Heterosexual attraction and Human Rights

 Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad, isn't it) to Linda Bengtzing and other sex-confused women:  

 
Yes, you, like all women are "gay", i.e. "bisexual" - but not heterosexual (like "bisexual" male gays are), because you, like all women, lack a biological counterpart to "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction (HSA), much like men lack reproductive capability.

And when you said that you got so many opportunities to have sex (with men apparently) that's precisely because men are heterosexual and biologically attracted to women's bodies. Do realize the distinction between sexual performance (i.e. rubbing genitals) which anyone can do, alone or together with others, and heterosexual attraction. The term 'homosexual attraction' would be superfluous because it's outside the relation between the sexes, and also lacks evolutionary reproductive meaning. Heterosexual attraction isn't per se sexual performance but rather an evolutionary implanted biological "strategy" for making heterosexual reproduction possible by "arranging" for the sperm to get to the egg. Only those animals survived which had some sort of heterosexual attraction at play. Moreover, among other apes, what we consider rape is often the rule and perhaps also the reason for sexual dimorphism. However, if we want to call us civilized we need to accept the integrity of all humans no matter of sex. For this purpose Art. 2 in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 comes handy:

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

And when you say that 'as young and not destroyed one may love whomever but as an adult one gets awfully limited', this reflects the underlying problem, i.e. the dinosaur of cultural sex segregation - a historical/religious fossil from the past that ought to be put in a museum asap.

'I got so many chances to have sex'. Since the introduction of heterosexual reproduction HSA has always satisfied the need for sperm delivery - to an extent that sometimes may feel uncomfortable unless we respect each other over the sex borders as equals as humans.

But why, Linda, did you lock yourself in a closet in the first place?!

'I've been aroused by women, but never had the possibility to fall in low at the same time.'
"Romantic love" is a late invention, and often conflated with sexual love. However, although both women and men can feel "Romantic love", there's a night and day difference in how the sexes get aroused by each other - due to HSA.

Linda says she repents that she didn't explore her sexuality more.

That's called sexual taboo.

Linda says she loved a same sex human being but never had sex with her. So why, in retrospect, was it important to have sex with her?!

However, then Linda fell in love with a man and now they have two daughters. Peter Klevius presumes they both fell in "romantic love" as well as sexual love, right.



Peter Klevius wrote 1981:

Evolution* has two basic features opposing devolution: Upholding complexity and enforcing complexity.

* Evolution is an emotionally charged word, so feel free to use it as you like as long you also consider its opposite, i.e. devolution.

The solid state of existence is motion/change. Movement consists of occurences. The causality of occurences is a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution, hence, is the deterministic outcome of variables of causality over time that enforces the complexity in previous structures (P. Klevius 1981, 1992). Evolution does not "think" but rather constitutes recognizable historical results in an un-recognizable chaos..The problem of human evolution is especially characterized by our limited understanding of how speciation/hybridization has affected it.


Peter Klevius wrote 2003:

Erotisized heterosexual genes and non-sex gametes fusioned by hetero-sexual attraction.

Basically there are no "sexes" but only hetero-sexual attraction (HSA). Gametes do not have sexes. So when, in Japan 2004, the first ever mammal (a mouse) to be reproduced without the assistance of a male but by two females, it was wrongly considered a partenogenesis, i.e. developed from an unfertilized egg. Why? Obviously just because we are so used to sex-segregation that we miss the simple fact that a new individual needs two bio-parents, but not necessarily a father and a mother. By hampering and switching off one single gene (H19) the "father" was eliminated. And without a "father/male" there can hardly exist a "mother/female" because of the mutual inter-dependency of these terms. But note that HSA (Hetero-Sexual Attraction was indeed involved in the process, i.e. in the form of the researchers and their apparatus). In the end then the totality of our enormous sex-dichtomy is in a "blocking gene" that now has been decoded and released. Biology was faster than culture, what else! In 'Warning for feminism', published in 2000, I actually predicted the possibility of an "asexual" reproduction like the one now in Japan. So why do I mention this? Because some genetists who have commented on the topic obviously did not believe in the possibility before! And this fact, I think, reflects an underlying, sex-segregated and rather human prejudice hampering experts at work.

