I didn’t get that last post exactly right. (Of course, there never is such a thing as “exactly right.”)
What’s missing is the concept of “girly”.
“Girly” could mean something like: girls are supposed to be doll-loving mother wannabees who want to find a man to support them in their mother roles.
But I have something entirely different in mind.
One of my sisters has become a top-of-her-profession lawyer.
And the other sister has become a top-of-her-profession RN.
What they have in common is three things: first, they are my sisters; second, they are at the top of their professions; third, they are women.
This shouldn’t be a big thing. But it is a big thing because there are a few (hundred? thousands? tens-of-thousands?) who believe that we ought to keep score. Well: jolly good. What do I know about hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands?
Let’s go back to “girly”.
To me, the naive little boy with two older sisters, “girly” means what his sisters were like, and what his sisters have become. “Girly” means that my sisters are female, and that female is cool.
What worries me the most about some kind of “gender-neutral-world” is that we can’t celebrate, enjoy, or cherish the “girly-ness” of human beings who mean so much in part because of their gender. A gender-neutral-world would crush my memories of my sisters dressing me up as a girl. A gender-neutral-world would insist that the very source of my fun (and theirs) was in fact a source of oppression.
As a philosopher, I feel an almost electrical urge of arrogance to smite the thighs of such philistinistic thought. But as a brother, I just think this: can’t I love my sisters as in: famale=girl=cool?
That’s the way I feel. Philosphy and political correctness be damned.