The Invention of “Biological Women” (Part Two: 1950 – 2007)

THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL WORK!

===========

Author’s note: I didn’t intend to write three parts, but this is too complex for two segments, and even then this installment is almost hopelessly cartooned against the realities of the period. I apologize — but you can’t write a book on social media.

I welcome corrections/additions, but please be careful about “correcting” my terminology. I agonized over this, but in the end had to go with the terms used during the period as defined then, and I ask humbly that you read them the same way.

===========

We live today — for many reasons, including the prevalence of digital media — in an “eternal present.” What is politically, economically, or culturally expedient to be considered “true” today is validated against not history, but a perceived (often invented) “traditional past” constructed not from evidence so much as fervor.

An example: the intense social media harassment of trans individuals (especially trans women) that stems from the “biological woman” construct all too often seems to have been with us forever.

The “biological woman” construct is the assertion that sex is innately biological, dependent primarily if not exclusively on genetics and genitalia, and that being “transgender” is a “woke” concept stemming from mental illness, delusion, and/or a desire for “biological men” to pretend to be women in order to threaten the safety and existence of “biological women.”

It results in massive, persistent online attacks, often involving “brigading” to launch multiply sourced attacks against individuals.

But neither mass social media harassment of trans people nor the right’s allegiance to the concept of “biological women” is longstanding. The phenomenon appears to be at most eight years old, and more probably six.

Online trans harassment has been extensive from 2024 – 2026. From 2020 – 2023 there’s also such content, but at about 60% less frequency and a far lower intensity.

Before 2020 published content trails off dramatically back to 2016, and that was generally far milder. (1)

Polling outfits and political scientists agree that “trans acceptance” peaked around 2014, and has been declining under coordinated attack ever since. (2)

For those the catch-phrase “biological women” was created, placing a false “spin” on a complex discussion that had been going on since the 1950s.

Trans people have a history in America, and without overlooking the trans protesters at Stonewall, their turning point came more quietly, at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore.

There would have been no JHMS without assertive women, as Mary Roth Walsh observes:

“The financially beleaguered Baltimore [medical] school had long been in the planning stage, but it had been unable to open because of lack of funds. Convinced that Johns Hopkins offered the best hope, a number of women collected $500,000 by 1892. They demanded that Johns Hopkins admit women on the same terms as men … The administration had no choice but to accept the women’s terms and, in 1893, three out of the twenty-one entering students in the first class were women.” (3)

So it’s fitting that when four researchers — “pediatric endocrinologist Lawson Wilkins, psychologist John Money, and psychiatrist couple Joan and John Hampson” — attacked the issue of the distinction between biology and gender, it happened at Johns Hopkins while they worked with intersex individuals. (4)

What follows is chiefly from Sandra Eder’s “How the Clinic Made Gender,” an amazing book that you absolutely need to read, as what follows is a pale, flawed abstraction, and cannot do it justice. (5) When you see a different footnote number, that information come from a different source; otherwise pretty much the next paragraphs depend on Eder.

The story began in 1948-1954 at the Johns Hopkins’s Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children when Wilkins and Money began treating girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) which led them to the following quandary:

“How should girls with CAH live? They were chromosomally female and had internal reproductive organs such as ovaries and uteruses, but they had been born with male-appearing genitals and looked increasingly male as they grew up.”

That question overturned centuries of how the medical field considered the very nature of women.

The traditional viewpoint was that all presumed “female” traits were inherently biological, and relied on male scientists to construct both the questions and the answers, as noted far back as 1982:

“For a long time, biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and physicians have allocated a great deal of attention to the question, ‘Why are males masculine and females feminine?’ They have searched busily for the answer: just the right ratio of nature to nurture required to produce our present schizophrenic state of affairs.

“Nature, it appears, works in ways mysterious and widely varying, depending upon which man of science we accept. Darwin thought that nature enabled us to distinguish boys from girls by endowing the latter with inferior traits at birth — a difference established through sexual

selection. John Money contends that nature controls behavior through our hormones and the differing spatial orientation of our genitals (also a favorite with psychologist Erik Erikson).

