LESSONS IN LOGIC: Gender Does NOT Refer To Sex

Like mathematics, Language is a form of logic.  This means, like mathematics, Language is governed by a known set of rules.  In order for mathematics to work, the rules which govern it cannot change.  If 2+2 equals 4 here but 5 where you are, then we cannot be sure of the result of any equation we use.  This means we cannot be confident in anything that uses mathematics, most especially engineering.  So, if the rules governing mathematics can change, you should not cross a bridge or get on an aircraft as you cannot know they will hold up or fly.  The same is true for Language.  In order for us to have any confidence that we can make ourselves understood, or that we properly understand what others are saying to us, the rules governing our language cannot change.  Now, let’s look at one of the most fundamental rules of any language: words have specific meanings and you cannot change that meaning without making it abundantly clear to all parties that you have redefined the word!  This especially applies to the ‘gender’ issue in our society today.

NOTE: before I address the ‘gender’ issue, I need to cover a few basic principles.  Please bear with me as we go over them.

It may sound simple and obvious, but, in many parts of our society, the assertion, ‘words mean things,’ is not only frowned upon, it is rejected.  However, these people don’t actually believe it.  They know words mean things, and they show it by their own actions.  If the people who reject the idea that words have fixed meaning were to actually live by their own claims, they could not have any confidence that they will be understood by anyone else because — according to their own claims — the words they use to say words have no meaning may actually negate their claim in the mind of another person.  In other words, if they say “Words have no fixed meaning,” I might read and understand “Words have fixed meaning.”  This means the people who reject the idea that words have fixed meaning couldn’t even be sure they know what they are saying because — according to them — the words they use may change meaning as they use them. Therefore, they wouldn’t bother speaking because they would know that they couldn’t be understood — not even by themselves.  But they do not live that way.  In fact, these people use more words than most in an attempt to convince others to accept their absurdity, and that is an admission that they know they are wrong (it also signals an attempt to deceive).

The practice of using the same word to discuss different ideas is actually a mistake in logic.  This sort of mistake has its own word to describe it: ‘fallacy.’  There are many types of fallacies.  Some are so common that they have been given their own names.  The practice of changing the meaning of a word within a conversation is called ‘equivocation.’  Equivocation is a tricky fallacy, because it comes in many different forms.  In some cases, it is an accident, but, in many cases, it is intentional.  When we find someone intentionally using equivocation, that is a sign that we are dealing with someone who is trying to deceive us by tricking us.  This is what is at the heart of the ‘gender’ issue: an attempt to trick us — about many things.

Therefore, we must reject the claim that words do not have a fixed meaning.  We should also reject anyone who tells us we cannot know what the intended meaning of a word may be.  All we have to do is learn the techniques for discovering the meaning of a given word.  We start with a dictionary from the time the word was originally written, then consult the context of the overall discussion and apply the rules of logic.  When we do this to the ‘gender’ issue, we quickly discover there is a problem, and that problem points to a hidden motive/agenda.

The notion that gender is equal to sex or sexual orientation is a recent creation.  Until just a decade or two ago, gender referred to grammar, not sexual orientation:

Full Definition of gender

  1. 1 a :  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b :  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c :  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

  2. 2 a :  sex <the feminine gender> b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Before the creation of political correctness, people didn’t refer to matters of sex in terms of ‘gender.’  This is because our society was still sane.  We understood that you either had a ‘stem on the apple,’ or you didn’t.  There was no in between because nature didn’t make us that way.  But today,  Face Book has ‘identified’ 51 types of ‘gender!

This is a clear indication that the people pushing the use of ‘gender’ in terms of sex/sexual orientation are pursuing a hidden agenda.  It is not the purpose of this post to determine that agenda, only to prove that this is the case.  And we can know that this is the case by simply looking at the meaning of words.  The people pushing this hidden agenda have purposely confused the language by using the grammar term, ‘gender,’ to discuss matters of sex.  This is because they know that, if they used the language properly, we would be stuck with stem/no stem — period.  One cannot ‘create’ 51 types from the choice of ‘stem/no stem.’  Therefore, they had to create a word they could use to make people think they are talking about something as simple as ‘who do we love,’ when — in reality — they are pushing a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with sex/sexual orientation.

OK, now, don’t get me wrong.  If you are or know someone who is homosexual, understand that you do not need gender to discuss your preference.  You are still either male or female.  Introducing ‘gender’ into the discussion will not change your biology.  Even an operation cannot do that.  Your still going to have either XX or XY chromosomes.  Likewise, ‘gender’ has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  You are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual/asexual.  But, in any of the four possibilities, orientation is a preference, not a matter of sex (stem/no stem).  All the introduction of the word ‘gender’ does is confuse the equation by making things appear to be something they are not.  But that is the point.  If the situation were discussed using the correct words, everyone would quickly understand that there is a hidden agenda here, and it has nothing to do with stem/no stem or ‘who do you love?

All of this is a simple matter of logic, not ‘opinion.’  One might try to object, but they would be arguing that 2+2=5.  That only works on people who have renounced the use of reason.  Therefore, the insertion of the term ‘gender’ into what is actually a matter of sex/orientation indicates an attempt to intentionally deceive people.  I’ll leave you to decide the ‘who,’ ‘what’ and ‘why’ behind that.  The purpose of this post was just to explain that we are truly dealing with a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with the issue that is claimed.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]


3 responses to “LESSONS IN LOGIC: Gender Does NOT Refer To Sex

  1. Pingback: LESSONS IN LOGIC: Gender Does NOT Refer To Sex | The Oil in Your Lamp

  2. Pingback: LESSONS IN LOGIC: Gender Does NOT Refer To Sex – The way I see things …

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s