100+ Genders?

[Deb]

I've been reading Early Sessions 1 and gender has come up several times already. With gender being so much in the news lately, I wonder what Seth would say about the "100+" genders that we supposedly recognize today? Seth has said over and over again that in entities, F2 and other systems there IS no gender—it seems unique to our plane. Humans, or at least the media and psychologists, continue to separate and label people with more and more genders. Will humanity eventually get to the point where there are SO many genders that people will become bored with the topic and it no longer is an issue? If there truly is no gender in reality, why do you suppose it is SO important to humans? Seth's sentence in the last quote below, "If you wanted to focus upon the differences in their behavior, you could build an entire culture based upon their diverse capabilities, functions and characteristics" may be a clue.

From The Nature of the Psyche, Session 765:

"Physically speaking, you would have no males or females unless first you had individuals. You are each individuals first of all, then. After this, you are individuals of a specific sex, biologically speaking."

From ES1:

Session 4: Sex has meaning in those terms only on your plane.

Session 7: ("Is Ruburt a male or female entity?")
Male now learning gentleness. Must realize though that whole entities are neither male nor female in your terms.

Session 11: An excess of male lives will turn a personality sour in a feminine manner, without the inner understanding and compassion that is usually associated with the female sex. In like manner consistent female personalities will turn harsh without the inner strength usually associated with the male sex. For this reason most entities live lives as male and female.

Session 12: Loren was 3 times a man. The overall impression of the 3 existing personalities is nevertheless female, for the reasons that I have explained. Sex, regardless of all your fleshy tales, is a psychic phenomenon, merely certain qualities which you called male and female. The qualities however are real, and permeate other planes as well as your own. They are opposites which are nevertheless complementary and which merge into one. When I say as I have that the overall entity is neither male or female, and yet refer to various entities such as Joseph and Ruburt, which are definitely male names, I merely mean that in the overall essence the entity refers or identifies itself more with male characteristics, or so-called male characteristics, than with the female.

The seeming dominance of the male in earthkind is merely because the aggressiveness of male personalities makes itself known quicker, and often with a vehemence. The basis however is very strongly female, since without the giving quality the aggressiveness would be but a stationary closed fist, incapable of motion and incapable of unfolding into other lives, as it must. The aggressiveness is a thrust for life and action against inertia, but without the acquiescence of the female quality, life would not open.

From NotP, Session 765:  Physically speaking, you would have no males or females unless first you had individuals. You are each individuals first of all, then. After this, you are individuals of a specific sex, biologically speaking. The particular kind of focus that you have is responsible for the great significance you place upon male and female. Your hand and your foot have different functions. If you wanted to focus upon the differences in their behavior, you could build an entire culture based upon their diverse capabilities, functions and characteristics. Hands and feet are obviously equipment belonging to both sexes, however. Still, on another level the analogy is quite valid.

The psyche is male and female, female and male; but when I say this I realize that you put your own definitions upon those terms to begin with.

(Pause at 9:38.) Biologically, the sexual orientation is the method chosen for continuation of the species. Otherwise, however, no specific psychological characteristics of any kind are attached to that biological functioning. I am quite aware that in your experience definite physical and psychological differences do exist. Those that do are the result of programming, and are not inherent — even biologically — in the species itself.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

In your post above you asked the question, "If there truly is no gender in reality, why do you suppose it is SO important to humans? "

The answer, I believe, mostly has to do with peoples religious beliefs. The right wing fundamentalist groups often express a lot of negativity and hatred in regards to homosexuality and gender related issues.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I realize that sexual intolerance came along with the rise of Christianity, but why/how did the Christians develop their beliefs on gender? The ancient Romans and the Greeks were pretty much "anything goes" societies, and Christianity began during those times.

It seems Christianity's predecessor, Judaism, "started it" and as typical, Christianity/Fundamental Christians ran with it.

"The subject of homosexuality and Judaism dates back to the Torah. The book of Vayikra (Leviticus) is traditionally regarded as classifying sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment by the currently non-existent Sanhedrin under halakha (Jewish law)."

.וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה — תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. מוֹת יוּמָתוּ; דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
- Lev. 20:13

But 100+ genders, when Seth says realistically there are none? I think hate crimes are based in fear—I suppose there's some comfort in conformity. Maybe non-conformity is feared as chaos. Threatening.

I've pulled out my copy of The Nature of the Psyche. I'll read Chapter 4 (the he/she she/he chapter) and update if I find any nuggets.

[inavalan]

This reminds of a paragraph I recently read, from another author,  that is actually a Seth adept:

When I was younger, I used to wonder why there was so much disagreement in the world about everything. How did we wind up with so many different interpretations of reality? Why do people believe their beliefs so strongly? Why is everyone so stubborn about his or her point of view? Only later did I realize that people are stubborn about their viewpoints because their experience always gives them evidence to back up whatever they believe. Until people make the connection between their ideas and the events in their lives, they will be missing a crucial point. Just because they have physical evidence to support their ideas does not mean that their way of looking at things is the way things really are or are meant to be.

