Sex vs. Gender

    So I went through a bit of back and forth over what to write about today, but this has kind of been in the back of my mind for a while, so I figured I'd go for it.

     In today's modern world, it seems as if people use the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. And I suppose it does make enough sense, because they are, in most cases, the same for a person. But they aren't always. So here's another slightly educational rant pertaining to the highly underrepresented trans* community.

     Side note: the reason the * was adopted into the word trans was to make it more all inclusive towards any person living outside of a birth-given sex of male or female. More on that in a moment.

     Can you recall the first time you used or saw either of the above terms? From kindergarten, children begin to learn about what boys and girls typically act like, and that they should mostly be friend with people of their own gender. It's almost a natural thing. But when your five, you aren't going to use any real terms. Boy or girl, that's definition enough.

     One distinct memory of my own use of the word "gender" was when I was about ten. I was reading some book about urban legends aloud with my brother. At one point, the book talked of a curse that would occur anytime two people of opposite sexes stood in one particular place together. But at age ten, "sex" is a funny word, so I verbally changed it to "gender." Even as a teenager, most people's maturity levels don't allow that to be used in everyday language. Which I think is part of the reason why the world "gender" was so over-popularized.

     The problem, again, is that as people began saying "gender" more, it almost lost it's significance in comparison to "sex", so now they are viewed as equals.

     Or really, maybe it isn't even modern language that led to them being used equally, but ignorance. Not necessarily at anyone's fault, but there's just a general lack of common knowledge on the topic. Again, the reason why I write this now. Because it's a new age, and a time for learning.

     So just for a more accurate basis, I'll put the actual definitions of each word here, before I interpret:

Compared to:

     So in simpler terms, sex is a binary system based purely on physical anatomy. Gender is more of a group of people acting in one particular way, be it feminine, masculine, both, neither, whatever. In most people, sex and gender correspond, and that is fine.

     It is not fine for people who are not cis-gender (sex and gender do not correspond). This is when their gender is what matters, and sex doesn't.

     Go back to the definition of gender now for a moment. This is a personal identification. Now it's definitely possible for a feminine male to still identify as male. But for some people, it just isn't. A person's whose sex is technically female can relate and feel a lot more comfortably living as a male, because that's their gender. And this is where it becomes an issue on respect more than anything. Gender doesn't even have to be an outward thing. People can look many different ways. This is where, if someone confides in you that they prefer pronouns that vary from their sex, then use those pronouns around them. Or if you aren't sure, ask them not what their biological sex is, but what they would like to be called.

     Another point is that not every person even has a gender, such as gender-nonconforming people. Some people also may take on multiple genders, or change according to their mood, or whatever. Again, here it's usually best to ask what pronouns they'd like, rather than use the wrong one. Because that could just lead to depression, dysphoria, or anxiety. Or, if it'd it just be awkward to ask, just avoid gender-specific terms altogether.

     Which leads to my final point: why does English still not have an official gender-neutral pronoun? Many people are fine with using they/them, and that's okay. The only problem is that grammar hasn't caught up with the popularity of those pronouns for individual persons. Meaning, "they" is still seen as a plural term. Which it technically is, I suppose. Many people also like to use ze/zir, but because those aren't as popular, many have trouble remembering them and can again fall into using incorrect pronouns. These are just little things that bother me about pronouns. Also, saying "he/she" is another binary term, and it just doesn't read well in papers. Another reason for a new word.

     Still, the world is progressing. I have to keep reminding myself this, but it is. For example, the University of Iowa has started listing "transgender" as a gender option, alongside "male" and "female." Which is a huge step with people who may identify differently. There are also some doctors who, when registering patients, specify that when they ask a person's sex, they actually mean their sex, purely because of their difference hormonally and physically.

     Anyways, the main point I wanted to make was that sex and gender are not always the same, so don't always assume they are. And you should be respectful of this, because neither sex nor gender are chosen things, and it isn't easy when they don't match up. So be mindful, be kind, and remember that everyone has the right to self-identify, but no one has the right to put them down for that.

