As the title indicates these are notes—for a combination journalistic reportage and academic paper on the subject of sex. We are in the midst of an historic verbal succession and it becomes paramount to consider “gender” transfers, organ enhancement, vaginal discourses, childhood confusion and instruction—plus other shifts. Words play a big part in this. The academic paper will suggest examples of verbal transitions. One such is the phase-out of phrases like the “opposite sex.” This term appeared in scare quotes in the 1850s, in a novel—Charlotte Brontë’s Villette.
Today “opposite sex” also appears in scare quotes. During the interval between the 1850s and today its use was normalized and quotation marks were unnecessary—until now. Aside from being an action engendering offspring, another word than gender, “sex,” was once a word describing which subset of the species pertained to an individual—depending on its anatomy at birth.
We are born with appendages. We did not, while in the womb, invent or even imagine these. As with the historic shift in the word “gay” — “gender,” initially a grammatical construction or classification, now means sex. All is changing as we evolve our own beings through word use, technology, genetic encoding, socio-psychological counseling—and a healthy, required dose of imagination, indoctrination, and CoolGo tracking. This is but a part of the evolutionary and cultural transition to be covered in the proposed academic essay. [Insert note that the technical term for penis enhancement is “outie” enhancement. Vaginal transitions are technically “innie.”]
In our cultural transition, many are asking: Was God imagining incorrectly while creating, or merely making concrete a well-imagined abstraction—encoded in what (at the time of its writing) were considered poetic words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” At that moment of creation, these romantic-seeming instructions came with equipment and hormones to carry out this directive, the very first commandment after “Let there be light!”. Yes, all this came before the Ten Commandments. If you’re, er, male thinking about sex 4-5 times an hour, there’s no command in Scripture so simple, easy and natural to carry out.
Does free will even figure into this? But God, whether intellectual of not, has a mind of God’s own. Or would that be His own? Or—recalling that we are made in God's image—Her own? Maybe Its? We may be confused on this point; requiring instructive indoctrination. It is doubly difficult working through abstractions involved in understanding gender transfers. Let us first define gender transfers.
What is the transgender? In root words, it is related to transmute or transport. In our current evolutionary/ cultural transition bathrooms required new plumbing—we had an intellectual president of the United States, one who had wisely discerned that his position authorized him to imagine and reinterpret U.S. law without the aid of Congress.
Congress’s authorized method is to encode laws via particular words into multi-thousand-page documents, including pork. Here is a highly compressed abbreviated example from 1972: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” At that time we had no inkling that urination [technical term “tinkling”] even required an education.
chinese infrastructure
Sex was considered part of God’s extrapolated atomic, subatomic, microbial and cellular biology requiring little if any thought on our part. The learning process, however, did necessitate a human to exercise growing control over this educational process. No charter schooling was necessary. But this was before the intellectual president exercised executive fiat over restrooms and took hold of this process. Dense and complicated biological urges, the national and state laws about tinkling had been based on the common sense of the common person, or on the desires of voters—often requiring a state referendum.
My editor shared intellectual activities he’d be working on while I was writing notes for my proposed academic essay on sex. I was reminded of some published statistics from the 1990s on the number of times each day, er, men think about sex. Compiled in during an administration when a brainy U.S. president was purportedly not having sex in an oval office passageway, one timely statistical analysis revealed something on the order of 60 times per day, topping out at 0.4 times per hour. But, contrary to that study, that particular 1990s intellectual president was purportedly thinking moment-by-moment about sex while dealing with deficit reduction, welfare reform, the North American Free Trade Agreement, genocide interventionism, and many other pressing national and international presidential priorities. How much this may have helped or hindered him in the 1990s oval office has not yet been studied/ determined.
The Chinese may be in a better position to work on this particular problem for us. They have guidelines in place for technological medical curating of embryos through DNA shuffling. For instance, if the aim is increasing a child’s ability to get ahead in business, you may want your offspring to be a social drinker without tipping over into alcoholism; there are ways to enhance the encoding of that child’s DNA to accomplish this.
Or, if you don’t want your child to be confused about whether it is male or female, you can order encoding to specify clarity on this currently popular issue. Given all this, I’m suggesting that there may be, among the multitudinous variations in codes for human beings, a way to increase or decrease the amount of times, etc., men may think about sex in one day. Or, perhaps, limiting or expanding during waking or sleeping hours, depending. However, you may want your “male” child to be thinking about sex while asleep as well, so it’s apparent these Chinese gene-splicing procedures will bring up alternative codes.
If you’ve decided your male child will be in infrastructure-building, say, making container ships, you may want to increase his libidinous proclivities to include constant sex-thinking while welding or crane operation during construction. Either one of our former intellectual presidents may be in a position to donate DNA for these individuals. That way builders will be able better to enjoy their work.
But sitting at desks, clicking away, is perhaps where work and sex easily coordinate. Internet clicking is where sex is best degraded about several million times a moment.
(Are errant men the only object for satire?)
Walking with protection on the way to the bathroom