# The Origin of Gender Roles and Gender Fluidity



## Secret Asshole (Aug 10, 2017)

I've been thinking about doing this thread for awhile, and with the latest Google debacle on Gender, Gender Roles and Gender itself, I feel like its never been more appropriate. This thread is really fucking long, since I just don't want to regurgitate a wikipedia article. Just an advanced warning.

For me, this story hits home. (I'm going to power level just slightly here, so you can skip this part). During my time in Undergraduate, I spent my time as a psychology major. I did undergrad research, most of my stuff was hard behavioral, specifically the effect of drugs on it. (My professor was this grizzled old Southern Guy who wore a cowboy hat and studied drugs. He was awesome, but that's neither here nor there). I know the ins and outs of the field, how to conduct studies and the proper ethics of it. For clarification, I'm no longer in the Social Sciences but in a STEM program now, so I've seen both sides of the isle. And the story I'm about to tell you I've never seen. Not in the most heartless medical research studies or the most biased of social sciences. This isn't just a boring story about gender roles and gender identity. This is a horror story. And one that continues to this day.

Unlike my last thread on the origins of what we see today, I'm only going to focus on one person. His name is Doctor John Money:







Some of you might know him. Others, might not. He got famous for conducting studies on human hermaphrodites, which are born generally ambiguous (also rare) . Here we can see the future research project he has in mind fermenting:



			
				Imprinting and the Establishment of Gender Role said:
			
		

> With rare exceptions, it was found that the sexual psychology of these patients (hermaphrodites) - their gender role and orientation—was consistent with their sex of assignment and rearing, even when the latter contradicted chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, the predominant internal accessory reproductive structures, and the external genital morphology. Though the sex of rearing could transcend external gen¬ ital morphology in psychologic importance, absence or correction of ambiguous genital appearance was psychologically beneficial.



He had previously laid the groundwork and definitions for the Gender role in the paper that made him, which was in 1955. This paper, expanding on his earlier gender role work, was written in 1957. We see the groundwork for what is to come. In the summary, Money believes that the key to Gender is not biology, but how the child is raised. In the paper, he compares it to learning a language. Of course, you can learn any language and become fluent after you are born, Gender is similar to that. You can be 'raised' as any Gender.

The problem was that Money was studying hermaphrodites who were already raised. He really didn't have any proof, just hypothesis. And even back then, no University would permit you to raise a child. So Money continued his research,  determined to prove that yes, Nurture was king and overrode Nature.  Money's career skyrocketed. He was THE name in Sex and Gender Research. But still, he hadn't proven his hypothesis. People listened to him, but he didn't have the evidence. But in 1966, the case came to him.

During treatment of a routine condition and circumcision, his penis was burned badly. The doctor used an electric-cautery needle. It cauterizes as it cuts. Either the doctor or the machine fucked up and it emitted far too much heat. Basically everyone told them that the boy would never lead a normal, male life. It was basically a condiut for urine, and that's it. In the 1960s, Dr. Money worked at Johns Hopkins, which was basically the center for sex-assignment surgery. They even had ads for it on television, if you could believe it. Dr. Money was singing the praises of sexual reassignment surgery. Money was involved in sexual reassignment surgeries of intersex children:



			
				The True Story of John/Joan said:
			
		

> This theory was the foundation on which Money based his recommendation to pediatric surgeons and endocrinologists that they surgically and hormonally stream intersexual newborns into whichever sex the doctors wished. Such surgeries would duly range from cutting down enlarged clitorises on mildly intersexual girls to performing full sex reversals on intersexual boys born with testicles but a penis deemed too small. Money's only provisos were that such "sex assignments" be done as early as possible - preferably within weeks of birth - and that once the sex was decided on, doctors and parents never waiver in their decision, for fear of introducing dangerous ambiguities into the child's mind. In terms of the possible nerve destruction caused by the amputation of genital appendages, Money assured doctors that according to studies he had conducted with the Hampsons, there was no evidence of loss of sensation.
> 
> "We have sought information about erotic sensation from the dozen non-juvenile . . . women we have studied," he wrote in a 1955 paper. "None of the women . . . reported a loss of orgasm after clitoridectomy."



