The One Word A Man Should Never Use

You may have noticed feminists use the word ‘gender’ instead of the word ‘sex.’ They say ‘transgender’ instead of ‘transsexual,’ ‘transvestite,’ ‘hermaphrodite,’ or ‘misfit.’ ‘Gendered identity.’ ‘Gender roles.’ ‘Gender queer.’ Up until the middle of the 20th century, the word gender was rarely used. Except in occasional casual use, its use was limited to grammar – to say whether a word was feminine or masculine for instance. In many languages, such as French and Portuguese, a word has a masculine or feminine form – and the speaker must know which one to use to speak properly. In English, the distinction rarely matters – only a few words are gendered, like aviatrix and waitress, senatrix and mayoress. And nowadays, most such words are obscure and archaic.

A Brief History

Recently, gender has come to mean a lot more than a matter of grammar. It wasn’t always so. In a journal article, David Haig analyzes the rise of the use of gender, and finds that its use has grown dramatically. It is more prevalent now than its rival, ‘sex.’ Haig credits the theorist John Money with minting this new meaning of gender. Money wrote in 1955:

The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.


This meaning of gender didn’t become prevalent until the 1980’s, where it was widely adopted by feminists and eventually the greater academic community. Haig mentions how in 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required that all new drug applications had to include studies of ‘gender differences.’ Of course this mangles the meaning that Money coined and feminists adopted – the FDA was concerned with differences between the sexes. English speakers the world round went on to make the same mistake, and now use gender when they mean biological sex – usually out of prudishness or ignorance.


The Need For A New Word

You wouldn’t eat a potato like you would an apple – potatoes must be steamed, boiled, baked or otherwise prepared, while an apple doesn’t. Some would argue that an apple and a potato should always be treated the same, that an apple and a potato are in fact identical, and it’s only our imagination which says otherwise. These people are called feminists.

Feminism is the belief that men and women should have political, economic and social equality. Before feminism, people believed that men and women are different, and so they should have different roles, different rights, and different duties.

To change the role of men and women, feminists argued that these different roles were based on imaginary or imposed differences – that women were every bit the same as men in all the ways that mattered. It was only because society imposed behaviors on men and women that the sexes seemed different.

The feminist had to claim that these differences were not biologically rooted – if they were, the feminist project would sink under the weight of human nature. The feminist had to deny that observed differences between men and women were biological – instead, they were the fruit of a society that arbitrarily divided the sexes into different roles.


Feminists & Sex

But the word sex was too tied up with biology. Just as they would assert that differences between men and women were purely environmental, the immutable overtone of ‘sex’ was damning them. It implied those sexual differences were permanent. They couldn’t say ‘sex’ without undermining their own argument. Your genitalia were happenstance – it was your gender that mattered. Your identity, your interests, your comportment – those were all things you chose or were imprinted upon you by your environment – it had nothing to do with your biological sex. That say, women are more expensive to medically insure than men has nothing to do with the fact that they were born a female. Instead, it is the legacy of a sexist society that imposed needless division.

They needed ‘gender’ because the historical meaning of ‘sex’ was too reminiscent of the idea that men and women are different. ‘Gender’ came to be a code word that signified you believed that sex differences were fabricated; they were the fruit of patriarchal norms. It wasn’t enough for feminists to disagree – they had to speak in such a way that made it impossible to disagree with them. Propaganda of all stripes invoke this abuse of language. Proponents of open borders call an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ to obscure the immigrant’s original crime of trespassing.


‘Gender’ Bespeaks Confusion Of The Soul

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 22:5

On its face, the feminist meaning of ‘gender’ is useful. More than ever before, men identify as women, and women as men. Their sex differs from their sexuality – a man may be biologically male, but he identifies as a woman. And ‘gender’ refers to what he identifies as, not what he was born as.

Plainly speaking, they are misfits, abominations of biblical proportion. It is they who have given life to the feminist concept of gender. Sexual equality is the ideal in Western society, so we celebrate androgyny. The more confused someone is about their sex, the greater their virtue – because they are even closer to being sexless.  No surprise then that the numbers of sexual misfits have multiplied in a bid for attention and pity. And occasionally, the egalitarians and the misfits come to blows!