Something like an RNA in a wrinkled protein shell was probably an early stage of "life". A virus within a prion-like shell. This simple wrapping evolved into a more complex package consisting of DNA – a longer chain of RNA (where thymine repalaced uracil) - in the nucleus aided by several RNA protein builders in the surrounding cytoplasm. In this new system RNA thus continued to produce protein but now by taking orders directly from the master controller DNA.

The division of the cell at this stage was simple. After some time or depending on the environment, the cell divided itself into two identical pieces where the chain of DNA was simply cut off. This method of reproduction was in the beginning the only available and is still popular today, for example all the cells – except sex cells – in our bodies.

But in a dangerous environment such as early Earth, which was even more exposed for solar and space radiation than today, DNA structures were often subject to mutations as well as other damages. If we then suppose the existence of mutated and split DNA cells, we have the ingredients ready for a more sophisticated and evolutionary more effective system of achieving advanced and complex living structures by the help of biological sex-segregation.

When the first proto-sex-cells. searched for a partner to complete their split DNA damage they simultaneously created the first biological incest taboo. This was because they could no longer re-emerge with a split DNA cell identical to their own "species". The mutation in their DNA made them incomplete for such a purpose. So they continued searching for a partner with a defect, not similar but completing the damage of their own. Voilá – a new species was born and its success was a matter of  “survival of the fittest”.


Peter Klevius wrote:

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Peter Klevius*, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), obituary over a Jewish female patriarch.

* Why is it that a man seems to be the world's foremost defender of women's rights? The answer is threefold:

1 Only a man can understand biological heterosexual attraction (HSA), i.e. the only thing that essentially segregates the sexes (see below).

2 Only a man feels safe from inferiority complex as long as sex segregation prevails.

3 Only a man can feel a coming inferiority complex in a de-sex segregated world.

Therefore men have all reason to stick to Human Rights equality. As Peter Klevius has always said since his teens: Negative (as opposed to the positive s.c. "Stalin rights") Human Rights for a positive human future.

Do realize the difference between folk feminism which is anti segragation and true feminism which is the very opposite - already from the beginning when resisting the vote etc.

And do realize that while Mills wanted emancipation and Freud didn't. No wonder psychoanalysis became so popular among feminists.

And no feminist seems to be interested in Mary Woolstonecraft's advice on how to not foster daughters to "follies". And the s.c. "glamour feminism" did just that.

In the last chapter in Demand for Resources (1992) called Khoi, San and Bantu, Peter Klevius notes that hunter-gathering societies where the least sexist. With civilization came what Peter Klevius calls classical sex segregation, and with "monotheisms" came religious sexism on top of the classical.

US Supreme Court needs to replace at least half* of its 100% religious members with Atheists so to democratically represent the people

* Even most Jews are Atheists, although orthodox Jew Ruth Bader Ginsburg was certainly not..

Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding or blinded with prejudice, do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress from below over painful flames into a crown of liberty.

Perpetua (203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped me, and I became a man'.

Peter Klevius: They stripped Perpetua of her femininity and she became a human!

The whole LGBTQ+ carousel is completely insane when considering that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 2 gives everyone, no matter of sex, the right to live as they want without having to "change their sex". So the only reason for the madness is the stupidly stubborn cultural sex segregation which, like religious dictatorship, stipulates what behavior and appearance are "right" for a biological sex. And in the West, it is very much about licking islam, which refuses to conform to the basic (negative) rights in the UDHR, and instead created its own sharia declaration (CDHRI) in 1990 ("reformed" 2020 with blurring wording - but with the same basic Human Rights violating sharia issues still remaining). The UDHR allows women to voluntarily live according to sharia but sharia does not allow muslim women to live freely according to the UDHR. And culturally ending sex segregation does not mean that biological sex needs to be "changed." Learn more under 'Peter Klevius sex tutorials' which should be compulsory sex education for everyone - incl. people with ambiguous biological sex! The LGBTQ+ movement is a desperate effort to uphold outdated sex segregation. And while some old-fashioned trans people use it for this purpose, many youngsters (especially girls) follow it because they feel trapped in limiting sex segregation.

