>>I'm surprised that Doug likes this. Yeah, I can read it, but it's a
>>lot of words meant to support a thin premise - that sex is constructed
>>socially. It's not in chimps and it's not in us.
>
>I'll try not to be patronizing, but it appears that you don't
>understand that you don't understand the argument.
That's the point. Its incomprehensible.
> You completely
>missed the clue bus, as the kids say. You should make a good
>faith attempt to understand the argument before you attempt to
>refute it.
You're blaming the victim. If a messenger can't be bothered to make a good faith effort state the argument clearly, in fact goes out of their way to make it as incomprehensible as possible, then shoot the messenger. Not the person who doesn't understand the garbled message.
As Doug implies here:
>"Yes, mate. Nothing but straightforward manly working class speech
>from here forward!"
its a class thing. This style of writing, in other words, is a systematic form of exclusion. It could be written in plain English, but instead it is written in such a way as to make it impossible for some and at least difficult for many to comprehend. The sub-text is clear. If you aren't familiar with this style of writing, then this discussion is not for the likes of you. "Stay out of the business of your betters."
Far from missing "the clue bus", those who attack the obfuscatory style are correctly reading between the lines. You may not be being deliberately patronising, but there's no avoiding reading it that way.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas