Grammar for grown-ups

Don't worry, this isn't a boring article: it's about sex.

As in, biological sex - male or female.

And the very fact I was able to make that attention-grabbing little joke actually reveals much about how we got ourselves into such a ridiculous pickle about sex and "gender identity" in the first place.

I was inspired to write this article after a friend of mine related a story about starting a new job, where the manager explained they'd had to amend a form from the previous "gender: male / female" category to "gender: dozens of different options", since, the manager said, we now "know" gender is a social construct.

My friend was nearly speechless with apoplexy at this insensible assault on language and identity.

"The thing is, though," I said, albeit rather reluctantly. "He's kind of right."

"Whaaaat?!" My pal went puce-faced with aghast ire. "Have you gone woke?"

"No, no," I assured him. "I've just become more familiar with the fundamentals of grammar."

Because here's the thing about 'gender' - it's a grammatical term; it distinguishes inanimate objects by giving them a gender, masculine or feminine (distinct terms from the biological male or female).

We have a few examples in English - such as, referring to boats and countries as "she" - but other languages, like French, are deeply gendered, and most objects are given a masculine or feminine gender identity, as in, a table is "le tableau" (masculine), whereas a chair is "la chaise" (feminine).

These categorisations have absolutely nothing to do with the biological classifications of living beings, male and female. A table isn't deemed masculine because "it's more like a man", and chair isn't feminine because of its dainty little ankles (although it's rumoured the Victorians used to cover them with fabric lest they might otherwise arouse the attentions of amorous men).

So, in that sense, gender is a social construct, insofar as, language and grammar are social constructs, and grammatical gender is "assigned" to objects, rather than it being an innate biological truth that we simply observe and identify, as is the case with biological sex.

The fact is that humans beings do not have a 'gender' - no living beings do, only (some) inanimate objects do, depending on what language we're describing them in (i.e., have ascribed those qualities to them).

Human beings have a sex - male or female (and a very small number of people have chromosomal disorders which mean they do not fit the strict definition for either, but essentially, if you have a Y chromosome - you're male).

Until the 1950s, nobody was confused about this. Nobody had a "gender identity" because people understood they were not French tables.

The problems arose when the act of human reproduction previously only known as "sexual intercourse" became colloquially abbreviated to "sex".

Suddenly, this three-letter word no longer referred to an innocent biological classification (male or female), but connoted something else entirely, and respectable people therefore started to feel very uncomfortable using the word when simply seeking to describe whether someone was a man or a woman.

They needed a word that spared their blushes.

Enter: "gender".

And once society accepted, as it quickly did, that human beings had a "gender", rather than a sex, then it threw open the doors to all the gender-bender insanity madness we currently see.

It is of great and deeply sinister significance to note that the first person publicly known to start using 'gender' as a substitute for 'sex' was the notorious psychologist, John Money.

Money is most remembered for his brutal experimentation on identical twins, Bruce and Brian Reimer. Following a botched circumcision leading to irreparable damage to his penis, Money encouraged the infant Bruce's parents to subject him to a full "gender reassignment", where his male genitals were entirely removed and replaced with a facsimile of female genitalia. Bruce was subsequently dosed with female hormones and raised as a girl, "Brenda".

Money continued to study the twins as they grew up, and reported in academic literature that the "gender reassignment" had been a resounding success: that Brenda was a conventionally feminine little girl, whilst her brother Brian was a typical rambunctious boy.

This "proved", according to Money, that gender was purely a social construct based on how a child was treated growing up, and had no innate biological basis.

The problem with Money's little theory was that he lied outrageously about it. Bruce certainly was not a "feminine little girl" and was suffering terribly trying to live as one.

Although Bruce's parents never told him he was born male, he had always felt like a boy, had a boy's gait and manner, and preferred boy-typical pursuits. This led to him being mercilessly bullied at school and a deep depression resulted.

By the age of 14, he was so psychologically anguished that he had become suicidal, and his parents realised they could no longer hide the truth from him.

Upon learning that he was in fact - just as he had always felt - a boy, Bruce reverted to living as one, and renamed himself David.

David went on to work various jobs, marry a woman, and adopt her children.

However, he was never able to fully resolve the barbaric horrors of his past - including grotesque sexual "experimentation" forced on him and his brother by Money - and tragically killed himself, aged 38.

This was a further devastating blow to the Reimer family, who had already lost David's twin brother, Brian, also deeply traumatised by Money, two years previously to an overdose of antidepressants.

Despite the fact John Money's theories on "gender identity" and the alleged malleability thereof had proved so catastrophically wrong, his views nevertheless went on to become the dominant orthodoxy in the field.

We are also left with a great deal of insight into Money's true motivations for pursuing this line of "research" by the fact that he is on record as declaring:

"If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way."

So it is this sadistic abuser and paedophile we have to "thank" for the fact that the word "gender" ever became applied to human beings at all, when for thousands of years previously (dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks), the word had only been associated with grammar.

So while it is true that gender is a social construct - because it's a grammatical term, and grammar is a social construct - it's also true that human beings don't have one.

Humans beings have a sex.

In addition to that, they have a personality - which may be more conventionally masculine, even if they're biologically female, or more conventionally feminine, even if they're biologically male. So if a man chooses to wear a dress and call himself Shirley, that's to do with his personality (and probable autogynephilia), not his "gender".

And as humans don't have a gender, there is therefore no such thing as "transgender" or "genderfluid" or any of the other sixty-six squillion nonsense terms that we have had to contend with ever since we erroneously replaced the biological term, sex, with the grammatical term, gender.

The question we have to ask, therefore, is why this epically combustible confusion has been allowed to proliferate so widely, even after John Money's gender theories were revealed as being so hideously wrong.

Why have we seen such an assault on the most fundamental part of human identity, that leads to confused young people dosing themselves up with cross-sex hormones (note, not "cross-gender" hormones) and having healthy body parts amputated?

The answer is very simple: it's because the ruling classes wish to fully erase all defining human identities to make us as weak, and therefore as controllable, as possible, and whether someone is male or female is the most fundamental identity of all, since with no male or female, there is no family - the building block and cornerstone of all human civilisation.

With no male or female, there is no mother or father, son or daughter, aunt or uncle, grandmother or grandfather, as all family ties (with the sole exception of cousins) are directly described via biological sex.

If someone rejects their biological sex and instead describes themselves as a "demi-boy non-binary twin-flamed pan-fried BLT" (gender identity or item on trendy pop-up micro-bistro menu? So hard to tell these days), how do they fit into the ancient, age-old categorisations of family life?

They don't, and that is precisely the point of it.

A trans-spirited, quasi-queer, poly-filled pancake cannot by definition be anyone's husband or wife, as those terms are strictly restricted for men and women. They cannot be anyone's mother or father, or son or daughter. They can't be a grandson, or uncle, or nephew.

They have necessarily excluded themselves completely from the most fundamental aspects of human life and identity.

And this is exactly what the ruling classes desire, as their ideal future citizen is one completely free of identity: a genderless (and therefore family-less), cultureless, Godless, consumer-drone.

(Not even worker-drone, as working and earning gives people too much of a sense of identity and autonomy: the overlords would much rather have full spectrum control over the citizens of the future by simply providing them with UBI and sponsoring them to stay at home alone all day - lockdowns and furlough were the test runs for this.)

We can currently see just how dramatically this agenda is being ramped up, with the aggressive promotion of the so-called 4B movement, ostensibly a response to the Trump victory in America, but in reality, the roots of this mendacious social manipulation campaign go back a lot further.

Officially first launched in South Korea in around 2017, the 4B movement refers to the Korean word 'bi', which means 'no'. The four no’s being referred to are:

Dating men;

Sleeping with men;

Marrying men;

Having children with men.

Korean women claimed they were rejecting all these endeavours as a protest against the misogyny they saw embedded in Korean culture - a culture which already has one of the lowest birth-rates in the world.

Now social media algorithms have flooded the internet with 4B trends to encourage American (and other) women to take part too, "in order to punish men for voting for Trump".

While this movement may certainly inconvenience some Trump-voting men, the fact remains that 44% of women, including 52% of white women, voted for Trump themselves, so American men certainly still have plenty of dating options at home, or they have the option to move (as, indeed, vast swathes of liberal celebrities claim to be doing in order to escape such men, so it would be kind of comical if they followed...).

The real victims of the 4B movement, then, are the involved women themselves, who are now - just as the genderless movement wants them to do - entirely excluding themselves from family life, by declaring they will never be girlfriends, wives, or mothers (and if their sisters and friends join in too, as they are strongly encouraging them to do, will never be aunts or godmothers, either).

They are even removing one of the key classifications of their female identity by shaving off their hair.

It is of note that one of the first things the military and concentration camps do upon enrolment is shave people's heads.

It's about a process of de-identification and de-humanisation, and these psychologically brutalised women are now doing it directly to themselves.

This is the endgame of the "gender identity" movement: to destroy human identity completely by striking at the very core of what it means to be human - to have a mother and a father, to be a son or a daughter, to be a potential aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, husband or wife.

It's quite plain and apparent that this is the goal, with all the ridiculous rhetoric around "pregnant people", "chestfeeding", and "parent 1 and parent 2" (and even now parent 3, including when all three "parents" are the same sex).

The biologically-based, reality-based family descriptors - pregnant women, breastfeeding, mother and father - have endured for thousands of generations, whereas these dystopian, doublespeak "alternatives" won't endure for more than one (because imagine what colossal dysfunction will be produced in someone birthed by a pregnant "person" and then "chestfed" by their three male "parents"), and that is the point:

The "gender-free" movement directly and inevitably leads to the "human-free" future.

So I'm afraid the time may have come where we need to get over our terribly English sensitivities about the word, and commit to reminding people that they're not French tables (although God knows there's probably someone out there right now who identifies as one), they're humans with a sex, not a gender.

It's not going too far to say that the very future of civilisation itself may depend upon it.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.