Home > gender, sex differences > Revealing, Truth-Assaulting Sentence of the Day

Revealing, Truth-Assaulting Sentence of the Day

July 11th, 2011

by Carl Olson

Perhaps someone with more time and a stronger stomach than myself will take the time to wade through the dark depths of this NPR article, “The End of Gender?”, which is the sort of “news piece” that causes me to ask myself: “In the great scope of things, faced with the vastness of the cosmos and the grand mystery of life, how warped must a person be to spend their time obsessing over ‘gender’ as if it is some sort of Rosetta Stone that will bring everlasting peace, joy, and beatitude?”

In fact, the piece has a sentence that at least hints, in many ways, at some answers to that question; here it is:

“Sex differences are real and some are probably present at birth, but then social factors magnify them,” says Lise Eliot, an associate professor of neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School and author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps and What We Can Do About It. “So if we, as a society, feel that gender divisions do more harm than good, it would be valuable to break them down. ” (emphasis added)

Here is what I see proposed in this short but disturbing sentence:

1. The foundation of reality and moral authority is not God, but “we, as a society”. Man is self-made, self-defined, and, well, selfish, and that is not only agreeable but necessary for enlightened transgenderists such as Eliot. If humanity is self-defining, it will only define itself down into inhumanity. And this often is facilitated with an appeal to some vague but intimidating entity such as “society” or “the state” or “the experts”.

2. The basis for making subjective but radical decisions about human nature and purpose is emotional; the use of the word “feel” is apt, even if Eliot might insist this is a logical, scientific choice. This is ideology dressed up in science and airbrushed with the rhetoric of choice and self-actualization.

3. The differences between men and women are not, according to the ambitious god-makers, natural and complimentary complementary and benefitial, but are a source of division and discord. But, then, isn’t this the very tactic of the serpent, who upon seeing that man and woman have become one flesh (Gen 1:22-25), seeks to sever them from one another and from God (Gen. 3)? The two severings, in fact, always go hand in hand. Always. Take it to the bank. (This, you might recognize, is a key theme in Blessed John Paul II’s theology of the body.)

4. Further, the attempt to deny and destroy the created and good differences between men and women is presented as a triumph of unity (‘break them down”), while the complimentarity of male and female is presented as harmful. The “logic” of this is frightening, because it is not merely asserting that people should be able to decide what “gender” they are (which is bad enough), but it is insisting that the very realities of male and female are harmful. Ponder the ramifications of that mentality for a few seconds.

Many of the great heresies of the early centuries of the Church sought to force union where distinction were needed (for example, collapsing the divine and human natures of Christ, or rejecting the distictions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), while tearing apart what should be properly united (as in modalism, for example, or Arianism). Put one way, heresies flow from an incorrect understanding of a particular relationship. The modern assault on traditional sexual morality and human nature is quite similar, I think, in its distortion of right relationship—between man and woman, sex and procreation, love and marriage, etc.—and disregard for proper ends.

Keep reading.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Heidi
    July 12th, 2011 at 07:46 | #1

    Yet another sky is falling article that espouses an ideology based on gender stereotypes.

  2. Ruth
    July 12th, 2011 at 12:55 | #2

    Reading on, there is an excellent quote from Pope Benedict and some very good comments from readers, as well.

  3. July 12th, 2011 at 13:28 | #3

    @Heidi Believe it or not, there are indeed differences between men and women, and it isn’t just biological.

  4. July 12th, 2011 at 15:55 | #4

    We are going to have to define “man” and “woman” if we enact an egg and sperm law, because the egg and sperm law defines egg as the gamete of a female and sperm as the gamete of a male, so that means we have to define male and female. sometimes it is ambiguous if a person is a male or a female, but everyone has one sex which they would be more likely be able to procreate as, no human is able to procreate as either sex the way Clownfish are. Our sexes don’t change. A male is someone who would be more likely to be able to father a child with a woman, if they were healthy, while a woman is someone who would most likely be a mother to a child, providing an egg to his sperm. We shouldn’t be allowed to change sex and procreate as if we were the other sex, or with another person of our same sex.

    (We should be allowed to dress and live publicly as whichever sex we feel more comfortable, regardless of if it is the sex we’d most likely procreate as, and even legally change sex, but we should not be allowed to attempt to procreate as if we were the other sex.)

