Jump to content

Khalsa has no Gender?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

When Guru Ji used this then what exactly he was referring to? It's known fact that no woman stood up to become disciple or offered head. I just want to know from the logical point of view as well as from the historical references?

This question came to my mind after reading lots of questions and answers during discussion on this forum and others.

It seems like when people say “Khalsa has no Gender" they try to convince others that Guru Gobind Singh ji wanted to create new gender and finish male and female gender?

Please, enlighten me as this is confusing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth Ji, the Khalsa having no gender is probably a phrase used to establish that there is no sexism in Sikhism. Even though there is at the Darbar Sahib now for some reason (ie. women not being able to do any Sewa), which is against Gurmat.

People say that women should not be allowed to be part of the Punj because no woman stood up when Guru Ji asked for a head. Well, this is probably because at the time, even though the Guru's were trying to bring women forward (ie missionaries) there was still conditioning prevalent within women's minds that they are inferior, this is why the Amrit ceremony was so important, so Im not surprised women felt hesitant to cause attention towards themselves. Im sure if the Amrit ceremony was conducted by our Guru today, there would be a different result, as society has slowly changed for the better and realised that women are equal to men.

Anyway, if women shouldn't be in the Punj solely because none stood up during that time, then that is like saying that the Punj were of 5 different castes so only allow those people of those 5 castes to become the Punj Pyare, in both instances it is discrimmination.

Gurfateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:!: First of all lets not try to take this topic somewhere else :!:

Here is my main reason to make this post.

It seems like when people say “Khalsa has no Gender" then they try to convince others that Guru Gobind Singh ji wanted to create new gender and abolish male and female gender?

Also, let me make it clear that I support that women should be given rights to do sewa same as men. It's not about if women are allowed or not. I think you all have missed the real point. I have highlighted the real point so stick to point.

Side note: Shaihjleen Kaur Khalsa ji, you might want to order this book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006...9802021-1001615

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if the intention is to create a new gender, i think its impossible to name something that is without its duality. In other words, what would u call that gender that is not male or female, well whatever name you come up with, there will be an opposite, so the Duality will still remain.

Khalsa has no gender means it has no gender, simply that, not that there is a 3rd gender which is genderless, its like destroying one set of rules to create another. Pointless.

I hope that made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in that case its not destroying gender, rather mixing them into one. One can easily counterargue that why not make all men into women?? Which is still not the solution.

Getting rid of Both meaning Seeing no difference between the 2 is the solution, as they become equal as no gender is greather than the other.

One other thought that came into my mind is taht many times i've read the meaning of teh Khalsa which is Pure. Then Guru ji goes on by Giving examples of the Khalsa; ie: Khalsa mayra roop hai, and as your progress further into the examples guru ji gave, from my understanding Khalsa is the Synonym of Guru/God and i think all of us can agree on the fact that there is no gender of God. Khalsa = Pure = Guru = God. Arey they not the Roop of each other??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother ms514,

Please take off that sahib as I don't deserve that title.

You need to go over discussion once again and see the tone of my thread. I'm asking question not proving anything where it requires to post references. Also, if you really want to know who uses it please go over this forum and others the ones you visit and you will find so many using this particular line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sat Sri Akal:

Sorry Bhai truthsingh Ji, reason I ask is cause of this line:

"When Guru Ji used this then what exactly he was referring to?"

I thought this meant that Guru Sahib was quoted on saying this somewhere. Personal interpretation of this moorakh:

Khalsa is the Panth. The Panth is the gender, the caste, the creed the everything. It is this Panthic body that is one whole identity. Nobody I know of says that the Khalsa is going to become one sex.

Not to sound rude, but how in the world are people trying to make Sikh women look like men? Has someone been conducting genetic experiments? Tying a Dastaar does not make a woman into a man. A woman going to battle for defence of her faith or in the name of righteousness does not make her a man. What exact action do you see that is attempting to make a woman into a man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd gender and no gender are two different concepts,

No gender means it has no form neither male, female, or the others.

The name third gender does not mean third in line or third from top, it just refers to another gender, in some cases there has been mention of forth genders etc,

These terms refer to those people who are of neither male or female catagories. Those born with both sex organs or neither. Men who have more feminine characteristics which counter the masculinity of a man, and females who have more masculinity which counters the femininity of the woman.

Then would this imply the khalsa is only ristricted to men?

I would say no, as I feel it is not even restricted to sikhi,

The eastern worlds excepted not only men and women but third genders those who were neither all as a valid part of society. In the perfect world of the west which only understands Black and White, Good and Bad, one or the other a third gender was unacceptable being neither one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound rude, but how in the world are people trying to make Sikh women look like men? Has someone been conducting genetic experiments? Tying a Dastaar does not make a woman into a man. A woman going to battle for defence of her faith or in the name of righteousness does not make her a man. What exact action do you see that is attempting to make a woman into a man?

I agree, I also got a bit confused there

TSingh bhaji, can you please tell us :)

bhull chukk maaf :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This explains what a Third Gender is,

There is a growing body of evidence that Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM IV) (1994) is at least in part, the result of insufficient or inappropriate androgenization of the brain at a critical stage of embryonic development. As a result, the affected individual may be left with somewhere between a partial and a full sense of having a cross-sexed gender identity. Essentially creating a not-male, not-female but otherwise permanent gender variant condition. Even though there apparently are some individuals who fall very close to or dead-center on the gender identity spectrum, most gender variant people can easily identify with being closer to one end of the spectrum then the other.

Taken from http://www.avitale.com/developmentalreview.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms514 and Mr Singh ji,

Sorry to confuse you both.

I wrote:

Actually it came to my mind because some people trying to make Sikh women look like men and they find it equal which is quiet absurd.

Ms514 brother ji,

Your interpretation:

Not to sound rude, but how in the world are people trying to make Sikh women look like men? Has someone been conducting genetic experiments? Tying a Dastaar does not make a woman into a man. A woman going to battle for defence of her faith or in the name of righteousness does not make her a man. What exact action do you see that is attempting to make a woman into a man?

It is your own interpretation not mine. I've not said that tying dastaar makes women look like men. If you want me to explain that why I said it then wait till I finish my article on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like when people say “Khalsa has no Gender" then they try to convince others that Guru Gobind Singh ji wanted to create new gender and abolish male and female gender?

Also, please try to go with the topic everyone. I have noticed it that most of the members add their own topic within exisiting topic and at the end nothing comes out of discussion. Please try to start new topic if you have any other question in your mind other than the discussion topic/theme and try to stick to topic so it can be useful for others and they learn besides seeing our "back and forth" discussion.

Check out discussion rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...