Instead of “traditional” “gender” “roles”, feel free to say: natural, sexes, qualities

You can’t object to a falsehood while accepting as true all of it’s false premises.

The falsehood we are discussing is the belief that manhood with its masculine traits and womanhood with its feminine traits are nothing but man-made inventions; that furthermore, the “invented womanhood” was “designed” “for oppression” and the “invented manhood” is malicious and “invented femininity” with “malintent”, and hence “those who contrived” the “two artificial constructs” are “culpable” for “their malignant oppresive invention”; and, finally, that if both are “an arbitrary invention” they can be redrafted, specifically – since femininity is “a fabrication conceived by humans for oppression”, eliminating femininity in women is “liberating women”, and since masculinity is a “malicious invention” “created by men” “for oppression” it not only can, but must be deleted, forcefully if necessary, that is, manhood must be deleted in men and “it’s a moral imperative to delete the manhood of men – see above”.

Those sexes-differences expressed within the sexes’ intimate relations – a universal drive in women to beautify appearing in every culture past or present, and a drive in men to look at women appearing as a 3.5-times stronger fMRI brain response to women relative to women’s visual fMRI response to men, a drive in men to initiate and in women to be approached to, a drive in men to protect women and in women to nurture babies – were formed by nature in the course of evolution and are thus imprinted into every cell of men’s and women’s bodies. Differences between men and women are thus not man-made “roles” like theater roles, but innate qualities, and, therefore, they are not “traditional” as if invented by a culture with some “tradition” that may be replaced by “another tradition” at will. And since these qualities originate from the same genetics by which nature generated a two-sexes procreation in all sexual species, which are more or less all life forms beyond bacteria, there are only sexes and only two of them – there is no such thing as “gender” when the term pertains to some hypothesis that sexes and their features are “merely a social construct”. So feel free to say: natural, sexes, qualities, and not “traditional” “gender” “roles”. You can’t expect the disappearance of a set of abusive practices stemming top-to-bottom from an entire society adopting a falsehood – that “manhood and womanhood don’t exist and were fabricated by the male sex to oppress women and therefore both should be erased” – when you continuously restate that very same falsehood by referring to differences that are natural, sexes, qualities, as “traditional” “gender” “roles”.

All those three terms were propagated in the meanings they take in this phrase, by feminism, they have no other source. Until the year 2017 no one but radical feminists was using them to describe sexes differences (even most feminists wrote “sex” and not “gender” before 2017, the year when me too started and was immediately abducted by radical feminism to enforce its perceptions through social media violence). Using the phrase “traditional” “gender” “roles” makes you: a radical feminist. You must recall: what you used to say before 2017, who used to use this terminology before 2017, out of what beliefs, and for what goal. Do not try to deceive yourself that you are creating some inner dictionary where the radical formula “traditional” “gender” “roles” has another meaning that you assigned to it. When you are using it, without knowing it you are declaring, propagating, and cementing the very falsehoods you object to. You were dragged into doing this through a media that was forcefully occupied by a radical cult and that subsequently enforces this terminology. Feel free to say: Natural, sexes, qualities. Not “traditional” “gender” “roles”. Please try to recall – you never used radical feminist terms, and for a good reason. Remember? Let’s wake you up from the brainwash on the count of three:

One.

Two.

Three.

Remember?

This statement is not taking a stance on where the line separating the natural from the cultural is drawn, it definitely is not arguing that: “all qualities are different between the sexes” – only that those that distinguish men from women are. Men and women are, say, 99% similar, but – in those aspects stemming from their sex, they are not, and not because “of society”. And the innate differences are not restricted to “penises and vaginas” but are formed during embryonic development in tissues, in the distribution and function of the receptors for hormones, in the immune system that only in women mustn’t attack a foreign entity – the embryo – and in the brain as different connectivity in certain regions which will give rise to some rather compartmentalized mental and cognitive average differences, these connectivity differences forming first in the embryo, then by hormones in puberty and only in women during and immediately after pregnancy which is a second hormonal brain-shaping puberty setting maternal behaviors. The resulting mental and cognitive differences are, again, not “all of cognition and mentality” but some portion of it (generally affecting the “how” more than the “what”).

In particular if we divide human activities to work on the one hand and personal intimacy between the sexes on the other, then: at work, in possibly some 90% of occupations, no qualities that differ between sexes are needed, and both sexes are as apt, and yes, there are some 10% of occupations that require a capacity (cognitive) which is different between the sexes on average, and there, there will not be equal numbers if we set the same bar (equality), because in the population there isn’t an equal number of people in the two sexes with above-bar capacity for the specific needed capacity (mathematics., physics, and on the other end of the spectrum, teaching toddlers, caring for the vulnerable). While in the personal relations, it’s a different story and most of the qualities that are directly relevant for the relations, are indeed innately different, and this determines an urge in men to initiate and in women to be approached to, an urge in men to provide and protect and in women to provide care and to nourish with an attraction in each to the other’s drive, and these are not “roles” but innate qualities, and denying these drives by society, is oppression, no different than forbidding homosexuals of expressing their sexuality in their intimacy – hetero-sexuality is imprinted and forbidding its drives or attempting to “engineer” humans so “they won’t express the drives of their innate mutual sexuality” is severe oppression.

The oppression is real and society enforces it because it internalized a falsehood, transfected to it through terms chosen carefully for denial of the humanity of humanity: “traditional” “gender” “roles” – a falsehood which you propegate when using the terms with others, and so do they, until enough people internalize the fallacy to cause society to feel obligated to act upon the only conclusion left when adopting the fallacy – which was its goal and the declared vision of radical feminism – terminating masculinity, while calling this “saving humanity”, and eradicating femininity, seeing in this “liberation”. While both actions are only a form of severe, anti-human, oppression, toward both sexes. One cannot object to a falsehood by accepting the false premises that yield by logical necessity the falsehood. You can’t object to “cats can fly” by accepting premises that yield this very conclusion, such as “all animals are an invention of zoologists and zoologists can think only of flying creatures”. When you say because of the influences around you “traditional” “gender” “roles” you have accepted the premises that necessitate the conclusion you objected to – the ruthless “benevolent annihilation” of manhood and womanhood. Feel free to say: Natural, sexes, qualities.

Cover image: Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik

* All scientific data mentioned in this post were covered in detail in previous posts with relevant references to studies and sources, available to the writer as a neuroscientist. Enjoy scrolling through previous articles to explore subjects of interest.