Alpha Dominance

Readers of alphadominance will be familiar with the idea that sex or gender is biologically determined.  Despite the efforts of Gender feminists and their ideology, widely adopted by sociologists and psychologists, that gender is merely a cultural construct, a case of nurture rather than nature, all the actual evidence points to biological determinism of gender.  Wishing this fact away doesn’t make it any less true.

Case in point: the tragic story of David Reimer.  For those of you unfamiliar with this unfortunate soul, he is Patient Zero, cruelly subjected to a lifetime of mental and physical anguish to serve the selfish interests of these evil gender ideologues.  I will detail his suffering later in this post, but first, let’s define exactly what the agenda of Gender feminism is:

Gender feminism

Sommers coined the term, “Gender feminism”, in her book Who Stole Feminism? (Simon & Schuster, 1994). She uses the phrase to describe feminism which criticizes contemporary gender roles and aims to eliminate them altogether. In current usage, gender feminism may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as domestic violence, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity.

Hoff Sommers claims that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory. Hoff Sommers argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portraying women as victims, equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism. She uses the terms to critique the contemporary academic and middle-class feminist movement, which she criticizes as gynocentric and misandric.

As we can see here this encompasses the ideology behind most of the ills plaguing contemporary American families.  Their goal is to muddy the waters of gender definition.  If they can blur the idea of gender they can advocate for the denial of gender differences.  In their opinion gender is an elective construct and if they can convince us it doesn’t exist, supposedly women won’t be oppressed since “women” won’t exist (wtf?).  The following excerpts from this paper show just how far they’ve inserted their heads up their own asses.  It’s like navel gazing from the inside.  They may as well have titled the paper “Is the sky blue or do we just say it is due to chromatic prejudice?”

“Biology shows that outwardly human beings can be divided into two sexes; nevertheless, there are more combinations that result from the five physiological areas which, in general and very simple terms, determine what is called the biological sex of a person: genes, hormones, gonads, internal reproductive organs and external reproductive organs. These areas control the five types of biological processes in a continuum…. a quick but somewhat insufficient classification of these combinations obliges us to recognize at least five biological sexes:

men (persons who have two testicles)

women (persons who have two ovaries)

hermaphrodites or herms (in which there are at the same time one testicle and one ovary)

masculine hermaphrodites or merms (persons who have testicles, but present other feminine sexual characteristics)

feminine hermaphrodites or ferms (persons with ovaries but with masculine sexual characteristics).

“This classification functions only if we take into account the internal sexual organs and the “secondary” sexual characteristics as a unity, but if we imagine the multiple possibilities that could result from a combination of the five physiological areas that we already mentioned, we see that our dichotomy man/woman, more than a biological reality, is a symbolic and cultural reality”

And another:

“Each infant is assigned to one or the other category on the basis of the shape and size of its genitals. Once this assignment is made, we become what culture believes each of us to be – feminine or masculine. Although many people think that men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blueprint, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals”.

And so on:

“Women couldn’t be oppressed if there was no such thing as ‘women’……doing away with gender is key to the doing away with patriarchy……..Gender fluidity is the ability to freely and knowingly become one or many of a limitless number of genders, for any length of time, at any rate of change. Gender fluidity recognizes no borders or rules of gender”

What is this calculus, a limitless dissection of gender differences into a continuous slope?  Puh-leez.  This is like stating that people born with gills or tails are equally exemplary models of humanity to those born in the normal fashion; that aberrations are not aberrations but equally valid and ideal phenotypes for human genetic expression.  Bullshit.  There are two genders in humans and virtually all other higher life.  Developmental abnormalities are aberrations, not equally valid or ideal classes.   Hermaphrodites are developmental errors just like people with gills.

