Monday, November 2, 2015

Genderless beings

Truth is often dismissed as substantive fact of argument or sundry fact of argument.  For instance, a five year old boy may deny playing in mud when caught by mum even where his skin and clothing is baked in mud (substantive fact).  Years later the same lad grown into a husband may defend his lateness home blaming the hopelessness of public transport (sundry as he was late before he boarded the transport).

It is perhaps no surprise then that in electronic chatter following a piece in favour of samesex marriage that someone had identified homo sapiens as “genderless beings”. 

The contributor of “genderless beings” was biologically beset with gender - a hard truth, the mud on the five year old boy’s clothes if you like – yet somehow they see mankind as “genderless”!.  The contributor’s chromosomal make-up is gender specific.  By interpretation of certain bodily features their mother, doctors and nurses within the birthing suite could immediately identify them at birth as male or female.  Such record was attested upon their birth certificate.  Chances are that within three hours of birth their mother was dressing them as pink for girl or blue for boy.  Within four years of birth they were probably registered for a single gender private school.  If the baby is a boy Dad probably formed ambitions of them playing in the baggy green, if the baby is a girl Mum probably thought of years due to be spent at ballet & netball, a white church wedding and grandchildren.

Presumably, it is convenient to the same sex marriage debate to consider people as genderless.  One who is genderless has a different lens from which to view marriage.  A genderless being can dismiss the definitional issue of marriage as say being between man and a woman as concepts such as “man” and “woman” are not derived from some hard biological truth but from perhaps a social assignment factor.  Consequently, they say, let marriage arise between man and man, or between woman and woman, as they are only titles that such people have elected for themselves.  Further to this thinking is to assume mankind to be classification free amongst all the animals.  From such precept man marrying his horse, or woman marrying her dog, becomes an easy leap in thinking.

“Genderless beings” falters from a biological perspective yet it is also a stretch when thought of in terms of social assignment.  Amongst those who practice homosexuality there is pride in being a man, or being a woman, or indeed in being transgender (a term which perhaps ironically is a recognition of gender).  In some instances subset roles within womanhood are practiced amongst those in lesbian relationships, that is, they acknowledge their womanhood yet play a role within their gender. 

So, it is a struggle to think a person genderless either at birth or by social assignment.  Those who were socially conditioned (such as a boy who left hospital wearing pink and raised as a girl) will nonetheless identify with some notion of gender.  It is not implausible to conquer any conditioning and live according to their gender.

God established man and woman (Genesis).  Accordingly, God has imprinted the muddy imprint of gender deep into each person’s biology.  So, let’s not allow the phrase “genderless beings” into the same sex marriage debate.


No comments:

Post a Comment