To use the word gender is to sow the feminist lie that our sexuality, our inherent maleness or femaleness can be ignored and discarded. It is to say that our sexuality can be made not to matter, that we are as pliable as our hearts’ contend. Those very sexual differences that excite and arouse us in our private lives – we can change them as if they were channels on a television. The same woman who campaigns for equality lusts for inequality, for domination and aggression behind closed doors.

Read Next: Why Modern Feminism Is White Woman’s Privilege

136 thoughts on “The One Word A Man Should Never Use”

  1. A few other examples of manipulated language that real men should not use
    1)”Gay” in the modern meaning. Just say homosexual instead. Yes the word “gay” is shorter and more convenient, but it’s usage completely ruined an otherwise good word stat meant something like “happy” Now it turns out heterosexual men cannot be happy. This is how homosexuals kidnap otherwise beautiful things from others and ruin them. Rainbow is another example of this.
    2)”Creep” or “creepy” This word is used against men, can be used for any purpose and there is no easy way to remove the label of creep if it gets stamped on you. Men should not reinforce this
    3)”Theater” when referring to cinemas. Cinemas like to refer to themselves as theaters to pretend that they are on the same level of class and sophistication. Yet a theater is a form of art, but a cinema is a hollow entertainment that shows you brainwashing pictures while surrounded by legions of fast food consumers and lousy daters.
    4)”Restaurant” when referring to McDonalds.

    1. Good list. A couple of others. It’s “vegetables”, not “veggies”. And I once heard a presumably heterosexual man say “tummy”.

      1. About “gay”, I do not agree, for the following reason: an homosexual is a man that have sex with other men (could we say that he prefers men to women? Every time?). A “gay” is an homosexual that lives according to a specific lifestyle, the “gay lifestyle”, which includes a certain way of behaving, certain entertainments, and a tendency to copy heterosexual accepted social behaviors (monogamy, marriage, children, etc). Homosexuals have been around forever, gays are fairly new in society, I would say from the second part of the 20th Century and in the United States (as “teenagers” were also “born” in the States).

    2. 5) ‘Weird’ anything that doesn’t conform to blue pill expectations.
      Blue pill individual: James is so weird all these girls want him and he doesn’t have a girlfriend/wife
      Red pill individual: I thinks its the fact these girls are [insert common traits of modern feminist girls]
      6)’Swag’ originally describing as “an ornamental festoon of flowers/fruits/greenery”. Now a catchphrase for douchebags, tools and hipsters .e.g
      Douchebag/tool/hipster: “I got kicked out of class, I got swag”
      Real man: “That’s because you’re a fucking retard trying to be like the rest of the try hards thinking they have swag”

    3. Hey! Bisexual MGHOW here! How ya doin’?
      I don’t see a lot of people mourning the word, “gay”, and rainbows are for everybody to enjoy. The gay movement uses a rainbow color scheme, and rainbows with it. I can’t think of anything gay people have actually stolen from straight people. I can only think of things they’ve stolen from us, in the bisexual community.

    4. Another word–“homophobia.” That word didn’t exist until sometime in the mid 60s, but was rarely used up until 5 years ago. It’s a stupid word. Someone said to me once that I’m homophobic. I replied, “No I’m not. When I see a gay person I don’t flee in terror screaming my head off, rocking in a corner.”

      1. It is a word that has been used incorrectly. People use to describe somebody that is not happy to be an object of an homosexual´s attention, when it should be used when somebody hates homosexuals and acts accordingly. Punching an homosexual just because he is homosexual would be “homophobic”, (but I object to the use of “phobic” there). Just disliking being around them does not mean hate or a phobia of some kind. Because in that case I am “uglyphobic” and “fattiephobic”.

        1. A phobia is an irrational fear. We recoil from the things we’re phobic of. If you walk up to a gay man and punch him, that’s not phobia; that’s hostility.

      2. The Cathedral likes to mix phobia with disagreement/disgust.
        “you’re afraid of strong women!”
        – no, I just find them repulsive.

    5. “3)”Theater” when referring to cinemas. Cinemas like to refer to
      themselves as theaters to pretend that they are on the same level of
      class and sophistication. Yet a theater is a form of art, but a cinema
      is a hollow entertainment that shows you brainwashing pictures while
      surrounded by legions of fast food consumers and lousy daters.”
      Watch better movies I guess? Some Godard, some Welles, Some Sturges or Billy Wilder? That is why I prefer “films” to “movies”, despite the fact that the physical film format is on its way to the grave.

      1. homophobic is not a real phobia then is it… straight men have legitimate reasons to shun homo men….. not least because if they did get seduced into that kind of lurid sex, it might prove to be rather convenient and easier to come by than straight sex….
        that aside homo men are often prejudiced, bitchy, insecure, two faced and difficult to get along with…..they can also prove to be very troublesome with girl friends… young women that form close friendships with gay men, often use them as crutches to fill gaps that are missing in their relationships with straight men….
        therefore i am not homophobic, simply homo-realistic…. i don’t want homo men befriending myself or my woman.

        1. I agree. A phobia is a “fear”. Nobody is “afraid” of gays. They try to take your repulsion (turn-off) and turn it into “fear”. A cheap manipulation. They don’t wan’t to be told homosex is gross/sick/wrong…. they would rather tell you you’re “afraid” of gays. It’s the dumbest word of the millenium.

        2. “not least because if they did get seduced into that kind of lurid sex,
          it might prove to be rather convenient and easier to come by than
          straight sex….”
          This is known as being “on the down-low” among the “black” community.

      2. Watch better movies I guess? Some Godard, some Welles, Some Sturges or Billy Wilder?

        I rarely agree with your comments — and I loathe that overrated, self-serving Marxist shill Godard, in particular. But I have to co-sign this one. Writing off an entire art form because one hasn’t taken the time to broaden one’s own horizons is just astoundingly misguided.

        1. Hey, any guy that beds Anna Karina can be as douchey as he wants. Also, he made some of the greatest films about women (“One or two things I know about her”, “Contempt”, etc).

        2. What do you really know about my horizons you NAMALT robot?
          There are good movies, but cinemas exist because of the bad mass appealing ones. What don’t you understand?

        3. What do you really know about my horizons you NAMALT robot?

          I know what you’ve indicated about yourself by boldly spewing an ignorant-sounding blanket statement on the subject of cinema — and then, doubling down on it when challenged, even though you haven’t provided the tiniest shred of evidence to support your absurd claims.

          There are good movies

          This has nothing to do with your original contention, which was

          cinema is a hollow entertainment that shows you brainwashing pictures while surrounded by legions of fast food consumers and lousy daters.

          This statement indicates that you fail to view cinema as a worthy artform, that it exists solely to brainwash the public, and that you don’t believe in the existence of good films. If what you were trying to express was the idea that shitty commercial blockbusters outnumber films of substance, then you failed to do so. Rather, what you seemed to be doing with your original statement was damning the entire history of cinema, and questioning its worth, because of the modern-day prevalence of brain-dead popcorn fare. It was on that basis that I challenged your knowledge of the subject.

        1. Not All Marxists Are Like That? He he, funny. Actually we all ARE like that. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    6. Cinemas like to refer to themselves as theaters to pretend that they are on the same level of class and sophistication. Yet a theater is a form of art, but a cinema is a hollow entertainment that shows you brainwashing pictures while surrounded by legions of fast food consumers and lousy daters

      Obviously, you’ve never exposed yourself to anything but mainstream Hollywood garbage. No man who’s ever viewed the works of Sam Peckinpah or Stanley Kubrick or Werner Herzog or Ingmar Bergman or John Huston or Akira Kurosawa or Martin Scorsese (to name just a few) would ever make such an ignorant statement.
      Film history is rife with red-pill truths buried just beneath the surface of cinema’s inherent gloss and myth-making. This tension between the two — the desire to impart raw, bitter truths (art) versus the old-fashioned need to tell an entertaining tale to as wide an audience as possible (commerce) — is part of what makes many of the greatest films so fascinating.

      1. Check out “Blue Valentine”.
        It’s about what turning into a sloppy beta will get you.

        1. Good film. In particular, I’d recommend the cult gangster film Fingers starring Harvey Keitel. One of the best documents of how beta pedestalization of women only leads a man to embracing his worst, most self-destructive instincts.

      2. This is a NAMALT argument. Not all movies are like that.
        Yes I agree, but id doesn’t change the fact that a cinema is a cinema and a theater is a theater.
        What is the ratio of artsy films compared to remakes of Transformers Returns 243 in cinemas these days???

        1. a cinema is a cinema and a theater is a theater.

          That’s interesting. And here, I was thinking that cinemas were referred to as theaters because they met the definition of the word “theater,” which is:

          A building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.

          But thank you for battering away at the doors of perception and blowing my mind.

          This is a NAMALT argument.

          I enjoy it when guys who have just stumbled onto red-pill lingo try to apply it to everything under the sun — pretty funny stuff. But, hey, you’re probably right. After all, enduring works of art created by some of the most talented men ever to get behind a camera are, like, totally comparable to the behavioral traits of women. I mean, that’s not comparing apples and oranges, at all.

    7. Not only should you not use the word “restaurant” when referring to McDonalds (or similar chains), the word “food” should not be used to describe what they’re selling.

  2. As a bilingual speaker you are spot on. You don’t see this ignorance in the way words are used in other languages, gender is more reserved when speaking about genre or referencing types of things depending the subject matter. I never really thought about this until reading this article, gets you thinking and really does demonstrate how society is being force fed the belief that men,women and homosexuals; ”are and should be categorized as being the same or similar.”

    1. As a bisexual, I beg to differ. Gay people are advertised as equal, not the same. Look at how sensationalized the little omega twins fairy cunt is. The gay bear (ultra-masculine, hairy gay men) is minimized and the gay femme is everywhere in media. Queerness for the sake of queerness is celebrated, and thus cannot be promoted as “the same.” Or even similar!

      1. I am speaking specifically from a heterosexual point-of-view. I do not know if your trolling . LOL at the ”gay bear” seg-way. I don’t have much knowledge on the whole homosexual/bisexual world, not really interested in delving into it but thanks for the in-site, learn something new everyday.

  3. Let’s face it, these lexicon shifts happen all the time, and it’s about nothing more than marginalizing people who aren’t in the know about the latest lingo. Remember when people suddenly became indignant over the word “Oriental”? It’s not about sensitivity, it’s about making a certain group of people look insensitive. It’s about superiority.
    I recently used the word “underdeveloped” to describe third world countries and was corrected by a PC policewoman. She said, “Developing countries.” How stupid – they’re ALL “developing.” I’m going back to “third world.”
    Oh and here’s something for your enjoyment:

    1. So why don’t these countries all hurry up and “develop” already?
      Of course, if you bring up the likelihood that they’ll never “develop” because too many low-IQ chuds live in them, that tends to upset human-nature denialists.

    2. That’s a weak explanation, and decidedly false in this case.
      ‘Gender’ is like the language used in 1984. The word is contorted to make dissent from the ruling propaganda impossible. It encodes a prejudicial view that goes unacknowledged, making people accept it by default. Gender and illegal immigrant are propaganda terms, not primarily signifiers of moral superiority. They may be used for that in addition.
      And ‘underdeveloped’ is another stupid, terrible word. Under relative to what? Who is to say a given country has not reached its potential, and is thus fully developed? Or that a primitive tribe in New Guinea is in fact more developed because it is more socially cohesive and stable than a society of bastard mongering welfare queens? Same goes for ‘underprivileged.’ Just call them poor.

      1. yeah it’s like bald men have to be called follically challenged… we’re not allowed to just say what we mean because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the weaker members of society…. let’s start a fight club with words instead of fists…. for example if everyone goes around saying fuck to everything… the word becomes non offensive in time… my generation uses it all day long, whereas 30-40 years ago it was ‘very rude’ .. it’s just a fucking word it has whatever meaning you assign to it…. “practice speaking without emotion and ever so fucking politely gentlemen, it will cause a cognitive dissonance in the rabbit brain.”

      2. Agreed. But I do think people like to get off on moral superiority behind this kind of nonsense, at least by those not ruling but with a strong emotional investment in this kind of crap.

      3. “Gender is like the language used in 1984.”
        It is that. A perfect and very funny example exists in an old listserv exchange among Women’s Studies profs & hangers on. Daphne Patai recreated it in her book “Professing Feminism”. The poor ladies had use “gender” so much when they might have used “sex” that they fell down the post modern rabbit hole, and began to actually believe that there were no true biological differences between men and women.
        Patai and a few others were appalled that one of “scholars” had written the following:
        “Patai asserts that sexual dimorphism is a biological fact. Great. I’m ready to listen to her arguments with an open mind. Let’s hear it. Convince me.”
        Of course there was no convincing her.

