December 3, 2012

"How can gender be 100% nurture and sexuality be 100% nature?"

The question of the day, pithily articulated.

16 comments:

edutcher said...

Dr Freud, please pick up the white courtesy telephone.

Elliott A said...

People cannot have gender, only sex

Elliott A said...

And that is 100% nature; x and y chromosomes

TMink said...

Gay and lesbian are terms like Ebonics: created out of whole cloth to deny a problem.

Trey

n.n said...

TMink:

It's a mistake to enable people to corrupt our language. It is sufficient to describe their behavior (e.g. homosexual) without changing the meaning of perfectly good words or names (e.g. gay, lesbian). Language is first and foremost purposed as a facility for communication. It loses it value when exploited as a prop.

Salamandyr said...

n.n. what other meaning did lesbian ever have?

LordSomber said...

I've always thought these "either/or" arguments were overly simplistic.

Maybe a Venn diagram is in order.

Salamandyr said...

I used to regularly use "homosexual", because I thought it sounded more correct. However, I've since decided it is better to call people what they choose to be called. Thus I say "gay" "lesbian" or "africa-american" or "pro-choice" to describe whatever group appellates themself that way.

What I do not do is allow one group to designate the appellation of another group. I've had "pro-choice" people get very upset that I choose to call "pro-life" people pro-life. But that is what they call themselves, and I choose to respect that.

Dante said...

Well, not to quibble, but there are some children born who fit into both categories, and someone has to decide what sex the child will end up as.

There was a great House episode on this, in which a beauty queen turned out to be a guy with testosterone resistance. You wouldn't believe it except for this guy/gal this transgender beauty queen.

buwaya said...

A native of the isle of Lesbos ?

Larry J said...

Salamandyr said...
I used to regularly use "homosexual", because I thought it sounded more correct. However, I've since decided it is better to call people what they choose to be called. Thus I say "gay" "lesbian" or "africa-american" or "pro-choice" to describe whatever group appellates themself that way.


Over the course of time, the preferred label for African-Americans has changed many times. Before my time, "colored" was a somewhat accepted term, as in the "National Association of Colored People." For whatever reason, that word fell out of favor. Should the NAACP change their name?

When I was young, "negro" was an accepted term as in "The United Negro College Fund." Should they change their name?

Later, the term "black" was used, as in "black power", "Congressional Black Caucus" and "Black Entertainment Television." While "black power" isn't heard very often any more, should CBC and BET change their names?

Later, for understandable reasons, many people didn't want to be labeled by the color of their skin so the preferred phrase became "African-American." Best I can recall, this happened sometime in the early to mid-1980s. While I can understand them not wanting to be labeled by the color of their skin, it would perhaps be helpful if they didn't turn right around and talk so much about "white people." After all, if it's wrong to call them black, why is it acceptable for them to call us white?

How about we just call each other people or perhaps Americans?

Michael said...

larryJ African Americans emerged in the late 80s or early 90s. Living in atlanta I find that cab drivers from Africa find this designation both accurate and hilarious.

sean said...

To paraphrase George Orwell, only university professors are foolish enough to actually believe those two things. Activists use whichever extreme position suits the needs of the moment. Normal people with real jobs laugh at both groups.

Saint Croix said...

What always struck me as funny is that it's the height of PC to say "person of color" and it's embarrasing racism to say "colored person."

pduggie said...

Afro-american was used for a while, and it is way more tripping off the tongue than af-ri-can-am-er-i-can.

But it was rejected because a people aren't a hairstyle. for reals.

Charlie Martin said...

Easy: it's whatever is politically convenient at the time.