveillance data necessarily reproduce past patterns. They cannot take into
effective consideration randomness, 'noise', mutation, parody, or disruption unless

those effects coalesce into another pattern. This inability to accommodate

randomness may simply suggest that predictive models are ineffective. But they are
not ineffective; like other surveillance techniques discussed above, they are
normative. The potentially normative effect of predictive surveillance might be
clearest, and of most concern, in the case of the transsexual body who has transitioned from one
gender to another. The virtual body created by data, in the case of a transsexual person,
appears contradictory, confusing; the data history for a trans person comprises two
bodies (male and female) rather than one genderqueer body. A hopeful reading, inspired
perhaps by an optimistic (and selective) reading of Butler, would be that this contradictory data would have the

rather than abandoning the gender system that

the transsexual / genderqueer body clearly transgresses, predictive surveillance
technology, relying on past data as it does, can only reinforce it. The material body
would thus be pressured to conform or be excluded from the system. Further, Lyon's
effect of destabilising the gender system. But

concerns about 'leaky containers' of data are heightened when one's data history does not fit into accepted norms.
The Director of the National Center for Transgender Equity in the United States, Mara Keisling, has discussed the
potential impact of surveillance technologies on transgendered persons, expressing the fear that, for instance,
radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags embedded in identification cardsan option initially considered in the
United States REAL ID Act of 2005would allow for the private gender data of a genderqueer person to be read
from afar by those with RFID readers (Keisling 2007; NCTEquality 2008). As suggested above, the risks attending
the exposure of personal data for a genderqueer person can be profound. Just as importantly, however,

dataveillance that is tied to predictive strategies further embeds the very norms
those bodies challenge. At the level of the everyday, such technologies put subjects' ability
to control their own self-presentationand their own decisions to accept, challenge,
or 'pass' within the systemeven further out of their hands.

Embracing the idea that bodies are undefined intensities

provides possibility for a new realm of the body-as-information
in which identity is determined through encounter rather than
rigid sets of data.
Puar 09 [Jasbir Puar, professor of women's and gender studies at Rutgers
University, Women and Performance: a journal of feminist theory, Vol. 19, No. 2, July
2009, http://planetarities.web.unc.edu/files/2015/01/puar-prognosis-time.pdf]//JIH
Out of the numerous possibilities that assemblage theory offers, much of it has
already begun to transform queer theory, from Elizabeth Groszs crucial re-reading of the
relations between bodies and prosthetics (which complicates not only the contours
of bodies in relation to forms of bodily discharge, but also complicates the
relationships to objects, such as cell phones, cars, wheelchairs, and the distinctions
between them as capacity-enabling devices ) (1994), to Donna Haraways cyborgs (1991), to
Deleuze and Guattaris BwO (Bodies without Organs organs, loosely defined, rearranged against
the presumed natural ordering of bodily capacity ) (1987). I want to close by foregrounding the
analytic power of conviviality that may further complicate how subjects are
positioned, underscoring instead more fluid relations between capacity and debility .
Conviviality, unlike notions of resistance, oppositionality, subversion or
transgression (facets of queer exceptionalism that unwittingly dovetail with modern
narratives of progress in modernity), foregrounds categories such as race, gender,
and sexuality as events as encounters rather than as entities or attributes of the
subject. Surrendering certain notions of revolution, identity politics, and social
change the big utopian picture that Massumi complicates in the opening epigraph of this essay

conviviality instead always entails an experimental step. Why the destabilization of

the subject of identity and a turn to affect matters is because affect as a bodily
matter makes identity politics both possible and yet impossible. In its conventional usage,
conviviality means relating to, occupied with, or fond of feasting, drinking, and good
company to be merry, festive, together at a table, with companions and guests,
and hence, to live with. As an attribute and function of assembling, however, conviviality does not
lead to a politics of the universal or inclusive common, nor an ethics of
individuatedness, rather the futurity enabled through the open materiality of bodies
as a Place to Meet. We could usefully invoke Donna Haraways notion of encounter value
here, a becoming with companionate (and I would also add, incompanionate) species, whereby
actors are the products of relating, not pre-formed before the encounter (2008, 16).
Conviviality is an ethical orientation that rewrites a Levinasian taking up of the
ontology of the Other by arguing that there is no absolute self or other ,15 rather
bodies that come together and dissipate through intensifications and vulnerabilities ,
insistently rendering bare the instability of the divisions between capacity-endowed
and debility-laden bodies. These encounters are rarely comfortable mergers but
rather entail forms of eventness that could potentially unravel oneself but just as
quickly be recuperated through a restabilized self , so that the political
transformation is invited, as Arun Saldhana writes, through letting yourself be
destabilized by the radical alterity of the other, in seeing his or her difference not as a threat but
as a resource to question your own position in the world (2007, 118). Conviviality is thus open to its own
dissolution and self-annihilation and less interested in a mandate to reproduce its
terms of creation or sustenance, recognizing that political critique must be open to
the possibility that it might disrupt and alter the conditions of its own emergence
such that it is no longer needed an openness to something other than what we might have hoped for.
This is my alternative approach to Lee Edelmans No Future, then, one that is not driven by
rejecting the figure of the child as the overdetermined outcome of reproductive
futurism (2004),16 but rather complicates the very terms of the regeneration of queer
critique itself. Thus the challenge before us is how to craft convivial political praxis
that does not demand a continual reinvestment in its form and content , its genesis or its
outcome, the literalism of its object nor the direction of its drive.

