The History of "Gender"

As far back as Roman times, biological sex was referred to exactly as that - biological sex, or in Latin, sexus. Which is literally referring to a person’s biological sex, or the chromosomes they possess that determine how their body will develop.

The term “gender” appears to have only begun to be used as of the 1300s, and only as another word to use for biological sex. This term was in no way used for the representation of masculinity/femininity, nor was it used to describe how a person “feels”. It was merely a secondary term for the same concept - purely biological sex.

Having multiple words for the same concept is not a new phenomenon. In fact, that’s why synonyms exist. We typically have multiple words at our fingertips at any given time to refer to whatever concept we are trying to convey. Until 1955, the term “gender” was restricted to only a synonym for a person’s biological make-up.

John Money

The person credited for single-handedly changing the definition of “gender” from meaning exclusively being related to a person’s biological sex to what it as described as today, was Sexologist John Money. Specifically, he coined the term “gender role”, which led to the changes we are seeing today. The term gender role is defined by Money as the actions or responses that may reveal their status as boy, man, girl or woman. This, therefore, was the first deviation from biological sex that occurred with the term “gender”. These primarily dealt with societal stereotypes of how women and men were expected to appear and behave in society.

Money would also go on to create the terms “paraphilia” and “sexual orientation”. His work in sexology led to him opening the first Gender Identity Clinic at John Hopkins, and resulted in the first sterilizing treatments for sexual predators.

However, Money had a dark history as well. He spent a lot of time studying the rare birth defect we know as Intersex, then known as Hermaphroditism. He mistakenly and falsely believed that those who were born with these conditions also suffered from severe developmental delays. This led to him attempting to find ways to chemically castrate his Intersex patients. He first began using the drug Depo-Provera, which led to severe hormone shifts in his patients, leading to weight gain, severe depression, and suicide. His human experimentation is considered to be some of the most abhorrent in history, and a breach of scientific ethics.

His history also includes at least one major case of sex reassignment surgery experimentation. In 1966, Money convinced the parents of patient David (born Bruce) Reimer (then only 22 months old) to participate in this experimental procedure. Reimer had lost the bulk of his penis due to a botched circumcision at birth, and Money was able to manipulate these traumatized parents into allowing their child to be reassigned at barely 2 years old into a little girl instead.

Bruce’s name was then changed to “Brenda” and he and his twin brother, Brian were in the “medical care” of Dr. Money for approximately 12 years. Bruce was given surgery to “correct” the botched circumcision, although the parents declined the creation of a vagina. Bruce had the remains of his penis and his testicles removed. He was then put on synthetic hormones soon after his surgery at 2 years old.

Money would then go on to raise Bruce under his “optimum gender rearing model”, which would become the standard for Intersex individuals (as well as for future transitions for transsexual individuals), despite Bruce not being born Intersex. Despite the double-mutilations surgeries on Bruce, he still maintained functional internal male organs.

By the time the twins turned 6 years old, Money began to sexually exploit them. They were forced to watch pornography, to pose in multiple sexual positions with each other while nude, and photographed doing so.

When the children resisted his sexual posing, photography, or regular “genital inspections”, he would become incredibly angry and scream at the boys, “NOW!!”, scaring them into submission. The boys and their parents said that while around the parents, he never behaved in this way, and only acted as though he was conducting scientific study for research.

Having been raised as “Brenda” since before he could remember, and living for 8 years as a sexual experimentation toy for his doctor along with his brother, Brian (the “control” study), “Brenda” had a psychological breakdown at the age of 14 and let his parents know everything that had been going on in private with the doctor.

Money argued this was “healthy practice” for having a healthy adult sex life as they aged. This was not agreed to by his peers in the scientific community nor the parents of Bruce and Brian. Bruce had been suffering from suicidal ideation since the age of 13, and was deeply unhappy.

At the age of 14, Bruce’s family took him to have as much of the sexual reassignment reversed as they could. The hormones created breasts throughout the early stages of puberty, which had to be removed. He received testosterone injections and a phalloplasty.

The psychological damage to both boys had been done, however. Brian had taken an overdose of drugs in July of 2002, at the age of 36. Bruce followed in May of 2004, with a shotgun blast.

These boys were hideously and unprofessionally experimented upon against their will or consent, to create a superstar sexologist in an experimental field of medicine. I don’t find it to be worth the harm.

Money would also work on a pet project known as the Sexual Citizenship of Children, causing him to be dubbed by his colleagues as the “Pedophile Advocate”. He argued that the sexual attraction to children by adults was not in any way improper or inappropriate, nor immoral, but instead a natural phenomenon that he determined should be normalized and accepted. In 1994, he actively opposed the classification of pedophilia as an abnormal fetish, and earlier, in 1992, vehemently opposed child abuser laws, advocating for child sex offenders to not be punished for their crimes.

He argued pedophilia was historically normal, and should always be considered normal, that to punish it would be “anti-liberation”. He also fought for the idea of “trans age”, a phenomenon in which people can decide they are a far different age from what they actually are, further boosting his pedophilia argument.

In his book “Sexual Signatures: On Being a Man Or a Woman” (published in 1976), he stated that pornographic images for children should be included in sex education. A quote from this book from him states, "The best time to introduce such pictures is before a child's biological clock has signaled the start of puberty. Prepubertal children are intellectually capable of understanding sex, and their curiosity about life runs high."

(As a child that was inappropriately exposed to sexual images and videos well before I should have been, I can personally attest this changes you on a fundamental level, and it’s not a positive change. It is traumatizing and causes nothing but psychological harm. There is nothing in doing this that can lead to positive outcomes. The stories of the Reimer brothers confirm this, as can the numerous scientific studies conducted to confirm this basic truth.)

This is eerily similar to modern-day trans activists who claim that pornographic content in schools is a good thing, and those who disagree are just overreacting and trying to harm “transgender children”, or are simply inherently “transphobic”.

Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey was a renowned sexologist that is given credit for much of the sexual liberation beginning in the 1960s and beyond. He studied sexual behavior in depth, and created the sexual orientation spectrum, which detailed how people can have varying degrees of hetero and homosexuality.

Kinsey was fascinated by those who were, then at least, considered cross-dressers, transvestites, and the incredibly rare transsexual. Unlike Money and some others, however, Kinsey never deviated from the fact that these were, indeed biological men, who simply fetishized sex for their pleasure (in the case of cross-dressers and the bulk of transvestites). Ultimately, this would lead to the eventual research on what is now known as Autogynephilia.

Unfortunately, in his quest for “scientific accuracy”, his studies also put the public at great risk. He was known to regularly interview sexual predators and child molesters regarding their sexual activity. He once had a 17 hour conversation with a predator who had assaulted men, women, children, and animals. None of these people were ever reported to the police in the interest of public safety. Who knows how many people could have been spared life-long trauma?

The worst part of this was his choice to interview pedophiles as well as children for their sexual proclivities. Unlike Money, he didn’t openly advocate for these practices to become “normalized”, but he did great harm by refusing to name any of these sexual predators of the public and our children. Who knows how many people could have been spared had he been able to consider anything beyond his own career ambition?

His most despicable conclusions from his disturbing research were claims that have never been verified such as babies can have orgasms, and arguing that children benefit from being sexually assaulted at young ages by adults. In his writing, Kinsey asserted that there was no proven medical or other reason to forbid incest or adult-child sex.

Given that most of his research was obtained by the criminals themselves, and their twisted perspective of the situation, these findings would not be all that out of the ordinary, considering the source.

Judith Butler

Judith Butler is a feminist philosopher and writer. They are credited for the creation of the “gender is a social construct” theory, despite the use of the language for biological purposes not long beforehand.

The social construct in question is directly tied to John Money’s idea of “gender roles”, or the stereotypes with which men and women are conditioned to adhere to throughout society, despite potential personal preference.

