Holy See to UN: Gender Equality Isn't Sameness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
NEW YORK, JULY 2, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See is emphasizing the need to promote equality of men and women, while clarifying that this is not to say that both genders should be the same.

More…
 
I am shocked to see that Zenit has unwittingly given in to and endorsed the anti-Catholic, culture of death assertion that a person’s natural God-given sex is really just an artificial social construct called “gender”; that there are more than two, maybe, 7 or more "genders’ which a person may choose from and change his (“their”) choice at any time.

In fact the word “gender” (derived from Latin “gens, generis” meaning “type, kind or variety”) is a grammatical term which can be applied only to words, not to people. In English there are four genders which a word may have: masculine, feminine, neuter and common. Other languages have anything from zero to ten or more genders.

A human being or a higher animal does not have a “gender”. He has a sex (derived from Latin sexus, and ultimately from secare, to cut or divide into two equal halves) either male or female.

The word “gender” referring to people (or animals) should be replaced by “sex” or “sexual”.

Please all men of goodwill, don’t be deterred from using the word “sex” in its centuries-old proper meaning - “the state of being either male or female” simply because the word has recently been misused by many to mean “sexual activity” in the nonsensical phrase “to have sex”.
 
I am shocked to see that Zenit has unwittingly given in to and endorsed the anti-Catholic, culture of death assertion that a person’s natural God-given sex is really just an artificial social construct called “gender”; that there are more than two, maybe, 7 or more "genders’ which a person may choose from and change his (“their”) choice at any time.
Your (in my opinion erroneous) definitional analysis aside, where do you see this in the article?
 
Your (in my opinion erroneous) definitional analysis aside, where do you see this in the article?
Are you kidding? It’s in bold capitals in the headline, in the first paragraph, and even in the lead-in post here on the forum!

If you think the definition I gave is erroneous, please point out the error. With reference to a dictionary of English word ** usage**, not one of the politically-correct attempts at social engineering which have been published in recent years.
 
Petergee, although the word “gender” was used, I think you are reading into it ideas which were not stated by Archbishop Migliore.
 
Are you kidding? It’s in bold capitals in the headline, in the first paragraph, and even in the lead-in post here on the forum!

If you think the definition I gave is erroneous, please point out the error. With reference to a dictionary of English word ** usage**, not one of the politically-correct attempts at social engineering which have been published in recent years.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: gen·der
Pronunciation: \ˈjen-dər
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Anglo-French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender — more at kin
Date: 14th century

1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2 a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Now that I’ve given the definition from a reputable dictionary, please show how, aside from using a word you seem to not like, this article attempts to emphasize that gender is merely a social construct.
 
I agree. Gender, meaning sex, is not a social construct anymore than the terms masculine, feminine and neuter are social constructs. I am curious why such a commonly used term would prompt much of a response.
 
Petergee, although the word “gender” was used, I think you are reading into it ideas which were not stated by Archbishop Migliore.
I’m not suggesting he subscribves to those ideas of course. He or his translator probably mistakenly thought that “gender” is the English word for Latin "sexus ", and didn’t realise all the politically correct Culture of death baggage that comes with the word. In fact the correct translation is “sex”.
 
Petergee is correct as far as he goes. “Gender” is a term from linguistics that has become confused with “sex” in common parlance. Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that in colloquial English “gender” now is synonymous with “sex.” An example, in French the word for book, “le livre,” has masculine gender - NOTE a book is not male nor does a book have any sexual attributes. In Russian the word for book, “kniga,” has feminine gender - NOTE a book is not female nor does a book have any sexual attributes just because it has gender in a particular language.

To an extent, too, he is right the confusion of the word gender with sex has contributed to the developments in language and social thought concerning all manner of sexual identification.

Where I think he is overreacting is, as I stated above, in colloquial English gender is simply a synonym for sex, and it’s pretty clear that was the meaning in the article. Then again, we need all sorts of people to fight the various fights - so well done Petergee, but you may be a lone soldier on this one.
 
A horse is sometimes an animal you ride, a wooden toy, a game of basketball, or a punch in the knee. They’re all horses, though.

In sociology, gender studies, cultural studies, psychology, etc, gender is a socially constructed and institutionalized concept relating to roles, attitudes, manners of dress, activities, appearances, and appropriate reactions and concerns. To say that there aren’t cultural differences in approaches to gender is kind of ridiculous. A “feminine woman” in one culture might be very different from a “feminine woman” in another. Similarly, what an American thinks of as a “man’s man” isn’t going to be reflected everywhere. In that sense, there are cultural expectations which affect the way a person views his/her role as a man/woman. Denying that there are any cultural contributions is really an untenable view. IMO, just as untenable as saying that gender is 100% socially constructed. Some things come from God, some from our family, and some from the culture that we grow up in.

As a concept, gender is differentiated from sex, which is related only to sex organs.

Of course, 99% of people use gender to mean sex, because people don’t want to say “sex” in public.
 
Of course, 99% of people use gender to mean sex,
Quite a few people do, perhaps even a majority among those of younger generations who are more mindful of political correctness, but niowehere near 99%.
because people don’t want to say “sex” in public.
In turn resulting from the misuse of the word “sex” to mean “genital activities” as in the logically meaningless phrase “having sex” invented by the pornographic novelist D H Lawrence in 1928.

Everybody has sex from the moment he is conceived.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top