Random thoughts on gender theory and Western ideological universalism

Natural law theory is today considered to be inexistent, surpassed, or in a certain way not to be found through rational inquiry. But to dismiss the existence of natural law is to evacuate law and justice all at once from the field of law and replace them with arbitrary convention. This type of solution does not offer any solid anchor to human beings and mankind in the determination of relationships of justice.

The fact that natural law has been dismissed as non-existent is the outcome of the deliberate will of certain people that in turn elaborate other theories. If it were to be as they say, that law is always a matter of power, then law in and by itself would be superfluous and nonexistent objectively. On the contrary law exists as opposition to violence and power. And it is proven that it exists because there are reasons that are more powerful and just than the use of force. If that wasn’t the case there would be no need of law. Law would be an empty concept. Only violence would exists and prevail. But It is not violence or might that makes a wrong become right. This is the first point.

Nonetheless unfortunately today the system of law put in place is a fake system of law. It is a system of law that reflects the system of power, or that serves power rather than truth or justice. As such it is not a system of law but an usurpation of law.

When it is said that law serves power what is claimed is that it serves arbitrary convention, established by who is in power, or by the strongest, and not by the truth or reality.

To exemplify briefly what is said let’s take as example the ideology of gender theory.

Gender theory has become the dominant ideology of the Western world and the most influential in shaping contemporary policies concerning public policies and subjective personal rights.

Gender theory advances that sexual difference is a cultural construct and not a biological fact. It considers therefore that the difference between women and men, females and males, is irrelevant and that what is important is the personal subjective identification process. Of course this theory is ideological and does not make any real sense, since it denies reality as it is at its beginnings and makes the personal will to see reality as wished as the basis of reality. One similarly could say that it is exactly as if a White man/woman would claim that he or she is Black and not White because he/she, identifies as Black instead of White. Now of course it is possible to understand that he/she might want to be perceived as Black, or identifies as Black, and wants to be Black, or to live and behave like Black people do (if in any way they do it differently) and maybe it would also be possible perhaps to believe that he/she feels and thinks like Black as he/she says it does. But the matter of fact is that he/she is not Black at all, but only identifies as Black and wishes to make his/her identification process the reality, for him/her and all the ones that interact with him/her. It is the result of an identification process and not a biological reality.

It could be argued that in fact the important point here is not the biological reality of the person but the identification process. This is the aspect that really ‘counts’ or provides for the reality of the person. The important point being the identification process, what he/she identifies with. This is supposedly what makes what he/she really is. So accordingly everything has to be changed and modified to fulfill and ease his/her wellbeing and wish to be treated as Black. Therefore his/her civil status, name and all the rest consequently will be changed into this new reality of his/her wish. And therefore although being White, as for instance Swedish snow, he/she will now be considered and named as if coming and belonging to Black Africa or alike.

Evidently there is a problem with this type of reasoning. Evidently there is some kind of abuse. Another example. A naked person could wish to be considered as fully dressed, and pretend that his or her nakedness is his/her true identity and his/her right therefore to be respected by society as he/she is, and that society has the duty in the name of human rights and non-discrimination to adapt and change reality to conform to the identification process and wellbeing, and self-comfort of this person. Gender theory works in the same way. It makes personal wishes the reality for others in total disregard of reality itself. Fooling others and reality in the same package.

Historically gender theory has stemmed out as an outburst of radical feminism in the attempt to subvert and disrupt patriarchy. It finds its most prominent theorist in author Judith Butler. And can be considered as the strongest expression of human voluntarism, or the idea that human beings are free and that there are no limits to their will. For this theory this means that a person is free to become whatever it wishes to become without limitations. He or she is not determined by birth to a certain defined un-chosen condition that will most probably determine or have a certain kind of impact or orientation on their future life. No, the person at birth, although born female or male, is not constrained by its biological determination but is free to choose and transform it as wished. The biological condition at birth does not determine in advance nothing of the type of future life the person will have. Not its interests, capacities, or choices etc. People are born males or females indifferently and will become what they chose to become, women or men or whatever for that matter, accordingly to their choices and not their physical at birth biological determination.

As tempting as this theory might be for the limitless world of freedom it seems to allow human beings into, it does pose some problems of different kinds, as the fabric of society, the epistemological determination of reality, or the theory of truth, to name just a few.

Without doubt human sexuality is flexible and polymorphic. It develops autonomously from the determination of the body, it changes over time and can have all sorts of objects of desire not necessarily corresponding to the "natural" pattern of heterosexual sexuality. Numerous are the cases of human homosexuality, or of sexuality oriented towards fetishistic rather than heterosexual patterns and alike typologies of desire. Innumerable studies have explored the topic and confirmed the polymorphic character of human sexuality. But the point of the question in this case is not what type of human sexuality is "natural", because the argument usually falls at this moment of the discussion, but rather on the fact that human reproduction needs a female and a male to reproduce. Thus what is intended by "natural" is the reproduction phenomenon and not the sexuality. This is key. Thus to reproduce the human species needs two genres: a female and a male. Two women cannot reproduce themselves and two men also cannot reproduce themselves. To have offspring mankind needs a specimen of both, a female and a male. That is how it "naturally" works, this is the "natural way" for human reproduction and the perpetuation of the human species.

Also a male is a male and a female a female due to their reproductive characteristics. Characteristics that are complementary to each other for the goal of reproduction. The female and male sexual organs are made as to fit each other and complement each other for the reproductive purpose. Otherwise their shape could have been completely different, or perhaps they could have been even altogether absent if reproduction had to be carried out in some kind of different manner. But they are on the contrary as they are because they are made for one another. To perfectly fit each other. A male organ produces certain aspects of the reproductive process, and the female organ and the whole of her body the rest of the reproductive process. That is why she is a female and he is a male. This is the bottom line. The basics for him being a male and she being a female. Independently from their sexual preferences, orientation, and sexuality. This is the "natural" dimension of it. Independently from their reciprocal identification processes of being males identifying as females or females culturally identifying as males, independently from their chosen sexualities, or their preferred sexualities and sexual orientation and practices.

A male is a male even regardless of his identification process or his sexuality. A male is a male independently from his practiced sexuality, his sexual phantasies, his changing identifications processes during his lifetime and which may not coincide with his biological determination at birth. And the same goes for the female. A female is a female regardless of her sexuality, of her cultural and social identifications processes during her lifetime where she might identify with men roles, functions or practices (if there are any in the very specific). The baseline is that there are males and females just as there are Blacks and Whites, dressed and undressed persons. What comes to change is the history of the individuals, not the reality. Reality is what it is and stays what it is. What comes in to make a difference is the narrative. The fact that there is a history of change consisting in an identification process that does not coincide with the at "birth" identity. It is this process of identification that completes and gives sense to the story, the "identity" of the person in question. This means that their story is the story for instance of an at birth male that decides to become a women taking all the features that a female body has, to look like one, without being one. At the end of the process he might think that finally he has succeeded in becoming a woman, having adopted all of its typical physical features and body appearances and behavioral traits, but that doesn’t change a thing to the fact that he is a male that has underwent a process of modification to make believe that he is a female. He might as well be named like a woman, with a woman name, behave like a woman, or manner as a woman, find a partner that is a man that 'treats' him like a women, and be 'treated' by others in society that come to respect his "nature" of not being in the "right" body, and therefore treat him with respect accordingly to his wished personality and as a woman in all aspects of life. But it remains that he is a person that underwent a process of transformation. His history is the story that makes his identity. His reality, his identity is his history. And this is so because it is the truth and not because of society. The attempt to cancel the modification process underwent by his body is a way to further become the intended woman or to cheat even further against the truth and to try to nullify even further the identification process underwent. In many instances, in fact, it is possible to change the civil status even without biological transition. But this is exactly one of the aberrations that human rights theory has allowed us into without any respect for truth, reality, law, archives, history, in the name of non-discrimination. It proves and just tells about the total ridicule and vacuity of where the so called Western civilization and Western legal culture has landed.

The history underwent by transgender people explains their real story and their reality. It is this historical process that explains their reality. None, unless insane, would consider Micheal Jackson as White, although he successfully became White. He became White but he did not belong to the White "race" even though he maybe wanted to, even though he wanted to be viewed and accepted as a White man. No reasonable person would consider as true and real that Micheal Jackson was a White man of the White "race", with all the affection someone can have for him and his music. It would be consenting to falsehood, to take illusion for reality and reality for nothing and throw it in the bin. The same goes for gender theory and transsexual people. They might become what they wish to be or feel to be, but in reality they were born males or females. That is it. And it is only through a process of physical modification and transformation of their bodies, through medical and surgical interventions of their biological body, that they "become" a new social legal person and can build an artificial reality that will be considered by society as if real. No differently than Micheal Jackson, who was a in fact a kind of "monster" even though he did nice music, and wanted to be considered White when he was Black. No differently and just alike Black Africans who would want to be viewed as Norwegian Whites or Norwegian Whites who would want to be considered as Black Africans. It is always possible, of course, to take into account the wish and sensibility of people who want to be considered White when Black or Black when White but this should not set aside and let forget that reality is one thing and artificial reality or wished reality another. Law and language to be true to their functions should always maintain this adherence and not fall into foolishness.

