New Vocabulary for the Third Gender
“New Vocabulary for the Third Gender”
“Evolving Physiological Traits”
“Marriage vs. Coupling, Reproduction vs. Acquiring Children”
Sunday, June 25, 2023 (Private)
Participants: Mary (Michael), Debbie (Tamarra) and Philip (Paetre)
ELIAS: Good afternoon!
PHIL: Good day, Elias.
DEBBIE: Good afternoon.
ELIAS: (Laughs) And how shall we begin?
PHIL: How shall we begin?
DEBBIE: Ah. I like I directed what I did for this conversation we just had, because I felt it was beneficial to set my energy not only for an upcoming visit, but it was a great experience to share but also not push and just allow a really nice… even better than ever, better than even previously. That’s really kind of the theme of seeing all the places we’re opposing and just not doing that.
DEBBIE: And there’s been a couple opportunities we’ve had to jump back into automatic ways out of fear and those automatic behaviors to push and whatnot. And we’ve been having a great experience of not only doing it within ourselves, but if gets a little trickier, talking between us and choosing how we’re going to move forward and not sabotaging ourselves.
DEBBIE: Phil, would you agree?
PHIL: I would.
DEBBIE: Thank you. Thank you, Elias. It’s becoming more natural.
ELIAS: (Laughs) And THAT is the point.
DEBBIE: (Laughs) I didn’t think a life of basically being in reaction to our reality would… You’ve always said it won’t take as long, once you do; you’ll start this process, it won’t take as many years, in a manner of speaking, to undo it and start a new way of being, and you were absolutely correct.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Imagine that.
DEBBIE: Imagine that! I know it sounded kind of funny.
PHIL: Elias right?!
DEBBIE: I know. (Laughs)
PHIL: Who could’ve guessed? (All laugh)
DEBBIE: No, it is nice to be able to trust that and now to SEE it, see it in action.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Yes! I would say congratulations in accomplishing.
DEBBIE: Thank you.
PHIL: I will just say that almost everything we’ve engaged has been smooth. It’s been relatively easy, and it’s knowing that we are directing and creating it, and it’s fallen together just… Everything we’ve touched, I feel like King Midas.
PHIL: Yep. It’s just fallen together very nicely.
ELIAS: And in that, my friend, it’s good to be king, isn’t it?
PHIL: (Laughs) Yes, it is. (All laugh)
DEBBIE: Genuine alchemy.
ELIAS: (Laughs) I agree!
DEBBIE: And the one piece – I will just acknowledge it rather than turning my head – the one piece that I know I still have an attachment to that causes me a lot of discomfort, and I… Ah, I’m having an emotional signal. (Breathes deeply) Maybe you could just address to it with me, Elias, because I think I’m doing everything I need to in allowance with it, is the piece with regard to Emily. And I want to just acknowledge to myself it’s very hard not to want to… That’s my pull: I want to fix or do about, to feel like I am doing by not adding to what she’ll need to unwind, but to see somebody you care about… Now, it’s funny, I was just going to say in so much discomfort, but that’s not necessarily true. I’m the one that’s uncomfortable, because I’m –
DEBBIE: Right? I just got that when I was speaking it. So there is something so important, Phil, I’m going to say this for us to know. When you speak it, when you organize your thoughts and speak it, and someone – even if no one is there, but especially if you have someone there like Mary or you or now with Elias – when I was speaking that, I immediately got that it was me that’s uncomfortable. But for weeks I’ve been having the perspective that SHE was uncomfortable, that thus I was feeling powerless and helpless and concerned, and I knew that wasn’t the direction I wanted to go in. But thank you. I just got that piece right now.
Now, with that being said, Elias, is there anything you could offer me that I’m not seeing that I would like to see in this situation? For myself.
ELIAS: I would say, you have been very supportive of her, and you have been moving in a direction of learning and acknowledging and experiencing in new manners yourself. Therefore, this is a growth process for you also, and you ARE growing, and you’re learning and you’re listening and you’re paying attention. And I would say that she is helping you with the other two, because if you can be all right with her, then you can be accepting of the other two.
