12

Why Language and Gender Aren't Just 'Social Constructs'

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 9 months ago to Culture
21 comments | Share | Flag

Social constructs and the words that describe them are not based upon the wishes, feelings or muses between one's ears.
They are based upon reality and the physical.

One's philosophical wondering's about "Gender" doesn't change reality.

Big Picture: Here we go again, as we can observe; Language, the driving force behind conscious awareness, consciousness, conscience, physical reality and truth is under attack; whether it be the fear of loosing power or for "progressively" controlling the narrative and humanity itself has always been a left of center protocol for securing a place in the world for those most of us would find wanting.
SOURCE URL: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-language-and-gender-arent-just-social-constructs?roi=echo3-44701131840-42778790-b59b8f6675c8f6885ae7ca44ea09cf83


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 9 months ago
    Only those who delude themselves wish to persuade others to join in their delusions. Those who choose Reality simply point to Reality and allow others to choose to accept it or not.

    Language is a tool to share thought. We destroy language when we muddle definitions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by marsh113 6 years, 9 months ago
    Restore the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 6 years, 9 months ago
    Here we go again, one half of one percent of the population want to push their own beliefs and alter the english language on the rest of the heterosexual population. This make me very angry! My alternative would have that population go for gene therapy and become normal heterosexuals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 9 months ago
    ... and we still have the same old argument about gender. Sex is biological. Gender is cultural. I know that you do not agree, but I just want my vote counted.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spi...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 6 years, 9 months ago
      Ah, but whether one chooses to redecorate or rebuild one's house has no barring on what we call you...you are either male or female and that doesn't ever change.
      The only expectation, whether we call you He or she, is what we might find in your pants,or your genes.
      It is what it is...we don't care what's between your ears unless there is nothing at all; in that case, one should be barred from government...laughing.

      Let me put it another way: Sometimes I feel like a Nut...sometimes I don't. In either case, I am a male member of the human species.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by skidance 6 years, 9 months ago
      I would say that gender choice can also be psychological. For example, if one feels uncomfortable being male/female, despite biological, physiological, and hormonal indicators, wanting and/or choosing to assume the opposite sexual identity generally reflects a psychological issue. That could include a desire to be different, to challenge sexual identities, or to gain (media) attention. Or even to be popular--those who are politically correct are forced to accept such persons. That said, biological reality can indeed be somewhat fluid, depending upon hormones and neurological differences.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 6 years, 9 months ago
        Some, learn this behavior at an early age from someone a bit older...the gay community admits that this is the case 80% of the time...there aught to be a Law!
        Additionally, besides the social structures; some of the stuff that is put into foods may have a cumulative effect as well. (suspected but not proven definitively.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 9 months ago
    "The Greeks have a word for it." One of the consequences of the expanding Hellenic world was an expansion in the creation of new words and the assignment of new meanings to old words.

    Cosmopolitan was a new word for a new condition: citizen of the world, not of just any one city, but all of the Helliades the entire koinon.

    Axiom only meant "honored" and if something was "honored" it was above question, and so it came to mean, also, a good price or a bargain.

    The love of money is the root of all evil, they said, but "the love of money" was a newly invented word to suit the purpose: PHILARGYRION - love of silver.

    My niece is going to a "completenarian" Christian college where women are not allowed to teach theology to men. That took me to Wikipedia on Timothy 2:12 and this section on the meaning of the word AUTHENEO, which mean authority over, of course, but also murder or suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timot...
    Those other meanings were extensives, derived from the basic concept. (Analogy or euphemism are not quite the right tropes, but I cannot think of better words right now.) But the point is the same: the Greeks did, as the article said, take both the literal (god-given) and contextual (societal) meanings of words. We do so, today. I pretty much do. (Think about my use of "pretty" there...)

    As for the fine point of Orwell being a "great science fiction writer" I must demur. 1984 was much like science fiction, being set in the future of that time. However, not much else was within the science fiction genre and Orwell wrote nothing else similar. We might as well call him a "great fable writer" for Animal Farm. Orwell was a political writer. At least, that is how I understand him from Animal Farm, 1984, and Homage to Catalonia.

    The key point about Newspeak is that there was less and less of it. The Party was shrinking the language to reduce the ability to think. The goal was to be a doubleplusgood ducktalker, to repeat the Party message without thinking. Duplicitous terms such as Minipax (ministry of peace for the ministry of war) only reflected the actual abuse of language, as in our own Department of Defense.

    And, yet, that change did reflect, and important conceptual shift: the only justification for war is defense. Aggression is wrong. That is very different from the view of the ancient Greeks who held that the cries of the victims that the conquerors are unjust are only the cries of the hare as the eagle carries it off in accordance with natural law.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo