The Lie About Gender

THE composition of this article comes in light of the annual “Transgender Day of Remembrance” that occurred on November 20. This subject matter, quite prominent in contemporary political discourse, is not one I have discussed beforehand. So, quite naturally, in my first discussion ever of it I will endeavor to totally deconstruct the notion of “gender theory” is constructed upon.

This originally fringe and universally rejected concept rose, along with the politicizing trend of modern science (which persists intensely to this day), in the mid-to-late-2000s, brought to the forefront by the socially progressive goals of the Obama administration, then popularized by Bruce Jenner’s…odd announcement in 2015. It has since become institutionalized and formalized by mainstream and “credible” scientific bodies, based on nothing near science and nothing less than social justice dogma.

            The beginnings of this contemporary trend of gender ideology, outside of the sowers of the early 20th century, lie with widely influential psychologist and sexologist John Money. Money was a titan of his field, referred to as an “original thinker” who “shaped the field for more than 50 years” (Ehrhardt 2007, p. 223). Such great laud for a man, especially one who stated that pedophilia was something he “would not call pathological in any way” (stated to the pro-pedophilia journal Paidika, mind you). Other than his scholarly participation in the rising world of gender studies, Money had a very direct role beginning in the 1960s that would set the foundations for one of the greatest frauds in human history.

            On August 22, 1965, David Reimer was born to Ron and Janet Reimer, and he was the twin brother of Brian Reimer, who – at the age of six months – were diagnosed with phimosis (Colapinto 2013, p. 10). Despite being a condition that can naturally resolve itself by after infancy, his parents opted to circumcise the boys, but not any old circumcision, circumcision by electrocauterization! Because, as we all know, putting a skin-flaying electric current to the genitalia is always a good idea.

            Tragically, the stupidity of the Reimer parents resulted in David receiving irreparable damage to his genital and lost function to his organ. Tragic irony would befall them, as Brian’s condition would naturally recover without surgical intervention. Too late for David, however. Now, out of all the people in the World, who did the Reimer parents flee to for help covering up their mistake? John Money!

            The Reimer parents learned about Money through a February 1967 interview where he rambled on about his ideas, convincing the Reimers that further trauma would help their son’s dreary condition (Colapinto 2013, p. 49). Money believed that gender was learned and not biological, and thus David’s condition could be solved by turning the infant into a girl, rather than the parents taking responsibility and letting their child – who had already endured in this condition for two years, mind you – live as normal as a life as he could (Colapinto 2013, pp. 50-52).

This was Money’s breakthrough in his desire to deconstruct the fundamentals of gender and biology; he would turn the twins, one a male to be raised as a girl and one a male to be raised as a male, into a human experiment. One could wonder if Joseph Mengele would admire Money’s own manipulation of twins as test subjects.

            Long story short, starting in 1967 a years-long experiment that would violate every ethical standard a doctor should swear by unfolded, lasting until David’s hatred of Money and emotional torment drove him to threaten suicide if he had to return to the doctor (Colapinto 2013, pp. 137-141). Because of how disturbing the experiment was, I will not gloss over David’s testimonies that Money would make the twins reenact sexual positions, inspect each other’s genitalia, make thrusting motions, and make all sorts of other depraved requests, becoming angered if resisted, and doing so either alone or in the company of several colleagues (oh yes, Money was far from alone in his molestation of these children).

Now, despite the overwhelming inhumanity and gruesomeness of the truth behind John Money’s infamous “Joan/John study”, many transgender activists will argue that: Yeah, so what if he was an awful person, Money still showed that gender is not biological! Oh…did he now?

            Let us keep our focus on the Reimer tragedy for now, especially as the original subjects of the gender ideology scheme. While Money might have claimed that “[David’s] behavior [was] so clearly that of [a]…little girl…” (Money 1972, p. 163), the truth was anything but that. David Reimer claimed that, as early as age 6, he suffered from gender dysphoria, and – according to Milton Diamond, the doctor who helped expose Money’s fraud –by age 14 fully considered himself to be a boy.