 Does the Human Right to 'freedom of religion' really mean freedom to violate Human Rights as e.g. islamic sharia (OIC) does?!

Anna-Karin Wyndham is a Swedish example of the female patriarchy 2020

From a headline February 11, 2020

Precisly because Peter Klevius is a defender of the most basic of Human Right, he is called an "islamophobe" because islam can't stand Human Rights equality.
Peter Klevius is offended by muslims' extreme injustice (sharia), and asks for more fairness.

Islam's schizophrenia

Islam resides between the roof of the Saudi dictator family/OIC, and the floor of Muslim Brotherhood. And the "house of Saud" wants to broom the floor, while MB wants to take down the roof.

Muslims have an overwhelming problem if they want to follow islam while living in a civilized society based on Human
rights equality.

Peter Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), asks for your help because he doesn't see any other biological difference between men and women than the onesided evolutionary heterosexual attraction that Peter Klevius seems to be the only one talking about but everyone knows about. So do you see something that Peter Klevius doesn't?

But don't fall in the usual trap by pointing to non-relational differences. Menstruating, delivering and feeding a baby, etc. are not relational. And although heterosexual attraction is only implanted in the male's brain, it's directly dependent on the female. And it affects all women, incl. prepubertal girls and centenary old ladies, precisely because how it outlines the future of the former and the history of the latter.

As Tertullian, "the founder of Western theology" said to women who wanted to abandon heterosexual attraction by marrying Christ: "It's a sport of nature."  

And if a lesbian woman's body attracts "the male gaze", i.e. heterosexual attraction, she has no other option than covering it in a burqa-like package - but without becoming a muslim because sharia would kill her lesbianism.   

However, if we want to live in a civilized world based on Human Rights equality, i.e. not segregating between humans, then we need to release us from the unnesseccary, stupid and destructive gender prison of sex segregation, and the one sex that lacks sensitivity for heterosexual attraction has to decide whether or when it wants to have anything to do with it. And do remember, we healthy men are always there for you - but not for cheating. So be responsible.

The seemingly seamless connection between heterosexual attraction and reproduction is the mirage that a disastrous sex segregation has been built on.

When will start educating children about heterosexual attraction and sex segregation? 

Google seems not to have a clue about heterosexual attractio. This is Google's first on the subject: There are several types of sexual orientation; for example: Heterosexual. People who are heterosexual are romantically and physically attracted to members of the opposite sex: Heterosexual males are attracted to females, and heterosexual females are attracted to males. Heterosexuals are sometimes called "straight."

Peter Klevius: No wonder girls are confused when they don't get any adequate sex education at all.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Klevius sex and gender tutorial

Klevius' proposal to bright minded and non-biased readers: Do read EMAH, i.e. how continuous integration in Thalamus of complex neural patterns without the assistance of one or infinite "Homunculus" constitutes the basis for memory and "consciousness".

Klevius quest of the day: What's the difference between the Pope and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Klevius hint: It's all about 'not sameness' and Human Rights! Human Rights IS 'sameness' stupid!

When God was created he was made like Adam.

When the basic idea of Universal Human Rights was created it was made like Adam AND Eve.

And for you who think heterosexual attraction, i.e. that women are sexier than men, could be (exc)used as a reason for depriving women of legal sameness. Please, do think again!And read Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial below - if you can!

                           The Plan of God

A Cardinal, a Pope and a Justice "from medieval times"

Keith O'Brien has reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, which he claimed were "harmful", arguing that “The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”

Four male members of the Scottish Catholic clergy  allegedly claim that Keith O'Brien had abused his position as a member of the church hierarchy by making unwanted homosexual advances towards them in the 1980s.

Keith O'Brien criticized the concept of same-sex marriage saying it would shame the United Kingdom and that promoting such things would degenerate society further.


Pope Francis, aka Jorge Bergoglio: Same-sex is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church's tone was reminiscent of "medieval times and the Inquisition".

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'Sex' is a dirty word, so let's use 'gender' instead!

Klevius: Let's not!

As previously and repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, the treacherous use of 'gender' instead of 'sex' is not only confusing but deliberately so. So when Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed gender' as a synonyme for 'sex' (meaning biological sex) she also helped to shut the door for many a young girl's/woman's possibilities to climb outside the gender cage.

The Universal Human Rights declaration clearly states that your biological sex should not be referred to as an excuse for limiting your rights.

Islam (now represented by OIC and its Sharia declaration) is the worst and most dangerous form of sex segregation - no matter in how modern clothing it's presented!

Klevius Sex and Gender Tutorial

What is 'gender' anyway?

(text randomly extracted from some scientific writings by Klevius)

It might be argued that it is the developing girl, not the grown up woman, who is the most receptive to new experience, but yet is also the most vulnerable. Therefore we need to address the analysis of the tyranny of gender before the point at where it's already too late.  I prefer to use the term ‘female’ instead of ‘woman’, when appropriate in this discussion. I also prefer not to define women in relation to men, i.e. in line with the word 'universal' in the Human Rights Declaration. In short, I propose 'gender blindness' equally as, for example, 'color blindness'.

According to Connell (2003:184), it is an old and disreputable habit to define women mainly on the basis of their relation to men. Moreover, this approach may also constitute a possible cause of confusion when compared to a definition of ‘gender’ which emphasizes social relations on the basis of ‘reproductive differences’.

To really grasp the absurdity of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and others habit of confusing 'gender' with 'sex' one may consider that “normal” women live in the same gender trap tyranny as do transsexuals.

The definition of ‘acquired gender’ is described in a guidance for/about transsexuals as:

Transsexual people have the deep conviction that the gender to which they were assigned at birth on the basis of their physical anatomy (referred to as their “birth gender”) is incorrect. That conviction will often lead them to take steps to present themselves to the world in the opposite gender. Often, transsexual people will undergo hormonal or surgical treatment to bring their physical identity into line with their preferred gender identity.

This evokes the extinction of the feminine or women as directly dependent on the existence of the masculine or men. Whereas the feminine cannot be defined without the masculine, the same applies to women who cannot be defined - only described - without men.

Female footballers, for example - as opposed to feminine footballers, both male and female - are, just like the target group of feminism, by definition distinguished by sex. Although this classification is a physical segregation – most often based on a delivery room assessment made official and not at all taking into account physical size, strength, skills etc. - other aspects of sex difference, now usually called ‘gender’, seem to be layered on top of this dichotomy. This review departs from the understanding that there are two main categories that distinguish females, i.e. the physical sex belonging, for example, that only biological women may participate in a certain competition, and the cultural sex determination, for example that some sports are less ‘feminine’ than others.

‘Gender’, is synonymous with sex segregation, given that the example of participation on the ground of one’s biological sex is simply a rule for a certain agreed activity and hence not sex segregation in the form of stipulated or assumed separatism. Such sex segregation is still common even in societies which have prescribed to notions of general human freedom regardless of sex and in accordance with Human Rights. This is because of a common consensus that sex segregation is ‘good’ although its effects are bad.

In Durkheim’s (1984: 142) view such ‘organized despotism’ is where the individual and the collective consciousness are almost the same. Then sui generis, a new life may be added on to that of the main body. As a consequence, this freer and more independent state progresses and consolidates itself (Durkheim 1984: 284).

