slug.com slug.com

2 2

I've been thinking about what launched JBP into the political sphere -- his opposition to a law that could be used to codify speech with respect to the "preferred pronouns" of transgender people.

A lot of the thinking I've read from the trans community seems muddled to me. Maybe that's because of my long personal history with certain radical feminists -- like, I used to hang out with lesbian separatists. In those quarters, I learned to conceptually distinguish "sex" from "gender." Specifically -- "sex" as a term in reference to our bodies, as men and women, whereas "gender" referred to what those sex categories meant. To me, anything we do in a way that's different with respect to men or women is doing gender.

Like, I'm not lesbian, I'm straight, so I only flirt with men. I gender men differently than women in this respect. Likewise, walking down the street, I'll make eye contact with women and smile, perhaps, but I don't do so with men, as that tends to invite unwanted flirting. I gender women differently than I gender men. When I use "she" and "her" with respect to women, I'm employing "female gendering," while the use of "he" and "him" with respect to men is a form of "male gendering."

So while sex and gender are different, they are very much interrelated.

I can sort of grok transsexuals and support them, insofar as they take the individual responsibility to change their bodies and behaviors such that they look and sound like the men or women they claim to be. But I struggle to understand those who call themselves "nonbinary" -- as if they can, by fiat, completely sever the notion of gender from their sexed bodies.

Does that make sense?

SophiaPistis 5 Mar 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

Yes "Sex" is a physiological designation and "gender" is a grammatical construct useful for communicating more clearly the masculine vs the feminine antecedent.
Jordan Petersons objection was never about imposing negative judgment upon people with sexual dysphoria. His objection was to Government officials attempt to codify speech - period. From the very beginning Jordan Peterson was very clear about objection and utter rejection of attempts of Gov't officials to impose under force of "Law" speech codes.
Peterson is not the kind of man who would ever impose personal or moral judgment on people regarding their need or want to be seen as "non-binary" in terms of their sexual identities. His vociferous objections were righteous and in reality Petersons position is to the benefit of every human beings Human Right to remain autonomous free individuals. Government was in reality heading down the path of a perverse Orwellian - thought control imposition of the general population - which includes every man, woman and child irrespective of any individuals personal preferences regarding sexual identity. In short, Peterson was sacrificing himself (he had a LOT to lose) for the God given Right to remain free in our own thoughts and ideas which can only be communicated and expressed via language both spoken and written. He was figuratively speaking, severely beaten, punished for having the courage to stand up to the authoritarianistic whims of people in Gov't.
Petersons position really had nothing at all to do with "gender pronouns" per se' . He was and is an Oracle of Wisdom and Truth and he unintentionally became a veritible Joan d' Arc in a war that if not Holy is certainly Righteous.

0

Yes.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:81943
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.