            So, contrary to the perception that even this heinously executed experiment still proved gender theory is correct, what we see is the exact opposite: a child, raised from infancy to believe himself to be and present as feminine, began to crystallize a masculine personality by age 6, and became gender dysphoric (or really, just subconsciously realizing that he was he) by teenhood, strongly contrary to any validation of gender theory by a long shot. The Joan/John case is far from any vindication of transgenderism, and Money apparently was even privately ashamed of the experiment’s failure.

By far was Money an “unethical contributor”, as people will reservedly call Mengele as an attempt to legitimize Money’s research; but, even in that arena, they are wrong because there is no evidence of Mengele providing zilch to medical science, with Money better fitting among the ranks of Mengele, Emoto, Hancock, and other notorious scientific fraudsters.

            But, while David Reimer’s story is as good of a case against gender theory as any, being the case the entire scheme is built on, does there exist additional evidence? What else is there to prove that gender theory is nothing more than a fraud? Oh, there is plenty more.

            Let us begin with another example that is early in the chronology of gender theory; let us begin with the story of Doctor Paul McHugh, a former researcher for the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led one of the earliest, more humane studies on gender in the 1970s.

After participating in the primary research of this phenomenon, after supervising it, and pretty much being fully embroiled in the “science” of it, Doctor McHugh has become a very staunch opponent of it in his later career. McHugh has stated that, regarding post-transition transgender people, “they were little changed in their psychological condition” and “they had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before”; he said that these people’s “[still] large hands, prominent Adam’s apples, and thick facial features” were inconsistent with their self-prescribed gender, and that “[w]omen psychiatrists whom [he] sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise.”

            McHugh even published in 2016 a vast report on the issue, claiming in it that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate…property of human beings that is independent of biological sex…is not supported by scientific evidence” (McHugh 2016, p. 8).

            The biological sciences give us very clear cut, even though suppressed and eschewed, evidence that biological sex is set in stone: humans are defined as male and female, as XY or XX, and that is final. A study by the Boston University Medical Center in 2015 showed that there is a rising trend of physicians who are pushing in favor of psychiatric treatment for people with gender dysphoria, and that there was increasing evidence for the reality of biological sex. In the realm of statistics, we find even more support. The results of a 2015 survey of transgender people show that up to 15% were unhappy with having transitioned, and that 8% were unhappy enough to want to detransition.

            The consequences of transitioning are also outstanding, with – on top of the little psychological and social improvement Dr. McHugh reported – statistical data showing that: male-to-female individuals were twice as more likely to get a stroke than women and men, female-to-male individuals had a heart attack risk three times higher than usual, and male-to-females had a QUADRUPLED risk of blood clot. If the progressives, leftists, SJWs, and other cliques that claim to want to protect and uphold the safety of transgender individuals support such evidently dangerous “treatments” of the issue, should we really consider them allies of transgender people? At this rate, the “hateful transphobes”, who support psychiatric treatment and criminalization of this barbaric mutilation ritual, seem to be the most hospitable community for these ill people.

            Absolutely nothing, save manipulated and politicized science, backs the gender theory menagerie. I can try to explain to you why such an unfounded belief system would be popularized, but I cannot begin to digest nor regurgitate the likely and mostly nefarious reasons there are to list. All we can simply do is take this science, see that it says nothing in support of what these people do or think, and begin trying to push the tide against them.

The Democratic Party and the progressive bloc love to champion themselves as the enlightened ones and the “party of science”, but yet, in this case, overwhelmingly does science and academic dialogue weigh against them. From the primary case of David Reimer’s abuse by John Money, to the rebellion of Dr. Paul McHugh after being the first supervisor of a humane study into this phenomenon, to modern science and statistics, everything serves to overturn gender ideology conclusively.

This subject will soon come to crossroads in the near-future, for sure (just like the slippery slope of gay rights did in the late-2000s), and we need to make sure, as a society, we are properly prepared to stand against it. Societal permissiveness led us here, societal permissiveness will continue afterwards, God knows where our continued permissiveness will lead us afterwards.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Colapinto, John. As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl (HarperCollins, 2013).
• Ehrhardt, Anke A. “John Money, Ph.D.” Journal of Sex Research 44:3, pp. 223-224 (Routledge, 2007).
• McHugh, Paul R. “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences.” The New Atlantis 50 (Center for the Study of Technology and Society, 2016).
• Money, John W. Man & Woman, Boy & Girl (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972).