This can include cooking, cleaning, who makes the money in the family, who wears the pants or the dress, who wears the makeup or doesn’t, which colors a person wears depending on their femininity or masculinity.

In the 1980s, the phenomenon of men finally wearing earrings finally came into fashion. It began as one earring, and those who wore it were immediately labeled as homosexual for their choice. Despite whether or not they were legitimately homosexual, that was the stereotype in play at the time. Some leaned into it, others simply liked the look, despite being straight.

Butler identifies as non-binary and goes by they/them pronouns, but has spent their life living in gay/lesbian communities. So, it is clear that this fascination with gender stereotypes is rooted within their own sexuality. Butler calls gender “performative”. Considering the presentation of gender a “performance”, rather than a reality of biology. To them, biology does not change, but how you feel and choose to “perform” can vary widely.

Butler’s fascination seems to stem from their own experiences with gender norms. Feeling “abnormal” for their entire life, as a far more masculine version of a biological female, most would consider Butler a “tomboy” or a “butch lesbian”.

However, Butler was unsatisfied with that explanation and wished to delve deeper and debut a new reasoning for their, and many other women’s, gender nonconformity. Butler argues that sex and gender are two separate things, one being the performative way you choose to express yourself, and the other being the biological reality.

Butler’s views seem to coincide with the ideology of 2010-2020, when gender nonconformity was considered natural and acceptable, while also adhering to the idea that there is a difference between biological sex and gender.

Since that time, that has changed in the realm of gender ideology. The current stance is that biology doesn’t matter/doesn’t exist at all, and that your biology can somehow be changed or altered by hormones or cosmetic surgery. These new assertions are completely untrue, and going back to Butler’s complex ways of thinking would not be the worst possible thing we as a society could do.

What Butler instead does, is state that we can dismiss biological reality as inconsequential if we focus entirely on how society views gender. Which is an utterly ridiculous assumption, as biology matters tremendously in terms of health and well-being, due to many symptoms, diseases, and treatments being entirely based on the internal biology of the patient. Without this knowledge, a lot of people would die unnecessarily from minor medical problems.

Now that I’ve covered both the mostly positive and generally neutral sides of Judith Butler’s work, we also have to… as with all things… consider the source from which it is coming.

In this case, Butler has written her own assertions that childhood sexual abuse, specifically incestual childhood sexual abuse, is not a traumatic thing at all, but instead can be a positive showing of love to a child. I’m not even remotely kidding. Butler states that incest relationships show the meaning of love in adult relationships, and the only reason they are frowned upon is because society deems it to be negative. That sounds similar to the argument that gender is also societally fabricated and so it can be molded as you wish.

If a person can argue that being repeatedly sexual assaulted by a parent or other family member who is of adult age, while the victim is still a child, is in any way positive… and states this is only viewed as negative due to societal frowning instead of the massive numbers of cases and statistics to show how traumatic and damaging this is to a child… do we really need to consider their other views on what is socially constructed?

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, a member of the French Communist Party, a declared Marxist, and a member of the Worker’s Union in France with contrarian ideals regarding sex and sexuality. He referred to biological sex in terms of “the soul is the prison of the body”, truly believing that one’s mind can control the biological mechanisms of our chromosomes and DNA. He was not a scientist, had no training in any medical courses/subjects, merely was a philosopher and critic.

His ideas had a profound influence on gender ideology. Primarily due to his arguments that the mind should be able to control and change the body itself. He believed that everything in the human experience, including sexual activity, was due to power influences that historically determined what we are and what we do. We currently know now that there are scientific and biological bases for everything we are and do. Even those that are psychological.

Foucault was a firm believer in everything being simply a creation of one’s own mind, but at the same time, argued that outside “power” influenced everything we said, did, and thought. He argued the body is an "obedient and passive object" that is dominated by discourses and power. His views were incredibly contradictory at best, and seemed to rely upon whichever scientist, philosopher, or study he was trying to be contradictory to at the time.

