Gender fluidity has come much under the spotlight recently. It has been suggested that there are ‘thousands of genders’, ’98 genders’, that ‘gender is a spectrum of gradations’ and even that it doesn’t exist. Yet if you walk down the street in any part of the world, you will see two genders. So how can this be?
This baffling conundrum is what you get when people don’t do enough research. In fact, BOTH the binary model and the gender-spectrum model are valid; but their relationship is being wilfully misunderstood.
In large parts of the world, but best documented in South America and Asia, the principal gender division is not between men and women but between men and ‘not-men’. I have referred to this in other pieces and it was well described by Prof Don Kulick in his 1996 book ‘Travesti’.
So what are the real two genders?
In Western Anglo Saxon culture we have become used to the notion that gender and sex are somehow the same or, if not precisely the same, directly comparable and fixed in relation to each other. So for the sex ‘male’ we have the gender ‘masculine’ and for the sex ‘female’ we have the gender ‘feminine’.
Sex is taken to mean those unalterable physical attributes of one against the other — in other words, and excepting a tiny minority of people with genetic intersex conditions, this means males have XY chromosomes and females XX; in humans, males have penises and females have vaginas; males have testes and females ovaries and so on. This extends to secondary characteristics and overall body morphology, such that on average, there is noticeable dimorphism between males and females. (The extent of this varies from species to species.)
Sex, therefore, is about biology and the only people qualified to comment on it are those who have been trained in biology. No such person would ever suggest that sex did not exist, or that it was fluid, or that it could be changed. It can’t. There are two sexes and you are whichever your sex chromosomes make you; and that is that.
So if you hear anyone claiming that ‘science says that sex can be any of the above’ then that person is ill-informed, lying, or talking about scientists who are not biologists and so not qualified to say. Social ‘scientists’ and others of their ilk, hardly pass as scientists anyway and here they are disallowed.
But what about gender? What is it?
Pretty much everyone today recognises that sex and gender are not the same. Sex is, as above, what your sex chromosomes make you, but gender is a set of behaviours.
While sex is directly determined by chromosomes, behaviours are not; which begs the question, ‘How much of what we think of as gender is innate?’ (That is, directly determined by birth sex.) The answer is ‘very little’ and that which exists is mainly a function of the sex hormones, principally testosterone (for males) and oestrogen (for females). However, there is one characteristic that does specifically seem to be innate, and that is sexuality. Being attracted to femininity is a male trait and to masculinity a female one.
Other characteristics that we call ‘gender’ are not innate. Some are the function of sex hormones, but most are of social conditioning. In other words, a great deal of what we think of as gender is learned.
How do we know that sex-based traits are so, and not gender-based ones? Simply because they are innate. If they were learned, they could be changed and would do so, from culture to culture. Only sexual attraction is consistent; it is likely to be innate; which suggests that it has a genetic cause.
We might expect to see, if that were the case, that inversion of sexual attraction would be associated with other inversions of sex-based characteristics. And this is exactly what we do see.
There is strong evidence that feminine male homosexual males are smaller, more lightly built and tend to neoteny more than the average for males in their ethnicity. (Blanchard etc.) So while we cannot say that there are no cases where sexuality is learned, we can reasonably suggest that in this case it might not be. Instead, here it is innate, a function of genetics and associated with other, physical, deviations from the norm.
So, some males are born with a sexual inversion, and this is associated with other distinguishing morphology. They are small, light, feminine and attracted to men. Attempts to ‘decondition’ these males — to make them attracted to females — are about as futile as attempting to make them grow another six inches in height.
(Note: not all small, lightly-built, neotenous males are homosexual by any means; but nearly all feminine homosexual males are small, lightly-built and neotenous.)
The sex/gender link.
It is very easy, given our social conditioning, to think of sex and gender as being equally fixed. That is to say, that all males have masculine gender and all females have feminine. This gives us the two social characterisations, ‘man’ and ‘woman’. A man is a person born male who displays behaviours considered masculine in his culture and a woman is a person born female who does the opposite.
This is the standard Western, Anglo-Saxon social taxonomy. But it doesn’t fit the facts.
The spanner is thrown into the works by the existence of persons born male who display innate non-masculine traits — our small feminine homosexual men. These are what are known as ‘Gender Non-Conforming’ or GNC. Depending on social circumstances and personal factors, they may simply display a GNC sexual desire, or they might go all the way and be fully transsexual — that is, attracted to men but also adopting all other feminine gender stereotypes, after the fashion of their culture.
