web analytics

News Flash: Boys have Penises, Girls have Vaginas / Contra Feminism

The news article title is “Parents keep child’s gender a secret.”

In this remarkable but unsurprising news story we learn of two parents who have decided not to let the world know what kind of genitalia their child has.  It is their goal to let their child decide for ‘itself’ whether or not it shall behave ‘as a boy’ or ‘as a girl’ when s/he is old enough to understand and decide.  Unsurprisingly, the parents are thoroughly liberal progressives.   And this kind of story is why I am a ‘conservative.’

My basic guiding principle has been that my views ought to conform to reality.  Setting aside the probably legitimate observation that there has been some measure of unhealthy stereotyping and out of line discrimination based on gender, in reality some of what we call stereotyping and discrimination is not arbitrary at all.  That is to say, if a human has a penis, we call that human a boy.  If it has a vagina, we call that human a girl.   This is  not societal strictures pressed down on people.   This is a biological fact wedded with a sane desire to communicate clearly.

In short, what we have here is a set of parents that is simply out of touch with reality.

The article reports the mother as saying,

“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two ‘go-to’ adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”

Ironically, their approach seems to embody exactly the opposite.  One aspect of WHO THE CHILD IS derives from “what’s between the legs” (their words).  By not embracing this aspect they are not actually loving their child (named Storm) for who he/she is.  If they were, they would not be ashamed of the fact that Storm had a penis or a vagina, whichever it is.  Moreover, they would raise Storm to reflect the reality-driven aspect of what it means to be a boy or girl, for no matter how much one strains to deny the fact, boys and girls are different.

I mean, we must wonder how well Storm is prepared for reality when, at the ripe old age of 6, s/he chooses to be a boy, but at the ripe old age of 18 gets pregnant.   Definitionally, that’s not the kind of thing that happens to men…

That’s really what you have going on here… you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing… a boy is still a boy by any other name, and likewise a girl… but you have some people who think that by throwing off definitions you can obliterate, change, or deny the underlying reality.    Are there sometimes when definitions can be unhelpful?  Sure, I can buy that.   But there are limits to that observation.  This is secularism:  taking an observation into account but jettisoning the limits or notion of limits.

The same sort of thing is going on with homosexuality and ‘gay marriage.’  Definitionally, marriage is and has been that union between a man and a woman into a discrete societal unit under which children are created, raised, and sent off into the world.  Definitionally- but not arbitrarily.  It is a simple, biological fact that procreation requires elements from the male human combined with elements from the female human.  An oppressive society did not press this fact down upon people.  Quite the opposite- the realities percolated up from the people to shape society itself.

Hence we find the simple biological fact that two men cannot by themselves create a child and neither can two women by themselves.   In a fun case of reverse-oppression, gay marriage advocates wish us all to ignore this simple biological fact and dispense with the word ‘marriage’ as connotating a societal unit that we understand children to ‘naturally’ emerge from, and allow ‘marriage’ to apply to just about anyone who ‘loves’ each other.  Well, the traditional understanding of ‘marriage’ was not arbitrary.  It emerged from the observed facts on the ground.  By taking away this part of the definition, a hole will be created in our language:  what word shall we now use to describe male-female union, since it so obviously and self-evidently and undeniably refers  to something entirely different than male-male/female-female ‘union’? (I here pass on elaborating on the simple observation that in homosexuality you once again have an open defiance of biological reality… clearly the ‘parts’ don’t ‘fit’ in homosexual ‘unions.’)

It’s a bit like sitting down to catalog the parts of an automobile and getting to the tires, and taking umbrage at the oppressive nature of the word, and deciding henceforth that treads, cement blocks, and strawberries equally warrant the label ‘tires.’  Your car develops a condition whereby your normally inflated rubber round thing is deflated and so you go into the store and ask for a tire- and are directed to the produce department.

That is the kind of absurdity we are driven to by taking definitions, gutting them, and filling them with claptrap.  In the end, reality wins.  It always does.  People tend to be happier when they conform to reality.  For example, you might declare that one can enjoy getting run over by a bus going 60 mph but in reality you’ll either be dead or maimed.  The declaration does not change the reality, and not stepping in front of the bus in light of reality, will probably leave you happier.   Coming to terms with the reality of the fact that one has a penis or vagina will probably leave you happier.  Understanding that penises and vaginas were made for each other, and not other penises and vaginas will probably leave you happier.  Fathers understanding that they can be great fathers but never the best mother and mothers understanding they can be great mothers but never the best father will probably leave them happier- and their kids, too.