“Others have located nature’s imprint in a differential development of the left and right sides of our brains. And the sociobiologists locate it in our genes, which supposedly endow women with an updated version of the ‘mothering instinct’ — the evolutionary adaptation that equips women to guard parental investment in our offspring …”

In other words, scientists “do not accept all possible answers: only those congruent with the implicit assumptions that form the basis of their understanding of the world (an understanding shared with most of their “educated” contemporaries).”(6) [Another book you MUST read.]

Money and his colleagues in 1955 encountered “Charles,” a two-year-old with an exceptionally large penis who was already growing pubic hair. It turned out, however, that Charles had XX chromosomes and — upon surgical examination — ovaries and a uterus. HE was in fact, genetically and in most genital aspects, a SHE.

But Charles had been raised as a boy for the first two years of his life, and Money (who had introduced the term “gender role” the previous year) and his colleagues believed that “that gender role was determined by the sex in which the child had been raised rather than by sex chromosomes or other biological sex characteristics.”

So they provided what today we’d call “gender-affirming” surgery, and removed Charles’ ovaries and uterus, then placed the child on hormone therapy.

Think what this means about the origination of the terms “biological woman/man” and “gender roles.” Money and company developed the thesis that biology was in fact secondary to society’s imposition of gender roles and expectations in determining the sexual identity of a person.

In other words, “biological woman/man” was originated as a concept that biology is NOT determinative over all other factors in locating sexual identity.

Money went on in the 1960s to foster the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic, whose 1966 statement of purpose included: ““If the mind cannot be changed to fit the body, then perhaps we should consider changing the body to fit the mind.”

By then the English term “transexual” was 17 years old, having been established in 1949, but the history of “transphobia” — both the concept and the term — is much more complicated … and represents a sad chapter in LGBTQIA+ history.

The chief proponents of transphobia from the 1950s up to the early 1980s were … lesbians.

As Jillian Todd Weiss argues, “There was a vigorous debate in the U.S. homophile movement of the 1950s as to whether homosexuals should embrace [transsexual Christine] Jorgensen. Some gay men and lesbians denounced those who felt themselves to be of the opposite sex, criticizing them for acting like ‘freaks,’ bringing disrepute to those gays and lesbians trying to live quietly within heterosexual society.”

Weiss also notes that during this period “some gays and lesbians associated gender transgression with undignified and low-class behavior, while ‘fairies’ and ‘butches’ were more readily accepted in working class communities,” and “a survey from the 1960s … found that more than two-thirds of a sample of almost 300 gays and lesbians in the homophile movement considered those who asked for sex-change surgery to be ‘severely neurotic.’”

More importantly, Weiss explains the impact of lesbian scholar Janice Raymond’s 1979 book “The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male,” which argued “that the phenomenon of transsexuality was created by fetishistic males who sought to escape into a faux stereotypical femininity, with the connivance of male doctors who thought that femaleness could be medically created and homosexuality medically vitiated.” (7)

The book may have contributed to the closing of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in the same year, though even Raymond herself suggests that Dr Money’s reputed extension of his theories into incest and child pornography was a more likely cause.

The work remains critical today because — while gleefully republished in 1994 as a kind of proto-TERF bible — its mischaracterizations of data and often bizarre sociological analysis have become fundamental (if unattributed) elements of today’s anti-trans hate campaigns. (

Raymond’s book was only one of multiple influential works within the LGBTQIA+ community between the 1970s – 1990s that trashed trans people. For a more complete list, go back to the Weiss article.

Weiss points out that the shift in the 1990s from the term “transsexual” to “transgender” within the LGBTQIA+ community was actually an attempt to sort of get around the animus toward medically transitioned individuals, because “transgender” …

“… was used as an umbrella term referring to transvestites, crossdressers, transsexuals, and other gender-variant people, who seemed to have similar and interlocking interests with gay men and lesbian women, and that had caught the imagination of the public through sympathetic portrayals of transsexuals such as Christine Jorgensen, Renee Richards and Wendy Williams. Originally, the term ‘transgender’ was intended by its coiner to refer only to certain non-operative transsexuals, but later mutated to refer to anyone whose gender performance varied from the norm.” (7)

In other words, the “trans” in “transgender” was originally more oriented toward “gender transgression” than “gender transition.”

“TERF” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) was not coined until 2008, but its origin clearly derives from Raymond’s work (especially its 1994 edition), and plays an interesting part in a quite strange transformation.

