Posted on 03/11/2017 11:29:39 AM PST by reaganaut1
The latest leftist “it” accessory these days is not a choker for women or man-bun for (kinda) men. It’s not even designer embryos with pruned-to-perfection DNA being carried by a sturdy middle class woman with financial troubles. If a leftist wants to be gasp-out-loud edgy and in, she and she or she and he simply must have a transgendered child. The younger, the better.
Like being a vegan or a triathlete or cross-trainer, it’s not enough to have a transgendered child, everyone must know about the child this instant. The reason, of course, is because big Meanie McMeanipants Trump rescinded the most trollish of all troll moves President Benevolence Obama took at the end of his underwhelming tenure: using Title IX to ensure that the .0001 of the children in America who were confused about bathroom use felt included and that the rest of America felt irritated.
Obama’s rule was a solution in search of a problem and another way to jab the eyes of people who never could quite see his magnificence. Donald Trump saw the move for what it was and promptly reversed it, also by Executive Order. Now, America is being treated to steroid-fueled women beating other women up and gender confused tots and their moms who are outraged for them.
The Child as Prop
Enter abortion activist Jen Aulwes. Ms. Aulwes is the communications director for Planned Parenthood in Minnesota and North and South Dakota. The Washington Post didn’t care to mention that tidbit, when it ran her piece about her seven-year-old boy who wants to live as a girl. Could it possibly be that Ms. Aulwes has a political ax to grind and might that influence her perspective? Of course.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
This is the irony, that all the gender identity confusion *is* all about the manipulation of language. "Preferred pronouns" never change the reality in the DNA.
Sadly the deluded start with the fantasy, and then have themselves mutilated to match. Only it never really works. The "doctors" (predators) who play along have a special place in hell reserved.
Yes, indeed!
So no more of this *MEN* and *WOMEN*; it's more properly masculine and feminine. I suspect the feminineists will not be happy, but then they never are.
Oh, and the *transsexuals*? That would seem to make them neuters....
I, for one, have studied and become fluent in one European language, and can read another. I prefer to use the word "gender" because it is a neutral word that does not imply any physical act, but refers only to the biological gender.
I find somewhat puzzling the argument that "gender" is merely a grammatical term, like "noun" or "gerund." That argument is rather nonsensical to me, actually. You might as well insist that the words "male" and "female" are merely descriptive of grammatical functions, and have no other meaning than that. But the reality is that the grammatical functions are actually linked to perceptions of the nature of the object being described.
Outside of the grammatical descriptors, languages change over time and across distance. I tend to think that the objection to using "gender" to describe whether a person is male or female is rooted in both time and regional dialect, rather than in any hard-and-fast rule. And I will continue to use the word "gender": I will readily state that my gender is female, but sex is a private matter.
You can think what you want and say what you want but gender is not a sex. That’s some cultural Marxist construction that came out of the humanity departments and it has nothing to do with biology.
Do you also, then, consider the words “masculine” and “feminine” to be no more than grammatical constructs that are not rooted in biology, since they refer to the two categories that are described by the grammatical term of “gender”?
I would argue that the insistence that gender (and by inference, the words “masculine” and “feminine” and their derivatives) is no more than a grammatical descriptor that has no root in biology feeds right into and may even be a primary driver of the ridiculous notion that maleness and femaleness are no more than societal constructs imposed on genderless children at the moment of their birth (or first ultrasound). In this case, then insisting that the word “gender” refer to the natural biologic reality becomes a critical weapon in the fight against “transgenderism.”
As I mentioned before, the strong emotional opposition against using the word “gender” to refer to biological genders (even though the grammatical terms “male/masculine” and “female/feminine” quite plainly refer to biological as well as grammatical gender) is very puzzling and curious to me. The arguments used to support the opinion that “gender” should only be used in reference to a grammatical category that doesn’t even exist in English (begging the question of why nearly everyone knows the word) suggest that there is a strong cultural/temporal/dialectical basis for that opposition. I engage in these discussions not to change opinions, but to try to understand the basis of the opposition.
I would argue, rather, that the concept of gender has been co-opted and redefined by the cultural Marxists as a tool to try to force their unnatural model of human society down our throats.
