An Examen of “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” Part Three.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forbearing from even mentioning en-passant how the ‘abnormal perverts’ definition in the “American Illustrated Medical Dictionary” was displaced entirely by the ‘loving desirers’ entry, some eight years beforehand, the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay now shamelessly targets a non-medical dictionary—whose editorial team had indeed “similarly defined it” (i.e., misanthropically, inasmuch defining it as a ‘morbid passion’ recasts the vast majority of humankind into the rôle of ‘pathological passionates’ despite their 1915 ‘loving desirers’ makeover)—solely for the purpose of thereafter contrasting it triumphally with the definition in the 1934 edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” (more on this graceless exercise in futility, further below, where the enormity of the deceit this exclusory focussing seeks to perpetuate is exposed).

And the word ‘pathological’ is used advisedly as “morbid” meant essentially the same in the early 1900s as it does in the early 2000s (from the Latin morbidus, ‘sickly’, ‘diseased’, from morbus, ‘sickness’, ‘disease’) and literally meant everybody then alive—as well as everybody who had been alive and everybody yet to be alive (e.g., everyone born post-1923)—had been, presently was, and would be, the progeny of a sickly or diseased libidinosity which each and every male and female of the fecundative other-sex sexual proclivity felt for one another, had always felt for one another, and always would feel for one another.

Again, and especially in view of its all-encompassing scope being inclusive of the dictionary’s Editor-in-Chief, Mr. William Torrey Harris (1835-1909), its General Editor, Mr. Frederic Sturges Allen (1861-1920), its editorial team and its entire staff, it is just too silly for words to force-fit it into being something other than the “misapplied” definition it so obviously is.

Moreover, the wording of this ‘pathological passionates’ definition is more than a trifle curious, but, first of all, here is what the 1920 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” has as their definition of “homosexuality” on page 1030 (in the main body of the dictionary). Viz.:

Second, here is what this 1923 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” has as their definition of “homosexuality” on page 1030 (in the main body of the dictionary). Viz.:

Lastly, here is what the 1930 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” has as their definition of “homosexuality” on page 1030 (in the main body of the dictionary). Viz.:

Incidentally, there is no entry for “heterosexuality” in the 1920 “Addenda” section (listed on its “Contents Page” as comprising pages lxxxi-xcii) of the further above 1920 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” as will be seen at the following URL (its ‘H’ page has the lowercase number lxxxv). Viz.:

To summarise: it is not without significance how the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay ignores the volte-face ‘loving desirers’ definition some eight years earlier in the 1915 “American Illustrated Medical Dictionary”—especially significant in view of having just quoted that particular medical dictionary’s anomalous fin-de-siècle definition immediately beforehand (albeit historically misnamed as “Dorland’s Medical Dictionary”)—and instead switches to a non-medical dictionary printed some eight years later, in 1923, as if that “misapplied” entry from December 1900 had never been brought into line in August 1915 with what this neoteric medico-legal term has referred to from the get-go.

Which is, of course, the exact-same dictionary-switch ploy Mr. Katz utilised over a quarter of a century before, nowadays featuring on page 92 of the 2007 reprint of his expanded 1990 screed, so as to thereafter disingenuously declare how it was “only in 1934” (with the otherwise unnecessary word “only” conveying how it was not until the 1930s) that “heterosexuality had finally attained the status of norm” via being defined in “what is still the dominant modern mode” in that specific dictionary. Viz.:

As it had already “attained the status of norm” (so to speak) some nineteen years earlier than 1934—per favour the volte-face correction in the “American Illustrated Medical Dictionary” of 1915 (also historically misnamed as “Dorland’s Medical Dictionary” in his ‘bizarro world’ book of bull)—this sleight-of-hand switch to a non-medical dictionary is yet another meretriciously rainbow-hued red-herring.

Almost needless is to add, by now, how this dictionary-switch ploy is where the logomachical Mr. Katz—a self-identified “radical social constructionist” encouraged by his nonnormative cohort to similarly posit the “historical relativity” of sexual behaviours, identities, meanings, categories, groups, and institutions, who publicly admits to having “altered” his own history (also by the agency of his politico-organisational activism in conjunction with his “vision of a valued future” for himself and his cohort)—just lost any last-lingering shred of credibility which might still have been clinging willy-nilly per favour the sheer welter of words?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}.

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{04}Editorial Note: As the aspirant eristic is, in effect, declaring the word “heterosexuality” to be honoured and/or favoured and/or beautified and/or embellished with this ‘passional manifesters’ definition there is either a facetious or sarcastic tone embedded as an accompaniment to the (unnecessary) verb “graced” in the above sentence.

