Perhaps. But it still shows that they recognized it was not as rigid as people even try to make it today within some camps of people.
That’s even with just the bare minimum scientific method of looking with eyeballs. We now have a wide range of things like chromosomes, natural hormone levels and so on that shows that even biologically speaking it’s more so gray.
However, I was not really setting up for a discussion. Just showing a quote and where it came from and answered a question about resources for the gender issues where some people, whose sex they could not determine would be assigned a gender.
Now that we have science that has explored this even further we see rabbis taking this new data into consideration and have expanded even further. This is just highlighting assigned gender existed when sex was undetermined based off of just looking at genitalia. If 2,000 years ago they had the technology we do now they would have mostly expanded much further into this issue, like they are now.
“The Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose.”.–C S Lewis
Embracing rigid literalism is lethal to reason, critical thinking, and the basic intellectual curiosity that’s necessary for interpreting scripture - which is why religious authoritarians have always liked it. Real faith is not afraid of reason, and it can be enriched by engaging with the scripture thoughtfully and critically.
-John Fugelsang in “Separation of Church and Hate”
He cast his net into the sea of stars, But found no hand to pull him in. The laws were lovely, but they did not love. So he built a raft of metaphor, And called it God, And clung to it, Until the silence sang.
“When words bring you closer to the prisoner in his cell, to the patient who is dying on his bed alone, to the starving child, then it’s a prayer.”
Elie Wiesel, the beloved writer known for his memoir of the Holocaust, “Night,” speaks of the power of prayer and forgiveness in the wake of profound suffering.
In social commentary and especially comedy, the phrases
“punching up” and “punching down” refer to the power dynamic between the person making a joke or criticism and its target.
Punching Up
Definition: Punching up means targeting jokes or criticism at individuals or groups who have more power, privilege, or social status than the person speaking.
Purpose: This is generally seen as a legitimate form of social commentary or satire, intended to challenge the status quo, hold powerful people/institutions accountable, or advocate for systemic change. It is often perceived as a “David and Goliath” scenario where the underdog uses humor as a form of non-violent resistance or self-defense against a perceived bully or oppressor.
Examples: A working-class person making fun of corrupt politicians, or a person of color making a joke about systemic racism.
Punching Down
Definition: Punching down involves making jokes or criticisms at the expense of marginalized groups or individuals who have less power, privilege, or social status than the person speaking.
Perception: This is widely frowned upon and is often seen as bullying or an abuse of power. Such jokes can reinforce harmful stereotypes, prejudices, and existing power imbalances, contributing to discrimination and exclusion.
Examples: A wealthy, white, straight male comedian making jokes that mock the identity of a person with disabilities, a specific racial minority group, or the LGBTQ+ community in a way that reinforces negative stereotypes.
Context
The distinction between “punching up” and “punching down” relies heavily on the context, the power dynamics between the speaker/critic and the target, and the content of the remark itself. While most agree on the core definitions, there are ongoing debates, especially within comedy circles, about who gets to define the direction of a joke’s “punch” and whether this framework should limit artistic expression.
“Each one of us here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing to help, Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don’t know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them - we can love completely without complete understanding.”
― Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It and Other Stories
