The abolition of women

Progressive ideologues have distorted reality in the name of tolerance. They have created an ideological environment that no longer allows anyone to define what a woman is.

In June 2021, the Biden administration replaced the word „mother” with „birthing people” in an official document on healthcare funding. In early 2022, the New York Times published an article on menstruation in which they omitted the term „women” and instead referred to them as „menstruators.” And a few weeks ago, a British journalist photographed the fact that she can no longer identify yourself as a woman at her tennis club because it says that the designation is „no longer valid.” The crowning absurdity surrounding the word “woman” was when Ketanji Brown Jackson — Biden’s newly sworn in Chief Justice — was asked by Senator Blackburn at a Senate hearing to define the word “woman,” to which she replied that she did not know because she was not a biologist.

Gender theory has been put into practice to the extent that women have become an undefinable category for progressives.

A learned and experienced judge like Brown, of course, knows exactly what a woman is. After all, Biden himself nominated Brown because he had announced in advance that he would pick a woman judge of color. However, in the current ideological climate, if he were to say that a woman is biologically female, progressive politicians who support him would be outraged. Several members of the mainstream media have acted as if it is absurd to ask such a question of a judicial nominee, and that it is all just the nonsense of conservatives.

However, the question was asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn because, as you can see in the examples above, more and more people are pretending that the definition of „woman” is some sort of nightmare puzzle that even the wisest cannot solve.

Feminism scores against itself

USA Today quickly wrote an article about how Judge Brown’s answer was „scientifically correct” because the author of the article believes that „science” says „there is no right way to clearly define what makes someone a woman.” According to the article, gender is primarily a „social issue,” and biology cannot answer the question of what a woman is. The article quotes some gender „scientists,” all of whom explain how difficult it is to define what a woman is. The author of the article looks at the whole issue through the lens of gender theory and tries to wrap up a contradictory ideology in the authority of science.

This controversial view is that there is a separate biological and a separate social gender. Gender studies is essentially a female discipline, and the theories have been developed primarily by women, unaware that they are undermining their own future. As I described in a previous article, „the ideology of social gender claims that people are ‘programmed’ by society to be a certain gender and that it is not at all certain that someone is actually a woman or a man just because they are biologically born one. In other words, gender identity is a learned skill. This theory would completely disconnect the notion of gender from biological reality, i.e., that a person’s gender is written into their DNA and that it is decided at conception whether they are born a boy or a girl depending on whether the chromosome pair that determines gender is XX (female) or XY (male). There are exceptions, of course; these are intersex people, but they make up less than 1% of the population.” Gender theory is therefore a social science theory developed by radical feminists such as Judith Butler, who argued that a doctor assigns a gender to a child at birth based on their biology, but that this „can be changed later.”

And so we come to the point where, according to those who accept this ideology, man is whatever gender he feels he is, and this can be completely independent of his biology. This is an emotional argument, with the only evidence in support of it being the individual’s own feelings, which are not rooted in biological reality. And so, according to them, a biological man can also be a woman, which makes the classical definition of woman „transphobic” because it does not include trans women. The ideology is linked to third-wave feminists, writes Michael Warren in Spectator, who launched a war against biology, opening the door to trans ideology. They argued that pointing out any difference between the two sexes was sexism.

This is how, for example, biologically male athletes with an obvious physical advantage who identify as trans women are allowed to compete among women, and the rule-makers, spectators and commentators pretend that there is no advantage for the athlete with the bigger muscles, bigger build and stronger bones.

Meanwhile, they maintain that they can’t say what a woman is, but they proclaim the greatness of women; they complain that there are fewer women in films than men, and that everything is better when it’s done by a woman. Warren describes in her article that

even hard-line feminists cannot admit that, for example, Lia Thomas is stronger than the swimmers because of her trans male biology, because then they would have to admit that there are differences between women and men and that men can be better at certain things, just as the reverse is true.

They would then be overturning their own theory that all differences between women and men are the result of sexism and male domination.

Thus, women today are faced with the fact that, while their greatness is being extolled by the progressive side, they have to compete in beauty contests and in sports with men who self-identify as women.

