In the previous post I asserted that words should mean what they originally meant. Over on the Facebook page associated with this blog (which I don’t run or control, and which ironically I don’t have the ability to comment on, since I don’t have a Facebook profile…) people are getting pretty upset with me for what they perceived to be my bad attitude toward people of certain genders or identities.
That’s interesting to me, since not once in my post did I say anything negative whatsoever about anyone. I said that I didn’t advocate any type of mistreatment of anyone, and when someone on the Facebook page was kind enough to post a link of information regarding definitions of different genders and fluidity of genders and whatnot, the first thing I did was click on it and read it straightaway. I am certainly willing to learn and be educated, but none of what I read changes the fact that I am not a bigot, am not a hateful person, and did not accuse anyone of being a “freak” nor in any way a bad person. I was not attacking anyone on a personal level. I talked about language, which works better if we can agree on common definitions.
I was not trying to offend people- HUMAN people- by critiquing language- WORDS that are not alive. The fact that this has gone so horribly wrong makes me not want to check “my privilege”, as much as I now want to check my sanity.
For what it’s worth, I will say this unequivocally: I apologize if anyone felt personally attacked by what I said . That was not ever my intent.
oakparkhatesveggies 
Mar 19, 2017 @ 18:37:25
and so the facebook page is what? and how do you know that people are commenting if you don’t have an account?
Language is alive and evolves. Words almost never mean “what they always meant.” Marriage is a social construct that has meant many things over the years and has evolved. Gender is the same. So, by rejecting a term used to clarify our evolving definition of gender, you come across as rejecting those who do not conform to the old definition.
this: Much to my surprise, it means a person who was born as a male and identifies as a male. Oh. So, uh, a male?
It’s not black and white. In terms of hermaphrodites alone (who without regard to genetic makeup were often assigned the gender of female and who were subjected to the surgery to make it true, because it’s easier to remove a penis than a vagina) it is grey. Then there are all of the other factors that go into making up a gender identity.
Your previous post is negating all of that nuance because it’s easier for you. But, the term is not for you.
I’ll copy and paste my facebook comments here:
I’m going to go ahead and agree with the rest of the commenters on here and say, it makes you sound like a bigot. (Tonya notwithstanding). Remember back when you wanted a vegetable garden in your front yard, and your town was all, “FRONT YARDS ARE FOR GRASS AND SHRUBBERY ONLY, that’s the way front yards have always been and shall remain.’ And you were all, “but, it’s MY yard and I should be able to grow vegetables if I want to?” and a bunch of people (without asking anything from you) supported you without question? It would be nice if you could do that for those who are struggling with discrimination in an arena much more personal and difficult than vegetables in a yard.
Mar 19, 2017 @ 20:20:09
Hi, Alyson.
First off, thank you for taking the time to leave a comment here, and to post what you said on Facebook. To explain what that is all about, when this blog first started, a friend of mine made the Facebook page. She had the password and did all of the content, set up, and whatever. I don’t know how to log in, and since I have no private Facebook page of my own, I can see the comments on the page if I follow the link from this blog, but I can’t write any comments. I certainly can’t change anything or post or moderate in any way. The only access I have to it is that whatever I post here goes directly to the Facebook page. Hope that clears things up.
In response to what you wrote, I can see how it would come across that in negating the use of certain terms to apply to people or situations I would be negating those people, but that was never my intent. Although I reject expansion of definitions, I never reject people and their right to self-expression. Their right to engage in personal behaviours is their own business, and beyond the scope of my post. I never meant to diminish anyone in any way. I really only meant to talk about the biological reality of what one sees under a microscope as far as DNA, which in my mind carries no judgment whatsoever- it is completely objective and carries no hint of any moral sting. It just is what it is, and I never meant for there to be any implications beyond that. Simply x is x and y is y. But after reading (some of) the comments, I see how it came across as a bit narrower than what I intended and I feel bad for that.
I certainly don’t advocate for discrimination. In truth, I support a person’s right to do what they want with their own body and their own partner exactly the same much no matter what they call themselves, and I believe I have exactly zero right to know what their genitalia look like nor what their DNA is. I don’t have any stake in a person’s intimate life regardless of how they choose to dress or who they choose to have a relationship with, as they have no stake in mine. I think people should be treated fairly and equitably, and judged on their merits as people, and I am truly sorry that things got so sidetracked by me wanting words to mean what to me seemed like what they clearly should mean. Apparently to some people this wasn’t so clear, and seemed mean-spirited and awful, but that’s not who I am, was never who I was, and something very obviously got lost in translation. I appreciate you taking the time and having enough of an open mind to start a dialog about this.
Thank you.
Mar 19, 2017 @ 22:05:03
It’s pretty simple actually. The “diss” comes from your ignorance causing you to speak in a condescending fashion and belittle an entire group of people. Most of what you said was ridiculously insulting. Completely invalidating the existence of trans men (and all non-binary people, you can google that) because you don’t understand the point in having separate terminology for cis men (Oh, so, uh, this sentence right here?) is bigoted and again, insulting.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/causes-prejudice
Mar 20, 2017 @ 03:10:04
Tolerance without affirmation doesn’t make you a bad person, it simply makes you a non-ally, and possibly in the political arena, someone whose agenda I will fight against, and hopefully defeat, although of course America is going through a particularly dark time in her history right now. I believe strongly in America, though, so I believe someday “Trump-era” will be a pejorative for similar reasons as “McCarthy era” is today among all but the most viscerally reactionary toadies.
