Русский публицист

English articles

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Criticism of sexology and gender theory. Although, I would rather call them pseudo-science of perverts and gender nonsense. This direction and theory have nothing to do with science. It took me some time to collect the necessary material, study sexology and gender theory, after which I also thought out a rough outline of the article. And now, finally, I am ready to present my work to you. I hope that my arguments will be enough for you to understand that a certain part of science is nonsense that cannot be considered scientific.

Unfortunately, there are often «failures» in science. And it’s okay if they manifest themselves in the form of erroneous theories, for example, the humoral theory. But when these failures manifest themselves in the form of specially pushed propaganda (for example, the myth that homosexuality is the norm), then it’s just awful. Indeed, in the case of an erroneous thought, it will be discarded as soon as it becomes clear that it is erroneous. Supporters of propaganda presented in the form of a scientific discovery are unlikely to refuse to defend their lies.

Opponents of the article will say to me: «What kind of criticism is this if the author is biased?» Yes, I am biased, I do not understand how you can take this absurdity seriously. Although I am biased, my criticism will not be a simple set of insults addressed to opponents, it will contain weighty arguments against this nonsense, therefore, I believe that my criticism deserves attention.

Russian version: Критика сексологии и гендерной теории

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

First, a general overview. Let’s start with sexology, so to speak, with a «bigger fish». What is sexology? The Glossary of Sexology Terms tells us that sexology is an area of ​​scientific research and knowledge about sexuality. [1] But, for some reason, we do not know about any serious achievements of this scientific claimant. How did this teaching benefit us? It gave us various terms and other descriptions. Sexology is a waste of time. I believe that sexology as a science cannot exist, and something similar to it should be based on biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry and, possibly, some other sciences.

If psychology is only partially the favorite science of liars and cheaters, then sexology is wholly and completely so. In addition, it is also the science of perverts with sexual deviations.

Let me give you an argument. Sexology is a whole area, not some isolated phenomenon. The year of origin can be considered 1866, when Richard Freiherr von Kraft-Ebing published the book «Psychopathia Sexualis». Let us now take a smaller phenomenon — the creation of an artificial heart. It is only part of the idea of ​​organ transplantation, while sexology is a whole area. The idea of ​​a heart transplant appeared later, around 1937, when scientist Vladimir Demikhov showed the possibility of maintaining blood circulation in a dog’s body using a plastic pump that drives an electric motor. In 1962 he transplanted a second heart into the dog Grishka. The dog lived for about 150 days, but did not die from an artificial heart problem. She was killed by a drunken carpenter. If not for him, she could have lived even longer. [2] Recently, on July 20, 2021, the media reported that the first successful artificial heart transplant in the United States took place. [3] I think it’s foolish to deny the fact that the idea of ​​a heart transplant alone will bring more benefits (or rather is already starting to do) than all sexology will ever do.

Let me give you another reason. One interesting incident that happened in the last century was much more useful and much more interesting than some notes of perverts («sexology»). We are talking about Henry Molison, also known as «patient H.M.» (abbreviated by Henry Molaison). It has been studied for over 50 years. As a child, he was hit by a bicycle. Three years later, he developed epileptic seizures. 20 years after the accident (in 1953), he came to the then famous neurosurgeon William Scolville. The doctor removed two-thirds of the hippocampus, entorhinal and parahippocampal cortex, part of the amygdala. But, as it turned out after modern research, during the operation, part of the hippocampus survived, while the surgeon damaged the amygdala, part of the temporal lobe and the left frontal lobe of the brain. A person’s declarative memory, which is responsible for information that we can remember and retell, is divided into 2 types: semantic (generalized information about the world) and episodic (episodes of our life). Henry had semantic memory, but he had problems with episodic memory. He was asked about the deceased father. Henry did not remember his death as an episode, but at the same time, he said the following: «I have a feeling that he is no longer with us.» He actively helped scientists, as a result of which science was able to greatly improve its understanding of memory and brain function. [4]

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

There is nothing to say about gender nonsense. Genders are fiction, which is nothing more than a social construct. The concept of gender has spread thanks to feminists, therefore it already raises some doubts about the scientific nature. «Research» related to gender also appeared thanks to feminists. Genders are positioned as a protest to the «imposed by society» idea that there are only 2 sexes. It’s funny, because now they themselves impose their genders on everyone, which are only invented social roles. They are trying to actively promote their term in the scientific and not only environment, they actively assert that genders are real and are fighting opponents of this opinion.