    3. The 3rd World thing and the name changes is a game that the IMF likes to play to obstruct the view of the problems they cause. They changed “under-developed” to “in development” juts to influence public discourse. The problem is compounded when you compare a fairly cosmopolitan place like Buenos Aires to some African village.

    4. This reminds me of a time i went to a bar in Portland with a girl i was seeing (i am originally from Scotland). On the way there she tells me there will be a group of friends and ‘friends of friends’ of hers, most of whom attend law school that she would like me to meet. My initial feeling turned out to be spot on and the vast majority of them intellectual flat track bullies with no idea how the real world works outside of the Pacific Northwest.
      So anyway one of the girls is half-Asian and wearing a rather fetching dress. After a few minutes of chat i inform her i like the dress and it’s oriental design. Her face drops and she summons her fellow ball-breakers to back her up and join her in condemnation of my ‘outrageous’ and ‘racist’ comment! Perplexed i asked them if they had ever heard of The Orient Express and whether that was racist too? Unfortunately not one of the four future law graduates had heard of the most famous train ever, very surprising i know!
      A heated conversation ensued which left the ‘ladies’ very angry especially with how amused i was at the whole situation. To add further hilarity to the evening on the drive home we passed a store called Oriental Antiques but i was denied the girls number to send her a picture which would have been gold.

      1. ‘Creepy’ on chicks works wonders. More often than not, the ensuing meltdown falls somewhere between ‘crazy’ and ‘cunt’ on the hamster derangement continuum.

  4. I laugh at women who call me a “misogynist.” I say, “So? What do you plan to do about it?” Because that really amounts to an expression of their impotence in the face of my ability to see through their make-believe and delusions.
    I also have to laugh when progressives use words like “selfishness” and “lack of empathy” when they talk about people who refuse to go along with their Opposite World agenda. They don’t see how it applies to their temper tantrums for not getting what they want. And they certainly don’t have empathy for the people with productive lives who have to pay the taxes for progressive absurdities without deriving any benefits from them other than not going to prison.

    1. let’s redefine misogynist, the same way the hip hoppers redefined nigger… let’s call ourselves misogynists… but say it means someone that dislikes feminists and someone who appreciates the differences between the sexes…

      1. Well to be fair they redefined the word nigger by saying ‘niggaz’ instead. So we need to find an alternative spelling for misogynist.

  5. Eeeeeeh… I think you’re reaching a bit with this one. Who cares whether someone identifies as a male or female or nothing?
    Whether someone is biologically m/f or chooses to identify as m/f is the result of either confusion or some wiring in the brain gone wrong. If living as m/f makes them happy, let ’em be happy. It affects me not at all. And if I happen to be making out with a chick that is actually a dude, I go “thanks, not for me. Sorry.” And move on.

  6. Excellent article, Mr. Goldstein. But I have one small complaint. When I use the word gender, I’m usually talking to a feminist and saying something along the lines of, “Rot in hell, you gender-less freak.” If I were to replace “gender” with “sex” it would imply that she simply doesn’t get any sex which, although probably true, isn’t the point I was trying to make. Which is that feminists aren’t men, but they aren’t real women, either. Any advice?

    1. Considering that she probably doesn’t dress very femininely, you could call her a transvestite, or tranny for short. Better, don’t talk to feminists.

      1. But what do you call a Thai “ladyboy”? They are not exactly transvestites nor transsexuals (it is all from there to here). Thai people consider them to be “the third sex” and they have a very specific word in Thai: “Kathoey”. It is difficult to adapt words from Western culture into others.

    2. I’m with Gold on this: don’t talk to feminists. Someone (Roosh?) wrote the best thing to say to feminists: “What, you’re a feminist? Sorry, I don’t date feminists.” Turn and walk away. That will piss them off on so many levels. Infuriating.

    3. I wonder if anyone detected the fact that this comment was tongue in cheek? I basically just wanted an excuse to call any feminist who might be reading this a sexless, genderless freak…

  7. “You wouldn’t eat a potato like you would an apple – potatoes must be steamed, boiled, baked or otherwise prepared, while an apple doesn’t. Some would argue that an apple and a potato should always be treated the same, that an apple and a potato are in fact identical, and it’s only our imagination which says otherwise. These people are called feminists.”
    Fucking beautiful. I cracked up. That is genius.

