Difference between revisions of "Gender ideology"

Revision as of 01:44, January 18, 2018

Gender ideology is the belief that biological sex and "gender" i.e. social identification as male or female, are two different things. This is a false binary division. It assumes the two things are unrelated and therefore separable. Actually biological sex and gender are intrinsically related and male/female identity is so written in to each of our body-cells that even removing our reproductive organs does not change our sex or our gender.

"Gender" in fact is nothing more than an indication of sex. Gender is a signifier. The indication maybe be one of language, or of costume, or something else, but gender is only gender if it indicates biological sex. If it does not, it is a hollow signifier and not true gender. Gender separated from its logical, meaningful connection with sex is a mere nonsense.

An early and disastrous example of gender ideology was the work of the sexologist Dr John Money, who performed "transsexual" operations in Baltimore, Maryland. He carried out a bizarre experiment from 1966 onwards, on a pair of twin boys named Brian and Bruce Reimer. The twins were born in Winnipeg in August 1965. When they were seven months old, they were sent to hospital for a routine circumcision. The electrical equipment malfunctioned and Bruce's entire penis was burnt off. Brian was not operated on. The family were distraught. Dr Money advised the Reimers that he could turn Bruce into a girl. When Bruce was 18 months old, he was castrated and an artifical vulva was created for him. The family now called him Brenda and tried to treat him like a little girl.

Dr Money believed that there was a period of babyhood when sexual identity was undecided- a 'gender gate' - which lasted up to the age of two. During that period, he argued, if the parents chose the sex of the child, the way they brought it up would determine the child's gender, not its physical characteristics. Until this point, Dr Money had never put his controversial theory into practice with a non-intersex child. In the Reimers he had the perfect and unplanned opportunity to do so: a set of identical twins, two biological boys, one of whom could be raised a girl.

Janet Reimer wrote to Dr Money of Brenda's progress and once a year the whole family visited him in Baltimore. When Brenda/Bruce was five Dr Money started to write about the experiment - referring to him as Joan/John - in his books. The case became a sensation. It was the proof that certain extreme feminists in particular were looking for. Widely cited in many text books, the case was a landmark study - hailed as proof of the overwhelming force of nurture - in spite of increasing evidence that hormones both in the womb and throughout a child's life, play a huge part in an individual's perception of themselves as masculine or feminine.

Nevertheless, Brenda/Bruce behaved in a distinctly masculine fashion. He liked running, fighting and climbing, and loathed playing with dolls. He had no friends and was increasingly lonely as his twin Brian was embarrassed to play with her in front of his other friends. He hated going to visit Dr Money, who insisted that to fully understand that he was a girl, he needed to grasp the difference between men and women, and frequently spoke to him about genitalia. He took photographs of both twins naked, and even encouraged them to engage in sexual play with each other. He tried to persuade Brenda/Bruce to have a vagina constructed, which, at the time, would have been made out of section of his bowel or else from the skin of his thigh, which would then be inserted into the pelvic region.

When Brenda/Bruce was 7, Money showed him graphic photographs of a woman giving birth in an attempt to get him to agree to having a 'baby-hole' made. He also suggested strongly that he take hormone tablets in order to make him grow breasts when he was 12. Other scientists, including Dr Money's ex-students, argue that he did these things in the best possible interests for his patient - to make him believe that he was indeed a girl. Brenda/Bruce however felt traumatized and became suicidal.

Finally when he was 13, the family told him and Brian the truth. Brenda/Bruce was intensely relieved as he had felt he was going insane. Almost immediately he reasserted that he was a boy and called himself David. David received compensation money for the circumcision and used this to pay for surgery to have a new penis constructed. In his early twenties he married Jane Fontane, who had three children of her own.

Unfortunately, his relationship with his brother worsened. Brian had felt that David, as Brenda, had received all the attention when they were growing up; once he discovered that he was no longer the only boy in the family, he became extremely angry. To discover he had been lied to so long and so extensively was disturbing. It was the start of mental disturbance that would develop into schizophrenia. After two failed marriages, he died in 2002, possibly of a drug overdose, which may have been a suicide attempt.

David never managed to complete his education and had to take semi-skilled work. He was made redundant and was unemployed for a year. He sold the movie rights to his story, but lost the money when a business man absconded with his investment. Stricken with grief for his brother, his marriage started to fail. Jane asked him for a short separation period, but David took this very badly. He returned to his parents' house for a few days, before driving to a supermarket car park on 4 May 2004 and shooting himself in the head. He was 38 years old.