Genders are associated with femininity and masculinity. These are 2 categories of stereotypes that divide qualities into masculine and feminine. It’s funny that these same «fighters against stereotypes» came up with stupid stereotypes. For example, the methodology of Sandra Boehm «Masculinity-Femininity, BSRI». She refers to masculine traits, for example: independence, aggressiveness, independence, self-confidence and other qualities. And for women: sensitivity, empathy and others. Agree that any sex can have these qualities? [5]

I also did a superficial study of genders and made some comments. One left-wing site writes that allegedly «there are a great many options for sexuality.» But this is not so. A person can either be healthy, that is, heterosexual, or have deviations: homosexuality, bisexuality. You can also mention such a concept as «asexual». This is when you are not attracted sexually by anyone. For me, this is completely ridiculous, because I believe that these are problems with the body. Lack of testosterone or other substances, for example. But it is certainly not the norm. There are also the same genders. For example, bisexual and pansexual. In fact, they both like people of both their gender and the opposite, because genders themselves are a fictional role. You won’t start to have any special abilities if you just want to, and so with genders. Quite a fair comment: «Why, if a man thinks that he is Napoleon, he is treated, and if he thinks that he is a woman, his rights are protected?» They even came up with a term that means the constant change of genders — «gender fluid». It’s funny, because, in fact, such a phenomenon casts doubt on all these lies with genders. [6]

Ellis Havelock: impotent and pseudo-scientist

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Ellis Havelock is the founder of sexology. He lived in the period 1859-1939. He published a lot of useless waste paper to promote his ideas, but he never gained much popularity. He was clearly ultra-left: he promoted homosexuality, feminism, sexual perversion and more. Respected Sigmund Freud. Was convicted of his first volume of «Studies in the Psychology of Sex.» The judge ruled that the purpose of the book is to sell obscenities, while the book does not bring scientific value, being only a pretext. In 1981 he married the suffragette Edith Lees. She did not hide that she was sick with homosexuality and was a lesbian. Havelock suffered from impotence until the age of 60, while his wife did not hide cheating with other women. [7] [8] [9]

Marquis de Sade: a figure in prescientific sexology

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

The Marquis de Sade is considered the discoverer of prescientific sexology. He summarized in his works information about deviations in sexual behavior and sexual perversion. He advocated complete sexual freedom. And not only sexual. He advocated complete freedom, which would not be limited by anything: neither morality, nor religion, nor law. That is, he was an outright degenerate and selfish. You probably don’t know, but the word “sadism” is formed just after his name, since he was a terrible sadist.

On October 29, 1763, he is imprisoned in the tower of Vincennes castle for scandalous behavior in the visiting house. On December 7, 1764, the police inspector Marais writes the following about the Marquis de Sade: “… I would strongly advise Madame Brissot, without going into detailed explanations, to refuse the Marquis de Sade if he begins to demand from her a girl of easy virtue for fun in a secluded visiting house «. In November 1765, at the Lacoste estate, he gives the dancer off to his wife. October 16, 1767, new notes by Inspector Marais about de Sade: “We will soon hear again about the terrible deeds of de Sade, who is now trying to persuade the girl Rivière from the Opera to become his mistress, offering her twenty-five louis a month for this. On days free from performances, the girl will be obliged to spend time with de Sade at Villa d’Arnay. The girl, nevertheless, refused.» [10]

