I'm sorry to hear of your ouster from the New College Board of Trustees. If it's any consolation, you performed an invaluable service as a lightning rod to drain away effective political opposition to the appointments of other new board members and New College administrative replacements. Your sacrifice in this regard, together with Governor DeSantis' support of the institution and its revamped governance team, will ensure the successful transformation of New College into "the Hillsdale College of the South." Congratulations on your accomplishment, best of luck with your own school, and good luck with your future ventures.
"We are all familiar with the Woke Marxists’ use of Orwellian language."
"But now the lie that sex and gender are different, that gender is in one’s head and sex is between one’s legs, has taken root."
I will make a side point that goes along those lines.
Recently (within the past year) Italy has banned English language from being used in official settings and documents. The reason becomes clear when you see that English has the "woke" words while there are languages that don't, therefore are impossible to express "woke" ideas without using English.
I heard that the Romanian language doesn't even have a word for "gender," as sex and gender are the same in their culture and language.
When American "colonizers" do try to influence language of other countries, we end up with silly words like "Latinix," which doesn't even makes sense, as the ending is not constant with how Spanish works. The Latinos reject this word, and it is only used by Americans when referring to Latinos, or Latinos that are heavily influenced by the woke side of American culture.
If you interested in debate around these issues, I might point out a few logical fallacies present in your argument
1. Generalizations and sweeping statements: The article is filled with broad, sweeping statements and generalizations that can be considered a hasty generalization fallacy.
2. Straw man fallacy: You present certain views and theories (like CRT and gender theory) in a way that does not represent them accurately, making them easier to attack. This is a straw man fallacy. For instance, the claim that CRT is used to "disorder, destabilize, and demoralize children and young people" simplifies and distorts the purpose and use of CRT.
3. Ad hominem attacks: Your article includes ad hominem attacks, when you attack the character of certain individuals or groups (e.g., "Woke Marxists") instead of their arguments. This distracts from the actual issues and polarizes the argument.
4. False cause fallacy: You assume a cause-and-effect relationship (e.g., the rise in gender/sexual identities is due to CRT and gender ideology) where none has been definitively proven. This is a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy.
5. Appeal to fear: Your argument often relies on fear as a persuasive strategy, portraying current academic trends as dangerous and harmful, especially to vulnerable young people. This is a type of appeal to emotion fallacy.
I like to think back to how the Fathers of the Church with these issues. Clement of Rome, the first of the Apostolic Fathers, in his second epistle wrote: "For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female. Now the two are one...."
Clement was really just elaborating on Galatians 3:28, "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
But the idea that seeing past gender distinctions was a key to salvation was also important to Origen, when writing about Genesis 1:27. St. Jerome, who translated the Bible, quoted Origen as saying, "Let us men then cherish our wives, and let our souls cherish our bodies in a way as that wives may be turned into men and bodies into spirits, and that there may be no difference of sex, but that, as among the angels there is neither male nor female, so we, who are to be the Angels, may begin to be here what it is promised that we shall be in heaven.”
It's a closely related idea to the one in Plato's Symposium (section 189e), that all humans were originally created as dual creatures, "a unity in form no less than name, composed of both sexes and sharing equally in male and female." The splitting apart was something that took us farther from the image of God, in this view.
Eddie, calm down. Ever hear of a "sissy"? A "tomboy"? Did you understand what was meant? If so, you were participating in the dread discourse that draws a distinction between biological sex and social gender, a common practice in English usage since Lord knows when (Shakespeare had his fops and shrews, for instance; in Troilus and Cressida he relied on a not-yet-named sex/gender distinction when he wrote "A woman impudent and mannish growne, Is not more loth'd then an effeminate man" -- see, classical education can be fun, you should try to get some for yourself!). And this distinction in usage has been named via sex vs gender since at least the 1940s, by dangerous woke propagandists like Life Magazine.. So take an anti-panic pill, see some examples from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.
