In 1949, Jean Paul Sartre’s spouse, Simone de Beauvoir, published a book called The Second Sex, where she wrote that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”. She explained that in her view there is a difference between sex at birth and what she referred to as Gender, which she defined as a social construct. Simone de Beauvoir is described by feminists as one of the founding mothers of feminism, and this is historically accurate: after expanding de Beauvoir’s perception during the 1960s so that the term “gender” would include virtually all differences between men and women, feminists have been declaring for 60 years now that manhood and womanhood are not the manifestation of two innate sexes, but merely cultural-molds. Following de Beauvoir’s footsteps feminists contended that men have created these “molds” to oppress women, by the social construction of masculinity and femininity, which according to this feminist depiction of humanity do not result from any biology of two sexes. Women’s liberation thus became in feminism the deletion of the concept and word “sex”, to erase the acknowledgment it entails of innate differences, and replacing it with the idea and term “gender” which would denote “cultural molds” of differences – such that all sexes-differences would be construed as arbitrary, strictly socially-constructed, and oppressive, and listed for erasure, to be achieved by fierce social action and at all cost until there’s no content to the notion “man” distinguishable from “woman” – and this and only this – would be liberation. The actual physical differences and sex organs were to be seen as some “external makeup” (related to a person’s inner workings no more than a tattoo would be – a “three-dimensional tattoo”), average emotional or cognitive differences that generate average differences in tendencies or preferences, as “stereotypes that perpetuate themselves”, sexuality differences as “an invention made by men for their own convenience”. Of molecular differences such as the different distribution and function of the receptors for sex hormones in the body and brain, feminists were not aware, and their ability to hear about them gradually declined as they restricted any discussion of biological differences, labeling it “chauvinistic”. The principal tool feminists have been using for accomplishing their goal of deleting by social action any and all sexes-differences, perceived by them as “merely cultural differences”, is familiar to all of us – Gender Studies – whose name was chosen to announce the underlying perception shared by all feminists and to promote it by inscribing the term and concept on their department door like a slogan on a sign: GENDER.
True – a person called John Money did develop an approach to sexes differences, and within an extremely isolated group of psychologists he may have had some resonance that traveled for a few decades among some idiosyncratic practitioners, unknown to most people even within psychiatry, having eventually some marginal effect in the 2000s on treatment approaches to people requesting to change their sex. However, this is definitely not what popularized the term “gender” in its “culture molds” meaning, nor the perception that all differences between the two sexes should be accepted as “socially constructed” and could thus be “socially-erased” since they are in the first place “determined socially”. This popularization was done entirely by feminists. As someone who studied psychology including some years in a doctorate degree, I never heard the name Money, until about a year ago, when social media started implicating him as the cause for the new madness. It is obvious why his name was brought up – it was done to show that operating on children to change their sex can bring about their suicide. But despite this motivation being correct in principal, Money is causally, historically, not what had spread and disseminated the term “gender” as designating “cultural molds” and the idea that innate manhood and womanhood “don’t exist” – this was all done by feminists, who have been loudly expressing this perception on every opportunity for approximately five to six decades. As a very deliberate implementation of their perception about the sexes, feminists methodically responded to any question that had the word “sex” in it by using in their answer the term “gender” instead, to “correct” the speaker’s wording. When no one knew what precisely the word is supposed to mean in the feminist dialect, “gender” has always been one of the words feminists insisted on as being “politically-correct”. The feminist dictated dictionary included “survivor” instead of victim, “sex worker” instead of prostitute, “gender” instead of sex. The word in de Beauvoir’s sense of “cultural molds” became publicly known solely because it was chosen by feminists to be their trademark, as it still is today.
By the 1980s, the then-minuscule feminism invents a sort of club, calling it “identity politics” (the term was coined and proposed by feminists), with the sole purpose of attempting to unilaterally annex to the negligible feminist core various segments in society such as gays or ethnic minorities to make that obscure core seem wide and formidable. The annexation never included asking the annexed; for decades polls were showing 90% objection to identity politics in all of these groups, by their objection to what identity politics offered as a substitute for authentic human empathy – “political correctness” (this obscurity of feminism and its identity politics prevailed for decades, until 2017, when in me-too feminists used social-media violence to impose their perceptions. Up to that point these perceptions were esoteric – in 2016 a poll in the UK reported that only 7% of Britons identify as feminists). During the first two decades of the 2000s, by a feminist complaint that always ignores equal numbers when such numbers are reached, women became 74% of psychologists – almost all of whom educated to be feminists. In the same two decades feminist mockery of men and boys becomes battering and enters the mainstream. Women’s journals publish joyful interviews with women who share their castration fantasies – a horrendous feminist castration fantasy was normalized. In those two decades, unsurprisingly, under the increasingly-acceptable hatred for males a growing number of boys start showing “sadness of own sex” dubbed “gender dysphoria” which means literally “sadness of own sex”, and between 2000 and 2015 the proportions of boy-to-girl sex-transition requests in clinics become four times higher than girl-to-boy requests.