Besides which, in the 1927 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” an entry for “heterosexuality” which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the 1923 ‘pathological passionates’ definition can be found on page xcvi of the “New Words” section preceding the main body of dictionary definitions (i.e., before the 400,000+ entries on 2,373 pages) as follows. Viz.:

Moreover, what follows is the 1930 reprint of the revised edition of the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)” where its identical entry for “heterosexuality” also bears no resemblance whatsoever to the 1923 ‘pathological passionates’ definition (and which can also be found on page xcvi of the “New Words” section). Viz.:

(Ha! ... the very fact this unscholarly travesty became a “Best of 2017” pick, by the editor-in-charge of “The Best of BBC Future” programming department, speaks volumes about the quality of their Worst-of-BBC-Future stories).

Be that as it may: further to this differing definitions issue, the above-quoted “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex” entry from 1934 appears to be a monogamistic precursor to the “manifestation of sexual desire for one or more members of the opposite sex” entry in the 8th edition of “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” (which is based on “Webster’s New International Dictionary Third Edition (1961)”). Viz.:

Just for fun, the following chronological listing shows how the mighty Merriam Webster’s dictionary has progressed, over the century, in coming to terms with just what “heterosexuality” might be. Viz.:

It is something of an eye-opener to realise it was not until 2017, or sometime prior, how someone working for Merriam Webster Inc. finally wakes-up to the fact that affixing the suffix ‘-ity’ to a base-word forms a noun expressing the quality, state or condition of being that base-word (in this case: the state or condition of being of that fecundous other-sex sexual predisposition).

And it has been this simple all along.

To proceed chronologically (albeit backwards): as the word “heterosexuality” was already “graced” (so to speak) the year before 1934 with “the meaning we’re familiar with today” in the “Oxford English Dictionary Supplement” of 1933—(viz.: “pertaining to or characterised by the normal relation of the sexes: opposite to homosexual; also, as substantive, a heterosexual person; hence heterosexuality (sometimes misapplied, as in 1901 Dorland Medical Dictionary, Edition Two...”. (emphasis added)—then the assertion that “it wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today” is simply not true.

Furthermore, as the word “heterosexuality” was already “graced” (so to speak) both four years and seven years before 1934 with “the meaning we’re familiar with today” as per the ‘New Words’ section in the online versions of the July 1930 and the January 1927 revised edition of “Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909)”—videlicet “sexual interest or inclination directed to the opposite sex” further above—it becomes patently obvious the assertion “it wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today” is in fact a falsehood.

Moreover, as the illustrious editor-in-chief of the “American Illustrated Medical Dictionary”, Mr. Ryland W. Green, ᴀʙ, had belatedly “graced” the word “heterosexuality” with “the meaning we’re familiar with today” (in his “love or sexual desire toward persons of the opposite sex” definition) way back in August 1915—nineteen years before the “Webster’s New International Dictionary (Second Edition 1934)” was first published—then the entirety of the aspirant arguer’s pretermitting 1923-1934 “Merriam Webster” pseudo-argument is indubitably rendered null and void, anyway, and their credibility is left hanging by the merest of threads.

Had the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay instead written something like the following (for example) they would still have retained some authorial integrity. Viz.:

Put succinctly: the entire dictionary-switch ploy was a (graceless) exercise in futility—not to overlook an (underhand) exercise in absurdity to boot—all along.

More to the point—(as the word “heterosexuality” is the nounal form of the adjectival “heterosexual” anyway)—Dr. Defendorf penned his 1,114-word “Contrary Sexual Instincts” essay (wherein the word “heterosexual” appeared thrice with “the meaning we’re familiar with today” fluently contextualised) some thirty-two years earlier, way back in 1902, for the eight-volume “Reference Handbook of The Medical Sciences”.

’Tis no wonder all and sundry respond with dramatic incredulity, exclaiming “That can’t be right!” (immediately below), whenever the aspirant debater tells this to people.

• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Whenever I tell this to people, they respond with dramatic incredulity. That can’t be right!{05}

{05}Editorial Note: Given that the word “heterosexuality” demonstrably had “the meaning we’re familiar with today” from its very inception—(the textual evidence of Herr Kertbeny’s 1869 pamphlets soliciting the decriminalisation of sodomy incontrovertibly shows how the words “Heterosexualität” and “Normalsexualität” were interchangeable for him)—then any interlocutor’s “That can’t be right!” reaction is understandably of an exclamatory nature.

Just as one swallow does not a springtide make—videlicet: “μία χελίδὼν ἕαρ ού ποίεῖ” in “Etica Nicomachea” by Aristotle the Stagirite (384-322 BCE)—neither does an anomalous dictionary entry (confirmed as anomalistic by its ‘volte-face’ correction) a valid argument make.

Nor also does an aberrant 1923 dictionary definition bearing a peculiar mirror-like simulacre to its antipodean 1920 definition—and contraindicated by its radically-reworded 1927 definition anyway—render an argument valid.

’Tis no wonder the aspirant arguer has recourse to what it all “feels” like (immediately below).

(End Editorial Note).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}.

• [Mr. Ambrosino]: Well, it certainly doesn’t feel right{06}. It feels as if heterosexuality has always “just been there”.

