"Gender" Has No Application to Humans

Just Stop Using It

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

—Confucius, The Analects

The term “gender” has no application to human beings. Human beings cannot and do not have, experience, change, transition from or to, affirm, struggle with, conform to, fail to conform to, or live in a “gender.”  

Please read the previous paragraph at least once more.

It is imperative to understand the purpose behind the maddening term “gender” because it has become common in everyday conversation among people from all walks of life in countries all around the world, from courtrooms to prisons to doctors’ offices to universities to kindergartens.

For years, before the explosion of the current propaganda promoting “gender identity” and all related nonsense, the term “gender” applied exclusively to words. It is a linguistics term since only words have gender.   

Languages like French and Spanish have gendered words (la chaussette or el maquillaje, for example) while English does not since there are no feminine or masculine articles (the sock or the makeup, respectively).  

It never occurred to medical doctors or linguists that the term “gender” applied to humans. That would be like applying the terms “morpheme” or “infix” to humans. It was simply inapplicable…until John Money. He is arguably most responsible for the proliferation of the current “gender” incoherence as well as the idiotically common refrain that sex and gender are completely different, yet somehow directly related and also magically interchangeable.   

John Money (1921—2006) was an extremely influential psychologist who also fancied himself a wordsmith and neologist.

He made a point of introducing new words to English for his political goals and purposes. His goal was sometimes to shock, sometimes to subvert, sometimes to baffle, sometimes to muddle.  

Some of the terms he coined did not become popular or widely used. In the 2015 book Fuckology: Critical Essays on John Money’s Diagnostic Concepts by Lisa Downing, Iain Morland, and Nikki Sullivan, the authors discuss John Money’s goal of replacing the term sexology with the more vulgar term fuckology:

The title of this book, Fuckology, is a reappropriation of a neologism that Money proposed for introduction into scholarly, clinical, and lay discourse. He wrote in 1988 of the need for “a word like fuckology, used in everyday, vernacular English to signify the science of what it is that people actually do under the cover of polite expressions like making love or having sex.”

In this endeavor, he failed disastrously.

He had stunning success, however, in other endeavors, namely the application of the linguistics term “gender” to humans, which he first did in 1955.

Money began applying “gender” to humans after studying individuals with developmental sexual disorders, even though a physically healthy male with a mental delusion has no genetic disorders. These two issues are entirely unrelated.

As stated in Fuckology, gender:

tends either to be used as interchangeable with “sex” or, alternately, to refer to the social (as opposed to the so-called biological or “sexed”) aspects of femaleness and maleness. In both cases, gender is a term that is commonly used to classify others and to refer to our own sense of ourselves as male or female, men or women, neither or both. Despite the fact that such conceptions of gender feel self-evident, they are, in fact, relatively recent.

What on earth does this mean? How can “gender” be completely different from sex but then used interchangeably?

If “gender” is completely separate from sex, how is “gender” the aspects built upon sex? If “gender” is social construct, why do males need female hormones and invasive surgeries to radically meddle with their biology? If “gender” is sexist social stereotypes, how does one build a “gender identity” on stereotypes? Or illusive “self-evident” feelings for that matter? How does “gender affirming care” involve invasive genital and plastic surgery if “gender” means social constructs?

How does a male “feel like” a female when sex is determined by chromosomes and gametes? Where is the proof for any of this? How does a female “feel like” neither female or male, or both? How can anyone know what the opposite sex, both sexes, or no sex “feels like”? And what does that have to do with society then? Again, where is proof for any of this besides John Money’s illogical ramblings?  

Nobody can honestly answer these questions because the concept of “gender” as applied to humans is, in and of itself, complete nonsense.

This does not mean that mental illness does not exist, but in no other situation are the delusions of anyone, from schizophrenics to anorexics, catered to with legal fictions and plastic surgery.

The term “gender” as applied to humans was meant to obfuscate because this was John Money’s overall objective.

And it worked like a charm because nobody knows what the hell they are talking about.  

The best, and simplest, way to remedy John Money’s repulsive legacy is to consistently use accurate words in place of “gender.” It is remarkable how the situation, and solution, becomes crystal clear once logical terms are properly used.  

If you mean sex, say it. There are two—female and male. Nothing more because that is how mammalian reproduction works. The sex pay gap. Sex inequality. Sexism. The sex binary. Sex-based violence. It makes sense.  

If you mean sexist stereotypes, say it. There are two sets of sexist stereotypes because there are two sexes. Nobody should conform to sexist stereotypes, and nobody can build an identity on sexist stereotypes.

If you mean social pressures, say it. Nobody should conform to social pressures, and nobody can build an identity on social pressures.

If you mean personality, say it. The two most common ways to test personality are the Five Factor Model Test and the MBTI Test. These are both widely studied and while females and males can have tendencies as well as overlap, each individual has a unique personality.

If you mean hair, makeup, and clothing, say it. Nobody can build an identity on hair, makeup, and clothing, and a male in a wig and skirt is still male.

If you mean hobbies or toys, say it. A male who likes ballet or actually reads books is still male, and a boy who wants to play with Barbies is still a boy.

If you mean delusional feelings, say it. A male who says he “feels like” he is a female is delusional because he cannot feel like something he cannot be. This cannot be “dysphoria” or “euphoria” because it is, by definition, a delusion like a 70-pound anorexic who feels obese.  

If you mean mutilation, sterilization, or plastic surgery, say it. A man who removes his testicles and inverts his penis has sterilized and mutilated his body, just like a woman who has a fake “penis” made from a chunk of her flesh. All other surgeries, including nose jobs, breast implants, chin reshaping, etc., are simply cosmetic manipulations as well.  

If you mean autogynephilia, say it. A male who gets aroused from thinking of himself as a female is an autogynephile. Autogynephilia is a perversion, not an identity.

None of the above terms can be more accurately described by using “gender” in any way. If “gender” means anything, everything, nothing, whatever is needed at the moment, or whatever best furthers this damaging agenda, then it must be discarded in order to reestablish reality.  

Nobody has a “gender identity.” Nobody has “gender dysphoria.” Nobody receives “gender affirming care.” Nobody is “gender nonconforming.” Nobody displays “gender expression.” Nobody has a “gender role.” Nobody is “cisgender.” Nobody is “transgender.”

There are no “transgender women.” They’re men.

There are no “transgender men.” They’re women.

This is not just about having “gender critical” beliefs. This is about erasing the term “gender” in reference to humans altogether because it is never accurate. It cannot be. So, as Confucius said, that matters above everything since otherwise there will be mass confusion.  

And is that not what we see, when someone can attempt to insist that a mentally ill man in a dress is a woman but then cannot even say what a woman is? Or what a man is, for that matter?

For the record, a woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male.

There are two sexes and no “gender.”

Developmental sexual disorders do not change this. There is no spectrum.

The only way to fix this preposterous mess is to simply stop using the linguistics term “gender” in any form or way in reference to humans because then accuracy is possible.

Humans are not words. We are physical beings.

Subsequently, ending this confusion means males can finally be removed from female sports and female-only spaces, especially prisons.

Let’s do it.