    1. I actually laughed out loud when I read that too. A fntastic passage in a much-needed article.

  8. I am going to reiterate my proposal that we replace the work “men” and “women” on bathroom doors and replace them with pictures of a penis and a vagina.
    Not only will it help the illiterate, but it will help the T’s and Q’s figure out which bathroom they are supposed to use.

  9. As a guy who lives in Thailand, I really appreciate the ammunition you are giving me here for when I meet ladyboys and ladyboy sympathizers.

  10. An androgynous society is an obedient society.
    No one who is chained by debt, fed with crap and fooled by TV wants go get up his lazy ass and start a revolution.
    All hail the feminist hivemind, for we can’t allow outliers to ask unpleasant questions.

  11. A lot of this “gender” bullshit has come from the fact that feminism has made “alternative lifestyles” (read: homosexuality) a lot more acceptable than they used to be. It’s like the whole “gay marriage” thing. 55% of the country doesn’t support gay marriage. The number is probably closer to 15-20%, because 35-40% of the country wants to be left alone by the “equality” Nazis and the large number of intolerant homosexuals.
    It’s not a matter of actual belief in it; it’s a matter of the “stop the ‘gay pride’ parades and the constant whining about equality.”

    1. Let them marry, who cares? Let them be happy, I only care if they affect MY happiness. It is the effect on culture I am more worried about. And since I believe that there is no such thing as a “gay gene” (and my belief is being proved by science), the increase in homosexuality in certain countries works as a symptom of a bigger problem (problem which is being treated in this and other blogs/pages).

      1. I concur, let them marry. It’ll stop a lot of the “equality” Nazis from spouting off on CNN, MSNBC, etc. My personal belief is that marriage should consist of one man and one woman, but I fail to see why homosexual couples shouldn’t be extended the same rights and responsibilities.

        1. Because it’s just BULLshit! The word “marriage” has its own particular meaning just like the word “sex” does. Left-wing socialists and feminists trying to hi-jack the word “marriage” to mean whatever they want it to mean is exactly the same as them replacing the word “sex” with the word “gender”: i.e. it serves to further their agenda. Therefore we must OPPOSE it!
          For Christ’s sake… you morons

        2. “Gay Marriage” is an Orwellian term specifically designed to insidiously undermine the normality of the male-female sexual dynamic in unsuspecting people’s sub-conscious minds. If you don’t oppose it, you may as well close this browser window now and navigate to
          Don’t forget to save it in your favourites: Good Riddance!

        3. In Argentina gay marriage was approved almost without a fuss. Do you know why? Because nobody cares. Why people would? Most gays live in Buenos Aires anyway. You go 200 miles from BA and people still marry in their early 20s and you see men in their late 30s or early 40s with young girls (second round, or girls that like older men the first time around). Heck, even in the suburbs 20 minutes from the big city many couples started at 21 or 22 (suburbs here are not like in the US, in mine there are something like 30 bars, at least three nightclubs, restaurants, a downtown, etc).

  12. Transgender people always make me think of that one line from Fight Club:
    “Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken”

    1. Yeah cause you know this stuff is just SOOOO done to death everywhere else right?
      Fuck off you “gender” invested twat.
      Awesome article btw Emmanuel, keep it up ROK.

        1. Have a cry faggot. Or show us all how BORED you are . Make up your mind.
          Have I spiced it up a bit for you sweetheart? There’s a good girl.

        2. Lol. Did your dick short circuit again? Why are you so crazy and hysterical? I will have to analyze this a little closer…got it. You are suffering from Koro. Have that checked out!

        3. Oh God it’s just all sooo BORING. Look how edgy I am. I’m at site known for discussing gender dynamics and current social trends and I’m (feigning) boredom when said topics arise because truth be told I really got sand in my vagina over the article.
          Fuckin nonce

        4. So I’m a “faggot” and a “girl”? Lol. And I got sand in my vag? Yup subject is crazy and hysterical. Overemotional and likes to cry a lot. Korocrazy they call it!

        5. Yes you most certainly are. But the faster you oversensitive, overemotional, hysterical earthwrecks come out of the closet the better it will be for your health. Protein shake?

        6. Tryhard
          I’m so progressive and nonchalant man.. It’s like I talk about this stuff all the time over at you know. *YAWN* And I come here and gosh darn I see it all again !!! BORING

        7. Oh oh looks like someone has got some silicon particulate in their lower equatorial region now…who might that be?

        8. Bravo. Bravo. Mad bull on the loose. Supercharged and overemotional. Subject is slurring his speech. You get an upvote for that brilliant retort.

        9. Another “edgy” burn. From the queen of fake nonchalance.
          I’m still reeling from “at least you didn’t dispute the fact” KAPPOWW!

        10. But just look how boring it all is. Won’t somebody…anybody? Has my ruse of nonchalance worked on you guys?

        11. Am I to understand you have herpes of the nose? Is that what you’re saying? Sorry dude.

        12. You could own them, but why bother when finger-blasting your own ass is a hobby of yours!

        13. Heh it’s funny cause it’s coming from the “guy” who’s user name ends with a “a man anus” A freudian slip? You want to tell us something? Is that how you combat the………. BOREDOM!!

        14. It’s actually ‘manus’ but only a guy with a sixth sense for schlong could possibly see that as ‘anus’. Again I’m not familiar with my Freud so you’ll have to tell me how you can see that.

        15. Don’t worry about it. I know how oversensitive and hysterical you guys get around the thought of other mens bums. It’s like your dicks are dousing rods or something.

        16. Fuck off. Mangina dipshit.
          Why are you trolling here? Go back to whatever cisgendered hellhole you crawled out of.

  13. Screw those feminists. (well, don’t, but yeah)
    I use gender the correct way. I also don’t use made up words like “cisgender” and “two-spirited” (WHAT the f*ck is THAT bullshit?!) They can continue to be a parasitic hive on their own, leave me out of it.

  14. Eh, I don’t really care either way. I am not aware of any rule against saying that “gender” (behavior) can’t be determined to a large extent by a person’s sex (biology.) For example, I can say “Gender roles exist to a large extent as a result of the natural differences between men and women.”
    Also, there are obviously a relatively large minority of men who prefer to act effeminate and a relatively large minority of women who prefer to act masculine–and I am not just talking about the transgender types. The fact that you consider thees people “abominations” does not make them disappear. Frankly, I don’t think you can blame all of this on feminist ideology either. Modern, post industrial, urban society seems to naturally make men more effeminate and women more masculine–hence the reduced crime, low sperm counts, low testosterone, low tolerance for casualties in war, women moving into the workforce etc….You may not like this, but it clearly represents something of a biological shift towards androgyny.
    Darwinian evolution is neither static nor absolute: it makes a poor substitute for the eternal god and the eternal natural order you are trying to project on to it.

    1. Yes, society is replete with endocrine disruptors that make us androgynes, as does our fattening adulerated food supply. Egalitarianism and victimhood spoon fed by public schools and pussy parents seals the deal.
      As I’ve written before, lots of American dads have vicarious penis envy with their daughters, so they stick them in mannish hobbies like team sports, and encourage them to have hard charging careers.

  15. CommitmentPHOBE/HomoPHOBE
    Lefty words used to shame straight men into settling with crappy women and to quash his natural revulsion toward deviancy.

  16. Damn! I have been hoping someone would say this. I am so tired of watching people (especially in the media) use the word “gender” so mindlessly.
    Men and women are different sexes. The differences are vast. We are not just physically different, but literally our brains operate very, very differently. Check out this weeks edition of The Economist. They have an article about research done at the University of Penn, that maps out connections between neurons in the brain. The map for men looks completely different – polar opposite – of the map for women.
    We did not “assign” or “identify” ourselves with these difference. They are deeply biological, physiological, and evolutionary. So “gender” has nothing to do with it.
    In fact, this difference is so stark that I think it might be worthwhile for ROK to get a copy of the research and post it. They have some very interesting diagrams that colorfully map out men vs. women brains.

  17. “people believed that men and women are different, and so they should have different roles, different rights, and different duties.”
    So slavery should come back, because people from different races are different?

    1. Another fine example of feminist critical thinking. You win. Men and women are exactly the same. I’m so happy I can get an abortion when I get pregnant.

      1. It’s not that. By the way , I am not a feminist.
        Is just that this website attempts to push masculinity so hard that they start to flirt with fascism.
        There is no such thing as different rights , or inherent duties, there is only universal rights and decision-based duties. And that argument only by the way, rejects and voids all the feminist agenda.
        And one last thing, I can see one day that you will start to fisting yourselves each other with SA uniforms in this hyper-masculine frenzy.

        1. Your macabre fantasies say a lot more about you than the writers and contributors to this site. Worse, your argumention is based on a ridiculously extreme abstraction: reductio ad absurdum.

        2. Yo brah, I’m already one step ahead of you – one of my first articles was an homage to a bona fide fascist’s take on women (Julius Evola).
          Sounds like you’re a libertarian. I’m not, but nothing I said implied the use of force. Just not government meddling in people’s affairs and shoving equality on them every chance it gets.

        3. Thanks for the answer. Nothing except that little phrase was shocking to me, that is why I was against it.
          Because is that same imposition of special rights and duties what feminists use as their agenda, and is that same logic can be taken to the absurd of imposing slavery again.
          it was something that others didn’t understand by the way. And nice Machiavelli avatar.

    2. Question: What do feminism, slavery and race differences have to do with each other?
      Answer: NOTHING. Any relation between those terms is the product of a fag’s mind trying to do what they (wrongly) understand is thinking but what is in reality a bout of hysteria.
      Go away you cum-guzzler, you are off-topic.

      1. I think it had to do with the notion of attaching a role to people from their birth, because of their anatomy or looks and coercing them into that role. It not being a good thing and all.

    3. If he strong had not imposed their will upon the weak and coerced them into obedience to build civilization, you would not have the relatively easy life of luxury that you have today.
      P.S Slavery has not gone away, it exists today in Africa the Middle East and large parts of Asia. I believe the going rate for a slave in North Africa is $100 (US).
      The ONLY place slavery has disappeared is where White people live.

  18. Daniel Greenfield at the Sultan Knish blog had an excellent piece about the left’s continued assault on definitions. Liberal/leftists work reverently to abolish terms that define behavior, laws, marriage, right vs wrong, beauty and ugly, normal-abnormal to rationalize deviancy to normal. That way success is not virtuous and failure is not loss. This continuation of blurring behaviors into social norms is becoming more noticeable in this enlightened age of Obama. Where it is stated that ‘he’ is “so intelligent” and able but, results and the record of so called ‘achievement’ is barred from critical examination. It’s a relief to see many others recognize this and are pushing back. Gravity still works, reality still bites and try as the lessors of society might, the truth wins the day…even when efferent attempts to hide it are made.

  19. I agree with different roles and expectations for men and women, but not the idea of different rights. Basic human rights are the same for both sexes: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  20. I would like to have an explanation why man woman is not sex but gender, but then suddenly homosexuality is a sex, not homogenderity or homogenderual…
    Ok, to their credit we not have transgenderism, but if that is a construct why do we not treat it as a fucking choice rather than an inborn gender?
    The whole thing is a clusterfuck, but somehow managed to fuck the sexes and the society into clusters….
    Oh yea,
    Pansexualism, whatever crap that is.

    1. That’s being into fucking everything.
      I sort of agree with you, there’s inconsistency in saying both that gender (not sex, the 2 words have actually 2 quite different meanings, but people misuses them) is a complete cultural superstructure and that orientation and, worse, transgenderism are totally inborn.
      But there’s a lot between choice and inborn, a lot, it’s not one or the other.

  21. “Gender” and “sex” have different meanings. Refusing to use a word of a different meaning because you’ve got problems with the way the word is applied is shooting yourself in the linguistic foot. For example: if you met a really girly girl, what would you say? “Uh, she has like extra woman sex.” No. You would describe her as “feminine.” When you do this, you aren’t talking about her chromosomes, are you? Nope. You’re talking about her gender.

    1. Nope, you’re talking about her *sexuality.* I even linked it for you in the article – you were too proud to listen.
      Too bad your lexicon blows.

  22. Hi, ya’ll! I’m genderqueer. I’m here to assert the fact that I exist, just to put a wrench in the works of your attempt at erasure. Ooh, and guess what: I’m asexual too! No lie. Not a special snowflake, just a human being trying to exist and not be told that I’m lying and doing it for attention. Just to put that out there. 🙂

  23. Never really thought about it but this makes sense. “Gender” is something I would have associated with hirsute plump chicks in the Women’s Studies department in college. Yuck.

  24. I really like the “gendered images” that accompany this article. And I would especially like to “have gender” with the girl in the first one.

Comments are closed.