Dr Money argued that he cannot be held to blame for this twin tragedy because David did not accept a female gender identity. He says that the family delayed making a decision until their son was almost two, just before the "gender gate" was about to shut. Others, however, argue that he could have admitted he made a mistake when the case clearly was not working, for he continued to let people believe that it had been successful long after he had stopped seeing Brenda/Bruce and he had become David. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]} Since the time of Dr Money, understanding of the human genome has advanced and we now know that a child's sex is fixed from the point of conception, and is inscribed in every cell of his or her body. Hormones present in the womb may influence secondary sexual characteristics, but nothing can change the sex of a child, or of an adult. There is a growing body of evidence that attempting to do so is harmful and innumerable cases of ex-transsexuals who regret and try to reverse their decision.

Not all feminists agree with gender theory. A book advocating it was written by Judith Butler who calls herself a feminist. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.^[8]

However, there is a deep ideological divide and vigorous war of words between transsexuals and radical feminists who do not accept biological men as "women".

Despite scientific advance, and this vocal opposition from some radical feminist groups, LGBT activists have continued to persuade politicians worldwide to adopt gender theory as "progress" and legislate accordingly. They argue that innate biological sex of an individual is irrelevant, and that everyone should have a choice to select whom he or she feels to be or wants to become (man, woman, otherwise sexually or gender-differentiated, respectfully).^[1] According to this theory, biological division of sexes into males and females places unnecessary restriction on humans, because it allegedly creates so called 'gender stereotypes' of thinking and behavioral patterns in the society that later, according to proponents of this 'theory', may lead into various forms of 'discrimination'. Gender ideology therefore claims to be entitled to redefine the common understanding of the sexuality of humans from the biological and medical perspective onto the socio-culturally created artificial construct of 'gender,' i.e. onto the subject of purely subjective perception and feeling of oneself so that everyone can "freely choose" who he or she is or whom wants to be wrt. this so-called 'gender identity'.^[9]

Political lobbying instead of science

Instead of applying scientific research and peer-reviewing by independent scientific community, the partisans of gender ideology are imposing their views on the rest of the society by means of political lobbying in national and international political structures. At the same time, they uncritically and manipulatively promulgate interests and goals of activists from certain pressure groups who falsely label themselves as legitimate 'minorities' (cf. LGBTI bundling).^[9]

Gender ideology in Istanbul Convention

On 5 Jul 2017, Ambassador of Norway to the Council of Europe deposited its instrument of ratification the so-called Istanbul convention. Thus, Norway became the 24th state to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.210).^[10] In Slovakia, however, the call for ratification was met with strong public resentment.^[11][12][13] In 2013, organizations Forum for Life and Forum for public questions worked out an analysis where they showed and pointed out that under the pretext of combating violence against women and domestic violence, the convention is misused i.a. to introduce the gender terminology that is foreign to domestic legislature.^[14] The Convention also encroaches upon parental rights in realms of education and gives special privileges to self-appointed interest groups. Consequently, there have been more than 100 domestic organizations that signed a call for withdrawing the Slovakia's signature and for refusal of the Istanbul convention. One political party that as of 2017 participates in government, SNS, publicly denounced the Istanbul convention.^{[15][16][17][18]} In 2015, two NGOs, Áno pre život ("Yes for life") and Spišská katolícka charita (Regional Catholic charity) have been denied grants from EU and Norway Grants for their projects after they were found as signatories for recalling Slovakia's signature under the Istanbul Convention. As the projects of these two organizations were targeting the needs of women suffering i.a. from domestic violence, the case was interpreted by general public as proof that background for Istanbul convention is ideological indoctrination and does not honestly seek or represent the real help to women who are in need of it. When the leaders of these NGOs which do not perceive domestic violence through distorted optics of feminist terminology on "gender-based violence" visited the Norwegian Ambassador to Slovakia asking for explanation, they were simply told that they have to accept Istanbul convention.^[19] In the meantime, the representative of liberal NGOs such as Adriana Mesochoritisová from Možnosť voľby ("Option of choice") made attempt to portray conservative NGOs, by using logical fallacy of bifurcation, as "leading towards violence".^[20] Liberal lobby also strives to bring EU as a whole to join Istanbul convention in order to avoid sovereign decisions of particular countries and thus impose this convention even upon "disobedient" ones. Speaker of European socialists S&D, Iratxe García Pérez, claimed that one of the latest resolutions, hijacked into programme of Council of the EU on 11 May 2017 under the camouflaging Agriculture and Fisheries agenda, „increases the pressure onto 14 member states, which so far have not ratified the Istanbul convention.“^[21][22][23]