Here’s my current provisional conclusion about “biological women” and all the associated elements of sexual identity by 2008:

FIRST: The term “biological female/male” or “biological sex” was created in the 1950s as part of an argument that gender roles are more important to individual sexual identity than biology. This was applauded by a feminist scholarly pushback against a male-dominated scientific community looking for reasons to attribute all “negative” or “inferior” female characteristics to biology, thereby making them immutable and unchangeable.

SECOND: The 1960s became the first era of open medical transition, but that was cut short around 1979 due in no small part to segments of what we today consider the LGBTQIA+ community rejecting “transsexuals” as freaks or the mentally ill. (A tough pill to swallow.)

THIRD: The rapprochement between transsexuals (newly re-characterized as “transgender”) and the larger LGBTQIA+ community occurred in the1990s, with anti-trans LGBTQIA+ elements and the newly forming TERFs keeping up the fight against transgender legitimacy.

FOURTH: (this will be the meat of Part Three) — Since about 2008 — and definitely since 2014 — the arguments of anti-trans elements of LGBTQIA from 1979 – 19905 and by TERFs soon thereafter were picked up by the far right (without attribution) and morphed into a political crusade against “Transgender ideology.”

How that happened is critically important to understand if we expect to defeat it.

=========

SOURCES

(1) A sample of earlier works on this topic includes Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. “Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists,” (ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction) 2018) https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3185593 and Alan Marwick and Rebecca Lewis, “Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online” (Data & Society) (2017) https://www.posiel.com/…/Media-Manipulation-and…

(2) Penelope Higgins, “Fascism and the Trans Villain: Historically Recurring Transphobia in Far-Right Politics,” (Graduate History Review) (2023) https://journals.uvic.ca/…/ghr/article/view/ghr12202321578 (note: if you search this through Google Scholar you will find that you can download an un-gated pdf pre-print of the article.

(3) Mary Roth Walsh, “The Quirls of a Woman’s Brain,” in Ruth Hubbard, Mary Sue Henifen, and Barbara Fried, eds., “Biological Woman — The Convenient Myth” (Schenkman) (1982). If you look hard enough you can find a copy online. It used to be at the Internet Archive but has been removed. I would never tell you to visit your Aunt Anna.

(4) Alexander Rony and Hagit Caspi, “Author Interview with Sandra Eder: How the Clinic Made Gender,” (UC Berkeley Letters & Science) (2023) https://ls.berkeley.edu/…/author-interview-sandra-eder…

(5) Sandra Eder, “How the Clinic Made Gender: The Medical History of a Transformative Idea” (University of Chicago) (2022) If you cannot find it at the source I didn’t mention above, Amazon will sell you a used copy for about $10. https://www.amazon.com/How…/dp/0226819930/ref=sr_1_1…

(6) Ruth Hubbard, Mary Sue Henifen, and Barbara Fried in “Introduction” to “Biological Woman — The Convenient Myth” (see note 3 above).

(7) Jillian Todd Weiss, “GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobia Within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community,” (Journal of Bisexuality) (2004) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J159v03n03_02 (If you go through Google Scholar by searching article name you can bypass the gated version for a pdf copy.)

(8 ) Janice G. Raymond, “The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male” (Athene Series) (1994 reprint of 1979 edition with a new introduction by the author). Hard copies of this book today go for hundreds of dollars; most certainly DO NOT visit Aunt Anna.

The Invention of “Biological Women” (Part One: 1608 – 1950)

Sep19

THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL WORK!

I’ve made a copy here to be easy to reference. The work in question goes to American Samizdat, on Facebook. All credit and copyrights belong to that author. I’m making a copy here so I can always find it. I will be making a copy of Part Two when it becomes available but the history of the word “woman” is fraught with sociological connotations and has had nothing to do with biological sex most of the time.

The Invention of “Biological Women” (Part One: 1608 – 1950)

There’s distinct irony in trans haters — especially women — becoming offended when the term “cis-women” is used, then claiming that usage is intended to eliminate “biological women.”

The concept of “biological women” and “gender roles” as distinct from legally and culturally accepted definitions of “woman” did not exist before the 1950s, caught on slowly thereafter, and is at odds with modern science.