I’ve been reading your blog long enough to know you’re basically a paleoconservative, so I’m hardly surprised. I (like many, I’m sure) was drawn to your cause because you took on city hall, particularly in one of those hellish suburban “curb appeal” kind of places. I still honor and admire that, of course. Each person is a platform, and few people have a platform that scores either 0% or 100%, using the metrics applied to legislators by special interest groups.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 04:53:27
Your reply reads much better than the original post, thank you.
The point of many is that even biological sex (which i believe is different from gender, gender being a social construct) is much more complicated than xx or xy. There is sometimes a 3rd chromosome, the blueprints are sometimes misread and you get both. In non humans, chickens for example, gender can change based on the needs of the flock. (And all of this is before you get hormones and the brain involved at all). Male isn’t male and female isn’t female.(but, if your education in dna and biology stopped in basic high school or even college classes, you wouldn’t have been taught that, mostly for 2 reasons, simplicity -like the nuances of the bible only come out with serious study, and because our understanding is evolving ) Someone posted a really good summary from like organic chem or microbiology that was fascinating. I’ll see if i can find it to post here.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 08:17:06
I can’t find the thing about biological sex being non-binary, it was AWESOME though.
In your previous post you wrote something like, “I want to know this is a pen and not a butterfly” which is comparing apples to veal. In these gender discussions, you’re still talking about PEOPLE. A kangaroo isn’t going to pop up. And your pen, as well as your coat, DO have these qualifying definitions. A pen isn’t a pen – is it ballpoint, felt tip, medium, fine, a marker, a quill, for calligraphy or writing, disposable or reusable? Nothing will make the pen a butterfly and no one is arguing that. But, pens have nuance, as do people. Coats too – bomber jacket, wool, car, cargo, barn jacket, fleece, polyester, cotton, camel, top, letterman jacket, overcoat, rain coat, fur, faux fur – it’s nearly endless. You can’t order a coat. You can generally refer to something as a coat, but all you’re specifying is an outer garment worn for warmth – but nothing at all specific about a particular coat. And if you call lands end to order a coat, you’ll have to answer ALL of those questions before they send you anything – as well as size, color, and warmth value.
Almost nothing is binary. Why should we expect people to be?
Mar 20, 2017 @ 09:32:37
It all comes down to whose Authority does one follow- man’s or God’s? I choose to walk in the Authority of God’s Word given to us in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).
All sin is against God’s Word and Will. including sexual sins.
Nothing in the bible says it is okay to lean on our own understanding or to go by our ‘feelings’, since feelings are subjective and unstable. We are to stand upon the Inerrant Word of God only.
If we all did this, we would not have the problems we have now as a nation. People would not be confused as to who they were born to be. We would not have the rampant drug and alcohol problems that we have in our communities. The Light of Christ would shine too bright for the Darkness to come in to cause harm.
Words do have meaning, and the Word of God is our Light and Way in a dark world full of sin, mental illness, and confusion.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 11:46:50
Alyson- you raise great points. To use this as a starting point, I would answer the following. If I want to order a coat, that gives me a starting point of common understanding with someone. Sure, there are many types of coats, and many specifics I might need to convey to someone beyond the basic “coat”, but at the very least, the word “coat” gives us a platform from which to begin our discussion. If I call Land’s End to order a coat and the person taking my order thinks I mean denim overalls, I am in trouble from the get-go.
Now obviously people are not articles are clothing, and they are not made-to-order. NOR SHOULD THEY BE. They come in many beautiful wonderous varieties, each of them special in their own ways. I have no more judgment attached to a person’s gender than to a ball point pen versus a felt tip marker. Which I why I used oversimplified (which came off as obnoxious and brash) terms to describe the LANGUAGE that gave me issues. I was not making moral assertions about any person or people, although that’s what this post quickly devolved into, and again, I thank you for engaging in this continued dialog.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 12:01:05
n8chz-
I’m so glad you weighed in on this. You continue to be one of my favorite people on this blog, and I always like and respect your opinion. I have never heard the term paleoconservative (big surprise, huh? hahahahaha), but if I could guess what it means, it probably fits me. I think you have a lot of integrity to continue to stand by me, even when you don’t agree, and to allow for the fact that nothing is as simple as 0 or 100%. I imagine I wouldn’t agree with all of your politics either, but I would have your back on a personal level, in any situation. You have a lots of class, my friend. That’s for real.
Mar 20, 2017 @ 12:19:21
“Nothing is as simple as 0 or 100%” – except gender, which is assigned at birth based only upon visible characteristics that appear one way or another, or both and without knowing the chromosomal makeup of the child and sex assignment surgery is performed daily in the US on infants who are intersex….
I’m not arguing about coats vs. overalls – Cis-men and trans-men both identify as men, for your purposes, fully clothed, you probably cannot tell the difference. But they can and they want to be seen.
In this vein: I urge EVERYONE to watch this and few take me up on it, but Jane Elliott is the single reason I was ever able to view my excessive privilege as privilege. It was, and continues to be, so eye opening and humbling to me. Give it a view if you can. It’s more directed towards racism than any other ism but I found I was so much better able to extrapolate once I got the racism/white privilege angle down.
you can also search Jane Elliott take a walk in my shoes and there are a bunch of interesting looking videos in the side bar on you tube.
Mar 22, 2017 @ 10:46:00
Hi, Alyson-
Just to let you know, I did watch the Jane Elliot vid that you recommended.