From: nospam@all.please   
      
   On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:49:14 -0600, Arrow Catcher wrote   
   (in article <8v09q1di7m7q5t9lpjt395htdg3gpb2m4j@4ax.com>):   
      
   > Maybe "naive" was the wrong word. How about "unrealistic and neurotic"   
   > instead.  The binary model obviously doesn't match the reality, but oh   
   > that's right -  scientific examination is no longer fashionable in the   
   > US so such a match is irrelevant.  A 5 gender system seems to be a   
   > accurate scenario and in fact a better match for the frontier rural   
   > societies we've discussed. But realities may not matter in the face of   
   > artificial deep seated prejudices.   
      
      
   Arrow Catcher:   
      
   The article you cited about the Native American perspectives on gender   
   continuum is interesting. I've done a small bit of writing in this area, and   
   I accept the concept of gender continuum "completely separate from biological   
   sex types," as the author of the article puts it.   
      
   However, your comments about Western gender constructions are so laced with   
   judgmental language that it sounds to me as if you are merely replacing one   
   set of hostilities with another. To the extent that gender is truly   
   "completely separate from biological sex types," specific cultural   
   understandings of gender are only "right" or "wrong" with reference to local   
   definitions of right and wrong. In other words, the Western system can't be   
   considered objectively better or worse in a universal sense, but only within   
   the context of Western understandings of better or worse. If a society says a   
   binary gender model is true, then to the extent that gender is a social   
   construction, the binary model is true in that culture. Similarly, if a   
   society says a continuum model is true, then it's true in that culture, but   
   not necessarily beyond it.   
      
   Your mention of science as a possible metanarrative which can arbitrate   
   between dueling claims is a surprisingly Western assertion for someone who   
   questions the validity of Western understandings of a central component of   
   human life. Indeed, the word "unrealistic" is a curious choice, given all its   
   implications.   
      
   Look, if you want to deepen people's understanding of alternative ideas about   
   gender, including gender continuum theory, you'll probably meet with   
   reasonable success over time. But if you want to throw insults at people who   
   think differently, you're going to wind up pulling the rug out from under   
   your own feet.   
      
   P.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)