His protocols were present in 1997. They placed the firmest emphasis on the sexual functioning as an adult. I'd also like to mention, that micro-surgery, a technique required for these operations, were not perfected until the early 1970s. Money's protocols just offered an easy way out. At the end of this story, I'll tell you the spectacular results of his protocols, which are still around today.

The parents rushed over there, thinking somehow Dr. Money could help. What I neglected to mention, that this boy had a brother, an identical twin. Who was unharmed and normal. Now, in certain fields of study, be it genetics, medicine or psychology, twin studies are extremely powerful. Same genetics, same environment. Same, almost everything. This is perfect. You have one control, and you have one variable. And they were both babies. Six months old. 

Money was at the head of his field, but critique of his hypothesis that gender was formed only by the way one was raised was coming under serious fire. He had no studies, no evidence, yet kept touting it as real. John, the baby injured in the accident and his brother proved to be the perfect subjects he was looking for. The parents only had a sixth grade education. When Money was talking to him, he deliberately omitted the facts that the operations he were talking about had never been preformed on a biological male child with normal genitalia, only intersex children. Nor did he tell them the reality that this wasn't a miracle cure. Not only that, but he pressured them to make up their minds as quick as possible because of the injury and the procedure would involve hormones. Technically, this isn't true. According to Money's hypothesis, gender identity is first formed after 2 years of age. John was a year and a half old. He did everything in his power to make sure that it happened. He wrote letters to them, urging them to make a decision. Eventually, they relented.  Here's the surgery they conducted:



Spoiler: Unpleasant Details Follow. If you don't want to read: Fake Vagina






			
				The True Story of John/Joan said:
			
		

> According to the operating-room record, Dr. Howard W. Jones Jr. slit open the baby's scrotum along the midline and removed the testes, then reclosed the scrotal tissue so that it resembled labia. The urethra was lowered to approximate the position of the female genitalia, and a cosmetic vaginal cleft was made by forming the skin around a rolled tube of gauze during the healing.






By the time the parents decided on this, they were 100% behind it. Meaning they had no doubts or conflicts, and they would totally raise John as a girl. So John became Joan. Her mother sewed dresses for Joan. Joan tried to rip them off. Her mother then thought she could teach her to be a girl. To be trained. Just like Money had said it could be done. So they tried.

John's earliest memory:



			
				The True Story of John/Joan said:
			
		

> Linda and Frank did their best to do just that. When Joan's brother, Kevin, at age 4, was watching Frank shave and asked to shave, too, Frank gave him an empty razor and some shaving cream to play with. But when Joan also clamored for a razor, Frank refused. "I told her that girls don't shave," Frank recalls. "I told her girls don't have to." Linda offered to put makeup on her. But Joan didn't want to wear makeup.
> 
> "I remember saying, 'Oh, can I shave, too?' " John says of this incident, which forms his earliest childhood memory. "My dad said, 'No, no. You go with your mother.' I started crying, 'Why can't I shave, too?'



Kevin said he recognized Joan as his sister. But Joan never acted like a girl. The jumping rope that Joan had was used for whips and for tying people up. Dolls were discarded in favor of her brother's trucks and GI Joes. Joan's parents forced her to use a sewing machine, but most of the time it sat idle, gathering dust. Kevin also said that Joan had 0 feminine traits. Her walk was like a man, talked like a man. Joan didn't care about playing house, or having fake tea parties or dolls. Joan wanted snowball fights and play army.

The parents were instructed strictly to not harbor any doubts or let Joan in on that she was born male. Joan basically only did feminine shit for good behavior. She even expressed interest in being a garbage man because it was an easy job with good pay. Her mother accepted it as her being a 'tom boy'. Joan's mother still believed she was female. Of course, in school, Joan was merciless destroyed by other girls and even teachers. 

Joan herself knew something was wrong. Everyone was tell her she was a girl, but she didn't feel like one. In the meantime, Money was publishing papers, giving talks on his 'revolutionary' study. He lied about nearly every aspect. Especially that Joan wasn't accepted at school or that the majority (or entirety) of her behavior was male. The arrogant motherfucker declared his experiment a 'resounding success'. Basically, he said the opposite of what was happening. The control, Kevin, played with boy stuff. Joan, boy raised as girl, played with girl toys. He touted his conquest over biology, that Nurture was the king. 