April 3, 1768. The Marquis meets with the widow of the pastry chef Rosa Keller. They went up to the fiacre. He forced her to undress, after which he severely beat her with a seven-tailed whip with knots at the ends. Then he locked her in the room. She fled and with loud screams went to the police station, where she filed a complaint against him. She dropped the complaint for 2,400 livres. On April 12-30, 1768, de Sade was arrested at the Saumur castle. On June 2, he is transferred to Conciergerie prison. [10] [11]

1772, June 27 — «The Marseilles case». At 10 o’clock in the morning, de Sade, «a man of splendid build, with a resolute expression on his face, dressed in a gray-blue dress coat, a vest and pink trousers, with a sword, a hunting knife and a cane in his hand», in the company of his footman rises to the girl’s room Borelli, nicknamed Mariette. In the room, meanwhile, there were three more girls of easy virtue: Rose Coast, eighteen, Marionette Lodge, twenty, Marianne Laverne, eighteen. Borelli herself is twenty-three. These persons, according to the police protocol, indulged in the following reprehensible activities: active and passive flagellation, anal sex, which the girls, according to them, refused, the use of exciting candies proposed by de Sade. [10]

On July 1, 1772, prostitutes accuse de Sade of attempted poisoning. On June 30, Margarita Kost filed a similar complaint, to whom he offered to have sex, and after refusal he treated her to exciting sweets. September 3 — Decision of the Crown Attorney in Marseilles: «The Marquis de Sade and his servant Latour, summoned to court on charges of poisoning and sodomy, did not appear and are accused in absentia.» The accused are sentenced to public repentance on the porch of the cathedral, then they were to be escorted to the Place Saint Louis “in order to chop off de Sade’s head on the scaffold, and hang the aforementioned Latour on the gallows. The bodies of de Sade and Latour will be burned, and the ashes — scattered in the wind. » The Marquis de Sade escapes. [10]

In 1775 he was accused of kidnapping three girls for the purpose of seduction. After he was finally caught, he spent many years in prison, where he wrote many of his works. He actively supported terrorists (Jacobins) during the French Revolution. [10]

First Institute of Sexology

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Magnus Hirschfeld founded the world’s first institute for sexology in Berlin in 1919. In those years, the German Empire fell and the Weimar Republic came. Germany became an impoverished country, which, instead of development, was engaged in promoting leftist ideas. Homosexuals raised their heads, Jews were given the opportunity to occupy positions in universities and power structures, the new Germany began to absorb American culture. [12] The Institute stood in the central Tiergarten district. In 1924, the institute was transformed into a foundation with life director Hirschfeld. The activities of the institution of propaganda for debauchery were terminated by the National Socialists in 1933, after Adolf Hitler came to power. Then the German students gathered to burn obscene literature. [13]

The institute was more likely not a center of science, but a house of propaganda. The library consisted of pornography and eroticism, as well as pseudo-scientific books on sexology. The exhibits consisted of various objects depicting genitals, as well as sex toys. There was a «souvenir» shop near the propaganda house. [14]

The founder of the house of propaganda tried with all his might to push his perverted ideas into society. For this, they even shot the film «Not like everyone else.» It was created with the aim of continuing the struggle to abolish the criminal article for homosexuality. But the reaction was very different — people began to discuss the need for censorship in cinema. On October 4, 1920, after carrying out propaganda in Munich, he was beaten by young Germans. [14]

Jews were among the key individuals in the spread of sexology, the promotion of homosexuality and similar ideas. For example, in addition to Magnus Hirschfeld, Ivan Bloch was also a Jew, who was one of the founders of sexology and proposed to consider it a separate science. [15]

Sexual revolution

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Sexual revolution is the process of destruction of moral values and ethics, the spiritual fall of humanity and the service of instincts instead of development. The Jews had a strong influence on this. Such as Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Magnus Hirschfeld, Ivan Bloch and others. Today, thanks to this phenomenon, morality does not mean anything, betrayal has become the norm, and marriage is rejected by many.