This is reality.  And truth be told, specific language will emerge to reflect it no matter what people do.  And likewise, there will always be people like myself who decide its best for everyone to take reality as it really is.   That, too, is a simple reality.

So, all this reminds me that my ministry has partner published a book called “Contra Feminism:  An appeal to the faithful remnant in Christ Jesus.”

I wish to be clear:  I do not believe all that is maintained in this book.  Nor do I accept many of the conclusions of the book.  But the book does have this going for it:  it insists on taking reality as it really is and takes aim at the social engineers that have been busy at work for the last century or so.  It is written specifically for Christians, and I would submit it for their consideration.  In particular, the stuff about the movers and shakers of the late 19th century- the socialists, communists, evolutionists, etc, who specifically advocated for social engineering aimed at denying reality- looks pretty good.  I think you may be surprised at how many modern attitudes first had their origins in the anti-Christian slayers of millions upon millions.

 

Share

37 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 1:32 am

    I’ll leave it to a trained child psychologist to decide whether the parents’ decision is beneficial or harmful, but in your superficial dismissal you seem to have missed the entire point of their decision.

    There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is what you “have between your legs”, but gender is something that society assigns you. All they are trying to do is protect their child from these gender-assigned stereotypes.

    Like I said, I’ll leave it to the experts to adjudicate on their decision, but if you are going to criticise it, at least criticise their acknowledged intent, not your own version of it.

    • End Bringer on May 31, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Recognizing and calliing reality for what it is can hardly be said to be “superficial”. If anything it’s the idea that one can simply replace definitions wholesale that’s REALLY superficial.

    “There is a difference between sex and gender.”

    There really isn’t. Even less so if we adopt the aforementioned attitude of simply demanding the definitions of “sex” or “gender” be replaced because we have some personal issue with them.

    But your sex/gender is what you’re are born as when you are concieved and manifests itself in physical traits as you grow. Period. This is biological reality which simply removing and/or replacing a few asthetic parts does not change.

    “Like I said, I’ll leave it to the experts to adjudicate on their decision, but if you are going to criticise it, at least criticise their acknowledged intent, not your own version of it.”

    We’ve got observed reality plus 4 thousand years of human history that can trump any so-called “expert”. And from all intents it seems that in trying to “protect their child from these gender-assigned stereotypes”, what they seem to be doing is using their kid’s life as some kind of ideological tool that’s only going to cause their child more harm in the future. You honestly think other grade-school kids aren’t going to pounce on this?

    • Anthony on May 31, 2011 at 6:44 am
      Author

    I knew when I posted this that someone would eventually try to make the gender/sex distinction. I deliberately stayed away from it in the post, for reasons that EB alluded to. I reject the premise as being largely invented… invented, it seems, specifically to try to dodge certain biological realities.

    To go back to the car analogy, its as if someone says, “Cars come with tires, but society assigns what to do with them.” This is usually followed by some justification such as, “Since it is society-assigned, there is no intrinsic proper use/understanding of the car, so I’m going to [use your imagination about the infinite number of other ways to use a car outside of its design parameters].

    However, here again, reality tends to break in. If someone says, “speed limits are society-assigned’ and decides to go 90 mph through a residential, let’s not all act surprised if some five year old crossing the street gets smashed. Or, if one says “stop lights are society-assigned” and proceeds to charge through red lights, its only a matter of time before the car is reduced to the size of a can of tuna. Reality. It’s called reality.

    Those examples have more to do with behavior, although the design elements are built in subtly, so to clean up the analogy some, go back to the car going 90 mph. If someone wanted to push their little eco-friendly 4 cylinder car at 90 mph in defiance of ‘society-assigned’ values, they’d find after a few attempts to bust through the boundaries of reality the simple fact that they’ve ruined their engine. Of course, a hard charging sports car could do 90 mph without breaking a sweat. You know, because in point of fact, the ability of a car to achieve high speeds with ease is not merely ‘society-assigned.’

