On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:52:54 -0800, Bob Tiernan   
    wrote:   
      
   >Sorry, but someone born with an   
   >undeveloped penis and breasts,   
   >or six fingers on one hand, does   
   >not a new gender make.   
      
   You are still confusing biological sex with gender, which is a far   
   broader term.  The heart of the matter is that the brain can and does   
   change independently of the physical genitalia.  So it is fully   
   possible to have a biological male present as a female in nearly every   
   way but the genitalia.  And vice versa - a Jane who is really Jake.   
   The well heeled in that predicament can even fix the genitalia problem   
   with surgery.  If there were only a few such persons, then they might   
   be written off as your "freak and aberration", but when there are   
   thousands if not millions worldwide, a more inclusive model is   
   scientifically necessary.  Please dismiss your personal preconceptions   
   and do some studying on the subject.   
      
   The inadequate binary model causes many social problems.  Including   
   both a solid "Marlboro Man" in the same gender identity wrapper as an   
   overtly fem queer male, say, renders both uneasy or worse.  When   
   scientists see a model that's improperly exclusive, they update it.   
      
   Before Copernicus and Galileo, it was for centuries believed that the   
   universe was geocentric.  However, scientists and mathematicians of   
   the Renaissance examined the issue in more detail and found that   
   heavenly body movements didn't fit the ancient model so they updated   
   it - over often deadly objection from the Catholic Church and other   
   social institutions.  Similarly here, the gender variation reality   
   doesn't fit a neat simple binary "either this or that" model, so   
   updating has long been required, at least in the Christian world.   
      
   Most pre-Christian American Indian tribes had multiple gender models   
   that were closer to reality.  Other societies from Buddhist or Hindu   
   traditions and creation stories have more complex gender identity   
   structures that are both acceptable and expected. So many   
   pre-Christian American Indians were part of a constellation of world   
   societies with broader gender definitions.   
      
   And so we have the "rest of the story" as to why all those 19th   
   century explorers reported some Indian males dressed and functioning   
   as women in many tribes.   
      
   >I guess so.  Or even on cross-dressing   
   >gay men.  Check out the story of one   
   >of Custer's orderlies from the Black   
   >Hills Expedition of 1874 - one Pvt. Noonan   
   >(photgraphed with Custer and two others   
   >with the Grizzly Bear Custer had just   
   >killed).  He married a laundress who   
   >turned out to be a man (which I'm   
   >sure he knew before the ceremony),   
   >and had the misfortune of being out   
   >on patrol when the "wife" died, and was   
   >seen in all his glory when the women   
   >of the fort dressed "her" for the burial.   
   >But the "wife" was still a "Gender - Male",   
   >as was Pvt Noonan.   
      
   Only if you take biological sex exactly equivalent to gender, which is   
   not true.  Too bad you can't ask "her" and see what she says on the   
   subject.   
      
   What do think of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appointment of Susan   
   Kennedy to be his new Chief of Staff? She's an avowed lesbian who may   
   have a male gender identity.  She used to smoke cigars, and Arnold is   
   persuading her to start up again and join him in his Capitol courtyard   
   smoking tent.  Whether you're talking Old West or New West, there is a   
   continuum of gender identity.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)