After the last post I received several reactions, via Tox, from several "traditionalists". But first I would like to warn sailors: I see that there are proliferating proxies, "anonymizers" vpn and tunnels of all kinds, which are intended to read the blog "anonymously".
Given that this has happened since I wrote this article: https://keinpfusch.net/facebook-trump-la-narrativa-che-crolla/ , I assume that you have worried about being measured, or in some way "tracks". Now, if you really worried about it you wouldn't have any cell phones and internet accounts, so I'd say it's time to be honest with yourself. When you use a mobile phone or mobile network to watch this blog you are so tracked, between HLR and everything, that in practice you have no chance of being "anonymous". After all, if the mobile network can get you something, obviously you know who you are, that you have paid the traffic, and where you are. So I would say that you can also save yourself the trouble.
Now that we've clarified, let's move on. The reproaches I received fall into several categories:
- Tradition is not dead because my grandfather Gino remembers everything and told me a lot of things.
- My country is far behind and so we still do the Feast of the Patron Saint of the Salami of Nerchia del Bisdrozzo Citeriore (LH), as it was done 2000 years ago.
- But the traditional family exists because the Gender will not win, Mazinga Zeta vinceraaaaaaahhh, and traditional means that there are only two sexes and they are written in your chromosomes.
We go by order.
Your grandfather Gino is a cazzaro. He is a cazzaro because if you are young he has (at most) the age of my father, who did 68. At that time Italy was already an industrial country, the girls listened to the Beatles, in New York a band of Ramones brothers began to perform, and Television had already begun to flatten culture. Sorry, your "tradition" includes the Punk, Mike Jagger and the Flower Children.
If you are my age, your grandfather Gino died, even though (like my grandmother) he is over a hundred years old, but after 99 years his memories were honestly, like saying "unreliable". At least, judging by the fact that while we were watching Star Trek at home, he claimed that Italy had been occupied by the Klingons in World War II. And remember them well.
Having said that your grandfather Gino doesn't remember a chip of nothing that preceded the Rolling Stones, let's go to your little village of shit.
If I were you I would not be very proud of the fact that in your country the inhabitants are a bunch of ignorant misfits who behave like cavemen. But the problem is that identifying tradition with ignorance does not prove that tradition is alive: it only shows that it contains no knowledge. If you affirm to me that the people of your village are not contaminated by modernity because they are too ignorant or stupid to absorb some concepts, what you are saying is that Tradition is only ignorance and stupidity, or that tradition has no content.
You cannot say that the ignorant villagers of your village are spreading the tradition, for the simple reason that the ignorant villagers DO NOT TRANSLATE OWN NOTHING. Knowing nothing, they do not propagate anything.
This is still an interesting topic, in the sense that it may be that Tradition was simply forgotten because its major supporters were too ignorant and stupid to pass it on. This argument is interesting: it is possible to affirm that one cause of the death of the tradition is the fact that its depositories believed that in order to know the tradition it was necessary not to know anything, and consequently today the tradition is dead because those who he lived was too ignorant to propagate it.
Interesting topic, but it works in favor of my thesis and not yours.
Let's go to the Gender's speech, because it's even more bizarre. And not for the argument, which requires talking about sex, but for the fact that this vision of "heterosexual tradition" is even less founded than the others.
First, those who fight against the "Gender Theory" have read very few excerpts from the sociologists (normally post-modernists and deconstructivists) who conceived it. And not having read it, they cannot synthesize.
HINT: "an excerpt" and "a summary" are not the same thing. The summary requires to have read the topic in full and to know how to summarize it. The excerpt is only a disconnected part of a more complex speech.
So you have to understand two things. First, sexuality is not written "in the chromosomes". Or rather, things are not as you think.
We demolish your beliefs, and then see what happened and see what sex genres are today.
This says that there are two "biological sexes", characterized by two different chromosomes, (XY and XX), and therefore there would be individuals who are "genetically male" and individuals who are "genetically female". This interpretation is fine if you are in high school, and it would work if the chromosomes were XX and YY.
The problem comes when you face a (a) transsexual. Because you see, according to your theory, DNA XX is the one that builds a woman's body, while XY is the one that builds a male's body. But the thing, in your primitive mind, is extremely primitive, in the sense that for you one thing excludes the other.
But when we change hormones to an individual, secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex begin to grow. And here the problem begins: if the DNA of that guy is "masculine", who tells his body how to make tits and hips, and how to distribute fat on his face?
Because here is the point: if you put a reptile in the "female" hormones, they don't grow boobs. Tits grow where there are genes that can make them grow. And the moral of the story is that the male body has, in the genes, instructions to grow tits, and a whole female body.
The proof is that if during the pregnancy of a male XY only one gene, called RSY, does not work, the result is a perfectly functional child.
But the opposite also works, and in some ways better, in the sense that there is not even any need for training in the voice because the voice of a woman under hormones becomes male: but this means that the woman's DNA knows how to build a male vocal apparatus. And since the Y chromosome does not have (as far as is known) any functional contribution, the problem is that where there is only one X chromosome it is possible to build a complete woman, and since the Y chromosome is almost empty then there are also almost all the instructions to build a male. The only part of the male body that a "feminine" DNA does not know how to construct is the penis: all the rest (from the beard to the muscles to the voice) all the genes are present, alive and well. In short, the "feminine" DNA contains an almost entire male.