In this introductory segment we’ll consider the many adjectives and nouns applied to women throughout American history to discover that “I am not a cis-woman, I am a woman without adjectives or qualifications” reflects an ahistorical modern myth rather than objective reality

In the colonial, Revolutionary, and Federalist periods, the noun “women” without the adjective “negro,” or synonyms “negress,” “wench,” or “fancy girl” always meant “white women.” This was also true for Native American women. (1) (2)

The term “woman” was never intended to be a universal designation for all “adult females.”

Another critical term for white women in early America was the legal reference “femme covert.”

This codified the reality that all white women were legally defined not as individuals, but in relation to the “responsible” male in their lives: “daughter of,” “sister of,” “wife of,” etc.

“Femme covert” literally means “hidden woman/female,” a status in which all of her property and legal rights were controlled by that male. (3)

While that status began to disappear during the 19th Century, the basic reality remained: in a political and legal sense: “women” could accurately be defined as “individuals with fewer rights than men.” This remains true today, despite all social advances.

The formal designation of simply being “women” also excluded lower-class white women: indentured servants, prostitutes, whores, and … witches.

None of these distinctions involved as-yet-undiscovered chromosomes or genitalia/breeding.

That was why the US Ambassador to Mexico in 1845, Joel Poinsett, found himself in a quandary when an individual seeking a visa to enter the United States diplomatically, and said individual presented with both male and female genitalia. “A true hermaphrodite,” Poinsett wrote, and refused to stamp either “male” or “female” on the papers. (4)

Medical science prior to the American Civil War was largely ignorant of even basic female anatomy. Midwives usually attended births because male doctors had so little idea what they were doing.

You can find serious contemporary references to the clitoris as “the little penis” or “the woman’s penis,” complete with speculations about precisely what the organ did. (5)

Instead the terminology for “women” involved racial, social, and economic distinctions — created by men for the benefit of men.

Had someone in 1781 written, “Indentured women are women” or “Negro women are women,” they’d have been in trouble.

During much of the 19th Century the dialogue about “women” centered around what’s known as “the Cult of True Womanhood.”

The “True Woman” was white, of course, and belonged to the elite, professional, or tiny emerging middle classes.

Four primary virtues defined her: Piety, Purity, Submissiveness, and Domesticity. I don’t have to go deep into the definitions for you to have the idea what this all meant — it was the foundation of today’s Christian nationalist “tradwife.” (6)

Meanwhile, let’s take a swipe at the categories of adult females who were NOT considered “true women”: Black women (slave or free), Native American women (“squaws”), Asian women (“chinks”), servant women (“Bridgets,” “biddys” or “wenches”), employed women (“working women” or “mill girls”), prostitutes (“fallen women,” “soiled doves”), women who chose to remain single (“spinsters”), politically active women (“viragos”), or lesbians (“Uranians,” “Jacks,” “Sapphists,” or “Tribads”).

Speaking of prostitutes, there were trans women (“fairies”) documented among the bawdy houses of American and European cities as far back as 1830, as in the case of “Mary Jones” in New York City. Her “dead name,” to use modern parlance, was “Peter Sewally.” (7)

Remember Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a woman?” speech?

Well, she wasn’t — at least not to the white men who made the rules and the Stockholm-Syndrome-infected white women who served as their obedient handmaidens.

The definition of “women” in America has always been entangled not in science, but in race and class.

The Page Act of 1875 excluded all female Chinese immigrants from the same category of “women” (thereby barring their entrance into the country) by characterizing them as all prostitutes (carriers of STDs and “moral corruption”). (

Women’s rights activists (suffragettes and early feminists) were consistently removed from the category of “true womanhood” as “unsexed” or “unwomanly” (mid-19th Century); “man-haters” (early 20th Century); “Battle Axes” or “Castrating bitches” (mid-20th Century), or “Feminazis” (late 20th Century).

Meanwhile, those white women who opposed feminism and the expansion of women’s rights were heralded as “traditional women,” “conservative women,” or even “real women.” Since much of this occurred during the late Jim Crow/Civil Rights era, Black women were (again!) generally excluded from these terms with a very few exceptions.

Shall we discuss the biological elements here?