    I will allow that my car analogy allows for some ‘society-assigned’ value stuff, but I reject the idea it can be easily divorced from reality except in the abstract and I think there is much less in this category than people may suppose. Likewise with the sex/gender distinction. It is largely abstract and academic and an attempt to circumvent reality, but there are probably some ‘societally-assigned’ aspects… just not very many as some would like us to believe.

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 7:59 am

    EB:

    “There really isn’t.”

    Well I’m sorry, but there is. As bright as you no doubt are, I hope you’ll excuse me for trusting the experts on this one.

    “your sex/gender is what you’re are [sic] born as when you are concieved [sic] and manifests itself in physical traits as you grow”

    That may be true for sex, but not for gender. Have you not heard of people with male sex organs that identify as female, and vice versa?

    “We’ve got observed reality plus 4 thousand years of human history that can trump any so-called ‘expert'”

    Eh? 4,000 years of human history tells us that not advertising a child’s sex is harmful?

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Anthony,

    “I reject the premise as being largely invented… invented, it seems, specifically to try to dodge certain biological realities.”

    No one’s trying to dodge biological realities. That’s what makes your argument superficial. The parents aren’t trying to tell their son (if it is a son) that he can have a baby if he tries really hard. They are simply trying to protect him (again, if it is a him) from arbitrarily constructed gender roles and traits.

    Which biological realities do you think are being dodged by invoking a distinction between sex and gender?

    Your car analogy doesn’t quite hit the mark in the context of sex and gender. Yes, there is no escaping the fact that sports cars are better suited to racing than, say, ice-cream trucks, in much the same way as a womb is better suited to carrying a human baby to full term than my beer gut. No one is arguing anything different. The argument comes when society says “You have a penis, so you have to be a mathematician. You have a vagina, so you have to be a nurse” or some other such rubbish, born more out of archaic gender stereotyping than any endemic biological differences.

    This is akin to saying that red cars are better at turning left than green cars, simply because they are red.

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Anthony:

    “But there are probably some ‘societally-assigned’ aspects… just not very many as some would like us to believe.”

    Could you give an example of a ‘societally-assigned’ aspect which ‘some’ promote, but with which you don’t agree?

    • Anthony on May 31, 2011 at 8:42 am
      Author

    “No one’s trying to dodge biological realities.”

    That’s where you’re wrong. Although, to be fair, put in these terms it’s not specific enough. Not all of the realities I’m referring to are purely physical in nature. There are realities… we’ll call them emergent properties… that we see among men and women.

    “The parents aren’t trying to tell their son (if it is a son) that he can have a baby if he tries really hard. They are simply trying to protect him (again, if it is a him) from arbitrarily constructed gender roles and traits.”

    You have more faith in their sanity than I do. I think they’re nuts and would tell them (if it is a son) that they can have a baby if he tries really hard. There was an article about a year ago about a ‘man’ having a child. Obviously, I don’t know this particular couple well enough to gauge how far they are detached from reality, but it is pretty easy to demonstrate that there are people who will go to that extent, your protests aside.

    “Which biological realities do you think are being dodged by invoking a distinction between sex and gender?”

    Well, only a woman can bear a child (note anecdote above about a ‘man’ having a child), which means that only a woman can be a MOTHER. So-called ‘gender traits’ that we associate with mothers are not arbitrary. To casually dismiss the nurturing touch that a mother brings to the table as arbitrary is a good example of departing from reality. This isn’t arbitrary at all.

    “Your car analogy doesn’t quite hit the mark in the context of sex and gender.”

    Well, it’s an analogy, right?

    “Yes, there is no escaping the fact that sports cars are better suited to racing than, say, ice-cream trucks, in much the same way as a womb is better suited to carrying a human baby to full term than my beer gut.”

    Right!

    But see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C23mCQvJ8I4&feature=fvst

    “The argument comes when society says “You have a penis, so you have to be a mathematician.”

    There is merit to some of that, but it goes to far. Motherhood (for example) is not an arbitrary thing. There are reasons that women have tended to be in charge of child rearing. They aren’t arbitrary at all.

    “Could you give an example of a ‘societally-assigned’ aspect which ‘some’ promote, but with which you don’t agree?”

    I think its silly that it has been suggested that the man be the bread winner by going out and getting a 9-5 salaried job with good benefits, and this is what good and responsible men do. However, there is an underlying principle at work that isn’t arbitrary- the desire of men to provide for and protect their family through material means, de-prioritizing the emotional provision/protection of the family, which is a higher priority for women. Men are built to want to provide and protect their families. You’ll never be able to obliterate that, no matter how one tries. The particular manifestation where by ‘providing and protecting’ we mean become chained to a cubicle filing paperwork or whatever and this is ‘ok’ and manly just because its bringing home the bacon, is way off base.

    • End Bringer on May 31, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    “Well I’m sorry, but there is. As bright as you no doubt are, I hope you’ll excuse me for trusting the experts on this one.”

    Well I’m a little less apologetic, but there isn’t especially if we suddenly demand the two be defined as the same and cry ‘Oppression!’ when others don’t agree. And again I’ll place biological realities with the addition of 4 thousand years of written human history over any so-called “expert” you can produce.

    “That may be true for sex, but not for gender. Have you not heard of people with male sex organs that identify as female, and vice versa?”

    As both are the same there is no distinction. And I’m very much aware of gender-swapping. It’s pretty much no different than taking a ‘bird’ and calling it a ‘cat’ simply because you ripped the wings off and attached paws on it. If you’re male, you will always be male till the day you die (and likely beyond). Same goes for females. No amount of arbitrary changes in aesthetics will change this.

    “Eh? 4,000 years of human history tells us that not advertising a child’s sex is harmful?”

    It tells us that the gender you’re born with is inherently bent to certain roles and behviours. And that superficial label swapping is a denial of this base reality.

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Anthony,

    “I think they’re nuts and would tell them (if it is a son) that they can have a baby if he tries really hard. ”

    Can you tell me which parts of the original article gave you this impression?

    Tim

    • Anthony on May 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm
      Author

    lol, pretty much all of it. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t put it past them. I’ll just stand by my original blog post re: the points I wanted to dwell on.

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    OK, but which parts in particular? It’s rather crucial to your argument.

    • Timaahy on May 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    EB:

    “It’s pretty much no different than taking a ‘bird’ and calling it a ‘cat’ simply because you ripped the wings off and attached paws on it.”

    The continued superficiality of your position is staggering.

    • End Bringer on June 1, 2011 at 7:59 am

    As is your lack of understanding. SJ summed it up best:

    A rose by any other name….

    • Timaahy on June 1, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    EB,

    You have reduced a discussion on the differences between sex and gender, and the role of societal stereotypes in gender identity, to feline-avian limb transplant.

    I think it may be you who lacks understanding.

    • End Bringer on June 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Pretty much because both reduce to the same issue: when a thing is a thing.

    As such I think it comes down to a lack of sanity for those who entertain this issue as anything other than…well…insanity.

    • Timaahy on June 13, 2011 at 2:37 am

    Would you let a baker build you a bridge? No? Well why don’t you leave gender identity to the psychologists?

    All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself.

    • kathym on June 13, 2011 at 11:03 am

    If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

    Those who wish to make other claims have allowed themselves to be rocked to sleep by their own reality. Through casting off all restraint and dismissing absolute truth, they believe lies and are easily deceived.

    “The article reports the mother as saying,

    ‘When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two ‘go-to’ adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.’”

    It’s that “strong sense of self” that is the problem. Strength does not come from creating your own reality, making your own rules, but facing what is reality and growing strong through it. Nature teaches that struggle inevitably leads to strength and maturity. We’re wired that way.

    Many so-called experts have redefined reality and have labels for everything. Huh. I wonder how the rest of the world did it up until now?

    • End Bringer on June 13, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    “Would you let a baker build you a bridge? No? Well why don’t you leave gender identity to the psychologists?”

    Because aparently you’re saying YOU would let a baker build a bridge simply by changing the meaning of “baker”. Why don’t you try taking a good look at reality and think for yourself instead of appealing to some PHD to think for you Timmy?

    I would not talk of embarrassment when your only means of arguing comes down to clumsy appeals to authority.

    • Timaahy on June 13, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Hi kathy, thanks for the analogy. It illustrates my point perfectly.

    Yes, transgender people do often look like ducks. But they walk and “quack” like something else entirely. Now that you’ve helped me, let me help you… perhaps you should educate yourself a little, before contributing further. This article is a good place to start.

    As for EB… I think you need to spend some time at the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too. No one’s trying to redefine anything, you muppet. ‘Sex’ is still sex, and is based on DNA. The issue is ‘gender’, which you claim doesn’t exist, or is simply the same as sex, all because of 4,000 years of human history, in which we were never mistaken about anything.