Surely there aren't 100+ genders ... People just misuse and redefine words to suit their agendas, be they right, left, center, up, down, or whatever. Are there 100+ directions ... ? 

[Deb]

Great quote, thanks for that. "...their experience always gives them evidence to back up whatever they believe" is so true! What we see as evidence is what we have created due to our beliefs and expectations.

Surely there aren't 100+ genders ... People just misuse and redefine words to suit their agendas, be they right, left, center, up, down, or whatever. Are there 100+ directions ... ?

Well with unlimited probabilities and multi-dimensions, I suppose everything is unlimited. But I agree, it seems everyone has an agenda these days.

The BBC has been in the news for a series of videos aimed at 9-11 year olds, teaching there are 100+ "genders" that sound to me more like preferences or identities. Even Facebook only offers 56 gender options for member profiles, lol. I once had a man tell me he was a lesbian trapped in a man's body. I'm still puzzling over that.

According to an article by Planned Parenthood, biologically there are three sexes, male, female and some variation of them. "Assigned sex is a label that you're given at birth based on medical factors, including your hormones, chromosomes, and genitals. Most people are assigned male or female, and this is what's put on their birth certificates. When someone's sexual and reproductive anatomy doesn't seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male, they may be described as intersex."

But now Gender: "Gender is much more complex: It's a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts. Each culture has standards about the way that people should behave based on their gender. This is also generally male or female. But instead of being about body parts, it's more about how you're expected to act, because of your sex. Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It's a feeling that begins very early in life."

I've read some of Chapter 4 in NotP, which is all about sex and gender. Seth goes into detail about how except for a few physical differences due to the way we reproduce, we are by nature bisexual and there really are no natural gender character differences — they have been manufactured and magnified by our cultures and religions. Sexual stereotypes.

"During what is called the sexually active time; the larger dimensions of personhood become strictly narrowed into sexually stereotyped roles — and all aspects of identity that do not fit are ignored or denied. The fact is that few people fit those rules. They are largely the result of the interpretations of religion as conventionally understood."

What I've wondered about this whole unlimited gender movement is, is it a mass event protesting stereotyping, labeling and divisiveness (in this case, sexual) on humanity's slow boat to spiritual growth? Or is it just the latest fashion?

It's not a burning issue for me, I was just curious because it seems it's always in the news. I wondered what Seth would say about all of this since, he has said multiple times that while there are no sexes or gender in the big picture, they are a chosen convention of this (our) reality. But like a lot of things, we've managed to distort the original intent.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

I agree.  Not only does this issue with homosexuality show up in later "Christian" writings, but it also had a basis derived from earlier Jewish scripture.

From what I understand, from the readings of various historical scholars, the issue of homosexuality shows up mainly in four places in the Bible. Three of these comes from the Jewish Bible or the Old Testament and one comes from the New Testament.

Genesis 19: 1-19
(The story of the men of Sodom who wanted to "know" the 3 visitors of Lot.)

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1: 26 – 27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."



The Nature of the Psyche, has some great information on this topic of gender.  It's one of my favorite Seth books (Hah!   they're all one of my favorite Seth books).

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Thanks for starting this topic Deb. This is very interesting.

Before today, I didn't realize what this "over 100 genders" issue was all about. I don't always catch all of the latest news that's going on.  Apparently, a BBC film that is being shown in schools, is teaching children that there are over 100 different gender identities.


Here's an article from "The Washington Times" that talks about this.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/13/bbc-teaches-kids-there-are-over-100-gender-identit/



Here's an article from "The Sun" that contains the video produced by the BBC that shows educators talking to children about this topic.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9886252/bbc-schools-children-100-genders/



And finally here's a website I found that contains an ongoing list of gender identities. There are in fact quite a few of them listed here.

https://genderfluidsupport.tumblr.com/gender


-jbseth

[Deb]

Hey jbseth, that's the same link to The Sun article that I put up! I haven't yet actually watched the video. I did take a quick look at the link to the list of genders and I have to wonder why these are considered genders. I've only identified as a female in this life, but have given myself leeway to do things that are typically not considered feminine (for instance I'm no strange to power tools). But now I'm thinking all of us Sethies are instead Abimegender: a gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox. :-)

I'll post more tomorrow, I just had to chime in right now. I've read Chapter 4 and most of Chapter 5 in the Nature of the Psyche, and I'm really enjoying them. Loads of information that makes a lot of sense.

It's one of my favorite Seth books (Hah!  they're all one of my favorite Seth books).

