The core argument Stop gendering genitals! This sort of rhetoric has been around in some form or another as long as the gender binary itself. This is because it stems from the normative categorisation of humans into two or more genders: cisnormativity. In other words, from the moment a norm exists that says "all men have penises" and "all women have vaginas" exceptions will inevitably arise, not least because genitals i. To break free from the cycle of attempting to reconcile the flawed gender binary: with the many spectra of human gender identity and gender presentation; and with the many spectra of human genitals; the idea of an equally misplaced dissociation between "gender" of genitals i. This is highly problematic for two reasons: Gender is something a person has or is; it is a self-concept.
|Published (Last):||23 August 2007|
|PDF File Size:||15.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
See parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series here: gender identity , gender expression, and biological sex This article will probably be the most confusing out of all the Genderbread identity articles, but in order to help our kids navigate this landscape, we must know what they are being taught in school.
In regard to whom one is attracted to, the Genderbread Person says: Does desiring emotional intimacy with someone mean that they are sexually or romantically attracted to the person? Romantic attraction is an affinity and love for others and the desire for emotional relationships. Some folks have both, some folks have neither, many experience more of one than the other. We have lost the concept of friendship In this curriculum, sexual attraction refers to the gender with whom you want to be sexually active.
Even loving someone does not mean that we are in love with them. You would be surprised at how confused many kids are regarding this concept.
What has happened to our understanding of healthy, platonic, same-sex friendships? If our kids are buying into the propaganda that a desire for an emotional attachment with someone of the same-sex means that they have a same-sex sexual orientation, then be prepared for a lot of confusion.
Healthy relationships begin with healthy same-sex friendships. By this definition, everyone is romantically attracted to their best friends. Be aware that this very normal desire for emotional intimacy within a platonic relationship is being reinterpreted as romantic and sexual attraction. I have even seen this desire become over-exaggerated among kids who have experienced a tenous or lost relationship of a same-sex parent. Their need to emotionally bond with the same-sex parent overflows into their same-sex friendships.
This is an understandable reaction for a kid who is missing a crucial parental relationship. But this intense desire is now being interpreted by well-meaning educators and not-so-well-meaning media as a sexual desire when it is not necessarily so. Granted, the desire can become sexual, but our kids should not think that one necessarily has to follow the other.
Having a larger-than-average need for same-sex friendships does not make someone gay. Having a larger-than-average attraction toward someone of the same-sex does not necessarily mean that this desire is romantic in nature.
Our kids are not being taught this. But before we can even talk about gay or straight, we must first understand these terms according to the Genderbread curriculum. These are the labels most of us know the most about. Before we go further I must point out that this statement cannot make sense if we have already redefined what it means to be a man or a woman.
According to this statement of attraction, we need to know what we ourselves are and what the other person is in order to even put a label on our sexual identity.
We cannot even call someone gay or straight unless we are willing to commit to a definition of male and female! This is getting a bit confusing, so allow me to make a cheat sheet here: Homosexual — a man sexually attracted to men. Lesbian — a woman sexually attracted to women. Bisexual — a man or woman sexually attracted to two genders, but the curriculum is careful not to state which two genders because that would affirm that there are two.
Pansexual — being sexually attracted to another person regardless of your gender or their gender. This is probably the term that has replaced bisexual.
Asexual or Ace — not having any sexual attractions, regardless of gender. Heteroromantic — being romantically and emotionally attracted but not necessarily sexually attracted to a person of the opposite gender. Call me old fashioned, but I used to call these my guy-friends. Homoromantic — being romantically and emotionally attracted but not necessarily sexually attracted to a person of the same gender.
Skoliosexual — being sexually and or romantically attracted to people who are trans or androgynous. This is a new one for me. I guess if you were a woman who was attracted to a man who had transitioned to a woman, you would be Skoliosexual, not hetero or homo. How do we address this with our kids? What do we need to emphasize to our children? We were created for relationship. This entire curriculum completely leaves out the concept of relationship with other people outside of romantic and sexual.
It gives a range of orientations, but none of them leave room for healthy same-sex friendships. Our God exists eternally in relationship within the Trinity, and He created humankind because He desired not needed a creation with whom He could relate. Family is an institution even older and more foundational than the church. Our kids need to know that the kinds of relationships they form do not define their identity.
Rather, as children of God, our identity is rooted in relationship itself. We were created by a relational God for relationship. Our identities are not defined BY our relationships. Our identities are rooted IN relationship.
Help your kids distinguish between the different kinds of love. It is fairly common for some kids to get confused as to what kind of love they are feeling because our society has taught them that all strong feelings of love have a sexual component i. This misconception can be easily fixed if we help them understand the different categories of love, especially platonic love or phileo in Greek.
Let them know that sometimes our attraction for another person is really out of respect for traits that we see in them, even traits that we wish we ourselves had. Those traits can even be physical beauty. We are by nature attracted to beautiful things, but appreciation for beauty does not equal sexual attraction. Our society will tell them that any strong feelings of love they feel automatically mean that they are sexually or romantically attracted to the person. Take a look at C.
When you are watching TV or coming home from a movie, discuss the different loves that you saw. The more you talk about the distinctions between the different loves, the less your child will be confused about their own feelings of love. The different categories will already be in their minds.
Eros is not the same thing as phileo. Distinguish between the different kinds of touch. We also need to be clear with our children that we were created for physical contact. There was even an article I read a few years ago about the crisis that boys are experiencing now that the category of platonic touch between men has been removed.
We were two people. We fulfilled the requirement. This is a luxury that our kids no longer have. Just ask any of my close friends or family. It was wonderful… But I have to admit that even I felt self-conscious sometimes when I could tell people were looking at us and wondering what our holding hands meant.
We need to reaffirm to our kids what kinds of touch that are appropriate and inappropriate. In fact, the more appropriate touch your kids receive from you, the more they will be able to tell when someone is touching them inappropriately. I know navigating the landscape of gender and sexuality can be daunting.
I hope this series on the Genderbread Person has helped prepare you to preempt some of the issues that are being taught to your children. God created us, male and female He created us Genesis We need words and categories to defend this imago dei to our kids, and we need the care, tact, and understanding to model healthy relationships to a world that is, frankly, starving for love.
It seeks to normalize sexuality that mars the imago dei in which we are created. But this is the most important point of all: we cannot treat this agenda with the love and grace that we are to give people. We should not support an agenda raised against the knowledge of God. But do not confuse the agenda for people. We are called to love all. No matter their understanding of sexuality and gender. We are called to love people and demolish bad ideas. NEVER mistake the way we treat an agenda with how we are to treat people.
We love. Do not confuse the two. Ardiel and Catharine H. She is coauthor and editor of the Mama Bear Apologetics book, and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for over 12 years. Share this:.
The Genderbread Person version 3