Julian Rose, on the implications of, not just “gender bending,” but “gender ending”

Julian Rose sent along this piece, saying that he thought it would “resonate” with me. And indeed it does. So grateful that he was able to articulate what I have been groping for. Because yes, this transhumanist agenda of not just bending, but ending gender bothers me too. I especially notice its effects in the younger generation with whom I’m very much in contact on a daily basis. How there’s a new kind of “political correctness” implied in the gender-bending folks, the LGBTZRST community, I say with faint, but fond, derision.

How well I remember the political correctness of the late ’60s and early ’70s, when we women first began to notice the sociological roles that we were playing, and the roles the men were playing, and how unequal they were, how one but not the other was “valuable” in the world’s eyes. (Housework and childcare being “unpaid” labor.) We sought to do what the men do, and to have them do what we do. To some extent that happened, along with women in pants suits and men pushing buggies to playgrounds.

Furthermore, we preferred to call ourselves Ms., rather than Miss or Mrs. Ms. Magazine appeared in 1972 to champion this new way of identifying ourselves.

At some point during those years lesbianism became, not just a hidden shadowy underworld, but a movement, front and center, and even belligerent! I’ll never forget the women’s conference I attended in California where the lesbian contingent insisted on having their own special event separate from the rest of us. The tension in the air was palpable. However, by the very next year, lesbians and “straight” women were intermingling easily. The “lesbian” identity had been integrated into our larger understanding of ourselves as women.

Later, in my late 30s and early 40s, I began to deepen my investigation into the male/female polarity, to recognize that C.G. Jung was right, each of us must learn how to become whole, by which he meant, to individuate ourselves by gathering and synthesizing the opposite sex from our biological gender into our psyche. Women needed to acknowledge and integrate their animus, and men their anima.

Is the same thing happening now with this younger generation? How does what is happening now differ from what we were discovering? My housemate Brie tells me that her generation wants to let go of “binary” identity. Some of her friends insist on being called “they” rather than “he” or “she.” Not just bi-sexual, or lesbian, or queer, or transgendered or cross-dressing people, but who? I’m not really sure who qualifies. And I feel once again that touchy “identity politics” differentiation. And now I’m on the other side of that generation gap, wondering if they really know what they are doing, in the sense that their need for playing with identity may be unconsciously feeding into an agenda much darker and life-denying than they realize.

I’ve been mulling this over for months, wondering how I would talk about my unease without alienating the young ones around me? How can I help them understand that we are actually on the same page, with the same concerns and needs?

But now Julian Rose has brought the subject out in the open, and his articulation of how this ongoing collapse of the binary magnetism that creatively juices 3D is leading directly to transhumanism, where humans morph into machines! And when that happens, divine creativity goes right out the window. We become mere machines, soulless units, our every move programmed to fit into some kind of centrally controlled matrix. But I’ll stop here. As I said, Julian does a much better job than I ever could. I thank him.

P.S. This is a download. Hope you can open it! Let me know, if not.

The Gender Ending Agenda

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Julian Rose, on the implications of, not just “gender bending,” but “gender ending”

  1. rose day says:

    Ann, I am going with Brie on this…the end of binary identity signals the end of duality and the beginning of universal ‘WE’!

  2. Kate Ferrell says:

    Julian Rose is so right! It is time to choose if you will be an Earthling, or a cyborg.

  3. alex simack says:

    Very timely Ann! I note that here in Padanaram the younger generations seem to have quite suddenly lost most of the old homophobia, where, in its worst form, being homosexual meant you were also a child molester. Richard Rudd delves into the subject in his Gene Keys, noting that sexuality contains a current of fear. The thing is to acknowledge and embrace the fear along with the desire, otherwise the other is simply a “masturbation pot” (Pad term not Rudd’s). Well, I certainly appreciate your dilemna with the young. I do believe the Pizzagate scandal will expose the fact that there have entitities around us for thousands of years who “get off” on our suffering, collecting the “loosh” of our unfaced fear. Which is why the worst of it is seen in the torture of children, as is exposed in Pizzagate.

