Guest guest Posted April 17, 1999 Report Share Posted April 17, 1999 At 9:17 -0800 4/17/99, WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote: >[Text 2242677 from COM] > >On 17 Apr 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote: > >> You have funny conceptions of what is a woman. What makes someone >> a woman? Ovaries and menstrual cycles, you say. What about those women >> who had their ovaries surgically removed due to cancer, are they not >> women anymore? What about those women who are older and do not >> have a menstrual cycle anymore? Are they not women? >> Please define what is a women. > > >They were BORN with those. Now we're threading on thin ice (besides getting side tracked). There are definitely women born without all their internal organs and women who never ovulate or have periods. But I think the larger issue is our preoccupation with wanting to classify all human beings into either men or women. Just like with the distributions of most other human characteristics, this is not a clean bi-modal distribution. People do fall in between male and female for various reasons, including anatomical, hormonal, and psychological ones. So do we focus on how "weird" these people are or simply accept that they are simply here? If it wasn't for our society's preoccupation with "male" vs "female" , maybe it would be easier for those "in between" to function just the way they are. But since that's not the case, who can blame them for wanting to correct this statistical anomaly, both to faciliate their living in our general society and serving in the society of devotees? That decision really is not dissimilar to someone correcting a club foot so that s/he can get around more easily and work/serve better in general. Why this hang-up about genitals? They're just another organ (although I'm well aware from the college classes I teach on human sexuality that most men cross their legs and wince when the topic of castration is brought up). As we've seen (see his letter to Jennifer), the decision whether a devotee wanted to be male or female didn't even seem to matter to Prabhupada. He just wanted the person to decide once and for all and then get on with the business of chanting Hare Krsna. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 1999 Report Share Posted April 17, 1999 > As we've seen (see his letter to > Jennifer), the decision whether a devotee wanted to be male or female > didn't even seem to matter to Prabhupada. He just wanted the person to > > decide once and for all and then get on with the business of chanting > Hare > Krsna. > > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi Letter to: Jennifer Wayne Woodward -- Honolulu 10 June, 1975 75-06-10 Jennifer Wayne Woodward 3081 16th St. #201 San Francisco, CA. 94103 My dear Jennifer, Please accept my greetings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated June 6, 1975 and have noted the contents. First of all, you decide whether you are female or male, then be one or the other. Then, you may enter our temple any time you like. But sometimes man and sometimes woman, that is not proper. Such awkward thing cannot be allowed. It will be disturbing to others. Anyway, continue to chant Hare Krishna as much as possible. I hope this meets you in good health. Your ever well-wisher, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami ACBS/ps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.