See also

• LGBTI Gleichschaltung
• Sexual disorientation
• Sexual orientation theory

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (2015). "5.Transgender revolution", We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong. Harper Collins, 77–8. ISBN 978-07180-32487. 
2. ↑ Jill Johnston (1973). Lesbian nation: the feminist solution. Simon and Schuster, 166, 271. “...theory and practice come together we'll have the revolution. Until all women are lesbians...” 
3. ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml>/
4. ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11814300
5. ↑ The Reimer Twins: A Tragic and Unethical Sex Change Experiment. https://www.sott.net/article/373088-The-Reimer-twins-A-tragic-and-highly-unethical-forced-sex-change-experiment
6. ↑ https://documentarystorm.com/dr-money-and-the-boy-with-no-penis/
7. ↑ https://Being Brenda : by Oliver Burkeman and Gary Younge www.theguardian.com/books/2004/may/12/scienceandnature.gender
8. ↑ Judith Butler (2011). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge. ISBN 9781136783234. 
9. ↑ ^{9.0 9.1} K príležitosti medzinárodného dňa detí: Vyjadrenie a výzva lekárov, psychológov a iných odborníkov ku vplyvu rodovej ideológie na duševné zdravie detí (On the occassion of International Children's Day: Statement and declaration by medical doctors, physicians, psychologists and other professionals to the impact of gender ideology on the mental health of children) (Slovak). “Rodová ideológia okrem iného tvrdí, že nezáleží na vrodenom biologickom pohlaví jednotlivca, resp. že je nepodstatné: každý má mať možnosť vybrať si, kým sa cíti alebo kým si želá sa stať (mužom?, ženou?, inak sexuálne/rodovo odlišným?). Biologické delenie pohlaví na mužov a ženy vraj človeka obmedzuje, lebo údajne vytvára v spoločnosti rodové stereotypy zmýšľania a správania, ktoré neskôr vedú k rôznym formám diskriminácie. Rodová ideológia si preto nárokuje predefinovať obvyklé chápanie sexuality človeka z biologického a medicínskeho hľadiska na sociálno-kultúrne vytvorený konštrukt rodu (gender), teda na predmet rýdzo subjektívneho vnímania a cítenia seba samého tak, aby si každý mohol „slobodne určiť“, kým je alebo kým chce (rodovo) byť.”
10. ↑ Norway ratifies the Istanbul Convention (05 Jul 2017). “Today, in Strasbourg, Ms Astrid Emilie Helle, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Norway to the Council of Europe, deposited its instrument of ratification in respect of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.210). The Convention will enter into force, as regards Norway, on 1 November 2017. Norway becomes the 24th States to ratify the Convention.”
11. ↑ Jurinová a Verešová: Ako je možné, že ešte stále nespustili roky sľubovanú diskusiu o Istanbulskom dohovore? (Slovak) (6 Sep 2016).
12. ↑ Prečo by Slovensko nemalo ratifikovať Istanbulský dohovor (Why Slovakia should not ratify the Istanbul convention) (21 Jun 2017). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
13. ↑ Renáta Ocilková. Istanbulský dohovor ako trójsky kôň? (Istanbul convention as a Trojan hourse?) (Slovak). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017. “V ID sa približne 70-krát nachádza odporúčanie „prijať potrebné legislatívne a iné opatrenia“, pričom implementáciu zákona bude kontrolovať orgán (GREVIO), zložený z expertov z Turecka, Srbska, Francúzska, Portugalska, Španielska, Talianska, Rakúska, Albánska, Malty a Čiernej Hory, ktorí sú nezávislí a konajú vo svojom mene. Nie je to na zvrchovanú Slovenskú republiku trošku odvážne? (Česi napríklad Istanbulský dohovor vôbec neriešia, ani ho nepodpísali, ani sa ho nechystajú ratifikovať.) GREVIO má výrazný vplyv na národnú legislatívu a môže sa stať inštitúciou, ktorá bude v budúcnosti v našej krajine presadzovať akúkoľvek politickú (či ideologickú?) agendu. Najväčšie riziko dokumentu je však jeho vágnosť a všeobecnosť a to, že týmito všeobecnými formuláciami a monitorovacím mechanizmom sa bude môcť Istanbulský dohovor každý rok vykladať ináč. Od ratifikácie budú musieť národné parlamenty monitorovať prijaté opatrenia a nemajú právo na výhrady (okrem pár nepodstatných vecí).”