Rape Culture, Part I

     With the now past election of 2012, there were quite a few statements passed around about rape: what defines it, what should be done about it, what to do when pregnancy results from it, etc. The most notable was most definitely the great quote of Todd Akin stating that, from what he understands, "if it's legitimate (or forced, as he later revised) rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Now obviously, that isn't true. Because that would be to say that is a woman was truly raped, pregnancy would be impossible. So in other words, if pregnancy does occur, that would mean that it was totally consensual and the rapist can be free.

     And I know that that probably wasn't exactly what Akin was saying. But that kind of makes you think of another point. There seems to be a bit of a debate going on now about consensual verses non-consensual  is it rape if there's no signs of struggle. Or if it is right to say a woman was "asking for it" by the way she dressed or acted, or her relationship with the rapist, and the like. And then we also have these rape cases being brought to attention, which leads to a surplus of information and tips on how to prevent rape. Because obviously, rape is a terrible thing that no one (man or woman) would ever want to go through. So we have all these warnings about being careful at night, or not traveling alone, and not talking to strangers or drinking from a cup a stranger gave you. There's so much focus on how not to get raped. And yet, you hardly ever hear about trying to stop a rapist.

     Statistic time: according to the American Medical Association, rape is considered the most under reported crime today. It's estimated that up to 60-75% of rape cases go unreported. Meanwhile, only about 25% of reported cases result in arrest. To put that in numbers, in 100 cases, only about 40 will be reported. And then of that, only 10 people will be arrested, from the original 100. That's a terrible ratio. And what's being done about it? Sure, awareness is up. People know that rape's a thing. People share ways to prevent it, though those are targeted mainly at women, ignoring the fact the men can be raped, too. And then, as far as I've seen, so little is being done to prevent rape from even being a thought. Only 1/10 rapists are ever caught. And men (because women are seldom acknowledged as being able to rape) are rarely told why not to rape. Because, maybe that's silly. Because isn't it easier to teach a person to run, than to teach a person not to fire a gun?

     Now still, telling someone not to do something won't really stop them every time. But the thing is, what if it can save even one person? If a person hears from 10 of their friends that all people deserve even just basic respect? And that one person actually listens? Then I say it counts as a success.

     So what solution would I recommend, I'm sure you wonder? Well, probably just a little more conversation. Did you know that studies have been done on children and exposure to racism? Well, it's obvious that children can easily learn prejudiced values from parents. However, they aren't much better having completely "color-blind" influences either. The best way to stop racism is to simply say "some people are different. And that's fine." Because we don't all look or act the same, but that makes us no less equal.

     But I don't mean to stray to far from the point here. I merely state that little quip to show how talking and explaining things early can really affect the future.

    Now there is no way to make parents be more involved in kid's lives, to ensure they learn good morals. And a lot of times, huge assemblies at schools (such as ones against underage drinking) don't work. We try anyways, but that's not really the best approach. And I don't think we've found the best answer quite yet. But maybe it can go back to our school system. Maybe we can subtly teach kids to treat people fairly. But not in a lecture-y way, and without the whole "treat others as you would like to be treated" cliché. If I hear an argument enough times to memorize it, it's probably not very effective.

     A new age is upon us. I truly believe that the world (or at least a nice couple of prominent countries) is becoming a lot more progressive.

For instance (and I have strayed away from the main topic again. Bare with me please), there is one preschool where everything is entirely gender neutral, which means kids are less focused on stereotypes and don't think of certain things as weird, like most parts of the world. Which would in turn lead to less bullying for people who don't act a certain way.

     Now stereotypes and rape don't really connect. I'm not saying they do. But maybe if all schools were more all-inclusive and really made it known from a young age that no one is better than anyone else, we wouldn't have as much violence or hate crimes or rape later on, because there wouldn't be an overwhelming need for someone  to prove that they are stronger or more powerful than everyone else.. Young minds are extremely susceptible to believing what people tell them and then keeping those thoughts, so it really is crucial that certain morals be implanted early.

     Now of course, certain parents would disagree and argue that that would be a terrible idea. I'd fully expect that. But the younger generation is statistically more acceptable than those older than them. So I definitely think that if we started a push for mild educational reform (or really just better anti bullying policies nationwide) now, in 100 years time crime rates will go way down.

     But I don't have enough to say about our education system to go into the rant that it deserves separate from this. Feel free to comment if you wish. But that's all for now. Talk to you all again next post.

*Side note: I realized as I finished writing this that I left out a few more points, but that don't exactly flow with where I headed with this. So look out for a part II, coming soon.

Uganda

     At my school, we each have a laptop which we pretty much use all day long. And then being a person of the 21st century, I also use it after school and into the night. So I have 24/7 access to the internet, and I use that. During school, when I get bored, as I often do, instead of being a normal teenage and reading funny things online, I like to read up on the news. Mostly LGBT news. And by mostly I mean entirely. I like to be up-to-date with things going on around me, because I care. And since I do this everyday, I'd like to think I'm pretty well informed on things. For example, one huge story has been the recent and still on-going  progress of the so-called "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda. However, it only today really occurred to me that...well, absolutely no one is talking about it. People on tumblr live for this stuff, because everyone there (including me)is convinced that they are a civil rights activist. And I've seen nothing on youtube or facebook or anything. Not even the generic news on my schools webpage. Absolutely nothing. In a modern world full of "signal-boasts" on the internet, they really missed something huge here.

     So I'd like to take a moment now to educate at least someone. I'll even include sources for you. Because this is something people should know is happening in our world. There are places out there way less progressive than America. And those places matter and effect us, too.

     The basis of the bill is, by its name sake, to kill off all gay people in Uganda. Actually, no. It would potentially kill anyone even perceived as gay. Anyone who commits any gay act (and complete intercourse is not required) will be killed, or suffer a lifetime imprisonment. Citizens will be encouraged to turn in any law-violators, and in exchange be spared their own lives. An ultimatum, so one partner will want to turn in the other if they are both in danger. You can read more of the specifics of the law here.

     And worst thing about the lack of awareness about this law is that it is set to be voted on and decided this week. Why has no one mentioned this? And it's not like this doesn't concern us. For one, Uganda’s Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, not only wants this law in place by the new year, she also hopes that this law will spread to all of Africa. An entire continent where, in order to become more pure than this western society, all people who seem to commit homosexual acts will be killed. No, a continent-wide law is not set yet. But these are the early stages where we need to stop it.

     A second thing is that America and our companies here could go and protest this, but we don't. Citibank is a huge company in Uganda, yet they refuse even to go through with a petition  to stop marketing there. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins actually condones the bill.  So the people that are really informed with what is happening, aren't doing anything.

     So I'm making this post as a final effort to raise any awareness at all. It won't do much, but I can't just watch this happen and hope it works out. America needs leaders to speak out against injustices in the world, not just our country. Well, the time for that is now.

Victoria's Secret Fashion Show

     So today someone asked me my opinion on the Victoria's Secret fashion show that happened last night. Now fashion shows aren't really my thing, so I didn't watch it. I don't have a huge thing against them, I just don't care. Still, I figured it'd be fun to try to make a post about it.

     The biggest problem with these shows would be the argument that they seem to objectify women. So I'll just kind of focus on that (rather then talk about male pageants or what you'd see on shows like Toddlers in Tiaras).

     Many people would argue that fashion shows like this are just used to… flaunt women, if you will. Having that one incredibly specific body type walk around in "too-few" clothes for the enjoyment of others. But to say that would also imply that it is all done for the enjoyment of men. Which would be the objectifying element of these shows.

     The thing is though, these shows aren't just done for men, and the purpose of fashion shows aren't purely misogynistic. While it could be (and probably is) completely true that some men watch these for some alternative reasons, that isn't the show's actual purpose. And judging just by the amount of female people I have heard talking about the show in excitement the day before it aired, I don't think that creepy men are the main demographic. Rather, most people who are genuinely interested in watching watch it because they have an actual interest in the clothes. After all, it is a fashion show.

