That when I, a gay dude—a person who does not personally possess a vagina or even a non-academic interest in the female contribution to human reproduction—have written about things pertaining to straight female sexuality in a politically-inflected and evolutionary context, I haven’t attracted even a twentieth part of the condescention and scorn that shows up in the comments section of Context and Variation when Kate Clancy—an actual female person who has a frickin’ Ph.D. in the evolution of female reproductive function—takes a righteous swing at the latest example of bad science in the service of sexism.
It’s almost like there’s something magical about having a penis.◼
Of course, the point of all this is not that it was rude for him to use the word “bullshit,” or even to describe those poor, defenseless Christian teenagers who walked out rather than engage with a perfectly legitimate theological question as “pansy-assed.” It was rude of Dan to confront those kids—and, now, the universe of fundamentalist offense-addicts who are giving him their undivided attention—with the fact that no matter what they claim, their “literalism” is a tangled mess of specific interpretive decisions that have nothing to do with the “plain text” of the Bible. It’s never been about adhering to the superficial meaning of the King James (or any other) text; it’s about putting their own mean little prejudices in the mouth of an unassailable, inaccessible, invisible Creator.
In other words, Dan told those kids that if they’ve been mean to gay people, it’s because they wanted to be mean to gay people. And they didn’t have a word to say in their own defense.◼