And because progressive politics is trendy, and everyone wants to be on the right side, the best women’s awards in America today are usually given to trans women, or biological men. And award winners can pat themselves on the back for being the first to take something from a woman to give it to a man in the name of equality.

They even expect women to call it “women’s success.” Putting this ideology into practice also means putting women in prison with men. There are more and more criminals who circumvent the system, and in the name of tolerance, the state doesn’t dare question them because, once she feels she is a woman, who are they to question it.  The protected spaces for women, the changing rooms, the toilets, are thus slowly becoming unprotected. More and more feminists, especially from conservative circles, are trying to speak out against this, but even prominent figures, such as Harry Potter author J.K Rowling who was dropped by her own base after a long period of progressive activism for women’s rights, are hitting a wall.

In UnHerd magazine, Kathleen Stock details how trans activism is a fiction imposed on society by a progressive establishment. According to Stock, it is a fiction that a woman is who she thinks she is and a fiction that there are more than two genders. But because the masses accept this dogma, the priests of ideology impose it on society like the Inquisitors of old, and if anyone questions the dogma, they are erased from public life. Recently, for example, Twitter suspended the satirical site Babylon Bee for calling transgender Deputy Secretary of State Rachel Levine “man of the year.”

Stock also points out that, interestingly, no one cares about the definition of the word „man.” Men are not being renamed „breeders” and there is no push for trans men to run for office among biological men or to be relegated to the men’s prison.

Those who suffer irreversible damage

A common accusation against conservatives is that they „overreact” to comments like the one Chief Justice Brown made or that they are obsessed with restricting the sex lives of others. They have been called intolerant and iron-fisted culture warriors who magnify a non-existent problem and are intolerant of a minority. Except it wasn’t the conservatives who began to elevate gender ideology into policy, and Americans are just scratching their heads trying to react to a phenomenon in which they found themselves neck-deep before they even knew it.

Ten years ago, you could only hear about the ideologies that are now being promoted in movies, schools and the US government itself in various social science disciplines. The internet is largely responsible for this astonishing rate of spread, writes Abigail Shrier, American journalist and author of Irreversible Damage.

In her book, Shirer shows how „trans-mania” is spreading among teenage girls in the United States, where the ideology has become a fashionable one. Before 2012, the problem was statistically non-existent, but now thousands of underage girls identify as trans.

The author describes how gender identity disorder has always existed, of course, but it has affected very few people and has been more common in young boys. It was almost non-existent among girls and usually ended by adulthood, except among a marginal minority who went on to live as transgender adults. In her book, Shirer details how girls encounter the ideology on internet social networking sites and begin to identify as trans without previously having had a problem with their gender.

Shrier describes how feminism, ironically, with its patriarchal (male-dominated) ideology, tells girls that life would be much easier if they were boys. Thus, many of the girls she interviewed said they did not want to be a boy, but simply did not want to be a girl and wanted to avoid the emotional rollercoaster of female puberty. As she describes it, instead of dealing with their problems, the current American psychologist’s position is to inject testosterone and then, as a next step, prescribe gender reassignment surgery.

In the book, scores of girls interviewed regretted the decision and said they were left worse off after testosterone treatment because the psychological problems stayed with them. According to the author, there will be unforeseeable consequences if masses of girls are led down this path.

Shrier also points out that in America today, you cannot talk about this issue and cannot question if maybe not everyone should be pushed towards gender reassignment. If you still feel that way as an adult, you have the right to choose surgery. In addition, it makes it difficult to have any debate at all on the issue since the Biden administration is using the power of the state to promote the ideology and is fighting to spread it at all levels.

In the United States, more and more parents are speaking out against the ideologization of their children, as during the epidemic, many of them were confronted for the first time with what their children were being taught in school. In response, several Republican states have passed laws against the ideologizing of children in school. These laws have provoked huge opposition from progressive rights groups, businesses and Democratic politicians, but they are supported by the majority of the population.

A human being is not an experimental subject. You can’t alter his body and then change it back; you can’t mess with a child’s mind and expect him to live a normal life. You cannot declare biological reality non-existent without negative consequences. According to Shrier, the desire to help disturbed minors with surgery and hormones shows the American obsession with there being a cure for everything, including your own biological reality.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Neokohn: Islamic civilization has an imperialist history of its own – Neokohn