Which is which; am I a warlock, or a witch?

[Imperious]

I really think that the folks who want to insist on certain dogma, should add a qualifier to their label.

It's challenging because certain dogma is, or at least should be, universal. I've dealt with a lot of people who treat Witchcraft as a sort of "anything goes" philosophical standpoint, and it absolutely isn't that. Not even Satanism promotes such a view, and it's on the darker side of the Neopagan spectrum when compared to more conventional forms of Wicca.

Certain concepts simply need to have definitions. Should someone call themselves a witch or a warlock, then there has to be some common ground amongst all witches and warlocks. We've established that it certainly isn't coven membership or initiation, but without at least a few categorical imperatives, we end up with an unbound and meaningless word that might as well not exist.

That being said, there are some caveats - certain groups and individuals should be more specific when describing who they are or what they believe in. If someone says they're Gardnerian it needn't necessarily mean they're initiatory, coven-based, or hereditary... But it's a good guess that they will be.

Personally, I think large swathes of the Neopagan community try to defy terminology in order to avoid responsibility.

It's unfortunate.

[SnowCat]

Common ground? Does such a thing exist? Here in the USA, we currently have 17 Republican candidates for POTUS, one of whom, thinks he's Hispanic, because he married a woman from Mexico. I'm digressing, but I got a chuckle out of your post Imperious. Not that you intended it to be funny, but thank your. I needed the laugh.

Snow

[Yex]

I'm jumping in to comment a little late into the game, but Imperious, I found your piece informative and thought-provoking. I wasn't aware that warlock is a controversial term, and the points you raise in defense of the term all seem very valid. I do take one issue with your argument, though, and it is highlighted in the way you responded to this comment:

My problem is I have always seem witch as a gender neutral term. What would a non-binary person call themselves if they wanted it to be neutral?

To which you responded:

The thing is, as far as I can see, there isn't much gender neutrality in the wider craft; even from the very premise of the god and goddess, we see duality.

I take major issue with this mindset. I don't doubt that there are "masculine" and "feminine" forces in the universe, ie Ying and Yang, God and Goddess, et cetera, et cetera, but for human beings, in a mundane sense, gender is a social construct. There's nothing inherent in someone who is born, say, biologically male that makes that person more inclined to possess "masculine" qualities, be they spiritual or otherwise. Yin and Yang exist in all things and all people, without regard to their gender identity; and it would be foolish to view God and Goddess as corresponding literally to male and female genders.

You are, of course, free to use the term warlock if you so desire, and also free to be motivated to do so by your gender identity, but I feel like there's a tendency in occult thinking to reduce the divine "masculine" and "feminine" to a reenforcement of gender binary thinking, which is, again, a human construction.

[Imperious]

Common ground? Does such a thing exist? Here in the USA, we currently have 17 Republican candidates for POTUS, one of whom, thinks he's Hispanic, because he married a woman from Mexico. I'm digressing, but I got a chuckle out of your post Imperious. Not that you intended it to be funny, but thank your. I needed the laugh.

I don’t mind admitting that I don’t see your point. Your example is almost wholly unrelated to what I’m saying, so would you mind clarifying what you’re getting at?

Are you arguing that there’s no such thing as common ground? If so, I don’t think that’s funny in the least; it’s a very worrying approach to the very building blocks of language.

I take major issue with this mindset. I don't doubt that there are "masculine" and "feminine" forces in the universe, ie Ying and Yang, God and Goddess, et cetera, et cetera, but for human beings, in a mundane sense, gender is a social construct.

I disagree.

I'm really talking about sex which, from a purely reproductive angle, is not a social construct – it’s a biological and physiological one. This isn’t just exclusive to the human race and is, in fact, an inherent part of evolution amongst the overwhelming majority of species on the earth. We know that there are several asexual species, but they’re clearly not the majority.

There's nothing inherent in someone who is born, say, biologically male that makes that person more inclined to possess "masculine" qualities, be they spiritual or otherwise. Yin and Yang exist in all things and all people, without regard to their gender identity; and it would be foolish to view God and Goddess as corresponding literally to male and female genders.

I agree.

In our use of language, we’ve socially decided to apply certain characteristics as “male”, and certain characteristics as “female”. I find that needlessly obtrusive. Both men and women can be “combative”, a supposedly socially male trait. Both men and women can be “sensitive”, a supposedly socially female trait.

You are, of course, free to use the term warlock if you so desire, and also free to be motivated to do so by your gender identity, but I feel like there's a tendency in occult thinking to reduce the divine "masculine" and "feminine" to a reenforcement of gender binary thinking, which is, again, a human construction.

That’s not what I’m implying, and I apologise if that’s how it came across. Should someone born male consider themselves a witch, or someone born female consider themselves a warlock, then that’s their choice and not something I’d question.

As I hinted in my coven priesthood commentary, the existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people (and their high representation in Witchcraft) is a wonderful thing, and not something that should be used to segregate them. The titular conventions I apply are heuristic, not categorical imperatives.

I hope my view is a bit clearer now.

[Seraphin]

I've been thinking about how I should describe myself. I'm not a warlock, as I have two X chromosomes. Enchantress is too frilly, witch doesn't quite fit. I have decided that I'm a Cat Whisperer.

Snow

I love the idea of a fun title Snow, and I definitely qualify for Warlock of Mayhem or Vanguard of Doom!

Well mainly because of my affinity to Daemons, adversaries, tricksters and chthonic beings...

Laughing,
Seraphin Murmur

[SnowCat]

I was digressing, which I stated, very clearly. You are free to ignore or disagree with my post.

Snow

[Imperious]

I was digressing, which I stated, very clearly. You are free to ignore or disagree with my post.

Disagreeing or ignoring a post you don't really understand doesn't help anyone.

Sometimes, I wish these conversations could happen in real time.

[Vesca]

I disagree.

Gender, from a purely reproductive angle, is not a social construct – it’s a biological and physiological one. This isn’t just exclusive to the human race and is, in fact, an inherent part of evolution amongst the overwhelming majority of species on the earth. We know that there are several asexual species, but they’re clearly not the majority.

Real time chat would sometimes be helpful. Sometimes it's hard to get meanings across on the interwebs when you're limited to words and aren't able to include things like tone, facial expressions, and (in my case) hand gestures.

I'm confused on this part. Every sociology and psychology course I've taken, textbook I've read, and experiment report I've ever come across has always defined gender as a sociological and cultural phenomenon.

Sex (male, female based on genitalia and biochemical hormonal levels) is the biological/physiological factor when it comes to identification.

Ie. If you have male genitalia, then you are of the male sex. It doesn't necessarily mean you fall entirely into the socially-defined gender of masculine.

[Becks]

I agree with Vesca, and I think that maybe Imperious was meaning strictly biological terms. In the classical sense of understanding....Xx and xy and the like. Though, I have to say I once knew an xxy guy and so I think we have to expand our understanding and sensitivity when it comes to our current understandings and conceptions of gender. Gender is sociological and cultural. Many texts and authorities speak about gender and sexuality as being on a spectrum, and not something that is strictly binary. One such example would be that among many First Nations of North America they had people who were considered "two spirited". People inhabiting both the male and female gender.

[Imperious]

I agree with Vesca, and I think that maybe Imperious was meaning strictly biological terms. In the classical sense of understanding....Xx and xy and the like.

Yup. Vesca was quite right, it's a fair correction; one I'm going to amend in the post concerned.

Good catch!

[Vesca]

No worries, a lot of people get confused on the terminology (because you wouldn't really come across it unless you studied it).

[Becks]

Back to the original thought though....I still don't understand why Chalice can't call himself a "Wiccan" if he, in fact, follows a Wiccan path. Even if he is solitary? Are we saying now that to be Wiccan one must practice strictly in a coven? 'Cause I think that's crazy cakes! Help please.

[Firebird]

I wonder if Chalice has peers saying he cannot be such because of bla bla...what ever miss information he is getting...because not everyone has a local coven they can be initiated into. And "down under" they are even further spread out.
Today it is perfectly acceptable to call yourself or identify yourself as you see fit.
Bb, Firebird