Eddie,
I'm sorry to hear of your ouster from the New College Board of Trustees. If it's any consolation, you performed an invaluable service as a lightning rod to drain away effective political opposition to the appointments of other new board members and New College administrative replacements. Your sacrifice in this regard, together with Governor DeSantis' support of the institution and its revamped governance team, will ensure the successful transformation of New College into "the Hillsdale College of the South." Congratulations on your accomplishment, best of luck with your own school, and good luck with your future ventures.
"We are all familiar with the Woke Marxists’ use of Orwellian language."
"But now the lie that sex and gender are different, that gender is in one’s head and sex is between one’s legs, has taken root."
I will make a side point that goes along those lines.
Recently (within the past year) Italy has banned English language from being used in official settings and documents. The reason becomes clear when you see that English has the "woke" words while there are languages that don't, therefore are impossible to express "woke" ideas without using English.
I heard that the Romanian language doesn't even have a word for "gender," as sex and gender are the same in their culture and language.
When American "colonizers" do try to influence language of other countries, we end up with silly words like "Latinix," which doesn't even makes sense, as the ending is not constant with how Spanish works. The Latinos reject this word, and it is only used by Americans when referring to Latinos, or Latinos that are heavily influenced by the woke side of American culture.
If you interested in debate around these issues, I might point out a few logical fallacies present in your argument
1. Generalizations and sweeping statements: The article is filled with broad, sweeping statements and generalizations that can be considered a hasty generalization fallacy.
2. Straw man fallacy: You present certain views and theories (like CRT and gender theory) in a way that does not represent them accurately, making them easier to attack. This is a straw man fallacy. For instance, the claim that CRT is used to "disorder, destabilize, and demoralize children and young people" simplifies and distorts the purpose and use of CRT.
3. Ad hominem attacks: Your article includes ad hominem attacks, when you attack the character of certain individuals or groups (e.g., "Woke Marxists") instead of their arguments. This distracts from the actual issues and polarizes the argument.
4. False cause fallacy: You assume a cause-and-effect relationship (e.g., the rise in gender/sexual identities is due to CRT and gender ideology) where none has been definitively proven. This is a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy.
5. Appeal to fear: Your argument often relies on fear as a persuasive strategy, portraying current academic trends as dangerous and harmful, especially to vulnerable young people. This is a type of appeal to emotion fallacy.
I like to think back to how the Fathers of the Church with these issues. Clement of Rome, the first of the Apostolic Fathers, in his second epistle wrote: "For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female. Now the two are one...."
Clement was really just elaborating on Galatians 3:28, "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
But the idea that seeing past gender distinctions was a key to salvation was also important to Origen, when writing about Genesis 1:27. St. Jerome, who translated the Bible, quoted Origen as saying, "Let us men then cherish our wives, and let our souls cherish our bodies in a way as that wives may be turned into men and bodies into spirits, and that there may be no difference of sex, but that, as among the angels there is neither male nor female, so we, who are to be the Angels, may begin to be here what it is promised that we shall be in heaven.”
It's a closely related idea to the one in Plato's Symposium (section 189e), that all humans were originally created as dual creatures, "a unity in form no less than name, composed of both sexes and sharing equally in male and female." The splitting apart was something that took us farther from the image of God, in this view.
Eddie, calm down. Ever hear of a "sissy"? A "tomboy"? Did you understand what was meant? If so, you were participating in the dread discourse that draws a distinction between biological sex and social gender, a common practice in English usage since Lord knows when (Shakespeare had his fops and shrews, for instance; in Troilus and Cressida he relied on a not-yet-named sex/gender distinction when he wrote "A woman impudent and mannish growne, Is not more loth'd then an effeminate man" -- see, classical education can be fun, you should try to get some for yourself!). And this distinction in usage has been named via sex vs gender since at least the 1940s, by dangerous woke propagandists like Life Magazine.. So take an anti-panic pill, see some examples from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.