He was considered a “pioneer” for gender ideology because he refused to believe that one was dictated by biology. While our psychology certainly can be different from our biology, our biology doesn’t change due to our psychology. Both can contradict each other, and that’s perfectly natural and normal. It’s not something to fight or change, but something to embrace.

His views on sexuality were probably the most interesting. Again, depending on the scientist, study, or philosopher to which he was criticizing, his views ranged from being disgusted by the wide range of human sexuality and the desires contained within, and being so accepting of the varying natures of human sexuality that he said there was no term for what was “natural”, as humans were a spectrum of desires and feelings.

During the course of his career, he was an incredibly controversial figure that never seemed to gain the respect of his peers. Probably because his career was focused on contradicting whatever anyone else published during actual research at the time. Even if that meant his philosophies contradicted themselves.

He spent a lot of time during his career arguing that children at any age could absolutely consent to sexual relations with adults. In 1977, he even signed onto a letter to the French Parliament, calling for the decriminalization of all "consensual" sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen, which was the age of sexual consent in France at the time.

He was openly accused of raping children in Tunisia in the 1960s when he lived in the country by journalist Guy Sorman. Sorman said although he has no verifiable proof of rape, which is near impossible to obtain without medical exams or being in the room at the time, what he does have are statements and other troubling evidence to show this claim is accurate. Given his history trying to get France to eliminate the criminal penalties for pedophilia, I would assume Guy Sorman was onto something.

Foucault died in 1984 of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, or AIDS.

Conclusions

If we look at all of the places what we know, see, and hear on a regular basis in terms of gender ideology actually came from, you find significant patterns. Every single one of them advocated for pedophilia, child rape, and/or incestual relationships with children. Some participated in this themselves, others merely studied it and advocated for it.

A lot of their work seems to revolve around dismantling the social ideas of what is acceptable in society, and that includes the sexualization of children. The fact that the gender ideology community is determined to focus on children right now, labeling them “trans kids”, should not be a surprise in the least.

It has been a known scientific fact for a few decades now, confirmed multiple times in subsequent studies, that the human brain does not stop developing until at the least the age of 25. Crucial elements such as controlling impulsivity, the understanding of long-term consequences, and many other facets of the brain are simply nonexistent in brains that have not developed to this age.

To argue that a child can simply “know” they are one thing or another, if you’ve ever had children, is a simply ludicrous statement. Children say a lot of things, and get over them relatively quickly. Currently, my son is on a kick that he wants to be a robot or a fox, preferably a robotic fox. Does this mean I need to “affirm” this in him, and immediately take him to the surgery center to replace his bones with metal? Of course not. Why are we letting our children’s whims dictate what they do? Can’t we just allow them to be who they are, and express themselves as they wish, without involving the medical system?

Prior to gender ideology taking a front seat and taking on the role of trying to gain children into the movement, there were no detransitioners. It was not a phenomenon that existed. Children grew up to be whatever they were going to be, and the rare cases of those who suffered from the very real disorder of Gender Dysmorphia, a complex diagnosis that requires deep anxiety about possessing qualities and body parts that do not line up with the gender in the brains of these patients, those cases received medical treatment only if the years of therapy on all their other issues that coincided with or led to their gender dysmorphia were dealt with first.

Instead of dealing with very real circumstances, such as the most common comorbid disorders, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and various anxiety disorders, these patients are instead ushered in to a surgeon’s office, given experimental medications, and having experimental surgeries conducted upon them. Many have fallen ill for the rest of their lives. Others have died.

Studies now show that the surgeries are not working. Kids are taking even more antidepressants and anti-psychotics post-transition than they were prior to transition, negating the claim that transitioning is the cure.

The doctors who conduct these surgeries openly admit they are experimental, and they are simply learning as they go. This is not equal to what would be considered “safe and effective” medical treatment, but instead the risk you take when you get plastic surgery in Tijuana to save a few dollars.

The medications and hormones being given to children are not approved by the FDA for that purpose at all. Why? Because it has not been studied in children or for that effect here in America.

In Europe, studies are finally beginning to come flooding in. Unlike America, Europe does not have a for-profit health care system, and instead relies on Evidence Based Medicine practices. This has led to the retraction of allowing children to undergo any medicalization whatsoever for gender transition, with the scientists stating there is “no evidence” that this treatment has any positive benefit whatsoever on their mental health, and might instead simply be detrimental to their physical well being.

The “puberty blockers” being taken by children? That came from John Money’s research in sterilizing sexual predators. Yes, you are giving your child medication that sterilizes them. In adults, this has the potential to be reversible. The evidence so far is that in children, this is not.

Taking hormones not naturally created by the body also has ill side effects. Many trans people suffer from a condition known as “atrophy”, which if left untreated, can lead to sepsis and death. Buck Angel, a trans man who transitioned over 30 years ago, suffered from this atrophy so significantly, he nearly died in the hospital due to the rampant sepsis that has corrupted his internal organs, caused by the atrophy from taking synthetic testosterone.

Gender Dysphoria is real. It’s a comorbid disorder (meaning it doesn’t stand alone) with other mental health disorders. This can range from anxiety, to mood, to personality disorders. It can also include neurodivergent disorders such as Autism and ADHD. Autistics are especially susceptible to gender ideology, as they are incapable of fully understanding “social” roles or functioning in society as a result of their disorder, leaving them confused when confronted with this idea, which is abstract in nature, and thus beyond their level of understanding.

Although the last few years of activism would argue this, it has been well established in the scientific community world-wide that Gender Dysphoria is a pre-requisite for being Trans. If you do not have Gender Dysphoria, you simply enjoy dressing how you feel most comfortable, and doing what you enjoy doing, for whatever reason that may be. This does not mean you are Trans, however. It just means you are a biological (insert sex) who enjoys a variety of things that are not gender exclusive.

This used to be a commonplace idea. In fact, all you have to do is look at the 1980s for proof of this. None of the following people identified as anything other than their biological sex, nor do they now. Most of them, instead, were simply experimental in their looks as gay, lesbian, or bisexual human beings. Others did it, despite being straight, because it made them feel more confident. And that’s okay in itself!

None of this made them any different from their biological sex. They were simply expressing themselves they way they wished, which is perfectly legitimate.

When I was growing up, I was the ultimate tomboy. I hated everything to do with “girly” stereotypes. The majority of my friends were boys, I played sports, I hated Barbie dolls, and I hated wearing dresses or anything considered overtly “girly” in clothing.

My mother and I would fight all the time over this. I wanted a baseball and glove for Christmas? I got Barbies. You can see how happy this made me when I was 9.

I wanted to go to hockey games, enroll in baseball (as a girl, I could only play softball, despite being taught baseball by my father - and yes, there are differences), and enroll in karate. My mother yanked me out of my karate school the moment she realized I was the only girl enrolled. She was horrified, and I became utterly depressed that I was unable to continue.

I played in the mud, I was constantly brought home filthy (to a point I remember my mother having to strip me outside and carrying me to the bathtub immediately from the door), I built forts with my guy friends in the woods with sticks and axes and hammers, and I played sports, including baseball, street hockey, and basketball.

I spent my time watching action movies, thrillers, and hockey games. I played video games, which my mother deemed “unladylike”. When I was 13, I began with the theatre. At 14, I was cast in a role as the “paperboy”, which required me to bind my chest, cover my hair in a news cap, and pretend to be a boy onstage. Nothing could have possibly made me happier at the time.

I hated my name, and instead wanted the name my father had come up with had I been a boy, Devon. I tried changing my name at school several times, and my mother ended up being called and I was disciplined both in and out of school. I was consistently bullied by my peers for not fitting in.

My mother had me in therapy from the age of 5. I had experienced a seizure (solitary) at that age, and this was followed up by significant night terrors. I still remember them vividly to this day.

