Where I am

[Andrea Elise]

I had a strange thought, perhaps an epiphany of sorts, in regard to human evolution. No, nothing to do with monkeys. My thought is, perhaps, stolen from a post , or something I may have read. I'm sure it is not original, but it has been in the background of my thought for days.

I have read that we humans used to be much shorter than we are now. Smaller. In that regard, we are evolving and I have to wonder what changes are taking place that are not visible.

It came to mind that the blurring of gender may be the leading edge of the future of our race.

All of this “thinking” may be me justifying my need to dress as a woman but, it gives me comfort to pity those who are not so blessed.

Historically, anyone who is “different”, physically or mentally, is socially persecuted. Historically, the persecutors have been left to languish at the side of the path that leads to tomorrow.

Because I am different, the scope of my horizons are much wider.

A statement, yes. But I wonder if I am just wrong in all of this? Any thoughts?

Andrea

[Davita]

Nature forces differences; it's a question of which ones get kept. Nature wants a broadening otherwise we would all be a one-celled animal or whatever science calls the first for of life.

Now, do people who are different have a broader perspective on life? it depends on what made the different and if they are not narrow minded in the view of everything else. Okay, with that general statement, we do have a broader perspective and particularly in how were differ. We do have that "predisposition" but part of this has got to be related to education and other nurturings. One way to look at this nurturing idea is to look at all the poor girls who punish themselves because the church says they should. Then look at the girls who are quite comfortable with themselves who had a more open upbringing.

[Robyn Katie]

Andrea Elise,

I agree entirely. Sexual diversification has already been recognized and is growing. Certainly we're opening up to gender blossoming in all directions.

Also, it's possible we're part of an evolving tumble toward widening, deepening femininity in the human race that (if it isn't reversed in years to come) could become a long-standing aspect of life.

As to the height issue, I'll never forget during a visit to the Tower of London seeing Henry VIII's armor ... that "huge" man was about 5 feet tall. Extrapolating, how tall was, say, Shakespeare? 4'10?" How tall was Socrates?

Big change, attributed in that case to diet: balanced, healthful, and (not least) sufficient in quantity. The recent feminine form as we know it is in good part attributable to diet, too.

What other aspects of people's physiology hundreds or thousands of years ago differed from what we now regard as normal?

The human mind, too, is changing gradually. An example often cited is cruelty to animals ... once universal and unremarked, now frowned upon, often prosecuted as a crime. (In cruelty to people we're a lot slower to evolve.)

We lose some things (rote memory, and some say the "language of the animals") to gain others: vast new fields of knowledge, media "extensions," prosthetics ... who can deny that, since the coming of TV, the human race has altered mentally, spiritually, bodily, socially, psychologically?

For well over half a century people have been complaining that the genders are blurring. James Joyce in "Ulysses" made an example of the "new Female Man." How deeply do social usages become imprinted on our mentality (and physiology)?

Men public in dresses, behaving femininely ... how long will that take to become part of the daily experience? And when it does, what changes will that work in our minds, and the minds of children who grow up seeing it, as they're now growing up seeing same-sex parents?

Oh brave new world ...

Robyn Katie

[DonnaT]

Crossdressing isn't something new, just not a lot of recorded history about it.

[Paula G]

We know from writen records that cross dressing must go back at least 4 thousand years, after all there is the dreaded verse in Leviticus (22:5) Although I maintain this is open to interpretation it was written around 2,000 b.c. so people then must have been aware that it was happening, in some form or another.

[Andrea Elise]

Is it that CDing was so well hidden that it went under reported in years past? Even though it has apparently existed through out history, I wonder if there is an increase in the percentage of cders or is it a perceived increase because there is a much larger population?

Or, is it just because we have become more open?

Paula, I looked up Leviticus 22:5 and in my Bible I have, it mentions only "Touching unclean creeping things". It is a New King James topical study bible. I read a few pages ahead and behind and can't locate the part I know you are referring to. ???? Now I am confused.

I am interested in that biblical reference in men wearing women's clothing and, not being a biblical scholar, I don't know where it is.