    Ugh! I’ve worked on this shit for going on three months and am ready for some playful encounters with the creative “aliens” as described in another of your recent posts. “Beam me up Scotty there’s no intelligent life down here!”

  4. TheGoodGero says:

    What a load of transphobic garbage.

    Transhumanism isn’t even related to gender in any way; transhumanism is
    the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. It has more to do with ending aging than ending gender.

    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk about it. Or at least look it up and educate yourself. You seem more than ready to foist your ignorance off on the trans(gender, not humanist) community, instead of realizing that it’s coloring your perception and enforcing your own biases – and doing both negatively.

    • TheGoodGero says:

      It’s especially telling that I’ve never seen anyone in the LGBTQIA+ community making jokes about the anagram. Always people seeking to mock or – as you clearly state – deride us. Your homophobia and transphobia are apparent.

  5. Brie says:

    Ann,
    I remember this conversation just the other day. I remember trying to explain the best I could why folks like myself prefer to not identify with a specific gender, gender-bend, only identify with it part of the time, etc. etc. You mentioned this piece about trans-humanist machine stuff and it raised a few red flags for me. I even offered to give you some reading from a different point of view to help you understand . didn’t have time to get it to you because I’ve been sick/working..but you went ahead to publish. Here are my concerns:

    1) the basis of this essay is fear. people fear things they don’t understand.
    2) it assumes people (like those at green acres) are unintelligent, not self-aware, falling into the clutch of machines…(which is a bit ironic because out of all housemates, you are the one most connected to machines.)
    3) “Yea, of course. To call a man a man and a woman a woman is discriminatory. ” > I have never personally witnessed this – have you? Yes, I know people who prefer different pronouns. do they get angry? no. It’s almost always as simple as “actually, I prefer this.” I do not have to question WHY 99.9% because it is not my business.
    4) this article makes a lot of assumptions about a lot of different people – people with different life experience, motivations, different means of self-expression…and at the end of the day, it’s their decision. All I know, is if someone I know/love asks me to do something as simple as switch a pro-noun because it matters to them, I’ll do it.
    5) polarity is not necessary for reproduction!! what about hermaphroditic worms??? we live with them! the author worships at the throne of sexual duality but there are many gender bending organisms on planet Earth…and many living beings not dependent on M/F duality to create.
    6) At the very least, you should think about how an article like this affects the people you know who may identify this way. I’m trying not to be personally put off by this – but maybe do some reading from their point of view or we could try to have longer, in depth conversations rather than assume they/we are being manipulated by some higher agenda. it comes off as condescending.
    to be continued…

    • Ann Kreilkamp says:

      I will be happy to revisit the issue. Please let me know reading materials you want me to pay attention to. I didn’t say anything in that article that I haven’t said to you, or others here. I am sharing my authentic experience. I agree, from some point of view, it looks “homophobic,” but is not. I have and have had good friends who identify other than hetereosexually my entire life.

      • Leah says:

        Ouch. Having gay friends and having good intentions never, ever protects you from putting out words that are, in impact rather than intent, very homophobic and damaging to many people around you. Your defensive need to say – But I’ve got gay friends, so we cool! – is telling.

  6. Leah says:

    Also, I’m fairly confident that you are not an appropriate arbiter of what is and isn’t ‘homophobic.’

  7. Rusty says:

    “… now I’m on the other side of that generation gap, wondering if they really know what they are doing, in the sense that their need for playing with identity may be unconsciously feeding into an agenda much darker and life-denying than they realize.”

    I appreciate how you approached the topic, and your questioning of all this “playing with identity.” We live in interesting times when it appears it’s all up for grabs; but I, too, wonder at what we are doing to ourselves in this age of approaching anarchy of the soul. I tried my hand at writing to the notion of “who are you when you don’t know who yo are” in: https://moreenigma.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/revelations-of-the-miserable-bargains-we-have-made/. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *