Erasing Human Distinctions

 Introduction

If one is going to talk about that which is sexist or misogynist, these categories need to be clarified.

That is to say that if it was just the former—making a clear distinction between that which is male and female—it would be bad (begs the question) and if the latter—displaying a hatred for that which is female—then it would be worse.

In almost every instance of these accusations, there is rarely, if ever, any reflection on where the person stands in time. That is they do not recognize where any of the ideas or values that they profess or promote originate, nor do they question the basis of them, rather they just spray them about in a thoughtless manner. 

And while sexism is a component of misogyny, and sexism can be used unjustly, sexism is a foundational reality of Scripture. After all, Scripture begins with a sexual distinction being made:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 

-Genesis 1:27, ESV

Moreover, God blessed this distinction,

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 

-Genesis 2:24, ESV

This act of creating one species composed of two distinct and fundamental elements, and that they are conceptually united by their sexuality, both physically in their difference and behaviorally in function, tells us that God is trying to do something in this creature that he has intended. 

However, as a creature that has a potential to reject the Creator’s intentions and desires, we do something else, as the Apostle observes,

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God…dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,…women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…

-Romans 1:22-27, ESV

Notice that Paul here notes a sexist attitude among the rebellious: misogyny from the men as they “gave up natural relations” and are “consumed with passion from one another” and misandry from the women as they “exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature”. 

No one complains about the inherent sexism of homosexuality, where one sex deliberately and intentionally excludes the other as being worthy of romantic attention, they only complain about the sexism that not only recognizes the fact that there are two sexes but also that those sexes are not functionally interchangeable. 

The Christian goes a step farther, saying that it’s just not that there are two sexes and that they are not functionally interchangeable, but that lack of interchangeability actually has a meaning across multiple segments of life and society. 

Sexism As A Christian Virtue

Pastor Douglas Wilson, writing a few years ago, observed,

The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture…

He continues,

Boys and girls are different. Men and women are different. The differences are not superficial or accidental, but rather are profound, extending from the tops of their heads down to the soles of their boots, or flats, as the case may be. The differences between them affect everything, and are found in virtually every aspect of their lives. Men and women both have ten toes, and men and women both have two kidneys, but that is about it.

Differences exist, and the fact of those differences has caused cultures to note them and arrange their societies around them, or as Wilson says “budget for the differences”.

As a culture and society have stopped doing this, the question is, why?

I think that I should note that as I am writing this, it as come to my attention that the landmark case that made abortion unquestionable in the United States has been overturned and so the question has reverted back to the states. Looking through the news stories that is a great deal of either panic or overreaction. I mark it as being no different to the reaction that Southerners had to the various states refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the election of Abraham Lincoln. In that there is no doubt that the proponents of unfettered elective abortion will doubtless, as they have in the past.

First there is an admission that must be made that women have, at times, been treated unfairly and even unjustly simply because they are women—the female of the species—but the question is, does that unfairness or injustice exist simply because they aren’t men (ie the male of the species) or because of something else?

Women aren’t men. I know that sounds like it should be an obvious statement but it flies in the face of a 21st social morality that argues that men can be women and women can be men, “can” implying ability or function. 

But can a man be a woman? Not act like a woman, or dress like a woman, but function like a woman in the truest sense? If not, why?

Notice that the question assumes that women (and men) have a function, a purpose, not that they can adopt some additional activity or task, but that a woman (or a man) has a function in the greater base order. That means that if everything were stripped away and reset to zero, what would be left for a woman to do?

I am reminded of the “what is my purpose?” meme that arose from the tv show Rick and Morty, where a tiny robot questions his purpose, which it is told that it exists to simply pass the butter. The robot sighs in disbelief that it has a clear, defined purpose for its existence.

Imagine though, if the robot is told that it existed for no purpose, that it had no function, that it would have to define its own purpose and justify its own existence in a universe of infinite possibilities, that is merely an infinitely malleable part of a machine and it could be fit into any place in that machine. One would think that such a belief would be freeing, and would expand human happiness. 

The problem is “happiness” is transitory, it is based on happenings. Circumstances are ultimately determinative if “happiness” is the goal. But who determines what those circumstances are?

It would seem that “happiness” cannot be the determinative factor then, which brings us back to the matter of defined purposes.

“For This Reason…”

As I said earlier, women have, at times, been treated unfairly and unjustly because they are women. This has been largely due to the fact that women have had the function of bearing and nurturing children as part of the labor division of the human species. There are things that a woman can do with her body that a man cannot. Similarly there are things that a man, with regard to function, can do that a woman cannot.

For some reason though, this reality has come under question here in recent years. Hundreds of thousands of years of human function has been brought into question. This is because our concept of fairness has been challenged, namely because our concept of equality has been corrupted.

“Men and women are equal,” is the assertion. But no one asks, “equal” in what sense?

The question, it seems, is not meant to be asked because it will undoubtedly cause us to identify categories wherein one has to sort the world in a coherent manner, something that the unredeemed mind hates to do. 

Does that mean that men and women aren’t equals? 

Again, we have to ask, in what sense?

The fact that the category “man” (ie male) exists and the category “woman” (ie female) exists and we know, almost instinctively, what these are and we can see to sort the world according to this categories should tell us something. 

Our current culture is busily trying to erase such distinctions by the multiplication of entities, and yet they want to maintain the distinction by simply slapping an adjective to the beginning of words, as in a woman who masquerades as a man by having her parts that identify her as a female removed while subjecting herself to a regimen of drugs is not a woman, though the unseen parts of her body still scream that reality is a “trans-man”. Similarly a man who rejects his manhood and renders himself to present as a female (though not every one does), though every cell of his body screams otherwise, is a “trans-woman”. 

However, if either of these people walked into a doctor’s office proclaiming that they believed that they shouldn’t have arms or legs, they would (hopefully) be scurried off to reliable mental health facilities to have their condition treated. But if they walk into the same doctor’s office and declare that they should be emasculated or defeminized they are unchallenged.

And no one thinks that this is weird?