Hello, My Pronouns are,--------\--------

DiskuteraChristianity

Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

Hello, My Pronouns are,--------\--------

1brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:38 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

2MyopicBookworm
nov 13, 2021, 4:48 pm

I think your comment is nonsense.

Marxism is concerned with the economic analysis of history, and with class conflict. It is secondarily atheist by reason of its dependence on a materialist view of history.

The gender revolution is concerned with the assertion of personal identity against categorizations imposed by society. It is therefore fundamentally an individualist movement, and has little or nothing to do with the socio-economic sphere in which Marxism operates. It conflicts with theism only if you regard institutional authoritarianism as a necessary concomitant of theism. The principle of equality is not inherently atheist: most theistic philosophies assue that individual persons are equal before God and in natural law.

I know some people who prefer not to conform in social gender to the stereotype of their birth sex. They have not, so far as I can see, obliterated their families, any more than the homosexual ones have. If families are challenged by such things, it seems generally to be not the questioning of gender norms that breaks the family, but the hostile reaction of conservative family members.

3MarthaJeanne
nov 13, 2021, 5:18 pm

Quite outside of that, not everyone is born with the obvious markers of either male or female sex.

4John5918
Redigerat: nov 14, 2021, 12:10 am

Like other posters, I fail to see how the way an individual wishes to be identified constitutes either a "full scale attack on the family" or "moving us closer to atheistic Communism".

The Cold War finished thirty years ago, and "atheistic communism" remains only as isolated remnants of what was once a significant world movement - are China, North Korea and Cuba (although I doubt whether atheism succeeded in completely displacing Catholicism in Cuban culture) really a great threat to our families? I would say that globally the family is under threat from poverty, violence, insecurity, mental health issues, inaccessibility of high quality health care and education, systemic racism, authoritarian regimes, consumerism, extreme ideologies, and many of the consequences of unbridled capitalism, in which those who don't have capital have to spend most of their time selling their wage labour in order to obtain enough money to maintain their families, particularly in countries which do not have proper social safety nets.

>2 MyopicBookworm: most theistic philosophies assume that individual persons are equal before God and in natural law.

Indeed. Respect for the dignity of the human person is one of the key tenets of Catholic Social Teaching. Each individual is created in the image and likeness of God.

5Crypto-Willobie
nov 14, 2021, 10:20 am

I'm grateful for these reasonable responses to the OP. It keeps me from unleashing the intemperate responses I was tempted to make.

6brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:38 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

7MarthaJeanne
nov 16, 2021, 3:19 am

So for people who feel that their body and spirit don't fit together it is a great charity to help them find a way for their bodies to express their spirits and make a unified totality.

8brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:37 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

9lilithcat
nov 17, 2021, 1:36 pm

>8 brone:

his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is,

Well, that's rather the point of what you call the "gender revolution". People are respecting their natures, listening to them, and accepting themselves for who they are, rather than letting other people tell them what they ought to be.

10Novak
nov 17, 2021, 2:56 pm

>9 lilithcat: rather than letting other people tell them what they ought to be.

Well put. Thank you.

11cjbanning
nov 21, 2021, 6:30 pm

>6 brone:

The Biblical soul (Hebrew nephesh) is the holism of body and mind as animated by spirit. So I agree that the body and soul are in some sense inseparable (although of course a temporary separation does happen during the period between the bodily death of the individual and the general resurrection).

But any of this is only relevant if we assume that the physical body is obviously sexed and/or gendered according to a clear binary, which empirically is just not the case, as intersexed people do exist. More fundamentally, every physical human body is different in myriad ways from every other physical human body, and dividing human beings into groups based on their genitals or chromosomes has as much fundamental justification as dividing us into groups based on height or eye color.

12brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:37 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

13MyopicBookworm
nov 24, 2021, 4:38 am

The falsehood of gender ideology

What is traditional society-driven male-female stereotyping if not a false gender ideology? The fact that it can be buttressed by appeals to an over-literal interpretation of the Hebrew creation myths does not commend it to me.

I happen to accept the view that biological sex is for the most part inherent (intersex excepted). However, human experience over several centuries indicates that gender identity is not. Sexual characteristics can be superficially altered to a sufficient extent to allow transsexuals to affirm their psychological identity physically in an acceptable though imperfect way. Society is not well served by such manouevres as falsifying birth records or accepting the superficial self-identification of sexual predators without question; but foaming at the mouth about "godless marxism" does not really help, and quoting Genesis as a source of authority for the ordering of a diverse society goes down about as well as quoting the Qur'an or the Vedas.

14brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:36 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

15John5918
nov 25, 2021, 10:43 pm

>14 brone:

I don't understand why you equate a politico-economic ideology, Marxism, with these gender issues. It is the western capitalist states, not the "godless marxists", which are most open to a new understanding of gender.

Genesis is not a science textbook, it is a creation myth. Most of the mainstream global Christian churches (including the Catholic Church which you and I are part of) do not insist on taking the bible literally, although of course there are many evangelical protestant groups who do. St Augustine warned against taking Genesis literally fifteen hundred years ago.

16brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:36 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

17MyopicBookworm
Redigerat: nov 27, 2021, 3:37 pm

Of course there are other "Catholic" opinions (big C) , but I wouldn't call your opinion "catholic" (small c). If the modern nuclear family really were firmly and unequivocally rooted in Genesis, it would be hard to credit all the polygamy and concubines that ensue in the following pages (and have to be carefully explained away by Christian writers such as Augustine). Monogamy is in fact most typical of the pagan Roman and Greek world, and arguably was introduced to the Jewish and Christian cultures from that pagan Greco-Roman culture: hence the recommendation by Paul (a good Roman citizen) that a bishop should not have more than one wife.

I'm still baffled by this notion that traditional family structures and marxist atheism stand in any kind of opposition. Present-day Chinese Communist society seems quite supportive of the traditional family. ...WWJD...

18brone
nov 27, 2021, 6:21 pm

Catholic (big C) dogma is never popular especially among Catholics....JMJ....

19brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:35 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

20John5918
Redigerat: nov 28, 2021, 10:32 am

>19 brone: calls it a myth and scoffs at us

Nobody is saying that myths do not contain "Sacred Truth", but they are not scientific text books. And you seem to feel that any disagreement with you is "scoffing" or, as you say elsewhere, "dismissing" you. No, disagreement is disagreement, and the fact that people are bothering to engage with you about your opinion is far from scoffing or dismissing.

St Augustine of Hippo is one of those "other Catholic opinions" who warned against taking all of Genesis literally. The most recent authoritative Catholic teaching on scripture is the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum. One really needs to read the whole document rather than picking isolated quotes, but here are a few which show that the Church's understanding of scripture constantly develops. Scripture is not a dead document but a living one. "To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His {sic} gifts" (#5); "For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51)... For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her... and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her" (#8); "the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his {sic} own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men {sic} normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another... no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out... It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature..." (#12)

But we should not concentrate exclusively on Catholic teaching in this Christianity group. Many of the great pioneers of biblical exegesis were Protestants.

Genesis teaches us the "Sacred Truth" that God created the universe and everything in it, including human beings. It does not teach us the science of how God chose to do so.

21MarthaJeanne
nov 28, 2021, 3:51 am

>19 brone: Which version of creation do you believe? That God created plants, then animals, then human beings (Genesis 1 - 2:4); Or that God created a man, then plants, then animals, then a woman (Genesis 2:5 - 2:24)? I really don't see how you can take both stories literally.

22brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:35 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

23brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:35 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

24John5918
jun 28, 2023, 1:59 am

>23 brone:

Well yes, we all know the reason for it. It's because God doesn't have a human gender. God is beyond all the limitations of human thought or language. All our images of God are just that - images. All are useful in helping us to describe the indescribable and imagine the unimaginable, but all are also partial and incomplete. Any of them, if clung to as the only or the complete image of God, are also misleading. The bible uses both masculine and feminine images of God, and Christian Tradition recognises many others, including Creator. Thank God that we have such a wide range of partial images to help us honour, worship, relate to and follow our God more completely.

25brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:34 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

26John5918
Redigerat: jul 3, 2023, 3:09 am

>25 brone: is far more strongly marked on human bodies than on the animal world

Do you think that's the case? I'm a keen birdwatcher, and I would say that it is very common in the bird kingdom for the male and female to have very strongly marked differences, more so than humans, with the male usually having the more beautiful and flamboyant display. That's about ten thousand species and fifty billion individuals. But even amongst humans, while some of the characteristics you describe are certainly more common to a particular gender, amongst the earth's eight billion humans there is a huge variation, and even a small percentage of people who don't fit that pattern represents a huge number of individuals. The times when we can't immediately tell the difference are not such rare or disconcerting occurrences as you appear to find them.

27MarthaJeanne
Redigerat: jul 3, 2023, 4:03 am

We've got little butterflies that have blue males and brown females. Fun to watch the pairs dancing around each other. Aurora butterflies are white. The males have a big orange spot.

Stags are bigger with antlers. Does are smaller without antlers.

Many raptors have females that are much larger than their mates. https://northernwoodlands.org/knots_and_bolts/raptor-dimorphism

Peafowl and pheasants are well known examples of very different looks in birds. But even in chickens the rooster is easy to tell from the hen.

Of course, there are several kinds of fish that change their gender. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2020/opinion/what-we-learn-from-fish-th....

The male lion is the lazy one with the mane. Male orangatangs can be as much as twice the size of the females.

28brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:34 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

29John5918
Redigerat: jul 4, 2023, 12:21 am

>28 brone:

But language changes as society changes, and language today does not have the same meaning that it had in the past and will have in the future. And the English language is notorious for the number of words with multiple and/or archaic meanings, which is why we're so good at cryptic crosswords.

30brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:34 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

31MyopicBookworm
aug 3, 2023, 5:12 am

>30 brone: words do change mostly in spelling but not much in meaning

Words change greatly in meaning as well as spelling. Just browse the complete Oxford English Dictionary some time. Even the example you choose shows change: the word is not "hureth" but "hurtleth", and Chaucer (in the late 1300s) uses it as a transitive verb meaning "to knock (down)". You could do this for about another 100 years, until the time of Malory, but this meaning is quite obsolete in modern English: you cannot hurtle someone. The modern use, meaning "to rush, to move rapidly", dates only from the early 1500s.

