>C.S. Lewis spends a paragraph describing the difference between sex and genderThis threw me for a loop. Would C.S. Lewis be an "gender expression" apologist today?
>>23316583The fact that the idea of a transcendental, non-physical element of sex difference is a complete anathema to half-baked Internet reactionaries is both hilarious and bizarre. You've pained yourself into a corner with retards and bug men with your dumbass arguments.
>>23316583Not really C.S Lewis does not describe the distinction between sex and gender but Male-Female as principles of cosmic reality that imbue everything in a way and man-woman as it exists particularly in human biology in particular Now, Lewis would understand that both men and women participate in both masculine and feminine elements of what a modern academic would call the "gendered architecture of reality" but in their ultimate expression, men become masculine in a special sense and women feminine (though this is always restrained by Lewis' capacity for common sense) as seen for instance at the end of Perelandra
>>23316583I don't think so. I personally think there are ontological implications to each gender. Meaning that there is something about a woman, for example, just beyond the chromosomes or the way they dress that makes them a woman. No matter how irreversible a man makes himself to seem like a woman he will unironically never be a woman. He will never think like them, truly act like them, see the world like them, etc.I don't think CS Lewis is making a claim like the woke mob do but it's much more interesting and actually something I agree with.
>>23316583No. He's not talking about gender in the sense of non-binary retards. He's talking about expressions of the Masculine or the Feminine that are beyond biological sex considerations. Those two things are unrelated, even though I can see how it may seem like they are related.
>>23316583>Imaginary idea is more real than physical reality It’s literally the reverse, ideas exist in the realm of potentiality, matter is old and solidified and therefore more enduring, harder to get around and hence more real. Gender is more real than sex is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
>>23316677>matter is old and solidified and therefore more enduring, harder to get around and hence more realAnd metaphysics and the spiritual isn't, dipshit? Matter seems more "enduring" because were confined to it, obviously. The idea of someone (e.g. Jesus Christ or Caesar Augustus) is far more enduring than whatever time they had on Earth.
>>23316583This is just platonism desu
>>23316583I think what he is saying here is that gender is the expression of the sex. So male and female sex are concrete and black and white. But the expression of sex is more grey: a man can express himself in ways that are traditionally 'feminine', and a woman express herself in ways that are traditionally 'masculine', and that this expression also shows itself in nature. But it's basis still relates back to the sex.If Lewis were to write extensively on the topic in an essay or something, like he's done with several topics included in his book Christian Reflections, he would argue that your sex is concrete: you simply are a male or female. But you can express yourself in any number of ways the sexes can. But that can only be possible first by accepting whatever sex you were born as, and it can't be chosen as a replacement of sex. Male or female is what you "are", gender is an idea that is representative of it. And he'd probably provide several examples, seeing that Lewis is great at making distinctions. What he would not support is modern gender dysphoria where you can pick essentially what 'sex' you are because you feel it's your 'gender'. Generally speaking, the terms sex an gender have become conflated when they are not even remotely the same thing.
english is insane to have separate words for it.
>>23317114French and Spanish also have separate words for this two terms. Which language doesn't?
>>23316583If gendered nouns are a reflection of the transcendent reality of gender, wouldn't you expect unrelated languages to broadly agree on which things should be named with masculine or feminine words? My understanding is they don't, it's just kinda random. For instance he picks a mountain as an example of something masculine, but mountain in Spanish (montaña) is feminine.
>>23317183Norwegian at least.