This was not without consequence. Let me put it into perspective. Before Money, the only ethical infant sexual reassignment was in cases of intersex, where sex could not be determined. But now, with a biological child, Money had legitimized infant sexual re-assignment. His proof that you only had to raise a child as a boy or girl and it would turn out that way was taken as gospel. He was the leading expert, he was publishing papers. Infant Sexual Reassignment is preformed in every major country. As of 1997, 15,000 re-assignments like the one I mention above have been preformed. Now think of the climate today. It isn't inconceivable that some would feel their infants are 'trans'. Also consider the effect on the fields of endocrinology and pediatrics. You have this leader of the field touting this groundbreaking discovery.

I'm going to stop and answer the obvious question: Why didn't anybody check? In science, those at the top wield enormous power. They have legions of followers, believers. He wasn't just some guy, he was the leader in his field and operated at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the country, and the foremost at the frontier of gender and sex research. Nobody thought to. And nobody wanted the heat that it would bring. There was one guy, though. A former graduate student who had challenged Money's theories. But he was just becoming a professor, devoting his research to see if Money was right. And science, good science, takes a long time.

Continuing with the twins, Money saw them once a year, to 'guard against psychological hazards'. It was a bullshit lie. He would ask the children such non-scarring questions as 'Do you get an erection?' Kevin. 'Do you dream of having sex with boys?' Joan. If you think this isn't already fucked, it gets worse. You see, Money believed that sexual pictures should be used as part of a child's sexual education, to reinforce their gender identity. He showed them pornographic pictures. Pictures of young boys and girls naked.

Money said he had to be alone with the children for their own well being, so the parents were not present. He showed them porn. He had them strip and inspect each other's genitals. When they resisted, he was hell on them. He forced them to strip or they would be punished. All this were part of his theory. Of course, the kids hated this shit. Not only that, they were forced to endure stripping in front of his colleagues. He would yell and scream and act like he was about to beat them. Reminder, these kids are like 8 or 9 years old at this point. There were also other things he made them do. He made Kevin and Joan simulate sexual positions. I'll spare you the graphic details of children imitating adult sexual positions. Money took pictures and used the excuse that they were important for a healthy sexual identity. If you want to read them, I'll put them in a spoiler to save some space:



Spoiler: Money's Theory



"The firmest possible foundations for gender schemes are the differences between male and female genitals and reproductive behavior, a foundation our culture strives mightily to withhold from children. All young primates explore their own and each others' genitals . . . and that includes human children everywhere.... The only thing wrong about these activities is not to enjoy them."



The surgery I mentioned learner was only cosmetic, it wasn't a full vaginal reconstruction. As Joan approached puberty, Money demanded that full vaginal surgery be preformed (making a vaginal canal). Money did this because part of his insane theory was that the physical appearance is how a child learns of their sexual identity and that the full psychological change in sex couldn't be completed without it. Just think about it for a second: Biological structures are required to ferment gender identity, yet biology doesn't play any role in gender identity so you can just raise someone as a girl. Perfect.

Joan fucking hated Money at this point. Here's the rub: At around second grade, Joan figured it out for herself. She wasn't a girl. No matter what anyone else said. That's right. Money had proven the direct opposite in his experiment: Gender was hard-coded at birth. Nothing would change that. But Money pushed harder. He showed the second grader pictures of vaginas, pushing on Joan to be a 'normal' girl. He continued pushing. 'What was her ideal sexual partner?' Joan said, 'A girl.' Of course, Money thought his batshit insane theories were correct, so he took it to mean that she was a lesbian. 

Again, Money published updates. Of course, all lies. Fabrications. Nothing of the truth. Meanwhile, the poor kid was harboring suicidal thoughts, had dreams that her genitals were being cut apart and wanted to play with CB radios and technical shit. And then, she was in the range of puberty. Money, endocrinologists and her family basically forced her to take estrogen. Money, lying again, said Joan would be completely misshapen without the estrogen. And again, it was a nightmare for the girl who knew she was a boy.

And this is a part I can't do justice. Money kept forcing the issue of vaginal surgery, so he brought in the big guns to help: A Male-to-Female Transexual to convince Joan.



