Why Your “Female Brain” Doesn’t Matter

I am currently exhausted by the number of articles floating around out there on the Internet by MtFs who claim that some mysterious, unproven chemical anomaly has definitely occurred in their brains that makes them women.

They usually produce some laundry list of random studies that indicate things like female babies look at faces more than male babies do, that women have larger prefrontal cortexes, that certain hormone washes in utero feminize the fetus brain, et cetera. I’m not going to link these articles because their intents, observations and conclusions have nothing to do with transgenderism one way or the other and none of their authors ever claimed they did.

Often, the rebuttal to these arguments is that studies about brain differences fail to account for nurture versus nature and are inconclusive. And that’s true, and worth pointing out. But I think it misses the point a bit. Because even if these studies were inarguably true (and that’s a big “if”), that wouldn’t make a man a woman.

Let’s take a look at some of the giant leaps of logic that are happening when a MtF uses these studies as evidence that he is a woman.

  1. That he, himself, is a person for whom these “brain differences” apply. That he looked at faces more when he was a baby. That he has a larger prefrontal cortex. That he knows the exact hormonal makeup of his mom’s prenatal fluid before he was born, and that it was definitely the kind of fluid proposed to feminize an infant’s brain.Guess what? These suppositions are one hundred percent invented, and I’ll bet you $100 none of them are true. They were latched onto to support a pet theory, which is inherently anti-scientific. If diagnostic tests were available to confirm or deny such physical anomalies, would the average MtF run and get them done? I doubt it, because he knows in his heart he won’t be able to count on the results. And if he did get those tests done, and the tests came out negative for “feminization”, would he abandon his assertion that he’s a woman? I doubt that too. Because it was never really about evidence, was it?
  2. That a male who looked at faces when he was a baby, or has a large prefrontal cortex, or who was awash in a particular hormone bath at conception, is anything but an outlier.If a study happens to prove that female babies look at faces more often than male babies do, it means just that. Females do it more often. Males do it less often. Not that males who do it are females.

    Sickle-cell anemia is more common in African Americans. However, if a white person turns up with it, that doesn’t mean he’s really black. Hemophilia is more common in males, but if a female has it, that doesn’t mean she’s really male. The early twenties are the most common age to develop schizophrenia, but if an older person gets it, that doesn’t mean he just defied physics and shaved twenty years off his age.

    Sometimes males look at faces a lot.

  3. That deviating from the average in regards to sex differences, assuming someone does, justifies his being treated as the other sex.Let’s just suppose for a moment that you were born male and you have a really large prefrontal cortex. That prefrontal cortex of yours will not cause you to need a tampon or to need to sit down to pee; thus there’s no reason, logistically, why you need to use a women’s restroom.

    You don’t belong in the women’s restroom for safety reasons, either, as you have more in common with those you purport to hide from than those you identify with. Your early face-watching propensities, if they existed, did not prevent you from being socialized male, from going through male puberty, and from having a penis. Men commit 90% of the world’s violent crime and 98% of its sexual crime, and neither your sex-atypical characteristics nor even your eventual transition, if it occurs, causes you to statistically deviate from that pattern. So we need protection from you in women’s shelters and prisons and restrooms at least as much as we need protection from other men.

    Your hormone wash didn’t prevent you from being 15% larger than we are, from having different metabolism and bone density and hip shape, and from being capable of crushing us in sports. So you don’t belong on female sports teams.

The fact is, we both agree on what you are. The only thing we disagree on is what’s the appropriate word for your condition.

We both know that you’re a person who was born with a penis who now holds some brain state or other that makes you wish you’d been born with a vagina.

You believe the appropriate word for that condition is “woman,” and you have one reason: you believe your human rights include others’ recognizing the supremacy of your brain state over your physicality. This is literally your only reason; you’ll label any other proposed criteria as harmful “gatekeeping.” Your reason is ideological, not physical, so reference to sex difference studies is disingenuous.

I believe the appropriate word for that condition is “man” (dysphoric man, sure). While I’d also like to protect my human rights, they don’t motivate my definition. My definition has been used for centuries and is still used in the entire rest of the animal kingdom, further suggesting that the change in the definition of “woman” was motivated by political ideology and not reality or science. A man is an adult male, a person with XY chromosomes, a person born with the reproductive organs that produce sperm.

But even if we got more esoteric, there would be hundreds of additional reasons to categorize you as a man.

Why do you suppose that only around 3% of the born-female population is lesbian, while well over half of MtFs prefer women? Because your sexual orientation is typical for a male.

While (natal) lesbians have the lowest HIV rate, MtFs have the highest. That’s due to a male-on-male transmission risk.

You don’t need hormonal birth control. You can’t get pregnant. You don’t menstruate. You’ll never consider getting an abortion. You’ll never need a pap smear (even if you’re post-op). You won’t bear a child and you likely won’t nurse a baby, although the latter is theoretically possible for men. Your risks include (or used to include) scrotal and prostrate cancer. It bears noting that we’re jumping through an awful lot of hoops to preserve our illusion that expectant mothers are “pregnant people” and “uterus bearers” instead of women. What is language for, if not to speak of categories in a way that makes sense and that describes how they actually affect our lives, instead of in a way that’s tortured?

Talk of the “cotton ceiling” and “misgendering” is cringeworthy, but telling. Why do you suppose people are having such a hard time accepting you as women? Could the roadblocks to complete acceptance stem from reality instead of bigotry? Does it matter at all that people don’t think of you as women, but are having to work at pretending they do? Does this suggest an underlying reality with maleness and femaleness that becomes exhausting to hide? That prevails, despite the best efforts of so many to be politically correct?

For most of you, your height is male. Your weight is male. Your shoulders and hips and hands and adam’s apples are male. We can certainly perform the required mental gymnastics to admit that some women are shaped differently from others and pretend that that’s why a given MtF looks like a man. But mental gymnastics they will be. When it’s time to cross to the other side of the street while walking home late at night, we can tell. And it’s important to our safety that we can tell, and it always has been. And we’re telling ourselves and often each other the truth about why we’re crossing the street, even if you’ve bullied us into not admitting it to you. Because we still have to maneuver our lives and get our business done and that includes facing the many implications of maleness and femaleness. We still have to do this, despite an attempted redefinition of what sexual orientation is, despite laws coercing actions around restrooms and pronouns, despite make-up and clothing and affectations.

We’re surprised when we read stories about “women” who break into houses and ejaculate in underwear drawers, molest children or murder their spouses. Then, when we learn the perpetrators were born male, we’re not surprised anymore. Because the words “woman” and “man” mean something.

And it’s important to the healthy development of our young female children that they get the opportunity to compete in sports and win games and earn scholarships without being outcompeted by men for all the usual reasons women are outcompeted by men.

And it’s important for the healing of women abused by men to have a respite from men.

I could go on forever about the ways in which it makes sense to recognize the existence of men. Or I could just point out that people of every kind already recognize men quite well every moment of every day, and already evaluate and respond to them accordingly, because we have to, because it makes sense to, because it’s nothing more than tortured pretense to do otherwise.


40 thoughts on “Why Your “Female Brain” Doesn’t Matter

  1. Thanks for this powerful article and the links, especially the pdf of the famous work of C. Dhejne et al. (2011).

    Here is an article showing some “gender critical” trans-women who don’t think of themselves as real women,

    In the article “Helen Highwater” is quoted saying,
    [the idea that] “trans women are women” … primes trans women for failure, disappointment, and cognitive dissonance… [it is] a “vicious lie…. that sets us up to be triggered every time we are called he, or ‘guys’ or somebody dares to suggest that we have male biology, … Even a cursory glance from a stranger can cut to our very core. The very foundations of our self-worth are fragile.”

    although they still prefer to be called by feminine pronouns. And here is Helen’s very interesting post on tumblr (Oct 2015)

    This debate should not be as politicized as it has been.
    It’s a matter of common sense and respect from person to person, not politics.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Below is a presentation by Eastern College Christian and Gender Scholar psychology professor Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen which talks about how much abundant consistent psychological research studies find few gender differences,and much more overlap similarities between them.

      Trinity 2007

      Opposite Sexes or Neighboring Sexes?
      C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and
      the Psychology of Gender

      Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen

      Gender and Modern Social Science

      C. S. Lewis was no fan of the emerging social sciences. He saw practitioners of the social sciences mainly as lackeys of technologically-minded natural scientists, bent on reducing individual freedom and moral accountability to mere epiphenomena of natural processes (See Lewis 1943 and 1970 b). And not surprisingly (given his passion for gender-essentialist archetypes), aside from a qualified appreciation of some aspects of Freudian psychoanalysis (See Lewis 1952 (Book III, Chapter 4) and 1969). “Carl Jung was the only philosopher [sic] of the Viennese school for whose work [Lewis] had much respect” (Sayer 102).

      But the social sciences concerned with the psychology of gender have since shown that Sayers was right, and Lewis and Jung were wrong: women and men are not opposite sexes but neighboring sexes—and very close neighbors indeed. There are, it turns out, virtually no large, consistent sex differences in any psychological traits and behaviors, even when we consider the usual stereotypical suspects: that men are more aggressive, or just, or rational than women, and women are more empathic, verbal, or nurturing than men.

      When differences are found, they are always average—not absolute—differences. And in virtually all cases the small, average—and often decreasing—difference between the sexes is greatly exceeded by the amount of variability on that trait within members of each sex. Most of the “bell curves” for women and men (showing the distribution of a given psychological trait or behavior) overlap almost completely. So it is naïve at best (and deceptive at worst) to make even average—let alone absolute—pronouncements about essential archetypes in either sex when there is much more variability within than between the sexes on all the trait and behavior measures for which we have abundant data.

      This criticism applies as much to C. S. Lewis and Carl Jung as it does to their currently most visible descendent, John Gray, who continues to claim (with no systematic empirical warrant) that men are from Mars and women are from Venus (Gray 1992).

      And what about Lewis’s claims about the overriding masculinity of God? Even the late Carl Henry (a theologian with impeccable credentials as a conservative evangelical) noted a quarter of a century ago that:Masculine and feminine elements are excluded from both the Old Testament and New Testament doctrine of deity. The God of the Bible is a sexless God. When Scripture speaks of God as “he” the pronoun is primarily personal (generic) rather than masculine (specific); it emphasizes God’s personal nature—and, in turn, that of the Father, Son and Spirit as Trinitarian distinctions in contrast to impersonal entities… Biblical religion is quite uninterested in any discussion of God’s masculinity or femininity… Scripture does not depict God either as ontologically masculine or feminine. (Henry 1982, 159–60)

      However well-intentioned, attempts to read a kind of mystical gendering into God—whether stereotypically masculine, feminine, or both—reflect not so much careful biblical theology as “the long arm of Paganism” (Martin 11). For it is pagan worldviews, the Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna reminds us, that are “unable to conceive of any primal creative force other than in terms of sex… [In Paganism] the sex element existed before the cosmos came into being and all the gods themselves were creatures of sex. On the other hand, the Creator in Genesis is uniquely without any female counterpart, and the very association of sex with God is utterly alien to the religion of the Bible” (Sarna 76).

      And if the God of creation does not privilege maleness or stereotypical masculinity, neither did the Lord of redemption. Sayers’s response to the cultural assumption that women were human-not-quite-human has become rightly famous:Perhaps it is no wonder that women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for beingfemale; who had no axe to grind or no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is not act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel which borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about women’s nature. (Sayers 1975, 46)

      It is quite likely that Lewis’s changing views on gender owed something to the intellectual and Christian ties that he forged with Dorothy L. Sayers. And indeed, in 1955—two years before her death, Lewis confessed to Sayers that he had only “dimly realised that the old-fashioned way… of talking to all young women was v[ery] like an adult way of talking to young boys. It explains,” he wrote, “not only why some women grew up vapid, but also why others grew up (if we may coin the word) viricidal [i.e., wanting to kill men]” (Lewis 2007, 676; Lewis’s emphasis). The Lewis who in his younger years so adamantly had defended the doctrine of gender essentialism was beginning to acknowledge the extent to which gendered behavior is socially conditioned. In another letter that same year, he expressed a concern to Sayers that some of the first illustrations for the Narnia Chronicles were a bit too effeminate. “I don’t like either the ultra feminine or the ultra masculine,” he added. “I prefer people” (Lewis 2007, 639; Lewis’s emphasis).

      Dorothy Sayers surely must have rejoiced to read this declaration. Many of Lewis’s later readers, including myself, wish that his shift on this issue had occurred earlier and found its way into his better-selling apologetic works and his novels for children and adults. But better late than never. And it would be better still if those who keep trying to turn C. S. Lewis into an icon for traditionalist views on gender essentialism and gender hierarchy would stop mining his earlier works for isolated proof-texts and instead read what he wrote at every stage of his life.

      Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen is Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.

      This essay originally was presented as the Tenth Annual Warren Rubel Lecture on Christianity and Higher Learning at Valparaiso University on 1 February 2007.

      The Cresset


      Evans, C. Stephen. Wisdom and Humanness in Psychology: Prospects for a Christian Approach. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
      Gray, John. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
      Hannay, Margaret. C. S. Lewis. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981.
      Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. V. Waco, Texas: Word, 1982.
      Lewis, C. S. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.
      _____. The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964.
      _____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. I: 1905–1931. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2004a.
      _____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: 1931–1949. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2004b.
      _____. “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,”[1952] Reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed., Walter Hooper, 22–34. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
      _____. “Priestesses in the Church?” [1948]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 234–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970a.
      _____. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,”[1954]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 287–300. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970b.
      _____. “Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism,”[1942]. Reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper, 286–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969.
      _____. [N. W. Clerk, pseudo.] A Grief Observed. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
      _____. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.
      _____. Till We Have Faces. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956.
      _____. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. London: Collins, 1955.
      _____. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952.
      _____. That Hideous Strength. London: John Lane the Bodley Head, 1945.
      _____. The Abolition of Man. Oxford: Oxford University, 1943.
      _____. A Preface to Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University, 1942.
      The Cresset
      _____. Perelandra. London: The Bodley Head, 1942.
      Martin, Faith. “Mystical Masculinity: The New Question Facing Women,” Priscilla Papers, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 1998), 6–12.
      Reynolds, Barbara. Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul. New York: St. Martins, 1993.
      Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1966.
      Sayer, George. Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.
      Sayers, Dorothy L. “The Human-Not-Quite-Human,”[1946]. Reprinted in Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women
      Human?, 37–47. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1975.
      Sayers, Dorothy L. Gaudy Night. London: Victor Gollancz, 1935.
      Sterk, Helen. “Gender and Relations and Narrative in a Reformed Church Setting.” In After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation, ed., Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, 184–221. Grand Rapids:

      Eerdmans, 1993.
      Copyright © 2007 Valparaiso University Press http://www.valpo.edu/cresset




      A Sword between the Sexes?: C. S. Lewis and the Gender Debates


      Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen – 2010 – ‎Religion

      C. S. Lewis and the Gender Debates Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen … indicates that women and men, boys and girls, are overwhelmingly more alike than different.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In these extensive studies by psychologist Dr. Janet Shibley Hyde and others that is still on the American Psychological Association’s web site since 2006 and that was published in American psychologist the journal of The American Psychological Association,Think Again:Men and women Share Cognitive Skills.

      It’s reported that Psychologists have gathered solid evidence that boys or girls or men and women differ in very few significant ways– differences that would matter in school or at work–in how,and how well they think.


      Liked by 1 person

    • I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Identity

      They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.

      They also show that surveys show that boys are overwhelmingly preferred over girls,(sadly nothing has changed and sexist woman-hating,girl-hating Tee shirts that say( I’m Too Pretty For Homework So I Let My Brother Do It For Me) (and other sexist anti-female ads,pornography,etc do too) like these both reflect and contribute to this injustice.They also explain that when people guess if a pregnant woman is having a girl or a boy,and they list a whole bunch of false unproven sexist, gender myth,gender stereotyped,old wives tales,that assign all negative characteristics to a woman if they think she’s having a girl,and the imagined girls or given all of the negative characteristics.

      For example they say that author Elana Belotti(1977) explained these examples, The man and woman each take hold of one end of a wishbone and pull it apart.If the longest part comes away in the man’s hand,the baby will be a boy. If you suddenly ask a pregnant woman what she has in her hand and she looks at her right hand first ,she will have a boy;if she looks at her left hand it will be a girl.If the mother’s belly is bigger on the right-hand side a boy will be born,and also if her right breast is bigger than her left,or if her right foot is more restless.