Biological determinism recognizes two genders and posits that different skills and aptitudes exist in each to complement one another in raising offspring.  This is highlighted by David Reimer’s steadfast courage in battling the oppressive system that insists despite all evidence to the contrary that gender is more than nurture.  Here is the poor man’s history, as written by John Colapinto but beware, it is not for the faint of heart:

David Reimer, 1965-2004

Just shy of a month ago, I got a call from David Reimer’s father telling me that David had taken his own life. I was shocked, but I cannot say I was surprised. Anyone familiar with David’s life—as a baby, after a botched circumcision, he underwent an operation to change him from boy to girl—would have understood that the real mystery was how he managed to stay alive for 38 years, given the physical and mental torments he suffered in childhood and that haunted him the rest of his life. I’d argue that a less courageous person than David would have put an end to things long ago.

After David’s suicide, press reports cited an array of reasons for his despair: bad investments, marital problems, his brother’s death two years earlier. Surprisingly little emphasis was given to the extraordinary circumstances of his upbringing. This was unfortunate because to understand David’s suicide, you first need to know his anguished history, which I chronicled in my book As Nature Made Him:The Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl.

David Reimer was one of the most famous patients in the annals of medicine. Born in 1965 in Winnipeg, he was 8 months old when a doctor used an electrocautery needle, instead of a scalpel, to excise his foreskin during a routine circumcision, burning off his entire penis as a result. David’s parents (farm kids barely out of their teens) were referred to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, home of the world’s leading expert in gender identity, psychologist Dr. John Money, who recommended a surgical sex change, from male to female. David’s parents eventually agreed to the radical procedure, believing Dr. Money’s claims that this was their sole hope for raising a child who could have heterosexual intercourse—albeit as a sterile woman with a synthetic vagina and a body feminized with estrogen supplements.

For Dr. Money, David was the ultimate experiment to prove that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation—an experiment all the more irresistible because David was an identical twin. His brother, Brian, would provide the perfect matched control, a genetic clone raised as a boy.

David’s infant “sex reassignment” was the first ever conducted on a developmentally normal child. (Money had helped to pioneer the procedure in hermaphrodites.) And according to Money’s published reports through the 1970s, the experiment was a success. The twins were happy in their assigned roles: Brian a rough and tumble boy, his sister Brenda a happy little girl. Money was featured in Time magazine and included a chapter on the twins in his famous textbook Man & Woman, Boy & Girl.

The reality was far more complicated. At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refused to play with dolls and would beat up her brother and seize his toy cars and guns. In school, she was relentlessly teased for her masculine gait, tastes, and behaviors. She complained to her parents and teachers that she felt like a boy; the adults—on Dr. Money’s strict orders of secrecy—insisted that she was only going through a phase. Meanwhile, Brenda’s guilt-ridden mother attempted suicide; her father lapsed into mute alcoholism; the neglected Brian eventually descended into drug use, pretty crime, and clinical depression.

When Brenda was 14, a local psychiatrist convinced her parents that their daughter must be told the truth. David later said about the revelation: “Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did. I wasn’t some sort of weirdo. I wasn’t crazy.”

David soon embarked on the painful process of converting back to his biological sex. A double mastectomy removed the breasts that had grown as a result of estrogen therapy; multiple operations, involving grafts and plastic prosthesis, created an artificial penis and testicles. Regular testosterone injections masculinized his musculature. Yet David was depressed over what he believed was the impossibility of his ever marrying. He twice attempted suicide in his early 20s.

David did eventually marry a big-hearted woman named Jane, but his dark moods persisted. He was plagued by shaming memories of the frightening annual visits to Dr. Money, who used pictures of naked adults to “reinforce” Brenda’s gender identity and who pressed her to have further surgery on her “vagina.”

When David was almost 30, he met Dr. Milton Diamond, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii and a longtime rival of Dr. Money. A biologist by training, Diamond had always been curious about the fate of the famous twin, especially after Money mysteriously stopped publishing follow-ups in the late 1970s. Through Diamond, David learned that the supposed success of his sex reassignment had been used to legitimize the widespread use of infant sex change in cases of hermaphroditism and genital injury. Outraged, David agreed to participate in a follow-up by Dr. Diamond, whose myth-shattering paper (co-authored by Dr. Keith Sigmundson) was published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in March 1997 and was featured on front pages across the globe.

I met David soon after, when he agreed to be interviewed by me for a feature story in Rolling Stone. He subsequently agreed to collaborate with me on a book about his life, As Nature Made Him, published in February 2000. In the course of our interviews, David told me that he could never forget his nightmare childhood, and he sometimes hinted that he was living on borrowed time.

Most suicides, experts say, have multiple motives, which come together in a perfect storm of misery. So it was with David. After his twin Brian died of an overdose of antidepressants in the spring of 2002, David sank into a depression. Though the two had been estranged, David had, in recent months, taken to visiting Brian’s grave, leaving flowers and, at some point prior to his own suicide, a note.

David also had marital difficulties. He was not easy to live with, given his explosive anger, his cyclical depressions, his fears of abandonment—all of which Jane weathered for almost 14 years. But with David spiraling ever deeper into sloth and despair, she told him on the weekend of May 2 that they should separate for a time. David stormed out of the house. Two days later, Jane received a call from the police, saying that they had found David but that he did not want her to know his location. Two hours after that, Jane got another call. This time the police told her that David was dead.

Genetics almost certainly contributed to David’s suicide. His mother has been a clinical depressive all her life; his brother suffered from the same disease. How much of the Reimers’ misery was due to inherited depression, and how much to the nightmare circumstances into which they had been thrown? David’s mutilation and his parents’ guilt were tightly entwined, multiplying the mental anguish to which the family members were already prone.

In some press reports, financial problems were given as the sole motive in David’s suicide. While this is absurdly reductive, it is true that last fall David learned that he was the victim of an alleged con man who had hoodwinked him out of $65,000—a loss that ate at him and no doubt contributed to his despair.

In his final months, David was unemployed—for him, a disastrous circumstance. When I first met him, seven years ago, he was a janitor in a slaughter house—tough, physically demanding work that he loved. But when the plant closed a few years ago, David never found another full-time job. And thanks to me, he didn’t have to. I split all profits from the book with David, 50-50. This brought him a substantial amount of money, as did a subsequent movie deal with Peter Jackson, the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. With no compelling financial need to work, David was able to sit around his house and brood—a state of affairs for which I feel some guilt.

In the end, of course, it was what David was inclined to brood about that killed him. David’s blighted childhood was never far from his mind. Just before he died, he talked to his wife about his sexual “inadequacy,” his inability to be a true husband. Jane tried to reassure him. But David was already heading for the door.

On the morning of May 5, he retrieved a shotgun from his home while Jane was at work and took it into the garage. There, with the terrible, methodical fixedness of the suicide, he sawed off the barrel. Then he drove to the nearby parking lot of a grocery store, parked, raised the gun, and, I hope, ended his sufferings forever.

God-damn that’s sad.  If I ever cried this would be enough to bring a tear to my eye, that poor son of a bitch.  He was caught in the crossfire of an illogical and misguided social agenda and used (without consent or even being informed for 14 years) as a lab-rat in an attempt to prove what any rational person knows is false: that gender reassignment is a possible, let alone optimal response to tragic physical deformity.  Worse yet his deformity was caused by the negligence of a clearly inept physician.  If this isn’t all the evidence you need to disprove the fallacy of gender being solely a social construct I don’t know what is.  Heaven help you if you are one of these imbeciles.  It is also a good argument against circumcision, at least via electrocautery scalpel.  Who thought that was a good idea?  The hubris of the psychologist, John Money, is unforgivable.  This whole sorry episode sounds like something out of Josef Mengele’s house of horrors rather than something done in our so called enlightened society.  The horror of the situation essentially destroyed not only him, but his parents and brother as well.

Sick, just sick.  What they did to him was pure evil.