			
				The True Story of John/Joan said:
			
		

> Joan was then ushered into the presence of a person whom she immediately identified as a man wearing makeup, dressed in women's clothing, with a woman's hairstyle. When the person spoke, it was in a breathy, artificially high-pitched voice.
> 
> "He's telling me about the surgery," John says, "how fantastic it was for her and how her life turned out beautifully."
> 
> ...



Of course, Money didn't want to lose his cash cow so he flew over to see Joan and Kevin. Who hid from him the entire time until he coaxed them out with $15. That was the last time they'd ever see him. Slipping deeper and deeper into despair, Joan decided to say 'fuck it'. Joan dressed like a male. Though the girls barred Joan from their bathroom and the boys threatened to knife her if she came into theirs.

Eventually, things came to a head. The last straw was Money requesting her to do a breast exam. and she stopped taking all her hormone treatments, stopped listening to any behaviors that would force her to be a girl. She threatened to kill herself if she were made to do so. It was at this point, her parents finally relented and told her the truth. That she was born a boy. Immediately, Joan underwent a sexual reassignment operation. She changed her name to John and demanded hormone treatments. He had a double masectomy and penile reconstruction (but it was not functioning, that didn't come until later. Eventually he had a fully functional organ, with nerve grafts from the arm and it looked real). Of course, he could never have kids. But eventually, he found a woman and adopted her children.

And thus, ended Joan.

But not Dr. Money. This was in the 1980s and Money's reputation had swelled. His hypothesis were no longer hypothesis, but theories. Countless sex change operations had been preformed based on John. Even people who found the truth, interviewed them, discovering of this fraud, it took two years to find a willing publisher. That's how big Money was. He could end your career. He was the authority. But eventually it was published. And a lot of people were challenged by the upending of 30 years of precedent. But the body of evidence had grown since then and now, in 2017, its quite obvious that gender identity is hard coded. Not to mention Money's own experiment proved that very fact, as did follow up studies with other genetic males and females who experienced the same surgeries.  

So, happy ending right? Dr. Money disproved, arrested for severe violation of medical ethics, the twins horrific past behind them?

No. 

Kevin, John's brother, developed schizophrenia and was never the same from the psychological trauma and abuse he experienced. He killed himself with anti-depressants in 2002.

John, having lost his brother, found his wife, whose children he adopted, wanted to leave him. He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 2004. 

Money remained prominent in his field, still publishing books and papers. His book where he touts the twin's case as a success was still being printed with the error in 1997. Money, much like as many would today, said that the bad press from the twins experiment was 'conservative propaganda'. Money himself died in his sleep in 2006.

***

Originally, this was going to be much shorter. But I wanted to show the human aspect. That these accepted theories hurt people. Damage people. That these theories, even from the biggest and best experts in the field can be wrong. 

Not to mention with the revelation of the Google memo, I felt it pertinent. No matter how concrete we think our theories and ideas on Gender are, they need to be challenged, they need to be examined. Not only rhetorically, but scientifically. To do so doesn't make you a racist or a misogynist: It makes you a humanist. These false theories hurt people. With the climate today, honestly looking at something is not possible. You don't need an expert in a field to deny you a job, the mob on twitter will. We have come to a point where the ideology is more important than its reality. 

Also remember, this is the foundation of gender fluidity. A false experiment, written by a fraud and someone who perhaps committed the largest ethical violations in modern psychological research. Gender is not fluid. It is concrete, with very few exceptions. This is what a lot of progressives defend. A false conclusion that ruined lives and was disproved by itself. This is why no sex course looks at John Money. No Gender Studies course will bring him up, except maybe in passing. Its why his book still prints this as a success. Problem is, you bring down gender fluidity, you start to remove a whole house of cards in terms of gender. Questions that have uncomfortable answers, which is why we are starting to see the first salvos on biological science and evolutionary psychology.  

If you bring this up to progressives at all, I'm sure people will ignore it, call you a misogynist, try to get you banned on twitter and have your videos on YouTube flagged. I'll leave you with a quote from John Money to further prove there is no justice in the world:


----------



## ICametoLurk (Aug 11, 2017)

Secret Asshole said:


> So Money continued his research,  determined to prove that yes, Nurture was king and overrode Nature.


