In an X (Twitter) discussion about the innate ability of humans to detect gender, I responded in the thread that I call this the “gender-detection module” (see Neutralizing the Gender-Detection Brain Module). Think of it like the linguistic acquisition module or device, I wrote, elaborating that it works in a way analogous to factor analysis but with evolved assumptions. I then noted that the gender programmers are working aggressively to disrupt the system early in life since brain modules need priming and proper development to function correctly. Queer activists know what they’re doing. This is why the ideology has colonized our public school system and cultural programming targeting children.
Somebody in the thread thought she was correcting me when she wrote, “Sex detection. Gender is the problem because it is essentially sex role stereotype. The scaffolding all involved in this ridiculous & reductive performance rely on is an attraction to outdated external opposite sex trope preferences-toys, clothes, colour etc.” As I have shown in essays on Freedom and Reason, the purported distinction between sex and gender is queer and corporate propaganda. Outside of queer theory and the medical industrial complex, sex and gender are synonyms. (See Sex and Gender are Interchangeable Terms; Gender and Sex. Once More for People in the Back. See also Manipulating Reality by Manipulating Words; There’s No Obligation to Speak Like a Queer Theorist. Doing so Misrepresents Reality; Denying Reality: The Tyranny of Gender-Inclusive Language.)
It is crucial to deconstruct the discursive formations that constitute queer and corporate propaganda for those engaged in the struggle against gender ideology. Accepting the distortions of the other side undermines the efficacy of the movement for sanity and a return to scientific materialism. The fact is that anthropology and sociology used “sex role” and “gender role” interchangeably for decades until they were corrupted by woke progressivism. Biology used “sex” and “gender” interchangeably for centuries. When you live in the gender ideology bubble, when you play by their rules with their linguistic tricks, you have ceded authority to them. Queer theory and sexology are crackpot. Don’t define the world using their terms.
The word “gender” entered the English language from Old French in the late fourteenth century. Originally, it was used to refer to “kind” or “sort” and was derived from the Latin word “genus,” which meant “kind” or “type.” The usage of “gender” in botanical contexts can be traced back to at least the seventeenth century, and possibly even earlier. Botanists used it to differentiate between male and female reproductive organs or structures in plants. The botanical usage predated the broader biological usage that emerged in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, encompassing both plants and animals. In modern times, discussions around “gender” have expanded to include social and cultural aspects, such as in the “gender role.” Along side all this, “gender” was also a system of grammatical classifications used to refer to the sex of animals and (oddly) things. Only very recently was “gender” repurposed by queer theorists and sexologists to manufacture an ideological construct for political and corporate purposes.
The word “sex” also entered the English language from Old French in the fourteenth century, derived from the Latin word “sexus,” which referred to the state of being either male or female. In its earliest usage in English, “sex” primarily denoted biological differences between male and female organisms, particularly in terms of reproductive anatomy and functions. Throughout history, “sex” has been used in various contexts, including biology, medicine, and law, to refer to the biological characteristics that differentiate males and females of a species. This usage remains prevalent today, particularly in scientific and medical discourse. In addition to its biological sense, “sex” has also been used to refer to sexual activity or intercourse, a meaning that also emerged in the late fourteenth century. This usage became more prominent over time, especially in colloquial and informal language. In modern times, discussions around “sex” have expanded to include social and cultural aspects, such as in the “sex role” and “sexual orientation.”
In sociology, the concept of “sex role” gained prominence in the twentieth century, particularly within the framework of structural functionalism. Sociologists like Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton explored how societies assign different roles and responsibilities to individuals based on their sex. Parsons, for example, described the complementary roles of men (instrumental role) and women (expressive role) within the family structure. Anthropologists began to explore the concept of sex or gender roles in the twentieth century, as part of broader studies on kinship and social organization. Anthropologists such as Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict conducted ethnographic research that highlighted the variability of gender roles across different cultures. Mead’s work, in particular, challenged Western notions of fixed gender roles by demonstrating the diversity of gender norms and behaviors across societies. Over time, the term “gender role” gradually supplanted “sex role” in academic discourse. This transition coincided with the rise of queer and feminist scholarship, as well a sexology, and the redefinition of gender as a multidimensional construct shaped by culture, power, and socialization. Today, many people use gender as a shorthand for gender or sex role.
A different person in the thread attacked me for being yet another man talking down to women, to which I responded that my claim is easy to confirm. Even Wikipedia recognizes the fact, I wrote, quoting the entry: “Though sex and gender have been used interchangeably at least as early as the fourteenth century, this usage was not common by the late 1900s. Sexologist John Money pioneered the concept of a distinction between biological sex and gender identity in 1955.” In other words, a crackpot manufactured a distinction and many in the gender critical movement have uncritically accepted it. I was criticized for quoting Wikipedia, of course, since it proved my point. But I used a popular source to avoid appealing to my own expertise on the matter, sharing essays from this blog, or posting a lengthy reply with the above content. I also used the Wikipedia quote because the Google result just above it (the first result returned) was Gemini correcting the assumption in my question and instructing me to accept queer and corporate propaganda. I found it amusing that the seriously woke Wikipedia could provide a more truthful answer to my question than a chatbot.
To reiterate in concluding, it is important to critically analyze the ways in which queer and corporate messaging are constructed for those involved in challenging gender ideology. Embracing opposing distortions undermines the effectiveness of efforts for clarity and a return to scientific principles. By conforming to the language and tactics of the gender ideology narrative, individuals inadvertently yield authority to it. Queer theory and sexology are to be viewed skeptically. It is therefore advisable not to adopt their terminology when framing our understandings of the world.
freedom and reason 