Is gender a social construct?

[NormaRegula]

Every day things just get worse and worse; humanity moves further and further away from Cosmic Truth and intentions; this can't end well.

I too have little optimism for current cultural influences and where they may lead this world to. Powerful psychopaths and their mindless followers push this kind of garbage on the public with the idea that it will sell because celebrities endorse it. The cool factor.

Out of curiosity I sent photos and a link to the clothing line to some liberal associates of mine for feedback. Surprisingly they were not impressed. Horrified was what a gay former co-worker of mine said. She and her partner adopted 2 girls from china. She said the girls wouldn't wear such drab outfits as they gravitated to colorful, sparkly stuff. She also thought the graphics were weird and the photography disturbing.

So maybe this gender-neutral children campaign only goes over to the hardcore element in society, with the psychopathic media making it seem otherwise.

 

[mkrnhr]

So maybe this gender-neutral children campaign only goes over to the hardcore element in society, with the psychopathic media making it seem otherwise.

My guess is that they push the craziest ideas in a way that people adopt less radical attitudes with a certain lag.
If you want people to adopt a certain crazy behavior, present them with a 150% crazy behavior as normal and they will meet the intended middle ground. On the other hand, their target is not the actual adult population, even if parts of it more or less adhere to these ideologies, but the younger generation that are growing while absorbing all sorts of influences through traditional and social media. OSIT.

 

[Zar]

What a disturbing fashion line. If it wasn't clear before, it should be now that the whole purpose of the genderless agenda was to create chaos and through slow desensitization make a playground for these satanic pedophile predators.

 

[BlackCartouche]

I think the same, problem is that, they are just following the "genderless" agenda to influence more people .... worse, via church/religion morality :(

Im surprised religious institutions weren't first used to spearhead the "genderless" agenda as a suitably led backlash against all the extreme overt-sexualisation and debaucherous sin rampant of recent years. Christianity in particular has central doctrines advocating a more 'celibate' lifestyle through practicing abstinence before entering the kingdom of heaven. Becoming genderless could easily have been promoted as a short cut (no pun intended).

I find vegans start looking 'genderless' after a while, I think there is a link between veganism and Asexuality.

 

[Metrist]

In history there were times and places when homosexuality was accepted. So, maybe gender identity is triggered by the factors of the culture and emerge for instance: when resources are scarce, or abundant. And the stresses or ease of every day life are one way or the other.

And as we have a long history of warfare, it was important in times of war to breed, and so in those times breeding was encouraged and homosexuality prohibited. Similarly, if there were peace and plenty, populations grew, and created societal stresses resulting in homosexuality.

So, in our time, we live in relative peace - although every act of violence is broadcast worldwide and every instance of violence is amplified - the populations are again creating stresses, and so either war, or population control are in order, but we are faced with two opposing solutions. One is natural and self extinguishing, and the other is exploitative.

So, humanity has expressed disdain for war, and so either through instinctual triggers and or societal persuasion people don't want children, and so homosexuality is not a negative. Who looks at the world and does not wonder if bringing a child into this life would be fair to the child?

So, we have choices and it isn't just about sexual preference, but about procreation, and the need for the militaries to have soldiers from which the least desired humans are expected to serve.

So I think homosexuality and militarism arise in times when populations reach higher limits, and so the homosexuals have enough sense not to breed, and the brutes keep multiplying, and the militarys want higher caliber soldiers, and can't get them from the brute types, and so sexuality becomes an issue.

 

[luc]

It has never been clearer to me that religion is a means of controlling and enslaving the masses than it is now. The Church of England has joined the gender neutral madness and stated that God is neither a 'he' nor a 'she'

Ah yes, protestants

I always found those wishy-washy protestant sermons boring and flat (in Europe that is, the evangelical/fundie crowd in the US is a different story altogether). It's just a bunch of plattitudes and I think Jordan Peterson is right with his observation that these "priests" don't believe in Christianity themselves; they just put on a show while they are die-hard liberals in their hearts. They are completely overtaken by SJW ideology at this point. I've heard much better sermons from catholic priests that at least had some depth in describing the "human condition". But even the catholics have fallen prey to SJWism lately, though not as thoroughly as the protestants. Geez, some of these protestants are now pushing to change traditional church songs to politically correct language, and even the bible! Also, this comes to mind:

Off to hell ya go, progressive protestants!

All this insanity is worse than then flat earth nonsense. You don't need a human brain to figure out the differences and commonalities between men and women.

Exactly! It's so insane that people like Jordan Peterson now have to cite tons of "scientific studies" to convince people of something that should be obvious even to the dumbest people who have met more than 2 people (or some random animals for that matter) in their lives. Just as a random example - everyone knows women enjoy decorating homes much more than men do, and men enjoy things like competitive sports or hunting more than women. Now, what could that have possibly to do with biology!? Oh, let's fund tons of studies to find out if all of that isn't a social construct put in place by the evil patriarchy... It's just insane.

