New Feature: I Read Twilight and Hate it

I have decided to read Twilight, by Stephanie Meyer. I've already done some reading about Twilight, which leads me to dislike the series, but I've never read the actual books. This makes is somewhat difficult to impress on people that have read it that it is a bad book, as all the Twilight fans would just accuse me of criticizing something I didn't even know or understand (and they would be right)¹. I've decided to read Twilight partially to give it a fair chance, but mostly so that I can criticize it better. Also, because I usually try to avoid any book or TV series which becomes suddenly and intensely popular, but sometimes (after it's been out for awhile) my curiosity gets the best of me, much like it did with the Harry Potter series.
Actually, Harry Potter became somewhat of a guilty pleasure, where I enjoyed reading it but was still able to recognize that it wasn't actually good² (sort of like when I would watch "Jackie Chan Adventures"). Really, though, my prediction about Twilight is that I will neither think that it is good nor enjoy it, at least not how it was meant to be enjoyed. Still, I'd like to give the series a fair shake before judging it further (well, maybe not fair, but a shake at any rate). What I do believe I will enjoy is tearing it a new literary hole here, on my blog. You see, I'm introducing a new feature today on Dotted Pomegranates; it's called "I Read Twilight and Hate It." It's meant to be a chapter-by-chapter criticism of the book, as well as a synopsis and substitute to actually reading it, for those in the same situation as me. Look forward to installments, soon.
¹: And if you have read it but say that you hated it, then they just ask "Well, why did you read it then?" It's a bit of a Catch-22
²: I still maintain that Harry Potter is not a good series. I will explain why I think this in a separate post, if necessary.

The Big Transgender Post

This article expects you to have a basic understanding of terminology surrounding the transgender movement, but in case you don't, here's the one-paragraph summary: "Sex" refers to one's maleness of femaleness in the physical sense (ie; your plumbing). "Gender" refers to someone's mental sense of identity of being male or female (what you consider yourself to be or "identify" as). "Female-to-Male" (or FTM) refers to a transgendered¹ person who was born with a female body but identifies as a male. "Male-to-Female" or MTF would be the opposite of that². A person who's not transgendered is called "cisgendered."
I don't really have a blanket acceptance for all transgender issues nor a blanket denial of them. It's a little more complicated with that, so I'm going to list some statements that would generally be used to describe what the transgender rights movement supports, then whether I consider then true or false and why. If any of the issues require further clarification or support after this, I'll write a separate article for them.

• A person is a man³ or a woman based on what they identify with. Sort of. Like many discussions, this one comes down to a matter. Here, we have two different definitions for man,* one stemmed in gender, and the other stemmed in sex. The exact wording that I most often hear for the gender-based definitions is that a male is "anyone who identifies as a male." The sex-based definition I like to use is that someone is male if they're "phenotypically male," that is to say if they've grown male reproductive organs.
  As far as which of these is correct, they both are to some extent. Some people, when they say "male" are referring to someone who identifies as male, regardless of gender. At the same time, some people are referring to anyone who has a male sex when they say it. Really, in a way, these are two separate words that just happen to be spelled and pronounced the same way. So, they're both useable definitions.
  My position, though, would be that the sex-based version is more useable. The reason for this being mostly that it's the meaning that most people are thinking of when they say male, and most dictionaries would agree with it. There are also some inherent problems with the gender-based definition, probably the greatest of which is that it's a circular definition; it includes the word "male" in the definition for "male." It also implies that anyone who doesn't speak English can't really be male, because they probably wouldn't identify with a word that they don't even know. I know this sounds like I'm being pretty ridiculous in my interpretation of this definition, but when a definition doesn't create any meaning in a word besides the word itself, then it's just not a good definition and opens itself up to these problems.
  I can also see how people might see the gender-based definition as sort of a "straw-man," but that is honestly the definition I've heard most often offered by people who consider maleness to be gender-determined. Still, I'm also willing to listen to other definitions if any readers have another one to offer.
• A transgendered person feels a strong compulsion to express their gender which they cannot help. Sure. I mean, I don't have the experience of being any of the people out there who say these feelings are so compelling, so who am I to disagree with them when they tell me how they feel.
• A person should be allowed to wear the clothes and then present themselves in such a way that reflects their gender identity. Yes , with a caveat. This is all about being honest with yourself. If you a person feels that their gender compells them to wear a skirt instead of pants or visa versa, then more power to them. There's really no harm in dressing to express. I put a caveat in here though, with regards to dressing in order to convince people that your sex is something it isn't. I've noticed a pre-occupation amongst transgendered people with their ability to "pass," or present themselves in such a way that no one guesses their sex. This is different than dressing in a certain way for the purposes of self-expression; it's dressing for the purpose of creating an idea in other people's heads, and a false idea at that. I'm not saying that this should be illegal or anything like that, but there is a moral obligation not to, as it is dishonest.
• Transgender people should be free from violence and harassment because their presentation doesn't match up with society's proscription for how people of their sex act. Absolutely. There are very few things in this world that someone can do to warrant violence against them, and choosing not to fall in with society's gender roles is not one of them. Anti-transgender violence is also (I've heard) one of the factors that pressures transgendered people into hiding their birth sex, for their own safety. So any act of violence against transgendered people for anger over dishonesty about sex is having the opposite effect intended.
• A transgendered person should be able to use the bathroom, locker-room, or similar facility which corresponds with their gender. No. This goes back to the first issue I brought up, about what makes someone a man or a woman. The reason that we have separate facilities for men and women has nothing to do with self-identities or gender roles and has everything to do with bodies. Being nude is a very corporal thing. In our society, we have this pervasive idea that seeing a nude person who has the same kind of body as oneself and being seen nude by people of the same kind of body is really no big deal, but seeing or being seen by a member of the opposite sex is something to be avoided, or at least reserved for people one is intimate with. Now, one can certainly argue that this idea is pointless or wrong or whatever. It's not my intention to defend this idea as something necessary, but rather just to point out that it is there and that it is the basis for why we have "men's" and "women's" facilities. So it only makes sense that how we divide people into these facilities should follow along corporal lines. Also, there are some single-user, unisex restroom out there; an idea that I'm totally in favour of.
• Transwomen should be allowed to attend the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. Yes, but there's more to it than that. for those of you who've never heard of it, the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (or MWMF) is an annual music festival built around female artists and has had a long-running rule of only allowing "womyn-born-womyn" to attend. Recently, they started agreeing to sell tickets to transwomen, but informing them that they are violating the spirit of the festival. Then, they eventually just dropped the rule altogether, but I feel it's still an issue worth discussing. I could probably write a whole post on the MWMF, but I'll try to keep it brief here. Preventing transwomen from attending the festival was wrong and discriminatory, but it wasn't wrong because doing so didn't recognize them as women; it was wrong because trying to limit the festival to only women in the first place was bigoted and discriminatory. There has been a noticeable movement in the transgender community to try and gain access to the MWMF, but they're not doing it by saying that they should end their discriminatory admittance policy, but rather that they should just revise it so that transwomen aren't excluded. The thing about how the transgendered movement has treated this policy, is that they've implicitly said "It's okay that you discriminate; you're just discriminating wrong." The fundamental difference between the MWMF and the places mentioned in the above issue is that a music festival has nothing to do with one's sex or body, so it doesn't justify to exclude people based on their sex or body.
• A transgendered person should be allowed to marry someone of their birth sex (and opposite their gender). Yes, but same with cysgendered people. I'm definitely in favour of marriage equality (see previous post), so I don't think sex (or gender) should be a factor that prevents anyone from getting married.
• A person should be legally protected from being discriminated against for employment, based on their gender. I agree. A person shouldn't be disqualified from a job because of their gender, their sex, or whether or not the two "match." The reason being is that none of these things have any baring on a person's ability to work. There are a few jobs that would count as exceptions (e.g. stripper), but these really are just small exceptions and shouldn't allow discrimination in other positions.

¹Some people have a problem with using "Transgendered" as an adjective. I am not one of them.
²Of course, there are more categories out there than "male" or "female," but I'm trying not to over-complicate thing
³For brevity's sake, I'm just going to be talking about how this argument applies to whether or not someone is a man. Everything in this section can be applied to whether someone's a woman, as well.

Paradigms for right and wrong love

  I find it amusing that opponents of same-sex marriage will often put up some kind of slippery-slope argument against it saying that if we broaden our definition of marriage, surely even broader definitions, including things like polygamy and marriages to children, will follow.  I find this amusing, because a great deal of these people support using the bible as a guide to what kind of marriages we should have, and the bible is pretty pro-polygamy, and pretty lax on the whole adult-child relationship thing, too.  Marriage as a system of ownership is also a pretty common theme in the bible.
  There have been plenty of articles written on how the bible is a poor standard for what kinds of marriage should be allowed, but has anyone ever taken a look at other standards, not just for marriage but for what divides "right love" and "wrong love" in general?
  Probably the most common description for what makes right love (or at least marriage) is the "one man and one woman" paradigm.  This has the downfall of allowing things like marriage as a system of person-ownership.  I shouldn't really call this a paradigm either, because it's more of a laundry list of qualifications than an idea about being wrong or right.  I mean, there's no inherent morality surrounding the idea of there a single man, or about there being a single woman.  This idea looks less like a paradigm for right love and more like the shortest way to describe marriage that doesn't include the three most obvious kinds that society finds unpalatable (same-sex, polygamous, and child marriages).
  Of course, I should point out that support for one of the three kinds mentioned above doesn't necessitate support for the others.  When people believe that acceptance of same-sex marriage will lead to acceptance of polygamy or pedophilia, they seem to generally run on the assumption that proponents of same-sex marriage support an "anything goes" standard.  From my experience they're mostly wrong in that assumption, which is good because otherwise we would see widespread support for forced marriages, polygamy, and child marriages.
  A standard that I think is much more common in the pro-gay-marriage camp is the "two consenting adults" (or, less commonly, the "two or more consenting adults") standard.  This one is pretty good, but it has the same problem as the "one man and one woman idea" in that it' not really a paradigm so much as a list of qualifications.  It also has the problem of allowing for marriage-as-ownership and similar scenarios, as long as both parties say they agree to it.  Really, aside from allowing same-sex marriages, this set of qualifications is almost the same as the "one man plus one woman" set.  I want you to think about that for a second, because it really highlights how these both fail as paradigms.  One of them allows a type of marriage that the other doesn't, but neither of them really includes any justification for why they fall on the side they do.
   Now, you know I wouldn't bring up this subject unless I had my own paradigm to proscribe, and I do.  It can be described in one word: equality.  For any relationship or marriage to be right, good, and healthy, it must be equal.  The equality paradigm would exclude polygamous relationships, because they carry in their composition the implication that a man is worth 4 (or however many) women, while a woman is worth 1/4th of a man.  The equality paradigm would also exclude pedophilic relationships, because an adult is at a fundamentally higher position in society than a child.  It would also exclude bestial relationships, because a human has a much higher position in society than an animal.  This applies to more than just the members of the relationship but also how they act towards each other; any relationship where one person acts as the ultimate decision-maker is unequal.  Forced, coerced, and ownership-based relationships would also be excluded, for obvious reasons.
    What this paradigm would not exclude are opposite-sex relationships or same-sex relationships.  Nor would it exclude couples who like to engage in S&M, assuming that what they do is decided based on the mutual enjoyment and consent of both parties.
    Now why is this the best paradigm, you ask?  Aside from not including the negative kinds of relationships that I mentioned the above paradigms imply, it's also based on a pretty good ideal that a lot of people seem to be quite fond of.  When you love someone in a romantic way, you put them on equal importance as yourself and you become partners.  "Partners" in relationships means the same thing that it does in business; they don't become your boss and they don't become your subordinate.  They become your partner - your equal - and treating them like your equal will keep the relationship healthy.  Plus "Marriage = Equality" it's much snappier and fits on a bumper-sticker better than "Marriage = Two consenting adults," don't you think?

Cube Staircase

     Sometimes, when arguing a position, people will use a string of points, where-in each point supports the one following it, but does not end up supporting the subsequent point after that.  If you look at these arguments as a series of short “Because A, then B” statements, then each one of them as an individual is sound, but the argument as a whole is not.

    The reason it’s not sounds is because, although each points supports the one after it, it does so in such a way that doesn’t support the following points.   Here’s an example:

I’ve heard that this vacuum is powerful enough to pick up a chair; so, this vacuum sucks really hard.  If any product sucks really hard, you shouldn’t buy it.  So, you shouldn’t buy this vacuum.

    It’s true that a vacuum is powerful enough to suck up a chair, that it sucks really hard.  And it’s also true that if a product sucks really hard, that you shouldn’t buy it.  However, these aren’t true using the same sense of the phrase “sucks really hard.”  In this example, the conflation is really easy to spot, but people often sneak these into their arguments in a more subtle way.

     Here’s another way to think of it: imagine a staircase, made out of cubes.  Each cube is placed off-center from the cube below it, but in such away that its weight will still be supported and it wont fall off.

     Now imagine that a few more blocks were added on, and each block supports the block above it in the same way, and if you look specifically at any two sequential blocks, they will seem to support be supported.  However, each block will support two-or-more blocks above itself, and over-all the structure is unsound, and would fall down.

      Arguments work in the same way.  Each piece of evidence given needs to support the point which relies on it, but also every piece which relies on that one and so on. 

On feminism (and masculinism).

     Feminism is an interesting word.  It means many different things to many different people.  To some, feminism is almost synonymous with the legalization of abortion.  Others may consider those values completely incompatible.  I've heard feminism often described as "the radical idea that women are people," an idea that's hardly been radical in my lifetime.  If I were to provide a definition for how I see it, it would be that feminism is the desire to remove from our society the cultural and legal inequalities between men and women which negatively effect women.  Certainly, there will always be argument over what these inequalities are and how best to get rid of them, but I believe at the core are the things I stated above.

     I used to think that feminism accounted for any desire to remove inequalities between men and women.  I would rail against many discrepancies between how males and females were treated, and I wondered why other self-described feminists didn't rally behind me.  Mostly, it's because I would rally behind ideas that would benefit men, but not so much women.  Feminism doesn't take into account the needs and problems faced by men.  It's not because of some inherent sexism within feminism; it's just not what it was made for.  That was my misunderstanding of feminism.
     On the other end, you have ideologies which want to make the world a better place for women, but to do so by creating inequalities (or at least strengthening existing ones) rather than destroying them.  People in this camp will usually wave the banner of feminism, or "radical feminism."  Of course, any ideology that supports any kind of inequality between men and women isn't really feminism (as per my definition).  Because it so often self-describes as "feminist," however, I like to call it faux-minism¹.  I've run across a lot of this mindset on the internet, mostly because I'm an internet masochist and like reading sites catered towards people I disagree with.
    One such site is a little chestnut called "I blame the patriarchy"; a nice little blog and accompanying message-board.  This place is a goldmine for off-the-wall, no-holds-barred misandry, and it will probably serve as my whipping boy for some future blog entries, but I digress.  Faux-minist writings that I've seen seem to avoid the idea that they're creating inequalities with sort of a "blank check" attitude towards them.  That is to say that: they see the inequalities and discrimination against women as being so great that they could not be overcome in the foreseeable future, and that anything that makes things better for women, at the expense of men, could never shift the balance enough to set things so that they favour women overall, but would rather only move society closer to the (distant) middle-line of equality.  I'm kind of half-making this up; I've never heard it actually described to me like that.  It's more of a general impression I get from reading a ton of blog posts.  I don't believe that society is really that stacked in men's favour (which is a post for another day), but even if it were; counteracting inequalities with more inequalities doesn't "balance things out."  It's clumsy and inaccurate and just creates a more complex web of separate roles.
      Most Men’s Rights blogs I've read suffer from the same problem, but with reversed genders.  They seem to have an unhealthy interest with restoring traditional gender roles and the nuclear family, thus restoring previously weakened inequalities.  Given the fact that the modern men's rights/masculinism movement was basically created to be a mirror movement of feminism, it seems logical that qualifications for what counts as masculinism is the mirror of what counts as feminism: any idea that seeks to remove inequalities which negatively effect men.   
     There's a middle ground, as set of changes we could make in society that's both masculinist and feminist, that removes inequalities and benefits both men and women.  Removing violence and similar tough-guy ideals from society's idea of what it is to be a man is one example of this. 
     Even with the presence of common ground, though, there seems to be a weird kind of animosity between many feminists and masculinists, as though they were each other's enemy.  I don't know why, though.  Both camps have similar goals of ending sex-based discrimination; each one is just better at seeing and attacking different kinds of discrimination.  After all, the most visible kind of discrimination for anyone is the kind against a group that person belongs to. 
    If feminists are trying to remove some kind of inequality, it is not the goal of masculinism to stop them; or visa versa.  Eventually, if both parties keep removing inequalities against themselves, the barriers between men and women might not be so present.

 

¹ Why does the French word for “fake” make such better portmanteaus than the English one?

Nomenclature of sexuality

    It really perplexes me as to why we use the words "gay" and "straight," or any synonyms there-of.  Why do we classify sexuality into categories of "like the same sex" or "likes the opposite sex"?  These seem unnecessarily convoluted and weird.  We use the same words to describe a man who likes men, as we do for a woman who likes women.  We call both these kinds of people "gay," yet they seem like the complete opposite in their preference. 
    A few years ago, I decided to stop, or at least limit, using reflexive terms for sexuality (previous post aside).  It just makes so much more sense to me to describe someone as "liking women" or "liking men" rather than "liking their own sex" or "liking the opposite sex."  After all, you're supposed to be describing what kind of person someone is attracted to; you shouldn't muddle it up by using phrases that are based off of what kind of person they are.
    It's like, if you decide to have dinner with a friend and you ask them what kind of food they're in the mood for, and then they answer, "the same kind of food I had last night."  When you ask someone a direct question, ideally they should give a direct answer, not one relative to some other bit of information.  "Mexican food," is a better answer than, "the same kind I had last night."  In the same way, "I like women," is a better answer than, "I like people of my own sex."
    Unfortunately, I'm still definitely a minority in using this system.  There aren't any convenient, monosyllabic words that I can use to describe someone as liking men or liking women.  I could make some up, but people would have no idea what I'm talking about, and if they asked I'd basically have to explain my who position on reflexive language to describe sexuality.  And I'm not very fond of using made-up words to shoe-horn my opinions and rants into conversations.  I guess the words "virisexual" and "gynosexual" are accurate, but they're way too long for everyday use, and still have the same probably of people having no idea what I'm talking about. 
    Maybe I'm being overly-logical about this whole thing, but there are other reasons that it would be nice if people adopted non-reflexive language about sexuality.  For instance, if use the same word to describe a man liking men as we use for a woman liking men, then it might help us to see (at least subconsciously) that these attractions are not so different. Non-reflexive language would better highlight the inherent sexism in saying that it's okay for women to like men, but not okay for men to like men, or visa versa.  I wont go as far as to say that our system of language is what allowed homophobia to take root in society, but I certainly think it made it easier.

   I’m not saying that we should totally throw out the words “gay” and “straight”; they are still useful when speaking in a broader sense, and you’re using the word to describe both lesbians and gays, or both straight women and men.    However, when you’re talking about a specific person’s sexual preference, it just makes so much more sense to me to use non-reflexive terms for sexuality.  

   Of course, this whole rant doesn't really apply to the phrase "bisexual" (or "pansexual"), because it already describes a person’s sexual preference, without relation to their own sex.

I don’t get homophobia.

    I never really get homophobia.  Like, I don't get what would instill in people this desire to rally against homosexuality.  I know a lot of it can be attributed to religious fundamentalism and the notion that it's immoral.  Still, there are plenty of things that are generally considered immoral and the bible forbids (e.g. lying) but you don't see widespread political movements against them.  Some of it may be the result of some kind disgust at the thought of two men (or women) having sex, but most people aren't that in a moral outrage knowing that our parents have had sex (how else would we be here), or that people who they find ugly have sex; we just choose not to think about it.  I don't really know why people feel the way they do; like I said, I don't get homophobia.
    One thing I do notice about homophobia, though, is that the majority of it seems to come from straight men, and be directed towards gay men.  This doesn't make any sense to me.  It seems that gay guys make your life better in pretty much every way, if you're a straight guy.  If you're a straight guy reading this now, you're probably thinking I'm full of crap.  Hear me out:

   Dude, imagine for a second that you're going on a camping trip with two other guys and two girls.  Those odds kind of suck for you.  If everyone is single, and looking to hook up on this trip, then one of the guys is going to get left out, and it could be you.  Lord knows the other guys are going to try their hardest to make sure it's not them.  And even when you do are hitting it off with on of the girls, you have to worry about the other two guys trying to swoop in and kill your game.  Bottom line, it's going to suck.  Now, imagine the same situation, but both the other guys are gay. Suddenly, you don't have any competition.  If both the other guys sneak off to do your own thing, that leaves you alone with the two girls.  Suddenly, this situation is looking a lot better, right?