That reminds me of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism


----------



## Emperor Julian (Aug 11, 2017)

The weird part is none of them have likely heard of this guy.


----------



## Positron (Aug 11, 2017)

Emperor Julian said:


> The weird part is none of them have likely heard of this guy.


The tranny crowd quotes Money often, conveniently ignoring the part when he was exposed for being a fraud.  It is quite amusing that they rarely mention people like Judith Butler ("gender as performance") who one would expect to be closer to their ideology (if they have any).

BTW, I think the notion of "gender fluidity", like many bad academic concepts in the 20th century, has its roots in bad anthropology, specifically Margaret Mead's study of New Guinea tribes.  Mead claimed that in the Tchambuli tribe, women were warlike and assertive while men were submissive and obsessed with preening.  Among Arapesh, both men and women were laidback, while in the Mundugumors both sexes were warriors.  Like much of Mead's early research, it lacked academic rigor, and in later life Mead repudiated it -- but not before it stirred the imagination of a whole generation of "intelligentsia".



Secret Asshole said:


> I'm going to stop and answer the obvious question: Why didn't anybody check? In science, those at the top wield enormous power. They have legions of followers, believers. He wasn't just some guy, he was the leader in his field and operated at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the country, and the foremost at the frontier of gender and sex research. Nobody thought to. And nobody wanted the heat that it would bring.


This is unfortunately very true and is truer now than ever, as the status of junior academics (not to mention their job security) is at all-time low.  Students, being customers, are king, and universities are crawling with brain-dead admins with boutique degrees.


----------



## Nuthatch (Aug 11, 2017)

> No Gender Studies course will bring him up, except maybe in passing. Its why his book still prints this as a success.



Surprisingly, I learned about Money pretty extensively in what was essentially a gender studies course.  My professor didn't spare any details about how gruesome the surgeries were or how they altered the lives of his patients--she did however, frame a lot of it in a kind of "poor oppressed intersex people" way.  We then went on to talk about the Kinsey Scale and gender as a spectrum so there wasn't really much of a discussion on Money and gender identities.


----------



## escapegoat (Aug 11, 2017)

Nuthatch said:


> Surprisingly, I learned about Money pretty extensively in what was essentially a gender studies course.



Not that surprising. This isn't exactly a buried, secret story by a long shot. It made the news when David Reimer killed himself, and it was widely discussed at the time.

Back in 2004:


----------



## Y2K Baby (Aug 11, 2017)

Deep Thoughts is gay.


----------



## escapegoat (Aug 11, 2017)

This was published a few years after his death: https://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-Raised/dp/0061120561

And, I am pretty sure that Simon Baron-Cohen has covered the case at length.

/end nerdery

Edit: this case was also totally alluded to on a Showtime show a few years ago. The one about Masters and Johnson.


----------



## Dysnomia (Aug 12, 2017)

Positron said:


> The tranny crowd quotes Money often, conveniently ignoring the part when he was exposed for being a fraud.  It is quite amusing that they rarely mention people like Judith Butler ("gender as performance") who one would expect to be closer to their ideology (if they have any).
> 
> BTW, I think the notion of "gender fluidity", like many bad academic concepts in the 20th century, has its roots in bad anthropology, specifically Margaret Mead's study of New Guinea tribes.  Mead claimed that in the Tchambuli tribe, women were warlike and assertive while men were submissive and obsessed with preening.  Among Arapesh, both men and women were laidback, while in the Mundugumors both sexes were warriors.  Like much of Mead's early research, it lacked academic rigor, and in later life Mead repudiated it -- but not before it stirred the imagination of a whole generation of "intelligentsia".
> 
> ...



Gender fluidity is ridiculous. You're either a boy or a girl. What you like is just variations of normal most of the time. But now it's being pushed into the realm of "you're totally trans". The tumblr fetishization of binders, body hair, gender bending clothing choices and the like is really excessive now. So many people online are identifying as trans, agender, nonbinary ect... That is not normal. It's a sign of social contagion. While they try to pass all of this gender related virtue signalling off as being more progressive it is actually much more oppressive than traditional roles. Because those roles in modern western society are already pretty fluid. Women aren't chained to kitchens. Men aren't forced to like sports.

