Well, my definition is consistent.The other.....
Why say "gender" when we mean "sexual behavior?" I reject the idea that gender and sexual behavior are the same thing BECAUSE conservatives propose it. How is this not the logical, scientific, Progressive thing to think? Yes, I think the different biological development of men and women determines at least some of their sexual behavior, and I see gay men as similar to straight men and lesbian women as similar to straight women.
Why is that wrong? Why should I accept the idea that gay male sexual behavior is "female?" or somehow not male? Why accept the idea that lesbian behavior is "male?" or puts a lesbian in some different category of gender in which a straight female does not belong? To me, that only makes sense if first accepts the proposition that homosexual behavior is somehow "unnatural." I don't think there is any reason to believe such a proposition. I don't think homosexuality puts men and women on a continuum rather than being two separate genders. What is the evidence for this continuum? Is it consistent? Is there anything you know of about lesbian femininity or gay masculinity that makes a person more or less a woman or man (respectively)?
I don't.
boddi
On 11/17/05, John Adams <jadams01 at sprynet.com> wrote:
> From: boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com>
>
> > To a scientist, wearing a dress and having sex with men is no indication of gender.
>
> To a physical scientist, perhaps so. To a social scientist, certainly not.
>
> I think you're playing with a different definition of gender than everyone else on the list.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>