Jonah Goldberg could find inspiration in Anne Moir and David Jessel’s Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women for a sequel to his book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.
The problem is that it is the apostles of sexual sameness who set the agenda; they would enact the laws and ban the books in a vain attempt to divert children from their natural sexual identities. But the idea that we are all born with a clean slate of mine, a tabula rasa, ready for society to print its message upon, is a totalitarian’s dream. And if, after all, we are what we are because of our biology, is it not as monstrous and hopeless a task to eliminate our differences as it was to create a master race? There is a disturbing whiff of sexual fascism in the premises and prescriptions of those who advocate sexual neutrality.
How about calling this tome Sexual Fascism: The Secret History of Feminism, from the Social Construction of Gender to Gloria Steinem’s Defense of Bill Clinton’s Philandering?
Sorry about not replying to your your reply on the third gender in your previous thread. No, the concept of a third gender is not exclusive to the Amerindians, it’s cross-cultural. There are many variations and myths concerning the third gender concept, including significant deities such as Ishtar. Actually, the first time the concept was recorded was in ancient Mesopotamia (i.e the beginning of writing). The first modern gay rights pioneer, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, even uses this concept in explaining the nature of his homosexuality.
While I do not doubt the differences in the sexes, it is not as simple as black and white when it concerns homosexuals, the transgendered, and the intersexed.
Do you have any citations for your claims, Rob?
Yes…can you cite some sources for your assertions? It would be refreshing to actually gather some sources that could be accessed.
I’m a little surprised that people still cling to Social Constructivism with the tenacity that they do. Even allegedly serious critics in gender studies refuse to see past Judith Butler and find something new to talk about: an innovative way of conceiving gender that resists both the tyranny of nature and the tyranny of the state. Too often, gender critics produce this false choice and elect for the latter.
But I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise when the same people are elbow to elbow with those who refuse to see past the musings of Marx: a Victorian aristocrat railing against a historically situated caricature.
Citations? There are some at the bottom of the wiki page. This is hardly something disputable. For someone who’s studying gender differences, I thought you’d be more knowledgeable about this subject.