The net benefit is human rightsnot specifying gender allows trans people
the basic human rights of recognition that cross gender people arent
subject to.
Cray and Harrison, 12- (Andrew Cray is a Research Associate for LGBT Progress at the Center for
American Progress. Jack Harrison is Manager of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) ID
Accurately Reflecting Ones Gender Identity Is a Human Right Center for American Progress, December 18, 2012
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/12/18/48367/id-accurately-reflecting-ones-genderidentity-is-a-human-right/ //droneofark
This past week our nation joined others around the globe in celebrating International Human Rights Day, which
marked the 64th anniversary of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, signed on December 10, 1948. This
document declares that inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights are the foundation for a just, peaceful,

Decades later these principles continue to guide human rights policies

established around the world, acting as a foundation for the evolving global
understanding of what it means to acknowledge the equality of all people .
Transgender people, however, continue struggling to attain this innate right to
and free world.

dignified treatment and equality. As the Council of Europes Commissioner for Human Rights has stated,
It is clear that many transgender persons do not fully enjoy their fundamental
rights both at the level of legal guarantees and that of everyday life. One way in
which transgender people have struggled is in accessing identity documents that
provide legal recognition of their gender identities. The failure of governments to
acknowledge the gender identities of all people represents a rejection of the
fundamental rights of self-determination, dignity, and freedom . Moving forward as a global
community, it is essential that all people transgender or notbe given access to official
documents that accurately reflect each individuals gender identity and that respect
the rights belonging to each of us as humans. The daily importance of identity documents Having
access to identity documents is important because of the very reason they are taken for granted: They are an
integral part of daily life in most cultures. Identity documents are needed for many
activities of daily lifeworking, voting, traveling, accessing government institutions, and proving that one is
who one claims to be. Yet for many transgender people, accessing this basic proof of
identity is out of reach, pushing them further into the margins of society . Historically,
many obstacles have been placed in the way of obtaining accurate ID. For many
transgender people, these financial, medical, and legal barriers are impossible requirements to satisfy. Adding an
additional layer of complexity to this landscape is the wide variety of identity requirements that citizens are

In the United States alone, for example, most people

need consistent access to accurate birth certificates, drivers licenses, passports,
and social security cards. The requirements for these documents are set by different
levels of governmentboth federal and stateoften require different standards for
amending the information they reflect, and utilize different administrative processes
for amendment. The two most common forms of identity documents used by people across the globe,
required to have in many countries.

however, are birth certificates and passports. There is currently no international standard for verifying or amending
the information contained on birth certificates. Moreover, the standards that are in place are set by each nation or
by sub-jurisdictions within that nation. Similarly, standards for passport documentation are set at the national level.
Passports, however, are subject to a foundational set of international standards established by the International
Civil Aviation Organization. The standards set by this organization dictate that passports must include an individual
travelers name, date of birth, nationality, and sex. In the sex field, the standards dictate that permissible options
are M for male, F for female, or X for unspecified gender. Countries, therefore, are given significant leeway to

flexibility
should be exercised in a way that protects the human rights of the diverse people in
each nation. Transgender people face significant consequences from policies
preventing access to accurate identification When a government agency is unwilling to issue
establish policies that affirm the identities of transgender and gender nonconforming citizens, and this

identification that reflects a persons identity, they are making a value judgment on the legitimacy of that identity

being forced to live, move, and

contribute in society without accurate, updated identification have impacts for
transgender people that go far beyond an administrative lack of access. Presenting
inaccurate identification all too often becomes a trigger for various forms of abuse
and discrimination. Transgender people who may otherwise move through the world undetected by those
and, as an extension, on an individuals right to citizenship. Yet

who would discriminate against them are often outed by an old gender marker, an old name, or an old
photograph. The results of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, conducted by the National Center for
Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, reveal how common these outcomes are in the
United States. Forty percent of respondents who reported presenting ID that did not match their gender identity
experienced harassment3 percent were physically assaulted and 15 percent were asked to leave the premises

