Gender Is Poison

Take Away the Word and the Game Is Over

“Well, gender and sex are two totally different things! What’s the difference? Oh, they’re actually interchangeable and gender means sex…wait, I mean…”

I can’t take it anymore.

I’ve found myself in the same repeated situation for a while now, having the identical conversation with myriad individuals about the noxious term gender and why its mere use is the origin of the mayhem we see, from men in women’s prisons to child sterilization.

We have to retread this issue because I want to clear up the confusion since it’s necessary to set a hard line on this issue. Everything begins with the words. Truly.

This is nothing but an insidious word game when it really comes down to it because without the words nothing else is possible. If we use the correct words, the cultish fraud dies. There is no other way to accomplish the ultimate goal because men cannot be removed from women’s prisons unless the false construct which put them there is attacked directly—and that false construct is the result of word games.

Doctors, academics, ideologues, and fetishists have been fiddling with this for decades because to them words are a device to push this cult onto society. In this context, words are not meant to accurately describe reality or communicate honestly. They are just another tool in their toolbox to bamboozle and confuse us so that the goal of subversion is met.

This is why the terms constantly change, for example, from transsexualism to gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria to gender incongruence, to whatever comes after that.

It keeps all of us on our toes to use only the approved newspeak and never anything offensive (read: true) even though nobody was even asked if we agree with any of this agenda.

Glenna Goldis, an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission, explains the situation here.

She is correct.

Its primary purpose is to deceive since this is a scam, and that’s been true since the 1960s during Harry Benjamin’s time and even before him in Magnus Hirschfeld’s heyday of the 1920s and 1930s. They’ll never figure it out, and it actually doesn’t matter because they’ve already accomplished the goal—confusion and chaos.

And that’s why the so-called experts still haven’t landed upon a coherent definition or explanation. That was never their goal. The goal is to perpetrate a fraud.

Here’s how it manifests.

We Don’t Know What Gender Is But Here’s Gender Dysphoria

Even though under the California government code gender means sex, and even though Benjamin claimed in 1966 that gender is the nonsexual side of sex but the terms were interchangeable anyway, and even though the American Psychological Association admitted in 2008 it could not use gender coherently or consistently, we are still told gender is totally different from sex.

That is why it’s in the DSM at this very moment.

These are the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria which medical professionals use today.

If gender is distinct from sex, why does wanting to be rid of one’s secondary sex characteristics influence one’s gender identity? A man who doesn’t like his beard is now a special gender and needs hormones and testicle removal, even though we were told gender has nothing to do with biology since it’s just social but also not social?

Look at the fourth bullet point. Or some alternative gender from one’s assigned gender? So how many are there then? At least 58, according to Facebook.

This term isn’t just meant for everyday conversation. It is in law and medicine, which impact insurance coverage, prison placement, and legal rights. How can we decide how to order society when nobody even knows what any of this actually means?

And that is how male criminals end up in women’s prisons and receive a 30-year early release because the government doesn’t want to pay for breast implants after a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from medical professionals, as demonstrated by Jonathan Richardson in Indiana, recently arrested for a parole violation.

None of this means anything real.

From Transsexual to Transgender Even Though It’s Dreck

Major figures like Hirschfeld and Benjamin used the terms transsexual and transvestite for much of their career especially for male cross-dressers, and psychiatrist John F. Oliven is credited with coining the term transgender in his 1965 book Sexual Hygiene and Pathology.

Transgenderist and transgenderal never really took off, so famous cross-dressing fetishist Arnold Lowman was not successful with those.

Above, Oliven describes it thusly:

where the compulsive urge reaches beyond female vestments, and becomes an urge for gender (“sex”) change, transvestism becomes “transexualism.” The term is misleading: actually, “transgenderism” is meant, because sexuality is not a major factor in primary transvestism. Psychologically, the transexual often differs from the simple cross-dresser; he is conscious at all times of a strong desire to be a woman.

Uh…what?

Oliven, the man who coined the term we use today, states that gender and sex are the same here though he didn’t explain how to use the terms correctly.

But did you know that there’s various types of perverts involved here? There’s men in dresses, and then there’s men in dresses. They’re totally different.

And sexuality is not a major factor? Sure. That’s why these guys get caught masturbating in women’s bathrooms and spas constantly.

Dreck, like I said, even though gender dysphoria somehow made it to the DSM after Oliven’s drivel was published.

James Became Juno With Gender Games

A British man named James Dawson provided one of my most favorite illogical explanations of gender because it embraces everything that is stupid about this agenda.

James, who once worked as a schoolteacher (I wonder why he wanted to be around kids), began publicly cross-dressing and calling himself Juno in 2015. After some extensions, testicle removal, and beard shaving, he apparently is now a woman.

James is a writer who has worked on Doctor Who (troon diversity hire), and he has also published several books, including The Gender Games.

He’s never been and never will be a woman, and it takes a certain kind of male ego to claim the authority to speak this way. This is a bit of a genre, especially in TED Talks, where male fetishistic cross-dressers will pontificate publicly on all they know about being women, which is nothing, but of course that will never stop these guys.

