On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:35:59 -0800, Bob Tiernan   
    wrote:   
      
   >Sorry, but that doesn't define geners.  I'll stick   
   >with what science has identified which is the   
   >obvious two (which is hardly a "western" POV.   
      
   Scientifically the binary model seems inadequate as it excludes   
   millions of persons who are "in between".  A gender identity strictly   
   based on biological sex is far too limited.  Evidence for that is the   
   continuous social stresses over those millions of persons who don't   
   fit this simple model.  The animal world has many examples of "gender   
   bending", so it's reasonable that the human animal does too.   
      
   >In the meantime you can go along with the views   
   >of people who didn't even have the wheel yet (and   
   >still wouldn't if left on their own).   
      
   In describing gender identity in a continuum rather than a binary   
   only-this-or-that may be scientifically progressive and functionally   
   accurate, so as backward as these people may appear to you, their   
   gender identity models are more observent of reality.   
      
   Actually the basis of all this are the creation stories.  The Navajo   
   creation story involves mixed gender persons for instance, and so   
   their gender identity system reflects this.  The dominant culture   
   bought the Adam and Eve story and has desperately tried to maintain   
   its binary model.  If religious models weren't written in stone so to   
   speak,science would've updated the binary gender model to a continuum   
   array long ago. Up until very recent times, it would've been a fatal   
   heresy to suggest such a thing however.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)