14. ↑ Zastavenie procesu ratifikácie Dohovoru Rady Európy o predchádzaní násiliu voči ženám a domácemu násiliu a o boji proti nemu (Stopping the process of ratification wrt. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence) (Slovak). Fórum pre verejné otázky (Forum for public questions) (26 Nov 2013). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
15. ↑ Kontroverzný Istanbulský dohovor dostal nateraz stopku. Anna Verešová ozrejmila, prečo úsilie kritikov nekončí (Slovak) (7 Jul 2017). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017. “Dohovor chce podľa vašich slov presadiť kontroverzné témy. Aké sú reakcie jednotlivých organizácií na tento dokument? Už v roku 2013 vypracovali experti z Fóra pre verejné otázky a z Fóra života právnu analýzu, na základe ktorej sme žiadali zastaviť prijatie dohovoru. Pod túto výzvu sa podpísalo viac ako sto organizácií. Uvádzali sme štyri hlavné výhrady a to – zavádzanie gender terminológie, zasahovanie do rodičovských práv v otázke vzdelávania, snaha o odstránenie zvykov, tradícií a stereotypov a vytvorenie nejednoznačného monitorovacieho mechanizmu. Najvážnejšie z toho je tzv. rodové vzdelávanie detí a mládeže na všetkých úrovniach škôl. Nad rodovým scitlivovaním detí od útleho veku ešte v roku 2015 vyjadrilo znepokojenie viac ako 340 psychiatrov, psychológov, pediatrov a pedagógov.”
16. ↑ Poslankyňa Verešová reagovala na obvinenia o diletanstve a snahám proti odstráňovaniu násilia na ženách (Slovak). hlavnespravy.sk (20 Jul 2017). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
17. ↑ Zuzana Čahojová (30 Nov 2015). Istanbulský dohovor: Vlk v ovčom rúchu (The Istanbul convention: Wolf in sheep's clothing) (Slovak). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017. “Okrem iného, znenie samotného Dohovoru v zásade operuje len s pojmom „žena“ a pojem „rod“ sa v texte Dohovoru vyskytuje už len jedenkrát v článku 4 „Základné práva, rovnoprávnosť a nediskriminácia“ odseku 3. Pohlavie aj rod Ustanovenia Istanbulského dohovoru teda predpokladajú súbežnú existenciu dvoch navzájom nezávislých „premenných“ rodu a pohlavia. Táto dichotómia sa tiahne celým textom Dohovoru a v súvislosti s ňou sa vynárajú viaceré podstatné otázky, ktoré sa týkajú samotného výkladu, a to dokonca takých zásadných pojmov, ako je výraz „žena“. ... V prípade Istanbulského dohovoru sa v zásade ponúkajú dve alternatívy výkladu. Prvou by bolo, že „žena“ je determinovaná biologickými ukazovateľmi. Druhá alternatíva je tá, že rod je sociálny konštrukt a ženou je každá osoba, ktorá sa za ňu považuje. Zdá sa, že aj členské štáty Rady Európy si boli dobre vedomé nejednoznačnosti a iných problémov, ktoré so sebou Istanbulský dohovor prináša. Preto sa pokúsili „napáchané škody“ napraviť v dôvodovej správe, ktorú prijali k Dohovoru.”
18. ↑ SNS nepodporí Istanbulský dohovor a vyzýva, aby Slovensko stiahlo podpis pod ním (Slovak) (13 Jul 2017). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
19. ↑ Pavol Rábara (30 Nov 2015). Ženský boj o rod (Women's fight for gender) (Slovak). postoj.sk. Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
20. ↑ Dá sa to konferencia - Adriana Mesochoritisová, Možnosť voľby. NOS OSF (26 May 2016). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017. “"konzervatívne kruhy idú smerom k násiliu" Prednáška Adriany Mesochoritisovej z Možnosť voľby o kampani na podporu Istanbulskeho dohovoru. Záznam z konferencie "Dá sa to", ktorá sa konala 21. apríla 2016 a bola záverečným podujatím Fondu pre MVO. http://osf.sk/fond-pre-mvo/”
21. ↑ Pavol Rábara (17 May 2017). Ako obísť štáty, ktoré nechcú Istanbulský dohovor (How to bypass states that do not want Istanbul convention) (Slovak). postoj.sk.
22. ↑ EU to join international convention combating violence against women (11 May 2017). Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017.
23. ↑ Agriculture and Fisheries Council, 11/05/2017. European Council Council of the European Union. Retrieved on 25 Jul 2017. “Press releases: EU to join international convention combating violence against women 11/05/2017, 10:20”