However, consensus may also rest on an imbalance that is upheld and may even strengthen precisely as an effect of the initial imbalance. In such a case ‘organized despotism’ becomes the means for conservation. As a consequence, the only alternative would be to ease restrictions, which is something fundamentally different from proposing how people should live their lives. ‘Organized despotism’ in this meaning may apply to gender and to sex segregation as well.

According to Connell (2003) whose confused view may be closer to that of Justice Ginsburg, gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception’. Cultural patterns do not only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, gender describes how society relates to the human body, and has due consequences for our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22).

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a “general perception.” What is wrong with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is “a structure” of social relations/practices concentrated to “the reproductive arena”, and a series of due practices in the social processes. I.e. it describes how society relates to the human body, and due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003:21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk without gender.

... sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the non‑biological aspects of differences between males and females ‑ clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example ‑ which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' life styles (Delamont 1980: 5 in Hargreaves 1994:146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological, i.e. cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life “folk categories of sex and gender” which (most?) often appear to be used as if they were the same. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology” (ibid). Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too an obvious hiding place for essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell, all about relations (2003:20). However, if there are none, or if the relations are excluding, the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

It seems that 'masculine' and 'feminine’ in this definition of gender is confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s definition of gender. However, although gender, according to Connell (2003: 96), may also be ‘removed’ the crucial issue is whether those who are segregated really want to de-sex segregate? As long as the benefits of a breakout are not clearly assessable, the possible negative effects may undermine such efforts.

According to Connell (2003:20) the very key to the understanding of gender is not to focus on differences, but, instead, to focus on relations. In fact, this distinction is crucial here because relations, contrary to differences, are mutually dependent. Whatever difference existing between the sexes is meaningless unless it is connected via a relation. On the one hand, big male muscles can hardly be of relational use other than in cases of domestic violence, and on the other hand, wage gaps cannot be identified without a comparative relation to the other sex.

Biological determinism is influential in the general discourse of sports academia (Hargreaves 1994:8). However, what remains to analyse is whether ‘gender’ is really a successful concept for dealing with biological determinism?

‘To explain the cultural at the level of the biological encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between men and women, and masks the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’ (Hargreaves 1994:8).

With another example: to explain the cultural (driver) at the level of the technical (type of car) encourages the exaggeration and approval of analyses based on distinctions between cars, and masks the complex relationship between the car and the driver. However, also the contrary seems to hold true;. that the cultural (driver/gender) gets tied to the technical/biological. The ‘complex relationship’ between the car and the driver is easily avoided by using similar1 cars, hence making the driver more visible. In a sex/gender setting the ‘complex relationship’ between sex and gender is easily avoided by distinguishing between sex and culture2, hence making culture more visible. The term ‘culture’, unlike the term ‘gender’ clearly tries to avoid the ‘complex relationship’ between biology and gender. The ‘complex relationship’ makes it, in fact, impossible to distinguish between them. On top of this comes the ‘gender relation’ confusion, which determines people to have ‘gender relations’, i.e. to be opposite or separate.

This kind of gender view is popular, perhaps because it may serve as a convenient way out from directly confronting the biology/culture distinction, and seems to be the prevalent trend, to the extent that ‘gender’ has conceptually replaced ‘sex’, leading to the consequence that the latter has become more or less self-evident and thus almost beyond scrutiny. In other words, by using ‘gender’ as a sign for ‘the complex relationship between the biological and the cultural’, biological determinism becomes more difficult to access analytically.

