More on tiny houses

If you dream of a tiny home, but aren't sure where to start on your journey towards building your own, then join us at a Tumbleweed Tiny House Workshop, where you will gain knowledge you will need to build and design your very own tiny home. These workshops, created by Jay Shafer, founder of Tumbleweed Tiny House Company and expert in tiny house building and design, will revolutionize the way you think of space. Our two day Tiny House Workshop will teach you insightful and extensive information that you will need to build and create your very own tiny house; from picking the proper trailer, to selecting the materials you need, to helping you choose the right tools. The Tiny House Workshop is where you will learn all the detailed information on tiny home building that you can't learn anywhere else. You'll meet many other people just like you - concerned about the environment and the way we live. Read more...

Choose one of these plans and get workshop tickets for just $99. NEW VESICA Plans: Regularly $695 Sale Price: $295 Plans + Workshop $394 SEBASTAROSA Plans: Regularly $695 Sale Price: $295 Plans + Workshop $394 EPU Plans: Regularly $859 Sale Price: $559 Plans + Workshop $658 TARLETON Plans: Regularly $859 Sale Price: $559 Plans + Workshop $658

©2012 Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. All Rights Reserved

Affirmative Action Follies and truths

Wherein I don't take the usual approach in such a discussion.

My daughter was four years, varsity, on the rifle team in high school.  In her junior year, a number of guys in the high school ROTC program started complaining about how a girl had stolen a spot from a deserving guy by means of affirmative action.

One of them made the mistake of saying so in front of the colonel, who was pretty laid back, all in all.  The colonel marched him 25' in one direction and my daughter 25' in the other and then, standing in the middle, rather loudly explained to the young man that my daughter was on the team because at that distance she could reliably shoot the pupil out of his eye prone, kneeling or standing.  The young man could not even see a pupil at 50' and ... Well, the grousing stopped.

But you will discover similar follies, and many companies encourage them.  Recently I know an about to graduate engineer who interviewed with a company.  They had announced they were hiring five people, four open slots and one dedicated to hiring a female engineer.  The two female candidates were rather rudely treated by the male candidates.  One of them took the time to chat up secretaries and others, having arrived early.

She discovered that the company makes that announcement every year, and has for some time.  In fifty years they have never hired a female engineer.  They only hire female secretaries and janitorial staff.  They never hire as many people as they say they are hiring either. 

Why would they say otherwise?  I know from friends in HR and headhunting that there are two reasons for that sort of behavior.

First, if you announce a larger set of openings, you get better quality applicants, people who are very qualified, but who don't want to waste their time applying if the hiring slots are few.

Second, if you announce affirmative action goals, the people you do not hire are not upset with you, they blame the "Black guy" or "the Girl" for stealing their job and just by having stated affirmative action goals you will get a lot less negative trouble from the job applicants you did not hire.

If you've ever wondered about Justice Clarence Thomas and his hostility towards affirmative action, it stems from experiences like that, combined with the fact that when he accomplished anything people would credit it not to his ability, but to affirmative action (consider his admission to Yale law school where he was in the top half of the class -- how often have you heard that he only got into Yale because of affirmative action?  Yet, statistically, Blacks perform below the statistical indicators.  Which means, more likely than not, if he was in the top half at Yale, his LSAT/grades on his application put him in the top 25% or so of those who were admitted).

Reprising, that company, referred to above, they did not hire "a Girl" this time either.  They just outsourced some abuse and hostility to the female applicants.  Last I heard, both of the female engineering students they interviewed are still looking for work.  Still getting a good deal of hostility from male engineers too, since they are sure that the "girls" are not working as hard and having an easy time of the job market compared to the "deserving guys."

Oh, I'll bet that none of the grousers can shoot the pupil out of someone's eye at 50' either.  Bet they would complain about a "girl" being on the rifle team if they tried to get on and failed.

What makes arguments about women and the priesthood flawed.

Many of the arguments people put out in favor of women and the priesthood resolve to sounding like "I just want the change to exercise unrighteous dominion too." (I am not saying that they are making that argument, I'm saying that they sound like that argument).


For example when people write about wanting to exercise power or influence, they will trigger the following thoughts:

No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

So when someone writes that they feel powerless without the Priesthood, and want to be able to exert power and influence, they will have that scripture sounding in the echo chamber of the minds of those who hear them. If you state that you want the priesthood to exercise power and influence, you've just stated that you (in accord with D&C 121) are not entitled to it, e.g.:

to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men,

The problem is that not only do you need to make an argument that is not saying that, you need to make an argument that does not sound like that either.  If your argument sounds like that is what you want (regardless of what you mean), you immediately create that semantic contamination of your argument or reasons.