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{06}Editorial Note: Quite revealingly, and having no regard whatsoever for the exclamatorily astute—and, reportedly, recurring—feedback from divers “people” when giving voice to this flagitious falsehood, the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay then slyly follows-up those insightful interlocutors’ exclamation with “Well, it certainly doesn’t feel right” [emphasis added] as if there is no recourse but an emotional appeal (due to the coup de théâtre those sneakily-selective dictionary definitions dispense) thus leaving yon champion of ‘truthiness’ evermore snugly ensconced in their post-modernist world-of-words.

’Tis vital to bear in mind how the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay first informs any such putative exclaimers, artfully, that “people had a very different *idea* of what it means to be heterosexual” [emphasis added], one hundred years ago, whereafter the aspirant apologist then cherry-picks—from out of all the easily accessible and thus readily at hand primary source material—an undeniably “misapplied” definition (in an historically misnamed dictionary) of the word “heterosexual” in its nounal form (that is, “heterosexuality”, as further above) along with a peculiar mirror-like definition of same, categorised in the exact-same phraseology (bar the fecundative identifier) as infecund same-sex sexuality was, in order to bolster their mentalistically based narrative.

There is a vast difference betwixt the intellectual “idea” of what it means to be of the fecundous other-sex sexual predisposition and the intuitional “feel” of what experientially being of a fecundative other-sex sexual proclivity is in reality (i.e., to instinctually “feel” a consistent intuitive attraction to the other sex), which is a visceral desirability by virtue of the inherent sexual attractability and allure of that complemental other sex.

To wit: the utterly vacuous posit that prior to the German word “Heterosexualität” making its debut appearance on a piece of paper in Berlin—in a private letter to fellow crusader Herr Ulrichs, dated May 6 1868, at the very moment when Herr Kertbeny put his ink-dipped pen to paper and scrawled that particular arrangement of letters out in longhand—the otherwise ab initio mundi ability to instinctually “feel” a consistent intuitive attraction to the other sex, a visceral desirability by virtue of the inherent sexual attractability and allure of that complemental sex, had no existence whatsoever anywhere amongst the estimated 1.4 billion feeling-beings living all around the globe.

The storks were obviously quite busy in those days.

(End Editorial Note).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}.

• [Mr. Ambrosino]: A few years ago, there began circulating a “man on the street” video, in which the creator asked people if they thought homosexuals were born with their sexual orientations{07}.

{cont’d after next ...}.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{07}Editorial Note: As this presentation of a vacuous argument entitled [quote]: “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality’” [emphasis added] has all-of-a-sudden switched to the topic of “homosexuals” instead—in the guise of laypersons of the fecundative other-sex sexual proclivity having an “idea” elicited as to whether a tiny minority of the population of an infecundous same-sex sexual persuasion were born with that identifying characteristic (a topic which is of negligible interest to them, having rarely had anyone of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection pursue their acquaintance, and thus largely beyond their ken anyway)—it signifies how the aspirant arguer’s narrative vis-à-vis “heterosexual” and “heterosexuality” can only be framed from a “homosexual” and “homosexuality” viewpoint.

In other words, in the mentalistic world of social constructionism, were it not for infecund same-sex sexuality being labelled with a single-word identifier (as in the hybrid word “homosexuality” that is) there would be no fecund other-sex sexuality (as in its antipodean word “heterosexuality” that is) because differentiating the one automatically demarcates the other by that very discrimination.

It is not without significance, of course, that the originator of the word “Homosexualität” and its antipodal “Heterosexualität” in 1868 was of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection (and not one of those majoritarian ‘breeders’ who would otherwise somehow cop the blame as per standard operating procedure).

This all-of-a-sudden “homosexual” framing of the narrative prompted an online enquiry by the clarifier and critic furnishing these explanatory clarifications and critical commentaries (i.e., the writer typing these words in the form of editorial notes) into just what the aspirant arguer’s preferent viewpoint might be—insofar as such an enquiry could be helpful in comprehending just why they would deem ‘bizarro-world’ bull from over a quarter-of-a-century ago warranted regurgitation in an article about what the appellation “heterosexuality” meant to people back when it was a neoteric medico-legal signifier a hundred years ago—and, not altogether surprisingly upon reflection, elsewhere online the author of this ʙʙᴄ-hosted essay is on record in print and video self-identifying as a theology graduate who is by-choice[*] of an infecundous same-sex sexual predilection.

A most peculiar feature oft-times displayed by those clamorous vocalists and vociferous activists passionately embracing “a queer identity” (even if at first reluctantly accepted as in the above account), in their rôle as self-appointed representatives of that tiny minority of the population, is of not only seeking to instruct the vast majority—in this case about the very “idea” an estimated 7.23 billion peoples should have regarding what they instinctually “feel” as a consistent intuitive attraction to the other sex, a visceral desirability by virtue of the inherent sexual attractability and allure of that complemental sex—but of being so presumptuous as to assume a mantle of expertise (on a topic which is largely beyond their ken due to an absence of experiential and thus intimate knowledge of that inherent disposition) in order to do so.