The dream of reason produces monsters. – Francisco Goya
It is impossible to overstate the evil which springs from the dogma of “social construction of gender”, the discredited notion which teaches that the only natural differences between the sexes are physical ones, and that all psychological ones are “socially constructed”. Those who believe in this mythology ignore the evidence of nature and the discoveries of science in favor of promoting the view that if one raised a boy as a girl he would grow up to act like a girl, and vice-versa. The most shocking refutation of the doctrine was the case of David Reimer, a Canadian boy born in 1965 whose penis was destroyed in a botched circumcision and who, on the advice of “social construction of gender” fanatic John Money, was then raised as a girl. Money repeatedly lied about the case for years afterward, claiming the reassignment was 100% successful and that David (then called “Brenda”) showed no male traits whatsoever. In truth, the victim of Money’s evil, agenda-driven experiment was deeply maladjusted, bullied by both girls and boys and by the age of 13 was so deeply depressed that he told his parents he would commit suicide if they forced him to see Money again. The parents eventually told him the truth about his sex and he started living as a boy, but never recovered from the torture inflicted in the name of this bizarre theory and, faced with a dissolving marriage, committed suicide in 2004.
But despite the Reimer case and volume upon volume of anthropological, biological, psychological, biochemical, neurological and anecdotal evidence, monsters all over the world are still willing to sacrifice their children’s happiness (and perhaps their sanity) on the altar of this mad belief. The most vociferous proponents are of course the neofeminists, who simply don’t care how many lives they destroy in order to establish their asexual dystopia; this June 27th story from the Daily Mail describes a preschool in Sweden (where else?) which is trying to force children to be asexual, androgynous beings by means of a bizarre regime which bans both pronouns and books about heterosexual couples or biological families:
A pre-school in Sweden has decided to stop calling children ‘him’ or ‘her’ in a bid to avoid gender stereotypes…as part of the [country’s] efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood…the taxpayer-funded school also carefully plans the colour and placement of toys and the choice of books to assure they do not fall into stereotypes. The school opened last year and is on a mission to break down gender roles – a core mission in the national curriculum for Swedish pre-schools…“Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing,” says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. “Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be”…Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction. Meanwhile, nearly all the children’s books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no “Snow White,” “Cinderella” or other fairy tales.
Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Rajalin says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play. “A concrete example could be when they’re playing ‘house’ and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble,” she says. “Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on”…Staff at the school try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her – ‘han’ or ‘hon’ in Swedish. Instead, they’ve have adopted the genderless [and synthetic] ‘hen’…
Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he’s not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go. “The kind of things that boys like to do – run around and turn sticks into swords – will soon be disapproved of,” he said. “So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness.”
So Egalia gives the children “a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be,” unless of course the girls want to be “girlie, nice and pretty” or the boys “manly, rough and outgoing.” Obviously, encouraging children to be what they are is bad, but encouraging them to play at living in lesbian communes isn’t. The child psychologist quoted at the end is completely right; the doctrine that all children start from a unisex baseline invariably presumes that feminine behavior is the norm, because the vast majority of preschool and grammar school teachers (not to mention the vast majority of people who feel compelled to inflict social engineering on schoolchildren) are female. Male behavior is therefore automatically regarded as a deviation from the norm, a pathology to be “treated” with punishment and even medication.
Of course, that’s in the West; in India, rather than trying to emasculate boys they’re trying to masculinize girls. And they’re not limiting themselves to brainwashing toddlers like the Swedes; oh, no! The Indian approach is one of which Dr. Money would have approved, as described in this June 27th article from the Telegraph:
Madhya Pradesh state government is investigating claims that up to 300 girls were surgically turned into boys in one city after their parents paid about £2,000 each for the operations. Women’s and children’s rights campaigners denounced the practice as a “social madness” that made a “mockery of women in India”. India’s gender balance has already been tilted in favour of boys by female foeticide – sex selection abortions – by families who fear the high marriage costs and dowries they may have to pay. There are now seven million more boys than girls aged under six in the country. Campaigners said the use of surgery meant that girls were no longer safe even after birth…Doctors confronted in the investigation claimed that girls with genital abnormalities were being sent to the city’s clinics to be “surgically corrected” and that only children born with both male and female sexual characteristics were eligible for the procedure. But campaigners said the parents and doctors were misidentifying the children’s conditions to turn girls into boys.
The surgery, known as genitoplasty, fashions a penis from female organs, with the child being injected with male hormones to create a boy. Dr V P Goswami, the president of the Indian Academy of Paediatrics in Indore, described the disclosures as shocking and warned parents that the procedure would leave their child impotent and infertile in adulthood. “Genitoplasty is possible on a normal baby of both the sexes but later on these organs will not grow with the hormonal influence and this will lead to their infertility as well as their impotency. It is shocking news and we will be looking into it and taking corrective measures,” he said. “Parents have to consider the social as well as the psychological impact of such procedures on the child”…
India is obviously far saner and more civilized than Sweden; whereas in the former this abomination is the result of base human traits like greed and ignorance, in the latter it is the result of a mechanistic social agenda. While the intelligentsia of India recognize it as madness, the intelligentsia of Sweden are either too brainwashed or too frightened to protest. And while the Indian government rightfully condemns mutilating children’s bodies and has ordered an investigation into the outrage, the Swedish government both encourages and finances a systematic attempt to mutilate children’s minds. But despite the differences, both of these forms of child abuse are the unnatural outgrowths of the anti-humanistic doctrine called social construction of gender.
One Year Ago Today
On July 18th, 2010 I published the ever-popular “Modern Marriage”, in which I propose that modern marriages based in romance have a lot more in common with the extramarital affairs of the past than with traditional marriages based in economics.
