[Note: none of what I say here applies to homosexuality or bi-sexuality. Of course, a certain percentage of people are attracted to the opposite sex, or to both sexes; and some of these even decide to cross-dress, and hopefully “pass” as the opposite sex. For the most part, my focus here is on pharmaceutical and/or surgical mutilation of the body in a failed attempt to achieve or imitate a permanent sex change from male to female or the reverse.]
I’m not usually on the same page with the western medical profession, but this time, believe me, I AM! And very grateful to Gillian of shiftfrequency.com for pointing her e-mail subscribers to the clear articulation in the WSJ op-ed noted below of a biological fact that, no matter how much the NWO puppeteers who seek to weaponize gender, religion, politics, race, and other categories by dividing us into tinier and tinier gender (and other) so-called “identities,” all with the aim of using slice and dice to turn us against each other, cause chaos, and leave us begging for centralized “authority” to step in and take control, the actual biology of human sexuality is clear and decisive: 99.98% of all babies are born either male or female. Period.
A bit of personal herstory:
I think back to the “feminism” that I was proud to be a part of, back in the late ’60s and early ’70s; how we began our quest for equality with men by noticing the different sociological roles played by men and women. Namely: “men go out to work to support the family, women stay at home with the children.” Since, in this culture, money was (and still is) the “bottom line” measure of value, then, because we women were not paid for our labor we were not considered of equal value to men.
That was the culture’s point of view: masculine more valuable than feminine. So we newly angry “feminists” dissed this ubiquitous evil by naming it: “THE PATRIARCHY.”
We “second-wave” feminists (the first wave fought for women’s suffrage), having learned to distinguish between our biological sex and our social roles, assumed that the first was permanent and the second culturally-determined, and therefore subject to change.
Armed with that assumption, we noted that men in the work place, but not women in the home, because they were were “paid” (money), therefore their work (and their selves) were of “real value.”
Though we feminists were waking up, we were still blinded by the idea that money is “the bottom line.” Even now, this automatic assumption still operates in the culture at large.
Given these two assumptions, what was our budding “feminist” solution to the social and cultural inequality between men and women? Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge and honor the inherent differences between yin and yang, between the receptive feminine and active masculine archetypes; rather than recognizing that both are necessary and of equal value, not just for reproductive purposes, but to effect the balance and cooperation between masculine and feminine forces, we were still thoroughly indoctrinated and thus viewed men’s work away from home as of greater value than caring for and nourishing home and children. Ergo: we feminists, in order to prove our “value,” decided to “go to work” outside the home. Farming the children out, or leaving them (as in my case) with their fathers, we left home and tried not to look back.
Yep! Rather than fully appreciating the soft, receptive, nourishing, imaginative right-brain female atmosphere in which hard-edged, active, male left-brain logic finds its home and its reason for being, we ignored our biologically female nature, and tried to become like men. As my son Sean said to me, out of the blue, when only seven years old: “The man in you hates the mommy.” Yes, hating the supportive role that we ’60s and early ’70s feminists, as a result of our masculine left-brain analysis, deemed “subservient,” we ignited our latent, masculine competitive spirit and morphed into hard hard-edged and hard-wired pseudo-men who worked outside the home for money.
So, right from the get-go, second-wave feminism went off-track. Our fierce, angry, destructive denial of our own biologically determined feminine nature lit the fuse and exploded what had became known in the ’50s as the “nuclear family,” thus assuring further atomization of the extended family that had begun post WW 2 with the G.I. Bill.
Then, adding injury to insult, not only did the break-up of the extended family, followed by the break-up of the nuclear family, radically destabilize society and leave the children at least emotionally abandoned, and spinning in the chaotic void, so then the much-ballyhooed new collegiate Feminist Studies programs and departments began to further dissolve the connective tissue of society with the much heralded claim that, though sexuality is biological, gender itself, or, “what one identifies with,” is not not biological, not innate but learned, i.e., “socially constructed.”
From that time on, the continuous fissioning within what is now called the LGBTQ movement became inevitable.
Like many little girls, I was a tomboy, much more t home bareback on my horse or climbing a tree, or jumping a ditch, or exploring a nearby woods than playing with dolls, or jacks, or dress-up. Furthermore, I saw boys — and men — as having a much better deal in the world, with many more choices. (A “Social Studies” textbook in 9th grade told me that if I wasn’t lucky enough to get married, then my choices of profession were 1) secretary, 2) nurse, and three 3) teacher. That’s it!) So of course I admired my doctor Dad and thought my housewife Mom of eight children a non-entity.
In other words, as a girl, though a tomboy, I was also thoroughly indoctrinated into the prevailing value system. But at least my tomboy self wasn’t introduced to the current destructive medical industrial complex invitation to “transition” to the opposite sex, not to mention the unquestioned academic complex indoctrination that urges young people to “identify” with some tiny “socially constructed” niche on the so-called “non-binary gender spectrum.”
I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to negotiate the transition between childhood and adulthood during this perverse period in early 21st century on planet Earth when the human body is both the subject of intense focus and yet viewed as just one more material object in the room, to be mutilated beyond recognition, at the whim of either its inhabitant or some outside “authority” figure or fad.
For those who want to mutilate your body by “transitioning” into either the opposite sex or some niche in the “spectrum” of “non-binary” gender identity, whether through hormones and/or surgery, I ask: Why do you identify with your body? You are a soul first, and you inhabit a body. The body is NOT who you are. Furthermore, whether you were born into a male or a female body, at some point in your adult life, if you value yourself enough to choose to evolve further, you will naturally seek inner balance, by learning to appreciate and incorporate the qualities of the opposite sex (or, for tomboys like me, the same sex), in order to feel whole. This alchemical process, of becoming internally — spiritually, mentally and emotionally — whole, is what Jung referred to as “individuation.”
Again, for those who are thinking about “transitioning,” or putting their young children or teens through this disfiguring hell, please check this out, again thanks to Gillian of shiftfrequency.com.