The author, Alice Dreger, wants to know why we let our anatomy decide how our future is going to be. In the future, as science continues to become better, are we still going to continue to look at anatomy? Would we ever confess that a democracy that was built on anatomy might be collapsing? Alice Dreger argues that individuals who have bodies that challenge norms such as conjoined twins and those who have atypical sex threaten the social categories we have developed in our society. We have two categories: male and female. Those two categories have a particular anatomy. If someone doesn’t fit one or the other, then surgeons normalize them. This idea is too simplistic. Sex is more complicated than that. Dreger argues that nature doesn’t draw …show more content…
She said why not get a political asylum. This is what Dreger is talking about. Conjoined twins challenge the norms that we have established in our society. This is how people draw the line. If someone isn’t either male or female, they will undergo surgery so that they can fit into a category. Yes, I do accept the evidence that was presented in the video “Alice Dreger: Is anatomy destiny”. This video had a substantial amount of evidence that was backed by facts and research. This was why I had accepted the evidence. Alice Dreger, a historian, proved to the viewers that people do draw the line between sex because our social categories are being threatened. Much of her evidence proved that sex wasn’t simplistic as we thought. It is complicated. There is no clear line. According to Dreger, it is rather fuzzy. A majority of her evidence was believable and hard to reject. However, I found one piece of evidence hard to believe and that was when Dreger states that in 1776, our Founding Fathers were the original radical anatomists. They were rejecting the idea of a monarchy. A monarchy was based on the idea of
Even though the King was not in fact a military man, he had believed that the colonies needed to follow the commands of the King. Even if many had disagreed with the King most had followed him with his decision. The first chapter continues with the details of this causation
The Anti federalists wanted a Monarchy, but this would cause trouble. Anti-Federalists wanted to keep the same Monarchy government, this would cause trouble because it is proven that monarchy causes violence between government and people. In monarchy the people would have no say in their country on the higher class would have a say. Federalists were also against having an army. Brutus
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people” (Doc7). This excerpt from “The Declaration of Independence” describes King George III as an unfit ruler of the people and tells of the colonists’ petitions that have been read and thrown back at them with repeated hatefulness. It also tells of the King’s history of repeating injury and usurpations while having the ability to establish oppressive rule over all of the states. Another view of this situation includes the view of the British. In their eyes the colonists are being immature and are complaining more than needed towards the King George III’s decisions and ways of ruling.
The colonists desired a weak central government because the strength of the British monarch and his ability to impose on the freedoms of his subjects was exactly what incited the colonies to revolt. When put into practice,
Sex and gender have always been an intricate topic. Both appear within society on a spectrum, not binary opposites. In Colonial times, such a belief would be nonexistent in a culture that places a tremendous weight on an individual’s sex and gender. Despite such beliefs individuals still identified outside the binary; for example, the case of Thomasine/Thomas Hall. When historians attempt to study cases like the one, it can be difficult to reconcile the court's decision with how the individual identified themselves.
First of all, they wanted equally tax on land by all classes, the votes should be considered by the main one "the head", the last one was the king must be forced to reform the abuses and tyranny letter. (document 3). On the other hand, the monarchy was involved
These men, the most educated and powerful of the era, had the chance to abolish the system of which many of them deemed immoral while creating the republic, but failed to as they were concerned only with their
Each man and woman born is expected to be as all others are. Gifts and talents are especially shunned. Equality has been taught that “it is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them” (21). To his societal disadvantage, Equality 7-2521 is gifted with a great intelligence and a burning curiosity to understand.
They formed a republic based government which means they had a two house legislature with a president. They believed the people should have say in the government so if the people did not approve of what the government was doing or who were in the government the people could take control and adopt a new system or a new cycle of people they thought fit for their country. The document with all the rules of their government is called the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...
They could not hold meetings and make decisions for themselves. The king decided that they could not hold meetings because, as he felt they were planning to overthrow him during these organized get-togethers. They could not protest his decrees, or they would be killed. Take the Boston massacre, the colonists were protesting and the soldiers started firing on them. “Order quickly broke down, and the frightened soldiers fired into the crowd.
One of the most prominent examples of resistance to absolute monarchy came, in England, where King and Parliament struggled to determine the roles each should play in governing England (Duiker 2013). After the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, the Stuart line of rulers was inaugurated with the accession to the throne of Elizabeth’s cousin, King James VI of Scotland. James I (1603-1625) espoused the divine right of kings, a viewpoint that alienated Parliament, which had grown accustomed under previous rulers to act on the premise that monarch and Parliament together ruled England as balanced polity (Duiker 2013). The Puritans were alienated by the king as well, which wasn’t a wise decision. The Puritans were the Protestants within the Anglican
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 ultimately allowed for a functional, united governing system. The Federalists argument was more valid than the Anti-Federalist 's argument because they argued for an adequate government to preserve the union, a strong and energetic government, political prosperity, and the protection of life and liberty. In order to understand why the Federalist 's argument is stronger, we must examine the Anti-Federalist 's perspective. An Anti-Federalist is someone who opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution.
They believed that this government could provide the stability and security against violent outrages. The foil of these people were the Antifederalist. The Antifederalists offered three objections: that the Congress had conspired under a “veil of mystery” to create a new form of government, that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights, and that the new system of government resembled and monarchy and that violated the principle of liberty that guided the American Revolution. They also pointed that the voters will not directly
A regime can be judged by no other criteria nor be assigned any other functions, than those proper to the lawful order as such. " He opposed "democracy," which at his time meant direct democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, "...democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which 'all ' decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, 'all, ' who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom." As with most writers at the time, he distinguished three forms of government i.e. democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy with mixed government as the most
There existed a state of absolutism within that period. Absolutism refers to the idea of a monarch ruling without a consultative body of the people (parliament) to approve laws and thus limit the monarch’s power. Unlike Scotland and England, the powers of the king were not limited by any