Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00006)

Sept 1st 1998

Let's be clear.  When I use the "him/her" I was probably referring to the
fact that the Soul has no gender.  No other implications.

We are dealing in philosophy not in speculations, as far as I am concerned.
The original message was not private to me, as the return address that the
author gave was one that took my reply through the public channel of
Theos-World, unless I am much mistaken.

Best wishes,

Dallas

> From: Murray Stentiford
> Sent:	Monday, August 31, 1998 4:06 PM
> Subject: Him/her - re Offense

Jake,

>         Well, on Dallas's point.....   Calling someone a "him/her" when
you
>know (from the signed private letter to Dallas, which Dallas posted
>publically) that they are a Man is the same as labelling them a homosexual.
>Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely not, in the context. Dallas's use of "him/her"  - and I have
checked back on the early message in this thread - was so far from the
implication of homosexual labelling, in tone and obvious intent, that I
have been amazed that you think that others could draw that from it.

Anyway, "him/her" is not calling anybody homosexual - bisexual or asexual
would be the nearest it gets. Sutratman himself didn't seem to be too fazed
about it, either; the most chiding thing he said was "You must have
forgotten."

>....  A person who regarded themselves as a homosexual would not find it
>offensive.

Why not, by your criteria? Everybody has a female component, to some
degree, whether they are physically male or female or both or neither, and
everybody has a male component vice-versa, so with your mind set, there's
something to offend everybody in "him/her"!

But him comes before her in this, so what are you moaning about, man???

>      If you say it is not offensive, you haven't understood the issue, or
you
>have personal knowledge they guy is "gay,"or you are a liar, or you regard
>yourself as a homosexual, which is not anyone's business.

The most likely case isn't in the list: how about the plain, little ol'
assumption that Dallas genuinely didn't intend offense and that most people
on this discussion list thought little of it until you brought it up?

The issue has many facets, but the main one - the potential hurtfulness of
deliberately calling a person by the opposite gender - deserves deep
consideration. I am open to your feelings on this, and am willing to
participate in discussion on this list on the subject, but for now, I would
just say that the intention of the sender and the psychological makeup of
the receiver are both important parts of the equation.

And this issue is just a small part of the whole vexed inter-gender
conflict - one riddled by historical imbalance, exploitation,
non-recognition, misunderstanding, hurt and injury. Have you noticed how a
sense of hurt not only can result from injury, but often fuels an act of
injury? The aching little child at the controls of the tank, so to speak? I
do not consider myself separate from this, by the way.

I have learnt much from Kym's writing on the subject, and I think her
feelings would be the minutest tip of a long-existing iceberg for many
women. Men have their equivalent set of feelings and accumulated hurts too,
so I am not indifferent to where you're coming from.

>     As regarding Rilke's frequent lewdness (and my lewding her back for
>effect, at least)  - it is a matter of record.  I can re-post one that is
>especially off-color for effect.

Oh, good! A bit of lewdness keeps us all balanced. I don't mind who it
comes from, either, but let's be conscious of our intent to hurt when it
arises, and of the fact that we have engendered hurt, when that arises. The
feedback from others is a valuable indicator in this - to be weighed
carefully, of course :-) In any relationship, including membership of a
discussion group.

What will you do with the feedback you have received?

Murray