Gender Neutrality: Brainwashing and Abuse. Article by guest writer: Raging Millennial.
One of the key steps to destroying the culture of Europe (and the West in general) is the systematic destruction of the traditional nuclear family. There are many theories that ponder how such destruction will come about, however I firmly believe that ‘Gender Theory’ pseudoscience has played, and will continue to play, a very large part in it.
It is through the concepts of gender theory that the charge is being led by deliberately attacking what it means to be a man or woman, masculine or feminine. To successfully combat this, we will need to go back to where it all began. So in this article we are going to begin with one of the most abhorrent human beings to have graced the scientific world: John Money.
Gender neutrality is the hypothesis that humans are born neutral; and that if transition begins as soon as possible, ideally as young as 2 ½ years old , boys can be taught to be girls and vice versa. The spine of such theories begins with John Money, then operating out of John Hopkins University. Money believed that erotic outlook and orientation is not only independent of ones biology, but that once a particular outlook has been ‘taught’, it becomes eradicable  and cannot be changed. The basis of his belief was a tragic, long term study performed at the expense of a child called David Reimer, a boy whom Money, his colleagues, various therapists, clinicians and even his own parents conspired to force him to live as a girl .
Following a botched surgery, Money decided to perform sex-change surgery on the young David. Money then proceeded to tell David’s parents to raise the boy as a girl [6, 10]. To do so they had to ensure David remained on years of estrogen therapy , they called in male-to-female transsexuals to attempt to manipulate him to get further, unnecessary surgeries , the clinicians made David and his brother stand naked and inspect each others genitals , female clinicians were used specifically to manipulate and force the young David to act more feminine in an attempt to enforce upon him a female identity , and according to David when voicing his objections to such treatments, had those objections ignored and was told how he should feel .
Despite all of this, David thankfully rebelled, he refused to act feminine [6, 9], would mimic his fathers behaviour and rebuff his mothers attempts to get him to wear make up  and had no interest at all in toys such as dolls . Sadly, despite this, due to his treatment by those around him it resulted in a childhood of isolation and bullying . Yet in the face of David rebelling, these results served to tell the clinicians attempting to brainwash the young David, that their experiment had been the correct thing to do . If that sounds completely insane to you, congratulations, you are still on the side of compassionate humans beings.
Following this “success”, many “social scientists” used Money’s work as a foundation for pushing the hypothesis of ‘Gender Neutrality’ to become accepted as legitimate ‘Gender Theory’ [14, 16-18]. But as you can see the truth behind this study is truly insidious. The lengths to which Money went to in order to ensure “success” are nothing short of cruel, abusive and inhumane.
There is no known scientifically biological basis for ‘Gender Neutrality’. There have however been studies that have shown gender and orientation is determined before birth, usually referencing various prenatal environments that indicate factors affecting development into adulthood [1-5]. Not only that but, if left to their own introspection, most male-to-female transsexuals revert back to their original gender . The only way to allegedly get a child to “adopt” a gender identity other than they’re biological one is through constant re-enforcement of the desired gender, the eradication of the previous identity by deliberately refusing to allow the child to perform any introspection and the child must be manipulated by clinicians, therapists and those around them alongside consistently maintained estrogen therapy [7, 11, 13, 15].
I fail to see how anyone can read the preceding paragraphs and come to the conclusion that gender neutrality as a hypothesis was a success and that the treatment these children suffered is not inhumane and outright abuse. Yet all of this is being pushed online, in the media, in schools, nurseries, civil services and governments as some sort of virtue, being one of the many facets involved that I believe are having the affect of destroying the concept of the family and reducing overall birth rates among the native population [19, 20].
David, thankfully, transitioned back into a male and lived for a short while as a healthy man in a loving relationship. Unfortunately David, and his brother, took their own lives. It is found they suffered symptoms of what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder . Whether there is a direct link, I cannot say definitively, but now I know the truth behind this study, I am going to come to my own conclusion.
So remember, when you hear gender theory being pushed out in schools and workplaces, think to yourself would you like such theories pushed upon your children? And then remember David.
As a quick side note, I can already hear the yells of “transphobe”, so allow me if you will to elaborate on why my article is actually the opposite. In order to have the label “trans”, one must be a person who transitions from a distinct position, say male, to another, female. If everyone is in fact ‘gender neutral’ and we discard the notions of traditional male and female, then there is nothing to transition to or from, thus gender neutrality reasons the trans identity out of existence. However if as I have surmised above gender neutrality is complete nonsense and that male and female exist as biological realities, then so does the trans label. You cannot be both gender neutral and trans.
Have fun with that.
 ALLEN, L. GORSKI, R. 1992. Sexual orientation and the size of the commissure in the human brain, The National Academy of Science. 89:7199-7202.
 ALLEN, L. HINES, M. SHRYNG, J. GORSKI, R. 1989. Two sexually dimorphic cell groups in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 9(2):497-506
 DIAMOND, M. 1968. Genetic-endocrine interactors and human psychosexuality. Published in: DIAMOND, M, 1968, Perspectives in reproduction and sexual behaviours. Available: Pacific Centre of Sex and Sociology
 DIAMOND, M. 1. Some genetic considerations in the development of sexual orientation. Published in HAUG ET AL, 1993. The development of sex differences and similarities in behaviour. NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Springer Science+Media
 DIAMOND, M. 1996. Sexual identity and sexual orientation in children with traumatised or ambiguous genitalia. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(2): 199-211
 DIAMOND, M. SIGMUNDSON, K. 1997. Sex reassignment at birth: Long-term review and clinical implications. Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151(3): 298-304
 LEV-RAN, A. 1974. Gender role differentiation in hermaphedites. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 3(5): 391-424
 MONEY, J. 1961. Sex hormones and other variables in human eroticism. Sex and iniernal secretions. 3rd Edition: Williams & Wilkins, 1387-1400
 MONEY, J. ERHARDT, AA. 1972. Man and woman/boy and girl. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press
 MONEY, J. 1975. Ablatio Penis: Normal male infant reassigned as a girl. Archives of Sexual Behaviours, 4(1): 65-71
 MONEY J. 1994. Hormones, hormonal anomalies and psychosexual healthcare. Cited in: KAPPY ET AL, 1994. The diagnosis and treatment of endocrine disorders in childhood and adolescence. 4th Edition, Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publishers
 AZZIZ ET AL, 1986. Presented in: PEDIATRCS, 1996. Timing of elective surgery on the genitalia of male children with particular reference to the risks, benefits and psychological effect of surgery and anesthesia. American Academy of Paediatrics, 97:590-594
 REINER, W. GEARHEART, J. 2004. Discordant sexual identity in some genetic males with cloacal exstrophy assigned to female at birth. New England Journal of Medicine, 350: 333-341
 SARGENT, AG. 1977. Beyond sex roles. West Publishing Company.
 STOLLER, RJ, 1968. Sex and gender: On development of masculinity and femininity. New York: Science House, 231,240.
 TARVIS, C. OFFIR, C. 1987. The longest war: Sex difference in perspective. Hancourt and Janonovich, New York.
 UNGER, R.K. 1979. Female and male: Psychological perspective, Harper Row, New York
 WEITZ, S. 1977. Sex roles: Biological, psychological and social foundations. Oxford University Press, New York and London
 Births in England and Wales: 2017. Office for National Statistics. Avalaible: https://www.ons.org.uk/peoplepopulationandcommmunity/birthsanddeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2017
 Birth Rates (per 1000) The World Bank. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.dyn.cbrt.in (Scroll down for country specific birth rate tables).