The Forced Transsexuality Of David Reimer

David Reimer was born a boy named Bruce in 1965. He had a twin brother named Brian. Due to urinary issues, doctors recommended circumcision in order to alleviate said urinary concerns. The doctor used a controversial method of cauterization which resulted in the complete burning of his penis.

[Image: 20309661_118379703925.jpg]

David Reimer

Bruce’s parents were justifiably worried about his future & his happiness with no penis. They took him to Dr. John Money, a quickly emerging psychologist who was a strong proponent of blank slate theory. Dr. John Money was firmly convinced gender was a social construction and could be learned away through appropriate psychological & behavioral intervention.

[Image: Johnmoney2.jpg]

John Money

Let’s step through the ideas pioneered by Money. He believed in sex differences & gender differences. His perception of sex differences was small (but larger than most feminists consider); he noted sexual dimorphism & that women are vulnerable while rearing children, so that explains why men were the hunters & wanderers. However, he coined the term “gender role,” replacing the traditional term “sex role.” He thought most behavior exhibited by men and women was socially constructed. “Gender roles” are the publicly displayed traits while “gender identity” was how one conceived of their sexual identity in their head.

He was one of the leading scientific forces that helped second-wave feminism smash gender roles & traditional society. Armed with the information that gender and sexuality were socially built, they radically altered society. As for Money himself, he transformed the medical and scientific community and turned the professions towards social constructionism. We see the vestiges of this in the supreme reticence of academia to admit biological sex differences. Since feminism and social construction are fused at the hip, they know the disavowal of social constructionism would seriously call into question many feminist theories & approaches.

As for Bruce, he began to go to therapy with Money as an infant. Under Money’s recommendation, Bruce’s testicles were removed shortly before two years, but no artificial vagina was created – just leaving young Bruce with a urinary hole. Bruce was renamed Brenda. Brenda was a patient of Money’s for about a decade with his brother Brian. Money noted this was perfect for deconstructing gender – as he had the perfect control in Brian.

The therapy was bizarre, making Brenda lie on the ground while Brian made thrusting motions, mimicking penetration. Money believed sexual identity around gender was formed during childhood sexual play. Money claimed that Brenda was a stereotypical girl & Brian the stereotypical boy – concluding gender is completely constructed.

Brenda, however, was not as he portrayed. Brenda refused to wear dresses at an early age and engaged in roughhousing with Brian. Brenda refused to sexualize boys and, for a time, identified as a lesbian. Bullied and abused at school, Brenda developed suicidal tendencies and refused to ever see Money again. She got estrogen treatments and underwent female puberty, growing breasts, developing a feminine voice and the whole bit. For his part, Brian developed a serious case of schizophrenia because of Money’s incredibly reckless and ignorant “therapy.”

Brenda, in high school, dropped the female act and assumed the identity of man named David. Notice the lack of taking his original name – most likely he was trying to assert autonomy over his life and identity. He eventually had a double mastectomy and had phalloplasty. This was years after he married a woman and became a step-father to a few children.

Brian, unable to cope with his mental illness, overdosed on his anti-depressants in 2002. Just two short years later, David’s wife informed him she wanted a divorce. Unable to cope with his life, his brother’s death and his impending divorce, he went to the local grocery store, put a sawed-off shotgun into his mouth and pulled the trigger. He was just 38.

Judith Butler: The Profile Of A Delusional Blank Slatist

[Image: hp.10.16.12.JudithButler.jpg]

Let’s talk about a prominent feminist and ardent social constructionist named Judith Butler. Butler is a gay Jewish radical feminist. Like any prominent feminist, she was gifted class and educational privilege. In the so-called hallowed halls of American academia, she came to her fame for her dogged insistence that gender is little more than a performance. Her seminal work is “Gender Trouble,” released in 1990 to the cheering applause of feminist and liberal academics.

A brief breakdown is needed. It is considered one of the essential readings of queer theorists and post-structural feminists. She is credited with coining the term “gender perfomativity.” The key point she belabors is the fact that both sex and gender are socially constructed – meaning humans have no inborn traits relating their sexual organs. She claims that both gender & sex are both socially constructed in the sense that heterosexist power structures demand conformity to existing norms based on misogyny & heterosexism. She further makes a Freudian argument that boys identifying as masculine are repressing incestuous & homosexual desires for their father – same for feminine women with regards for their mother. She calls for subversion of gender by parodying gender itself – she takes a strong liking to drag shows. She claims our humanity “admits no genealogy” and we are born into this world completely free & clear to be anybody we want – our bodies are necessarily limited by power structures that privilege men and heterosexuality.