      If a woman is placid during pregnancy she will have a boy,but if she is bad-tempered or cries a lot,she will have a girl.If her complexion is rosy she’s going to have a son;if she is pale a daughter. If her looks improve,she’s expecting a boy;if they worsen,a girl.If the fetal heartbeat is fast,it is a boy;if it is slow it is a girl.If the fetus has started to move by the fortieth day it will be a boy and the birth will be easy,but if it doesn’t move until the ninetieth day it will be a girl.( Belotti 1977,pp.22-23)

      Dr.Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Matthews then say, now rate each of the characteristics above as positive or negative. A woman expecting a girl is pale,her looks deteriorate,she is cross and ill-tempered,and she gets the short end of the wishbone,all negative characteristics. They then say,furthermore ,a girl is symbolized by the left-the left hand,the left side of the belly,the left foot,the left breast. They say,left connotes evil,a bad omen,or sinister,again the girls have all of the negative characteristics.

      They then say,that sex-role stereotypes about activity also characterize Belotti’s recipes:boys are believed to be active from the very beginning and girls have slower heartbeats and begin to move around later.They then say,the message although contradictory(girls cause more trouble even though they are more passive) is clear in that it reflects the sex-role stereotype that boys “do” while girls “are” and the belief that boys are more desirable than girls.

      They also say that parents have gender stereotyped reasons for wanting a girl or a boy,obviously if they didn’t it wouldn’t matter if it’s a girl or boy.When my first cousin was pregnant with her first of two girls people even strangers said such false ridiculous things to her,that they were sure she was going to have a boy because she was carrying low or how stomach looked.

      I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that’s due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.

      I know that many scientists know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different environments too and Eastern College gender and Christian psychology professor Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen told this to me too when I spoke to her 15 years ago. Dr.Van Leeuwen also said that human beings don’t have sex fixed in the brain and she told me that humans have a unique highly developed cerebral cortex that allows us to make choices in our behaviors and we can learn things that animals can’t.

      There was another case in Canada that I read about online some years ago about another case in which a normal genetic male baby’s penis was destroyed when he was an infant and in this case he was raised as a girl from the much younger age of only 7 months old,not as late as 21 months as was David Reimer,and research shows that the core gender identity is learned by as early as 18 months old.

      In this other case,it was reported in 1998 he was still living as a woman in his 20’s but a bisexual woman. With David Reimer they raised him as a girl too late after he learned most of his gender identity as a boy from the moment he was born and put into blue clothes, treated totally differently, given gender stereotyped toys, perceived and treated totally differently than girls are in every way(in the great book,He and She:How Children Develop Their Sex Role Identity it explains that a lot of research studies and tests by parent child psychologists found that they give 3 month old babies gender stereotyped toys long before they are able to develop these kinds of preferences or ask for these toys. They also found that when adults interacted with the same exact baby they didn’t know was a girl or boy who was dressed in gender neutral clothes,they decided if they *believed* it was a girl or boy.

      And those adults who thought the baby was a boy,always handed the baby a toy foot ball ,but never a doll and they never gave an infant they perceived to be a girl a toy football, were asked what made them think it was a girl or boy and they said they used characteristics of the baby to make the judgement . Those who thought the baby was a boy described characteristics such as strength,those who thought the baby was a girl described the baby as having softness and fragility,and as the Dr.Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Mathews explain,Again remember that the same infant was being characterized as strong or soft,the actual distinction by sex characteristics being only in the minds of the adults.

      They also explain that in the toy preference studies,girl toddlers often show an initial interest in the trucks,but eventually abandon them for a more familiar type of toy. Also check out Kate Bornstein’s books,Gender Outlaw and My Gender Workbook,and recently a co-written book,Gender Outlaws. Kate used to be a heterosexual married man who fathered a daughter and then had a sex change and became a lesbian woman who now doesn’t identity as a man or a woman. I heard Kate interview in 1998 on a local NPR show and she totally debunks gender myths,and rejects the “feminine” and “masculine” categories as the mostly socially constructed categories that they really are.She even said,what does it mean to feel or think like a woman(or man) she said what does that really mean.


    • January 2015 major study of over 100 meta analysis and of 12 million people by two male and female psychology professor found what many other psychologists over decades have found,that the sexes are more alike than different in most areas psychologically including personality.It is published in American psychologist the journal of The American psychological Association


      Liked by 1 person

    • Radio interview with psychology professor Dr.Zlatan Krizan of Iowa State University Zlatan Krizan and cultural anthropology professor Emily Wentzell( who rightfully points out how clothes and toys for the sexes are much more gender stereotyped than they were 30 years ago) discuss the findings of the recent extensive gender study that found the sexes are 80% more alike than different.


      Liked by 1 person

    • Below is an email I wrote to Oxford University Gender communication professor Deborah Cameron author of the great important book,The Myth Of Mars and Venus Do Men and women Really Speak Different Languages?.

      Dear Deborah,

      I recently read your great important book, The Myth Of Mars & Venus. I read a bad review of the book, The Female Brain on Amazon.com US by psychologist David H.Perterzell he called it junk science.

      I also thought you would want to know that John Gray got his “Ph.D” from Columbia Pacific University which was closed down in March 2001 by the California Attorney General’s Office because he called it a diploma mill and a phony operation offering totally worthless degrees!

      Also there is a Christian gender and psychology scholar and author psychology professor Dr. Mary Stewart Van Leewuen who teaches the psychology and Philosophy of Gender at the Christian College Eastern College in Pa. She has several online presentations that were done at different colleges from 2005- the present debunking the Mars & Venus myth.

      One is called , Opposite Sexes Or Neighboring Sexes and sometimes adds, Beyond The Mars/Venus Rhetoric in which she explains that all of the large amount of research evidence from the social and behavorial sciences shows that the sexes are very close neighbors and that there are only small average differences between them many of which have gotten even smaller over the last several decades and in her great even longer article that isn’t online anymore called,What Do We Mean By “Male-Female Complentarity”? A Review Of Ronald W.Pierce,Rebecca M.Groothuis,and Gordon D.Fee,eds Discovering Biblical Equality:Complentarity Without Hierarchy, which she says happened after 1973 when gender roles were less rigid and that genetic differences can’t shrink like this and in such a short period of time, and that most large differences that are found are between individual people and that for almost every trait and behavior there is a large overlap between them and she said so it is naive at best and deceptive at worst to make claims about natural sex differences. etc.

      She says he claims Men are From Mars & Women are From Venus with no empirical warrant and that his claim gets virtually no support from the large amount of psychological and behavioral sciences and that in keeping in line with the Christian Ethic and with what a bumper sticker she saw said and evidence from the behavioral and social sciences is , Men Are From,Earth ,Women Are From Earth Get Used To It. Comedian George Carlin said this too.

      She also said that such dichotomous views of the sexes are apparently popular because people like simple answers to complex issues including relationships between men and women. She should have said especially relationships between them.She also said when I spoke wit her in 1998 and 1999 that human beings don’t have sex fixed in the brain,she said human beings adapt to their environments,and they develop certain characteristics in response to those environments but they are not fixed and unchangeable. Dr.Van Leeuwen also said that I’m correct that the human female and male brain is more alike than different and she said the brain is plastic and easily molded and shaped throughout life by different life experiences and environments.She said humans have a unique highly developed cerebral cortex which animals don’t and this enables people to learn things and make choices that animals can’t.

      Sociologist Dr.Michael Kimmel writes and talks about this also including in his Media Education Foundation educational video. And he explains that all of the evidence from the psychological and behavioral sciences indicates that women and men are far more alike than different. He also demonstrated with a lot of research studies and evidence from the behavioral and social sciences that the sexes are more alike than different in his very good 2000 book,The Gendered Society which he updated several times in more extensive academic volumes called,The Gendered Society Reader.

      Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen says that there are no consistent large psychological sex differences found.

      I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity.

      They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.

      I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that’s due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.

      I know that many scientists(the good responsible ones) know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different life time environments.

      Also there are 2 great online rebuttals of the Mars & Venus myth by Susan Hamson called, The Rebuttal From Uranus and Out Of The Cave: Exploring Gray’s Anatomy by Kathleen Trigiani.

