Originally posted 2017-01-30 10:14:50.
Gender fluidity has come much under the spotlight in recent years. It has been suggested that there are ‘thousands of 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 before and it was well described by Prof Don Kulick in his 1998 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’ with expression ‘man’ and for the sex ‘female’ we have the gender ‘feminine’ and expression ‘woman’.
Sex means those unalterable physical attributes which constitute the two necessary parts of our reproductive process, male and female. Excepting a tiny minority of people with genetic intersex conditions, 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. No person trained in biology would ever suggest that sex did not exist, that it was fluid, or that it could be changed. It can’t be. There are two sexes and you are whichever your sex chromosomes make you; and that is that. Sex is defined at conception.
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 secondary sex characteristics, some of which are physical and behaviours. It should be obvious that the behavioural element is performed, but this does not mean it’s optional. Gender behaviours are no more a matter of choice or ‘socialisation’ than the peacock’s spectacular mating displays, or stags rutting. They are as innate as breasts are.
Being attracted to femininity is a male trait and to masculinity a female one. This gives us male and female sexualities. We might expect to see that inversion of this would be associated with other inversions of sex-based characteristics. And we do.
Feminine homosexual males tend to be smaller, more lightly built and tend to neoteny more than the average for males in their ethnicity. (Blanchard etc.) So, some males are born with Sexual Inversion, in which they display characteristics normally associated with the opposite sex. They tend to be small, light, feminine and attracted to men. Attempts to ‘decondition’ these males — to make them attracted to femininity– 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 most feminine homosexual males are small, lightly-built and neotenous.)
The sex/gender link.
It is 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 sometimes known as ‘Gender Non-Conforming’ or GNC, but actually they conform precisely to their gender. It is their sex they are at odds with, so Sex Non Conforming or SNC is a better term. Depending on social circumstances and personal factors, they may simply display a SNC 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 modalities, after the fashion of their culture.
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 more likely to be cultural and social. On the other hand, bisexualism is 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 is 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 and behaviourally, 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. There is nothing new in this; we have historical records documenting it for thousands of years and it appears in every human society, everywhere, despite attempts to suppress it. Of course, Sexual Inversion cannot be suppressed, because it is innate. 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 consistent with that. ‘Men’ are required to continually exhibit these characteristics and they will be socially punished for not doing so. This is what feminists and their fellow-travellers are pleased to call ‘toxic masculinity’, but in fact it is just plain vanilla masculinity. Only feminists think it ‘toxic’, because they are determined to eradicate it, along with men.
In Anglo-Saxon culture, the ‘women’ group is the mirror of the ‘men’ group, but based on females and with somewhat 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 is not just made up of people born female; it includes those born male who do not conform to social norms of masculinity: the SNC 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 heavily policed. Men are definitely not encouraged to ‘get in touch with their feminine side’. 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, it includes 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 strictly policed by its own members and in which deviation from cultural standards is not permitted. In some societies, 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’ omega males to hyper-feminine transsexuals. The only thing you cannot be and remain within this group is a masculine 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 has none. The ‘men’ group is exclusively made up of masculine men and the ‘not-men’ group is everyone else. So these cultures are both gender-binary and also display a complete range of variation.
A pastiche of this is what we see amongst the ‘gender warriors’ of today’s wokeist culture. But because the activists behind it are too ignorant, 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.
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 men. (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, 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 they are reviled.
Feminism is built on juvenile iconoclasm and loathing of men and masculinity, because the ‘men’ group 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 or how many privileges they discard, 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 feminist movement hate the most: they can never, ever 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 them 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.
Some ‘privilege’, huh?
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 men alone and it 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.
As soon as a culture that has suppressed its ‘men’ group comes into contact with one where it is vital, it will be overwhelmed. We see this all over Europe today, where effeminate, emasculated States are collapsing in the face of Islamic invasions. All they can do is wring their hands and weep as their nations fail, for they have made all the men who might deal with the problem into women; they took their guns, emasculated them and even set the full force of an armed State against them, as we saw in the Netherlands.
In order to protect itself, the ‘not-men’ group needs the ‘men’ and those men had better be armed to the teeth. We need armies of Kyle Rittenhouses, prepared to stand to and defend their land and people. The masculine 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.