Print

Print


Obviously we disagree.
P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: a Jeremiah ...?


> Eliot is a dead poet and a topic of debate and study, not a participant
> in the debate.
>
> Gender does not mean sex, and its separate meaning is one of those that
> has become quite distinct in usage.  It is not a euphemism for sex,
> which does not need a euphemism anyway, as in academic terms it refers
> to biological difference as distinguished from social roles.  Read any
> current or recent texts on gender.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/15/07 12:33 AM >>>
> From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > First, you have reverted to ad feminem remarks instead of any debate.
> I
> > think that destroys any possible useful discussion.
> > given to what you call "cant."
> >
> > I thought this list tried to stop being snide and actually have
> > discussions.
> ===============================================
> You must be overlooking the ad personam attacks on Eliot,
> which, not connected to any of his work, amounted simply to
> a crude attempt at character assassination.
>
> Gender as popularly used now is primarily a euphemism for
> the word sex.
>
> P.
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 - Release Date: 7/16/2007
5:42 PM
>
>