ArchivedDo I scare you?Hello Aineo You are very right about the arrogance of western medicine, One thing you mention actully illustrates it very well. They have for many years tried to impose the idea that "genetic sex" is as you quote, determined by a simple test. (The Buccal smear test). Actually they have not told you the whole truth. What they forgot to mention to you is the fact that genes and not chromosomes determine sex. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that at least 600 genes that have been sequenced are involve in some way or another with sex differentiation. They need to simplify it, but that is bad science. There are all these genes And only a tiny number of them lie in the 23rd pair of chromosomes. This of course has caused many problems, especially for women with Androgen insensitivity syndrome and Swyers syndrome, as well as someone like me with 5 alpha reductase deficiency. Yes women such as myself have XY chromosomal pairings. but in many cases thanks to many genes, masculinisation does not and sometimes cannot happen. (In the case of AIS a normally "masculinising" gene on the X chromosome, not the traditionally "male" Y, does not work. masculinisation is impossible. nature reverts to a female phenotype, just no uterus). There are many women made to feel shame just because a buccal smear test reveals an XY pairing. In the case of Swyers, that is an illustration of the XY myth not matching fact, because they have a uterus and streak ovaries. (I am a genetecist / bio-informatician by profession) Sometimes I wonder Sit in any bus stop outside a nightclub in the town where I live and watch what happens at about 2:00 am and the people lurching out often give the impression that rutting and on heat can appear to be in evidence, driven by a cocktail of drugs and alchohol. But seriously I can see your point. I am not the sort of person who sees people as reproducing machines, often I feel that people who do (Many in my own profession) see the world from blinkered eyes. That is so true actually. I can think of an organisation called GLAAD who often describe intersex or "intersexuality" (They have to sanitise it by adding "uality" at the end) as being a subset of "transgender". I do not consider myself "transgendered" because I do not have "gebder issues" as such. I know GLAAD are more than happy to wind Phelps off something rotten. Rather like poking sticks at a hive of wasps. Myself I dont have any gender politics to be political about. I do not think the rampant homophobia that is characterised by the likes of Phelps is justified. The moment that man opens his mouth, you can imagine a converstaion between him and Jshua on judgement day reading something like... Matthew 7: 21 through 23.
Yes that is the part of the scriptures I generally get very uneasy about, the fatalsim. Calvinism was the most extreme example of reading that from scripture, where they had decided that Gd knew who would be saved and who would not. The result being that all is so predetermined it was just some divine plan running without any concept of free will. While I do find that very hard to believe. thinking that such a limited view of Gd would be like calling Gd a golden calf. I do find this hint of the fatalistic difficult to reconcile sometimes. It is a mystery to me too I lack any reproductive organs what there was went pre cancerous due to repeated infections post surgery over a period of 15 years. I also lack a sex drive.
Yes this is quoted in Matthew I believe. Matthew 19: 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have become eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." This particular quote strikes me the most, because it puts the Family Values people on the wrong foot. Not that there is anything wrong with having a family, far from it. But there is something questionable about the more fundamentalist view that presents this rather claustrophobic ideal of Stepford Wives or Pleasantville to which everyone must conform. Mind you I did notice the spin in some translations that say "And renounced marriage" instead of "became Eunuchs" Either way you read it, this still brings the fundamentalist family only ideal into question. For me the freedom does give me more time to walk with Gd. I have to say I can concurr with this observation to some extent. I have seen people who are soul mates become bitter enemies when sex enters the relationship. While I have never myself expreienced a sexual relationship, I have seen how people in them change. I simply believe that the only real burden is that caused by wanton ignorance. I mean I do find more fundamentalist ideas within many faiths rather hard to deal with, actually a burden. As for sex, I have not expereinced it so I dont really have the wherewithall to judge really. I just find people take on very complicated ideas around the subject. Absolutely I agree with that fully Gd Bless Sophie. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame