英文作成２
id:apesnotmonkeysさん、id:kleinbottle526さん、本当にありがとうございます（感涙）
お二人に戴いたアドバイスを拝読しつつ、英文作成やら英文理解などをしたいと思います。
では、まず
apesnotmonkeysさんにアドバイスを戴いた、３つに質問に関する箇所について。
I am particularly concerned with the followings:
特に、次に掲げることを大事だと考えています：
1) Does "John/Joan case" falsify all or most of Dr. Money's claims (including his assertion of biological sex variety) in "Sexual Signatures: on Being a Man or a Woman"?
「ジョン／ジョアン事例」は、マネー氏が「性の署名」にて主張したものを全て、またはほとんどを誤りだと証明しましたか？
2) Does "John/Joan case" fully justify the hypothesis that manliness/womanliness is genetically (or innately) determined?
「ジョン/ジョアン事件」は、男・女らしさが遺伝子学的（または先天的）に決定されるという仮説を完全に正当化しますか？
3) Did you read the paper "Politics of Difference ("Sai no Seijigaku", in Japanese)" by Prof.Ueno Chizuko for yourself, or did you comment on her on the basis of what Mr. Yamamoto said about her?
あなたは自身で上野氏の「差異の政治学」を読みましたか。または山本氏が上野氏について言ったことに基づいて、彼女についてコメントをしましたか？
So I would be very glad if you could answer above three questions and give me permission to make your reply open to the public.
もしあなたが上記の３つの質問に答えてくださり、また、あなたの回答を公開する許可を私に与えてくださると大変ありがたいです。
次に、
kleinbottle526さんよりアドバイスを戴いた、私による英→和の誤訳に関して。
I don’t want sexism in Japan to abuse your authority
をYahoo!の翻訳で調べたら、その通りでしたorz。kleinbottle526さんが教えた下さった訳のほうが、私の意図に合っています。
そして私も、kleinbottle526さんに戴いた代替案がベストだと思います。
abusingに関して。
- ダイアモンド氏が事情を知らなければ、先入観を与えてしまうかもしれない。
- ダイアモンド氏が事情を知っていれば、全てを語らずとも十分に意図は通じる。
という理由から、「悪い意図や目的のために使う」という意味よりは、「誤解」の方が都合が良いので（レポートにまとめたときに「悪い意図でやったという証拠はどこにあるんだコノヤロー」なんていってくる人が、私以外にもいると大変ですので＜笑）「misunderstanding（誤解）」の方を採用したいと思います。
In Japan, recently, a backlash against feminism and gender equality is getting popularity, misunderstanding and using the argument of the book "As Nature Made Him".
日本では最近、"As Nature Made Him"の主旨を誤解して利用している、フェミニズムとジェンダー平等に対するバックラッシュが人気を得ています。
手紙作成２ラウンド目。
To Dr. Diamond
I'm sorry for bothering you by a sudden E-mail. My name is Makinami Konburoh, I am a Japanese junior college student. I am interested in Gender Studies.
On February 16, 2005, an article appeared in Sekai Nippo (the Japanese version of "World Times") . The article quoted the interview with you by Mr.Yamamoto (newswriter for Sekai Nippo). According to the report, you mentioned studies on "John/Joan Case" and criticized the paper "The Politics of Difference" by Prof.Ueno Chizuko, Tokyo University. Mr.Yamamoto claimed that you said "Her argument has no academic plausibility".
I, myself, read the paper, and I know Prof. Ueno makes a sharp distinction between "Gender" and "Sex". Surely, studies on "John/Joan Case" revealed some misconceptions (or deceptions) in "Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity" by Dr. Money. It does not imply, I believe, that the gender and sexual identity are totally determined by biological sex. However, the article in Sekai Nippo said, quoting you, that studies on "John/Joan Case" refute Gender/Sex distinction and therefore Prof. Ueno.
In Japan, recently, a backlash against feminism and gender equality is getting popularity, misunderstanding and using the argument of the book "As Nature Made Him". I'm afraid that Sekai Nippo distorted what you said in the interview, in order to participate in the backlash. I can't believe that you, who have studied on "intersexuality" for many years, denied Gender/Sex distinction. I'm trying to verify the article in Sekai Nippo, and I am particularly concerned with the followings:
1) Does "John/Joan case" falsify all or most of Dr. Money's claims (including his assertion of biological sex variety) in "Sexual Signatures: on Being a Man or a Woman"?
2) Does "John/Joan case" fully justify the hypothesis that manliness/womanliness is genetically (or innately) determined?
3) Did you read the paper "Politics of Difference ("Sai no Seijigaku", in Japanese)" by Prof.Ueno Chizuko for yourself, or did you comment on her on the basis of what Mr. Yamamoto said about her?
So I would be very glad if you could answer above three questions and give me permission to make your reply open to the public.
I'm sorry to trouble you, but I do not want those innocent though authoritarian people in Japan to simply believe in the sexist argument that has been derived from the interview because of your big name and thus great influence. Besides, if the interview article does not reflect what you actually said in the interview, I am worried that the misuse and misunderstandings of the article might lead your academic plausibility to be ruined at least among the readers in Japan.
I am looking forward to getting your e-mail.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/makinamikonbu/20051023/
(Regretfully in Japanese only...)