      Also have you read the excellent book by social psychologist Dr.Gary Wood at The University of Birmingham called, Sex Lies & Stereotypes:Challenging Views Of Women, Men & Relationships? He clearly demonstrates with all of the research studies from psychology what Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen does, and he debunks The Mars & Venus myth and shows that the sexes are biologically and psychologically more alike than different and how gender roles and differences are mostly socially created and how they are very limiting and emotionally damaging to both sexes mental and physical health and don’t only allow are encourage them to become more than only a half of a person instead of a whole human person with all of our shared*human* qualities!

      Anyway, if you could write back when you have a chance I would
      really appreciate it.

      Thank You

      Liked by 1 person

    • There is an excellent online article that I printed out around 2002,by Jungian psychologist Dr.Gary S.Toub,called,Jung and Gender:Masculine and Feminine Revisited. On his site it now only has part of this article and it says you have to register to read the full article. I emailed Dr.Toub years ago and he wrote me back several nice emails,in one he said he really liked my letter,and that it was filled to the brim with excellent points and references.

      In this article he talks about what parts of Jungian thought he finds useful and what he finds problematic. The first thing he says he finds useful is, In the course of Jungian analysis, he often assists female clients to discover traditionally,masculine qualities in their psyche and that he likewise frequently assist male clients to recognize traditionally feminine qualities in their psyche. He says this process frees each gender from the straight-jacket of stereotyped sex roles and expands his clients identities. He then said that the process also mirrors and furthers the breakdown of male-female polarization in our culture,and the cultural shifts towards androgyny.

      He also says that most importantly, his practice of Jungian analysis places the greatest emphasis on facilitating his clients individuation process. He says this means that he tries to assist clients,male or female,to search for their authentic self-definition,distinct from society’s gender expectations.He also says that many Jungian definitions of masculine and feminine are narrow,outdated and sexist.
      He also says that he has found that generalizing about what is masculine and what is feminine is dangerous,often perpetuating gender myths that are discriminatory and damaging.He says while there is some research supporting biological roots to personality differences,the majority of studies suggest that much of what is considered masculine or feminine is culture determined.

      He also says that viewing masculine and feminine as complementary opposites,while useful at times,is problematic. He then says as his gay,lesbian, and transsexual clients have taught him,gender is more accurately viewed as encompassing a wide-ranging continuum. He then says that likewise,the more people he sees in his practice,the more he is impressed at the great diversity in human nature. He says he has seen men of all types and varieties,and women of all kinds. He then says,he is hard-pressed to come up with very many generalizations based on gender.He says he knows that there are some statistical patterns,but how useful are they when he works with individuals and in a rapidly changing society? He says if each person is unique,no statistical norm or average will be able to define who my client is.

      He then says,from a psychological perspective,men and women are not, in fact,opposite. He says his clinical experience is that they are much more psychologically alike than different,and the differences that exist are not necessarily opposing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Public release date: 4-Nov-1999 Print E-mail Share Contact: Penny Burge or Sharon Snowburge@vt.edu or ssnow@vt.edu Virginia Tech

      20-year-old sex-role research survey still valid

      BKSG, Va.

      ­ In the late 1970s, Penny Burge, director of Virginia Tech’s Women’s Center, was working on her doctoral dissertation at Penn State University researching the relationship between child-rearing sex-role attitudes and social issue sex-role attitudes among parents. As part of her research, Burge designed a 28-question survey in which respondents were asked to mark how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: “Only females should receive affectionate hugs as rewards,” “I would buy my son a doll,” and “I would be upset if my daughter wanted to play little league baseball.”

      Hard-hitting questions, many of them. But Burge carried on. She received her degree in 1979, and in 1981 her research findings were published in the Home Economics Research Journal.

      Among her findings were that respondents who named the mother as their child’s primary caretaker held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes than respondents who named both parents. In addition, those respondents who held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes also held more traditional social issue sex-role attitudes, and fathers were more conventional than mothers with respect to the issue of whether or not boys and girls should be raised differently.

      “We found that parents do cling to traditional sex-role attitudes,” Burge said. “It was more pronounced with male children where pressure to achieve was more intense.”

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=20 year old sex role survey &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-11/VT-2srs-041199.php&ei=4DpdUZPJJNjF4APjoIC4Bg&usg=AFQjCNH0qk3vBLLUIBJ_qvo807yhhm14JQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Feminine” and “masculine” are really *HUMAN* traits,thoughts,feelings and behaviors.

      And there is plenty of decades worth of great psychological research studies by many different psychologists as you know, that shows that the sexes are much more alike than different in most traits,abilities and behaviors with a very large overlap between them,and that most of the differences between them are really small average differences,many of which have shrunk even smaller,and they find much greater individual *people* differences! Biologically the sexes are more alike than different too! As comedian Elaine Boosler said in the 1980’s and she still does,I’m only a human being trapped in a woman’s body.

      Feminists(such as Robin Morgan,Janice Raymond,Gloria Steinem( she used to,and she was right about what she originally said!), Sheila Jeffreys etc) who have rightfully pointed this fact out,are not afraid of transsexuals or prejudiced against them,the issue is what I said it is. The only transsexual woman who actually debunks these common sexist gender myths,and gender stereotypes is Kate Bornstein author of Gender Outlaw:On Men,Women And The Rest Of Us,Gender Outlaws,My Gender Workbook etc. She was a heterosexual man who was married and had a daughter,then had a sex change and became a lesbian woman and then decided not to identify as a man or a woman.

      I heard Kate interviewed in 1998 on a local NPR show and she totally debunks gender myths,and rejects the “feminine” and “masculine” categories as the mostly socially constructed categories that they really are.She even said,what does it mean to feel or think like a woman(or man) she said what does that really mean.

      And as cultural anthropologist Roger Lancaster wrote in his introduction, in his very good 2003 book,The Trouble With Nature sex In Science when he’s talking about how scientists constantly search for a ”gay brain”,a ”gay gene” or ”gay intergovernmental” patterns. Roger came out as a gay man in college.

      He then says (One can hardly understate the naive literalism of present-day science on these matters: Scientists still look for the supposed anatomical attributes of the opposite sex embedded somewhere in the inverts brain or nervous system.) He then says and this notion now enjoys a second,third,and even fourth life in political discourses.He then says it is by appeal to such conceits that Aaron Hans,a Washington,D.C.- based transgender activist,reflects on his uncomfortable life as a girl:”I didn’t *think* I was a boy,I *knew* I was a boy.” He says,Hans elaborates: ”You look at pictures of me- I actually have great pictures of me in drag-and I literally look like a little boy in a dress.

      Roger then says,Far,far be it from me to cast doubt on anyone’s sense of discomfort with the ascribed gender roles.Nor would I question anyone’s sense that sexual identity is a deeply seated aspect of who they are .But testimonies of this sort and appeals to the self-evidence of perception beg the obvious question:Just what is a little boy or girl * supposed* to look like? The photograph that accompanies Han’s interview shows a somewhat robust girl.Is this to say that (real) girls are necessarily delicate and (real) boys athletic? He then says (If so,virtually all of my nieces are ”really” boys,since not a one of them is delicate or un presupposing)

      Roger then says,There is indeed something compelling about such intensely felt and oft- involved experiences-”I knew I was gay all along”; ”I felt like a girl” – but that compulsion belongs to the realm of outer culture,not nature.That is, if ”inappropriate” acts,feelings,body types,or desires seem to throw us into the bodies or minds other genders,it is because acts,feelings,and so on are associated with gender by dint of the same all-enveloping cultural logic that gives us pink blankets ( or caps,or crib cards,I.D. bracelets) for girls and blue for boys in maternity ward cribs.He then says,when we diverge one way or another from those totalizing associations,we feel-we really feel;in the depths of our being-”different”.Therein lies the basis for an existential opposition to the established order of gendered associations.

      Roger then says But therein also lies the perpetual trap: Every essentialist claim about the ”nature” of same sex desire in turn refers to and reinforces suppositions about the ”nature” of ”real” men and women (from whom the invert differs), about the ”naturalness” of their mutual attraction(demonstrated nowhere so much as in the inverts inversion),about the scope of their acts,feelings,body types,and so on( again, marked off by the deviation of the deviant). Aping the worst elements of gender/sexual conservatism,every such proposition takes culturally constituted meanings -the correlative associations of masculinity and femininity,active and passive,blue and pink- as ”natural facts”.