Gender is neither biology, nor a fixed dichotomy, but it has a special relation to the human body mirrored in a ‘general perception.’ What is problematic with this view is the thought that cultural patterns only mirror bodily differences. Gender is ‘a structure’ of social relations/practices concentrated to ‘the reproductive arena’, and a series of due practices in social processes. That is, it describes how society relates to the human body and has due consequences to our private life and for the future of wo/mankind (Connell 2003: 21-22). The main problem here involves how to talk sex without gender:

‘Sex should properly refer to the biological aspects of male and female existence. Sex differences should therefore only be used to refer to physiology, anatomy, genetics, hormones and so forth. Gender should properly be used to refer to all the nonbiological aspects of differences between males and females clothes, interests, attitudes, behaviours and aptitudes, for example which separate 'masculine' from 'feminine' lifestyles’ (Delamont 1980 quoted in Hargreaves 1994: 146).

The distinction between sex and gender implied in these quotations, however, does not seem to resolve the issue, precisely because it fails to offer a tool for discriminating biological aspects of differences from non-biological ones, i.e. those that are cultural. This is also reflected in everyday life. ‘Folk’ categories of sex and gender often appear to be used as if they were the same thing. Although 'masculine' and 'feminine' are social realities, there is a mystique about their being predetermined by biology. Furthermore the very relational meaning of ‘gender’ seems to constitute a too obvious hiding place for a brand of essentialism based on sex. Apart from being ‘structure’, as noted above, gender is, according to Connell (2003:20), all about relations. However, if there are none - or if the relations are excluding - the concept of sex segregation may be even more useful.

In Connell’s analysis, however, gender may also be removed (Connell 2003:96). In this respect and as a consequence, gender equals sex segregation. In fact it seems that the 'masculine' and 'feminine’, in the definition of gender above, are confusingly close to the ‘mystique about their being predetermined by biology’ when compared to the ‘reproductive arena’ and ‘reproductive differences’ in Connell’s (2003:21) definition of gender. The elusiveness of gender seems to reveal a point of focus rather than a thorough-going conceptualization. So, for example, in traditional Engels/Marx thinking the family’s mediating formation between class and state excludes the politics of gender (Haraway 1991: 131).

What's a Woman?

In What is a Woman? Moi (1999) attacks the concept of gender while still emphasizing the importance of the concept of the feminine and a strong self-conscious (female) subject that combines the personal and the theoretical within it. Moi (1999: 76), hence, seems to propose a loose sex/gender axis resting on a rigid womanhood based on women’s context bound, lived experience outside the realm of men’s experience.

Although I share Moi’s suggestion for abandoning the category of gender, her analysis seems to contribute to a certain confusion and to an almost incalculable theoretical abstraction in the sex/gender distinction because it keeps maintaining sex segregation without offering a convincing defence for it. Although gender, for example, is seen as a nature-culture distinction, something that essentializes non-essential differences between women and men, the same may be said about Moi’s approach if we understand her ‘woman’ as, mainly, the mainstream biological one usually classified (prematurely) in the delivery room. If the sexes live in separate spheres, as Moi’s analysis seems to imply, the lived, contextual experience of women appears as less suitable for pioneering on men’s territory.

This raises the question about whether the opening up of new frontiers for females may demand the lessening or even the absence of femininity (and masculinity). In fact, it is believed here that the ‘liminal state’ where social progression might best occur, is precisely that. Gender as an educated ‘facticity’ then, from this point of view, will inevitably enter into a state of world view that adds itself onto the ‘lived body’ as a constraint.

It is assumed here that we commonly conflate constructs of sex, gender, and sexuality. When sex is defined as the ‘biological’ aspects of male and female, then this conceptualization is here understood as purely descriptive. When gender is said to include social practices organized in relation to biological sex (Connell 1987), and when gender refers to context/time-specific and changeable socially constructed relationships of social attributes and opportunities learned through socialization processes, between women and men, this is also here understood as descriptive. However, when description of gender transforms into active construction of gender, e.g. through secrets about its analytical gain, it subsequently transforms into a compulsory necessity. Gendering hence may blindfold gender-blind opportunities.