The USSR was one of the first countries to abolish the punishment for homosexuality. At the end of 1924, the whole country was discussing a new event — a demonstration of the society «Down with shame!» Members of the community walked naked down the street, claiming that «shame is the bourgeois past.» In particular, Mikhail Bulgakov writes: “News: recently completely naked people (men and women) appeared in Moscow with bandages over their shoulders“ Down with shame ”. We got on the tram. The tram was stopped, the public was indignant. » [16]

“Naked demonstrations” were carried out not because of shamelessness or emancipation, but with a fundamental ideological rationale: “The clothes are worn by the bourgeois who profit from exploitation. We are not bourgeois, so we must reject clothes. » Even the ideas of Darwinism served as motivation: “Man descended from a monkey. Hence, people are animals. Animals don’t wear clothes. Therefore, we should not wear clothes either. » [16]

In 1918, the anniversary of the decree «On the Abolition of Marriage» was celebrated in Petrograd with a procession of lesbians. Trotsky in his memoirs says that Lenin spoke about it this way: «Keep it up, comrades!» [16]

The most massive demonstrations were in 1924 and 1925. They were attended by about 10 thousand people. One of the slogans: “We have destroyed the feeling of shame! Look at us and you will see free men and women, true proletarians who have thrown off the shackles of symbols of bourgeois prejudices! » [16] In other words, the October and sexual revolutions led to the fact that every sick rabble «floated» to the surface, hiding before that at the bottom of a moral society.

On December 16, 1917, a divorce decree was issued. Now it was possible to dissolve the marriage without reason. According to the decree on civil marriage, only civil marriages began to be recognized. [17] [18] With the beginning of the NEP, a surge in prostitution began, it was conducted very openly. According to some polls, prostitutes were used by 40% to 60% of the male population. [19] [20]

John Money — man who invented gender

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

John Money is a Jewish psychologist from the United States who continued the course of the sexual revolution and began to promote pedophilia and gender reassignment. [21] He is one of the most respected sexologists, while real scientists and specialists are not taken seriously and even strongly condemned.

John Money actively defended pedophilia, even participated in debates on this topic. He said that pedophilia is love, not violence. He owns the following quote: “If I saw the case of a boy of ten or eleven years old who has a strong erotic attraction to a man of twenty or thirty years old, if the relationship is completely mutual, and the connection is really completely mutual […], then I would definitely not name it is a pathology. » [22]

Mani was a liar. He often lied to patients about gender in order to make his opinion correct. His most famous experience with humans is the Bruce Reimer incident. Mani was the first to claim that humans have genders and that a child is “gender neutral” at birth. They laughed at him, they didn’t take him seriously, but the pressure of the left movement did their job and today all this nonsense is taken seriously.

In 1965, twin boys were born into the Reimer family. One of them was circumcised, but due to a surgeon’s mistake, the penis was severely damaged. Over the years, it became clear to many that Mani had bribed the surgeon for his experiments. Then he himself went out to the child. He offered to educate him as a girl «for his own good.» According to him, this was supposed to «save the boy from many psychological problems.» They called him Brenda and started feeding him hormone pills. He self-confidently asserted: «I have proved that gender depends on upbringing!» [23]

These fairy tales came to an end almost 30 years later. Biologist Milton Diamond exposed Mani’s overconfident liar in 1996. He found out that at the age of 14, Bruce stopped going to Mani for an appointment. The guy did not know anything about the experiments on him in childhood. But he felt uncomfortable in a woman’s body, which, even after hormone therapy, became more and more like a man’s. The teenager’s voice also broke. He was constantly being bullied. [23]

This affected the whole Bruce family. The father began to drink too much, the mother wanted to commit suicide, the brother suffered from chronic depression. At one point, the parents told Bruce the truth. This came as a shock to him. He even wanted to kill the surgeon. He made three suicide attempts. He changed his name to David, and after the reconstruction of the penis, he got married. Depression and health problems still bothered him, in 2002 the family broke up, and then he lost his job. At 38, he committed suicide. [23]

Sigmund Freud: Degenerate from Psychology

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Criticism of sexology and gender theory will not stop only at those who were touched upon earlier, I also want to touch on another well-known pseudo-scientist, who is the most famous of all who have been touched upon in this article. The Jewish psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, like his fellow tribesman Albert Einstein, was nothing of himself, his ideas were nonsense, but the popularization did its job.