My guess is that they push the craziest ideas in a way that people adopt less radical attitudes with a certain lag.
If you want people to adopt a certain crazy behavior, present them with a 150% crazy behavior as normal and they will meet the intended middle ground. On the other hand, their target is not the actual adult population, even if parts of it more or less adhere to these ideologies, but the younger generation that are growing while absorbing all sorts of influences through traditional and social media. OSIT.

Yes indeed. Most people simply are not aware of this craziness going on, it kind of "runs in the background". They have no idea what's coming their way. Most people I know in the social professions and such are only aware of the very early ideological stages, such as "let's help women in the workplace", with which they kind of agree, and simply don't know anything about "there are no biological differences between men and women" or "there are more than 2 genders". This includes even official positions such as "equality officers" and such. But over time, the constant pushing has an effect, it brings ever-more insanity into the mainstream discourse, step by step. And at the point at which even those who (understandably) choose to ignore this insanity, perhaps because they cannot even fathom that anything like that exists, realize what's going on, it will be too late...

 

[Voyageur]

I think Jordan Peterson is right with his observation that these "priests" don't believe in Christianity themselves; they just put on a show while they are die-hard liberals in their hearts. They are completely overtaken by SJW ideology at this point. I've heard much better sermons from catholic priests that at least had some depth in describing the "human condition". But even the catholics have fallen prey to SJWism lately, though not as thoroughly as the protestants. Geez, some of these protestants are now pushing to change traditional church songs to politically correct language, and even the bible!

Yeah, the move to inclusiveness to increase the flock and appease identity groups, while brushing aside or forgetting their roots. It sometimes seems more like a business model to conglomerate customers of the SJW type. Bishop Barron (thanks, I had seen that one) points out its inculcating spread in lining up the old ones (like Paul) as being bad; the evil patriarch, not representing the 'new' identity realities - playing religious social identity politics with the masses.

Bishop Barron: (love toleration and inclusion) "...Real love means you're not going to tolerate lot's of things. Real love means you sometimes have to exclude certain things. What's happened is a dangerous conflation of toleration/inclusion with love. Now, how dangerous is it? I suggest read this sermon, because you might begin to see the devil himself as something beautiful and holly."

 

[Metrist]

Think of the internet as a equal opportunity social tool. And all types of people can be rallied into movements. And so those who previously couldn't have a group identity due to cultural pressures (having a group identity was usually tied to some sort of business or industry, and if the majority didn't accept them, they were economically strangled.)

So, the people at the top - who everyone turns their paychecks over to - people who don't actually labor - are organizing the lowest, most maginalized people against the wage earners, because they are getting wise about the system. And so under the cover of political correctness, are attacking the wage earner - by replacing them with lower wage immigrants - who are clueless; slandering them by making any political outlook seem racist, or greedy, and brushes aside the border issue as anti-American.

And so all the issues of the day are components in this and are parcel to the system whose control at the top is being undermined by the workers who are active in managing their wealth - and this cuts out the middleman. So, war is waged on them by replacement (illegal immigration), political correctness, and economic manipulation. It is societal chaos without actually being war, since it is created internally.

And so where does gender fit in to this? It is simply a marginal group (lbgt), among others like Black Lives Matter, ect. Who are socially charged and rallied in order to attack the mainstream in the guise of political correctness, and beat them into submission by societal pressures so that they accept their being dominated by economic forces - who don't labor for their riches, except to wage war on those who try to cut them out.

So, they don't want to actually replace the workers, but use it as an attack on the morale and keep the system stable or unstable at their choosing in order to keep control.

 

[BlackCartouche]

So, maybe gender identity is triggered by the factors of the culture and emerge for instance: when resources are scarce, or abundant. And the stresses or ease of every day life are one way or the other.

And as we have a long history of warfare, it was important in times of war to breed, and so in those times breeding was encouraged and homosexuality prohibited. Similarly, if there were peace and plenty, populations grew, and created societal stresses resulting in homosexuality.

You might find this session provides some answers Session 28 March 2010

Q: (L) We received a question from a reader who wants to ask: "Is homosexuality determined at the early imprinting stage?"

A: In some instances. There are many reasons.

Q: (L) The second part of the question reads: "If not, what determines sexual orientation at an early age?" Well, they just said there are many reasons. Can you list any of those other reasons?

A: Past life influences and more rarely, genetics.

Q: (L) So which of these three reasons is the most frequent?

A: Early imprinting could be said to be marginally most frequent cause.

Q: (Ailén) So you were very close, Laura.

(Perceval) Does the early imprinting case have to do with abuse?