      Roger then says,In a twist as ironic as the winding of a double helix that goes first this way,then that,the search for gay identify gradually finds it’s closure in the normalcy of the norm as a natural law.In the end,I am not convinced of the basic suppositions here. I doubt that most men are unfamiliar with the sentiment given poetic form by Pablo Neruda:”It happens that I became tired of being a man. ”Even psychiatrists who treat ”gender dysphoria”- a slick term for rebellion against conventional gender roles -admit that at least 50% of children at some point exhibit signs of mixed or crossed gender identify or express a desire to be the ”opposite” sex. Roger has a note number to the reference in his notes section to a March 22,1994 New York Times article by Daniel Goleman called,The ‘Wrong’ Sex:A New Definition of Childhood Pain.

      Roger also says that the way the media reported the David Reimer case was very gender stereotyped and and biological deterministc.He also said that they raised him as a girl too late.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women

      Pub. Date: February 1999
      Publisher: MIT Press
      Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women

      by Virginia Valian

      Why do so few women occupy positions of power and prestige? Virginia Valian uses concepts and data from psychology, sociology, economics, and biology to explain the disparity in the professional advancement of men and women. According to Valian, men and women alike have implicit hypotheses about gender differences — gender schemas — that create small sex differences in characteristics, behaviors, perceptions, and evaluations of men and women. Those small imbalances accumulate to advantage men and disadvantage women. The most important consequence of gender schemas for professional life is that men tend to be overrated and women underrated. Valian’s goal is to make the invisible factors that retard women’s progress visible, so that fair treatment of men and women will be possible. The book makes its case with experimental and observational data from laboratory and field studies of children and adults, and with statistical documentation on men and women in the professions. The many anecdotal examples throughout provide a lively counterpoint.

      What People Are Saying

      The MIT Press

      Editorial Reviews

      From the Publisher

      Publishers Weekly

      Social psychologist Valian thinks that the Western world has gotten gender all wrong. “As social beings we tend to perceive the genders as alternatives to each other, as occupying opposite and contrasting ends of a continuum,” she writes, “even though the sexes are not opposite but are much more alike than they are different.” Indeed, despite nearly three decades of feminism, “gender schema”the assumption that masculine and feminine characteristics determine personality and ability continue to influence the expectations and thinking of most Americans. Just about everyone, Valian writes, assumes that men are independent, task-oriented and assertive, while women are tagged as expressive and nurturing. As such, women lag behind in many professions and continue to do the lion’s share of housework and child-rearing. Girls remain less attentive in math and science, while even women who attend medical school tend to steer themselves into “gender appropriate” slots such as family practice or pediatrics. Valian bases her findings on research conducted by social scientists in fields as disparate as psychology, education, sociology and economics, and the result is a work that is both scholarly and anecdotally rich. But it also posits concrete suggestions for changing the way we view the sexes, from stepped-up affirmative action programs, to timetables for rectifying gender-based valuations. Accessible and lively, Why So Slow? is a breakthrough in the discourse on gender and has great potential to move the women’s movement to a new, more productive phase. (Jan.)
      Product Details

      ISBN-13: 9780262720311
      Publisher: MIT Press
      Publication date: 2/5/1999
      Edition description: Reprint
      Pages: 421
      Sales rank: 726,586
      Table of Contents

      A Note on Method and Scope
      1 Gender Schemas at Work 1
      2 Gender Begins – and Continues – at Home 23
      3 Learning About Gender 47
      4 Biology and Behavior 67
      5 Biology and Cognition 81
      6 Schemas That Explain Behavior 103
      7 Evaluating Women and Men 125
      8 Effects on the Self 145
      9 Interpreting Success and Failure 167
      10 Women in the Professions 187
      11 Women in Academia 217
      12 Professional Performance and Human Values 251
      13 Affirmative Action and the Law 277
      14 Remedies 303
      Notes 333
      References 353
      Author Index 385
      Subject Index 393
      © 1997-2013 Barnesandnoble.com llc

      Liked by 1 person

    • In her very good important 1998 book,Why So Slow? The Advancement Of women, psychologist Virginia Valian says for parents who recognize and actively oppose the limitations of gender schemas matters are more complex she demonstrates clearly that many studies have shown that even parents who say they are egalitarian and who do encourage their children especially girls to consider a wide range of possible occupations and that encouragement influences the children’s aspirations.She then says but without realizing it on the other hand,they are affected by gender schemas,dressing their children in ways appropriate to their gender.

      She then says that their egalitarian beliefs prevent such parents from perceiving that they do encourage gender-specific patterns and from seeing how closely their children conform to the norm.She then says that gender schemas are powerful cultural forces and that adults cannot simply abandon them especially when they are unaware that they hold them and they too conform to them in such matters of dress.On another page she says that everyone,it appears is likely to be affected deeply and nonconsciously by their culture’s view of what it means to be male and female.Then she says that even people who consciously espouse egalitarian beliefs do not realize how profoundly they have internalized the culture’s norms and applied them to their children.

      She then says that there is wide implicit consensus across income level,education,and sex about the core features of gender schemas and for these features parents are much more alike than they are different.She then says regardless of demographic variables,most subscribe to basic gender norms ,dress gender stereotypically themselves,and unwittingly treat their children gender-stereotypically.Then she says parents who actively endorse gender schemas or are unaware of the impact of gender schemas on their perceptions and interpretations,perceive children as gendered from birth and treat them accordingly.

      She also says that studies show that even parents who deliberately try to rear their children nonstereotypically are subject to the influence of gender schemas.She says a study of six year olds for example compared children whose mothers explicitly tried to bring them up in gender-neutral ways with children whose mothers had conventional attitudes about gender roles. And that when independent observers who were unaware of the parents beliefs rated the children’s clothes as masculine or feminine the ratings showed that the boys and girls in both types of families were dressed according to gender norms.She explains that the mothers who were committed to gender equality however saw their children’s clothes as less gender-stereotypical even though they were not.

      She shows how parents perceive and treat their daughters and sons so differently from the moment they are born and she says in chapter 1 called Gender Schemas At work that gender schemas oversimplify and that masculine and feminine traits are not opposites of each other and they are not contradictory and that everyone has both to some degree and expresses different traits in different situations.She then says that differences exist, but the sexes are more alike than they are different and she says it is easy to lose sight of that reality,even though most differences between the sexes are small.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In 2014 Psychologist Dr.Janet Shibley Hyde updated her 2005 major meta analysis that found that the sexes are more alike than different in 80% of their psychological traits,behaviors and abilities including personality.In this 2014 article by Curt Rice he says that by the end of her article Gender Similarities and Differences,she has you convinced that the sexes are more similar in almost every way.


      Liked by 1 person

    • Very Interesting Smithsonian Magazine article about Franklin Roosevelt & boys then were dressed in dresses,long hair,hats & Mary Jane shoes and boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue which just goes to show how artificially socially constructed all of this is!

      This very interesting important article is about how dressing children in gender stereotyped clothes is a fairly recent thing,and that president Franklin Roosevelt was dressed as a little boy in a dress,holding a big hat,with long wavy hair and in Mary jane type shoes!


      Liked by 1 person

    • John Lennon is a great example of people can change and are not fixed to be a certain way as a man or a woman.Yoko changed John into a much better person as a pro-feminist man and the feminist changes *are* for the better, and many pro-feminist men have recognized this too! They say it has freed them and allowed them to develop and express more of all of the shared common *human* traits,emotions,behaviors,abilities and reduce and prevent male violence against women and children etc. Definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” differ across time periods, and in different societies.

      John Lennon is a great example of how feminism changing limited artificial gender definitions and roles,changed him for the much better. John as a child and teenager had a lot of traumas that permanently psychologically damaged him,but because of his and Yoko’s beautiful loving relationship,and as he said she was a feminist before he met her,(and he said that because she was a feminist before he met her,they were going to have to have a 50/50 equal relationship which he never had before) he went in to primal scream therapy and Yoko went with him and he dealt with all of his pain and anger for the very first time at age 29.

      When John was a young guy,he was often drunk getting into fist fights with men,hitting women,and womanizing including cheating on his girlfriends and then his first wife Cynthia.Of course Paul,George and Ringo did the same with all of the groupies all 4 of them had while touring from 1963-1966. I hadn’t watched these Mike Douglas shows in years until December 2010 when it was the 30th anniversary of John’s tragic crazy murder.