If gender ideology had existed then as it does now, there is no way doctors and the school district would not be convincing me that I was a boy, and should be medicalized as trans. I was not, nor was I ever, trans. I was a little girl with ADHD, potential autism, and severe anxiety disorders (the last was absolutely inherited on my mother’s side).

I grew out of it by the age of 17. Up to 90% of dysphoric children do. As it’s caused by other difficulties, not a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.

My eldest son unfortunately grew up in the early stages of gender ideology. He is autistic, and had been difficult to raise through the roughest patches. We made it through, and we got to high school.

At 14, he came home with a confused look on his face. I asked him what was wrong, and he said he was approached by the “Pride Club” at his school, who had said he should join because he was clearly “trans”.

I asked if they gave a reason for this. He said, “Yes! They said because I like pink and I like ‘My Little Pony’, I have to be trans. No boy likes that stuff.”

I was abjectly horrified. I said, “Alex, you can like those things and still be a boy. I watch sports and always did typical ‘boy’ things my whole life, and I still rarely ever wear a dress. I’m still a girl.”

He looked at me even more confused and said, “No, Mommy. That means you’re trans. Don’t you get it?”

My son had never shown any indication of wanting to be a girl, or even enjoying anything girly besides “My Little Pony”. In fact, all his friends were boys, and he only ever discussed boy things. He simply happened to like pink.

I called the school, which only ended up making things worse. They argued with me that I was in the wrong, and Alex was indeed trans, and I needed to accept it. They hung up on me.

The next day, I got a phone call from a Gender Counselor from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asking me to make an appointment, referred by the school psychologist.

I asked Alex if he had told the psychologist he was trans. He said, “Only yesterday after I found out.”

Did his current psychologist help? Nope. That was another obstacle to overcome. Eventually, I was able to get through to him that this was too sudden to be real, and that every legitimate transsexual I know didn’t go through any of this. He eventually agreed, and never caved into Alex.

I decided I was going to take care of this the only way I knew how. Play along. At least, appear to.

I told Alex he would be able to pick his own clothing and wear his hair as he liked. He could get earrings and wear girls things. He, at first, got excited that I said this.

Until he asked to try on some of my dressier clothing. I graciously walked him into my room and let him. He tried on a skirt, a dress, and a dress shirt.

He groaned a bit, adjusted in the mirror, and declared, “I think I’m good with what I already wear.” (A t-shirt and shorts.)

He did grow his hair long. He does enjoy having his nails painted every now and then.

At 16, Alex came out to me as gay. He told me he finally started to have some “feelings” that confused him. And these feelings were only for boys.

I felt relieved. And honestly, I was thrilled. I recognized exactly what the issue really was by that time. Every gay boy I’d ever known had a tendency to like some girly things, just a touch now and then. Alex was behaving like them.

By the time Alex turned 20, he came up to me and said, “Mom, thank you for not letting me do any of that medical stuff. I’m a boy. I know I’m a boy, and I’m happy being a boy. I appreciate you not listening to the school and the doctors at that place.”

There really is a problem in today’s society. We are listening to “experts” who created this ideology for the purposes of their own sexual satisfaction with children or their academic curiosity of the unusual. They caused real harm to people in order to further this idea. Now, we have giant corporations, all backed by the DEI system of Blackrock, and their biggest donation site, the Human Rights Campaign, telling the world that this is legitimate, and science.

It’s about as scientifically accurate as the nonsense the government also tried to pull with Covid. Remember how it was a bat at a farm market? Anything else was a conspiracy? How masks worked? How the vaccine was a preventative? How many times have you gotten Covid after being vaxxed and boosted? Exactly.

Now, the reality is slowly being admitted to by the actual mainstream media. Too little, too late. The world was brainwashed into believing these “facts” and everyone else was simply crazy.

Well, if you follow the trail from the very beginning, and see where all of these ideas came from to begin with, the crazy ones are the ones stating biological sex and chromosomes are fake.