I totally get that, lol. Whatever book I'm reading at the time is my favorite.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi All,

Today, I too reviewed "The Nature of the Psyche", Chapters 4 and 5. There's a lot of great information in this book.

In his book, "The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 765, Seth says:

The psyche is male and female, female and male; but when I say this I realize that you put your own definitions upon those terms to begin with.

(Pause at 9:38.) Biologically, the sexual orientation is the method chosen for continuation of the species. Otherwise, however, no specific psychological characteristics of any kind are attached to that biological functioning. I am quite aware that in your experience definite physical and psychological differences do exist. Those that do are the result of programming, and are not inherent — even biologically — in the species itself.

Given this, I'm wonder if these various gender identities are just our latest way of culturally labelling various human "behaviors / personality traits".  Such as how some people consider passive and intuitive traits as "female" traits and aggressive and logical traits as "male" traits.

I have no idea whether this gender movement is a mass event protesting stereotyping, labeling and divisiveness (in this case, sexual) on humanity's slow boat to spiritual growth, or if it's just the latest fashion?  I'd say, time will tell.

- jbseth

[inavalan]

In his book, "The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 765, Seth says:

The psyche is male and female, female and male; but when I say this I realize that you put your own definitions upon those terms to begin with.

(Pause at 9:38.) Biologically, the sexual orientation is the method chosen for continuation of the species. Otherwise, however, no specific psychological characteristics of any kind are attached to that biological functioning. I am quite aware that in your experience definite physical and psychological differences do exist. Those that do are the result of programming, and are not inherent — even biologically — in the species itself.

Thanks JB, great quote!

As usually, Seth makes a lot of (common) sense. We, humans, sometimes not so much. On one hand we want all to be treated equally, on the other, we emphasize the differences among us.

Humanity's progress would've been much slower without division and specialization in work, activity, responsibility . On one hand that led to the development of different abilities in people, on the other, different abilities fed specialization.

Society's development led to the apparition of new human abilities, but at the same time some original abilities atrophied; both physical and psychological abilities.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" ... Unfortunately nobody can skip this initial phase in their quest for real knowledge, and undesired consequences happen.

That must've happened to Adam & Eve when they bit from the fruits of the tree of knowledge (started to develop an intellect), so they lost their contact with Heaven (deliberate projection into non-physical).

[jbseth]

Hi inavalan, Hi All,

I'm not really sure where this concept of, for example, aggression and logic are "male" traits, while passive and emotion are "female" traits.  As if it's somehow natural, and almost instinctual, that both males and females follow these specific traits.

The way I see it, this then plays directly into these "gender" identities. What is a "female" after all, and what is a "male".


Personally, I think that the idea behind these "traits" may have been heavily influenced by the male dominated religions. More specifically, by the religions that expressed the idea that there was one God and furthermore, this one God was male.

In some of these cultures, the male God, set down the rules that he expected his people to follow. These rules described both men's and women's places in that society. The men were the priests and the warriors for example, and the women were not.

Thus, it was men, who adapted warrior traits like aggression, and as a result of this, aggression became a "male" trait.

Now, given that many humans tend to view things in a very dualistic nature (good and bad, up and down, black and white, men and women) those traits that weren't male traits, became the "female" traits.

This then, may have been, where we came up with these ideas of male and female traits, but I'm not absolutely sure.

-jbseth

[Deb]

I've been thinking about when/where male/female ("MF") role stereotyping originated. And also wonder why people stereotype at all. I haven't spent hours researching, but did go through all the results on the Seth Search Engine on the word stereotype. I didn't learn anything about origins from Seth. Maybe I'll stumble upon it in future reading.

I did find a paper that said we stereotype because then we don't have to think, we tend to generalize. And we are creatures of habit. I imagine that's the mind trying to process information as efficiently as possible. I first learned of this when I read Steve Krug's "Don't Make me Think" which is a book about website design and usability. People expect web pages to have a certain order to them, and if you get creative they get confused and frustrated and would rather jump ship than take the time to figure things out.

I did some searching for the origins of MF stereotyping. I know religions played a huge part in it. And when things have been passed down for a couple of millennia they can accepted as fact, no questions. Thinking back to Pagan and Egyptian religions, what little I know about them, they seemed more balanced. They had female gods and rulers alongside male ones. I don't know if that trickled down to the general public and their roles in family life. I'll have to look into that.

One paper I came across felt the segregation of MF roles came about when agricultural technology went from shifting (hand-held tools) to ploughs which require significant upper-body strength, etc. Ploughs are also less compatible with childcare.

