WELCOME. For fun, I have pointed out aspects that are True versus Sort-of-True. I will leave you to guess the rest. Enjoy. And as always, comments are welcome.
Copyright© 2017 T. Riggs
I have a teenager. (True)
The hot-topic of the next generation is Gender. (Sort-of-True)
With a capital G.
They were asked for the entire first year of high school: What gender are you? Are you Trans? Homo? Hetero? What sex to you ascribe to? What gets your hormones going?
Since when is Sex, the same as Gender?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (introduced it 1961 and revised in 1962 through 1964) was very specific. It said no discrimination based on “sex”… of course that was to try to get the whole thing vetoed, which failed… but well, that’s the term we’re left with. And that is what Title IX is based on in all it’s Jim Crowe “Keep ’em separated” glory. (Aside from my “Jim Crowe” assertion, all of the previous information is true. And I highly recommend clicking the last link there for “keep ’em separated”… ‘Offspring” makes great background noise to the following rant.)
According to my teachings, Sex is a VERY specific delineation. It means: the bits you are born with. There are male (testicles), female (ovaries), and occasionally (quite random and rarely) there are Nephilim. Oh… sorry… hermaphrodites. (Neither male nor female and/or having both sexual organs.)
Well, kiddos… that is a long and arduous story that begins with the very oldest (or at least Judeo-Christian oldest) origin story.
Men. And Women. Masculine. And Feminine.
Men are strong, warriors, bring-home-the-baconers. God gave the world to…
Women are weak, caregivers, cook-the-baconers. Men gave the work to…
Women are why the men have to kill the bacon in the first place.
Otherwise, men would have been, well, doing whatever the hell-men-would-want-to-do when their women aren’t nagging them to bring home the bacon to cook.
To feed the kids.
That they fathered.
But I digress.
Let’s go to our friend Merriam-Webster (MW) to clear up this confusion. But first, let me explain something about Gender (see a previous blog for clarification):
- Gender does not exist.
- Gender is not a real thing.
- Gender is a Societal Construct.
- An abstract ideal.
- A generalization.
Initially created for the resolute and very astute purposes of division-of-labor.
And then the bacon-killers took over.
And suddenly the support team (women) became the bitches. (Definitely True, though I didn’t witness its inception, just the repercussions of it.)
Yes. I said it.
The administrative support that made sure that the baconers had a home to come home to…
Were the bitches.
Speak MW and we will listen (I have bolded the important parts… avert your eyes if you are squeamish):
|Etymology:||Middle English, from Latin sexus|
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females 3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 : GENITALIA
Now while the gametes are being displayed… here’s what MW says about Gender:
|Etymology:||Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at KIN|
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2 a : SEX <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Notice the terms:
- distinguishable characteristics
- SOCIAL RANK
- Behavioral, Cultural, or Psychological TRAITS associated with one sex.
These are all arbitrary, subjective, functional, adjectives. Used at some point in our elaborate history to subjugate, malign, and otherwise marginalize an entire population of human beings.
So… apologies if I am not all goo-gahing over the last coming-out of some man-now-woman with power, prestige, and sexual appeal.
I am a little pissed off. (Eh… sure… given the right catalyst.)
I said it.
A little pissed. (For posterity.)
You don’t get to live your life with that silver *d* spoon in your hand.
And when women are on the cusp of gaining equality, you want to grab your fake breasts and proclaim your sovereignty…
Hands off bitch.
We worked for this.
Believe it or not… I am laughing, quite loud. And your thoughts are welcome.
ALL JOKES ASIDE: I support the LGBT movement. However, since the beginning of deciding my support and seeing the reaction in society, I have been concerned that the new focus on Gender (a societal construct) and Sexuality (a biological aspect) as determining “Who” we are… rather than simply “What”… not only is not psychologically healthy… the socio-political focus has hindered, and continues to hinder the Women’s Rights Movement.
With Gender, the confusion of “what” with “who” has refocused the lens of society back onto generalized traits, perceived as feminine or masculine, and… blurred the lines of… but also outlined… arbitrary personality traits that ALL humans exhibit or are capable of exhibiting.
The focus on Gender means that somehow, feminine is STILL weak and submissive – and masculine is strong and assertive. Women traits are weak. Male traits are strong. This means that when a woman shows the same assertiveness as a man in the work environment, she will be perceived as a ‘bitch’, while the man will not so much as get a comment regarding their behavior.
As I stated in one of my previous blogs, all humans are capable of exhibiting feminine or masculine personality traits. Continuing to divide and classify them, while on the surface looks like blurring the lines, and ideally is removing the stigma of one over the other… I’m just not convinced, I’m not sure that… well… I don’t think it will work. And in fact, it hasn’t worked. Because, honestly, look at who is sitting in the highest office in the land right now.
We have to get this right. We have to make sure that we are having the right conversation, and are looking ahead to see what the repercussions of our actions will be… this free-for-all-rights? It might just be hurting the Human Rights Movement, well, at least 50% of the human population that are still perceived as victims.