Furthermore, those respondents who were unable to

update their drivers licenses reported much higher rates of discrimination in hiring
and housing. Even when antitransgender bias is not specifically at play, a perceived
mismatch between an individual and the information on a presented ID can trigger
heightened scrutiny and create barriers to accessing services and spaces. This has
where the ID had been presented.

been the case for many transgender voters in the United States. Leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Jody
Herman, Peter J. Cooper public policy fellow at the Williams Institute at the University of Los Angeles School of Law,
estimated that as many as 25,000 transgender voters in states with strict photo ID voter requirements could be
disenfranchised, not just because of antitransgender bias but also because they simply may not have appeared to

Transgender people are frequently subjected to excessive

requirements to access accurate identity documents Many countries impose
restrictive standards that require individuals seeking recognition of their gender to
undergo unnecessary or unwanted medical procedures . In other countries, transgender people
be the person on their ID.

may be barred in some situations from changing their identity documents to accurately reflect their gender. And
some places, including some jurisdictions in the United States, bar transgender people from changing their legally
recognized gender under any circumstances. These are the harsh realities felt by transgender people throughout
many parts of the world.

Contention Two: Our Demand

Thus we demand that The United States federal government
abolish its national census.
The preoccupation with pretending to be policymakers traps
them in a spectator position and bars them from recognizing
the bureaucratic violence of legal praxis youre not immune
to the colonialist legacy that foregrounds your politics.
Schlag 90 (Pierre Schlag, professor of law@ univ. Colorado, stanford law review, november, page lexis)
All of this can seem very funny. That's because it is very funny. It is also deadly serious. It is deadly serious, because all this

normative legal thought, as Robert Cover explained, takes place in a field of pain and death . n56
And in a very real sense Cover was right. Yet as it takes place, normative legal thought is playing language
games -- utterly oblivious to the character of the language games it plays , and thus,
utterly uninterested in considering its own rhetorical and political contributions (or
lack thereof) to the field of pain and death. To be sure, normative legal thinkers are
often genuinely concerned with reducing the pain and the death. However, the problem is not
what normative legal thinkers do with normative legal thought, but what normative legal thought does with normative legal thinkers.

What is missing in normative legal thought is any serious questioning, let alone
tracing, of the relations that the practice, the rhetoric, the routine of normative legal
thought have (or do not have) to the field of pain and death. And there is a reason for that: Normative legal
thought misunderstands its own situation. Typically, normative legal thought understands itself to be outside the field of pain and
death and in charge of organizing and policing that field. It is as if the action of normative legal thought could be separated from the
background field of pain and death. This theatrical distinction is what allows normative legal thought its own self-important, selfrighteous, self-image -- its congratulatory sense of its own accomplishments and effectiveness. All this self-congratulation works
very nicely so long as normative legal [*188] thought continues to imagine itself as outside the field of pain and death and as having
effects within that field. n57 Yet it is doubtful this image can be maintained. It is not so much the case that normative legal thought
has effects on the field of pain and death -- at least not in the direct, originary way it imagines. Rather, it is more the case that

normative legal thought is the pattern, is the operation of the bureaucratic

distribution and the institutional allocation of the pain and the death. n58 And apart from the
leftover ego-centered rationalist rhetoric of the eighteenth century (and our routine), there is nothing at this point to suggest that

the normative
appeal of normative legal thought systematically turns us away from recognizing
that normative legal thought is grounded on an utterly unbelievable re-presentation
of the field it claims to describe and regulate . The problem for us is that normative
legal thought, rather than assisting in the understanding of present political and
moral situations, stands in the way. It systematically reinscribes its own aesthetic -its own fantastic understanding of the political and moral scene. n59Until normative legal
thought begins to deal with its own paradoxical postmodern rhetorical situation, it will remain something of an
we, as legal thinkers, are in control of normative legal thought. The problem for us, as legal thinkers, is that

irresponsible enterprise. In its rhetorical structure, it will continue to populate the

legal academic world with individual humanist subjects who think themselves
empowered Cartesian egos, but who are largely the manipulated constructions of
bureaucratic practices -- academic and otherwise.