According to the way things are now if you show some interest in something that isn't part of your gender stereotype then you must be trans. So kids are getting the wrong message early on from the internet and in many sad cases now their own parents. The gender stereotypes they are allegedly deviating from are portrayed as cartoonish and non-realistic. Like a 50s sitcom. So the answer is to push them into a new stereotype. The one where if you act even a little too masculine or feminine that means you are trans and get to use the other bathroom at school.

I really feel sorry for these kids. Because it's happening all over again. We didn't learn much from John Money's sick experiment I guess. We've got parents setting up toddlers to be sterilized and butchered. And the media praises it as being progressive and amazingly brave. We're not allowed to criticize it without being called out as transphobic and told we are the problem. Sadly, I foresee a lot more suicides in the future.


----------



## Save Goober (Aug 12, 2017)

It bothers me how focuses people on both sides are about this one case. David wasn't just a boy or a girl or an experiment, he was a person. Had none of this happened, would he have gravitated toward girly toys, or still been depressed, or trooned out as an adult? How much of it was Money being a psychopath outside of all the gender stuff? We can never know.
What about other cases? Far more interesting are Guevedoces. IIRC most are happy being male but some do transition back or want to be female. 
Overall I think people sperg way too fucking hard about what toys kids play with and what it means. The conclusion is always that most boys like boy toys and most girls like girl toys, but not always. That's it. People who look too far into it are lolcows.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Aug 12, 2017)

melty said:


> It bothers me how focuses people on both sides are about this one case. David wasn't just a boy or a girl or an experiment, he was a person. Had none of this happened, would he have gravitated toward girly toys, or still been depressed, or trooned out as an adult? How much of it was Money being a psychopath outside of all the gender stuff? We can never know.
> What about other cases? Far more interesting are Guevedoces. IIRC most are happy being male but some do transition back or want to be female.
> Overall I think people sperg way too fucking hard about what toys kids play with and what it means. The conclusion is always that most boys like boy toys and most girls like girl toys, but not always. That's it. People who look too far into it are lolcows.



He was, which is why I focused a lot on him. All indications point to him being a normal male. Don't forget about all the other lives Money ruined. His 'findings' on intersex surgery on babies was a standard for over 30 years. Bad research doesn't just hurt findings, it hurts people. And a lot of those surgeries on babies resulted in a lot of unhappy adults. The medical community simply embraced it because it was an easy answer instead of letting the children grow up and choose for themselves. 

Money goes beyond David, sadly. His ideas permeated and still do, no matter if it is discredited or not. His greed and desire for prestige ruined lives, and his arrogance continued it. I don't think he was an outright sociopath, I think he was just the first of the modern wave of Social Science: He went out to prove something that he already believed, rather than just looking. That's the danger of doing that in science. 

People do sperg way too much about it. The problem is that people don't want kids to be kids. Helicopter parenting has become a thousand times worse. Its why so-called Generation Z is more conservative than their parents.



Dysnomia said:


> Gender fluidity is ridiculous. You're either a boy or a girl. What you like is just variations of normal most of the time. But now it's being pushed into the realm of "you're totally trans". The tumblr fetishization of binders, body hair, gender bending clothing choices and the like is really excessive now. So many people online are identifying as trans, agender, nonbinary ect... That is not normal. It's a sign of social contagion. While they try to pass all of this gender related virtue signalling off as being more progressive it is actually much more oppressive than traditional roles. Because those roles in modern western society are already pretty fluid. Women aren't chained to kitchens. Men aren't forced to like sports.
> 
> According to the way things are now if you show some interest in something that isn't part of your gender stereotype then you must be trans. So kids are getting the wrong message early on from the internet and in many sad cases now their own parents. The gender stereotypes they are allegedly deviating from are portrayed as cartoonish and non-realistic. Like a 50s sitcom. So the answer is to push them into a new stereotype. The one where if you act even a little too masculine or feminine that means you are trans and get to use the other bathroom at school.
> 
> I really feel sorry for these kids. Because it's happening all over again. We didn't learn much from John Money's sick experiment I guess. We've got parents setting up toddlers to be sterilized and butchered. And the media praises it as being progressive and amazingly brave. We're not allowed to criticize it without being called out as transphobic and told we are the problem. Sadly, I foresee a lot more suicides in the future.