  5. Heidi
    July 13th, 2011 at 07:13 | #5

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    You’re right Glenn–much of the difference is cultural! Not to mention that there is a multitude of men and women that don’t fit into the stereotypical boxes that you would place them in. My partner has super short hair and likes to buy a lot of men’s clothing, but she is sterotypically female in her psychological make-up. I like to wear dresses and make-up but I am the one in our household that performs the typically “male” jobs and acts more like a man in my psychological make-up. Neither of us fit into the stereotypical gendered role that biological determinists claim is intrinsic to women. If you take 10 random women or men off of the street and compare them, you will see that each one performs their gender differently. It is only in large, sterotypical generalizations of human behavior that you can make any real distinctions and those differences may arise biologically, culturally, socially, etc. Gender is not simply biological, nor is it the product of a nature versus nurture dichotomy. Like many human attributes, it is both nature AND nurture that shape an individual’s gender identity.

  6. July 13th, 2011 at 17:56 | #6

    @Heidi No, gender is innate. Children will know their gender intrinsically. There are differences other than just wearing clothes or cutting hair or doing specific jobs, and THOSE physiological differences are what I am referring to.

  7. John Noe
    July 13th, 2011 at 20:26 | #7

    Gender identity is another lie put forth by the homosexual activists. Simple biology should tell you that you are either born male or female. The transgendered crap is all a bunch of lies.

  8. Heidi
    July 14th, 2011 at 10:54 | #8

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Wrong Glenn. Children will know their SEX at a very young age, but gender identity (what it means to that individual to be born a certain sex) is a different issue. For most people, their gender matches their sex. But for a significant portion of people, it does not. Sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation are all separate, albeit intertwined, human characteristics–the origins of which are complex and not yet fully understood.

  9. Ruth
    July 14th, 2011 at 13:20 | #9

    Children are good at observation, but not so good at interpretation.
    Thus, a little girl or a little boy can be affected by what they experience from their own father and/or mother in a way that makes them unwilling to identify with their own gender.
    The focus should be on helping that individual interpret their experience in a way that allows them to fully embrace their own gender-consistent sexuality and prepares them to accept the normal, healthy, loving “other”.

  10. July 14th, 2011 at 17:41 | #10

    @Heidi No, Heidi, sex and gender are intrinsically intwined. Sexual orientation is a choice due to environment instruction of some type or abusive environment. There is absolutely no evidence that it is an intrinsic part of humans. You just try to justify that with is not justifiable.

  11. Heidi
    July 15th, 2011 at 07:15 | #11

    @Glenn: “Sexual orientation is a choice due to environment instruction of some type or abusive environment.” That is a total lie that is repudiated by the experiences of the vast majority of LGBT people. Let’s see, I was raised in an environment that instructed me to believe as you do–fundamentalist Christianity. I was indeed raised by an abusive father for part of my childhood until my mother finally divorced him, but I didn’t “turn gay” as a result. Instead, I have been bisexual for as long as I can remember. My partner was raised by Southern Baptists in Virginia. She received no “environment instruction” to be gay–she didn’t even know a single gay person until she went to college! She was instructed at church that homosexuality was a grave sin. And neither of her parents were abusive–except that they sent her to counseling at 8 years old because they were already picking up on the signs that their daughter was a lesbian. Why don’t you try talking to some gay people Glenn? Better yet, talk to their family members. You might find that your crass assumptions don’t hold water.

  12. Anne
    July 15th, 2011 at 07:19 | #12

    @Heidi
    “For most people, their gender matches their sex.”

    “Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word “gender” to refer to anything but grammatical categories.”-Wikipedia

    A “sexologist” MADE UP the distinction.

    God MADE the human race. It consists of male and female genders.

    For thousands of years the world has known that sex and gender are the same. It doesn’t change because a “sexologist” says so or because a segment of the puplic wants it to. Gender is not a matter of personal or public opinion.

  13. Ruth
    July 15th, 2011 at 11:06 | #13

    @Heidi
    How early are your memories of your father being abusive?
    Are they as early as your memories of being bisexual?
    Can your partner remember any situation(s) in which she felt that “acting like a girl” would be unsatisfying to her?
    Did she feel that she could be respected and honored as a girl, and later as a woman?

  14. July 15th, 2011 at 17:27 | #14

    @Heidi I’ve talked to many homophiles, and a friend is an ex-homophile (oops – they aren’t supposed to exist). I am also very aware numerous studies which prove what I stated.

    I think Anne and Ruth have some excellent questions!

  15. Anne
    July 18th, 2011 at 03:33 | #15

    @Heidi
    “And neither of her parents were abusive–except that they sent her to counseling at 8 years old because they were already picking up on the signs that their daughter was a lesbian.”

    Heidi, while raising your sister’s daughter, do you ever redirect behaviour you see as inappropriate?

    Do you suppose that all natural inclinations are appropriate behaviour?

    Do you have any criteria for distinction between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour other than the one you used in a previous post: “there must be something seriously wrong with someone who wants to……”?

    Your arguments seem to work against you when they are applied to homosexual behaviour. You don’t ever seem to address these questions when they are redirected back to you.

Comments are closed.