The Impact is Ego confusionTheir act of pretending to be

policy makers erases the distinction between the individual
and institution. This Egocentric-Identification with the State
continually baits us into its madness and continued violence
Shaffer 7 (Butler teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. B.S., Law, 1958, University of Nebraska, Lincoln;
B.A., Political Science, 1959, and J.D., 1961, University of Chicago; Member, Colorado and Nebraska State Bars. Identifying With the
State June 29th 2007. http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer159.html)

identifying ourselves with a collective entity. Whether

it be the state, a nationality, our race or gender, or any other abstraction, we introduce division hence, conflict
into our lives as we separate ourselves from those who identify with other groupings. If one
One of the deadliest practices we engage in is that of

observes the state of our world today, this is the pattern that underlies our deadly and destructive social behavior. This mindset was no better articulated

ourselves
in terms of agencies and/or abstractions external to our independent being. Or, to express
than when George W. Bush declared youre either with us, or against us. Through years of careful conditioning, we learn to think of

the point more clearly, we have learned to internalize these external forces; to conform our thinking and behavior to the purposes and interests of such
entities. We adorn ourselves with flags, mouth shibboleths, and decorate our cars with bumper-stickers, in order to communicate to others our sense of
who we are. In such ways does our being become indistinguishable from our chosen collective. In this way are institutions born. We discover a particular
form of organization through which we are able to cooperate with others for our mutual benefit. Over time, the advantages derived from this system have
a sufficient consistency to lead us to the conclusion that our well-being is dependent upon it. Those who manage the organization find it in their selfinterests to propagate this belief so that we will become dependent upon its permanency. Like a sculptor working with clay, institutions take over the
direction of our minds, twisting, squeezing, and pounding upon them until we have embraced a mindset conducive to their interests. Once this has been
accomplished, we find it easy to subvert our will and sense of purpose to the collective. The organization ceases being a mere tool of mutual convenience,
and becomes an end in itself. Our lives become institutionalized, and we regard it as fanciful to imagine ourselves living in any other way than as
constituent parts of a machine that transcends our individual sense. Once we identify ourselves with the state, that collective entity does more than
represent who we are; it is who we are. To the politicized mind, the idea that we are the government has real meaning, not in the sense of being able to

The successes and failures of the state become the

subjects successes and failures; insults or other attacks upon their abstract sense of being such as the burning of their flag
control such an agency, but in the psychological sense.

become assaults upon their very personhood. Shortcomings on the part of the state become our failures of character. This is why so many Americans
who have belatedly come to criticize the war against Iraq are inclined to treat it as only a mistake or the product of mismanagement, not as a moral
wrong. Our egos can more easily admit to the making of a mistake than to moral transgressions. Such an attitude also helps to explain why, as Milton
Mayer wrote in his revealing post-World War II book, They Thought They Were Free, most Germans were unable to admit that the Nazi regime had been
tyrannical. It is this dynamic that makes it easy for political officials to generate wars, a process that reinforces the sense of identity and attachment
people have for their state. It also helps to explain why most Americans though tiring of the war against Iraq refuse to condemn government leaders
for the lies, forgeries, and deceit employed to get the war started: to acknowledge the dishonesty of the system through which they identify themselves is
to admit to the dishonest base of their being. The truthfulness of the states rationale for war is irrelevant to most of its subjects. It is sufficient that they
believe the abstraction with which their lives are intertwined will be benefited in some way by war. Against whom and upon what claim does not matter
except as a factor in assessing the likelihood of success. That most Americans have pipped nary a squeak of protest over Bush administration plans to
attack Iran with nuclear weapons if deemed useful to its ends reflects the point I am making. Bush could undertake a full-fledged war against Lapland,
and most Americans would trot out their flags and bumper-stickers of approval. The rightness or wrongness of any form of collective behavior becomes
interpreted by the standard of whose actions are being considered. During World War II, for example, Japanese kamikaze pilots were regarded as crazed
fanatics for crashing their planes into American battleships. At the same time, American war movies (see, e.g., Flying Tigers) extolled the heroism of
American pilots who did the same thing. One sees this same double-standard in responding to conspiracy theories. Do you think a conspiracy was
behind the 9/11 attacks? It certainly seems so to me, unless one is prepared to treat the disappearance of the World Trade Center buildings as the
consequence of a couple pilots having bad navigational experiences! The question that should be asked is: whose conspiracy was it? To those whose
identities coincide with the state, such a question is easily answered: others conspire, we do not. It is not the symbiotic relationship between war and the
expansion of state power, nor the realization of corporate benefits that could not be obtained in a free market, that mobilize the machinery of war. Without
most of us standing behind our system, and cheering on our troops, and defending our leaders, none of this would be possible. What would be your
likely response if your neighbor prevailed upon you to join him in a violent attack upon a local convenience store, on the grounds that it hired illegal