"As a result, men in societies characterized by plough agriculture tended to specialize in agricultural work outside the home, while women specialized in activities within the home. In turn, this division of labor generated a norm that the natural place for women is in the home. This belief tends to persist even if the economy moves out of agriculture, affecting the participation of women in activities performed outside the home, including market employment, entrepreneurship, and politics."  http://ftp.iza.org/dp10931.pdf

Well, then that made me curious about when the ploughs came into use. Apparently about 4000 years ago.

"These primitive ploughs were pulled by oxen, camels or even elephants and in some instances even their women folk were used." http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-plough

Yikes, women were used to pull ploughs?

Getting back to Seth's Nature of the Psyche, he goes into details in Session 765 about MF roles in the caveman days.

"The family of the caveman was a far more "democratic" group than you suppose — men and women working side by side, children learning to hunt with both parents, women stopping to nurse a child along the way, the species standing apart from others because it was not ritualized in sexual behavior."

I'm not really sure where this concept of, for example, aggression and logic are "male" traits, while passive and emotion are "female" traits.  As if it's somehow natural, and almost instinctual, that both males and females follow these specific traits.

@jbseth, here's a huge quote from NofP that  gives some clues. I'm putting it in a "spoiler" box because of its length. It was too good to whittle down to just a few sentences. I know you've read the book, so this will sound familiar. Some of this was probably already quoted above.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

[LarryH]

I think there is some logic to how current gender stereotypes originated. Pregnancy and nursing limited the types of activities that women could do. Differences in upper body strength made it more logical in early times for men to hunt and fight, leaving women to tend to young children and other tasks that could be done close to home. Power to make the rules probably naturally fell to the gender with the greatest average physical strength. Given these facts, it's amazing that any early civilizations viewed the genders as equal. The book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus explored the subtle differences between how men and women (typically) process emotion and make decisions without claiming that one is better than the other. It acknowledged that there are differences while also acknowledging that those differences are not hard and fasts rules, but just average tendencies. A danger is in stereotyping, which might pressure one to behave in a certain unnatural way based on expectation. With two daughters, I applaud that there are more female superheros and strong women in movies, more women running for office, efforts to make pay more equal, and more women in professions that were almost exclusively made up of men. By the way, my older daughter recognized and met the founder of the MeToo movement yesterday in an airport.

[jbseth]

Hi Deb, Hi Larry, Hi All,

Given that in NotP, Seth says the following:

"The family of the caveman was a far more "democratic" group than you suppose — men and women working side by side, children learning to hunt with both parents, women stopping to nurse a child along the way, the species standing apart from others because it was not ritualized in sexual behavior."

I take it that people must have started believing in these different male and female traits sometime after the caveman period.


Deb I think your comments about how these beliefs may have come about via the development of agriculture and the plow, may have a lot of merit. I'm not sure how this played into the Pagan and Egyptian cultures, which were also agricultural to some degree, but I agree with what you said, that many of these cultures seemed to be more balanced.

And yes, I definitely agree, Yikes to men using women to pull the plow. 

Thanks too Deb for your large quote from NotP, regarding Seth on Male / Female. I love the part about Einstein.


Hi Larry, regarding the book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, I wonder how many men and women actually process their emotions and make decisions, the way they do because, they "believe", for example, that it is a characteristic of women to be emotional and men to be logical?

That's awesome, that your daughter recognized and met the founder of the MeToo movement.  I'm very much behind their cause. Was that Tarana Burke?


-jbseth

[LarryH]

Was that Tarana Burke?

I assume so, though daughter didn't mention her name.

Gender stereotypes contribute to biases that can limit the potential of any person. I think the Venus/Mars book was useful in helping people to understand and appreciate different ways of thinking. Grey wrote of actual differences that go beyond socially applied gender roles. His books are not to be viewed as stereotyping, though people who have not read them sometimes are offended by their supposition that a man is pigeonholing the genders. Nobody says that all men are physically stronger than all women, and nobody should presume that inclinations toward different ways of thinking and processing emotions are limited by what is between their legs.

[inavalan]

Yikes to men using women to pull the plow

Do you think that men should've pulled the plow, while women push it in the ground? Or, you meant that only men should've been involved in maneuvering plows?

On a tangential thought about this gender discussion I went and read Chapter 15 from EVS:
"REINCARNATIONAL CIVILIZATIONS, PROBABILITIES, AND MORE ON THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL GOD"

I found the information about the non-violent Lumanian civilization very interesting.

[jbseth]

Hi inavalan,

Unfortunately, there are some places in the world today that are male dominated societies. Places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even India come to mind. 

In some of these places, sadly the men would have no problem with making a small woman pull the plow, while her much bigger husband, steers it. That was what my yikes was all about.

-jbseth

[inavalan]

Hi inavalan,

Unfortunately, there are some places in the world today that are male dominated societies. Places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even India come to mind. 

In some of these places, sadly the men would have no problem with making a small woman pull the plow, while her much bigger husband, steers it. That was what my yikes was all about.

