It appears liberals are suggesting society stop using or acknowledging the
entire concept of male or female.They would have male and female
struck from all dictionaries and stop the use of them If that is not
the case, I ask what is their definition of a male and what is the definition of
a female?And remember, it can't be "whatever your mind
tells you"If my mind tells me I am dinosaur, it does not make it
true If my mind tells me I am 5 year old girl, it does not make it
true. So what is the definition of male and female?Or
should societies worldwide stop using such terms entirely and permanently?
ENGLAND! What is wrong with you? You have totally lost it.....!
@Chris B --"It appears liberals are suggesting society stop
using or acknowledging the entire concept of male or female."Actually, no.IMHO it would be more sensible for the UK to simply
say "spouse" and "spouse", but -- whatever. Broadening **legal**
definitions for "husband" and "wife" isn't the end of the
world. "They would have male and female struck from all
dictionaries and stop the use of them "That's just silly,
Chris. "Male" and "female" are biological terms.
"Husband" and "wife" are legal/social terms. Entirely different
things."I ask what is their definition of a male and what is the
definition of a female?"This is actually a more complicated
question than you might realize.What are YOUR definitions for male
and female? Please be specific.
@ Chris B: Male and female have different definitions depending on what you are
talking about. At their most basic biological level, male refers to plants or
animals that produce gametes capable of fertilizing those produced by female
organs; female refers to plants or animals that, once fertilized, produce seeds
or bear young.But then what would you call those who lack those
capabilities by birth or choice?If you are talking about gender,
that is a different issue. From a 2005 press-release from AAAS: ""The
biology of gender is far more complicated than XX or XY chromosomes and may rely
more on the brain's very early development than we ever imagined,"
researcher Eric Vilain, M.D., reported [February, 2005] at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting in Washington,
D.C. ... "We simply don't know enough yet about gender to be making ...
legal assumptions."""Another AAAS speaker, William G.
Reiner, M.D., agreed. "The most important sex organ is the
brain,"...."""Differences of gene expression between
male and female brains, very early on, suggest that our brains may be hard-wired
at a very early stage to become male or female," according to Vilain."
How do we get from an article that describes wording in a British law, chosen
for some unknown reason, to "It appears liberals are suggesting society stop
using or acknowledging the entire concept of male or female." (followed by
far fetched examples)?For me, the issue is that the DN published the
report, without any good explanation of the reasoning of the Parliament. I
cannot think of a purpose for the article, other than sensationalism that was
bound to get such comments.