Only when our egoidentities become wrapped up with some institutional abstraction such as the
state can we be persuaded to invest our lives and the lives of our children in
the collective madness of state action. We do not have such attitudes toward organizations with which we have more
aliens? Your sense of identity would not be implicated in his efforts, and you would likely dismiss him as a lunatic.

transitory relationships. If we find an accounting error in our bank statement, we would not find satisfaction in the proposition the First National Bank,
right or wrong. Neither would we be inclined to wear a T-shirt that read Disneyland: love it or leave it. One of the many adverse consequences of
identifying with and attaching ourselves to collective abstractions is

our loss of control over not only the

meaning and direction in our lives, but of the manner in which we can be efficacious in our efforts to
pursue the purposes that have become central to us . We become dependent upon the performance of our
group; our reputation rises or falls on the basis of what institutional leaders do or fail to do. If our nation-state loses respect in the world such as by
the use of torture or killing innocent people - we consider ourselves no longer respectable, and scurry to find plausible excuses to redeem our egos. When
these expectations are not met, we go in search of new leaders or organizational reforms we believe will restore our sense of purpose and pride that we
have allowed abstract entities to personify for us. As the costs and failures of the state become increasingly evident, there is a growing tendency to blame
this system. But to do so is to continue playing the same game into which we have allowed ourselves to become conditioned. One of the practices

the state to get us to mobilize our dark side energies in opposition to the
endless recycling of enemies it has chosen for us , is that of psychological projection. Whether we care to
employed by

acknowledge it or not and most of us do not each of us has an unconscious capacity for attitudes or conduct that our conscious minds reject. We fear
that, sufficiently provoked, we might engage in violence even deadly against others; or that inducements might cause us to become dishonest. We
might harbor racist or other bigoted sentiments, or consider ourselves lazy or irresponsible. Though we are unlikely to act upon such inner fears, their
presence within us can generate discomforting self-directed feelings of guilt, anger, or unworthiness that we would like to eliminate. The most common
way in which humanity has tried to bring about such an exorcism is by subconsciously projecting these traits onto others (i.e., scapegoats) and
punishing them for what are really our own shortcomings. The state has trained us to behave this way, in order that we may be counted upon to invest our
lives, resources, and other energiesin pursuit of the enemy du jour. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that most of us resort to the same practice in our
criticism of political systems. After years of mouthing the high-school civics class mantra about the necessity for government and the bigger the
government the better we begin to experience the unexpected consequences of politicization. Tax burdens continue to escalate; or the state takes our
home to make way for a proposed shopping center; or ever-more details of our lives are micromanaged by ever-burgeoning state bureaucracies. Having

We condemn the
Bush administration for the parade of lies that precipitated the war against Iraq,
rather than indicting ourselves for ever believing anything the state tells us . We fault the
grown weary of the costs including the loss of control over our lives we blame the state for what has befallen us.

politicians for the skyrocketing costs of governmental programs, conveniently ignoring our insistence upon this or that benefit whose costs we would
prefer having others pay. The statists have helped us accept a world view that conflates our incompetence to manage our own lives with their omniscience
to manage the lives of billions of people along with the planet upon which we live! and we are now experiencing the costs generated by our own
gullibility. We have acted like country bumpkins at the state fair with the egg money who, having been fleeced by a bunch of carnival sharpies, look
everywhere for someone to blame other than ourselves. We have been euchred out of our very lives because of our eagerness to believe that benefits can
be enjoyed without incurring costs; that the freedom to control ones life can be separated from the responsibilities for ones actions; and that two plus
two does not have to add up to four if a sizeable public opinion can be amassed against the proposition. By identifying ourselves with any abstraction
(such as the state) we give up the integrated life, the sense of wholeness that can be found only within each of us. While the state has manipulated,
cajoled, and threatened us to identify ourselves with it, the responsibility for our acceding to its pressures lies within each of us. The statists have as was

Our politico-centric pain and suffering has

been brought about by our having allowed external forces to move in and occupy
the vacuum we created at the center of our being . The only way out of our dilemma involves a retracing of the
their vicious purpose simply taken over the territory we have abandoned.

route that brought us to where we are. We require nothing so much right now as the development of a sense of who we are that transcends our
institutionalized identities, and returns us without division and conflict to a centered, self-directed integrity in our lives.

