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

[Lee Kaiwen]

Magpie:
 > But what does this have to do with gay rights at all?

Why absolutely nothing, of course. I'm not even attempting to address 
homosexual rights. I'm addressing one issue only -- the attempt (as 
embodied in the concept "heteronormative") to reduce biological fact to 
levels of cultural norms. I've not touched on (and don't intend to touch 
on) any of the socio-cultural issues relating to homosexual rights.

Magpie:
 > People also have sex for other reasons than to
> have babies. People also make babies without having sex at all.

As I addressed later in my post, the intentions of the actor and the 
purpose of the act are altogether different issues. Sometimes they 
coincide, sometimes they don't. I'll repreat my analogy: If my daughter 
asks me, "Daddy, what's a credit card for?" I will answer, "Why for 
buying things, of course!" despite the fact that I just finished using 
one to open a locked door. *My* intention is using a thing often has 
nothing to do with the purpose *of* the thing.

Magpie:
> I don't see why the cultural and social question should depend on
 > that biological fact.

As I've said, I haven't even attempted to touch on the socio-cultural 
issues surround the question of homosexual rights except insofar as to 
say that, despite the best efforts of many to deny the obvious, the 
biology of sex is NOT one of them.

Magpie:
 > I've never heard it used to state that males and females
> don't exist.

"Heteronormativity is a term that is used to describe situations wherein 
variations from heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or 
persecuted by social practices, beliefs or policies. These include the 
idea that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary 
categories: male and female" (from Wikipedia)

Now, male and female are biological categories. And the antecedent of 
"these" in the passage above appears to be "social practices, beliefs or 
policies" (or possibly "situations", though I don't think that would 
radically alter the intent). The thrust of the passage thus becomes the 
reduction of the biology of sex (the "idea" of male and female) to 
either a "social practice or belief" or a "marginalizing situation" 
depending on preference in antecedent.

Now, I may be misreading the passage (though I think mine is far from an 
unreasonable interpretation), or perhaps you consider the Wikipedia 
definition flawed (it may be; I note further on that it confuses male 
and female for masculine and femine when it speaks of "the binary choice 
of male and female for one's gender identity"). If so, I'll be happy to 
take back my comments vis-a-vis heteronormativity.

Magpie:
> Male and female can be cultural conceptions and biases as 
 > well as biological facts.

Not in general usage, no. Male and female are biological categories (and 
they're traits we share with nearly all species). For the related 
cultural conceptions we generally use the terms masculine and feminine. 
Thus, for example, I can ask whether your dog is male or female, because 
they are biological categories. But we don't speak about masculine or 
feminine dogs, because masculine and feminine involve human 
socio-cultural conceptions which dogs DON'T share.

--CJ