    Or is it because you’re a narrow-minded, intolerant bigot who thinks opinion trumps evidence?

    Whatever… I suppose you’ll keep picking and choosing your science, and your experts. It’s all you’ve got.

    • Timaahy on June 13, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “I would not talk of embarrassment when your only means of arguing comes down to clumsy appeals to authority,” said the person who doesn’t believe evolution because it’s incompatible with his holy book.

    • End Bringer on June 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Helps that it’s not compatible with observable science either. Though thanks for implicitly admitting your flawed reasoning. 😉

    • End Bringer on June 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    “No one’s trying to redefine anything, you muppet.”

    He says in one breath and in the next:

    “‘Sex’ is still sex, and is based on DNA. The issue is ‘gender’, which you claim doesn’t exist, or is simply the same as sex, all because of 4,000 years of human history, in which we were never mistaken about anything.”

    Hilarious.

    • Timaahy on June 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Not compatible with observable science?!

    FFS, you are dense.

    • End Bringer on June 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    Oh I’m sorry, have you actually observed a million years of…well anything? Or know of anyone who has?

    No. No you haven’t. You just presume it’s so based on the cicular reasoning that there is no God a priori and thus everything is reduced to naltural explanations, in which you believe you are then justified to do anything you want as there is no authority higher than yourself/humans, which in turn leads to this bizarre behaviour of simply relabeling words with claptrap and actively perverting reality and the natural world to appeal an inherently….baser nature.

    But like SJ said, reality always wins in the end. Always.

    • Timaahy on June 13, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    True. And the reality is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
    http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/difference.html

    • Timaahy on June 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Just go and google “difference between sex gender”.

    • End Bringer on June 14, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    ‘gender'[jen-der]

    (noun)

    1. the character of being male or female; sex
    2. set of grammatical categories applied to nouns, as masculine, feminine, or neuter

    Wait! What’s that word? What’s that word in the end of 1? I can’t quite make it out! Seems to be very short and starts with an ‘s’. Perhaps you would be so kind as to read it for me Timmy.

    Yes, I am ribbing you. Yes, I do want to hear you say it. It will please me.

    • Timaahy on June 14, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Oh, so that’s what you saw when you googled what I asked you to?

    But I suppose you should be congratulated for looking up a single definition in a free online dictionary. It’s much more research than you usually provide.

    But, while we’re throwing around dictionary definitions, what do you think of this one, from Merriam-Webster?

    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
    (b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

    I’ve highlighted the relevant part, just in case you’re unable to read past the definition that suits your personal (ridiculously uninformed) opinion.

    • End Bringer on June 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Thank you for confirming what my definition essentially says. I noticed in your emphasis of (b), you completely ignored the (a) of your own definition. Grasping a bit are we? 😉

    Also you should note that in (b) all it says is ‘traits’ (which may be another word we will have to be looking up soon). Last I checked ‘traits’ are not about what this topic is about, nor was it denied that ‘traits’ can be shared between sexes. That mostly comes down to the fact that male or female, we’re all still human. Naturally we’re going to share traits with varying degrees with each individual.

    But again, the reality is there are biological facts that can not be denied. Just in the same way removing a birds wings (a ‘trait’) and putting feline paws on it (a ‘trait’) doesn’t make it a cat, neither does removal or changing ‘traits’ typical of one sex change what the person is when he/she was concieved.

    So like the title says boy have penisis and girls have vaginas. These are prominent (but not the only) traits one is born with that helps indicate sex/gender to others and the classifications were born to recognize this biological reality rather than some social agenda.

    As such I consider this matter closed, but if you still want to argue Timmy you can go ahead and show just how loose your grip on reality is (as well as your own reading skills apparently).

    • Timaahy on June 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    “Thank you for confirming what my definition essentially says”

    Haha, now how did I know you were going to say that?

    If you’re going to sit there and rigidly insist that gender means “sex”, and only “sex”, then I may as well just insist that it means “a subclass within a grammatical class”, to the exclusion of all the other accepted meanings.

    Yes, it is often used as a synonym for sex, but it is also used in at least two other contexts. You merely reject the meaning that conflicts with your particular world-view. How nice for you. Now if only we can convince all those pesky psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists that you are right…

    I look forward to seeing your paper published in Nature. It will cause quite the sensation!