In conclusion, if gender is here understood as a social construct, then is not coupled to sex but to context, and dependent on time. Also it is here understood that every person may possess not only one but a variety of genders. Even if we consider gender to be locked together with the life history of a single individual the above conceptualization makes a single, personal gender impossible, longitudinally as well as contemporaneously. Whereas gender is constructive and deterministic, sex is descriptive and non-deterministic. In this sense, gender as an analytical tool leaves little room for the Tomboy.

The Tomboy - a threat to "femininity"

Noncompliance with what is assumed ‘feminine’ threatens established or presumed sex segregation. What is perceived as ‘masculinity’ or ‘maleness’ in women, as a consequence, may only in second place, target homosexuality. In accordance with this line of thought, the Tomboy embodies both the threat and the possibilities for gendered respectively gender-blind opportunity structures.

The Tomboy is the loophole out of gender relations. Desires revealed through sport may have been with females under the guise of a different identity, such as that of the Tomboy (Kotarba & Held 2007: 163). Girls throw balls ‘like girls’ and do not tackle like boys because of a female perception of their bodies as objects of action (Young 2000:150 cited in Kotarba & Held 2007: 155).

However, when women lacking experience of how to act in an effective manner in sport are taught about how to do, they have no problem performing, quite contrary to explaining shortcomings as due to innate causes (Kotarba & Held 2007: 157). This is also opposite to the experiences of male-to-female transsexuals who through thorough exercise learn how to feminisize their movements (Schrock & Boyd 2006:53-55). Although, according to Hargreaves (1994), most separatist sports philosophies have been a reaction to dominant ideas about the biological and psychological predispositions of men and women, supposedly rendering men 'naturally suited to sports, and women, by comparison, essentially less suited (Hargreaves 1994:29-30), the opposite may also hold true. Separatism per definition needs to separate and this separation is often based on biological differences, be it skin colour, sex or something else.

From this perspective, the Tomboy would constitute a theoretical anomaly in a feminine separatist setting. Although her physical body would possibly qualify what makes her a Tomboy would not.

The observation that in mixed playgrounds, and in other areas of the school environment, boys monopolize the physical space (Hargreaves 1994:151) may lack the additional notion that certain boys dominate and certain boys do not. Sports feminists have 'politicized' these kinds of experience by drawing connections between ideas and practice (Hargreaves 1994:3) but because of a separatist approach may exclude similar experience among parts of the boys. Moreover, a separatist approach is never waterproof and may hence leak Tomboy girls without a notion.

Femininity and feminism

Feminism and psychoanalysis as oppressors

According to Collier and Yanagisako (1987), Henrietta Moore (1994) and other feminist anthropologists, patriarchal dominance is an inseparable socially inherited part of the conventional family system. This implicit suggestion of radical surgery does not, however, count on unwanted secondary effects neither on the problem with segregated or non-segregated sex-worlds. If, in other words, oppression is related to gender segregation rather than patriarchy, or perhaps that patriarchy is a product of sex segregation, then there seems to be a serious problem of intellectual survival facing feminists themselves. If feminism1 is to be understood as an approach and/or analytical tool for separatism2, those feminists and others who propose not only analytical segregation but also practical segregation, face the problem of possible oppression inherent in this very segregation (Klevius 1994, 1996). In this sense oppression is related to sex segregation in two ways:

1. As a means for naming it (feminism) for an analytical purpose.
2. As a social consequence or political strategy (e.g. negative bias against female football or a separatist strategy for female football).

It is notable that the psychoanalytic movement has not only been contemporary with feminism, but it has also followed (or led) the same pattern of concern and proposed warnings and corrections that has marked the history of ‘feminism’ in the 20th century. According to S. Freud, the essence of the analytic profession is feminine and the psychoanalyst ‘a woman in love’ (L. Appignanesi & J. Forrester 1992:189). But psychoanalytically speaking, formalized sex and sex segregation also seem to have been troublesome components in the lives of female psychoanalysts struggling under a variety of assumed, but irreconcilable femininities and professional expectations.

