Recent Posts876
Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]
« Last post by IainB on September 06, 2017, 08:40 PM »Hm... So...kind of like the difference between playing a doctor on TV, and actually going through medical school to become a doctor. Yeah, I'm good with that.Well, yes, that's a reasonable analogy, I suppose. The point Greer seems to have been making though - and quite effectively and with satirical humour - is that it's obviously one thing to fantasize/imagine that one is of the opposite biological gender to that which one was genetically assigned in utero, or that one is of some imaginary (nonexistent) gender or attack helicopter, when the biological and genetic reality of a two-gender state is staring one in the face, as it were, but it is quite another thing - absurd and physically impossible - to have a valid real-life experience as one of the opposite gender.
_____________________________-Stoic Joker (September 05, 2017, 01:11 PM)
She illustrates that, despite that impossibility, violent self-harm - e.g., self-castration - is sometimes used as an infantile attempt to somehow make the imagined thing a reality - "make it so" - in a way that could reflect self-hate and which is perhaps an unconsciously ironic echo of:
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee..."
- Matthew 18:9 (KJV)
________________________
The politically correct label invented for the NOT-OK act (i.e., deemed to be a "socio-cultural crime", or something) of affecting the cultural aspects of people of another culture is "cultural appropriation" - regardless of how much one imagines oneself to be, or identifies oneself with, or how strongly one feels, that one actually is (say) an indigenous Sioux American-Indian, when one is in fact (say) a Caucasian American cowboy, or something.
Similarly, the politically correct term invented for the OK act (i.e., deemed to be "socio-culturally acceptable") of affecting the characteristics of the opposite gender is "gender identification". If you took Greer's point though, then it would probably be more accurate to call it "gender appropriation" by men, but that seems to be somehow a less-worse thing than "cultural appropriation". Thus it seems more politically correct or acceptable for a man to "appropriate" something from the female gender than it is for him to "appropriate" something from another (minority) culture. This could arguably seem to be inconsistent.
Greer seems to refute the idea anyway that men can do that (feminine gender appropriation) and she indicates that it is an absurdity to suppose that they can, and I suspect that she, being a woman and a feminist, probably knows whereof she speaks and may well have a valid point. She certainly makes the point in a satirically amusing way.
But it seems to be only amongst cultural Marxists in secular Western cultures that "gender rights" and the rights of non-heterosexuals is an issue anyway. The historical dogma of orthodox Christian sects across Europe was probably at root the cause of that, as it customarily generally proscribes homosexuality, but the majority of modern practicing Christians seem to have "moved on" from that and turn a blind eye to that bit of now-redundant dogma anyway. However, the reality is markedly different for non-heterosexuals in other cultures. For example, in Islamic (non-secular) cultures, homosexuality is a blasphemy under Sharia law and generally punishable by hanging or being thrown off a cliff, or a high building, or something, whereas in some parts of South East Asia (e.g., Thailand) non-heterosexual behaviour is regarded as being perfectly OK/normal.
In discussions with a very dear friend of mine, who is a Thai "lady-boy" (a sort of trans-gender cross-dresser and homosexual) who identifies with being a female, it is clear that he/she is much happier and more content when he/she is "being a woman" and being treated as a woman, no matter how laughable that may seem to a Western observer. But in Thailand, lady-boys (the Thai word for this sounds like "catteuil") and lesbians (the Thai word for this sounds like "thom", apparently shortened from the English "tomboy") have been accepted members of society since the year dot, since nothing in their society proscribes homosexuality or non-heterosexual behaviour. One can often see, in groups of children in Thai primary schools, that some of the boys are already catteuil, and they have been born that way, and they are cherished just the same as any other child and treated no differently in society as they grow up. But my Thai friend (whose preferred name is Khun Rose) is happy in his own skin and would be the first to agree that a catteuil cannot be a woman (except as an imperfect mimic), because of the genetics of human biology.
Note:
- "genetics" comes from "genesis", meaning "the origin or mode of formation of something.
– ORIGIN OE, via L. from Gk, ‘generation, creation’, from the base of gignesthai ‘be born or produced’. - "Genesis" being the first book of the Bible, which includes the story of the creation of the world.
- – Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.)
A long time back, Khun Rose sent me the "awkward moment" photo below (that's not him/her in the photo), because he/she thought it was very droll. (Knowing the catteuil sense of humour, I feel quite sure the "slip" in the photo would have been deliberately posed and entirely intentional as opposed to accidental.)