    But then, a change in tactics… even if you accept the second meaning, you’re still right!

    Except you’re not.

    “Last I checked ‘traits’ are not about what this topic is about”

    Well you should check again, because that’s exactly what it’s about. Just not the one-dimensional, narrow-minded, kindergarten-level traits you keep mentioning.

    The definition is clear: behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits.

    Does bird’s wing fit that category? A feline paw? What about a penis? Or a vagina?

    “As such I consider this matter closed”

    You can consider it closed if you like. But the only thing closed is your mind.

    • End Bringer on June 15, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    “If you’re going to sit there and rigidly insist that gender means “sex”, and only “sex”, then I may as well just insist that it means “a subclass within a grammatical class”, to the exclusion of all the other accepted meanings.”

    Now how did I know you would still be trying to bail out water from the boat you’ve been sitting in at the bottom of the ocean? 😉

    Give it up. Though I never said ‘gender’ doesn’t have more than one definition or application (I’m well aware of calling vehicles a ‘she’ and such) it was clear as day which definition was being used in this entire blog and discussion. What is truly sad is you have the temerity to insist no one is trying to change the meaning of the words, then turn around and not even concede the definition you yourself provided. Truly sad.

    “Yes, it is often used as a synonym for sex, but it is also used in at least two other contexts.”

    I’ll give you 10 guesses which context was being used this entire time, and the other 9 don’t count.

    “But then, a change in tactics… even if you accept the second meaning, you’re still right!

    Except you’re not.”

    I don’t recall ever denying it had more than one meaning. I challange you to provide an example of where I did. I do recall you taking issue with ‘gender’ being the same thing as ‘sex’ in relation to whether or not a person is born a boy or a girl, then digging yourself deeper and deeper into this hole till you reached China. Then started to dig some more.

    “The definition is clear: behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits.”

    Definition is also clear: sex. ‘Sex’ refering to the ‘biological realities’ your definition doesn’t mention and what’s been the clear focus of this blog. I’m utterly amused at being called out for using a rigid definition from the guy who seems to be doing the same.

    “You can consider it closed if you like. But the only thing closed is your mind.”

    *shrug* And yours appears to be so open as to be unhinged. 😉

    • jr on August 1, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    tony,

    I stumbled on this by thread accident but felt compelled to correct you here:

    “you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing”

    Actually, it’s Shakespeare and the idea you’re trying to convey is not supported by the authentic quote from Romeo and Juliet:
    “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;
    So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    Without that title.”

    The point being that, names do not matter, but the essence of a being does.

    There, I feel better.

    • End Bringer on August 2, 2011 at 12:54 am

    “The point being that, names do not matter, but the essence of a being does.”

    heheheh. It’s that you make comments like this and think they don’t support SJ’s point, that shows you really aren’t reading what he writes.

    • jr on August 2, 2011 at 7:22 am

    EB,

    ok, i’m going to hold your hand for just a minute here.
    i want you to look right at me…no, don’t look away – look right at me…

    there is a subtle shade of difference in the point that your hero was making, and the quote that he used to make it.

    it is a quiet difference. a gentle difference. but when he bastardized the words he used to make the point, he also manhandled its gentle meaning.

    okay. you can let go now. really … let go …

    • End Bringer on August 2, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Oh no, I’m going to hold on so YOU can look right at me. Don’t look away. Hold your breath so you can hear clearly:

    Your assertions are empty and prove nothing.

    Now I’ve let go.

    • jr on August 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    End Bringer,
    “The point being that, names do not matter, but the essence of a being does.”

    heheheh. It’s that you make comments like this and think they don’t support SJ’s point, that shows you really aren’t reading what he writes.

    You are so blindly obsessed with conflict.

    1. If you quote someone, then you need to do exactly that. To rephrase or paraphrase is to adjust the meaning.

    for example:

    “heheheh. It’s that you make comments like this and think they support SJ’s point, that shows you really aren’t reading what he writes.”

    By changing one word, it alters the entire meaning. Is that what you meant. No, of course not. So Tony is wrong here, either quote it, or don’t. To falsely quote is to lie. That was the point. I didn’t care about his “point” at all. It was the way he falsely quoted that is the problem. A problem you both share.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.