Basically, in short, the human body develops as a female, and if there is a Y that contains an RSY, then a penis is produced, "derailing" the development of a female. And this is seen in Klinefelter syndrome, where the person has two XX chromosomes, but as a Y chromosome is added, resulting in XX + Y, and the intruder "derails" the development of a female and gets a male ( sterile, and often develops the breast, because the two X's do not stay silent). In short, both the male body and the female body have the instructions to create both sexes, except for "derailing" a female and making a male. And this is due to the fact that, genetically speaking, the difference between male and female is very, very small.
This is the reason hormones work: if your DNA were "only male", you could also bathe in a pool of prolactin, estrogen and testers, but your boobs or other female secondary characters would not grow. If it happens it's because your DNA knows how to react to estrogen. Ditto for the female body with testosterone and male steroids: bodybuilders are an example.
Established that the story of "you are a male because the DNA exists that is only male and you are a female because you have one that is ONLY female" is not valid, let's see what you wanted to say with your stupid little brain.
In the end, what you are trying to prove is that:
- You are a male if, at least in power, your reproductive role is to seed a female and start a pregnancy in her.
- You are a female if, at least in power, your reproductive role is to be inseminated and to carry a pregnancy to term.
Fantastic. But if this is your strong point, you're in shit.
Once upon a time, things were actually like this. And they were like this because (excluding practices like fellatio and sodomy) the vast majority of sex had a reproductive purpose.
In the absence of abortive tools – not very dangerous ones – and contraceptives, the sexual life of individuals was very different compared to today. When two spouses fucked, they first had to agree (or at least decide) to be willing to have a child. Female sexuality therefore included a couple of dozen sexes in the fertile era, several sexes during pregnancy, and then they talked about it again for menopause. (I do not understand the male venterie in the count, which by now is a sexual genre in itself).
And this was due to the fact that there were no reliable contraceptives, nor less dangerous abortion procedures than driving on the highway blindfolded in the wrong way.
Male sexuality benefited from the brothels, which however had an economic limit, and in homosexuality. Otherwise it was like the female one: rare, and it happened only under the task of reproduction.
At that time, the amount of sex done "for pleasure" but not for reproductive purposes coincided with reproductive efficacy. It means they were just the "don't go" fuck. But you could not have known which would have gone to sign, therefore ALL the sex happened under the sword of damocle of the reproduction, that was incumbent.
In that world, sexual roles were COMPLETELY identical to reproductive ones: it was almost impossible, in 99% of cases, to separate the reproductive task from sex. Consequently, it was convenient to define sexuality using the role in reproductive function.
But then came abortion, divorce, civil rights and contraception.
The result of this was a collapse of births, and the fact that today 99% of the sex that takes place does not take place for reproductive purposes, but for pleasure . Reproduction has become rare in the lives of individuals, while sex is inseparable from pleasure.
Modern sex is no longer, as before, sex-reproduction, but it is sex-pleasure.
Reproduction is no longer incumbent on sex.
And here, dear "traditionalists", the donkey falls. Your definition is valid ONLY for those people who consider sex ONLY as a reproductive tool. Considering the fact that 1.3 children per family are born today, we are talking about those individuals who in life have called half a dozen times, up to a dozen, and then called a few times during their pregnancy. And let's talk about it again for menopause.
For everyone else, sex is sex-pleasure.
The shift between sex-reproduction to sex-pleasure has obviously changed the definition of gender. From defining your gender by using the role you have in reproduction, we have moved on to defining the gender by using the role you have in sexual pleasure.
And here comes the "Gender". The gender deconstructionist theory recognizes that old sex genres have disintegrated with the separation between sex and reproduction, but it has not deepened well the fact that sex still exists, only that it has gone from sex-reproduction to sex-pleasure.
In a sex genre system that relies on the role in pleasure rather than on the reproductive role, if you want an example of sexual genres you just need to go to any porn site and click on "categories": BBW is a sexual genre today, so 'as BDSM "slave" and BDSM "master", and apparently the male of color has become a separate gender. (provided it has some measures). So like "she-male", "bottom", "twink", and more.
I'm sorry to say, if you try to base the "tradition" on biology, you'll end up talking about reproduction: but reproduction is a very rare event in modern man's life, so the reproductive role doesn't have enough strength to generate a "strong" definition ".
In this sense, the transsexual MTF (male to female) has not taken in full the characteristics of a genre in itself, since her role in pleasure is absolutely peculiar and unique. Of course, his reproductive role would still be the masculine one (biologically), but this doesn't give a damn about anyone, because reproduction today is less frequent than pleasure in the world of sexual practice.
In a sense, the traditionalists had sensible insights: they understood that abortions, contraception, divorce and freedom of customs disintegrate the tradition, but did not understand HOW.
The "HOW" is precisely the fact that moving sexual practice from the field of reproduction to the field of pleasure has shifted the definition of sexual genres from the reproductive role to the erotic role.
So, dear traditionalists, the definition of sexual gender starting from the role in reproduction is not incorrect: today it is only too weak. Reproduction today is so rare (compared to sexual pleasure) that it does not allow people to define their sexual identity from it.
On the other hand, a stupid modesty prevents (still for a short time, the era of Internet Voyeurism is about to cancel the concept of "private life") to define itself starting from the erotic role, for which we are still in an intermediate period. But the fact remains that we have left the old paradigm, because reproduction today is too rare compared to sexual pleasure.
I am afraid therefore that you will have to do with it a reason: even the "heterosexual tradition" is so weak that today you would no longer be able to draw from it a strong paradigm, which your "wannabe-forte" thought needs. Your thinking today is "weak thinking" in all respects, because your paradigms are weak. First of all, the definition of sexual gender starting from reproduction, which is an increasingly rare and less incumbent event in sexual activity.