PHIL: That’s a great point.
ELIAS: And you are very correct – and remember that – that she’s not the one that’s uncomfortable. She knows what she’s doing. She knows what choices she’s making. She knows that the choices that she’s making have long-term effects, and what she’s been attempting to communicate to you is that not only is she aware of all of that, but this is more her – or, for lack of better terminology, them.
ELIAS: That you don’t have words yet.
And let me also express to you, because you might actually present this to yourself with someone else: People always try to justify what they don’t understand. And when I say that you don’t have words for this other gender, even THAT word is inadequate. But when I say that you don’t have words for that, that is very genuine. There may be people that attempt to argue that point and express to you that the… “they” and “them” have been used throughout history in a capacity in a singular form – and that’s true in relation to this. In that, I would say that it’s not simply an adaptation of those words; it’s a stopgap, and that in that, it’s important that those words are acknowledged to people in these situations, because it’s important to them, but it’s also important that you recognize that words are not something that have always been in existence.
You invent new words for new things, and it’s necessary, and you’ve been doing that for thousands of years. And in that, when people express a word and they use it enough, it becomes accepted in your language. And that’s where you’re at now, is in a position in which it’s a matter of inventing new words to add to your language – and anyone can do it. Anyone can create new words, even you. Therefore, it’s simply a matter of generating a new word and then continuing to use it. And the more you use it, the more you’ll notice other people beginning to use it.
DEBBIE: And actually, that kind of creative challenge may as a byproduct take care of that issue of me misgendering her and causing her a little momentary distress and frustration with me.
DEBBIE: So let me think outside the box.
DEBBIE: You answered that question. Thank you. (Both chuckle)
PHIL: Say a word for this other gender, what kind of a thing would be a property of that word? What kind of things might be a property of that word?
ELIAS: Meaning what?
PHIL: Meaning what is it that you’re trying to convey?
ELIAS: You have the words “male” and “female.” You have the words “he” and “she.” You have the words “girl” and “boy.” You have the words “man” and “woman.” [Inaudible] to create a word for a new gender that isn’t a derivative of man.
DEBBIE: Right. Right.
ELIAS: And then to invent words that describe that gender word, such as “he” and “she” (chuckles). But you see, you have “man” and you have “woman;” you have “he,” and then you have “she.” In this, it would be an interesting new creation of a set of words that aren’t derivatives of one, that are entirely new and separate and that aren’t expressing… (pause) interlocking of the two accepted genders. (Pause)
PHIL: Interesting. Thank you.
ELIAS: You’re welcome. Therefore it’s not simply the creation of one word, but one word and then the supporting words that go along with it.
DEBBIE Hm. Even the word “hu-man” – “human” –
DEBBIE: — has that basis in “man,” which we take –
DEBBIE: — as an unchangeable component of our species, almost.
DEBBIE: But that’s not absolute, as much as we’ve made it, like everything has to stem from that because of what we’ve labeled as the name of our species, as “man” versus “animal” or whatnot. Wow.
PHIL: I have another question.
DEBBIE: Yeah, please. There’s a lot to it.
PHIL: Elias, on my new publishing site I wrote two columns on “other,” the third gender.
PHIL: And it was a great exploration for me, and I thought it was very powerful. And I wanted to ask you, one of the things I talked about is the idea that man or humankind has never been two genders – simply two genders – and that physiologically we’ve always had repressed traits that could be brought to the forefront to support this other expression, and that… I used “hermaphrodite” as an example of a repressed gene or a trait that has always been around, and my contention was that if we chose to, that we could easily evolve physiological traits to match this new expression, and that it wouldn’t take millions of years for us to evolve these new physical traits, that we could do it in fairly short order. Am I on the right track with that?
PHIL: Is it likely that we will develop new physiological traits that we bring to the forefront to support this?
ELIAS: It is.
PHIL: In other words, a mixing and matching, or even an elimination, say, of the reproductive ability – an elimination or an enhancement or a mixing, any number of the above.
DEBBIE: Because when we had these discussions, what I foresaw was that we are so fluid that whenever we get to a point… Let’s say for all intents and purposes I’m 20 and I want to carry a child, so I would bring that from my current physiology. Even if I was expressing, let’s say, primarily male, my body would have that ability almost to morph and to accommodate my intention of carrying a child. That’s how I saw it futurely, that all of this was in our ability by intention bringing up those latent qualities, because we’re all accepting that like belief systems, they’re all there. And then when you focus an intent and move in that direction of let’s say in this case creating a child, it didn’t matter if you were born primarily male, you could generate that manifestation.
PHIL: On the fly.
DEBBIE: On the fly, so to speak. Is that…?
ELIAS: That is a possibility. It depends upon what you do and what you… and what direction you move in. But let me also express that… Now, what you are expressing is coming from the perspective of an individual that is female, therefore from the perspective of bearing children is important to you. Bearing children isn’t necessarily as important to these other individuals.
ELIAS: I would say that it might be at some point, but that’s the key word: “MIGHT be.” That for the most part it’s not an important point to them, that they are making a choice to express themselves in a particular manner and that they are making a choice to be genuinely themself. And in that, the idea of reproduction is not actually important to most of them.
DEBBIE: Actually, you’ve really reframed my brain there, because I saw what I was doing and I couldn’t see it before. I was almost jumping over all of this to a place futurely where we’re all fluid and can create our reality. Now this is important, to stop and see this I’ll call it “difference,” to see the magnanimous nature of what is being manifested now with this other.
ELIAS: Yes. Yes. It is very important.
DEBBIE: I appreciate that, because that was a total reframe. So thank you.
ELIAS: You are very welcome. And what I would say to you is, this is somewhat of a fascinating point in this situation, and in this movement in the allowance of this and the allowance of this new gender expression, because there will be – and there is already – a tendency for female individuals to be expressing very similarly to how male individuals have expressed throughout your history. Male individuals have taken the role of being the dominant gender and therefore then telling the submissive gender, the females, what is best for them, or what they want – that they WANT to have children, that it’s their FUNCTION to have children, that it’s their DUTY to have children – and the females have accepted that. But it’s not simply a dictate, because as a female individual you are, in a manner of speaking, the interlocking counterpart to the male individual, and for that sole purpose of reproduction.
Now, in that, I would say that the subject of reproduction is not one that most of these individuals that identify themselves as nonbinary are interested in. And in that, what I would say is that now it would likely be the female individuals that would take that role of expressing to them what they want, what’s important to them, and what they’ll regret if they don’t move in certain directions – which is not actually correct. (Chuckles) It is the expression of placing that onto individuals because that’s what is important to you.
ELIAS: But this is another piece that sets up a difficulty for individuals that incorporate the identity of male and female, because it’s not simply that these individuals are identifying themselves in relation to those two genders; it’s much more than that. And being given the opportunity, or taking it, to express themselves genuinely, they are not inclined to be expressing themselves in manners that are traditionally accepted.
PHIL: So if I’m hearing you correctly, it sounds like it’s more probable that rather than having a mix and match of reproductive organs that we might develop a physiology without those?
ELIAS: That is a possibility.
PHIL: Interesting. Now, has that occurred in the past? Is that a latent trait?
ELIAS: Has it occurred in the past? Yes. And it’s something that is very, very rare, but it depends upon what direction individuals move in as you move forward as to what you physiologically create.
And let me express to you that the body does incorporate the tendency eventually to stop producing certain organs and certain parts of the body if they are obsolete or if they are not being used. Children in your present time framework now are being born without an appendix, without tonsils, because these are asked [inaudible] of the body – and some even without gallbladders, because these are parts of the physical body that for centuries – not THOUSANDS of years, but for centuries – have not necessarily been used; and not even MANY centuries, because I would say that all of those physical components of the body consciousness were actually being used… mmm, as of two centuries ago.
Therefore, you’re correct that it wouldn’t take thousands of years to generate these different expressions of evolution with the body consciousness. It simply has to do with whether certain parts of the body are actually being used or not. And if they’re not, then in your terms – which, it’s actually you, but in your terms then nature deems them unnecessary. Even teeth! There are many children now being born without wisdom teeth. And remember: All of your teeth are present. You don’t create teeth at different stages in your life. Your teeth are all… or the material that creates your teeth is all present from the time you are an infant. And in that, there are children that are being born at this point already without the material for wisdom teeth, and THAT has been a development in less than 200 years.
PHIL: May I ask a parallel question?
DEBBIE: Yes, please.
PHIL: I have a parallel question, and this is again regarding these columns that I wrote, Elias.
PHIL: One of my main contentions in this article, besides the introduction and speaking about this idea of a third gender, was that the legal institution of marriage was actually holding all of this back. Would you comment on that? Let me just preface it by saying a little bit more about it, that I indicated that the sociological institution of legal marriage, especially in the United States – at least that’s what I’m familiar with – is being used as a control factor and it’s actually affecting even the LGBTQ+ movement in that it’s causing perhaps a lot of these individuals to identify in certain ways that they may not, because of this still-prescient idea of marriage and the marriage of two individuals. And it doesn’t matter whether they’re two males, two females, two others, but my contention was that it’s an institution of the state, that really if we were to dispose of that, that it would go a long ways towards us moving into this idea of being accepting of just people. Would you comment on that, please?
ELIAS: Very well.
Now, this is somewhat a tricky business. I would agree with you in relation to the institution of marriage, but I would also express that people – humans – naturally, for the most part, couple themselves with each other. This is a natural function that you do. It’s very similar to – or the same – as many other species. There are many species that do this. And in that, it isn’t always to be procreating, although there is a piece of that in which most people do want to generate families and therefore they do want to either procreate themselves or they want to move in the direction of acquiring children and generating families.
Now, part of that you could express is being somewhat like instinct.
PHIL: Repeat, please?
ELIAS: Some of that is like instinct. I would say that it’s an urge, it’s a drive with people as much as with any other animal that is about creating offspring. But – BUT – that expression that is likened to instinct comes from the necessity of generating offspring to continue the species. You don’t need to do that any longer.
And that’s also a part of the timing of this emergence of this third gender, that it’s not necessary for you to be generating more offspring. It’s not something that is actually an instinct. I expressed it’s LIKE an instinct, but it’s not an actual instinct. And in that, just as with animals, if a particular species of animal is threatened or endangered, it’s more likely that it will produce more offspring. If it isn’t, it’s more likely that they will produce less, and that… that would be instinct, and they don’t think about it; they simply do it. And in that, it’s a physiological, biological function that happens.
Now; you as humans – once again, with no accidents – are moving in a direction of generating this new emergence of this new freedom of expression with gender, and part of it is that they don’t have this drive to produce offspring. And in that, if they have a desire to generate a family – which is not the same as the drive to produce offspring – if they do have a drive to generate a family, they are quite content with moving in the direction of assuming parentage of other children, what you term to be adoption.
I would say that it’s an interesting phenomenon what you are creating at this time, and (chuckles) all of it is interconnected. You move in the direction of in many places banning the action of abortion. And what I’m expressing is not an opinion; I don’t incorporate an opinion about whether abortion is right or wrong. They are all choices. And in that, what I would say is, it is an interesting situation, that everything IS interconnected, and as you move in the direction of this expression of this new freedom of gender, (chuckles) that you’re also [inaudible] the ability, or the availability, of termination of pregnancy. Which then creates a situation in which there’s likely to be more children that are born that the biological parents are not necessarily accepting of, and that makes a greater availability for those individuals that choose not to be procreating.
ELIAS: And I’m not – once again – expressing any idea that one direction is right or wrong. I’m simply pointing out the interconnectedness of the choices that you all are making.