In me-too in which radical feminists used their identity politics to recruit as many social segments as possible to their “no sexes exist, everything is culture-molds that men invented for oppression, men and manhood are the sickness of the world”, after exhausting the list of segments they reached in 2018 the trans. Trans were never part of the feminist identity-politics club nor of the feminist belief in “no sexes exist, there are only cultural molds”, and always believed they were not born in the other sex, but are, transitioning to it (at least in their subjective belief, while for better or worse changing sex is in fact not possible biologically), hence their name – trans-itioning, and hence the medical procedures (for someone who thinks that “man” and “woman” are nothing but cultural molds, switching would mean changing “culture-mold-elements” such as clothes, not biological form, as she believes that the man-woman distinction in not biological; but for trans as for everyone else except feminists, the man-woman distinction was always biological which is why trans-sexuals regarded biological operations and medication as the transitioning). Ignoring this, the me-too vortex re-drafted trans beliefs about themselves to the feminist culture-mold belief, and, being the most isolated group in society, after a few months of a rather confused disagreement in 2018, trans accepted their one-sided annexation by the identity politics club and by that began adopting for the first time the feminist revision of their own self-perception, from: “the man-woman distinction is a biological distinction and I’m transitioning medically because I was not born in the other sex, but want to be in it”, to the myriad of contractions of: “I was born in the other sex and hence need operations to be in it, because a man and a woman are just social constructs and not biological entities hence I need biological surgeries and biological treatments to move between them”.
Being 75% of psychologists and having after me-too absolute power in most of the media, with a legitimized castration fantasy and publicly-accepted animosity to maleness, feminists promoted in clinics, schools and the media the practice of chemical castration of an exponentially-growing number of boys, who, after being raised in exceedingly mainstreamed and institutionalized anti-male hate, mysteriously, wanted not to be considered male. To hide the possibility that through their hegemony in the corridors of psychology they are actively avoiding other possible approaches such as encouraging these boys to learn to appreciate maleness and to love themselves as they are (as done for example with anorectic girls, who share similarities with children labelled with gender dysphoria), and that by this avoidance they have crossed a line from acceptance to encouragement to boys to begin castration, as well as to prevent any sincere inquiry into the reason for the sky-rocketing rise in the number of boys expressing discontent with their maleness (which may identify as the cause the exposure from birth of some boys in certain social strata to institutionalized feminist hate, sometimes coming even from mothers and sisters consumed by the feminist anti-male rhetoric), feminists started the “acceptance” wars.
These were firstly initiated to present the active role of feminist clinicians and teachers (and sometimes mothers) in chemical castration of young pre-puberty boys, as “nothing more than passive acceptance of a pre-existing innate quality of the child expressed by the child” (thus the innateness of being a man or a woman, which per feminism exists in no person, because per feminism these are just cultural molds, suddenly does exist, but only when a person is “innately born in the other sex” – in all the rest of us there’s no innateness to our being a man or a woman, only trans children have this peculiarity). We should keep in mind that this was and is said of toddlers as young as three, an age in which children are still learning to talk and would make mistakes even in naming colors, and that only toward the age of four after completing previous stages of cognitive development such as identifying colors and family relations, do children acquire the more advanced concept of sex, along with the idea of “men have penises and women have vaginas” and will make mistakes as when learning color names, simply because toddlers learn every new concept through a game of trial and error. We should also keep in mind that there is no such biological phenomenon as “a boy born a girl” or “a girl born a boy” – the chromosomes, cells, biology and brains of children treated as “born in the other sex” are identical to those of all members of their sex – they are ordinary children. You might not be aware of such scientific data, the reason being that the cynical identity-politics network that feminism has been attempting to expand for decades (where universal humanist solidarity will be replaced by a “rights exchange market” called “inter-sectionalism” for egocentric deals between “groups”, formed by deconstructing humans into traits), has evolved through the fear-culture that feminists quickly generated out of me-too into a threat-driven hegemony in the intelligentsia, that began censoring science and medicine from within the academia to prevent such data from reaching the public and even to stop ongoing research.