-jbseth

I don't intend to argue. It is just when you write "men ..." is sexist, and you probably don't realize it. If we all agree that "men" shouldn't be sexist, so the other 100+ genders should. As a man, I feel offended,  and discriminated when I read "men ...".

My question about plowing was a valid question. It wasn't an argument, as you seemed to have perceived it. I was curious how do you think the primitive people should've done plowing: who, what, why.

Anyway, I found Seth's talk about Lumanians very interesting, for what he says about aggression, non-violence, and also about the "Ancient Aliens" like story that "gods" (Lumanians) had sex and procreated with primitive women, when the Lumanian civilization was fading away.

[Deb]

I don't intend to argue. It is just when you write "men ..." is sexist, and you probably don't realize it. If we all agree that "men" shouldn't be sexist, so the other 100+ genders should. As a man, I feel offended,  and discriminated when I read "men ...".

Huh, thanks for pointing that out inavalan. I didn't take what jbseth wrote as being sexist, the ploughman's website I took the quote from a few posts above inferred men were steering the ploughs while they were pulled by animals or in some cases women. It seemed degrading when I first read the web page, for obvious reasons, but in retrospect, I suppose if there were no animals available I can imagine family and neighbors (men, women and children included) pitching in to pull the plough, assuming whoever had greater upper body strength would do the steering. I'm hoping the people who wrote that women pulled the ploughs got their information from some reliable source (petroglyphs?):

"These primitive ploughs were pulled by oxen, camels or even elephants and in some instances even their women folk were used."

On a lighter note, I found an article on 9 Ancient Sumerian Inventions That Changed the World—the plow/plough is one of them.https://www.history.com/news/sumerians-inventions-mesopotamia#section_5

Anyway, I found Seth's talk about Lumanians very interesting,

I did too. What was also interesting to me was that they were so anti-aggression that it was detrimental to the civilization and that in a way that still affects our own psychic environment. And this:

"As the various qualities of the Lumanians are still present in your psychic atmosphere, as their cities still coexist in land areas now called your own, so other probable identities coexist with the identities you now call your own. In the following chapter we will discuss you and your probable selves."
—SS Chapter 15: Session 565, February 1, 1971

Gender stereotypes contribute to biases that can limit the potential of any person. I think the Venus/Mars book was useful in helping people to understand and appreciate different ways of thinking. Grey wrote of actual differences that go beyond socially applied gender roles.

Grey does demonstrate that men and women think differently because of their sex? Structural differences in the brain? Is that due to hormones? This brings up a whole new bunch of questions for me.

Venus/Mars is a book I've heard about for many years, but I've never actually read it.

[inavalan]

From EVT, Chapter 15:

More and more of them realized that the experiment was not a success. Some, after physical death, left to join those from the previous successful civilization, who had migrated to other planetary systems within the physical structure.

When souls realized that the Lumanian civilization was going nowhere (restrictive because of its lack of aggression that was causing energy blockages), they abandoned it in spite of being technologically advanced (more advanced than we are today), and decided to reincarnate in other parts of the Universe.

Interesting ... !

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In regards to my statements about women pulling plows, perhaps I should clarify my comments.

For clarity purposes, I'm working under the assumption that it is actually harder to pull the plow than to steer it. This however, may not, in fact, be true.

While I've never pulled a plow or steered one, I have had the experience of helping family members out by using a gasoline powered rototiller to till up a garden on two separate occasions during my life. As a result of this experience, I can categorically state for a fact that this was an extremely difficult work intensive experience.

Assuming that it's harder to pull the plow than to steer it, I'm also working on an assumption that if you only have two people, a man and a women, such as a husband and his wife, to do this work, then it would make more sense to me, for the typically bigger and stronger husband to pull the plow and for the typically smaller wife to steer it.

If however, the wife was bigger and stronger than her husband, then obviously, she and not he, should be pulling the plow.

Then I asked myself, why would a women ever be found pulling a plow?

In truth, there are probably many scenarios where this might occur. At a time of war for example where many of the men are off in the front lines, and where horses, mules and oxen for example, are in short supply, the women of the community may end up pulling the plows in support of growing the crops.



As a man who regularly pays attention to the news in the world today, I'm also not blind to the amount of sexism that appears to occur.

I've heard stories of women in Iran, who were to be executed for not following the countries religious laws. However since these women were virgins, they could not be executed. As a result of this, they were intentionally raped while still in prison beforehand so that they could be executed. That to me is sexism.

I've heard stories of mass rapes in India and of female babies being killed at birth in India because males are deemed to be more important. That to me is sexism.


In more recent times, here in the US, we hear in the news about Bill Cosby, who was convicted and sent to prison for apparently drugging and date raping who knows how many women over the years. There's also the Harvey Weinstein thing, the NXIVM cult thing and the fact that the present, President of the US seems to feel that he's entitled to grab women by the crotch. These are just some more examples of sexism.

