Gender Labeling

The ‘Gender Identity’ crisis has most definitely imploded to such an extent that even those 93+% who identify as a specific gender are no longer allowed to.   In addition, it would seem we are confusing gender vs sexuality vs identity vs behavior. Scientifically there are and always have been three genders; feminine, masculine and neuter. Historically, when referencing a person, neuter was someone who was androgynous. In the world of animals, neutering is making a male animal incapable of reproduction. It does not ‘change their gender’.   We still base our English on classifications of she, he and it. “It” typically references an object.   All languages have these same distinctions of feminine/masculine/neuter.

If we have anywhere from 19 to 100 new ‘gender classifications’, do we then alter our English grammar to accommodate these new constructs?   And do we require these new constructs to be learnt in elementary reading books ‘TransJane ate cheese…”? Will all books be rewritten, texts be rewritten, will non-identity books be burned?

According to the newly indoctrinated Sociology classes at universities, sexism is “an attitude or behavior that discriminates against one sex…typically woman…”   So what is sex? According to these Sociologists, “the biological characteristics with which we were born…”

That would mean sexism is either feminine or masculine and is not a ‘gender identity’. What we are witnessing is massive confusion in the parlay of word play. There are only two birth genders – male and female. How someone identifies their attraction as an adult does not alter their gender, it simply is a representation of sexuality preference. Even if a person ‘transgenders’, they are still either a male or female in their ‘gender’.

If a male dog mates with a cat, the dog is still a male dog, he hasn’t become anything else. Nor does the world purport to give the male dog a new identity name and call him a creole musk. 

Facebook feels they are the new rocket science of gender definition labels with 58 to choose from:

  1. Pan-binary: binary is a mathematical numerical association of ‘two’, in computers, 0 and 1. Pan is ‘non’. So a Pan-Binary is ‘one’, which is not a gender, it is a number.
  2. Cis: apparently this means you are either male or female by birth… oddly, CIS is an acronym for about a hundred different identities… including, Christians In Sport, Custom Internet Solutions, Certificate Issuance Software… errr, I don’t get it.
  3. Intersex: not to be confused with hermaphrodite in which a person is born possessing both male and female genetics, an intersex person simply ‘identifies’ as having male and female traits. Traits – are not a gender.
  4. Androgye and Androgyny: both identify as ‘neuter’.

 

The obsession we are currently witnessing in redefining gender is supposedly instituted in order to placate people who feel that labels need to be more specific. But why? When I was growing up people were anti-labeling. Labeling was considered a way to box a person into a definition that wasn’t necessarily fair or equal. It was considered a way of dividing people and classing them. Back then it was about neutering woman. Woman couldn’t be ‘waitresses’, they had to be ‘waitstaff’. Nowadays we can’t have any ‘esses’, because that would denote a feminine, and we can’t have ‘ors’ because that would denote a masculine. Does that mean now we have to identify a person as a waitCIS, or a waitpanbinary, or a waitandrogyny?  Will a flight attendant now become a flight attendcis or a flight attendpan?

Does it mean we eliminate she and he from the English language and insert one of the 19-100 new identities? Or is everyone now an ‘it’, an object?  A flight attendit.

Many schools are ‘requiring’ students to dress in an androgynous ‘masculine’ fashion – pants and ties. Isn’t that sexist?

Will boys go to OBgyn’s?

Gender is now muted to be defined as a ‘social behavior’. But behavior is the manner in which we conduct ourselves, by definition.  Behavior is not a gender, it is an action that is either positive or negative. In psychology, social behavior is categorized as; violent, aggressive, or a developmental disorder.

Is that really how ‘gender’s’ should be categorized? The promotion of labeling will eventually hit a brick wall and people will wonder, ‘what was I thinking?’

One example of oops mislabeling was the elimination of stewardess and steward with the replacement of ‘flight attendant’. This was actually a significant demotion per definition: A Steward was someone who was given the responsibility of management, someone who was a representative of a King, whereas an Attendant was a servant to another, someone with no authority.

Maybe we should add to the gender labeling –  a politician – because they obviously are not male or female… they are in a world of their own.

In an age where youth demand equality, they seem to be simultaneously bent on ‘inequality labeling’. ‘Cause everyone is still a guy or a girl whether you are trans or bi or CIS or Pan. And maybe this is one massive hoodwinking …

One thought on “Gender Labeling

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s