[HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[Lee Kaiwen]

[OK -- I'm moving this bit to HPFGU-OTChatter]

sistermagpie blessed us with this gem On 22/10/2007 00:10:

Magpie:
 > I'm disagreeing with your claim that sex is designed as a way of
 > procretion the way a car is designed as a vehicle of transportation.

But I didn't say "designed to be", I simply said "are". As you've 
indicated, "designed" implies some sort of creator (or Creator?), so I 
suppose if you wish you could call biology or evolutionary forces the 
"creator" of sex. But I was deliberately trying to avoid these 
implications because they're outside the scope of the analogy (and 
analogies, as a philosophy professor of my was once fond of saying, 
cannot be made to walk on all fours).

 > Procreation is one thing it's for, there are other things
 > that it's for too now.

Perhaps again our difference here is one of definitions. You seem to be 
using "purpose" more in the sense of "It served a purpose" which I 
understand to be semantically equivalent to "It was useful". In that 
sense I would certainly agree. Sex can have many purposes/uses (though 
even under this definition I would still argue that sex only has one 
*biological* use).

But my meaning is more akin to "raison d'tre". And, keeping in mind 
that I'm speaking biologically, despite all the other uses we can find 
for sex (and they may be good uses!), it still has but one raison 
d'tre: procreation.

CJ:
 > It strikes me as one of those words (like "homophobia" ) coined
 > for the express purpose of denying it.

Magpie:
 > I didn't quite get this sentence--denying what?

Denying the idea that the coined word or phrase encapsulates. 
"Homophobia", for example, is a label applied by advocates of homosexual 
rights to their opponents for propogandistic purposes -- implying for 
the purpose of delegitimizing, that their opponents fear homosexual 
rights. But I've never met an opponent of homosexual rights that would 
call himself "homophobic" because they *don't* fear homosexual rights, 
though they do oppose them.

Similarly (and I don't know the etymology of the word, so I may be 
off-base) "heteronormative" sounds and awful lot like a term coined in 
order to encapsulate a concept the coiner[s] wish to deny; in this case, 
an attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere cultural 
norms that can/should be changed.

{Pause ... OK, I'm back}

Aha, I was right, at least if Wikipedia has anything to say about it:

"The term was coined by Michael Warner in 1991, in one of the first 
major works of queer theory ... [and] has roots in Gayle Rubin's notion 
of the 'sex/gender system' and Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory 
heterosexuality."

In short, it's a term coined, and use exclusively by, advocates for 
homosexual rights. I don't mean to imply there's anything wrong with 
that! Only that it's not an objective term and -- this is my point -- it 
flies in the face of biology. Case in point {again from Wikipedia}: 
"[Heteronormativity] include[s] the idea that human beings fall into two 
distinct and complementary categories: male and female." Biologically 
that's just one big steaming pile of DOH! (not the fact but its denial).

Now if one wishes to discuss cultural conceptions and biases against 
homosexuals that's great -- it's certainly a valid discussion. But 
attempts like the above to reduce scientific fact to mere cultural bias 
are ludicrous.

 > they were coined to describe something they were talking about,
 > something that seemed relevant to me. What they're describing isn't
 > about whether one is having sex to make a baby or not.

But, at least if Wikipedia is trustworthy, those who coined and use the 
word DO intend to include biology under the rubric. Denying or disputing 
concepts of masculine and feminine is one thing. Denying the existence 
of male and female is something else entirely.

 > LCJ:

CJ is fine. Kaiwen, my Chinese name, is also OK. But CJ is easier to 
type :-).

 > I need to ask you to define "normal".

Magpie:
 > I meant normal as in usual, sane, a natural occurance.

Well, "sane" to my ear includes a moral dimension, which I'm trying to 
avoid in my discussion. By "usual" I'm sure you don't mean "usualLY" 
which means "most of the time". If by "usual" and "natural" you simply 
mean "happens a lot", I'm sure you'll agree that that alone is 
insufficient -- there are many things which happen "a lot" that we 
disapprove of notwithstanding.

Magpie:
 > Having sex with no hope of producting a child out
 > of it does not make the sex purposeless.

(See above) First, if you mean "does not make the sex useless", I would 
certainly agree.

Second, we need to disambiguate the intent of the actor from the purpose 
of the act. Just because *my* purpose in having sex is something else -- 
probably pleasure -- doesn't change the biology of the act. A (rather 
gruesome) analogy: I use a hammer to kill my neighbor. Just because *MY* 
purpose was murder doesn't change the fact that murder is *not* the 
purpose of a hammer. Sure, it's a *use* (though not, in this case, a 
legitimate one) to which a hammer can be put, but that's a fundamentally 
different question.

Magpie:
 > Just because something isn't the original primary purpose for
 > something doesn't mean it's not a purpose at all, does it?

Again, if by "purpose" you mean "use" and "intent of the actor (as 
opposed to the act)" the I would absolutely agree. But just as using a 
credit card to open doors tells us a lot more about our imaginations as 
human beings than it does about the nature of a credit card, so the fact 
that *we* can find a multitude of purposes for sex (anything from 
pleasure to selling cars) is barely relevant to the biology of sex.

By the way, I appreciate the civil tone of our discussion. This is a 
subject that can generate a lot of emotions.

--CJ