     And in any case, the models that are there all consented to it and want to be there. No one forced them into the outfits. And modeling isn't really an easy business, so with a show that size they must have worked extremely hard to make it there. To degrade someone would mean that you are lowering their strength, quality, dignity, or intensity. But models have to be fierce. For them, being on stage is empowering. So even though there certainly are people out there who only see them as pretty objects there solely for the viewers pleasure, the models see themselves as much more.

     Still, some people aren't comfortable with the whole notion of fashion shows. And that's fine. To them, I really just recommend not watching. But if people are genuinely happy modeling, or people really enjoy seeing all the outfits, then more power to them. This is where you really have to respect everyone's opinions: if you like it, watch it; if not, don't. It should honestly be that simple.

Sexism in the Church

     So the other day at Mass (at a conservative church I am regretfully forced to attend), a typical homily turned towards something a bit more interesting that normal. A fun question was raised: is there (still) sexism in the Church?

     Of course (in my mind), the answer is yes. But, of course, the priest talking about this said no. Because the Church is flawless. Now I won't pretend to remember all of what he even said. Because I don't. But luckily, this is my writing and not his. So while I suppose it is apparently up for debate, I'll now go ahead and share my personal views, be they what they are.

     So as previously stated, I definitely would say sexism is very apparent today. Quietly, sometimes "hidden" ironically is today's society, but very much there. But speaking purely on the church at this point: well the whole thing, as with quite a few religions that aren't even Christian, is rooted in some sexism. Like in Greek mythology, Pandora (a woman) released everything bad into the world. In Catholicism, we like to blame Eve.

     For those knowing less about the Bible, here's what you need to know about this one story: God created man (not people, just man), but man was lonely. So God, being so generous, made him a suitable partner. This man, Adam, was evidentially heterosexual (and, I do plan on talking about this in the future), so Eve (a woman) was created. God lets them live happy in a nice garden, but says- and this is paraphrasing- "whatever you do, do not eat from that tree, right there. It'll make you way too awesome. So don't do that."

     Then an evil devil snake appears telling Eve to do just that. The thing here is, he specifically targets Eve. Perhaps thinking of her as weak. Just speculation.

     But just let it settle that this could be the dark lord Satan thinking of the female as weak. And today, how many people think that? Yes, there is still evil in the world.

     Anyways, Eve's like "so if I eat the fruit, I'll get super godly powers? Heck's yeah-- wait, terrible word choice...."

     So she eats it. And that fruit is awesome. So she's like "Adam, you gotta try this!" And, I mean, this all went down while she was naked. So she was totally asking for bad things to happen. And Adam, being a man, could not help but obey Eve. So the fruit was eaten, original sin was created, God kicked them out like a mother kicks out her 40 year old son, and Adam and Eve realized they were naked and freaked out. A perfect haven was destroyed all because Eve gave into temptation and-- wait, hold up. We're really only blaming Eve? Didn't they both sin...so if three people kill all the kids in an elementary school but we only blame the one who fired the first shot? No. No it doesn't work that way.

     Now I won't say Eve was perfect. The whole point of the story was saying that she wasn't. But it's not fair to put extra blame on her. Even if we completely ignore their sex, that ain't right.

     But since we're now disregarding sex, the argument only proves that the Church is messed up, but not necessarily sexist, though this story hints that it's very possible.

     However...go look at the authorities of the Church. All of them. Deacons to bishops and popes. All male. And why is that? Growing up, I've asked that question so many times. And the only answer I ever got was that it's because there never have been female leaders before. Like how we've never gone to the moon and I can't access the internet on a cellular telephone. Impossible, and change makes no sense. The apostles were all male. Jesus was male. Don't worry about Mary. Now I must give credit in saying that the Bible does, occasionally, refer to God as a woman. Now, God's technically a spirit, neither male nor female. But maybe that's to complicated.

     But we are talking about the church today, still run all by men. Referring primarily to God as a man. And there is a huge stress on separating people by sex, for some reason. Men can be priests and deacons or brothers. Woman can be nuns. Men can join the Knights of Columbus, women join the Sodality of Mary. And these don't mix. Biological sex determines where you can stand as a lay person, and those are the options you have.