The same is true of "I serve enough, I just want to serve in a better scope."  That sounds like "I just want to be important."  Elder deJager of the 70 had as his first calling putting up the books after Sacrament.  At the time he was a relatively important executive with a large company.  His response was not "I want a more important job."  Instead, he served with diligence. 



Christ washed the apostles feet to drive hope the point that it is about service, being the servant of all, rather than about being important.  If you are going to make any argument about the place where you serve rather than serving more, you will face serious semantic contamination and echos of pride in the semantic contamination you create.

The same comes when blessing babies comes up.  Already leaders are being counseled not to push fathers aside when it comes to ordaining sons or blessing babies, about taking steps to make sure men are involved and can be allowed to participate (the reference to battlefield promotions in the recent conference was part of a call not to shunt fathers aside).

That sounds very much like "I want to push men aside and take over."  Now, even when the need or desire is "I just want to participate" or "I hate being excluded" it is very easy to get the message contaminated with the one "I am pushing others aside and alienating them."

The same is true of the "I deserve it" and "I should be part of the hierarchy" argument.  Something that Hopwood and other litigation has pointed out is that much of affirmative action consists of taking people from privileged backgrounds and giving them precedence over people from trailer parks.  That the lead plaintiff from Hopwood was a white woman from a trailer park who was being excluded ... or that every time class issues are introduced to go with other affirmative action steps (the idea being that those from poor and lower class backgrounds are obviously suffering more of the effects of discrimination than those who are wealthy ...).

Consider the first "woman of color" to teach at Harvard Law School.  Blond, blue eyed ....  Now running for the senate in a state near you.  There is a huge issue where it appears to be more of a class struggle and one that ignores and insults the female members of general boards who are in some sort of quasi general authority status.

Combining an insult with something that rings of class warfare will, again, create unpleasant echos.  Especially since the Church continually has to war with class issues.  I still remember in the LDS Serviceman's stake in Germany when a general authority said he had interviewed every worthy high priest in the stake.  Turned out that the list he had been given was only of officers who were high priests.  No matter how otherwise worthy a man was, if he was enlisted, he wasn't truly "worthy."

All of that said, am I coming to a conclusion on the arguments, the conclusions or the future?

No.  Just because someone makes a bad argument, or a good argument that sounds like a bad one and is easily confused for one, does not mean that the position they are taking is a bad position.

So, what am I saying?

I am saying that if you want to make arguments, provide analysis, or be persuasive, you need to do the following:

1. Avoid arguments that are contaminated by sounding like other arguments.  There are some very specific claims, arguments and approaches that sound very, very much like arguments that are (to the listeners) self-refuting (see the above).  i.e. structure your arguments to clearly not be the contaminated ones, but instead to be saying the alternative (e.g. "I don't want to push men aside, but I want to be able to participate).
2. Avoid arguments that are basically insults or expressions of pride (e.g. "I serve more than I feel like, but I would rather be in control and have the chance to really exercise my abilities than do something like pick up the song books.").
3. Avoid arguments that show an ignorance of culture and structure.  (e.g. denying the existence of female board members vs. discussing that the status and existence of female board members does not have meaning for people outside of Utah).
4. Start discussions in places where everyone is in accord.  E.g. President Hinkley used to stress that the Church needed more leadership and participation from the women in the Church and a common problem that has been with us is men who misunderstand the priesthood and insist that women should not ever exercise any leadership or participation on an equal basis, to the extent of banning women from giving prayers in Sacrament meetings.  A way to move forward on the goal and overcome the problem is ....

Anyway, until things are discussed in those terms, and in those ways, most of the discussions contain within them the seeds of their own failures.

One thing I want to see happen is people express their ideas and positions in ways that are not contaminated by sounding like reasons and arguments that resonate as reasons not to give someone a fair audience -- to avoid hearing them.  Too often the debate is carried out in terms that create automatic rejection (kind of like the political candidate who ran on the basis that it was his turn to share in the stream of graft he was certain he had been excluded from).

That at least would get us to a civil and rational place where what people meant to be saying was heard.