Given the amount of sexism that seems to occur in the world, I would not be surprised to discover that in some societies, the man makes his wife pull the plow and his reason for this has to do with sexism and not common sense. This then was the thinking and the reason behind my "Yikes" statement.


-jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

In regards to the gender issue, I've found some quotes from Seth that seem to shed some light on this topic.  In the book, "Nature of the Psyche", Seth does seem to indicate that humans may take on various types of gender identities:

In NotP, Chapter 4, Session 770, Seth says: (bold font is mine)

"Your beliefs so structure your experience individually and en masse, however, that evidential material contrary to those ideas shows itself but seldom, or in distorted or exaggerated form. It is quite natural, biologically and psychologically, to operate in certain fashions that are not acceptable in your society, and that seem to run counter to your picture of mankind's history. In terms of your definitions, then, it is quite natural for some people to behave as males sexually and as females psychologically. It is quite "natural" for others to operate in a reverse fashion."

[...]

"Puberty comes at a certain time, triggered by deep mechanisms that are related to the state of the natural world, the condition of the species, and those cultural beliefs that in a certain sense you transpose upon the natural world. In other respects, your cultural environment is of course natural. The time that puberty comes varies, then, and afterwards it is possible to parent a child. A time then comes when the period is over. During what is called the sexually active time; the larger dimensions of personhood become strictly narrowed into sexually stereotyped roles — and all aspects of identity that do not fit are ignored or denied. The fact is that few people fit those roles. They are largely the result of the interpretations of religion as conventionally understood. And the scientists, for all their seeming independence, often simply found new intellectually acceptable reasons for unconsciously held emotional beliefs."



These quotes come from "Seth Speaks", Chapter 21, Session 586.

In this section of this book, Seth is talking about the time after the next century (this century, the 21 century) when the next Christ personality emerges. Here in this session, he talks about how a metamorphosis will take place after the three personality groupings of Christ will form a new psychic entity. After this metamorphosis takes places he says: (bold font is mine)

"The results will be a different kind of existence. Many of your problems now result from spiritual ignorance. No man will look down upon an individual from another race when he himself recognizes that his own existence includes such membership also."

"(10:55.) No sex will be considered better than the other, or any role in society, when each individual is aware of his own or her own experience at many levels of society and in many roles. [...]"

Now, while Seth didn't actually say the following words specifically, I think that they may have been implied by his general comments on this subject.

"No gender identity will be considered better than another, when each individual recognizes that his own existence includes such membership also."


I think what Seth is telling us here, is that prejudice (racial, sexual and gender identity) is the result of spiritual ignorance. Furthermore, once we come to realize that our own existence includes membership in various races, sexual orientations and gender identities, then we'll begin to come to grips with this issue and by doing so, begin move away from this prejudicial thinking.


-jbseth

[Deb]

"(10:55.) No sex will be considered better than the other, or any role in society, when each individual is aware of his own or her own experience at many levels of society and in many roles. [...]"

That quote is one that has stuck in my mind since the first time I read it. And now, I imagine, yes it would now be worded "gender" rather than "sex" due to how different things are these days with gender awareness.

Here's a provocative little quote from NotP that caught my attention, with a little personal story to follow:

"When racial conditions require it, it is quite possible for an individual to both father and mother a child.* In such cases, what you would call complete spontaneous sexual reverses or transformations would occur. Such processes are quite possible at microscopic levels, and inherent in the cellular structure. Even in your world, currently speaking, some individuals known as women could father their own children.

Some individuals known as men could give birth to a child fathered by the same person — could (underlined). The abilities are there."

—Nature of the Psyche Session 768

Seth's comment  "the abilities are there" brought to mind two things: Jeff Goldblume's comment, "Life, uh, finds a way" when, although there were only female dinosaurs in the park, the dinosaur population managed to increase. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/life-uh-finds-a-way The other is something I've recently come across: the fact that female chickens can become males: spontaneous sex reversal, as Seth said.

I keep backyard chickens and got a few day old chicks in May. They were sexed to be hens. A few weeks ago my favorite chicken started crowing, and I'm not allowed to have roosters here. I did a lot of research, hoping he was just a crowing hen (it happens). If there are no roosters in a flock, sometimes the alpha hen will take on the role of rooster by protecting the flock, crowing in the morning, but that's about it.

My chicken looked like a hen. I was told by a friend to check the cloaca, and it looked female. I came across articles that said hens with hormonal imbalances (due to illness or damage to their one working ovary) can take on rooster physical characteristics: grow spurs, a larger comb and wattle, molt and grow rooster plumage, crow, and some rare cases can even mate with hens to produce offspring—they become a true rooster in every way.