Remember that during the 1930s Nazi Germany modeled its eugenics laws (including the sterilization of the “mentally deficient — male or female) on those existing in the United States. (9)

Remember that any white person (especially women) could lose their status forever due to the transfusion of a unit of “negro” blood. The same people today telling you that an individual cannot change their gender don’t want you to study the history wherein a drop of blood could change your race. (10)

Remember that Black women from the 18th through the middle of the 20th Century were considered appropriate subjects for medical experimentation without their consent because they lacked the cultural and legal protections of “real” women. (11)

Remember that the US government continued an active (though covert) program of involuntary sterilization of Native American women into the 1970s because their consent, unlike that of white “women,” was considered unnecessary. (12)

What’s also notable here is that between the colonial period and the mid-1950s, despite all the other aspects we’ve noted, there was never a separation in the definition of “woman” between “biology” and “gender.”

“Woman” was considered to be defined by a host of traits, some social and some physiological. The idea of splitting the definition into “sex” or “biology” versus “gender.” had yet to occur.There was widespread recognition in the medical community in the late 19th century that many women possessed physiological and psychological traits that significantly diverged from what was considered “normal.”

The term “sexual invert” was coined to describe women who physiology, sexual attractions, and gender presentation significantly differed from that norm. The term “passing woman” describe what were effectively trans men — women who lived their entire lives as men, even marrying and having families. (13)

Possibly the most famous (at least in retrospect once historians reconstructed their biography) sexual invert/trans man, was Albert Cashier, a Civil War veteran soldier whose close family and friends, as well as attending medical practitioners, were aware possessed female genitalia … but no one “outed” Cashier publicly, even after death. (14)

Though the role of XX and XY chromosomes was generally understood by 1902-1905, significant karyotype variations weren’t discovered until 1956 – 1959, decades after Dr Magnus Hirschfeld performed the first known complete bottom surgery for a trans woman named Dora Richter in 1922, leading directly to many more at Berlin’s Institute for Sexual Science until Germany’s transgender population — like homosexuals, the mentally challenged, and the Romany — joined Jews as targets for genocide. (15) (16)

Researchers at the Johns Hopkins University during the 1950s piloted the idea that “woman” as a definition needed to be divided into two major categories: biology and “gender.”

Biology dealt with anatomy and “sex.” Gender covered all those aspects of how society viewed and enforced cultural roles on women. The researchers — as scientists — predictably concluded that the biological definition was determinative.

How that happened, and why it was a disaster, is the topic for next time.

=========

SOURCES

(1) Allsup, Carl, “Women and racism” (EBSCO) (2022) https://www.ebsco.com/research…/history/women-and-racism/

(2) Caren Holmes, “The Colonial Roots of the Racial Fetishization of Black Women” (Black & Gold) (2016) https://openworks.wooster.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi…

(3) Catherine Allgor, “Coverture: The Word You Probably Don’t Know But Should” (Nation Women’s History Museum) (2012) https://www.womenshistory.org/…/coverture-word-you…

(4) Reel M-97, “Despatches From U.S. Ministers To Mexico, 1823-1906,” (Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State) (National Archives, Washington DC)

(5) Virginia Vigliar, “A brief history of the clitoris.” (Antidotes) (2022) https://virginiavigliar.substack.com/…/a-brief-history…

(6) Jennifer Kurtz, “Introduction-Women and the Cult of Domesticity,” (Lumen Learning) (2023) https://viva.pressbooks.pub/…/introduction-women-and…/

(7) Jonathan Ned Katz, “The ‘Man-Monster’” (Out History) (2011) https://outhistory.org/exh…/show/sewally-jones/man-monster

( “Page Law (1875)” (Immigration History) (2019) https://immigrationhistory.org/item/page-act/

(9) Beth Daley, “Historians are learning more about how the Nazis targeted trans people,” (The Conversation) (2023) https://theconversation.com/historians-are-learning-more…

(10) “The Color of Blood,” (Smithsonian) (ND) https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/color-blood

(11) Benjamin Anderson, “Author Harriet Washington Lectures on Medical Apartheid,” (Hamilton University) (2014) https://www.hamilton.edu/…/celebrated-author-harriet…

(12) Erin Blackmore, “The Little-Known History of the Forced Sterilization of Native American Women,” (JSTOR Daily) (2016) https://daily.jstor.org/the-little-known-history-of-the…/

(13) Rodolfo John Alaniz, “Darwinian Sensualities: Havelock Ellis, Sexual Inversion, and Late Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Theory,” (University of Texas) (2017) https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/…/gender-symp-hps…