DEBBIE: Yes. Would it be fair to say that our direction as a species, going into this Shift further, is to have less individuals manifested? Would that be a sound statement?
ELIAS: Not necessarily. I would say that that’s the direction that some cultures have attempted to implement, but it generally isn’t successful. I would say that no, it’s not necessarily a matter of generating less offspring; it’s simply a matter of how you do it, and doing it different.
DEBBIE: Right. Right. A small interconnected piece was coming to mind when you were speaking was that idea that many people who aren’t generating children even if that’s what they think they want – you know, I had a lot to do with the conversations you had with [name removed] for example, but the one piece that stood out for me was that they, maybe not objectively aware, were contributing to not perpetuating a lot of generational trauma. Does that play –
DEBBIT: That plays a piece too. There’s many pieces that move into this that are moving in that direction –
ELIAS: There are.
DEBBIE: – of a more balanced and a harmonious individual, thus species. It’s still in alignment with the Shift, is what I’m saying.
ELIAS: That is correct.
DEBBIE: Do you have something, Phil?
PHIL: I do. I just wanted to jump back for a second. So when I was talking about marriage, I was not speaking about coupling, which is… I expect people are going to want to couple. The idea is that the state-sponsored institution of marriage which then becomes part of the legality of a relationship and that the state shouldn’t be involved in that, that they even give incentives –
ELIAS: [Inaudible] Yes. I expressed initially I agree with you, and that that is actually correct, but not to be confused with the pull for people to be coupling with each other, because that’s very natural.
PHIL: Right. So in 2015, the federal government passed a law that allowed people to marry whoever they wanted, but I think that that actually moved in the direction of less freedom and not more.
ELIAS: No, I would say perhaps ultimately, but in the short term, no.
ELIAS: In the short term, I would say that it allowed individuals to couple with each other and to be recognized to incorporate the same rights in coupling as anyone else.
PHIL: I agree. And I guess my point in all of that was that the state shouldn’t be involved.
ELIAS: Yes, I agree.
PHIL: That there shouldn’t be an incentive to get married, and you should be able to couple or uncouple freely without state intervention.
ELIAS: But in that, it’s a matter of recognizing that your country has been founded on Victorian ideology.
PHIL: Ah, true. Sure was.
ELIAS: And therefore, the institution of marriage, and the involvement of state in relation to that institution, and the promotion of it through incentives is all very much based in that Victorian expression and history.
PHIL: Right. Okay, thank you. I’m satisfied that my basic contention, as I explained it in the column, is fairly adequate for what I was trying to express, in that –
PHIL: – we really should have the state out of relationships.
ELIAS: I would say that in association with relationships, that yes, that would be more freedom, if that is the point is that you are expressing freedom in relation to your relationships and how they are expressed and what is expressed with them, and that the state is not generating that control by expressing incentives to be generating marriage as a legal institution. I agree with you.
PHIL: Thank you.
ELIAS: But I would say that it’s also a matter of recognizing that for a time, it’s important that there is the acceptance of everyone being able to participate in that legal institution.
PHIL: Yes, the reciprocity, the leveling of the playing field.
ELIAS: Correct. And then perhaps your pendulum will swing to the middle.
PHIL: Gotcha. All right. Thank you very much.
ELIAS: You are welcome.
DEBBIE: That’s an important factor to whatever subject we’re looking at right now.
PHIL: Mm-hm. Right.
DEBBIE: That was wonderful, Elias. Thank you.
ELIAS: (Chuckles) You are very welcome.
PHIL: Thank you for the ripping conversation, Elias.
ELIAS: You are exceptionally welcome. (Laughs) And I express tremendous encouragement and support to both of you, and express to you that you are developing and moving very well. Congratulations.
DEBBIE: Thank you.
PHIL: Thank you.
ELIAS: I express exceptional love to both of you, and dear friendship as always. Until our next meeting, my dear friends, au revoir.
PHIL: Au revoir.
DEBBIE: Au revoir.
(Elias departs after 54 minutes)
Copyright 2023 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.