« Links Mentioned on the 10/14/14 Show | Main | Challenge Response: Knowledge Is the Enemy of Faith »

October 15, 2014

Comments

This reminds me of a poem by William Brightly Rands (also set to music by Natalie Merchant, pbuh).

TOPSYTURVEY-WORLD

If the butterfly courted the bee,
And the owl the porcupine;
If churches were built in the sea,
And three times one was nine;
If the pony rode his master,
If the buttercups ate the cows,
If the cat had the dire disaster
To be worried by the mouse;
If mama sold the baby
To a gypsy for half a crown;
If a gentleman was a lady,—
The world would be Upside-Down!
If any or all of these wonders
Should ever come about,
I should not consider them blunders,
For I should be Inside-Out!

And we will see more of this kind of thing, because, as we allow these people, oh so confused about the nature, function, and meaning of sexuality to confuse five and six-year-old children about what it means to be a boy or a girl, how much more confused will those children be when they hit puberty and begin feeling the pull of adult hormones. At least, I hope they are confused, because otherwise they're intentionally seeking to induce their own perverted view of human sexuality onto young kids.

I'm already confused myself about the whole thing. They seem to view any kind of difference as something that leads to division, exclusion, and some sort of discrimination. But their solution is to multiply the differences from two biological sexes into a multiplicity of culturally determined genders. Dividing people into even more groups will get rid of the differences that they believe people discriminate against? And given that a number of their "gender" categories they've invented or defined from people with serious psychological and anatomical defects directly conflict with the biological differences natural to the human organism, it will only increase the cultural conflicts and problems between people given how central sexuality, marriage, and family are to human beings.

I'll bet they also don't want girls to wear pink and boys to wear blue. And they don't want to give girls the dolls and boys the toy trucks. They don't want the boys to run races while the girls stand on the sidelines and cheer. They might even suggest that a girl can be class president, or that a boy can be the leader of the knitting club. What's the world coming to?? When they hit puberty, those kids won't know who they're supposed to love and who they're supposed to be grossed out about. They'll be totally confused, because kids always need adults to teach them these things, right?

The issue is NOT that educators are being instructed to not reinforce cultural and sexist stereotypes (boys wear blue/girls wear pink, girls can't be class president). The issues is that educators are being instructed to reinforce the denial that there are any differences between boy and girls, indeed to deny that the categories "boys" and "girls" even exist. Of course, these "experts" assert that all differences between the sexes are cultural and sexist stereotypes (denying any biological or inherent psychological differences).

Boys and girls are not androgynous tabula rasa. They are completely aware of the obvious differences, both anatomical and behavioral between them. When those differences are constantly shoved into the background or denied, they (especially the boys) will be more confused about what it means to be male or female. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy: confuse young boys and girls about sexual differences, both biological and cultural, and adolescent young men and women will be more confused about their own sexual identities, more insecure about their own sexuality, and thus more likely to buy the lies (that is to say, identify with the artificial, contrived multiplicity of genders) foisted upon us by these "experts".

John: The reason athletic events are sex-segregated is so that at least some of the girls can meaningfully compete rather than just stand on the sidelines. The error margins on sex as a predictor of athletic ability are tiny. The error margins of sex on a predictor of procreative role are essentially zero (obviously). Why is it so incredible to think that sex may also predict (or advise) other (e.g. social) distinctions?

I agree that sex differences are more than just cultural, so that's one point we have in common.

I didn't mean to suggest that sports should be mixed with boys and girls competing against each other. But there should be sports for girls too. "Cheering" isn't really a sport.

Then I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Here in Australia, most sports have "mens" and "womens" competitions, although many are non-segregated through primary school except at the elite levels. Teen and adult sports are usually segregated at all levels (except mixed competitions).

Elite men's sport tends to get more publicity than elite women's sport, but I believe that is directly and indirectly because it operates at a higher standard, and thus a greater draw. And also because men *tend* to be more interested in elite sport which gives a greater potential following to the mens comps. (And I say this as someone who follows a popular international sport in which Australia is currently top 2 in the world in both mens and womens comps and yet gets very little local press time, nor are its players "professional" unless they can build a support business on the back of their playing, so I'm aware of the very big gulf in presence between a 1st tier and 2nd tier sport).

The comments to this entry are closed.