As an aside, I am excluding females here because while there might be a small number who exhibit a similar psycho-sexual inversion to feminine homosexual men, most lesbians are actually bisexual females who only seek relations with other females for social and sometimes even political reasons.
This difference boils down to the fact that males actually can perform both the male and the female sexual roles — that is, they can penetrate and they can be penetrated. So a male can be either a male or a female in sex.
No human female can penetrate, so she is incapable of equivalent physical aspects of psycho-sexual inversion to those that feminine homosexual males exhibit. So homosexuality amongst human females is rarely innate and far more likely to be cultural and social. On the other hand, bisexualism is far more culturally acceptable for women than it is for men.
Feminine homosexual males may present in either a pseudo-masculine gender or a feminine one. In the former they are often called ‘gays’ and in the latter they are known as ‘homosexual transsexuals’. However, this appellation is actually tautologous, so it’s better just to call them ‘transsexual’. They are persons born male who are attracted to men and masculinity, prefer to play the feminine role in sex (to be penetrated) and who adopt the other behaviours, dress modes and so on consistent with women, in their culture. So they are socially as well as psychosexually inverted.
This breaks the lockstep of ‘born-male-masculine-gender-man’ completely. That model could only exist if all males conformed to it, which manifestly they do not. And we know there is nothing new in this; we have historical records documenting them for thousands of years and they appear in every human society, everywhere, despite attempts to suppress them. Of course, they cannot be suppressed, because their inversion is innate.
This means that the Anglo-Saxon model of gender — men and women — is wrong. It is a construct that doesn’t fit society. In a charming paradox, those males often called ‘unnatural’ by the culture, demonstrate that the culture itself is not natural.
However, across the planet, hiding in plain sight, there is another model of gender that does fit society. This is the one I mentioned before, of ‘men’ and ‘not men’.
So how is this different?
Well, as far as the ‘men’ group is concerned, the two models are closely matched. A man is a person born male who exhibits the masculine gender characteristics concomitant with that. ‘Men’ are required to continually exhibit these characteristics and they will be socially punished for not doing so.
In Anglo-Saxon culture, the ‘women’ group is the mirror of the ‘men’ group, but based on females and with similar constraints on behaviour. This, however, leaves our psycho-sexually inverted male, the feminine gay or transsexual, right out in the cold.
In the other model, the ‘not-men’ group, however, is not just made up of people born female; it includes those born male who do not conform to social norms of masculinity: the GNC people we mentioned above. So in societies which exhibit this model, such people have a natural social home.
Within this system, being a ‘man’ is just as heavily policed, indeed perhaps even more so, than in the Anglo-Saxon west. Men are definitely not encouraged to ‘get in touch with their feminine side’. Indeed, if they did so, they might lose all their status in the ‘men’ group and be ejected from it. Men in these cultures are often strongly ‘macho’ and indeed, one such society invented the term.
The not-men group
On the other hand, the ‘not-men’ group is not policed at all. Though its leaders are women, these neither exclude nor revile those who were born male, but do not conform to the masculine norms and so cannot be a part of the ‘men’ group. In fact they are welcomed in this group and often much loved; certainly respected.
So, in this model we see one gender group which is completely and strictly policed by its own members and in which deviation from cultural standards is not permitted. In some cultures, such deviation will simply result in ejection from the ‘men’ group, but in others, for example Islam, the punishment might be torture and death. Most societies are somewhere in between.
The ‘not-men’ group is not policed in terms of gender norms so here, anyone can appear as they like. Doesn’t matter. You don’t have to live up to ‘men-group’ expectations of behaviour, so you can do, or be, anything you like. As a result, in this group, we do have a spectrum of ‘gender identities’ — everything from butch lesbians/’transmen’ through ‘sissy’ beta males to hyper-feminine transsexuals. The only thing you cannot be and remain within this group is an alpha male. Any other presentation is fine.
A rainbow scale? Maybe
So here we have the rainbow scale of variation; but it is still a binary, because the variation only exists within one of the two gender forms. The other is completely separate and exhibits no such variation. The ‘men’ group is exclusively made up of alpha males, and the ‘not-men’ group is everyone else. So these cultures are at once gender-binary and also display a complete range of gender variation.