Why women want the priesthood -- a poll

Everyone speculates, but at Wheat and Tares we are asking our readers for answers:

• I don't want the priesthood silly -- my husband told me so.
• Of course I want the priesthood -- do I have to have a reason?
• I want equal power and influence, so I need equal priesthood.
• I do not feel as if I am asked to serve enough, I need the priesthood in order to serve more.
• I want the priesthood so that I feel included.  I'm the right social class and have the right professional background, but without the priesthood I'm stuck like all the men who are the wrong social class and won't progress in the leadership.
• I feel disconnected from the Church and my family and the priesthood would help me feel more connected.

I got thinking about what Hawkgrrrl had to say earlier and so I thought I'd just ask.

For reference, this is what she had to say:

While we’re speculating on priesthood, I think a sociological argument can be made that priesthood service ties men to families and makes them feel needed in ways that they otherwise might not.  In Spain, most men would spend their evenings in the bar with other men leaving the women at home to raise the kids, but when they joined the church, they became more family-centric and spent time serving others and supporting their families because it was their priesthood duty.  Women already had a family-centric existence in that culture.  If women also had the priesthood, it would reduce their reliance on men for those things.  A role separation model may be more effective at creating family bonds (creating mutual reliance and respect for each other), improving the way men treat their families and others, and provide more support to children on the whole across large groups of people.  Obviously, that’s more of an 80/20 principle – suitable to 80% of society, but not others.

In this sociological model, both motherhood and priesthood are duties and service provided to others, not gifts God gives to an individuall. But E. Oaks didn’t say that.  It’s my own slightly more palatable spin on what he said.

And, of course: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/08/17/mormon-org-faq-women-priesthood/

Christ Washing the Disciples' Feet

Artist	Tintoretto

Obviously her reflections took more than just a simple line on a poll.  I expect that your reflections and real reasons, for or against wanting the priesthood will take more than a simple line.  My thoughts would be influenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_washing and by http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/06/07/addenda-female-healing-lorenzo-snow/ but I want your thoughts, not mine.



So, if you are a woman, tell me why you do or do not want the priesthood and why.  I want honest, both pro and con (you can do silly as well, my poll had that as an option, but I'm hoping for more).

Thank you.

Email issues through the years

We first got online as a family with Progidy which offered free time for access to their grief support group for parents who had lost children.  Combined with the off-line tools (which downloaded the message boards and let  you read and respond off-line), it was a source of support and help.

We then picked up GNN which had a local POP (point of presence -- a way to connect with a phone modem without a long distance call) after Juno suddenly became a long distance call from where we were.  GNN got swallowed whole by AOL, and the e-mail accounts all went away.

I have my own domain, which let me use Eudora, until my ISP discontinued my e-mail service because of the the "hope" spam sent to adrr.com.  Hundreds of thousands of spam sent every day to addresses spammers hope existed at adrr.com were effectively acting as a denial of service attack.

But AOL has taken to upgrading itself, automatically sometimes, and when it does that, all the saved e-mail folders disappear. Including all the e-mails saved to my PC.

Which is, needless to say, annoying.  (As an aside, I've used other e-mail clients, use outlook at work, etc.  I can save outlook e-mails by drag and drop into outside folders and keep everything organized and permanently saved there, rather easily -- almost enough for me to consider it at home).

It is enough for me to consider switching to gmail on a permanent basis, especially with the domain name feature.

Why we get fat

Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes (Dec 27, 2011)

• http://garytaubes.com/2012/02/on-the-greatly-exaggerated-demise-of-the-insulin-hypothesis/

• http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iie-as-in-%E2%80%9Cend-and-enough-already/

• http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iid/ 

Well worth reading.

On other people's trials ...

My new ISP gets posts flagged as spam everywhere I go ... so I'm commenting on my blog, since my comment got swallowed: Personally, I've come to believe that other people's hardships are the hardships they are having and they are entitled to feel that they are experiencing hardship.

As someone else remarked at http://segullah.org/daily-special/no-good-comes-from-blogging-after-midnight/

My hardest trial might be insignificant compared to others, but it’s still the VERY HARDEST thing that has ever happened in my life, and so is still meaningful and difficult and important

Amen.

We are to "mourn with those who mourn" not tell them to "buck up" or engage in comparison contests with them.

