Objective Reality and Reasoned Reality – Fragment
Just as Abraham’s lost donkey provided important clues about how biblical authors thought and wrote, so also the missing “s” from Alice Bach’s “sexual/gender system” may provide important insights about how we, modern people, think and understand reality, or rather misunderstand it. If there is one thing that sets us, modern people, way above the biblical writers is the fact that we have acquired a sound understanding of reality which has enabled us to develop scientific thinking while ancient people had no idea what reality was, and therefore lived with fanciful ideas about reality that we label mythical thinking. We like to think that due to our clear understanding of reality, we know very well what we are talking about while ancient people didn’t. So when we talk about the “sexual/gender system,” what are we really talking about? What really is the “sexual/gender system”? Well, we know what sex is and even children learn quite early in life: those private parts for humans and quite public for animals that are occasionally joined either because this behavior provides some gratification or results in the procreation of descendants similar to the parents that sustains the continuation of the species. Those private parts belong to the objective reality because they can be accurately observed and their activity can be documented using what is called the scientific method of observation. But what does gender refer too? Well, again, gender refers back to sex and somehow is another word for sex: The individuals which have the sex organ in a certain shape and use it in a certain way are called of the masculine gender and other individuals which have the sex organ of a different shape and is used in a different way are called of the feminine gender. But what about words such as pronouns that also have gender but do not have sex organs? Well, they don’t, but if they refer to something that has the male sex organ, then they are masculine, but if they refer to something that has the female sex organ, then they are feminine, and if they refer to something that has neither, then they are neuter because their sex organs cannot be found and decided. So eventually sex and gender are one system and if you know one, then you know the other.
At closer examination, however, the gender of words and the sex of animals do not quite match. A bull, for instance, has a male sex organ but the word “bull” is not of the masculine gender so that it is not replaced by the masculine pronoun “he” but rather by the neuter pronoun “it.” Similarly, a cow has the female sex organ but the word “cow” is not of the feminine gender therefore it does not take the feminine pronoun “she” but rather the neuter pronoun “it” just like its opposite sex, the bull. When it comes to goats, however, things are getting even more confused. Here we do not have a separate word for the goat which displays a male sex organ and another word for a goat which displays a female sex organ, so that we use the same word for both, regardless of their sex organs, and if we do want to indicate that we are talking about a goat which has a male sex organ, then we would need to create a compound word “he-goat” just as we use the compound word “she-goat” to refer to a goat with the opposite sex organ. What is even more strange, even when we use the pronoun “he” to indicate de male goat, when the word “he-goat” is replaced by the personal pronoun, it is not replaced by the masculine pronoun “he” but rather buy the same neuter pronoun “it.” In other words, even a “he-goat” is not a “he” but an “it.” And the same is true about the compound word “she-goat.” (….)