Pronouns change in spelling too, and in application. Readers of E. R. Eddison's archaic fantasy novels will be familiar with the use of a as a gender-neutral pronoun (used for he or she, in a gender-neutral way similar to someone), which was common especially in northern English writing from the 13th century until the 16th, and persisted in regional use until at least the mid 19th century (possibly then effaced by universal schooling in "standard" English). In early medieval English, her used to mean their as well as her, and in some English dialects was also used for he

It is a huge blunder when you utter masculine genders under the laws of feminine genders

What is your native language? Hardly any nouns in English have any discernible grammatical gender, unless specifically marked as feminine by suffixes such as -ess. Some English pronouns do not have gender either (such as they and you). In Swedish, the words for man and woman have the same grammatical gender, and Finnish does not have masculine and feminine pronouns at all.

Sex is the first thing we notice about someone and the last thing we forget

What we notice is a combination of sex characeteristics and gender presentation: whether I am wearing a skirt or trousers, you can't see my genitals, let alone my chromosomes. It is true that physiological markers of sex are highly perceptible, though typically only after puberty: many children are outwardly genderless unless they choose (or are forced to adopt) gender-marked clothing and hairstyles, and transgender people who transition before puberty are frequently indistinguishable from cisgender people. But if the first thing you notice about God is maleness, you are not looking at God, only at an image, or possibly at an idol.

Language is not language unless it is communal, and it cannot be communal unless it can refers quickly and clearly, to the things in front of our noses

So words like "headache" or "harmony" or "ultraviolet" (or "Trinity" or "sacrament" or "archangel") are not language at all, because they do not so refer? I think you need to rethink that line of argument.

I notice that you have not conceded your error concerning the prominence of sexual marking in the animal world. You are shifting the ground of your arguments to try to support your point of view, but I don't think it is working.

32brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:33 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

33John5918
aug 3, 2023, 12:05 pm

>32 brone:

Children perceive a lot of things which turn out to be confused, incomplete, over-simplistic or just downright wrong. As the bible says, "When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways" (1 Corinthinans 13:11).

34brone
Redigerat: sep 4, 2023, 3:33 am

Det här meddelandet har tagits bort av dess författare.

35John5918
Redigerat: aug 5, 2023, 3:21 am

>34 brone: praise God for what he created us to be

But as I understand it this is exactly what LGBTQ people and other groups are trying to do, to simply be who they are, or in religious language, what God created them to be. Isn't there a contradiction in your position here, trying to force them into being what you wish them to be?

36MyopicBookworm
aug 8, 2023, 4:06 pm

Isn't there a contradiction in your position here, trying to force them into being what you wish them to be?

Indeed. I am reminded of a (very broad, sketchy) distinction once made between liberal and conservative approaches to liberty.
The liberal mindset is "I should be free to live as I wish to live, and others should be free to live in the manner in which they choose to live".
The conservative mindset is "I should be free to live as I wish to live, and others should be free to live in the same manner in which I choose to live".

(Maybe some would change this last bit to "others should be free to live as I wish them to live".)

the current crop of inventors of such ugly and meaningless collections of consonants and vowels such as "xe" and "zir" do not want to enrich the language and heaven forbid want us to probe into the realities of Males and females. They want to impoverish the language to prevent us from acknowledging things about men and women

Such "neo" pronouns are obviously not practical for general use, but although I don't think they work linguistically, I am not prepared to dismiss the perception of existiential discomfort which drives people to invent them. As I commented before, some languages simply manage without gendered pronouns: they are not given to us graven in stone.

It is clinging to conventional language and concepts, and refusing to accept innovation, that in certain respects impoverishes the language. It prevents us from probing into the actual experienced realities of male and female, rather than simply adopting those perceptions of male and female imposed on us by previous generations. (Children make some wise observations, but they also make naive and erroneous observations, and they absorb the preconceptions of the adults and older children around them.) Those who want everyone to fit into neat boxes of supposedly divine creation prevent us from acknowledging the amazing diversity and complexity of human existence.

Sometimes the traditional words are not enough, because they embody old preconceptions: that all adults are heterosexual; that marriage is inherently permanent; that everyone is either clearly male, clearly female, or clearly an abomination against the divine law (which is mysteriously at odds with divine creation).

37John5918
Redigerat: aug 9, 2023, 3:32 pm

As a matter of interest, Kiswahili doesn't have gendered pronouns. He and she are both expressed by the single pronoun yeye. I think a number of other Bantu languages are similar. When exploring gender it seems odd to focus only on a particular group of European languages, as a lot of right wing English speakers appear to do.

38John5918
aug 14, 2023, 4:47 am

How Human Tendencies Change Our Language (Psychology Today)

It turns out that our human propensity for procrastinating—as well as exaggerating how quickly we think we will do something—is nothing new and looking back at changes in word meanings earlier in our history can show us just how this part of being human has reshaped words we use every day...


I think this article which I noticed in passing has some relevance to our conversation on how the meaning of words changes.