Rachel's talk today in church

            About a year ago over Spring Break, I fell off of a cliff, fracturing two vertebrae, bruising a lung, and practically turning my left heel into gravel.  A few weeks ago, I was talking to some of my coaches at school about that time.  We somehow ended talking about the Holy Ghost, and how I felt the Holy Ghost when I fell.  After talking with my coaches, I decided to write down  my feelings about that spiritual experience.  When I was asked to give a talk, I decided to talk on the Holy Ghost and how it had felt that day. 

            When I first hit the rocks at the bottom of the cliff, before I really knew what had just happened, I wasn't in pain yet. The Holy Ghost was there instead, stronger than I have ever felt it -- it may have been seconds or simply a moment -- I don't really know.  It had so many layers to the overall sensation, many of them being the total opposites of each other. I'm going to try to describe it, to put it in words, but it can't be captured fully, but I'm still going to try.

            It was like… when you're sitting in a room full of people --  you can't see any of them -- and no one is touching you, but you just know that they are there. You might know the name of a few of them, but you just don't really know them that well.  I felt completely surrounded.  It's not a bad feeling, not one of feeling uncomfortable, just that you don't know them that well. There's also a warm feeling in you, like when you're by a fire, but it's not too hot, not too cold, but just right, warm and cozy. 

.

            I felt calm, tranquil. I felt safe and secure, like when I was little and climbed in with my parents after a nightmare and I knew that nothing could hurt me there. It felt cool, like when you jump into a pool on a hot summer's day.

            A scripture that captures a part of how I felt is in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 8, verse 2:

 "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart."

            I felt something that was in my heart, a love and welcoming feeling that would keep me safe and that I could trust. It felt like someone I had always known.

            It was only a short time, I don't know how long it was. I don't remember much, but the feeling was very strong and it made me feel safe in spite of everything that had happened.

            It made me feel as if I had gotten a second chance.  I had had doubts before. I had not really felt the Holy Ghost strongly.  Because I had been in the Church from when I was born, I hadn't had the experience that some have that tells them that the church is true. But this made me realize that the Holy Ghost was real.

            I had someone tell me that I would forget, and that it would not stay with me. But by writing it down, it has helped me make sure that I will remember what I felt and what happened. It has reminded me that I need to work on a journal.

            It also made me realize that bad things could happen to me, not just someone else.  I also realized  but that good things could also happen to me to, not just others.  So, it is not always someone else that things happen to, but they happen to me too.  I'd never really said it out loud, but I had always kind of gotten the feeling that it would always be someone else who had things happen to them -- good and bad.

            I'm grateful that I'm alive.  I'm grateful I lived to see my parents and sister.  I'm grateful that I felt the Spirit and realized it was truly real.

            I know that I need to keep working on things or I will be like the people in the Book of Mormon who had spiritual things happen to them and then forgot them.  I also know that I have a lot to be grateful for.  The bruises are gone.  My lungs work right again.  I can now walk on my heel. My back is working again.  I am here today.

            I feel so lucky, I never felt lucky before, I only saw the problems in my life, all the things that have gone wrong or that were not working out .. Like having Tourette's and other problems. But since then,  I've realized that God has given me blessings too.  Parents, and schools and a home and the Church.  And God gave me the Holy Ghost when I needed it the most.

            I am grateful to God for that experience and for the scriptures and the Church to lead me back to God.

            I give thanks, and say these things, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Two things you need to know

Respite care and setting boundaries.

 Good places to start:

 www.helpguide.org/elder/respite_care.htm and

 http://outofthefog.net/CommonNonBehaviors/Boundaries.html

 and the book  Boundaries: When to Say YES, When to Say NO, To Take Control of Your Life

Politics and alternatives ...

Ok, now that I've realized that the stars will never be right for anyone who wants to vote for Cthulhu, I've found an alternative political party:

http://www.lyinginponds.com/about.html

So, giving up loyalty to the old order and in with the new one.

For those who haven't given up:

1. Images for Cthulhu 2012

   • 
   • 
   • 
   • 
   • 
   • 
   • 

2. Vote Cthulhu in 2012!

 

Next election I might return to NeoFederalism. Or maybe find someone in a lake with a sword.

A Hard Look at Loyalty -- -- thinking point

Philip Meynard Flammer. Burial Place: Orem, Utah, United States. Birth: 20 June 1928. Death: 20 August 1999 He was a professor I learned from, a friend and a personal reference.