      Out of the 5 Mike Douglas shows that John and Yoko co-hosted for a week that was taped in January 1972 and aired in February,a young criminal lawyer Rena Uviller(she went on to become a Supreme Court Judge) who worked with juveniles was on, and she,Mike Douglas,John and Yoko were discussing the then very recent women’s liberation movement. George Carlin was on too.

      Rena said,she agrees with Yoko,that the idea of Women’s lib is to liberate all of us,and she said ,I mean we could talk hours on the way men really suffer under the sex role definitions.Yoko agreed with what she said too. Rena said that men don’t really realize they have only to gain from Women’s Lib,and that she thinks that maybe with a little more propaganda we can convince them.

      John then said,yeah there is a lot to gain from it,just the fact that you can relax and not have to play that male role,he said we can do that,and he said that I can be weak,( but notice how then in a male dominated gender divided,gender stereotyped,sexist society,and even unfortunately still now in a lot of ways,the “female” role was defined as the weak one,and the male role as the strong one) I don’t have to protect her all the time and play you know that super hero,I don’t have to play that,she allows me to be weak sometimes and for me to cry,and for her to be the strong one,and for me to be the weak one. John then said,and it really is a great relief,after 28 years of trying to be tough,you know trying to show them,I don’t give a da*n and I’m this and I’m that,to be able to relax.and just be able to say,OK I’m no tough guy forget it.

      Rena then said,I think in some funny way,I think girls even as children,have a greater lattitude because a little girl can be sort of frilly and feminine or she can be a tomboy and it’s acceptable,but a little boy if he’s not tossing that football,there’s a lot of pressure on him.John said,there’s a lot of pressure,not to show emotion,and he said that there was a lot of pressure on me not to be an artist,to be a chemist and he said he discussed this on another Mike Douglas episode.

      Rena said that unfortunately some of the leaders in the Women’s Liberation movement fall victim to being spokesmen,for Women’s Lib, and yet at least in public personality they seem to really have a certain amount of contempt for the hair curled housewife and there is a kind of sneering contempt,and she said I think it’s a measure of their own lack of liberation.And Yoko said it’s snobbery,and Rena said yeah,they really don’t like other women,but I’m sympathetic,and Mike Douglas then said a sexist woman-hating statement,saying,well women don’t like other women period.Rena said,no see that’s very unliberated and Yoko said, in response to what Mike Douglas said,that’s not true,that’s not true.And John said,you see they are brought up to compete with men.

      Yoko said that even though in Japan they say they don’t have much of a woman problem and women already had some liberation,there is still a long way to go that she really agrees with Rena that so many female liberation movement people basically hate women,and we have to first start to understand women and love them whether they are housewives or not,and she said that snobbery is very bad and we have to somehow find out a way to co-existing with men,and she asked Rena don’t you think so and she said most definitely. George Carlin said,that actually many successful women are acting out male roles just like a lot of blacks think they escaped are acting out white roles.John also said that he thinks that women have to try twice as hard as to make it as men,and he said you know they have to be on their toes much more than a man.

      On another Mike Douglas episode from the same week,former actress and acclaimed film maker Barbara Loden was on and Yoko had requested her as a guest.John asked her ,Did you have any problems working with the men,you know like giving them instructions and things like that and Barbara said,I did, but I think it was because I was afraid that they would not accept what I said,and I wasn’t quite that authoritative in my own self.John said it’s certainly a brave thing to do,and Yoko said it is.

      Mike Douglas asked Yoko if John’s attitude had changed much towards her since The Female Liberation Movement,and at first Yoko says John’s attitude from the beginning was the same,and that they met on that level.John then says,twice, I was a male chauvinist and Yoko says,yes he was a male chauvinist but,and then John says,Can I say how you taught me,and Yoko says yes.John says,How I did it in my head was,would I ask Paul or George,or would I treat them the way I would treat a woman? John then said,it’s a very simple thing maybe it’s fetch that or do that ,and I started thinking if I said that to them,they’d say come on get it yourself,and if you put your wife or your girl friend in the position of your best friend,and say now would I say that to him,then you know when you’re treading on some delicate feelings.

      Mike Douglas said years later that after this week of John and Yoko co-hosting his show,many young people who had never watched his show before,(and his main audience was middle America and people older than their 20’s and even mostly their 30’s) told him they loved the show,and that it was great and his ratings went up high for those shows.Even if John didn’t always live up to his feminist ideals and beliefs in his personal life,(although he did with Yoko because of her and this why and how he emotionally evolved into a caring,nurturing,house husband and father to Yoko and Sean),just the fact that he spoke out as a man in support of the feminist movement on a popular TV show back in early 1972 when most of the sexist male dominated woman-hating society looked down at it and considered it crazy which in some ways it’s still unfortunately wrongly misunderstood(and it’s really the male dominated,sexist,woman-hating society that has always been so wrong and crazy!),and the fact that John was (and still is) greatly admired and influential to many young people male and female,he did *a lot* to legitimize it and show it was rational,reasonable,needed and right!

      A few months later he was performing Woman Is The Ni**er Of The World on The Dick Cavett Show and then months after that live in Madison Square Garden.In his very last radio interview done by Dave Sholin etc from RKO Radio just hours before he was tragically shot and killed, John said I’m more feminist now than I was when I sang Woman Is The N**ger,I was intellectually feminist then but now I feel as though at least I’ve put not my own money,but my body where my mouth is and I’m living up to my own preachings as it were.

      He also said what is this BS men are this way, women are that way,we’re all human.He had also said that he comes from the macho school of pretense of course *all* men really are they are just too conditioned all of their lives to realize and admit it.And he said that men are trained to be like they are in the army,and that it’s more like that in England but he knows it’s this way over here too,he said that they are taught as boys and men don’t react,don’t feel,don’t cry,and he said he thinks that’s what screwed us all up and that he thinks it’s time for a change.

      Barbara Graystark of Newsweek interviewed John September 1980 and part of what she said to John is,You’ve come a long way from the man who wrote at 23,”Women should be obscene rather than heard.” And she asks John how did this happen? And John said that he was a working-class macho guy who was used to being served and Yoko didn’t buy that. John then said that from the day he met Yoko,she demanded equal time,equal space,equal rights. He said that he said to Yoko then,don’t expect him to change in any way and don’t impinge on his space. John said that Yoko said to him then she can’t be here because there’s no space where you are everything revolves around him and that she can’t breath in that atmosphere. John then says in this interview that he’s thankful to her for the (meaning feminist) education.


      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike Douglas also said to John and Yoko, You’re both so different, you had such different childhoods. John said, it’s incredible isn’t it? Yoko said, Yes! Mike asked, What do you think has attracted you to each other? Yoko said, We’re very similar. John then said, She came from a Japanese upper-middle class family. Her parents were bankers and all that jazz,very straight. He said they were trying to get her off with an ambassador when she was 18.You know, now is the time you marry the ambassador and we get all settled. I come from a an upper-working class family in Liverpool, the other end of the world. John then said, we met but our minds are so similar,our ideas are so similar. It was incredible that we could be so alike from different environments, and I don’t know what it is, but we’re very similar in our heads. And we look alike too!

      Mike also asked John about his painful childhood,and how his father left him when he was 5,and John said how he only came back into his life when he was successful and famous(20 years later!),and John said he knew that I was living all those years in the same house with my auntie,but he never visited him.He said when he came back into his life all those years later,he looked after his father for the same amount of time he looked after him,about 4 years.

      He also talked about how his beloved mother Julia,who encouraged his music by teaching him to play the banjo,got hit and killed by a car driven by an off duty drunk cop when John was only 17 and just getting to have a relationship with her after she had given him away to be raised by her older sister Mimi when he was 5.

      And John also said,And in spite of all that,I still don’t have a hate-the-pigs attitude or hate-cops attitude.He then said, I think everybody’s human you know,but it was very hard for me at that time,and I really had a chip on my shoulder,and it still comes out now and then,because it’s a strange life to lead .He then said,But in general ah,I’ve got my own family now …I got Yoko and she made up for all that pain.

      John’s psychologist Dr. Arthur Janov told Mojo Magazine in 2000( parts of this interview is on a great UK John Lennon fan site,You Are The Plastic Ono Band) that John had as much pain as he had ever seen in his life,and he was a psychologist for at least 18 years when John and Yoko saw him in 1970! He said John was a very dedicated patient. He also said that John left therapy too early though and that they opened him up,but didn’t get a chance to put him back together again and Dr. Janov told John he need to finish the therapy,he said because of the immigration services and he thought Nixon was after him,he said we have to get out of the country.John asked if he could send a therapist to Mexico with him,and Dr. Janov told him we can’t do that because they had too many patients to take care of,and he said they cut the therapy off just as it started really,and we were just getting going.


      Also this great article by long time anti-sexist,anti-men’s violence,anti-pornography former all star high school football player and author of the great,important 2006 book,The Macho Paradox:How Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, Jackson Katz.John Lennon on Fatherhood,Feminism,and Phony Tough Guy Posturing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/john-lennon-on-fatherhood_b_800333.html

      Also Cynthia Lennon is quoted in the great John Lennon biography Lennon,by award winning music journalist and former editor of The Melody Maker Magazine and good friend of John’s for 18 years,Ray Coleman as saying somethings like she knew as soon as she saw John and Yoko together she knew that she lost him,and that it was a meeting of the minds and that she knew that they were right for each other.She also said that she told John before he started his relationship with Yoko that she sees and incredible similarity between him and Yoko and said to him that there is something about her that is just like you.She told him that he may say that she’s this crazy avant garde artist and that he’s not interested in her,but that she can see more into John’s future with Yoko then he can.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In this January 1971 interview with Red Mole John says that Yoko was well into liberation before he met her and that she had to fight her way through a man’s world and he said the art world is completely dominated by men and said so Yoko was full of revolutionary zeal when they met. Then John said there was never any question about it that they had to have a 50-50 relationship or there was no relationship and he said he was quick to learn and he said that Yoko did an article in Nova more than two years back in which she said Woman is the Ni**er of the world. A year later he co-wrote with Yoko the song Woman Is The N*gger of The World,and bravely performed it live on The Dick Cavett show and at Madison Square Garden in 1972 and the song was banned off a lot of radio stations.

      John also says in this same interview that it’s very subtle how you’re taught male superiority.


      Liked by 1 person


      Profile for Rebel_Against_The-Orthodoxy Reviews


      Customer Reviews: 7
      Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,182,017
      Helpful Votes: 50

      Reviews Written by
      Rebel_Against_The-Orthodoxy (England)
      Show: Most recent reviews Most recent comments Page: 1

      The Giving Tree
      by Shel Silverstein
      Edition: Hardcover Price: $10.39
      289 used & new from $2.09

      3 of 5 people found the following review helpful

      The Giving Tree Is The Worst “Childrens Book” Ever!, June 27, 2015
      This review is from: The Giving Tree (Hardcover)

      The giving tree is the worst “children’s book” ever written. My mother read this book to me when i was small & i found it very upsetting indeed. As the boy is a self entitled scumbag who takes, takes, takes & mutilates & murders the tree, who was only ever loving to him. My mother (who like most women only ever gave to my father without any real reciprocation) could not understand why i was so upset by this book, as she saw the tree as expressing “real love” for the boy & could not see the boys selfishness, contempt & abuse and therein lies the true purpose of this book.

      As an adult i can clearly see what this book is about. It is obviously written to teach girls (the tree is described as female) to be submissive & know their place & that they should be happy to be to be abused, used & even tortured & killed by boys/men. And to teach boys (the boy is the other protagonist in the story) to be self entitled, abusive & sadistic to girls/women. It is clearly a misogynistic book meant to teach girls that being a submissive, self sacrificing masochist is what real “love” is. And boys that they are entitled to to treat females with utter contempt & to just use them for their own sick selfish pleasure & that girls/women are actually “happy” to be treated in this way.

      In todays climate with most young boys watching porn on the Internet by the age of 11 and then wanting to reenact the degrading, debasing acts that he sees with his girlfriends & then manipulating them into preforming those acts with him under the pretext of “if you loved me you would do it”. With only a care for his own wants & absolutely no empathy for the girl or the loss of dignity, pain or humiliation she may feel.

      And with teenage girls reading books & watching films like 50 shades of grey ect as these sorts of S&M relationships are being held up as ideal nowadays. It seems the books premise is still being taught (only in a more overt sexual way). It seems we are very much moving back to a society that resembles the misogynistic early/mid 60’s society when this book was written. So perhaps it is no surprise that this book gets such positive reviews still, indeed perhaps its even more popular now.

      It is impossible (for an adult with her/his eyes open to realities of the world) to not see the parallels between the boys sadism, exploitation & abuse of the female tree. And boys/mens sadism, exploitation & abuse of girls/women in real life. The same goes for the tree, it’s impossible to not see the parallels of the trees masochistic, submissive, warped sense of self sacrificing “love” with girls/womens (socially conditioned) masochism, submission, & self sacrificing “love”. Do we really want to condition these things in our children even younger than is already being taught to them in this society? As that is exactly what you would be doing by reading this to your child.
      Comment Permalink

      Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism
      by Sheila Jeffreys
      Edition: Paperback
      Price: $41.16
      35 used & new from $40.80

      32 of 34 people found the following review helpful

      An Oasis In A Desert Of Pro “Trans” Propaganda, June 25, 2015

      This review is from: Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism (Paperback)

      Gender hurts is a great book by Sheila Jeffreys examining the “transgender” craze that is sweeping the western world at present & how this is affecting women, including the wives of married men who decide to “transition” to “transwomen” after decades of marriage who have a sexual fetish called autogynephilia (sexual arousal at the thought of themselves as women) & the impact this has on these mens wives & children. It also looks at the women partners of lesbian women who decide to “transition” to “transmen”. It examines the eugenics program that is behind the “transitioning” of children who the establishment worries will grow up to be gay, they are in effect being sterilised.

      It also examines the impact of men with a sexual fetish being deemed legally women & suddenly being allowed into what was previously women only spaces & the impact this has on women. One man even said how he was sexually aroused attending a womens knitting group. These autogynephilic men who “transition” to “transwomen” led a hate campaign against the sexologist J Michael Bailey who wrote a book called “the man who would be queen” in 2003, as he was the first to write about the two types of men who “trans” the gay ones & the heterosexual men with “fetishistic transvestism”. These men did not like being exposed as having a sexual fetish & so sent him death threats & harassed his children, ex wife, his family & friends. (These same autogynephiliac men also targeted Janice Raymond who wrote “the transexual empire” in 1980). This same group of men also tried to get the publishers of this book to revoke their decision to publish it. Sheila Jeffreys herself has been threatened & harassed by “trans activists” to such a degree that she was advised to take her name off her office door at the university at which she worked at, as there were fears for her safety. As can be seen here by the bombardment of negative reviews by these very same “transwomen” (who haven’t even read the book) this is what they do, they are completely unhinged. It is listed in the DSM V for the description of “gender dysphoria” (you have to have a diagnosis of GD to be able to “trans” legally) that the older men who receive a diagnosis of GD who have autogynephilia also have concurrent “personality disorders”.

      There is two groups of men who can be diagnosed as having “gender dysphoria” (and therefore are aloud to “transition”) according to DSM V’s own description:

      1. Gay teens/ young men.
      2. Older heterosexual men (who are usually married often with children) who have “habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephillia”.

      The “transgender” craze is the latest attempt by the medical establishment to “cure” gays & lesbians of their homosexuality by making them into the opposite sex, this can be seen very clearly in their targeting of children who by the DSM V’s own admission will grow up to be gay & lesbian if left to just grow up without any medical intervention.

      A number of gay teens/ young men & lesbian teens/ young women who “trans” have also been sexually abused as children the book touches on this issue also. Since the DSM V says one of the additional features for supporting a diagnosis of GD is: “older adolescents when sexuality active, usually do not show or allow their partners to touch their sexual organs. For adults with an aversion towards their genitals, sexual activity is constrained by the preference that their genitals not be seen or touched by their partner.” It is perhaps not surprising that many young ppl who get a diagnosis of GD & then “trans” have been abused given this is one of the “features for supporting a diagnosis of GD”.

      This “transgender” craze is also a reaction to the gains women made in the 70’s, it is trying to get sex roles to be thought of as being innate just as they were thought of before the women’s movement of the 70’s exploded that myth. We are now living in a extremely reactionary time where the male establishment is trying to push women back into their sex roles, “trans” is a large part of that backlash. The medical establishment is leading the cause with its “brain sex” neurosexist junk science that is the foundation “transgenderism” is based on.