I can not consider myself well read as most of my reading has been confined to SCFI, fantasy and tech manuals. However, since my wife and I have invested in an e-reader, we hope to change that as time permits.

Andrea Elise

[Andrea Elise]

Robyn Katie,

Your mention of "The language of the animals" implies that humans once had the capacity to communicate with animals on their level. Horse whisperer?

Growing up, I was sheltered from a lot. Had never been exposed to "coarse" language. Was not exposed to TV until I was ten years old. Now, I generally consider the "entertainment" industry a blight. A hypocritical statement on my part as I do watch DVD movies, etc.

A well written and thought provoking reply. Especially that it caused me to think that there may be a time when it will be difficult to see much of an outward difference as related to sex. Men's lib?

Andrea Elise

[Leeza]

The scripture refered to is Deu 22:5.

In research that I have done there is a question about the translation in the orginial translation and the failure to take into account the changes in the English language and the use of words.

Leeza

[CJ]

Hi all,

There has been much discussion on the forum already about Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse 5. Taken out of context, the passage makes it look as though crossdressing is "an abomination unto the Lord." No, what was considered "an abomination unto the Lord" (and what the book of laws that is Deuteronomy sought to interdict) was the adoption by Hebrews of customs and practices alien to their own religious culture and heritage. A small, nomadic people/nation, the Hebrews often found themselves ensconced (often against their will) in larger nations with different (read: pagan) traditions. In order to vouchsafe their cultural identity and to prevent themselves from being submerged and assimilated into the culture of these host nations, the Jewish people codified the behaviour that would be acceptable or unacceptable to their deity.

Now, men dressing as women in order to honour various goddesses (Ashtoret / Ishtar comes to mind) was a common practice in the Eastern Mediterranean. Likewise, women taking up arms was not an uncommon thing in some nations. Neither of these practices were part of Jewish cultural identity and were therefore forbidden.

The phenomenon, by the way (i.e., men dressing as women for religious purposes), wasn't exclusive to Old Testament times. For example, in ancient Greece, the Gallai were men who castrated themselves, wore feminine clothing, and adopted female identities as a form of worship to the goddess Cybele (and, presumably, this is exactly the kind of practice the book of Deuteronomy sought to forbid). Even in our own day and age, you'll find the Hijra in South Asia, men who dress like, and who live their lives as, women as a way of worshipping, for example, Mohini (the god Krishna in his female form).

Verily, I say unto you, "there is nothing new under the sun." Just bring a nice bikini.

Love,
CJ

[BlonT]

Think the modern would be surprised how much we still act on instinct and how thin that layer of civilization is.
Second fact is what we eat ! all that improvement cant be good.
In africa there where long slender people ! some get shorter now.
Think the greatest problem is that :we: want to catalog everything.
In many civilizations its excepted that there are more genders,not to speak of psychological differences , as we all are mostly a product of the place we grow up.
And dont forget the worst curse in the western world tv and comercials !
Its has being tested that if you say ever time to a person he is crazy he start to believe it ! So we all believe we must be ,18, slim and rich etc. etc.

And in that rat race we forget to life and simply be happy .
my 2 ct.

[Carolynn]

Good post CJ.

Clearly explained. Translations upon translations have caused sooo much misunderstanding of what was at another time a clear cut cultural practice that has no relationship to who we are at this point in our history. Yet such simple misunderstandings can be used to cause misery and pain to millions who lack the ability to read and understand them in their original format, and lack enforcement power as well.

The Old Testament for example is based on Hebrew texts, translated, retranslated, and each time with word substitutions that seem to the translators to fit better, but which may reflect their own beliefs. Even the old Hebrew texts were those that were passed down from the Babalonian Captivity, where the scholars of the Hebrews were held captive, and during which they refined the texts that became the Torah that the Old Testament is based on, discarding entire books that were judged as not pleasing to the eye of G-d, and one of the reasons for the downfall of the Hebrews to the Babalonians. Such political wrangling!!!!

The New Testament was written in various languages, Latin, yes, but Greek and other languages as well, and "translated", with the attendant risks of putting the wrong words in the mouths of those who originated them, even to the point of subtley changing attitudes. And then the Papacy decided what would be included and what would not, and what translations were most "G-d inspired". And then big frogs in little ponds decide what passages are the "important" ones (James Dobson, Focus on Family, for example).

And then we have the deliberate skewing and "cherry picking" to suit the preconceptions or prejudices of those doing the skewing........ And not just in religious references. Historical "revisionism" with the aim of rehabilitating or "correcting" the image of people reviled or made larger than life heros because of historical events oftenun fairly, is an example. General Custer, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Nixon (still known by my genereation as "tricky Dicky"), Oliver North, for examples.

One man's hero is another man's tool, fool and/or despicable character. The victors write the history, most of the time. Revisionists try to change it. In religion, these are the originators of first "cults", then small religions, then larger ones as they find more adherents. Martin Luther and more recently Joseph Smith are examples of religious revisionists, sometimes not intending to actually be such. But history and events places them as such.

And so we stumble along.

Carolynn

[Paula G]

Thanks CJ for the correction and the expansion,

not only do I agree with your reading, but would add that A/ in all things I look for the Christian fundamental of love, i.e "where is the love in this" and B/ in my Bible on the same page Verse 11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together, Verse 12 make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear, Verse 20-21 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard" Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death...." I don't think we should accept critisism from anyone on the basis of verse 5 unless they are themselves obeying all the other instructions! and again I ask where is the love?

I had not meant to provoke a discussion on this, just to point out that there was nothing new in cross dressing, this just happened to be the literary evidence I was most familiar with (sorry about the miss reference)

[Henriette]

Thank you CJ, also for echoing in some way the way I have managed to work out that horrible verse.

At first it bothered me no end, and I did a lot of research and spoke to several bible scholars about the context of the first 5 books of the Bible, also known as the Torah to our jewish friends.

It was explained to me in almost exactly those words you used, that
1. The Hebrew nation (Israel) needed to keep their culture, religion and life pure in the face of massive threats to all those areas
2. At least a portion of those books are time specific, such as the use of tassels, not mixing types of cloth for garments. And don't forget the stoning and blood sacrifices.
3. But one "Scholar" actually brought up the crossdressing without being prompted, telling me about the various religions surrounding the nation of Israel where not only crossdressing formed part of their worship, but also temple prostitution and human sacrifice.

In my life I have had Deut. 22.5 thrown at me several times, once even by a therapist (and I left as fast as posssible) because it is easy to justify something from the Bible if it is taken out of context. I may be generalising, but mostly it is used by people where their preaching can not be reconciled to their own actions and words.

For me the far most important point is that our Creator sent His Son to die for me to save me, proving His love for me, and I hold on to that, rather than the smallminded bigotery that some people preach when trying to "convert" others to their narrow frame of mind.

I hope this helps another sister somewhere who may also be worrying about this.

[Absaroka]

I think the position of the church on all these revisions is that some time ago, a thousand years or so, when they were deciding what to include in todays Bible, they prayed to God and He revealed what to include, not include, and how to interpret or translate it. This is why so many feel the KJ version of the Bible is the "correct" one. Of course the Protestants and Catholics couldn't even agree on just how many books should be in the Bible, but they both agree that the other is wrong. I don't know what the Orthodox church believes about this.

One bone of contention is "thou shalt not kill" vs "thou shalt not commit murder" which leaves more room for interpretation. Likewise "thou shalt not steal" has had a wide range of interpretation as to what constitutes stealing.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is why discussing interpretation and translation with fundamentalists can be frustrating, since they may believe that God revealed the correct translation some centuries ago.

[DonnaT]

If someone tosses Deut. 22:5 at you, ask them what Deut. 22:1-4 and 6-8 mean to them. Then ask how verse 5 fits in with that teaching.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but this is why discussing interpretation and translation with fundamentalists can be frustrating, since they may believe that God revealed the correct translation some centuries ago.

But they can't explain why He hasn't revealed more these days, considering the various bible versions now in existence.

I've discussed the translation of Deut. 22:5 here and 3 posts down back in 2007.