In October, 2019, the US Supreme Court heard arguments about "whether the definition of sex in U.S. law includes sexual orientation and gender identity." (Elizabeth Slattery in The Daily Signal, October 8, 2019)
Here's a hint: no, it doesn't.
In the interest of clarity, here are some definitions and observations.
Sex is a chromosomal derivative of our biological identities
Sex is a chromosomal derivative of our biological identities. There are two sexes, male and female. Males have X and Y chromosomes in their cells. Females have two X chromosomes in their cells*. These genetic features determine sex and produce the characteristics of each sex in individuals. Sex can be verified in forensic cases by genetic tests, even if no anthropological characteristics of the person can be observed. In other words, sex can be established with only a bit of flesh, blood, bone, or saliva, that is, with biological material.
Gender is a construct of language. There are three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter. These refer to whether an object is regarded as male, female, or not possessed of maleness or femaleness or neither. In the German language there are masculine, feminine, and neuter articles to be used correctly with nouns and proper nouns. French uses only masculine and feminine articles. English uses neither. We use the same article for either sex or gender. In English we say the woman, the man, the chair. English does have gendered pronouns. We say, ‘the woman [she] bought a rug, the man [he] bought a rug, or the chair [it] sat on the rug.
Many, although not all, navies consider ships to be feminine. Thus we have the "Lady Lex," the USS Lexington, in World War II. The Lexington was not female (a sex), but rather characterized using feminine terms. There's a difference. Ships do not have DNA or chromosomes. We like to give ships nicknames, so many ships, considered feminine, receive feminine names or nicknames. Thus, Lady Lex.
There are, however, unlimited numbers of delusions. Over the past several years, some people with social agendas worked very hard to give the word "gender" a new meaning. At first, they just used "gender" in place of the word "sex." The success of this tactic is visible on nearly every job application and form today. The forms ask for one's gender, when what they really want to know is one's sex. I correct this as often as possible, but it isn't always possible, especially on electronic forms.
Giving the word "gender" a new meaning
The next step was to begin to twist the new definition into including sexual orientation and sexual preference. LGBT came along, supplemented with another angle to rest at LGBTQ. Gender had come to mean sex, but that didn't work as desired, so "sexual orientation" was added to gender to mean the variety of ways which one might swing. At the same time, the agenda-wielding people began to co-opt the language of the Civil Rights movement to protect people from "discrimination." The agenda drivers now demand that 1. society must not discriminate against anyone's "sexual orientation, " and, in fact, 2. society must accept, then embrace, all "genders and sexual orientations" anywhere they may be encountered. We now find ourselves in a situation where the bearers of these new genders and sexual orientations are the only ones who may correctly identify discrimination against themselves. It's a win-win scenario for them, but a no-win scenario for the rest of us. Activists having constructed new rules which benefit themselves, and without input from anyone else, they now demand that we all follow the rules we did not endorse or choose. Now these activists demand that we embrace their piracy of the language.
I wish I could put a finger on the specific people and places where this capture of perfectly useful words began, but in this day and age that seems to be nearly impossible. "Gay" was a perfectly good word that was redefined to mean a specific couple of types of sexual orientation. Now when we read to the end of the Mother Goose saying about "Monday's child is fair of face. . .but a child that is born on the Sabbath day is bonny and blithe and good and gay." People snicker, but we must harken back to a different era before that particular word was stolen. People become embarrassed and change the subject when anyone recalls the "Gay Nineties." It's too bad. I remember when the word meant lighthearted and somewhat frivolous. Even the Flintstones understood it correctly.
The delusions have multiplied in recent years. At a recent count, there were over 80 different ‘genders,' or is it over 200 now? I can't keep track. The promoters want the word to mean any possible characteristic of self-regard/sexual inclination/attitude. Some promoters of the term insist that if a male self-identifies as a woman, then [pronoun] is actually a woman and belongs in the women's locker room or on the women's team. The gender pirates actually applaud biological males who win events at women's track meets or score the winning goals in women's basketball games. They're called brave pioneers. They win sympathy and encouragement from said pirates. Their hormone levels are ‘monitored' by athletic associations to ‘ensure fairness.' It's among the most delusional behaviors I've seen over the years.
Support Canada Free Press
It's madness. It's insanity. It suggests that we can change reality by applying delusional thinking to biology or genetics.
In time, this will ruin women's sporting events. It flies in the face of all Title IX programs. How can proponents of the concept of Title IX just let "trans" athletes make a joke out of their sports? Can anyone argue that self-identity as a trans-whatever doesn't give an unfair physical advantage in many cases? Who wants their daughter to compete against a dude who wears his hair funny? We used to roll our eyes at the East German women who took hormones and bulked up and began to shave beards in order to win Olympic sporting events against other women. Now this!
To use the clinical term, this is nuts. It's madness. It's insanity. It suggests that we can change reality by applying delusional thinking to biology or genetics. It all comes down to an aggressive effort to impose a radical agenda on others and demand they embrace it. It demands that we go along with their piracy of the language as they force others to adopt and embrace their delusions. It demands we abandon reason and science to avoid ‘offending' someone who is utterly confused about the most basic genetic traits.
In the future, can we agree that to decide which team an individual can play for, all we need is a cheek swab, not a gender dictionary? And can we agree that we only need to do the test once? I mean, dude!
• Update: Correcting an error
Dr. Bruce Smith (Inkwell, Hearth and Plow) is a retired professor of history and a lifelong observer of politics and world events. He holds degrees from Indiana University and the University of Notre Dame. In addition to writing, he works as a caretaker and handyman. His non-fiction book The War Comes to Plum Street, about daily life in the 1930s and during World War II, may be ordered from Indiana University Press.
In October, 2019, the US Supreme Court heard arguments about "whether the definition of sex in U.S. law includes sexual orientation and gender identity." (Elizabeth Slattery in The Daily Signal, October 8, 2019)
Here's a hint: no, it doesn't.
In the interest of clarity, here are some definitions and observations.