     Now I'm not going to say anything bad about religious orders in general, but the Church is supposed to be all inclusive. God loves everyone, that is the main message. So why the segregation?

     And other thing is that (Catholics at least) we are taught from a young age that not speaking against a sin is also a sin. So, even if the "values" of separation by sex are not new to the Church, they still aren't right. Why can't a woman be the pope? If she were equally as religious and devote as any man, where lies the problem?

     A great religion teacher once said to me that the problem isn't that the Church condones discrimination, it's that it doesn't speak against it. And that's something that needs to change. The Church didn't formally speak out against racial discrimination until 1978, for example. So here is a great amount of hypocrisy: we're told to speak up, but then no one does. A group of men tell us we're all equal, but men alone are allowed the most, if not total, authority. Something about that is just twisted, and until that is resolved and there really is equality, I have to say yes: there is definitely still sexism in the Church today.

Who we Are

     Many people seem to have a number of different personalities. Now, I don't mean in a way like a bipolar disorder, that's different entirely. But the way a person acts changes and varies a lot by their environment, it seems. Think of the way you are around your friends. Now compare that to how you act with your family, in public, around strangers, in a crowd, alone. Each situation would probably bring about a different way of acting. Which poses the question: when are we really our true selves?

     Now some (if not many) would say that we are really ourselves only when no one is watching. And that is a wonderful concept. Though it is circumstantial. For example, if someone is a great speaker, that won't show when they are alone, for who will they speak for? The same works in reverse: someone may be a phenomenal composer. Their peers is forums rave about how they are the next Beethoven. But this individual has terrible stage fright, or perhaps lack of resources to really get out to the world. Who they are alone won't compare to them placed blindly on a stage.

     So is it really possible to be 100% true at all time? Of course! But that's where it gets a bit complex. See, your surroundings can change your character, but your values can stay pure. For instance, it's totally acceptable for a young person to be loud and crazy hanging out with their friends. But they wouldn't act the same way around their parents. And that's fine (even good) because your parents generally deserve more respect (or at least a different kind) than your friends. Similarly, in a crowd you have to be conscientious at all times and really pay attention to everything going on, to ensure the safety of everyone and yourself. But when alone...nothing really matters. Being solitary is the only time when really you can do anything and not care. Where you can practice a brand new skill and be terrible, before you are able to show the world after you have acquired more skill. When solitary, you are the side of you knowing else sees. Doing embarrassing things is less embarrassing when no one can point and laugh, after all. So being alone is good in that that is when you start developing yourself. Figuring out what you can or cannot do.

     Realizing that making mistakes is all normal and fine is an important thing to do, and it's great because you don't have to suffer and major consequences, usually. Self-discovery has its name for a reason. You discover yourself, by yourself, and for yourself. It's important both in growing up, and in adulthood. Because who really knows everything? And people are complex, and ever-changing. Growing and improving. It's not easy to keep up with. So start with yourself, and keep going. You know yourself like the back of your hand? Then tell me right now, which of your fingernails is the longest? Don't know? Exactly. And that's just a metaphor. There are way more important things than that, so it's important to really think sometimes.

     But don't lose sleep over it. Of course I am, right now. You think I'm writing this up at a respectable hour? It's 4 am. But this is important, so I continue.

     So I did have another (final) point to all of this. Who you are alone shapes who you are around others. But you can't save the world if you never leave your room (believe me, I've tried). No, your personal self should eventually shine through your public self. Let's say the journey of self-discovery led you to realize that, say, you're a really awesome painter. DO NOT KEEP THAT BOTTLED UP! If you know you're awesome, share the knowledge. Tell the world you're awesome. Just painted the next Mona Lisa? Go sell that mess. Love sculpting? Go find yourself a studio. Make art friends. Go to art school. Apply yourself. Let your hidden talent show! What good are secrets? It always feels so much better when a burden is lifted from your shoulders. When you realize that you don't have to hide. When you realize that you can be free. Because you can be. You just realize who you are deep inside (a task that I'll say ain't easy at any age). Don't quit it though. Eventually you'll know who you are), and let that shine through.