Policy making is unnecessary we can pose questions about

the state without taking on the role of the policy maker- we
access the internal link to all of their offense.
Foucault 84 (Michel, Professor in the History of Thought Systems at the College de France. 25 April Politics, Philosophy, Culture. 1988. p51-2)
I believe too much in truth not to suppose that there are different truths and different ways of speaking the truth. Of course, one can't expect the government to tell the truth, the whole

, we can demand of those who govern us a certain truth as

to their ultimate aims, the general choices of their tactics, and a number of
particular points in their programs: this is the parrhesia (free speech) of the governed,
who can and must question those who govern them, in the name of the knowledge ,
the experience they have, by virtue of being citizens, of what those who govern do,
of the meaning of their action, of the decisions they have taken. However, one must avoid a trap in which
those who govern try to catch intellectuals and into which they often fall: "Put yourselves in our place and tell us what you would do." It is not a question one
has to answer. To make a decision on some question implies a knowledge of
evidence that is refused us, an analysis of the situation that we have not been able
to make. This is a trap. Nevertheless, as governed, we have a perfect right to ask
questions about the truth: "What are you doing, for example when you are hostile to Euromissiles, or when, on the contrary, you support them, when you
truth, and nothing but the truth. On the other hand

restructure the Lorraine steel industry, when you open up the question of private education.

Overview
Our Counter advocacy is that the USFG must abolish its
national census. This is especially important for 2 main
reasons.
1. Queerness- The increasingly high tech surveillance that is
being conducted forces people who identify as
queerbodies to be forced into margins. The Census
doesnt allow trans genders or Queers to be queers
because it forces them to identify as Male, Female, or
Other. By them having to identify has other makes them
seem to be invisible or nobody. By embracing the idea
that bodies are not labeled like what occurs in the Census
allows us to see people for how they are by personal
relationships with them other than having data that tells
us what they are Which in the status quo is a other
2. Our Demand- We demand that the USFG abolish the
National Census. We preoccupying ourselves as policy
makers within this debate prevents us from recognizing
the beaucacratic violence that are brought about by legal
proxies. This basically means that you cant just say stuff
about politics and not think that it affects us. We cant
clearly understand the choices that they make within the
legal space because we arent within the circumstances
that they face. Policy Making or acting as policy makers is
unnecessary because we can question the state or how
the state functions without acting as the state. With this
claim we access the internal link to all of their offense
because it all involves playing the role of a policy maker.

Impact O/V
Our Counter advocacy solves for 3 impact scenarios:
1. Queer Oppression- Conrad makes a few points on how
queer oppression is viewed in the status quo. Census
gathering and other means of data gathering specifically
targets and excludes queer bodies by labeling them as
other and doesnt allow for them to be seen as what
they are. This queer oppression that occurs in the status
quo is bad because it leads to a society that rejects
people who identify as queer and makes people who do
identify as queer feel like they are nobodies. This violates
their basic human right of recognition because
transgender people cannot identify themselves how they
want to within the status quo. This is bad because within
the status quo they are in a catch 22 and are forced to
identify themselves as something that they dont feel like
they are.
2. Ego Confusion- By us pretending to act as policy makers
we create a state of mind in which their isnt a difference
in what we are doing and what the institution is doing. All
that this does is causes madness and violence due to the
fact that we base our successes and failures in debate as
the successes and failures of the institution which is very
bad.

A2: Perm
The Permutation fails multiple reasons
1) Textual Competition- The counterplan cannot be
permutated to do so would sever them from the
resolution, meaning they arent topical, which is a reason
in itself to vote negative.
2) Representational Competition Their essentialization of
the oppression that comes as a result of the census
precludes the overkill committed upon queer and
transgender bodies that cant and wont conform to rigid
gender binaries on the census. Permutation is impossible
as it severs the rhetoric of the 1AC.
3) Assimilation DA The permutation is an assimilation of
queer bodies into the homonationalist state of the
government. A simple sorry, Ill make sure to help you
next time doesnt make up for the violence committed
upon queer bodies every day.
4) Net-Beneficiality There is no net-benefit to the perm, we
abolish both the data from the racial and gender portions
of the census if we win a risk of perm offense it means
you default to our counter advocacy instead.