A pastiche of this is what we are seeing amongst the ‘gender warriors’ of today’s Anglo-Saxon culture. But because the activists behind it are either too ignorant or too ill-educated, or too full of their own assumed cultural superiority to give it credit, they have failed to understand that there is nothing new in what they think they are creating; it is actually the de facto world model. At the same time, they do not recognise that the culture they think they are creating is in fact only one part of a broader gender binary; without its complement it will fail.
This is, right now, being ruthless exploited by Muslim colonisers who wish to supplant the Christian-based, but now largely secular and libertarian, patriarchy of the West. They would replace it with a far uglier and more evil one that has no place on a civilised planet. (Western women who support Islam are in for a horrible surprise.)
A bastardised form of feminism
The impetus behind this social ‘movement’ is a bastardised form of feminism that is actually female-supremacist. Above all else, it hates masculinity and alpha males. (At the moment it has conned black men into thinking it is their ally, but don’t worry, that illusion will soon fade.)
Nobody, where the ‘men/not-men’ binary prevails, hates men. They are sons and fathers, brothers and lovers. They have social roles as protectors and providers. The hatred we see is all the function of anti-male female supremacism that is based on jealousy, greed and covetousness. The staggering irony is that the people behind this detest the strong white men who have for millennia protected them. These men have, willingly, made women their equals in every way, but htey are reviled. Today’s female supremacists support a vicious, misogynistic, male-supremacist, theocratic, sociophagic cult, Islam. This promises them a life of eternal sex slavery; the literal property of men for all of their lives.
Their philosophy — such as it is– is built on juvenile iconoclasm and loathing of alpha males, because the ‘men’ group always, rigorously, excludes ‘not-men’. Women in the west have been seduced into thinking that the most desirable prizes are those they must steal from men; but by doing so, these women enter the work-based slave market that men have given their lives to for millennia. They give up the female advantages and privileges they have in order to take those of men; and they hate the fact that no matter what they do, no man will ever accept them as one of his group.
Butch lesbians can never be men; they are not-men
A butch lesbian can take all the hormones she likes, grow herself a neckbeard, make herself bald and destroy her ability to be a mother, but she will never, ever, be a part of the ‘men’ group, no matter what she does. And that is where the hatred comes from, the bitter, spiteful loathing, the claim of ‘male privilege’ — a non-existent thing. How is it a privilege to fight and die defending others? To spend one’s life working in wage-slavery? Are coal miners ‘privileged’? How does a homeless war veteran have privilege?
Most men have no ‘privilege’ save one: they are men. And that is what the would-be men of the ‘SJW’ movement hate the most: they can never be men. But in order to have that privilege, men have to live lives in which their behaviours are minutely policed for deviancy; where they are expected to give the best of their lives in providing for their families and children. They are expected to take up arms, fight and, all too frequently, to die to protect them and the other weaker members of society.
These men are not just powerful politicians and businessmen, the rich parasites on society that ‘patriarchal theory’ says they are. They are firemen, lifeboatmen, soldiers, sailors, paramedics and policemen; honest working dads the world over; the ones who will always respond when others need them. They are the very first that whingeing neckbearders turn to for help when their ludicrous vision of the world is violently attacked — as it always will be: just ask German women today.
There is a gender binary
So there is indeed a gender binary; but one of the genders consists of a single presentation while the other is a rainbow scale of variation. This model exists worldwide, but only in parts of the West is it poisoned with hatred and loathing of men.
No amounts of testosterone cosmetic surgery, bogus philosophy or pseudo-science, will ever permit someone born female to become a member of the ‘men’ group. That is for we alpha males alone, and that will never change. The gender binary has always existed and forms a necessary part of human society; it is not possible to remove one side, for the simple reason that the ‘not-men’ group is weak and incapable of defending itself.
As soon as a culture that has suppressed its ‘men’ group comes into contact with one where it is vital, the former is destroyed by the latter. We can quote hundreds of historical examples of this. In order to protect itself, the ‘not-men’ group needs the ‘men’. The alpha males are the protectors, the ones called on when attack — which is inevitable — comes. And when it does, we shall, as we always have, line up to fight and die to protect the weaker ones, the ‘not men’, because we love them and it is our duty.
So suck it up, buttercups. You need us.
Copyright 2017 Rod Fleming’s World