When facing objections, and now with a record of actions of genitalia mutilation in minors (defined in an international treaty as a crime against humanity including, so the treaty states, when done by creating a culture that would cause the minor to cooperate with this mutilation), feminists started using their power gained through me-too in institutions and the media to demand that no one stand in their way, with incitement against any objection with the word “phobic”, while abusing their power to fire, silence and censor any criticizer. By 2020, girls, raised from birth with applauds from feminists, became jealous of the excited feminist applauds to boys who announce themselves trans (from the perspective of many feminists, the boys are to be applauded for relinquishing the sin and evil of maleness, by which, in that common feminist perception, the boys are admitting male evilness and confirm as males the soundness and righteousness of the feminist hate to maleness and the supremacy of femaleness). Girls thus began copying the boys to receive again the applauds they were used to receiving, and matched trans boys in numbers – within that same year a large feminist outcry against “what transitioning does to girls” was formed with books and in panels – not a word about the boys, as if mutilating girls was a mistake and not the goal but mutilating boys was the goal and not a mistake.
The castration drive of feminists, their publicly-expressed hate to maleness, and their decades of promoting the “no sexes exist, everything is just culture-molds for oppression” for hideous incitement against men by blaming them for the very existence of the biology of humanity and for women’s innate tendencies, were now all legitimized through the power feminism attained by abuse of me too, culminating in encouraging castration publicly, which now necessitated for covering the active encouragement and any possible connection between tens of thousands of boys requesting not be considered males and years of anti-maleness coming even from teachers and mothers, a hypocritical demand to “accept” – that humanity isn’t humanity, that “women are men” and “men are women”, a dictation which predictably had to result in putting rapists in women’s facilities – because a male rapist who identifies as a woman really is a woman. This is what entire countries are required by feminism to accept in order not to dispute feminism’s belief that men and women are just social constructs and are thus decided socially – this leading immediately and necessarily to the consequence that “social acceptance” of someone’s “self-identification-as” creates a reality “because the reality was to begin with merely a social construct”, with the direct implication that not “accepting” is inhumanely denying of a person some reality (again, this illogical thinking, of arguing that “being ‘born in the other sex’ is an objective reality” while insisting that this “objective reality” is “completely dependent on subjective social construction and hence on social acceptance”, and contending that manhood and womanhood are entirely social and at the same time asserting that switching between them therefore requires biological modifications including in children, is at the heart of the feminist misconceptions – these inconsistencies are not a gap in the criticism but precisely what the criticism is pointing to. Feminism often leans on blunt contradictions, because feminism stems from drives and urges and these are often inconsistent in humans – feminist thinking is fundamentally a system of rationalizations for contradicting impulses, many of them violent). Countries have to accept the dictation, because following me-too any refusal to accept anything coming from feminism is misogyny, while being a moral person means accepting every feminist statement. And so, the court in the UK has now sent a man charged for raping two women, and identifying as a woman since being charged, to a women’s prison.
Most women did not object to feminist lies and madness over decades nor when in late 2017 feminists immediately turned me too into a violent insanity-spreading device to act upon their violent drives, this eventually reaching making mutilation of children acceptable, which then required an entire culture of lies that had to result in putting rapists in women’s prisons. Women are now sleeping in the bed they’ve made. Stop the madness – abort feminism and return to universal humanism. Female separatism, also known as “feminism”, is nothing but sex-nationalism and sex-racism. It is premised on hate, and on paranoid false beliefs generated to justify the unfounded hate, and those false beliefs are hurting everyone including women. Equality for all has only one name – universal humanism. Feminism is not part of humanism and not an equality movement but a hate movement premised on hate. Reject feminism – return to universal humanism, equality, sanity, humanity.
Cover image: Image by stockking on Freepik
You can help this website continue operating by downloading from Amazon the book Lovism. All revenues are devoted to the maintenance of the website and for disseminating the articles published in it. Your support is greatly appreciated.
You can also support this website via Patreon: www.patreon.com/henryblair
1 thought on “A man convicted in raping two women sent to a women’s prison; this madness epidemic was created by feminism”
There’s a difference between sex and gender ROLES. That is what Beauvoir was talking about.
Radical Feminists were the first and loudest voice against transgenderism. They’ve been talking against it since the 60s. All the rest of you are just jumping on the bandwagon now, for clout.