A brief rebuttal would be this: Her ideas are based on theories of Freud that have long since been discredited. Do note that Cultural Marxism is rooted in Freudian theory, so it stands to reason they cling desperately to Freud’s theories of socialization & sexuality. The obsession with power and who controls it is key to understanding the psychology behind Butler’s arguments & social constructionists in general.  The genealogical approach Foucault pioneered, utilized here through the lens of gender by Butler, explicitly refuses to consider biological & factual explanations for social phenomena in a society. Instead, the genealogical approach assumes truth is often discovered randomly and are often backed by power structures in a given society. Thus, all truths are subject to question – pure social relativism.

Butler is a classic homosexual narcissist – unable to understand that the strong majority of people don’t have the issues they have relating to masculinity and femininity; they demand the rest of the world change so they don’t have to reconcile the fact they will never be truly socially comfortable  for their deviance based on lack of adherence to expected male/female behavior.

Her dogged insistence of blank-slatism is little more than her own issue with the fact she is a biological androgynous female. When we see such resolute devotion to social constructionism, it usually has either a biological or psychological root. Here, Butler was probably exposed to masculinizing hormones in the womb, but – as expected – she hit puberty and has estrogen coursing through her veins. Her inability to come to terms with that is the fuel that fires her pseudo-intellectualism. Often times, the strongest blank-slatists are people who, biologically, don’t fit the expectations of their sex. Here, Butler clearly is a lesbian that does not identify with femininity at all. Instead of coming to terms with that, she seeks to intellectualize her lack of feminine sensibility by trying to prove feminine women are really repressed lesbians.

As for psychological issues,  let’s talk about when heterosexual females take to this rhetoric. Almost always there is a degree of narcissism. I strongly believe we exist in a culture of narcissism in America. As such, people often have fantasies that do not match up with the reality of their life. Feminist activism is emblematic of this idea. When heterosexual women take strongly to social constructionism, they often complain of impossible beauty standards or male fear of their self-perceived successes in life. It is a defense mechanism that allows them to pretend the men they find sexually attractive would desire them would it not be for untoward social forces. It is a form of self-handicapping that allows such women space to fantasize about men they desire sexually without ever having to worry about that being played out in real life.

Gender Politics As Narcissism & A Lament

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpVtMzUXRbrvlfzlt_Qcb...gApF0ed11Q]

Let’s consider a post by The Last Psychiatrist: Couple Reveals Their Child’s Gender Five Years Too Late

Let’s break this down.

What drove her to using her child as a you-go-first skydiving partner is the desire to be something coupled with the terror of doing anything– which results in ambivalence and inertia camouflaged in a consumerist lifestyle full of meaningless choices. This leaves a lot of unused emotional energy left over for me me me. She’s had 46 years to obsess over her identity, and this is what she came up with, a hail mary pass in the second half of a mid-life crisis.

Gender politics is the porting of personal terror of betraying social expectations and demanding that other people change so they don’t have to. The obsession over changing socialization, media representations of gender, etc. is little more than the inability to or fear of changing themselves.

If challenging of gender roles was a desire of the first order, a woman would flaunt her hairy legs, her refusal to wear dresses, etc. Notice how Jessica Valenti has hairy armpits – a classic narcissistic move as she can hide it if she wants to via clothing – but then show it off in photos. Look at me smash the patriarchy!

It isn’t a desire of the first order, the foremost desire is conformity, which is represented in the desire for society to give them new scripts so they can avoid the existential terror of truly becoming self-actualized. Notice the constant rhetoric of oppression of true personhood by society – what they are signaling is they want new ways of socializing people to be enacted because they are too afraid of becoming the people they think they want to be.

Her life has been marked by nothing eventful, nothing challenging, nothing unusual, nothing difficult, so she will have created drama out of ordinary events in order to self-identify. “Oh, God,” she’d say as she parks her Subaru at the Gymboree. “These mums are all so desperately conformist. Marry the father of my child? How utterly bourgeois. Did I mention my child is a court jester?

Female gender warriors is the sort of woman TLP is talking about – most likely just another white, entitled female who has had nothing exceptional – good or bad – happen to her. She is most likely not dumb, but not smart. Not incompetent but not excellent. She needs to create alternate realities where the dialogue is about her exceptionalism.

It isn’t for the kid, it is for her. If it wasn’t for her, you wouldn’t have heard about it. Wasn’t the whole point not to call attention to the gender? Oh, I had it backwards, the whole point was entirely to focus on the gender. Sigh. The main character in this story is herself. The kid is supporting cast. He is not a person, he is a blog topic.

This what gender politics is about – the person talking about gender politics. They don’t give a damn about the people they purport to help – they just want the worship from like-minded people that they are pioneers transforming the world for the better. The people they target – the kid here – is little more than a pawn in a greater scheme of worship from their preferred authorities.

As we saw with Judith Butler, she doesn’t understand that other people have vastly different relationships with femininity than she does. She understands the blank-slatist approach of academia and that encourages the retrenchment of her narcissism. As for the gender-neutral parents talked about above – all it is is their inability to smash gender roles like they claim to want to. They need proxies – children – who will supposedly prove their theories right. That is why feminists insist so strongly on taking over schools, universities and transforming the family – they need vulnerable children to become the people they never could be. Gender politics are self-absorption & narcissism of a supreme order.

[Image: mqdefault.jpg]

David Reimer was little more than a pawn in the greater game of gender politics. Born into an ideologically churning world, he was little more than a notch-count for ignorant feminists who think the world revolves around their delusional ideas of reality & gender.

His suicide should have been the shot heard round the world for the death of blank-slatism. Was it? No. Most explanations revolve around financial issues, his brother’s suicide, the clinical depression his family has that apparently has genetic roots. Ironic, isn’t it? Claims of biological proclivities of depression conveyed from mother to son. Could it be he was denied his biological birthright of manhood?

Sure, maybe, according to apologists. However, it was those oppressive gendered standards of male behavior that mattered most. His wife wasn’t leaving him, he was leaving his family because of unfair expectations of male behavior.

In the twilight of his life, his wife assured him he was sexually adequate as a male. Very reassuring to man who understands the woman he loves is leaving him. Not just a man, but a man whose life was deconstructed & reconstructed with no thought as to his concerns or the reality of sex.

The most obvious & clear reason he killed himself is he was denied his biological identity as male. The fact that article was called “The Real Reasons” was because anybody with a brain and a heart knew it was because he was denied his biological birthright. See the narcissism? Confronted with one of the saddest events to occur in life – suicide – social constructionists still go out of their way to assuage themselves that gender is still a social construct. Blame the free market – he can’t find a job! Blame his depression – she left him because he was too angry!

David Reimer was a just a boy that never had a chance. After his botched circumcision, his mother became clinically depressed, his father an alcoholic and his brother became a schizophrenic. He was just a person born into this world who had to become his own man long before he had the tools to do so. He tried so hard to do right – he lived 38 horrid years before he took his own life.

Some might say he was weak, but no – he was strong. He fought so valiantly against the world around him – from infancy – that he did the best he could. Even the strongest of men can crack. He did. His suicide should have ushered in a serious gut-check for America about gender. Did it? No.

He died alone in a grocery store parking lot. He went to a place where communities come together, where families shop. He went alone. That is how he felt – on the outside, looking in. Losing his family was the final nail in coffin. That Rolling Stone writer was wrong – he wasn’t leaving his family, his family left him.

His country failed him, the medical profession failed him, even his family failed him. He had no reason to believe in anything anybody shot his way – he was deceived, betrayed & lied to from his infancy. A victim of blank-slate narcissism, he was little more than a pawn in an ideological battle.

You think they attended his funeral? No, they just continued to whine about how gender was little more than a performance. In that act they revealed who they really cared about – themselves.

Read Next: How The Gender Script Was Flipped

49 thoughts on “The Forced Transsexuality Of David Reimer”

  1. Both men are dead now. One died from natural causes and the other (David) died from a self-inflicted gunshot because his girlfriend wouldn’t love him. He was a mangina with a slave mentality to the very end, whether we are talking about David or this society as a whole makes no difference because the mindset is the same: bow down to the female

  2. In the realm of liberalism, some of the biggest victims are transsexual people, not in a “transphobic men are shitheads” sort of way, but in the manner of being encouraged to mutilate their body in order to become something that can ultimately never be. A man is still a man, even with his dick mutilated and with hormone therapy, whether you like it or not. No one talks about for example, the statistically disproportionate sexual abuse that people who undergo this operations endure before making that big change.
    This is one of the ways blank slatism and cunts like Butler work. They push forward this gender social construct shit, and they end up really hurting people in the end as a result. Ever notice with trannys as well that they age in the worst of male and female? There’s one or two ones everyone knows in my area, and they are the most depressed, miserable people out there.
    Your reading of Butler is superb. I have tried to read many feminist works, but ultimately, they are crap, but badly written crap as well. Verbose, words use incorrectly, rambling etc.
    Here’s another tactic of academia writers: use needlessly obfuscating language in order to (a) bore your audience and (b) make them afraid of not calling shit out so they nod their heads in agreement.

    1. The triumph of theory over facts. This is one very good reason why I got the hell out of academia years ago and never looked back.

      1. No, it’s the triumph of emotionally based values over fact and logic. If it’s nice and loving and equal and tolerant, then it must be true. And if it’s not true then we will find ethical rationalizations to make it sound true.
        Unfortunately, many women (and men) fall prey to this sort of thinking.

        1. I was referring to Butler. I studied her some years ago, and she’s a high priestess of that kind of “theory.”

  3. Professor Richard Dawkins has spoken out about the madness of gender theory that is taught by feminists in women’s studies and sociology. Here in this youtube video he mentions how feminists don’t believe in DNA, and how feminists claim that men invented logic and mathematics as tools of domination and control of women. Dawkins mentions that women’s studies rejects all science and scientists and favours “subjective knowing” as a means of finding the truth:

    1. Dawkins is amazing at destroying feminist theory. I also live the way he obliterates conservative (religious bs) theories.

      1. and yet he backed down like a sissy over his comments about how that femshit coffee interaction [girl whines because beta asked her for coffee in a lift] which she likened to oppression and FGM was stupid as shit. really, he backpeddled like a motherfucker
        also his weird ass theories about how homosexuality and evolution can be consistent [hurr durr beta lions need to protect the herd while alphas hunt so they might as well be gay] are just speculative twosh, clearly designed to accept LGBT rubbish

    2. He’ll probably have a fallout with the trendy leftist atheists after saying this though.
      I can just hear it already – he’s old and male and not completely subservient to our dogma! Everything he said is discredited!

    3. Dawkins isn’t a Jew, that’s why he sees no benefit in confusing nations by publishing lies, smears, and propaganda. He doesn’t think like a Jew so there’s no money in it for him to gin up the Grievance Industry.
      If Dawkins was a Jew he’d be on board since he’d rake in the dough.

  4. “She claims that both gender & sex are both socially constructed in
    the sense that heterosexist power structures demand conformity to
    existing norms based on misogyny & heterosexism. She further makes a
    Freudian argument that boys identifying as masculine are repressing
    incestuous & homosexual desires for their father – same for feminine
    women with regards for their mother.”
    Ugh. How can ANYONE with the slightest inkling of common sense believe this bullshit? Is the West THAT guilt-ridden and well-off that it will believe any fucking bullshit that’s put in front of it?
    As I keep saying, this stuff really is a religion. You need to think of it as such.
    Surprised I never heard of this bitch before, but I’m glad of it.

    1. Some people believe these cult like figures because it’s what they WANT to believe. You’d be surprised at how many kids think their beliefs are justified because their gender studies teacher said so.
      It comforts them inside to know that some crank out there has built a theoretical framework for bashing men and pushing equality in areas where things are clearly not equal.

  5. So much bloodshed and mental abuse has been going in the name of Freud and his followers. Strange that this very sick man is still held as a hero in the history-lessons and psychology-lessons i took in school, or is it?
    Unnatural and not based in reality-theories will cause mental torture and can even go onto physical harm. It’s not strange that this society today and that in a few years creates more and more sick men and women. It’s just a symptom of the leaders ruling.

    1. He was a great man in the same way as Becher and Descartes – he tried to bring more scientific rigor to psychology. And, just like Becher and Descartes, his theories would be considered totally wacky and cooky today. That doesn’t stop people from still believing in them, though.

    2. Freud came up with a lot of fucked up theories. Like homosexual sex as a means to reaching full maturity.
      On the other hand, his discovery of psychological defense mechanisms was brilliant.
      Money was nothing but a pedophile with a psychology degree. I mean, just take a look at that face.
      He deserves nothing but love from the Congolese National Army.

  6. Thank you for bringing this information to light, I have never heard of David before but I’m sure his death is reason enough for gender politics to conveniently forget him. It is sad to realize that if he committed suicide as a female his name would be hallowed in the memory of all the gender equalists and patriarchy cunts as proof of the oppression women face.

  7. Gay, Jewish and a Feminist? Wow, that’s like a trifecta of forces destructive to Western Civilization. No wonder she’s a disgusting individual.

    1. A 2-week Jewish boy dies after a rabbi sucks his penis during a ritual circumcision.
      I mean, Hitler, sometimes I miss you.…9213421.9222892.0.9223215.…0.0…

  8. don’t forget the small point that circumcision is first and foremost completely unnecessary – an elective procedure chosen for baby boys who will someday be men. usually elected by their mothers.
    That’s where David Reimer’s torture started: A woman deciding to cut off part of her male baby’s penis for no reason whatsoever.

    1. This is so traumatic for men that I remember reading about this case in Time magazine nearly 45 years ago when I was a young lad. I left my two sons intact partly because of it and partly from the sense, even at a young age, of having been robbed of my foreskin.

  9. I don’t get it, if biology doesn’t matter, why did they think they needed to raise a kid with no penis as a girl? Seems like a very primitive notion, not some enlightened psychology

  10. Absolutely excellent piece on Butler. I was exposed to her ludicrous theories via a friend studying at a German university and my instant, instinctive reaction was exactly the same – in fact, these are my verbatim words from our Gchat:
    ‘butler, clearly resentful at only being born halfway a man (to wit, resembling one in all respects save for the absence of a penis and testicles) has chosen to deny the very existence of men and women, in order to carve out a place for herself…she has a personal bugbear/axe to grind…she has no place at either end of the natural male/female polarity’
    Good to read your article and find these exact ideas – albeit probably more eloquently put. Well done sir.

  11. Transexualism is nothing more than vivisectionist , castration cult…These poor souls need therapy not surgery…..

  12. excellent writing sir.
    “This what gender politics is about – the person talking about gender
    politics. They don’t give a damn about the people they purport to help –
    they just want the worship from like-minded people that they are
    pioneers transforming the world for the better.”
    sometimes that is what i feel goes on here for a lot of frequenters. not necessarily from writers, but the cause monkeys that comment. sometimes i even feel i do it myself from time to time. whenever anybody talks about the world changing, this is their true agenda.

  13. This article is too deep to read in one sitting. Gonna have to space it out over two days of more. Hey, I gotta read, reflect, come back and read it again.

  14. Man what a sad story. Scary reading. New wave feminism is disgusting to the core.

  15. “Social constructs” are just feminist tools to delude themselves (and others) into thinking that inequalities they don’t like don’t exist.
    By deeming something a construct, it opens up the possibility of deconstructing (a la Derrida) that thing, and thereby provides the feminist mind a moral rationalization for believing in something that’s plainly illogical.

  16. The pseudo scientists and intellectuals you mention in your article are a disgrace to humanity. A fuckin’ disgrace.
    Thanks for sharing. I will pass this around.

  17. I wonder is it queer theory or hypothesis? I wonder if these people even know the difference and if they know what a theory is

  18. Holy crippling fuck….this one of the most jacked up things I’ve ever read.

  19. “In that act they revealed who they really cared about – themselves.”
    Excellent article.
    I think this should be required reading for all who enter the manosphere. We need to know how our adversary thinks, and articles like this do a brilliant job of elucidating the core delusions at the heart of the feminist movement, as well as the deep psychological issues that continue to drive its adherents.
    I know there are many in these circles who prefer action to philosophy and investigation, but this kind of work is fundamental to our cause. Articles like this and others form an ever-growing body of manosphere thought, the likes of which will provide an ideological basis for coming social upheaval and reformation.
    Turnabout is fair play, and it is now our turn to do the deconstruction. Let’s see how well the lies stand before the white hot beam of open and rational inquiry.

  20. Gender politics = sick people with a sick agenda. Who need to be committed or otherwise locked up.

  21. I read the first section and had to stop. I wanna kill myself. Those poor kids. Butchers.

    1. You clearly did not read.
      It is amazing how narcissistic our society is. All there is is rage, anxiety, narcissistic self-valuation and nothing.

  22. This is so fucking messed up. I am a woman and I don’t even know why I am reading these stupid articles, but this one got my blood boiling, how disgusting and pointless that all is… And how the victims are always innocent, usually children, like Bruce and Brian. Their lives are gone because shit like this that should just be left alone and up to each person. NOT decided for them as a child. Be gay, straight, bi, transgender, whatever else, be no gender, but let us all decide that ourselves, and stop fucking up the younger generations before they even get the chance to fuck themselves up. geez. Good article anyway.

  23. good article, although there are parts that could be better, particularly re. foucault, where power & truth are intertwined constructs. I think there’s also a danger of underestimating butler, who would never come out say something like ‘the mind is a blank slate’, “we are born bi-sexual” even though its pretty much correct to say that the notion of gender performativity assumes a malleability that is pretty much equivalent to blank slatism – I would be interest to know if she’s on record as addressing those sorts of issues directly as she’s a slippy customer.
    The thing I would like to see more of though is the origins all this, particularly the assumption that we are basically born bisexual, in the origins of Freud. The frankfurt school brought freud to marx and society has suffered the consequences ever since. It isn’t just the frankfurt school though, feminism in its own right took to Freud, but with the exception of the bisexuality theory, it was largely in reaction against what freud said (not that it stopped them becoming psychoanalysts or anything of course….they just took what they wanted and opposed what they didn’t like.
    So Freud is kind of the conflict at the heart of feminism, both in terms of inspiration (frankfurt school cultural critical theory) and reaction, the whole of feminism is pretty much a denial of freud’s opinion of women.
    The take on narcissism is good, but I don’t think we’ve even touched the tip of the iceberg here

  24. I’m taking a Behavioral Genetics class and just learned about the David Reimer case. I read the entire Rolling Stone article.
    Here are some choice quotes from the fantastic, devastating article:
    Diamond wrote that John’s case is evidence that gender identity and
    sexual orientation are largely inborn, and that while rearing may play a
    role in helping to shape a person’s sexual identity, nature is by far
    the stronger of the two forces so much so that even the concerted
    12-year efforts of parents, psychologists, psychiatrists, surgeons and
    hormone specialists could not override it.
    The children were particularly resistant to Money’s request that they remove their clothes and inspect each other’s genitals…But the children did not enjoy these enforced activities, which they
    were instructed to perform sometimes in front of Dr. Money, sometimes
    with as many as five or six of his colleagues in attendance. But to
    resist Money’s requests was to provoke his ire. “I remember getting
    yelled at by Money because I was defiant,” John says. “He told me to
    take my clothes off, and I just did not do it. I just stood there. And
    he screamed, ‘Now!’ Louder than that. I thought he was going to give me a whupping. So I took my clothes off and stood there, shaking.”
    Bill Reiner has been following the lives of 16 reassigned people,
    focusing on six genetic males who were born without penises, castrated
    in infancy and raised as girls. Two years into his study, Reiner says
    that all six are closer to males than to females in attitudes and
    behavior. Two have spontaneously (without being told of their XY male
    chromosome status) switched back to being boys.

  25. oh wow so you made a point to tell us that Judith Butler is Jewish. how come you didn’t bother to clarify what John Money’s ethnicity is? or is it only important when Jews are involved?

  26. Whoa, this has got to be one of the most ignorant texts I’ve ever read in my life, and that is the only remotely straw-man-like argument I’m gonna use here, unlike someone like you, who keeps attacking people, instead of ideas.
    First of all, I have to say that if Butler really said that “boys identifying as masculine are repressing incestuous & homosexual desires for their father “, then yes, it is complete and utter nonsense, but this doesn’t dismiss her as an intellectual. How many other thinkers’ ideas have been proven wrong, but because the majority of their ideas were good, they still made history (I can only think of Charles Darwin who made some really racist remarks, but his theory of evolution remained, for the most part, intact)?
    What you (and other like-minded people) do not understand is that we normally do not think about how much we have been shaped by the culture we come from, taking everything as ‘natural’. It is natural for there to be inequality between races? The very concept of ‘race’ is cultural as well and because of that, a lot of ethnical minorities had to suffer until we really understood that ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ (or however else you want to call it) is not a decisive factor in considering people as equals – you can be white, black, yellow, green etc. and should still be accepted. What queer theory is (or should be) suggesting is not that men should behave like women and that women should behave like men, but rather not behave like either – be yourself; of course, if you are a guy and have a more masculine behavior, that is fine too, but just don’t think that it is ‘right’ or ‘normal’ or ‘sane’ to be like that. Queer theory doesn’t want to promote any ‘queer’ identity per se, but to dismiss the very notion of ‘gender’, that we don’t really need to adhere to gender stereotypes in order to be taken seriously. Let me illustrate this through American history: the United States of America is a country that was founded by immigrants, so it was meant to be home to any race/ethnicity, right? Similarly, they did not want to promote a single identity, but a collective identity (i.e. American) that would not depend on what beliefs you have or where you came from. Now, if Judith Butler said that all women should dress and act like men and vice-versa, then that would be definitely a sign of madness. Queer theory is fighting for the destruction of hierarchies, for plurality, not for singularity (like you are, promoting only a single identity).
    Also, you said that most people don’t have any trouble with gender identity, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Did it never happen that straight guys got picked on by others (even by women!) for stereotypical ‘feminine’ behavior (“Dude, stop being so girly!”)? Little boys are told “stop crying like a girl!” and are laughed at if they, in their innocence, play with dolls. Where I come from, if you are a guy and have long hair, you will get insulted because it somehow makes you ‘feminine’. If you’re a guy and not that muscly, you will be told you are ‘weak’ like a girl. I could go on and on. If you say that similar things have never happened to you, then you are a liar. You can’t say that you had no problem adhering to how society expects you to be. We all suffer from this in some form or another, and that’s what we should fight against. We should be free to behave however we want as long as it doesn’t harm anybody and to stop being controlled by this invisible force of ‘gender’. Don’t be a ‘man’, don’t be a ‘woman’ – be yourself.

    1. “First of all, I have to say that if Butler really said that “boys identifying as masculine are repressing incestuous & homosexual desires for their father “, then yes, it is complete and utter nonsense, but this doesn’t dismiss her as an intellectual.”
      Actually that’s a damn good reason to dismiss her as an intellectual, or at the very least scrutinise her theories a hell of a lot more than you would a sane person’s ideas.
      “How many other thinkers’ ideas have been proven wrong, but because the majority of their ideas were good, they still made history (I can only think of Charles Darwin who made some really racist remarks, but his theory of evolution remained, for the most part, intact)?”
      Darwin’s theory of evolution only exists because it’s been tested and replicated by hundreds and hundreds of independent experiments all coming up with the same result. If Darwin’s theory had not stood up to scrutiny it would have been rightly discarded as bunkum. Indeed its strength lies in the fact it was queried, questioned, modified, and replicated over decades and decades.
      Queer theory (gay hypothesis, really) has not been tested by any reliable or reputable measure of science in the way Darwin’s theory has, tries to assert politics as scientific truth, and is suspect for that very reason. You don’t get to crash through with the whole body of queer theory just because it observes that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. There’s a reason the guys over in physics, chemistry, and biology crack up laughing when you clowns start talking about “experiments” or “studies” that “prove” some of the half-assed conclusions advanced.
      “Now, if Judith Butler said that all women should dress and act like men and vice-versa, then that would be definitely a sign of madness.”
      Asserting everyone has no identity — the aim of destroying sex roles — is no different than compelling people to have another identity. You and Butler share the same madness.
      “Also, you said that most people don’t have any trouble with gender identity, but you couldn’t be more wrong.”
      Really? Please provide a peer-reviewed, reliable scientific study from a reputable institution which demonstrates “most”, i.e. greater than 50%, of Western populations have difficulty accepting the sex with which they are born. That’s your starting point, Mr Yourself. If you can’t reach that threshold, the rest of your shitdribble may be dismissed without comment.
      “Where I come from, if you are a guy and have long hair, you will get insulted because it somehow makes you ‘feminine’. If you’re a guy and not that muscly, you will be told you are ‘weak’ like a girl. I could go on and on.”
      I guarantee you have never raised a child.
      Where I come from, kids are not influenced by cultural factors, boys end up playing with masculine toys and have off-the-charts energy; girls end up playing with feminine toys and are better developed in communicating with others. Sex roles are natural and absent fuckups in biochemistry or being abused in early childhood that’s what kids gravitate to. Anybody who says otherwise has to demonstrate it to a high standard of proof before they would fuck with societal norms. Stop playing the fucking victim and absorb some real science, not the subjective social science that grounds queer theory at large.

Comments are closed.