The problem of misused and abused loyalty will never go away.  The motivations for its deliberate distortion are too self-serving to be neglected by those willing and able to use it.  Still, the concept deserves a hard look if only because those who misuse it are more than a little anxious to keep it from the light.  Also, to a degree, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.  (Would we not have been better children had we understood the tendency and consequences of particular children being singled out for senseless persecution?)  Finally, we do well to remind ourselves that loyalty is a two-edged sword.  In the words of Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart:

Loyalty is a noble quality, so long as it does not blind and does not exclude the higher loyalty to truth and decency.  But the word is much abused, for ‘loyalty’ analyzed, is too often a polite word for what would be more accurately described as a ‘conspiracy for mutual inefficiency.’  In this sense, it is essentially selfish—like a servile loyalty, demeaning to both master and servant.  They are in false relationship to each other, and the loyalty which is then so much prized can be traced, if we probe deep enough, to an ultimate selfishness on either side.  ‘Loyalty’ is not a quality we can isolate: so far as it is real, and of intrinsic value, it is implicit in the possession of other virtues.

For those to whom personal integrity and depth of character are not important, loyalty will always be an attractive method of exploitation.  However, there are options open to those who reject their exploitation in the name of “loyalty.”  One is to preempt the dilemma early on, letting the would-be exploiter know either explicitly or implicitly that he or she is not open to such manipulation.  History provides numerous instances of this preemption by secure individuals with depth of character.  General George C. Marshall is an eminent example.  Unexploitable, he did not exploit, even when he had the power to strike back at men like Douglas MacArthur who disliked him, resented his integrity, and earlier hindered his advancement.  Another instance, centuries past, involves a missionary in a hostile land who impressed a difficult and troublesome king with his dedication and courage.  Because of the circumstances leading to their acquaintance, the kind would have accepted the missionary as a man with magical if not divine powers.  The missionary, however, insisted that he was an ordinary man and stunned the king by offering to be his servant, albeit with one important condition.  “Whatever you ask of me that is right,” he said, “that will I do.”      

Read the entire essay.  Philip Flammer is dead, but he left a legacy of honor and loyalty where it mattered.  http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleFlammerLoyalty.html.

Professor Flammer understood courage and truth.

His obituary is true, in a way that many only aspire to be:

Philip M. Flammer

A wonderful man, Philip M. Flammer, passed away Aug. 20, 1999, after a long struggle with Alzheimer's disease.

He was born June 20, 1928, in St. Johns, Ariz., to Hans and Arizona Gibbons Flammer. In 1943, the family moved to Logan, Utah. He married Mildred May Wehrwein July 13, 1954, in the Logan LDS Temple.

He was an active member of the LDS Church. He served in the Swiss Austrian mission, where he met Mildred. He later served three stake missions and served as a branch president and bishop.
Phil received his bachelor's degree from Utah State University, his master's from George Washington and his doctorate from Yale. He retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel after serving as a pilot and professor at the Air Force Academy. He taught history at Brigham Young University and was professor of the year in 1976.

Above all, Phil's greatest joy was teaching, both the gospel and academics. He was loved and appreciated by all who knew him. He was able to see a need and reach out to touch the lives of others spiritually, physically and academically. A blessing Phil received assured him that if he was willing to entertain strangers, he would entertain angels unawares. He acted on that assurance and treated strangers is if they were indeed angels. He was truly a disciple of Jesus Christ in every aspect of his life. He is deeply loved by his family.

Survivors include his wife, Mildred; his children, Matthew Flammer, Julie (James) Parkin, Tracy (Michael) Call, and Lisa (Robert) Anderson. He is also survived by two brothers, Gordon (Luen) Flammer and Stephen (Shauna) Flammer, and four sisters, Regina (Marlin) Fairbourn, Corolie (LeRoy) Hoefler, Mary (John) Tallmadge and Diane Flammer.

 
I am still learning from the lessons he taught me.

On the Impossible Question

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/revisiting-the-impossible-question-part-ii/ and
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/revisiting-the-impossible-question/ are the original posts.

When I tried to comment, the system would not take my submissions.  I suspect that someone using my ISP has been too active in posting spam and so the filter software has blocked the ID from the ISP for a while.

The result is I am posting my responses here.

The question relates to

"the supposedly “impossible question” [Rachael] posed to Kathleen Flake at the Methodist-Mormon conference back in February, regarding the definition of femininity and masculinity"

 The real question is closer to what are gender and sex and how are they important or significant?