Actually, I said that in my last post, albeit in a very convoluted way.
The cultural/temporal/dialectical roots to which I refer are strictly facets of American culture. My culture is shaped by the fact that I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, but have lived most of my adult life in Maryland. I gather from your previous postings that you are a pure New Yorker, born and raised. My temporal perspective is that I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, and belong to the younger group of Baby Boomers. And my dialect is Northern Californian, mediated by Maryland influences.
What this all boils down to is that our cultural perspectives may be quite different, to the extent that behaviors/language usage that one of us finds perfectly ordinary and unremarkable might be deeply offensive to the other. So while you use the word “sex” to refer to biological gender, I find that usage embarrassing and uncomfortable and try to avoid it whenever possible.
You don’t like the word “sex”?
Nope. At least, not for things that have nothing to do with that activity.
That makes no sense, I’m sorry.
Then I guess we are even.
To me, it makes no sense to reject the use of a word that has neutral connotations in favor of a word that has extremely heavy connotational baggage. (And yes, I am making up words here.)
Technically, MM, you are right.
Nevertheless, I also have been using “gender” dating back to a hideous conversation in the late 80’s concerning a research design I had with my graduate advisor and department head, also a bully and colossal A-hole. To my surprise, and without thinking, the word “gender” popped out of my mouth in reference to male/female data. He took the moment to repeat my phrase substituting “sex” for gender, letting me know what’s what in the most lascivious and “knowing” way. I’ve used the term “gender” ever since. Note that this was well before “gender” was in common usage. PS: I’m no shrinking violet.
Well, no offense, but you reacted like a shrinking violet and that you continue to use a word that is “technically incorrect” shows you are still a little afraid of what others think. Most ordinary Americans have absolutely NO reaction to the word “sex.” It is the Stalinists on the left who have a problem with it.
Now, if you choose to use the word “gender” because you want to, that’s something else again.
For instance, the word "stewardess" fell out of vogue and suddenly women who serve drinks on planes and show us (when we are paying attention) how to properly don an oxygen mask were called "flight attendants" because it was "gender neutral."
Ditto for other gender specific terms like waitress, actress and even secretary. I mean c'mon, who out there is really fooled by "executive assistant"? They can call themselves whatever they want but when I need reservations made at a restaurant for a client or need something typed up nice and neat, they are the people I am going to call on.
And I never did get the "Miss" vs "Ms" thing. Maybe somebody can explain that one to me.
Back then, the trans-language silliness didn't cross over into the biological confusion that manifests today. Who at that time would have even considered such a risk?
I'll add in the popular mantra that "you can be anything you want if you just set your mind to it." Talk about hyper-literalism run amok. It wouldn't be so bad if people within the government and medical professions didn't approve, enable, legitimize and "actualize" the insansity.
How long before heart procedures are pushed way down the priority list to make room for "gender reassignments"? Well if you hadn't eaten so many trans-fats...
I took a battering from this nasty guy for a long semester. He tried to destroy me and a project I had acquired funding for out of sheer professional jealousy. He had the upper hand with a PhD status while I was a graduate student with no allies or support. So I was reacting to more than his phraseology. Perhaps you would have done better in that situation.
I said you are right, technically. But grammar and usage change with the culture, sometimes making technically correct definitions seem less important and, often, a bit pedantic. Our society has become so sexualized that the word sex has lost its sedate usage that it once had, say, in Victorian England. It has become super charged. I don’t know how you can be so sure that “most Americans” have no problem with the word sex, particularly in the kind of situation I was describing. I also have no idea how much impact the Stalinist left has had on my behavior and thinking. Probably none. I started using the term gender in the late 80s because of a bad experience and it became a habit. Don’t care to analyze it any further.
I have no problem with anyone using the term sex rather than gender in any situation they please. But I’ve found the rules of the game in the academic research environment to be far different from that of the theater where I also have spent an important part of my life ... and with no worries about any kind of usage whatsoever.
But I must say this thread is just more proof how conservatives capitulate to the left-wing agenda without firing a shot.
Me capitulate to the left-wing agenda? Nah. More likely I’m just a prude. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.