“common sense was made before book”
……Old people saying…..
A sociologist explains in the Gleaner why we must expect more illogic and delusion in public policy like Bruce aka “Caitlyn” Jenner being normal.
The author claims to be a “true sociologist” and that “true sociologists” do not use the hard reality of biology, chromosomes and male or female sex to define normal but rather the subjective feelings of the individual’s mind is used to define a new category called “gender”. Public policy is to be made around this new subjectively defined category called “gender” rather than male and female biological sex.
Of course minds may be neurotic, psychotic and otherwise abnormal so it is no surprise that presently some 71 gender categories have been recognised.
This whole gender construct is of course nonsense but the “true sociologist” who wrote the article refers to those who disagree with the nonsense as “homophobes”.
xxxxxxxxx E N D S xxxxxxxxx
Don’t Dress Up Homophobia As Science
Published:Tuesday | June 28, 2016 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I just read Peter Espeut’s article titled ‘Sexual identity, gender identity’ (The Gleaner, June 17, 2016) and, as a sociologist myself, wanted to edify him a bit. His views do not reflect the understanding of sex and gender among mainstream sociologists in any way, shape or form.
No half-decent sociologist believes that people are born ‘male’ or ‘female’ because of their chromosomes. That would equate (fe)maleness with a chromosome or sexual organ. I know that Espeut is a male, and I have never tested his chromosomes or seen his organs! It should be obvious from just that fact that ‘maleness’ is not based on those factors, but describes a series of social characteristics that we have been socialised to identify (shorter hair, more toned, less shapely, voice, etc., and, most of all, dress code!). I strongly encourage Espeut to read an article called ‘Doing Gender’ by West and Zimmerman.
His argument that socialisation fails when a person who is supposedly born male identifies as a female is also nonsense to sociologists. We don’t see people as failures because they do not fit into our traditional norms. A person who is a Christian in Iran is not a failure because he is in a small, rejected minority. Espeut should read Foucault’s ‘A History of Sexuality’.
Finally, the idea that this kind of ‘post-modern subjectivism’ is also wrong. Gender and sexual fluidity have been part of many cultures over history. Native Americans, for instance, recognised more than two genders. Here, ‘How To Be Gay’ by Halperin is a good book (it’s not a manual on how to become gay, but a study of the history of gay culture).
Espeut is a homophobe. I’ve read enough of his stuff to know that. Rather than owning it, he’s dressing up his religious intolerance in pseudo-scientific discourse. Not only are his views judgemental and reactionary to an oppressed group of people, they are also very wrong.