A: Not necessarily abuse as lack of proper input at moments of high susceptibility. Also, in some individuals the sequence of imprint slots is different or not synchronous with the pattern of the majority. In a sense, then, this is genetic though all such individuals do not necessarily develop as homosexuals.

Q: (L) I think that the writer wanted to know is this a condition that can be changed, assuming the individual wanted to change?

A: Not usually.

Q: (Ailén) When you talk about a lack of proper input, I assume then that in some way development is not normal. Does that mean that homosexuals have any impediment to spiritual growth?

A: No, that is not implied.

either through instinctual triggers and or societal persuasion people don't want children, and so homosexuality is not a negative. Who looks at the world and does not wonder if bringing a child into this life would be fair to the child?

Unlikely due to biological urges being too powerful for, well, pretty much everyone. People want sex first and foremost, not to be considerate for the next generation.

homosexuals have enough sense not to breed,

No. Homosexuals don't breed because they are... well... "Homosexual!"

and the brutes keep multiplying, and the militarys want higher caliber soldiers, and can't get them from the brute types, and so sexuality becomes an issue.

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying homosexuals cannot be brutes - or that all heterosexual soldiers are brutes?
Also, are you saying the military seek higher caliber soldiers that can only come of homosexual stock - such like the armies of Alexander the Great (of whom, it is believed, his soldiers were encouraged to form homosexual bonds within the military ranks to make for fiercer-fighting soldiers made more willing to fight and die for their brethren)?

 

[Corvus]

Im surprised religious institutions weren't first used to spearhead the "genderless" agenda as a suitably led backlash against all the extreme overt-sexualisation and debaucherous sin rampant of recent years. Christianity in particular has central doctrines advocating a more 'celibate' lifestyle through practicing abstinence before entering the kingdom of heaven. Becoming genderless could easily have been promoted as a short cut (no pun intended).

Mainstream religions want people having more kids because that equals more followers and more money, marginalized religions can try that because they already have small number of followers, mainstream know that this agenda would lead to their total demise.

In history there were times and places when homosexuality was accepted. So, maybe gender identity is triggered by the factors of the culture and emerge for instance: when resources are scarce, or abundant. And the stresses or ease of every day life are one way or the other.

Do not think homosexuality has anything to do with today s gender identity because it was always present and if someone is homosexual does not mean he does not see himself as man or whatever, but think today s gender fluidity has to do more with abundance, because of easier times people get meek and lose sight of reality and are because of that more easily manipulated.

Also, are you saying the military seek higher caliber soldiers that can only come of homosexual stock - such like the armies of Alexander the Great (of whom, it is believed, his soldiers were encouraged to form homosexual bonds within the military ranks to make for fiercer-fighting soldiers made more willing to fight and die for their brethren)?

Not related to topic but how do you know Alexander armies were homosexuals, maybe you mixed it up with the Theban sacred band that was homosexual and it was defeated by his father Philip in a battle where he was present, against city Thebes in Beotia, that was razed after that.

 

[Metrist]

I didn't mean to go off topic, but I think it is often the case where there is a larger picture, especially when all our issues are served up in the mass media where every bit of news is in unison, and seems to have a central authority - although it is meant to be obscure...

So, back to sexuality... there are scientific, biological factors, but what about spiritual factors? What is attraction? Does every man oogle every woman? No. There is that certain something, and it is attraction. And so in a spiritual sphere it isn't material biological factors but the spiritual nature that determine attraction. And who is anyone to say what you feel is wrong? So, people know that love is that way... and so it is accepted even though it don't make sense, and people say: 'to each his own'.

And what about mis-matched lovers? Where someone will say: 'I don't see what she sees in that guy'. I doesn't make sense to the senses, but still the attraction is there, and so there is a spiritual side to this. And if we look at it logically, you can come up with theories, but that's like coming up with a cure for love.

So, gender identity is more of a political construct that empowers gay people, and with the favor comes an obligation to fullfill a political obligation. And that obligation is used in a political fashion to break down tabboos - not in the interest of liberation, but to take two opposing factions and incite them against each other.

But people are remarkably tolerant in the internet age, and more honest. And the attempts of playing us against one another meet with unexpected results. Because love is revered, and no longer does the mass media set the tone of our attitude. Nor does organized religion. ... all is in the open now and people aren't afraid to stand up for what comes easy to us: to live and let live.

 

[Pierre]

But people are remarkably tolerant in the internet age, and more honest.

Do you really think so?

I tend to think that Internet provides an anonymity that makes individual less accountable and, therefore, less prone to display virtuous values like honesty or tolerance.

and no longer does the mass media set the tone of our attitude.