(14) Amy Benck, “Albert D. J. Cashier: Woman Warrior, Insane Civil War Veteran, or Transman?” (OUT History) (ND) https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/tgi-bios/albert-cashier

(15) Samantha Reidel, “Remembering Dora Richter, One of the First Women to Receive Gender-Affirming Surgery,” (THEM) (2022) https://www.them.us/…/dora-richter-first-trans-woman-to…

(16) Jaycek Z. Kubiak, Małgorzata Kloc, and Rafał P. Piprek, “History of The Research on Sex Determination,” (Biodmedical) (2020) https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.004194.php

(17( Alexander Rony and Hagit Caspi, “Author Interview with Sandra Eder: How the Clinic Made Gender,” (UC Berkeley Letters & Science) (2023) https://ls.berkeley.edu/…/author-interview-sandra-eder…

A “Come To Jesus” Moment

Mar28

That’s actually an amusing title because I’m going to discuss why I’m agnostic/atheist and the inherent problems I see in religion in general.

And I’m bringing this up because I see Jews getting upset that Israel (and by extension, Judaism) getting criticized because of the apartheid state that Israel runs coupled with the ongoing Palestinian genocide that Israel is perpetrating. And no, don’t argue with me whether it’s genocide or not. It fits the UN definition and multiple international human rights organizations have all labeled it genocide. So I’m not arguing about this and if you come here to argue about it, your comment will just get deleted. I’m not playing games with genocide defenders (because YOU, the genocide defenders, are why Trump is in the White House right now).

Anyway, let’s get back to religion. Over and over again throughout history, you find a recurring pattern – every religion that has a deity or deities, and where those deities separate human beings based on whether they worship said deity(ies) or not, you have a religion that ultimately others non-worshipers and then commits atrocities, and often genocides, in the name of said deity(ies). Full stop. Historically, this is an irrefutable fact.

You cannot get around this flaw. Religion is completely just opinion because faith is just opinion about whether something invisible is real or not. You cannot scientifically test it. You cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or feel it. It’s just opinion and, to make matters as much worse as possible, it’s an opinion that, in the historical record kills non-believers.

Every religion that others non-believers has committed atrocities! Every religion that others non-believers is, therefore, a prime enabler of genocidal behavior.

No, I don’t care that your religion is “nice”. Look at the numbers. When you consider the “kind” versions of Christianity versus the Catholics and evangelicals, the Catholics and evangelicals are about 95% of the total. Again, don’t try to argue here. Catholicism and evangelicalism have been prime movers and supporters of colonization, imperialism, and destruction of non-western cultures. History is utterly clear on that too.

So why do we even bother trying to focus on the 5% who are usually “nice” versus the 95% who are hateful, murderous, imperialistic assholes?

I mean, statistically, if I were an alien visiting earth and I looked at religion, I’d conclude it drives humans to act in utterly irrational and violent ways. Sure, there are a tiny few who are special because of their religion, but there are kind atheists and agnostics too, and they didn’t need “faith” to get that way. Meanwhile, religion continues to drive genocides, “culture wars” that actually kill people the so-called “religious” don’t like, and these religions also seek to impose their opinions (their faith) on everyone else whether you like it or not.

So I am left with this question of why do humans even consider bothering with religion? Are y’all that afraid of death that you’ll murder others to guarantee yourselves seats in some fictional afterlife that absolutely does not exist?

Religion, all religion that tries to separate people into believers and non-believers, is toxic as hell. It’s violent always and it always devolves into mass murder eventually. Every single time. That is an inescapable conclusion of history.

Further, as we see in western nation after western nation, religion demands special treatment and to be exempt from the rule of law of the secular state. Christianity does this. Islam does this. And so does Judaism. Hell, the conservative Jews in Israel are now openly calling for a “civil war” to stop the leftist Jews, to kill other Jews because they see those Jews as a threat to their continued genocide of Palestinians.

I’m not going to tell you that you shouldn’t believe in a deity. I’m not going to tell you to stop being a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. But I am going to ask you to honestly try to justify to yourself if the very few decent Christians/Muslims/Jews that you know are worth the cost to humanity of all of the violent and hateful Christians/Muslims/Jews that you see daily on our news channels.

Because if you are going to cling to an opinion (a belief, without any factual backing) that some people are “lesser” just because they don’t believe the way you do, then no matter what else you say, you are not a safe person. Because, in the end, the safety of anyone is conditional on your belief in your particular sky daddy (or daddies, or mommy, etc.) and that’s neither safety nor trustworthy.

Why Do We Need A Church Anyway?

Nov1

That thing that we all call the “church” was doomed from its inception. Frail, flawed human beings are going to fail, including in their conception and execution of the church. They are going to place themselves first, their wants, their needs, their narrow interpretations of a boundless deity who created a universe so vast we can barely comprehend the size, let alone all that is within it.

And you know, now that I think about it, Jesus didn’t preach creating churches, planting church seeds, none of that. He didn’t demand confessions or tithes or looking down one’s nose at those less “Christian” than he was.

Instead, he taught his disciples to simply spread the good news. And he said where two or more are gathered in my name was sufficient. It didn’t need a building, an organization, a tax break, an organ, a choir, hymnals… none of that. No megachurch, no TV stations, no fake games by the power mad.

And speaking of those power hungry, where I see those things, I see too often people, very often usually men, who seek nothing but power and dominance over others, as well as fame and fortune. Creflo Dollar, anyone? Pat Robertson? Jim Baker? How many people must these con men fleece before your heart awakens to the truth.

What truth? Jesus never needed those men. Neither do you.

Christianity, as religion, is as much a sham as the Old Testament rules were – rules that God gave Israel not because he wanted to but to show Israel that rules alone are never enough.

Maybe Jesus gave us the church to teach us the same thing – that we need to grow up, look past rules, look past the church, and learn to just love. Maybe it’s time to be the adults that Christ and so many other religious leaders have told us to be, to be kind to one another, to cherish one another, to lift up one another.

Because in far too short a time, we will all return to the stardust from which we came. And all that will be left are memories. If you live a life of rigidity, coldness, cruelty, all in the name of some hellfire breathing thunder god from Mt. Ararat, just what sort of memory will you leave? Not one that people will hold to, or cherish, I can guarantee you that.

Who Are The Real Sexual Predators?

Apr28

The right wing has been on the warpath against transgender people using the bathroom of their expressed gender, as opposed to the gender assigned at birth. In that entire discussion, I’ve seen the conservatives find one single incident in Canada several years ago where a man pretended to be transgender to get into a women’s homeless shelter and assault them. One incident.

Conservatives are notorious for telling us that criminals don’t obey laws, and point to gun free school zone laws as proof. Yet now, somehow magically, criminals are going to obey a law that says to not enter a women’s restroom? And that’s the justification for violating the rights of transgender women, because some non-trans man will maybe do something wrong?

I suggest they focus on an area where there is proven sexual assault. I suggest they pass a law mandating that women and children are not allowed in churches since pastors and church staff have a proven record of being sexual predators of both women and children.

Here’s a list of recent stories in the last few months. This is just a few months of quick stories collected together. Imagine how bad it must be for a full year! Imagine all those women and children being violated by religious authority figures! So if Republicans want to really protect women and children, pass a law barring anyone who works in a church from having contact with women and children. (I say this in jest, in case anyone is stupid enough to believe I mean it, but I say it to show how stupid these laws are.)

And here’s that list.

Man accused of sexually assaulting 6-year-old girl at Raleigh church | abc11.com

Cedar Hill youth pastor accused of sexually assaulting 3 young boys | | Dallas Morning News

Update: Former Atkins Youth Pastor Charged with Sexual Assault –

Cedar Hill youth pastor accused of sexually assaulting 3 young boys | KDFW

Maryland Baptist Bishop Arrested, Accused of Sexually Assaulting 22-Year-Old Woman | NBC4 Washington

NC pastor charged with indecent liberties with a child | myfox8.com

Monroe pastor charged with indecent liberties with a child – | WBTV Charlotte

Teen rape accusation: Ex-pastor’s return to U.S. expected, police say – CNN.com

Pastor accused of sexually assaulting youth member | KXAN.com

Former Mesa pastor accused of sexual assault arraigned in Pennsylvania

Texas Youth Pastor Beaten by Witnesses Who Caught Him Sexually Assaulting Kindergartner: Report – The Root