Twenty five episodes later... here is part two of "Equality"
This time I want to focus on two related subjects.
A: Does Male equal Female?
B: Does Human equal Nonhuman?
The impetus for this episode is from Dennis Prager. He brought to light an article that sounded too strange to be true... But alas, once again truth is stranger than fiction.
These are not phony headlines from The Onion.
Click here to read full the article
So can they maintain an all female school? If so, how can they justify turning down males who feel female?
Know that they are literally trying to make up words to replace well understood, and perfectly pragmatic terms. All for the sake of their feelings. Terms like "ze", "e", and "ou"... and even better "they" used as a singular pronoun.
Notice further how they have selective definitions and understanding based on their agenda. On the one hand, they drop "male" and "female" because it refers to a fixed biological characteristics identified as "sex", and they prefer the mutable "gender" (a seemingly undefinable term by their standards.) But on the other hand, they require the distinction between male and female to reference their arguments, values, and beliefs. Ultimately their identity is still a reaction to the reality of male and female differences.
Either there are masculine characteristics inherint to males, or not. Same is obviously true for feminine characteristics. Is this primarily a human issue? Or are there no differences between the male bird and female bird? Are there no differences between testosterone and estrogen?
While the answers may seem self evident, these questions must now be taken more seriously since there is a strong movement to eradicate the notions of male and female.
Here is another headline from the Washington Post
Click here to read the full article.
How is this movement going to affect the rest of public life.
Will different restrooms continue? How can you justify male and female public restrooms? How can you restrict an individual from going into either sex specific restricted area? What if an individual simply feels like the sex or gender described on the door of a restroom?
What about girl scout and boy scouts? Are they going to be considered sexist and bigoted organizations guilty of immoral discrimination?
How about the Catholic Church or Orthodox Judaism? They restrict certain jobs and positions within the religion based on sex. Will the terms "Priest" or "Nun" become terms of discrimination and bigotry?
And how will this affect terms and roles such as:
Husband and Wife?
Father and Mother?
Son and Daughter?
Brother and Sister?
Boyfriend and Girlfriend?
Niece and Nephew?
All of these are gender specific. Therefore, they are sexist and bigoted based on the rationale of those who oppose the traditional notion that male and female are different and not interchangable.
And in case you need a study to confirm what common sense suggests:
I suppose God would be considered a sexist as well. After all when He created humans it is written "male and female He created them."
As I stated in a previous post:
God is a seperator. He's an organizer who seems to like everything to fit its place, and not intermingle with that which it is not.
He makes clear distinctions between things and does not like to mix unless He specifically calls for it (i.e. No mixing wool and linen except for special holy garments… again more on this later.)
In fact, notice that in the creation story God did not create anything on the second day. Rather He separated that which was already created… and that was it for day two! Seperation is pretty high priority stuff for Him apparently.
6And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
As Ayn Rand (an athiest) would say: A is A. B is B. So don't confuse A with B. This is to avoid confusion, as well as create clarity. And in Ayn Rand's philosophy - objectivism.
God created a world of order rather than chaos. This is how science and math can exist. There are predictable, repeatable, demonstrable proofs in our world.
A is A. B is B. A is not B.
3 is 3. 5 is 5. 3 is not 5.
Imagine if randomly A was redefined and the value of 3 was constantly changing… Imagine a world of absolute chaos and uncertainty (A is B is 5 is…) A world that exists one moment, and does not the next.
So if we just refer back to the story of the creation of man (again in Genesis) we learn that God made male and female separate. Male is male. Female is female. Male is not Female and vice versa. Do not confuse the two and believe they are the same.
He also states that women are not to wear the instrument of men, nor are men to wear women's garments. Do not mix, nor confuse. Keep things separate and distinct. Blurring the lines of distinction between male and female (as in same-sex sexual practice, or same-sex marriage) goes against order which sustains our predictable yet dynamic universe.
Now, I know some of you are saying "Wait a second… This sounds awfully bigoted. Are you possibly implying that God could be a racist as well? After all weren't whites forbidden from marrying outside their race?" My answer… "Only by man made law… NEVER by God's law or in the Torah! No where is race an issue in the Torah. Moses (the lead human character for 4/5 of the Torah) marries outside his "race." There is only one race referred to in the Hebrew Bible and that is the human race (adam.) God doesn't care about anyone's skin color, He cares about your character… and teaches us to do the same. He does however care about keeping things different when things are significantly distinct. Male vs. female is such an example. Skin tone vs. skin tone is as significant as eye color vs. eye color. That is to say it is insignificant."
If you differ, that's fine. Lets be clear on where we differ.
God, Torah, and I believe that Male and Female are different yet remain equal in terms of value and should remain distinct, noninterchangeable sexes.
You think they are the same and interchangeable (not just equal in terms of value): Male is Female.
So based on that rationale: separate toilets, separate sports teams, separate leagues and clubs, separate prisons, separate safe houses, and any other male/female separation is unnecessary and therefore wrong (due to inherent civil rights discrimination ala Jim Crowe laws).
And speaking of Rights, that brings to part B:
Here is another real headline from the New York Times.
So beyond asking, does male = female? We must also ask, does human = nonhuman?
Either you believe in the distinct sanctity of human life, or you believe all life is of equal value.
My positions are clear. Only Man is created in the Divine image. Only Man embodies the spark of the Divine. Human life is of infinite value alone.
While we should respect other life and be good stewards towards the animals that share our world. And yes we are obligated to treat them well, and act humanely towards them in general.
BUT... Humans and animals are not the same. "Rights" pertains only to humankind. There are no "animal rights" only "human rights."
If animals have rights and each life is of equal value, then will you prosecute the frog when it eats the fly? Or convict the cat when it torments and tortures a a mouse purely for amusement?
We humans alone are given the blessing and curse of freewill. The rest of creation simply acts based on the rudimentary principles of pleasure and pain. We alone can make moral judgements that may be painful, and yet the right thing to do.
While you may think the argument that nonhuman is equal to human is an absurd one, please know there is a strong and powerful movement to turn that seemingly absurd belief into a recognized truth.
From PETA's website:
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”
Not only do I find these notions (male=female & human=nonhuman) absurd... They are a lie. Just as we should be outraged if schools were teaching 2 = 5 or green is red or right is left, we should be outraged at these movements to obfuscate the truth. These are lies told with good intentions, but will never the less have terrible consequences. History has proven this to be true.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for listening and subscribing.
If you have any thoughts you'd like to share please do so below in the comment area.