From what I see, the mass media still have a huge influence on the way we think. It is true that Internet has given a voice to alternative media but the mainstream media are also very active on the Internet.

all is in the open now and people aren't afraid to stand up for what comes easy to us: to live and let live.

What people stand for is usually manufactured destructive ideologies. They embrace hystericizing propaganda which triggers behaviour that are, in the end, detrimental to them and to the ones they love.

 

[Oxajil]

From what I see, the mass media still have a huge influence on the way we think. It is true that Internet has given a voice to alternative media but the mainstream media are also very active on the Internet.

Yes, exactly. There are still many people who repeat the opinion they hear on the news or read on social media. Then there are also all types of talk shows that influence us, and celebrities/actors/singers who also influence people's (their fan base) thinking.

 

[BlackCartouche]

marginalized religions can try that because they already have small number of followers, mainstream know that this agenda would lead to their total demise.

Both marginalized and mainstream religions of Earth answer to 4D STS, neither have a choice but to serve the Agenda whether the respective religion know it may lead to their demise.

Not related to topic but how do you know Alexander armies were homosexuals, maybe you mixed it up with the Theban sacred band that was homosexual and it was defeated by his father Philip in a battle where he was present, against city Thebes in Beotia, that was razed after that.

You're right there. Alexander and his homosexual armies I have always heard loosely banded about over the years. I never myself investigated. I should have known better than to accept twisted rumored history from the mouths of OP's. Thanks for the pull up.

So, back to sexuality... there are scientific, biological factors, but what about spiritual factors? What is attraction? Does every man oogle every woman? No. There is that certain something, and it is attraction. And so in a spiritual sphere it isn't material biological factors but the spiritual nature that determine attraction.

It would be helpful for you if you brushed up with what the C's talk about in regards sexuality, attraction and love. The 'search bar' is your friend

And who is anyone to say what you feel is wrong?

Well, regardless whether sexual feelings toward children are acted upon or not, its a 'feeling' that is very much "a wrong". Wouldn't you agree?

So, gender identity is more of a political construct that empowers gay people

But its a lie. True empowerment can only come from within the Self and transcends matters of the flesh ie sex/sexuality. It is not something that can be given, or approved/sanctioned, by any external entity.

But people are remarkably tolerant in the internet age, and more honest

People are remarkably tolerant of diversity of each others ponerizations, yes, but "honest" today means to be rude offensive and complete lack of tact - combined with ignorance.

And the attempts of playing us against one another meet with unexpected results

Unexpected for whom? You?.. Me?... Or the PTB adhering to 4D STS?

Because love is revered

Narcissistic self-love and love of the flesh? Yes that appears very much to be the case nowadays.

no longer does the mass media set the tone of our attitude

It does too. When things go viral on the internet and gets coverage in mainstream media, its ALWAYS seen as the jackpot hit - the ultimate badge of honour.

all is in the open now and people aren't afraid to stand up for what comes easy to us: to live and let live.

"All is in the open" without coherence is just chaos, confusion that feeds into further ignorance. It is better to know nothing at all than to 'learn' and 'know' false knowledge.
People stand up for whats easy, and what comes easy to them is self-interest and ego in line with the flavour of the week. In this context: Live and let live means: "Screw responsibility... Its all about my feeeeeelingz!... I just wanna do what I wanna!!!"

 

[Metrist]

Do you really think so?

I tend to think that Internet provides an anonymity that makes individual less accountable and, therefore, less prone to display virtuous values like honesty or tolerance.

From what I see, the mass media still have a huge influence on the way we think. It is true that Internet has given a voice to alternative media but the mainstream media are also very active on the Internet.

What people stand for is usually manufactured destructive ideologies. They embrace hystericizing propaganda which triggers behaviour that are, in the end, detrimental to them and to the ones they love.

If you take the words of immature youths and use them as examples, then your argument stands. But the immature are always more vocal, and their voice is the more easily dismissed as it is obviously immature and wrong - so while it is prevalent, it isn't influential - it is largely of no account. It is probably sensationalism taken to extremes in order to draw attention where it becomes an issue.

And I don't think people are really that zealous about their ideological outlook, but because the mass media serves up ideological ideas 24/7, they will comment on what is being broadcast to them, but they live in the real world and are human, and ideologies are identified with, but in a loose fashion - accounting for real world practicality.

And people understand the importance of public image, and that extends to tolerance and fairness. And so even if people don't like gays, or blacks, or whatever group, there is more civility to counter the incivility because everything is more transparent, and so these issues arise and are made to look as if all of humanity is at each others throats, when it is isolated incidents, given much more importance than it deserves, and it implies that the best of us are in the same category with the least. Still, that is no problem to most people, because they know they are not like that, and it doesn't apply. And so these claims of injustice fall on deaf ears, because it doesn't apply to the people to whom it is implied.