Friday, August 6, 2010

If gender doesn't matter

Throughout the document containing Judge Walker's legal opinion, the notion that gender doesn't matter at all, is as totally irrelevant to marriage as it is to other areas of life, and that treating the genders differently is identical to racial discrimination occurs. I've said before that the end game for same-sex "marriage" activists is not merely to redefine marriage in a way that destroys it, but also to usher in the post-heteronormative, genderless society so many of them want to see.

But there are consequences to radical ideas like these, and it might be a good idea to ponder what this one really means. If Judge Walker and his ilk get the genderless society that they wish for, what will that mean, in practical terms?

If gender doesn't matter, what would change?

If gender doesn't matter...then we clearly can't have men's rooms and women's rooms, men's locker rooms and women's locker rooms, etc. Separating these facilities by gender would be, in a Walkerian world, exactly the same as having separate restrooms for African-Americans; genderism is just like racism. So, get used to having men changing next to you at your local gym, ladies--if gender doesn't matter.

If gender doesn't matter...then you might as well forget gender-specific sports teams, too. Racists used to make African-Americans play on separate teams or in separate leagues, and today genderists are keeping women off of NFL teams and refusing to let men compete on the Women's Olympic Beach Volleyball team. Get used to co-ed sports teams...if gender doesn't matter.

If gender doesn't matter...then why are only male U.S. citizens required to register for the draft when they turn 18? There are plenty of women serving in the Armed Forces, and as Judge Walker has clearly explained to us all, children don't actually need their mothers. Be prepared to hand over your newborn and diaper bag for a pair of combat boots, young American moms--if gender doesn't matter.

If gender doesn't matter...then women belong in combat, too, speaking of combat boots. It's only discrimination that keeps women from the front lines of wars and conflicts. It's not because men are psychologically inclined to protect women, or that women are more vulnerable to rape and other consequences of being captured. There are more women than men anyway--so more women ought to die serving in the Armed Forces in wars than men do...if gender doesn't matter.

If gender doesn't matter...then society, culture, tradition, human nature and common sense have somehow inexplicably failed to overlook the "fact" that men and women are totally interchangeable, that there is nothing unique or special about men, nothing unique or special about women. Get rid of "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day" in our Walkerian world--again, Walker has declared that children don't need their own mothers or fathers, not at all! Get rid of men's and women's departments in clothing stores, of barbers and beauty parlors, of any business that makes its income promoting the old "gender matters" stereotypes which sees some kind of difference between the male and the female. Because we can't live in the post-gay "marriage" heteronormative-eradicated post-gender society the same-sex rights activists dream of--if gender actually does, in some way the progressives just can't see, matter.


MacBeth Derham said...

If gender does not imagine that my husband would love to be treated by my OB/Gyn. She's great!

David said...

I'll add one:

If gender doesn't matter... then gays should easily marry straight women and lesbians marry straight men--if gender doesn't matter.

You're battling a straw man here.

The idea, at least for me, is not that gender doesn't matter overall, that there are not legitimate, measurable differences between the sexes. The differences should be qualified and given the importance they deserve; no more, no less.

What I would like to shy from is assumed essentialism of the sexes since as human beings, we are amazingly diverse even within the categories of man and woman. Our brains's what we do. Prejudice is as natural for the Democrat as the Republican as it is for the average human being.

Are there good reasons for separating bathrooms? We can evaluate those claims.

Are there good reasons for drafting men over women? We can evaluate that.

Are there good reasons to not let gays raise children? We can evaluate that and why.

You're conflating the idea in Phyllis Schlafly style that gender not mattering in one instance suddenly means that this group, "progressives", believes it girds the idea that gender doesn't matter for everything else. I would like to hope, if I'm being lumped in that group, that such decisions are based on prudent evidence/investigation, and as always, open to the criticism and possibility of being wrong.

Lindsay said...

Lol, MacBeth.

Good post, Erin! No straw men as far as I can see. I see no evidence of any attempts at prudence or investigation into the institution of marriage by this judge, and if you read Marx (who most progressives are heavily influenced by whether they realize it or not), he pretty much says over and over again that gender DOESN'T matter in all of the ways you just counted.

Deirdre Mundy said...

