With Pride Month in full swing, it’s important to examine Gender Theory – its origins, its psychological underpinnings, and its influence on society. Gender Theory was the brainchild of John Money, who is considered the father of Sexology, an interdisciplinary science that focuses on diverse aspects of human sexual behavior, including pathologies such as child sexual abuse and sexual addiction. It appears academically impossible to hold conversations about gender without a sexual subtext.
When asked to define Gender Identity, Money explains it in circular logic: “Gender Identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender is your sense of Gender Identity.” Even today, the very mechanism anyone uses to define gender is subjectively self-referential (always referring to one’s self) and usually expressed from a mentally distressed (dysphoric) state. The only academic “proof” Money offered to validate Gender Theory was a failed experiment resulting in a botched circumcision that led to the suicide of his initial subject, David Reiner. Money hailed the nightmare as a success, yet similar experiments since have accumulated a significant death toll, as the current participating population experiences a suicide rate above 40%.
It should be no surprise then, that Money’s destructive philosophy became part of a larger one. The merging took place decades ago, as can be seen in the 1977 statement by the Combahee River Collective, an activist group founded by black lesbian socialists: “The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives.” This general statement is the foundation of Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and all other identity subsets.
When it comes to gender affirmation, there are individual psychological realities at play, which quickly metastasize in the politically-charged environment of social justice, especially when social justice sees heterosexuality as system of oppression. Reproduction is oppression to social justice warriors, and therefore, so is existence itself. This belief manifests an extreme nihilistic expression of self-loathing human consciousness, and existential despair.
There are three basic levels of the human mind – conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Conscious defines our thoughts, actions, and awareness. Subconscious is defined as the reactions and actions we realize when we think of it. Unconscious is defined as the deep recesses of our past and memories. Unconscious memories provide the subconscious framework, while a child’s conscious is used to build their experiences and interactions with the outside world, thus making new memories and patterns of behavior in a “nature-nurture” feedback mechanism. The mind of a child is a scaffold built by the material experiences consciousness encodes as memory, and later serves as the foundation for their personalities, coping mechanisms, and overall psychological well-being.
The father of Developmental and Child Psychology, Jean Piaget, was the first to recognize that children think and process their environment differently than adults. Prior to his work, most thought, as the mainstream media teaches now, that cognitively, children are just smaller versions of adults. Piaget's theory of cognitive development suggests that intelligence changes as children grow. A child's cognitive development is not just about acquiring knowledge, however. A child’s brain has to develop or construct a mental model of the world, and it does so through a series of stages:
In the concrete operational stage, although children can solve problems in a logical fashion, they are typically not able to think abstractly or hypothetically. Developmental Psychology, and Child Psychology in particular, have used Piaget’s framework to great success until it was subverted by gender-affirming, dysphoric teachers and administrators.
Psychology as a science was first recognized as a distinct discipline by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt in the late nineteenth century. Wundt believed the method of introspection was the ability to observe an experience, not just logical reflection or speculation, which some others interpreted their meaning to be. In what is widely recognized as the very first psychological experiment, he found that introspection is not a reliable source of data within a clinical setting. Without control over the use of introspection in an experimental setting, it is impossible for other scientists to replicate an experiment. In a clinical setting, controls for introspection on the scientist conducting the trial must be in place, or the experiment will fail on its face. How many teachers have clinical training to account for their own introspection when dealing with the behavior of children? None!
Teaching Gender Theory is akin to psychological gain-of-function experimentation. It is a living spiritual abortion under the guise of “psychological health” and “gender-affirming care.” It inserts the idea of an individual sexual identity within the mind of a child, and places the responsibility of defining a future hypothetical sexual self to a mind cognitively incapable of grasping the repercussions; Flatly, it’s psychological abuse! Anyone arguing otherwise is merely introspecting their own projections on a child. We should beware mainstream media reports saying it’s the parent’s fault for “not getting it,” or that someone is wrong for not affirming a defined protected identity of the state. These are all attempts to subordinate parents through their children’s innocence. It will only lead to greater dysphoria within society.
Parents have a responsibility for both the rational and emotional development of their children, and with this kind of information, they will be equipped to do so. Reason is based on evidence and natural observation. The more we know and are aware of the truth behind the psychological underpinnings used to justify Gender Theory, the more this insidiousness may be confronted, contextualized, and ultimately defeated. Furthermore, Piaget’s work can be used to prove, in a court of law, that teaching Gender Theory to children can and should be immediately halted and criminalized.
