Tuesday, March 01, 2005

LOREN KRYWANCZYK has a problem with linguistics

yaledailynews.com - On gender identity, clichés don't cut it

Lauren has a problem with that she confuses linguistics with reality. You know if you call a square a rectangle and then it must be a circle does not wash with most people even those with salamis in their skirts. Read this:

What, for example, is the template for manhood? Possible criteria, based on stereotypical signifiers of masculinity, include never crying, having a penis, facial hair, playing sports, developed musculature, a Y chromosome, short hair, and drinking beer. Few men, however, fit all, or even most, of these criteria. There is no one consistent way to "be a man" -- it must be continually performed, in different ways depending on context. Singling out these heterosexual crossdressers as abnormal or a spectacle implies we're not all doing something similar -- when in fact we are, but we're just not acknowledging it as openly as they do.

The best answer to her question is the Monty Python show. That was some funny stuff.
If she wants to add she has to subtract – so what is not a man? Is not a man more than the sum of his parts? She adds less to the discussion than she takes away. To lessen a man is to make him easier to kill and therefore she belongs in the Flash Genocide blog.

You can pretend all you want – fancy dress tea parties are ok but trying to make something funny not funny is like, well being funny. Reading this article was fun like this:

Therefore, we must begin in our use of language to recognize our own preconceived notions about gender and gender identity, and to accommodate more fluidity of gender, sex and sexuality.

What hilarity what taking herself way to seriouslyness. As a man I can understand the fluidity of my sex, but my gender is a part of grammar. I am a man therefore I am male gender just like a boat is female in its simplicity lies the primacy of purpose of all language – communication and from communication the relationship. I have a relationship with you that is beyond your body and what you do with it. That relationship now is that you provide entertainment and a chance to clarify a position using humor.

There are no fluids in grammar, there is nothing that can be done with language that will be undone later – I thought that Orwell explained this and that if you open your eyes you will see that no one outside of your social group can even understand what you are saying. this is not some creole of sexuality but a common delusion among friends.


Language cannot define sexuality; if that is so we are governed by the same forces and instincts that drive animals. Humans who use language to define sexuality are trying to justify their behavior to authorities or to victims.

Sex is non-verbal communication. Incongruent displays of sexuality cause humor.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.