Yeah. Even if intersex is as high as 1.7%, intersex still isn't a different gender. Its a disorder, a mistake. If our DNA replication was 100% perfect, Intersex would not exist (Still, 98.3% is pretty good). The problem is that what you've got is the focus on the superficial now. You sex, your gender and sexual orientation are all boring. They describe nothing about the person you are. They are surface level that people have been trying to get away from decades, but we're going right back to it. Your accomplishments, your talents, your work, what you like, the essence of who you are, is boiled down into surface level traits. Look at the noble-prize winning scientist who told a simple joke, he was smeared because of his gender and his skin color. What he did, who he was, the context of his words did not matter. Only what he looked like. They especially ignore context, because it matters more to them what you look like than what you actually said. It is instant judgement based on skin color and genitals. And if a minority dares agree with the opposition, they must be indoctrinated. So they make up words for that too.  

And this is because you've got a lot of millennials who have really nothing special about them. Making up new words, genders, to make them feel 'different from the normal'. Its a celebration of the superficial, of the meaningless. At its heart, its why progressive entertainment fails. Its all superficial.  There is no nuance. Everyone races to be more oppressed than the other in order to gain more attention and sympathy. Weakness is celebrated as strength. That you can't handle minor remakes is defended and people held up as 'heroes' for nothing more than breaking down into a mess because someone said bad words to them.

That's also the thing. They are fighting against something that no longer exists. Women can do whatever they want. And they clearly do not want to be pushed into STEM. Hundreds of millions of dollars pushed into diversity initiatives and a large percentage of women don't want to go. This is concluded to be sexism. If you look at 'feminist' countries, the percentages of women in STEM are nearly identical to the US. The problem is this goes against progressive ideology, so it must be sexism. It doesn't need to be proven or demonstrated, correlation is obviously causation. And this one story I heard from this one random person on the internet means its endemic! The fact is that the Google memo is correct. There are average differences in population of men and women. Why wouldn't there be? Hormones are different and powerful. The irony is, because progressives celebrate superficial characteristics rather than individual, your genitals mean more than an individual. They don't focus on the women who are already in STEM, but the women who aren't. And you have progressives desperate to escape biology.

Trans kids are even worse. You have all these drug companies touting these hormones as 'safe', but all it does is result in misery later on down the road. We don't trust children to vote, have sex, drink, smoke or join the military, but we trust them when they say they are a girl or boy at 5 and take life-altering hormones and puberty suppressors? Give me a fucking break. And I am afraid you are right. There's going to be a lot of pain and misery once these kids grow out of their trans phase and realize what they've done to themselves. 

In the end, the ideology will fail because celebrating weakness and coddling it, instead of forging it into strength, does not make for a stable or intelligent society. Or ideology. And there is still more than half the country that is getting sick of it.

Addendum: I don't mean to say that sexism or racism no longer exists. It does, but it is no longer on a society scale, especially not in cities on the coast. There will always be rapists, sexists and racists. 



Positron said:


> The tranny crowd quotes Money often, conveniently ignoring the part when he was exposed for being a fraud.  It is quite amusing that they rarely mention people like Judith Butler ("gender as performance") who one would expect to be closer to their ideology (if they have any).
> 
> BTW, I think the notion of "gender fluidity", like many bad academic concepts in the 20th century, has its roots in bad anthropology, specifically Margaret Mead's study of New Guinea tribes.  Mead claimed that in the Tchambuli tribe, women were warlike and assertive while men were submissive and obsessed with preening.  Among Arapesh, both men and women were laidback, while in the Mundugumors both sexes were warriors.  Like much of Mead's early research, it lacked academic rigor, and in later life Mead repudiated it -- but not before it stirred the imagination of a whole generation of "intelligentsia".
> 
> ...



Oh God, don't even get me started on Anthropology. That field is fucking irredeemably infected. Its no longer a science or even makes remote attempts at objectiveness. 

Yeah, I can attest to this. Most people don't really want to challenge the status quo and the publish or perish mentality is really killing academic science. I don't want to be in academia at all. No desire to play in their politics, which are worse than corporate. Except maybe if you work at Google.


----------

