Reply to comment

Today's class left me questioning what we were really talking about.  Roughtgarden's book is stating that diversity is endless in animals and people.  She gives zillions of examples to show us how we are all different and can't conform into categories society gives us.  In class, we discuss such groups and the pros and cons of having set groups like male/female, masculine/feminine, gay/straight, etc.  We all seemed to think that getting rid of such groups would be the best solution.  Besides being impractical, I'm not sure it's the best social construction either.  Since we all agree that humans naturally seperate and organize everything in their brain, why do we think we could function in a society that has no groups?  It might sound nice in theory, but how would we identify ourselves.  I really like identifying myself as female, more feminine than masculine (but hey, I like my jeans from the men's department too), quite a bit more gay than straight, nontransgender and nonintersex.  I may not fit directly into one category or the other, but I like placing myself on the spetrum between the two regardless.  I find strength in these groups.  I think what society needs is more groups to better include everyone.  If someone feels that male or female isn't a proper group, then make a new group.  Sure, that person and others like that person will probably be discriminated against by the masses - that's human nature too.  But belonging to a group gives a person strength, which is more desirable than hopelessly swimming in a mass with no way to distinguish oneself.