Here is the amazingly idiotic definition he provided for gender.

Uh…what?

If gender is socially constructed according to the WHO, how and why does gender-affirming care involve removing testicles and breasts as well as injecting hormones? What’s social about that? Nothing. That’s meddling with biology. It’s not behavior, actions, or roles.

Dawson claims, unlike California law and Oliven, that gender is not sex because it’s…well, literally everything under the sun. Society? Language? Culture?

It seems like he wants to say that it’s stereotypes. How does one build an identity on stereotypes? And it’s a stereotype that women have no testicles, which is why he removed those via gender-affirming care?

He ponders how women should be to better suit men? I bet he thinks women should have no problem with men like him in women’s bathrooms because all we should do is suit his perversions. How progressive!

Judith Butler, Queen of Nonsense

She might get a disproportional amount of blame at times, but she’s so full of it that it’s difficult not to point out her charlatanry.

As Genevieve Gluck has pointed out, when male criminals file documents to get transferred to women’s prisons, they cite the doctors most responsible for this lie, specifically male sexologists like John Money. They don’t cite literature professors like Butler or reference her 1990 book Gender Trouble or 2024 book Who’s Afraid of Gender?

However, her ideas have still had a notable impact in academia and media since she has been a professor at the University of California at Berkeley for decades, so her definition might just be the most significant…as well as the dumbest. I wonder if she knows gender is sex in California, her state of residence.

Here’s how she described gender and her theory of it.

Uh…what?

First, she’s wrong about sex. Sex is not assigned. Sex exists in objective reality in mammals, and it exists without documentation in birth certificates as well as in societies that don’t even have written language. Again, these are nothing but word games.

Did you catch all of the examples for gender she gave?

Cultural norms, historical formations, family influence, psychic realities, desires and wishes…

This is literally anything and everything. So, it means nothing.

And that’s why this term is so poisonous. If a professor who is considered one of the world’s most well-known “experts” on this garbage can only manage this, what hope do hoi polloi like us have? We’re just not smart enough to understand such high-level intellectualism.

How can anyone have a theory of gender if nobody knows what it is? How can anyone hate gender when nobody knows what is being referred to with the word? Who shouldn’t hate stereotypes, if that’s what is meant? Who hates biological sex, as if that impacts the existence of eggs and sperm?

If being a woman or man is an open-ended question, then how can women protect their rights to have women’s prisons or sports? We can’t, as we have seen.

These aren’t just words to throw around so she can pretend like she’s smart. She’s wrong, again, that only sex has legal ramifications. If gender identity or gender dysphoria are legitimate, then those impact law as well.

Jonathan Richardson figured that out, and plenty of other men have as well.

And that’s why Butler is a fraud.

We Can’t Have Logical Conversations Like This

Let’s engage in a hypothetical.

Imagine several people attempt to have a conversation.

Person A thinks gender means sex. Person B thinks gender means stereotypes.

If they try to have a basic discussion about gender identity or gender dysphoria or gender expression or gender medicine, how would that go? Would either understand what the other person meant when using simple terms or expressions?

Now imagine Person C joins the conversation, and she thinks gender means only clothing and makeup.

Can they all understand each other during an interaction?

What if they wanted to decide whether or not men should play women’s sports or be sent to women’s prisons? Is a logical discussion possible?

Nobody would know what anyone is saying or what anyone means because everything would be confused and uncertain. Guess what? That’s exactly what ghouls like John Money wanted. And that’s how men end up in women’s prisons and children get sterilized and mutilated.

So, that’s why trying to use gender in relation to humans is a fool’s errand.

Just Drop It

Gender is a linguistics term for words only. There are three genders for German nouns and two for Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese nouns.

There is no reason to use it in relation to humans. Use the accurate term to describe what you actually mean to refer to: norms, stereotypes, clothing, personality, hobbies, makeup, fetish, cross-dressing, autism, abuse trauma. There is always a correct word available.

Nobody is proposing laws to compel or punish speech.

It would help the argument overall to simply drop the term and say what you really mean. This is nothing but a word game because there is absolutely zero real evidence for any of it, so taking away the term means the game is over.

Men who want to be in women’s prisons, sports, and bathrooms have no defense to it. If I told Jonathan Richardson there is no such thing as a gender identity, so he doesn’t have one and therefore belongs in the men’s prison, what else can he say? What evidence could he provide to prove anything? A cheek swab test would prove he’s male. Discussion over.

I understand many people have the ultimate goal of addressing big tech and transhumanism, but guess what everyone needs before that can even begin to be broached?

The language.

Nothing can be accomplished without the right words for coherent arguments to target the overarching structures and power within and behind this agenda. It’s impossible if we can’t even accurately describe and analyze the problem in the first place.

And that is only possible if we drop gender from this context, and in fact, we have to because it poisons everything it touches so that everyone is confused.

Try it yourself.

Two sexes, no genders, infinite style and clothing and personality options.

I’m not gender critical. No one really is.

What are we criticizing? What do we refer to when the word itself is nonsense? I’m not criticizing the three categories of nouns in German. I’m a TERF specifically, and everyone who cares about this issue should be realists generally.

Just hold the line.