Skip to content

Sex Essentialism as Morally Inferior to Sex Erasure

September 30, 2009

I am a sex essentialist.  No matter what sex one is born, whether female, intersex, or male, that is the sex one shall be from that day until death.

This simple recognition seems to go willfully overlooked where it isn’t outright violently rejected.  These days, the queers twist the public declaration of sex essentialism into support for their female-hating, gender-loving drugs and butcheries, but this leap to exploit (parasitism) has no foundation in reason.  The fact that sex is immutable has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that some people wish to mutilate their bodies.  No matter how many people wish to hack off their body parts, and no matter how much these people frame this urge as being a “desire to change sex,” it doesn’t change the fact that sex is indeed immutable.

So, why do the queers assert that the two facts – immutability of sex, and existence of self-mutilating people – somehow contradict one another?  And, how is it that they have been able to convince others that their lapse in logic is brilliance?

It basically boils down to misogyny.  Because it serves female-hating purposes to say that mutilated males – who’ve always existed and who at most points in history happily called themselves eunuchs and embraced non-female categorization – are now, all of a sudden, for the first time in history actually only motivated by a desire to “change sex,” they have simply said it’s so.  Whatever the male hegemony says becomes “truth.”  With this new “truth,” the historical role of mutilated males, as overseers of higher-status, intact males’ female chattel, is obscured, even as it continues.  As is the fashion of contemporary Western male supremacy, women here are presented the opportunity to “choose” their own oppression, resulting in a much more compliant and docile female populace.  In this case, women can “choose” to be “tolerant” and “inclusive,” and accept the oversight of eunuchs in their spaces, or they can be cast out as “bigots” for refusing it.

What sex essentialism means, politically, is the refusal of non-female presence, input, and supervision.  Males deliberately conflate sex essentialism with gender essentialism in order to exploit women’s socialization to seek moral superiority, the only superiority ever granted freely and routinely to female people.  This new morality has kept women scared of the word ‘essentialist’, when we should be embracing it.  Women have been so indoctrinated to accept male notions of “goodness” and “badness” that most of us will not pursue our own freedom from slavery just for the simple fact that it means being a “bad” slave.

4 Comments
  1. Mary Sunshine permalink
    September 30, 2009 2:49 pm

    {{{ Margaret }}}, every word of this is so bloody brilliant.

    You’ve written a book in five paragraphs.

  2. September 30, 2009 3:46 pm

    I am a bad slave.

  3. September 30, 2009 4:37 pm

    Of course what you have said here will go over most heads. I’ve pondered why, many times. Surely, people cannot be that stupid. It is either downright stupidity or a willful ignorance. A willful ignorance that benefits the status quo. As long as they do not have to reconcile the fact that sex and gender is not the same thing, they do not have to explain their years of advocating illogical nonsense or stop being misogynist.

  4. Level Best permalink
    September 30, 2009 7:58 pm

    You said “the word” and not only said it but claimed it. Those horrified by these facts should ask themselves why.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: