November 16, 2018 at 9:56 am #856357rachelParticipant
I’ve posted a version of this on the new forum, but as it is unclear which forum is to be used going forward, I’ll post it here too.
Having a background in graphics, I know one main preoccupation in digital photography is isolating subjects from their backgrounds. Once achieved, a person can be pasted in any background. People can be put together who have never met, extra people can be added to a scene, size relationships can be altered. And going forward, this doctored version of events becomes the remembered reality.
What does it matter if the human person (United Nations term) is an atomically correct male, if his persona (from the Latin, literally ‘mask, character played by an actor’) presented is always a superficial (appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely) female? Sherlock Holmes is a fictitious person, fiction, yet we know he is definitely male not female, and when looking into the subject of transgenderism, I believe it is as well to keep sight of the language being used and what actors actually do as their trade. And if you are not clear on that, it’s to pretend to be something they are not in a convincing way.
So let’s begin with the term gender, why are we suddenly pushed to use it instead of sex? Maybe because the word sex has connotations with the act of intercourse, so we should steer clear of it. But, it never did, these links only began in recent history, around the same time gay ceased being considered to mean carefree and started referring to homosexuality. And I think that is the exact point. On a real level, these words do not change their meaning, they are what they are, and sex and gender do not mean the same thing, they are not interchangeable. The point of the media is to convince us they are the same thing, and in doing so, rob us of our humanity.
It is like we are being made colour blind, we see something we call blue, it seems like blue, but to the people with full spectrum sight, they know what we are seeing and bearing witness to is utterly false.
1890 Webster’s dictionary: Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is the natural distinction and applies to living objects.
So in short:
SEX = LIVING OBJECTS = HUMAN PERSONS
GENDER = WORDS ON A PAGE = LEGAL PERSON, FICTION
Consider this in terms of the passport of Satam al-Suqami, “one of five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11 as part of the September 11 attacks” … “Suqami’s passport was reportedly found by a passerby (identity unknown), reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street, before the towers collapsed.”
Is there any evidence that Satam al-Suqami is any more real than Sherlock Holmes? It would appear both are known for their funny hats and exist only as words on a page, and that mythology has grown up around them.
§§§§§§ §§§§§§ §§§§§§
When we are looking at actors, are we witnessing an unholy trinity? We are aware of the actor and the characters he plays, but I think to get a better understanding of the trick being played, we need to understand there is another level to this relationship, and that would be the principle.
Again, looking at Webster’s 1890 dictionary; a principle is ‘the highest in rank, authority, character, importance, or degree’, ‘pertaining to prince’, ‘one who employs another to act for him – as distinguished from an agent‘.
AGENT: ‘to act, akin to’, ‘one who extents power, or has the power to act, an actor’; ‘one who acts for, or in place of, another, by authority of him’.
ACTOR: ‘one who acts, or takes part in any affair; ‘a theatrical performer’; (Law) an advocate or proctor in civil courts or causes’.
So what can we take from these meanings so far? An ACTOR is not himself sovereign (possessing supreme or ultimate power), instead he is doing duty for another, he is an AGENT granted authority to act by a PRINCIPLE. Think of the role of an acting superintendent…
Wikipedia: ‘In law, when someone is said to be acting in a position it can mean that, the position has not yet been formally created, the person is only occupying the position temporarily to ensure continuity, or the person does not have a mandate‘.
The nature of an actor is the characters he plays.
CHARACTER: ‘a distinctive mark, a letter, figure, or symbol’; ‘quality, position, rank or capacity’; ‘the estimate, individual or general, put upon a person or thing’; ‘one of the persons of a drama or novel’; ‘to engrave, to inscribe’; ‘to distinguish by particular marks or traits‘.
With these definitions under our belt, we see an actor is employed by a principle to play characters with certain traits or distinguishing marks; and we see this portrayed as the comedy and tragedy masks of theatre. So inversely, if we know a person by a set of unusual traits that sets him apart from the norm, ones that stand by themselves when the person himself is removed, is that not a screaming indication that it is a character rather than a human person we are looking at.
I think it is as well to look at actors in this light, and the whole concept of gender which pertains to words, not living objects, is part of the theatre we are presented with called the news and current affairs. A gender need not match the true sex of the human person behind the mask, and for reasons of legal separation, it might positively have to be inverse. And if that is the TRUE fact, then transgenderism is solely about DECEPTION, nothing more nothing less.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.