Regressive Biological Determinism. What? (2 of 3)

Okay, what am I getting at? In our rebellion over “roles” we don’t like we can play all the mind games we want but it will never change “biological determinism” in that there are at least some ontological (being) roles naturally assigned to male and female even if you don’t want to call us male and female. Play your postmodern nonsense all you want, scream and cry and rail against those who think otherwise but when it all settles down, standing before you will still be male and female and that they are both the same and fundamentally different.

“The state of California will now legally recognize non-binary as a third gender on official state identification documents.

“Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB179 on Sunday night. The bill, dubbed the Gender Recognition Act, will allow a third gender choice on driver’s licenses, state identification cards, and make it easier for people to change their gender and name on state identification papers.

“Non-binary, is a catch-all term for people who do not identify as exclusively male or female, and has been slowly acknowledged by some states as a gender option.

“California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient’s “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law.”

We’ve grown to think that the State is something other in itself seen in the language we use when talking about the “state.” It isn’t, it’s just us, made up of us, at least this was the goal when our Founders created our “State.” So I shouldn’t be shocked in what California did which is no different than many modern states, to accept and promote and create laws supporting irrational rationalism, to be genderless, neither male nor female. How can adult men and women do this, shut down their rational minds and pretend, then force you to pretend what isn’t? But we have and are. All because historically we have constructed gender roles that really aren’t based on “being.” Of course, “being” in this statement comes from how we understand God created us and how we have perverted that understanding. If you believe in the goo then being is what being is as it was created by nothing more than chance and time and whether it works or doesn’t work we’re really stuck with it. Well, we don’t believe we’re stuck with it. We believe we’ve evolved from no designer so we become the designer and we are now trying to recreate who and what we are, but it’s not working out all that well.

How do you not have to deal with Reality? You go into theoretic mind-games. Enter the theories of deconstruction and postmodernism. We’ve always had questions over what’s real and how we can know what’s real and this has been argued in the philosophical world under the heading of epistemology—from the Greek epistēmē, meaning “knowledge” and “ology” meaning the study of. We ended up in one area of philosophy, especially seen in existentialism, declaring there is no objective truth, fed by Nietzsche’s nihilism. If, and this is really a very big “if”, there is no objective truth, truth then must be relative; you make it what you want it to be. It’s not easy living in an object-filled world and denying those objects really have no objective meaning, only what we say they have. But this is just what we do and so deconstructionism makes everything textual, that is, an argument about words and our use of words. In this case words have no real causality from the objects they supposedly describe. Most of us will scratch our collective heads over this, and we should.

And so the State of California, indeed so many other states, have begun playing this deconstruction postmodern game of language denying objective truths, and oh my God, on our legal form called “Driver’s License” we can tell whoever looks at us that we are, neither male nor female, we are X-Gen, or whatever. Male or female is a role, not a Reality. So we recreate our public restrooms that formally said, “Women” and “Men,” where in the men’s room were urinals that fit the male physiology and in the women’s room simply toilets that fit the female physiology. But we’ve destroyed gender assignment and rooms with urinals and those without reflect those false assignments so both urinals and sit-down toilets must be pulled out so we don’t get the false idea of who we physically are and I guess, what, just have a hole in the floor? But damn, guess what, when I go to the bathroom whether I believe I’m a male or female or an “ah” I pee and poop exactly the same way every time. Reality is laughing at me pretending.

Now look, if you are thinking okay now I’m going to define for you proper “gender roles” I’m going to disappoint you. If we think we can know and absolutely define what is a male role and what is a female role go back to pretending because that is what we will end up doing anyway. Remember me saying we will never know more than we don’t know? It applies here. We will for sure understand some physiological and chemical differences and what they mean in terms of behavior and we should learn how to appreciate those differences because they help make up a whole, a complete experience of what it means to be a person. If we fight those differences we will never find a “whole” us. But if we define, let’s say, 25 or 35 or 105 characteristics and this is male behavior, this is female behavior and neither the two shall cross we’ve defeated ourselves as well. Some will be ontological, most will be simply constructs we create.

First, if we say of females because she likes to climb trees, rebuild cars, build with wood, not play with dolls, not wear dresses she’s a tomboy because these are exclusively male roles, shut up. Now, I’m going to question a male if he starts wearing dresses, uses make up, paints his fingernails, but if I’m really honest with myself I understand I’m reacting out of cultural definitions of gender roles, these things aren’t ontological characteristics of our being.

Let’s be clear, here. We can’t burn the house down and begin again new. Even if many of our gender roles are social and cultural constructs, not characteristics of our being, this in itself does not also say they are totally wrong. In the end we just might change every construct we’ve constructed, but if we do, let every change happen out of reasoned understanding with just the right emotion, not arbitrary decisions. This won’t be a one for one exchange because some role constructs can be outright jettisoned. But be very careful of bouncing between extremes which is our typical behavior historically. Our rejection of biological reality because we are unhappy with gender roles is one of those extremes we’ve gone to. In other words, we can’t go from a totally Victorian buttoned-up woman who can’t go on the street until properly dressed to a totally naked women ala Eve and Adam. Why we wear clothes is understandable, though not always what we wear. 

I understand the argument that if men can go shirtless and enjoy the sun on their skin why can’t women and society has made it illegal for them to do so. It’s a taboo not just out of the Victorian era to punish women as some male dominance thing. Physiologically women’s breasts are different from men’s not as a punishment to women but they are functional for the feeding of newborn babies. It’s why either God or natural selection created the female body for that purpose and it is part of her ontological role. Now for whatever reason, and I’m not even going to lay out psychological reasoning, female breasts also became sexual attractions to the male. While the bare chest of a “hunk” male might have some sexual fascination to a female and “turn” her on there is an intense difference between the two.

Yes, Adam and Eve did run around naked but their bodies were not exposed to the harsh elements that would happen after their sin. Yes, they did take fig leaves and cover their genitals but not out of shame of being naked. Dennis Prager in The Rational Bible: Genesis says this about that story:

“Adam and Eve looked at their bodies and discovered sexuality. knew about procreative sex (2:24), but such sex was what we would call “innocent.” Only after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil did they become aware of the non-innocent erotic aspects of human sexuality. Adam and Eve grew up, in much the same way young people do when they become sexually aware.

“The word for “naked” here is subtly different from the word for “naked” in Genesis 2:25, where the Torah describes Adam and Eve as “naked” but not embarrassed by their nakedness. There the word is a-rumim, here the word is ay-rumim— to underscore this is a different “naked” than before.”

I do understand that there are societies where women walk around with their breasts exposed but both male and female do cover their genitals and for them that’s acceptable. But then I haven’t said that being clothed is part of our ontological being, clothing is optional. And now we come to the sticky part, convention—“a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity.” Conventional is a construct. Constructs do have meaning and are formed, most of the time, with good meaning, necessarily.

After God laid down the curse that would now be part of life we read this: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” I’m not going to get into the technical of all this, it’s not important. What is important is that clothing was a pragmatic thing given the harsh world they would now live in. If you are of not-God it is even more curious because prior to becoming Homo sapiens animals didn’t fashion for themselves clothing, but man—the generic man, male and female—did because they didn’t have a layer of fur to keep them warm. And for both Adam and Eve and mankind walking out of the goo, function became art. Style took on meaning and because this was all a construct style changed, often, but that it was also a covering, it didn’t.