This is very simple and comprehensible for any person with sense. But unfortunately and unreasonably this basic evidence, that a male is a male, and a female a female, or a Black person a Black person and a White person a White person is today matter of contention. And what one would consider as the elementary agreed starting point of all discussion, or the preliminary assumption that shares the existence of a common objective reality which works as reference point for any further discussion, and consists in the agreement of the basic evidence, or that white is white and black is black, or that a female is a female and a male a male, is no longer of the order of evidence. Gender theory and similar alike theories come into play as theories that for the purpose to subvert the patriarchal system ultimately end up destroying not only the fabric of society but of reality itself. Gender theories and alike theories are theories that do not contribute to the betterment of the human person but tend to confusion. When gender theory seeks to liberate human beings from all sorts of limitations and make them believe that they are free it functions rather than like a theory, like a make believe in the illusion that we are free and that this is progress. Today it is the dominant ideology of the Western world and its goal is to impose this which is called "progress" to the rest of the world. But of course it is questionable to name this type of change "progress", and even to consider it as a liberation or freedom. It rather reveals the superficiality of Western culture, obsessed with sex and sexuality, and identifies sexual liberation as freedom. A culture that doesn’t seek the fulfillment of the individual or the communal civilizational progress through ascetic practices and knowledge as for example can be found in higher and much more deeply and spirituality sophisticated cultures like the Indian culture. A (Western) culture that rather stays materialistic and at ground level.

In Western culture therefore to ridicule gender theory as total nonsense, as it is, is considered to be almost a crime, a form of discrimination towards people who identify differently from their biology. Speaking the truth or bringing back things to reality becomes an act of subversion against the dominant mantra, the imperial ideology of the big boss voice, the LGBT lobby and their affiliates that rule or want to rule the planet through these types of ideologies.

Gender theory is todays Western dominant ideology that intends to influence and shape all countries policies in a monolithic unilateral view of things. Suffice is to see the influence it had on the passing of homosexual marriage law.

Marriage as legal institution can be questioned and criticized, as it has been by numerous currents of thoughts. Nonetheless as it is, it serves the purpose of family and descent. Not romance, not romantic love, not eternal promise or anything of the kind, but family and descent. The purpose, the reason, the ratio for marriage is family and descent. But with gender theory, which the LGBT groups and affiliates want to impose to the rest of the world, under the name of human rights, non –discrimination, and equal rights for all, etc., it is a fictitious idea of marriage, or of binding union, that wants to be imposed, no longer for the family or descent, but for people of the same sex who by definition cannot have any natural descent and family. Now there is no problem for people of the same sex to have sex with one another and practice homosexuality, and even to love themselves and wish to be "married" and live in couple. This is not the point. Homosexuality is not a crime, homosexuality is not unnatural, homosexuality belongs to all cultures, and has always been practiced everywhere. This is not the issue. Homosexuality belongs to naturality. The point is marriage as legal institution giving access to the possibility to create fake families at the menu chart. This is the only problem. And it is a problem because it is unnatural. Artificial. Man-made, against the "normal" ordinary laws of nature. And not because homosexuality might be considered unnatural by some, since it is natural everywhere and everywhere abundantly practiced. What is unnatural and against the natural law is to allow couples that cannot have offspring to have legitimate legal offspring, although they cannot biologically be the parents of those children. Therefore if marriage is that legal institution that provides and guarantees for the descent and the family it must not be allowed to same sex couples if through it they can access artificial reproductive technologies. If marriage was on the contrary a legal institution limited to loving couples as is the case of civil partnerships then it would be possible to open it to same sex couples, but then it wouldn’t be the same legal institution anymore. Therefore the legal institutions to be put in place have necessarily to be different for different people and different situations.

Once crossed this line, that of allowing same sex couples to artificially procreate, then all the others will come along and anything will be possible, which is the aim of gender theory. To remove all limitations to subjective personal wishes.

In fact once allowed same sex couples to marry and by that access the surrogacy and medically assisted procreation technologies there is no reason why it wouldn’t be possible, according to this type of reasoning, to allow marriage between a human being and an animal, and consequently to consider the descent of that type of couple as justified and legitimate "normal" offspring. Once certain limits are crossed or removed then all monstrosities can become possible. This doesn’t mean that they are not possible. They are possible, since science may make them become possible choices at the reach of men, but that doesn’t mean that they are desirables, good, or reasonable. It is here that law and language intervene and must play their role which is that to guard the reasonableness and the making sense of reality and avoid the degeneration into monstrosity.

Monstrosities as for instance the case of a female woman who had transgendered into a man and happened to become impregnated by "her" male homosexual partner and whence maintaining "her" male like features of "her" new body, hairy, bearded and masculine, had developed a pregnant belly, supposedly becoming the "mother" of the coming baby. Or other alike monstrosities of surrogated mothers whose uterus is rented by homosexual men to give birth to "their" supposedly new family. These aberrations tend to disrupt language and turn sense into nonsense.

Nonetheless it seems that, although this is very simple and clear, that the imperative of human rights has the precedence over the respect of truth, reality and law as guardian of reality. It seems that today truth, reality and law have to abdicate to the caprices of some minorities, who want to have their wishes fulfilled. And who equate their wishes to rights. By the same trend entire nations are blackmailed in different ways, by Western powers to force them to accept this Western ideology of "ultra-freedom", or of human rights, according to which all sorts of degenerated practices deserve respect and should not be discriminated because they are human rights and deserve equal treatment. And by that all sorts of caprices which, correctly so, other cultures do not consider as rights but as degenerations, as wishes or acts of fools, and reject them, putting them back at their place, which is that of not to being recognized as due rights.

But today the Western world considers this the new "normal", the new "modern", "progressive", finds it in fashion, the final achievement of a society of liberated men who can finally express their repressed sexuality and give birth to all their perversions without the law or ethics coming into their way to disturb them. This is very much the dreamed paradise of gay men, their typified worldview, which exults with all kinds of finally at last liberated sexual perversions. Very much the typical gayness male mentality and ambiance. This is what the West has been reduced to. To the vulgar phantasy of gay men.

Western culture which considers itself to be at the top of civilization is on the contrary and rightly so criticized by other more humble cultures and civilizations that have not degenerated into contempt of truth, law, and reality for the caprices of gay preferences. Western legal culture and civilization has today attained the apex of nihilism, and cannot distinguish anymore right from wrong, good from evil, or anything else. It has collapsed into the ridicule vacuity of nothingness.

A man that transitions into a women, no matter how nice he may become remains a kind of "monster", a failure of nature, regardless of all the pity and respect that can be given to him. That is how it is. Underneath that "female like features" in reality there is a "snoring man", and that is what "monsters" are, no matter how much affection others can have for them.

But of course to criticize gender theory in a society like the Western one, which is built on so called political correctness (which is nothing else than hypocrisy), and a culture that considers transgender people as the utmost perfection of the "true male" (which is nothing else than the exaltation of the ideal homosexual male), and for which sexual transitioning seems perfectly "normal", fine, okay and "progressive", "liberal", a culture that literally exalts all types of sexual perversions, and all kinds of sexual promiscuities, is almost unconceivable. Those who are not degenerated into immorality and do have respect for truth and life and have dissociated themselves from the moral and sexual aberrations of Western culture are regarded as politically incorrect, or insulting, offensive, or holders of retrograde conservatives positions.

But whatever gendered theorists may say or believe the fact is that Western culture in itself has today reached the apex of its nihilism and results in being a culture of ridicule vacuity. Western legal culture today shows all its degeneration and putrefaction. It a civilization of death and nihilism and as such it is doomed to end even if it will destroy with itself the rest of the world along. As a culture of death it will never bring truth and life to anything. It will continue to wander as a lost soul without knowing what is good and what is evil, it will continue to think that everything is possible, and be no different than a fool. That everybody may like but nobody would want to have at home.

This is the state of affairs of Western legal culture and Western civilization. It has not been able to win the battle of law against might. And as such it considers that everything that is possible is legitimate. The question being: After all why not?

Monstrosities such as hybrids between different species or "chimeras" are now about to be of the order of the day and are considered to be "normal", the new normal, the "progress of science", the outcome of the utmost achievement of Western scientific advancement. And these aberrations, this so called "progress", this so called liberation form the natural condition, is nothing else than the apex of Western nihilism.

As if it was completely "normal" genetic modification of plants and animals and why not humans could soon be enforced by law. In the same way as under skin microchips will soon be implanted in the name of medical care, human rights, non-discrimination, equality for all etc. This is the degeneration of Western culture. A culture that falsely proclaims to be a culture of freedom and that is nothing else than the realization of a worldwide prison for all under the sky.

…to be continued