I'm still not sure about my "rooster"—he really didn't have the typical rooster characteristics except for the crowing. He was the friendliest and most mellow of the bunch, would climb into my lap for a cuddle when the other chickens wouldn't let me touch them. I had to re-home him and will check on him from time to time to see if he looks more like a rooster as he gets older. But I found the news fascinating in light of having recently read Seth's comments in NofP ("The abilities are there"). Nature finds a way. https://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/what-cluck-case-gender-changing-hen.htm

[jbseth]

Hi Deb,

That comment by Seth about it being possible, "for an individual to both father and mother a child." has always stuck with me for some reason. In my copy of NotP, immediately after this sentence, there is an askerisk, (*) just like the one you also show in your post. In my book, this * goes to a footnote, located at the bottom of the page, where Rob or Jane talks about "parthenogenesis".

It's really interesting how your hen changed into a rooster. Since the Jurassic Park movie, I knew that this can happen in some lizards, but I wasn't aware that it could also happen in chickens as well. That's really amazing.

On the following page of this same Session, in my book, Seth makes some interesting comments in regards to humans regarding both native tribes and sexual taboos as well a connection between the birth of ego consciousness and sex. These comments seem to apply to this gender related topic. 

I'll post these comments a little later, as I have to go right now.

-jbseth

[LenKop]

Hi all,

I think the whole topic from a Mass viewpoint is rather interesting. I'm male, and comfortably so. But I was brought up by my dad after my mum died, so learned early on about role reversal. I even played the part of stay at home dad now that i have children of my own (I even wrote a book about it.......).

I find it interesting that the outflow of new gender information coincides with the rise of social media. That is not to say that different gender philosophies were not examined before the web, but now it is a pervasive topic. I think the creative expression of our consciousness is always swinging and pushing to new dimensions. I believe facing the idea of multi-gender expressions might be another way to prepare for what comes after this gender embedded life. If we learn to accept these differences here, then when the point comes that we realize that, fundamentally, we are beyond gender, the transition becomes easier (pun intended ....).

Also, I believe that the whole acceptance idea has swung so far that we have a myriad of sport teams, corporate workplaces, political establishments, etc, scratching their heads wondering if they should employ the best person for the job, and suffer social criticism, or accept someone who might be sub-par and lose the game, or drop in productivity, but be embraced for their accepting culture.

It also brings up the idea of filters. Social media is an excellent example of learning to filter information. And filtering might be another tool required when we move to planes of existence where thoughts and emotions are quicker to materialize than they are in the physical domain.

Len

[jbseth]

Hi Lenkop,

Thanks for your posting. You've made some really good points about this issue. The related social media connection, as well as the acceptance and the filtering issues.

Well said.   

- jbseth

[jbseth]

Hi All,

As I said in Post #23 above, I've found some interesting comments made by Seth that seem to shed some light on some aspects of this gender topic.

Both of these 2 comments come from the book, "The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 768.

In the first comment below, Seth tells us that in native cultures, "All kinds of taboos" were purposefully created against sexual relations so that the populations of these native cultures could be increased. This occurred as a result of these taboos restricting sexual relations to times when conception would most likely occur. 

He also points out in this same paragraph that our value judgments often seem to lack any common sense. Then he says that if each act of sexual intercourse were intended to produce a child, we would have overpopulated the planet a very long time ago.



In the second comment, Seth is referring to the time period when mankind was going through the process of the birth of ego consciousness. During this time period, Seth tells us that the species (and not just males alone) created many taboos about both female behavior and female sexuality. These taboos were intentionally created in order to gain some psychological distance from the great natural source from which the ego consciousness was to emerge.


From this, I take it that some of our present cultural ideas about sexuality and what it means to be both a male and a female, may have been influenced by these taboos that were established a long time ago for various stated purposes.



"The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 768.

"All of this becomes very complicated because of your value judgments, which oftentimes seem to lack — if you will forgive me — all natural common sense. You cannot separate biology from your own belief systems. The interplay is too vital. If each act of intercourse were meant to produce a child, you would have overrun the planet before you began. Sexual activity is therefore also meant as enjoyment, as an expression of pure exuberance. A woman will often feel her most sexually active in the midst of the menstrual period, precisely when conception is least apt to occur. All kinds of taboos against sexual relations have been applied here, particularly in so-called native cultures. In those cultures, such taboos make good sense. Such peoples, building up the human stock, intuitively knew that the population would be increased if relations were restricted to periods when conception was most likely to occur. The blood was an obvious sign that the woman at her period was relatively "barren." Her abundance was gone. It seemed to their minds that she was indeed "cursed" during that time (emphatically)."



The Nature of the Psyche", Chapter 4, Session 768.