     Which of course is a total cliché. I won't lie. But it can be a good cliché, as long as you learn how to make it be. Liberate your life.

God's Image

     From a particular, obviously religious, standpoint, we are all created in God's image, and thus should act accordingly to follow his plan for us. Well, then maybe we should talk about just what that image is.

God is the father of Jesus, sent to be our Christ. Jesus also had two earthly parents, what has come to be known as "traditional", Mary and Joseph. But, with God still omnipresent, this would mean that Jesus then had three parents, and that isn't standard at all.

     Jesus came to redefine things. Don't persecute someone because of where they're from, care for even the poor, and don't denounce all the rich for having money, but rather look at what is done with it, as you should do even with the poor. To look at quality and need, rather than quantity. Jesus was a revolutionary person. And that's why he was sent. So having three parents in this absurd and impossible way, actually just made a point. Everyone had comfort zones, but sometimes you need to stop and look at things again. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are three entities, yet all the same (like ice, water, and steam). Jesus's very existence sparked a whole new way of looking at things.

     And you should not always take things as they appear, or sound. Remember, God is neither man nor woman. Yet people always feel a need to slap incorrect pronouns around when referring to…(and this is where I fail at proving my own point)….insert pronoun here. Because English has so far limited me to he and she ("it" and "they" would also work, I suppose. But perhaps not as well from a grammatical standpoint). So here's to hopes for an official gender-neutral pronoun soon in the future, but more on that at another time.

     So here we have an all powerful being who raised a child with (through omnipotence) two other less powerful beings. Meanwhile this being has no need to it any sort of gender role at all, because, well, God has no society other than the one formed for himself (there go those pronouns again), and if you were a god, would you really bother will that? Especially if you were a single god. It's just all simple unnecessary.

Here's where I would not like to remind you that we are all created in God's image. And likeness. Because a god cannot hate it's own creation.

     So as a little summary: we can all go to the Bible and Genesis and the like to see how we are "supposed to be." But then there is that verses God's image. The two do not exactly agree, and we certainly cannot be both as they contradict one another. And, I mean, we aren't gods, and we can't be. And all this is even before we realize that the Bible isn't even supposed to be taken literally.

     So the only actual truth that we know is that we are all created in the same way, because God is only one person with one image. And God loves us all, equally. So then why does anything matter? With race and ability and ways of thinking and how someone looks and dresses, but really we're all the same. So who are we to condemn one another, and say one is lesser? Even if someone isn't following the Bible exactly (here I must remind you of the Salem Witch Trials, more on that later), "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone." Because when you say someone is worse than you, while in actuality we are all the same, then just where you do really stand? Furthermore, who are you to decide is someone is a sinner and what the consequences shall be? Yes, there is a difference between condemning and persecuting, verses finding someone guilty of an actual crime that brought about actual consequences and pain to someone. The latter is understandable and necessary in today's society. However, we do not need people taking away equality on the basis that someone does not seem right, though no one is actually harmed in any way. Because there comes a time when it gets taken too far, and suddenly you are so consumed and head stuck, that you begin acting like the god. Deciding what is wrong and what will come of that person. Determining the fate of someone else, and refusing to believe that you could be wrong. There comes a time when stubbornness almost becomes blasphemy, claiming yourself as an idol who can tell the fate of your equal people. And then who is really the wrong one in the equation?
     Well, who am I too say? For all I know, they could be right. Or maybe we were all tricked and are actually being ruled by a purple platypus in space. Because we don't know, and we can't for certain. We just learn little things and interpret them. In a thousand different ways, each varying. But this is how I see it: we need to stop worrying about the future, and what will happen to people around you when they die. What do you care if they don't get into Heaven? If you're the kind of person that condemns people, you probably think you yourself are perfect. So there, let them sin. Because at the end of the day, Heaven's just gonna be a bit less crowded when you get there, and you really only need to worry about yourself.