The problem is that, of course, whatever a judge says, Gender does matter in one HUGE way in marriage. Only a man has sperm. Only a woman has eggs. Only a woman can carry a child and give birth.

No man has ever had a C-section. No woman has a prostrate.

When someone is infertile, we assume it is a defect to be remedied, sometimes with extraordinary measures.

The state's interest in gender is all about where the next generation of citizens COME from.

We'll lose on the marriage front as long as we're losing on the children front......

Really, the source of this debate isn't in no-fault divorce. It's in IVF. If they ever build a completely efficient artificial womb, we're sunk from a civil standpoint.

(OTOH, Christianity and even natural law have been at odds with other empires in decline, too. Our best bet may be to figure out what the RISING empire is, and convert it--like the Romans did with the barbarians....)

kkollwitz said...

"Only a man has sperm. Only a woman has eggs. Only a woman can carry a child and give birth."

Yes. But this matters only to the extent that someone intends to reproduce; and if so, when, how much, and by what method (e.g., sperm "donation").

The fact that "traditional" marriage now wallows in the muck of Griswold, Roe, etc. has opened the door to "gay marriage," and I don't see any possibility of shutting that door until we heterosexuals put our own house in order. Much to the contrary, it will open more widely than we can imagine, and "gay marriage" is just the beginning, not the end.

c matt said...

I, personally, would have no problem with co-ed sports. of course, the likelihood of a female athlete being able to compete as well as a male athlete at the professional level are slim and none. You only have to watch one WNBA game to realize that.

The difference between racial segregation and gender segregation in sports is that the racial segregation was intended to prevent equal or better athletes from getting on the teams, gender segregation is intended to let lesser athletes have a team (or league) to play in at all.

On the restroom bit, there are already many establishments that have "gender neutral" facilities, so that step has already been taken.

c matt said...

If gender doesn't matter... then gays should easily marry straight women and lesbians marry straight men--if gender doesn't matter.

It's not like that hasn't happened. Of course, that just proves there is no disparate treatment - gays can marry straight women (or lesbians, for that matter), just as straight guys can.

David said...

C matt:

That argument gets a lot a traction with people who already agree with you. I don't doubt that. It has, however, no real convincing effect on me for the following reasons, and it seems to skirt the issue at hand.

Implied in the treatment is not that they are equally positioned to marry someone of the opposite sex--which only seems to be in the argument or consideration of marriage as an institution when gays are involved--but that you are actually, as a straight person, able to marry anyone of whom you would normally choose. How convenient that the only person you would choose is someone of the opposite sex...

Why would you even think of marrying someone of the same sex? What value is that to you? When would you consider it outside of the example of perhaps gay acquaintances you might have?

Why would a gay man or gay woman think or desire of marrying someone of the opposite sex?

Why do you, if marriage is an institution to form and stabilize families, a foster for controlled sexuality, raising of children, building communities, implicitly support the idea of a gay man or gay woman going into that arrangement with a partner of the opposite sex, especially when other forms of compatibility are so often intertwined with why and how people get married?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

David has hit a nail on the head that he probably didn't mean to...

...if this is about equal protection of the laws, then a gay man should have an equal right to enter into a lesbian marriage...

...but you see, men and women ARE different. That's why, when we abolished separate bathrooms for "white" and "colored," nobody seriously considered abolishing separate bathrooms for men and women.

David said...


I've seen you post that elsewhere, but must confess I don't quite understand what you mean by it and how it applies.

My image is of it being some form of polygamy, with a gay man trying to be with two lesbians...but if you're willing to elaborate on that point, I'd most appreciate it.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

David, don't look for rational thought in sarcastic parody. The notion of a gay man entering into a lesbian relationship is absurd, and I'm not the only one to recognize it.

I wasn't talking about polygamy. I was talking about one gay man and one lesbian woman. Now, if sex doesn't matter, they should be able to... see, its absurd.

As I've said before, I wouldn't personally put any energy into dissuading my state legislature from granting same-sex couples a license, a body of law, or even calling it marriage. I object to the notion that there is a constitutional right to state recognition for one human relation, that each man and woman is free to enter into, just because another human relation, which each man and woman is also free to enter into, happens to be licensed and recognized.