Dividing by Zero

One of the judges on the Supreme Court commented on the case around California's Prop 8 that, while it is absolutely clear that inserting "same-sex" as a descriptor of "marriage" would necessarily require a change of definition of "marriage", the primary reason for this change of definition is that our culture is redefining gender. Now, I hadn't really considered this aspect. When I do, however, I'm pretty sure he's right.

We use two common words in this discussion: "sex" and "gender". What is the difference between them? One has to do with physiology and the other to do with characteristics. "Sex" (in this use) refers to male or female bodies. "Gender" refers to male and female characteristics. The first references genitalia and chromosomes and the latter references "masculine" and "feminine" traits.

We intrinsically know about these distinctions. If you refer to a boy as a "pansy", you're suggesting he's more feminine than masculine. You can routinely hear a father telling his son to "act like a man" or a buddy telling his friend to "man up". (Oddly, you never hear a mother tell her daughter to "woman up". I suppose you might have heard at one time that she needs to "act more lady-like", but I think that has more to do with manners than femininity. Maybe feminine manners?) At the same time we're told that men need to "get in touch with their feminine side". You see, we know there is "masculine" and "feminine" and we know what they mean. Like the judge who couldn't define pornography, "but I know it when I see it", we know these when we see them.

Our culture, however, has worked hard and long to counteract these distinctives. We've petitioned to have girls on boys' teams and argued that women can serve just as well in combat as men. We've carefully dismantled the concept of "father" to mean less and less and less until many are quite sure that "father" means purely "sperm donor" and no one actually needs a real father to be well adjusted and happy. Feminism -- at first just the "radical" and now the "mainstream" -- has worked hard to destroy the concept of gender roles and gender distinctives and our culture has bought it. It is the majority opinion now. Of course, "majority" doesn't make it right, moral, or even accurate, but it is the case today. Patriarchy, once a given and even venerated, is now a bad word. Gender is becoming more and more meaningless.

As current events have demonstrated, so is "sex". It is not uncommon to hear of someone who classifies him or herself as "a guy trapped in a woman's body" or vice versa.

"But," the rational mind would counter, "isn't 'woman' defined by the body?"

"Oh, no, we now know. It is a question of gender."

"But," the rationalist might venture to ask, "didn't we just negate the concept of 'gender'?"

Oops! "Well, no, not for those who feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Like that makes some sense.

I heard the phrase the other day, "emotional intelligence". To be fair, the term does have a definition that makes sense. It is "the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups." Fine. But that's not what we think of when we think of that idea. We think of thinking with our feelings. Being more in touch with our inner selves in order to make more inspired decisions (rather than merely logical ones). Well, we're getting there, that's for sure. We have redefined sex -- "male" or "female" -- to mean "whatever I make my body out to be based on how I feel". We have redefined "gender" -- "masculine" or "feminine" -- to mean "whatever I want it to mean at the moment based on how I feel." And having carefully and insensibly defined both "sex" and "gender" into an emotional condition without any real concrete meaning, we're looking to offer the same "salvation" to "marriage". God save us from ourselves.