Freud tested theories of psychoanalysis on his own daughter. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize 32 times, but was never able to become a laureate. In 1896 he was expelled from the Vienna Medical Society for unscientific claims about mental disorders. He spoke negatively about religion. He also argued that the boy’s relationship with his mother could allegedly be based on sexual overtones. He called this idea the «Oedipus complex.» Freud was considered by many to be a fraud.

Freud was a drug addict. He used cocaine. One of his friends became addicted to cocaine through his fault. In 1887, articles on the dangers of cocaine began to appear in medical journals around the world. After that, he immediately destroyed some of the records about the alleged positive effects of cocaine and «changed the shoe.» He began to argue that it is not the cocaine itself that is harmful, but its «incorrect» use.

Many of «his» ideas have been stolen. For example, the statement about the unconscious was voiced back in ancient Rome. Stanislas Dean, one of the largest modern researchers of consciousness, writes about Freud the following: «It would not be an exaggeration to say that of all the ideas expressed in his work, the most convincing ones do not belong to him, and his own are among the unconvincing ones.»

Many of his successful therapies are lies or exaggeration. For example, Sigmund published the book From the History of a Childhood Neurosis, which describes the case of a Russian aristocrat who suffers from depression. After a series of sessions, he is supposedly cured. In the 1970s, journalist Karin Obholzer contacted the very aristocrat who denied Freud’s success. “I am in the same state in which I came to Freud,” he said.

Richard Webster has written an entire book on Why Freud Was Wrong? Here is a quote from it: «Freud put himself in a position where he could independently provide» evidence «to» support «almost any of his theory.» There is also a book by Wells — «Pavlov and Freud», which finally finishes off the authority of Freud.

William Pierce said the following about Freud: “… with his theories about penis envy, anal personalities, and so on, it is explained by the fact that he was a Jew, and not at all by any special value of these theories. As a result, these theories have done great harm to the development of our understanding of psychology and mental illness. «

Is Sex Education Needed?

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

Since this is a criticism of sexology and gender theory, we will touch on one of their consequences: sex education. Do you need to do something like this in schools? Yes, but it makes no sense to single it out as a separate subject. I would do it on the basis of biology, it is desirable to do a separate chapter in the textbooks. Another thing is that this chapter may not be written very well, but that is another matter, and the problem will not be in the very idea of linking it to biology, but in the presentation of the material from the author.

Sexology itself is not needed, if only because its issues are already being dealt with in other sciences. It is more of an offshoot of psychology than of other sciences, since «treatment» occurs almost exclusively as a result of communication with the patient. The communication side deals with psychology and psychiatry. Diseases are dealt with by andrologists, urologists, gynecologists and not only. For example, sometimes such problems can be associated with the work of the heart, therefore cardiologists can also touch on this issue. That is, having solved the problem with the heart, they will also solve the problem with the genital organ. Sexology itself has shown its inconsistency. We do not hear about any of their successes, except for another waste paper in which sexologists justify their perversions (at least the founders).

It is very easy to become a sexologist. As simple as an official. You need to learn to lie and have a sense of your own importance. Are they coming to share problems? You listen and give some advice based on your opinion. Come with serious problems? You refer to another doctor. That’s all, you don’t need to be able to do anything else.