   Basically, the thing that makes gay guys great for you is that they're not straight guys. You can still hang

Technorati Tags:

out with gay guys and be their friends; despite what you see on TV, there are gay guys who like watching football, or playing Halo, or whatever typically manly activity you might be into.  The main difference, though, is you don't ever have to worry about your girlfriend cheating on you with them, or leaving you for one of them, or about them horning in on your action when you're flirting with some girls at the mall.  See what I mean?  Better.

Tomatoes are vegetables

Tomatoes are Vegetables.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You heard from your textbook/biology teacher/girlfriend/dad/wherever that tomatoes are fruits because they have seeds. I'm going to get to that in a moment. First, I need to talk about the fact that the great Tomato Debate is, at it's core, a linguistic one. That is to say, the argument really boils down to definitions; in this case, the definition for "fruit" and the definition for "vegetable" (I think we can all agree on what we would define as a tomato).

Now, about tomatoes being fruits because they are seed-bearing ovum. If you were thinking this when you started reading this article, you were right. Tomatoes are fruits, because a fruit is "the developed ovary of a seed plant with its contents and accessory parts..."¹. You'll find a pretty similar definition in most dictionaries. So, by the dictionary definition, tomatoes are fruits.

However, tomatoes are also vegetables. Look up "vegetable" in most dictionaries, and you'll find a definition along the lines of any plant or part of a plant which is harvested for food by humans. Random House defines it as " any plant whose fruit, seeds, roots, tubers, bulbs, stems, leaves, or flower parts are used as food..."² So, according to the dictionary definition, Tomatoes are vegetables along with all other edible fruits and things like rice, peanuts, sugar, and soy. Not mushrooms, though.

So, tomatoes are both fruits and vegetables, right? Well, kind of. You see, both the definitions I gave you just now are sort of general definitions for "fruit" and "vegetable." Words can, however, have a general definition but also a completely different definition, for use in special situations. For instance, the word "virus" refers to (in general) a type of non-living microbe which uses the cells of living things to reproduce. However, in the area of computer science, "virus" takes on a completely different definition, and no longer refers to a microbe or a physical thing at all, but rather digital information which is designed to make a computer run instructions that would cause unwanted damage. This is a special-case definition of "virus."

And, I propose that when someone asks "are tomatoes a fruit or vegetable?," they're asking for a special-case definition of both those words. First, because the question implies that a tomato is one or the other, general definitions which overlap as much as "fruit" and "vegetable" do probably aren't the right choice. Second, because the categories of "fruit" and "vegetable" conjure up images of the classic Food Pyramid, and the boxes which appear on them. Often, when someone asks about tomatoes being a fruit or a vegetable, they're asking which Food Group it belongs in. And the Food Groups "fruit" and "vegetable" have different criteria than the general definitions of "fruit and vegetable." If they didn't, then every food we ate that comes from a plant would be in the Vegetable Group, and (needless to say) that is not how the Food Pyramid works.

So, which Food Group do tomatoes fit into? Well, they are savory and not sweet, they contain low amounts of fructose, and they are usually eaten as part of dinner rather than desert. For these reasons, I would argue that they are in the Vegetable Group. Furthermore, the USDA (the department responsible for creating the Food Pyramid) list tomatoes on their Vegetable page but not on their Fruit page. I'm having trouble finding an official list of foods that belong in each group for the "classic" Food Pyramid (the one without stairs running up the side), but a picture of said pyramid on the USDA's website contains something that looks distinctly like a tomato in the vegetable section.

So, for these reasons, I believe that the tomato falls squarely in the Vegetable Group of the Food Pyramid, and not the Fruit Group. If you choose to accept Food Groups as the appropriate method for which to determine if a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable (which is the method I would prescribe), then it's a vegetable and not a fruit. If you choose to use the general definitions to decide, then it is both a fruit and a vegetable. QED: tomatoes are vegetables, no matter how you look at them. They are, however, only sometimes fruits. Here's a little chart to summarize things:









1: fruit. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fruit (accessed: January 21, 2009).

2: vegetable. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegetable (accessed: January 21, 2009).