      This book is a much needed oasis in a desert full of pro “trans” anti woman propaganda. Womens voices have been effectively silenced by the male autogynephilic “trans” who run the “trans activist” organisations & scream “transphobia” at anyone who speaks out against it. I & many other women cant thank Sheila enough for writing this book.

      Comments (22) | Permalink Most recent comment: Sep 11, 2015 12:02 AM PDT

      Love & Politics Price: $17.57
      27 used & new from $3.98

      1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

      Great album for women (especially lesbian women), November 11, 2014

      This review is from: Love & Politics (Audio CD)

      This is a beautiful album for women by the wonderful Alix Dobkin, it is the first time i’ve heard these songs as I unfortunately wasn’t born when the women’s movement was in full swing in the 1970’s early 1980’s when many of these songs were written. Alix is a pioneer of women’s folk music in the Radical Feminist movement and a lesbian. Her music is an absolute pleasure to listen to and a great inspiration to women & girls looking for REAL lesbian feminist women’s music and not the porn emulating malestream/queer theory music that passes for “women’s music” in recent years (think t.A.T.u. Or even lady gaga, they might sound catchy, but there is a male agenda at the heart of those malestream artists works, which alix doesn’t have). Alix has held steadfastly in her devotion to womens & lesbians rights all these years & has not capitulated to the male patriarchal agenda (think queer theory, neoliberalism, fun “feminism” ect). She is a strong woman with a beautiful spirit that just shines through from these recordings. ABC Amazon, lesbian code & Just Like A Woman are lovely quirky songs that are extremely clever. A woman’s love, the woman in your life, shinin’ thru’ and intimacy are deeply moving songs, that can bring a tear to your eye with their emotional sincerity and unyielding honesty. These are songs by a strong courageous lesbian woman who clearly is devoted to women, I find them such a breath of fresh air in these dark times when women are losing all the the gains that were made by these very women in the 1970’s & 1980’s (loss of women only space, straight males putting dresses on saying they are lesbians and demanding access to women, lesbian butch girls/women & “tom boys” being brainwashed into thinking they are really “men trapped in women’s bodies” the list goes on & on). It is because of a lack visibility of women like Alix in the malestream, women who exhibit a strong proud lesbian woman identified politics that we have entered this dark age. A new McCarthy era where women who speak out about a woman’s right to be a strong proud lesbian woman and not have to be around males every second of everyday are met with accusations of “transphobia” or this or that “phobia” or they are no platformed from speaking at public advents, this is the same as what happened in the U.S. during the McCarthy era with communists. It is a bleak time to live, but by listening to music by women like Alix and reading Real radical lesbian feminist literature, we can teach young lesbians that it is possible to be a strong lesbian woman without the need to identify with males. Well done to Amazon for making this album available to the public, it is a great start. I only wish we could also have the option of downloading Ode To A Gym Teacher by Meg Christian. Keep strong & keep fighting patriarchy my sisters. X Good books to read about Real radical feminism: Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism by Mary Daly,

      Unpacking Queer Politics: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective,
      Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism,
      & Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (all) by Sheila Jefferys

      Also Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine is great. Comment

      Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn
      by William J. Mann
      Edition: Paperback
      62 used & new from $0.03

      8 of 13 people found the following review helpful

      A Gay Woman’s View!, March 3, 2008

      This review is from: Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn (Paperback)
      This book is better than most previous books on Katharine Hepburn as it does reveal more about her, than they have. Her relationship with Spencer and her affairs with women ect.

      However the most annoying thing about this book is the author’s view that Kate is “transgender” he constantly tries to push this view. Instead of just presenting the facts and leaving it up to the reader make their own mind up, there is too much amateur psychology.

      He is great at writing about gay men, he clearly knows that subject, but seems to have a very poor understanding of gay women.

      He seems to think only men can really be gay (if you have read his other book “Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969” you’ll know what I mean, he even calls Lilyan Tashman in to question, who is widely known to have been a lesbian). He believes every man is but doubts every woman. If you’ve read the interview he gave to advocate magazine you’ll see what I mean, he says Spence is gay, but questions Kate just as he does in his previous book. Every man is, every woman isn’t, there is something very odd or chauvinistic about this view.

      Whilst she (Kate) may have or may not have slept with a bloke or two (most lesbians have) that doesn’t necessarily mean she is bisexual. Gay women are generally more discrete than gay men anyway.

      He seems to think that lesbian women don’t have sex drives either and just sit down and talk of a night, even though later on in the book he says about how Kate asked Scotty (a friend of Cukors who is a male prostitute and a sort of male madam) to find her a “friend to go hiking”, did he really think she just wanted to go “hiking” with this friend. It’s just not consistent with his view that she wasn’t really interested in sex, but just liked women as friends, same goes for the odd masseuse thing.

      Also He seems to think that if women wear trousers, or are not typically “feminine” they are “transgender”.

      Many gay women as young girls dress up in “boys” clothes and do role play of a sort. I personally know many people who have done so, I myself have, and it doesn’t make us “transgender”.

      Also many gay women dress in shirt and tie, it was more common in 20’s – 50’s (they’re called butch). Look at Marlene Dietrich who used to sign photos of herself in top hat n tails as “Daddy Marlene” and other famous women who also dressed in this way are Vita Sackville West and Mercedes De Acosta.

      I think it very curious that men (even a gay man like Mann) and straight women like Karen Swenson (in her biography of Garbo) like to think butch women are just transvestites or transgender, but not really actually gay.’

      At that time in history women were very much 2nd class citizens and so to escape many of the restrictions on girls at the time; of course a young girl who wants to be treated equally with her male siblings would try and claim to be a boy. After all most parents (particularly fathers, especially of that generation, say they prefer a boy child to a girl, just ask most expectant parents today, it hasn’t changed much.)

      So if she pretended to be a boy it doesn’t necessarily make her “transgender”, this seems to be difficult for most people to understand, maybe you

      Page: 1

      Liked by 1 person

    • There is *no* such natural thing as ”feeling like a woman or man or a girl or boy”! I don’t feel like a woman inside even though I certainly look like a very pretty woman. Maybe I once felt that way before I became educated and enlightened about the extreme social constructions of gender.

      Maybe if someone hypnotized me and brought me back to when I was a little girl and asked me when I was constantly told even by many strangers in public places, I was a strikingly beautiful baby and child,if I ”felt like a girl” inside,I might have said I don’t know what is that supposed to mean? Which is a great question with a great point. Or I might have said no,or I might have said yes because I got the same extreme gender training into ”femininity” all girls and women do.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It really isn’t surprising at all that the sexes brains are more alike than different,( although given the fact that there is a lot of evidence from neuroscience that human brains are plastic and easily molded and shaped by different life experiences and different conditioning,and environments, and the fact that the sexes are born biologically more alike than different with very few differences but are still perceived and treated very differently systematically in every way by parents and other adult care givers, from the moment it’s learned they are a girl or a boy, before they are born it’s amazing that our brains are still more alike than different,and that we are psychologically more alike than different to despite all of this!) the clitoris and penis are very similar because they come from the same exact tissue, so does the male scrotum, the female vulva and even the ovaries and testicles.

      But of course none of all of these similarities are even recognized much less emphasized because we still all live in a very sexist,artificially gender divided,gender stereotyped,male dominated society that is totally obsessed and oriented to making the sexes into opposite artificial ”feminine” and ”masculine” categories.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. You cannot understand what it is like to be a woman unless you are actually female, nor a man unless you are actually male, I’ve always wondered whether the whole thing has been promoting a hitherto unknown mind reading ability, because that fantastical explanation is the only one that really holds water. None of it adds up, we have hormone receptors all through our bodies, if there is a hormone wash going through there it would affect all of it, not just the brain.

    Excellent article thanks, it’s so easy to say those things, but it takes much longer to think it through and explain why not.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Reblogged this on WolfWomanoftheNorth and commented:
    “We’re surprised when we read stories about “women” who break into houses and ejaculate in underwear drawers, molest children or murder their spouses. Then, when we learn the perpetrators were born male, we’re not surprised anymore. Because the words “woman” and “man” mean something.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: What Feminists Are Saying About Transgender These Days – Stick It!…To the Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s