Rachel wanted a definition and an answer that:

a) did not reduce them to mere sexual characteristics or biological difference (which, on its own, seems void of real significance, and furthermore, seems difficult to untangle from temporal causes like evolutionary strategies, which don’t seem to be necessary in a pre or post mortal existence)

b) did not reduce them to character attributes (which seem to boil down to characteristics that should ultimately be universally shunned [coarseness, aggression, emotional neediness, etc.], or universally cultivated [compassion, gentleness, creativity, reason])

At present, just about every discussion of sex and gender either reduces to mere characteristics that are measurable or to stereotypical character attributes.

First, defining terms.

To quote from the Wiki:

The word gender comes from the Middle English gendre, a loanword from Norman-conquest-era Old French. This, in turn, came from Latin genus. Both words mean 'kind', 'type', or 'sort'. They derive ultimately from a widely attested Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root g^en-,^[8][9] which is also the source of kin, kind, king, and many other English words.^[10] It appears in Modern French in the word genre (type, kind, also genre sexuel) and is related to the Greek root gen- (to produce), appearing in gene, genesis, and oxygen. As a verb, it means breed in the King James Bible:

Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind

—Leviticus 19:19, 1616

Most uses of the root g^en- in Indo-European languages refer either directly to what pertains to birth (for example pre-gn-ant) or, by extension, to natural, innate qualities and their consequent social distinctions (for example gentry, generation, gentile, genocide and eugenics). The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED1, Volume 4, 1900) notes the original meaning of gender as 'kind' had already become obsolete.

Gender (dʒe'ndəɹ), sb. Also 4 gendre. [a. OF. gen(d)re (F. genre) = Sp. género, Pg. gênero, It. genere, ad. L. gener- stem form of genus race, kind = Gr. γένος, Skr. jánas:— OAryan *genes-, f. root γεν- to produce; cf. KIN.]
†1. Kind, sort, class; also, genus as opposed to species. The general gender: the common sort (of people). Obs.
13.. E.E.Allit. P. P. 434 Alle gendrez so ioyst wern ioyned wyth-inne. c 1384 CHAUSER H. Fame* 1. 18 To knowe of hir signifiaunce The gendres. 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P. K. VIII. xxix. (1495) 34^I Byshynynge and lyghte ben dyuers as species and gendre, for suery shinyng is lyght, but not ayenwarde. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. IV. vii. 18 The great loue the generall gender beare him. 1604 — Oth. I. iii. 326 Supplie it with one gender of Hearbes, or distract it with many. 1643 and so on.

The word has come to mean sex, though it has a secondary meaning where it is used to mean identity.  Who and how the word is used depends on who is using it.

The use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types is attested throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century).

• 1387-8 - No mo genders been there but masculine, and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in facultie of grammar — Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love II iii (Walter William Skeat) 13.
• c. 1460 - Has thou oght written there of the femynyn gendere? — Towneley Mystery Plays xxx 161 Act One.
• 1632 - Here's a woman! The soul of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine Than the first gender — Shackerley Marmion, Holland's Leaguer III iv.
• 1658 - The Psyche, or soul, of Tiresias is of the masculine gender — Thomas Browne, Hydriotaphia.
• 1709 - Of the fair sex ... my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them — Mary Wortley Montagu, Letters to Mrs Wortley lxvi 108.
• 1768 - I may add the gender too of the person I am to govern — Laurence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.
• 1859 - Black divinities of the feminine gender — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.
• 1874 - It is exactly as if there were a sex in mountains, and their contours and curves and complexions were here all of the feminine gender — Henry James, 'A Chain of Italian Cities', The Atlantic Monthly 33 (February, p. 162.)
• 1892 - She was uncertain as to his gender — Robert Grant, 'Reflections of a Married Man', Scribner's Magazine 11 (March, p. 376.)
• 1896 - As to one's success in the work one does, surely that is not a question of gender either — Daily News 17 July.
• c. 1900 - Our most lively impression is that the sun is there assumed to be of the feminine gender — Henry James, Essays on Literature.

The word sex is sometimes used in the context of social roles of men and women — for example, the British Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 that ended exclusion of women from various official positions. Such usage was more common before the 1970s, over the course of which the feminist movement took the word gender into their own usage to describe their theory of human nature. Early in that decade, gender was used in ways consistent with both the history of English and the history of attestation of the root. However, by the end of the decade consensus was achieved among feminists regarding this theory and its terminology.

The theory was that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. Matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender.

The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."^[13]

“

The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient. In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined.

”

In the last two decades of the 20th century, the use of gender in academia increased greatly, outnumbering uses of sex in the social sciences.

You can see that modern language hasn't helped things much.  Gender has gone from, by definition, the inherent qualities  (to natural, innate qualities and their consequent social distinctions) to either being a term that is used in place of the word "sex" or that is used for social distinctions not founded in inherent qualities.

That makes the question impossible to answer if one takes some definitions -- what is inherent about characteristics that are defined as the social structures and roles not related to inherent differences?

But, otherwise, it leads somewhat, given human variability, to a reduction to a de minimus difference.

I think it helps to look at slime molds.  To quote from an essay that invokes them:

a slime mold (genus Physarum), an otherworldly creature with 29 variants of sex-controlling genes, dispersed among eight different types of sex cells. To ensure genetic diversity, each slime mold sex cell can only fuse with a sex cell that has completely different variants of genes than its own. If you calculate all the possible combinations of genes and sex cells, you will find that Physarum have more than 500 different sexes.

500 different sexes.  (The essay the quote comes from is about how fluid sexual identity is in nature, with some species being able to change their sex up to thirty times in a day, some having many more than just two sexes).  Do those animals have inherent sexual identity that they came from eternity with and will leave into eternity intact?  And, what about slime molds that are in asexual mode (they have that too)?

Once you start thinking about slime molds and other species, the possibility becomes more consistent that there might be two things going on.

First, that sex and gender exist for reproductive purposes -- to allow us to pair in a way that makes us (a) pairs and (b) pro-evolution (i.e. that results in faster/better evolution and adaptation).

Second, that sex and gender need not exist for any other purpose that to allow us to pair with those who are defined as "other."  That is exactly what goes on with slime molds.  All a slime mold needs for pairing is an "other."  The more types of "other" the easier that is.  So, with an evenly distributed slime mold population of 1000, there would be two of each sex and each slime mold would have 998 potential partners (999 if asexual mode is included).  In comparison, humans having no asexual mode of reproduction, and only two sexes, have roughly half the number of potential mates (assuming two genders/sexes).  Various types of distributions can increase or vastly decrease the numbers.

In this I agree with Rachel's observation that "In essence, (and I’ll visit this more in future posts exploring homosexuality’s place in Mormon doctrine) gender is otherness, which Lehi taught was so crucial to preventing all things from being a compound in one."

Which reverts back to taking an approach that has "interpreted the Genesis story in this way—descriptively, not prescriptively" (something I have written on several times).   It also segues nicely into the concept that priesthood "is not about possessing power or authority; it is about being given callings to perform" -- which is well seen not only against D&C 121, but against the story of Christ washing the apostles feet.

Priesthood is given to remind people to serve, not to give them authority or dominion.

But as to what the difference is, it may well be that the difference is that there is difference.  That may be all that is necessary.  It works for many species and it may very well be what works for us.  It would also work with the feminist reduction of Elder Nelson's talk implying that proper marriage exists wherever two are able to become one:  http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=10063

Perhaps.  But I think we learn a great deal if we approach the entire topic by looking at slime molds as one of God's creations, and then by asking what that implies.

_________________________________

FYI, my Wheat and Tares post is:  http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/04/13/alt-ss-abortion/ 

On Compassion

how do we have compassion without condescension?

You know, when I saw the title of the post, the first thing I though to of was having kindness rather than being judgmental, responding to people with love and patience rather than hostility.

 I ran across a discussion about not offending, and bruising and I realized that  

I have found in my own life that if I bruise someone to make a point, the point I have made is that I have bruised someone. I spend a lot of time persuading people in my day job. Bruising them does not seem to help. 

  I also realized that what I regret the most about everything I've done on-line is the times I've bruised people. But yes, by the end of the post and the comments I found I just wanted to mourn with those who mourn. Compassion? I'm not sure where it fits in, but caring for and loving people, that makes sense to me.

Responding to:  http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2012/04/11/compassion/  (I attempted to post at the site and it would not take my comment).

NPR to the contrary, driving while Black is not a problem

It is people, like the federal (bankruptcy) judge in Houston arrested for walking while Black, or my neighbor in Wichita Falls who got "stopped" for parking in his own driveway while Black.

He is risen

Christ is the center of the gospel.  In my personal liturgical season, Easter has always been the heart of my soul.  For a while pain obscured it for me, but Christ is risen.