"I have spoken before about the growth of what you call ego-consciousness — which, let me reiterate, has its own unique rewards. That psychological orientation will lead the species to another, equally unique kind of consciousness."

"When the process began, however, the deep power of nature had to be "controlled" so that the growing consciousness could see itself as apart from this natural source. Yet children, so necessary to the species, continued to spring from women's wombs. Therefore the natural source was most flagrant, observable, and undeniable. For that reason the species — and not the male alone — placed so many taboos about female behavior and sexuality. In "subduing" its own female elements, the species tried to gain some psychological distance from the great natural source from which it was, for its own reasons, trying to emerge."


- jbseth

[inavalan]

This is how that session (#768) ends, which, I believe, brings us back to where this thread started:

Because of your exaggerated focus, you therefore become relatively blind to other aspects of "sexuality." First of all, sexuality per se does not necessarily lead to intercourse. It can lead to acts that do not produce children. What you think of as lesbian or homosexual activity is quite natural sexual expression, biologically and psychologically. In more "ideal" environments such activity would flourish to some extent, particularly before and after prime reproductive years.

For those literal-minded readers, this does not mean that such activity would predominate at such times. It does mean that not all sexual activity is meant to end in childbirth — which is a biological impossibility, and would represent planetary catastrophe. So the species is blessed, if you will (louder) with many avenues for sexual expression. The strong focus that now predominates does inhibit the formation of certain kinds of friendships that would not necessarily at all result in sexual activity.

Lesbianism and homosexuality, as they are currently experienced, also represent exaggerated versions of natural inclinations, even as your experienced version of heterosexuality is exaggerated.

[inavalan]

... I believe facing the idea of multi-gender expressions might be another way to prepare for what comes after this gender embedded life. If we learn to accept these differences here, then when the point comes that we realize that, fundamentally, we are beyond gender, the transition becomes easier (pun intended ....).

To get to the realization that we're very much alike gender wise, by firstly emphasizing the fine differences, and learning to accept them, seems not only a longer way, but riskier too.

[LenKop]

I'm not sure I follow, inavalan.

I don't think the realization is one of us being very much alike, but rather how different we all are. I see the realization as more toward accepting the open ended possibilities of consciousness.

And, what is at risk?

Len

[inavalan]

I'm not sure I follow, inavalan.

I don't think the realization is one of us being very much alike, but rather how different we all are. I see the realization as more toward accepting the open ended possibilities of consciousness.

And, what is at risk?

Len

We seem to differ on this. I believe we are more alike than different. The risk is that differences can often lead to conflicts and entitlements. On the same lines you were mentioning those employers' dilemma: to hire based on skill, or based on other factors. Such dilemmas never end, because they branch into more and more irrelevant criteria, in my opinion ...

[Deb]

The risk is that differences can often lead to conflicts and entitlements.

We need to overcome that and it feels like we're swinging back and forth between extremes right now. Hopefully we can reach a balance. Well, we will, based on Seth's comment below. Considering the history of our world, wars, violence, genocide, etc. we've a long way to go and not everyone is on the same page.

We ARE all different physically and in our beliefs, preferences and personalities. The differences are usually small compared to what we share in common (drawing on my world travel experiences), but for some reason many people tend to focus on the differences, and that's the problem. Seth says we are spiritually ignorant—lacking knowledge or awareness. We are each unique individuals by design—the opportunity for all (ATI) to experience variety in creative expression and thus expand. Is the bad behavior rooted in fear as well? I suspect there is more than one reason why people discriminate. Ideally humans will one day accept that everyone is an individual and be able to appreciate the differences rather than disparaging them.

Again, the same quote from Seth Speaks:

"No man will look down upon an individual from another race when he himself recognizes that his own existence includes such membership also.

No sex [gender] will be considered better than the other, or any role in society, when each individual is aware of his own or her own experience at many levels of society and in many roles. An open-ended consciousness will feel its connections with all other living beings. The continuity of consciousness will become apparent. As a result of all this the social and governmental structures will change, for they are based upon your current beliefs."
~Seth Speaks, Session 586

A major shift is coming. I trust that. It will not happen during my lifetime, but as jbseth mentioned, Seth was talking about the "second coming" when he made this prediction.

@jbseth thanks for the additional Seth quotes. I also found it interesting when he mentioned that nature will affect gender when either population growth or control is needed. It's nice to know we are still in tune with nature, even if we don't realize it. I'll find & add the specific quote(s) in the morning.

[jbseth]

Hi All,

The way I see it, it's not the differences that lead to conflict and entitlement, it's the lack of acceptance of these differences that causes the problems.

Racial, sexual and gender prejudice isn't caused by the differences that exist between people. Instead it's caused by people who have a lack of acceptance of others, where those others are somehow different than them.

As former President Obama has said, "Nobody is born a racist."

- jblair