An analogy can be made with astronomy and astrology. Astronomy may well be considered a full-fledged science. It is really useful and important for us, while astrology is just a way of earning money. So it is with sexology and other sciences, which it supposedly should replace in matters of sex.

Masters and Johnson: Popularizers of Sexology

Criticism of sexology and gender theory

I came across some articles about a team of two sexologists — Masters and Johnson. Whatever they call them: «Masters of Sex», «Founders of Sex» and so on. Very funny, because this is too exaggerated. To begin with, they weren’t the first sexologists. In addition, there is a popular myth that before sexology and the sexual revolution, people allegedly did not have sex at all. Some even believe that they had sex only for procreation. This is not at all the case. For example, in London in 1868, according to the police, there were 2,119 brothels, the total number of prostitutes in the capital reached 50 thousand. [24] In 1812, there were about 900 registered prostitutes in Paris, by 1832 there were 3500, by 1850 there were already about 34000. [25] Aurelius Augustine, who lived in the period 354-430, wrote the following about prostitutes: and the city will be in turmoil. » [26] That is, for thousands of years people have quietly had sex without any self-appointed specialists.

But back to this duo. William Masters was a gynecologist, which only confirms my statement that existing specialists could do without sexology. Virginia Johnson had a musical education at all. So it turns out that for sexology you don’t need to study and have any special knowledge? What then is scientific — to give advice on sex?

Studies of sexual behavior (or rather, observation of sex) were carried out in the laboratory, which is very different from the usual conditions for having intercourse. For this, many have criticized them. [27]

My opinion is that there have actually been no «revolutionary» studies and breakthroughs that their supporters are talking about. In the book «Fundamentals of Sexology» the authors constantly refer to other people’s work, which only confirms that they only systematized other people’s work and actively advertised their books, which gave them popularity.

Criticism of sexology and gender theory: the bottom line

The criticism of sexology and gender theory is over, I would like to summarize. I have spent about 10 hours in total on this article, if not more, and I hope that my efforts were not in vain. I showed you that gender theory and sexology themselves are ridiculous and ridiculous, and their founders are degenerates and perverts of all stripes. All their ideas are farce, which they pass off as serious work. I am very sorry that I live in a time where all sorts of nonsense can get a serious response just because it is popular.


Criticism of sexology and gender theory
[1] — «Словарь терминов по сексологии», [2] — «Вопреки отторжению: жизнь и миссия гения «из подвала»», [3] — «First Total Artificial Heart Successfully Transplanted In the US», [4] — «История Генри Молисона: как человек без памяти повлиял на современную науку», [5] — «Методика Маскулинность-фемининность С. Бем», [6] — «Какие сейчас существуют гендеры?», [7] — «My life: autobiography of Havelock Ellis», Ellis Havelock (1939) [8] — «Havelock Ellis», [9] — «Эдит Эллис — Edith Ellis», [10] — «Краткая летопись жизни и творчества маркиза Де Сада», де Сад Маркиз Донасьен Альфонс Франсуа [11] — «Life of Sade: 1971», Roland Barthes [12] — «Краткая история Германии», Джеймс Хоус [13] — «Das Institut», [14] — «Дом, который построил секс», [15] — «Иван Блох», [16] — ««Долой стыд!»: сексуальная революция в СССР 20‑х годов», [17] — «Декрет ВЦИК и СНК о расторжении брака», [18] — Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона: в 86 т. (82 т. и 4 доп.). — СПб., 1890—1907. [19] — «Проституция в Петербурге», Лебина и Шкаровский [20] — «Кнутом или законом? Часть 2», Лебина и Шкаровский [21] — «John Money», [22] — Interview: John Money. PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia, Spring 1991, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 5. [23] — «Как американский ученый из мальчика пытался вырастить девочку», [24] — «Продавцы сексуальной революции», [25] — «Золотой век борделей», [26] — «Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages», Jeffrey Richards [27] — «Understanding Human Sexuality», Hyde, J. S., DeLamater, J. D., & Byers, E. S.