In studying the history of feminism one inevitably encounters what is called ‘the women’s movement’. While there is a variety of different feminisms, and because the borders between them, as well as to what is interpreted as the women’s rights movement, some historians, incl. Klevius, question the distinction and/or methods in use for this distinction.
However, it could also be argued that whereas the women’s right movement may be distinguished by its lack of active separatism within the proposed objectives of the movement, feminism ought to be distinguished as a multifaceted separatist movement based on what is considered feminine values, i.e. what is implied by the very word ‘feminism’3. From this perspective the use of the term ‘feminism’ before the last decades of the 19th century has to be re-evaluated, as has every such usage that does not take into account the separatist nature underpinning all feminisms. Here it is understood that the concept ‘feminism’, and its derivatives, in every usage implies a distinction based on separating the sexes - e.g. addressing inequality or inequity - between male and female (see discussion above). So although ’feminism’ and ‘feminisms’ would be meaningless without such a separation, the ‘women’s rights movement’, seen as based on a distinct aim for equality with men in certain legal respects, e.g. the right to vote, could be described as the opposite, i.e. de-segregation, ‘gender blindness’ etc.

As a consequence the use of the word feminism in a context where it seems inappropriate is here excepted when the authors referred to have decided to do so. The feminist movement went back to Mary Wollstonecraft and to some French revolutionaries of the end of the eighteenth century, but it had developed slowly. In the period 1880 to 1900, however, the struggle was taken up again with renewed vigour, even though most contemporaries viewed it as idealistic and hopeless. Nevertheless, it resulted in ideological discussions about the natural equality or non-equality of the sexes, and the psychology of women. (Ellenberger 1970: 291-292).

Not only feminist gynocentrists, but also anti-feminist misogynists contributed with their own pronouncements on the woman issue. In 1901, for example, the German psychiatrist Moebius published a treatise, On the Physiological Imbecility of Woman, according to which, woman is physically and mentally intermediate between the child and man (see Ellenberger 1970:292). However, according to the underlying presumption of this thesis, i.e. that the borders between gynocentrism and misogyny are not well understood, these two approaches are seen as more or less synonymous. Such a view also confirms with a multitude of points in common between psychoanalysis and feminism. As was argued earlier, the main quality of separatism and ‘complementarism’ is an insurmountable border, sometimes contained under the titles: love, desire etc.

Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, January 5, 2023

Peter Klevius obituary over the best ever: RIP, the worlds best football player, Lily Parr - and the next best, Pele.

Although both scored more than 1,000 goals, Lily Parr did so in headwind!

Lily Parr's grave and Pele's cemetery

No one can be more vulnerable for female sexual beauty (i.e. heterosexual attraction - ask women who know him) than Peter Klevius - and no one male can be more ignorant about sexual beauty when seeing a woman playing football and on the arena becoming human instead of woman. Just like the early Christian St. Perpetua who said before she faced death on the gladiator arena 203 AD: 'And I was stripped (for death), and I became a (hu)man*', i.e. no longer fettered by womanhood/femininity.

* A time when a man was considered the only fully human.

A sport of nature - or a fact of nature?

Social convention based on a commonsense reaction to the ‘palpable menace of sexual desire among all human beings, and, most especially, to the known
seductiveness of women’ (i.e. heterosexual attraction) was, at Tertullian’s* time, i.e. the latter part of the Second Century, shared by pagans and Christians alike. According to Tertullian, it was a fact of nature that women were seductive, and Christian baptism did nothing to change this fact (Brown 1988: 68, 81). However, we are not informed why the fact that women are seductive, necessarily should imply restrictions on her. We might guess that a number of Tertullians transferred to a modern Western secular city might have diverged in a similar pattern of opinion as would contemporary people. If women were defined by marriage, by its sexual and procreative roles and by the sex-based labor assigned to married women, then their refusal of marriage might move them into a category that transcended womanhood. Only in the arena of martyrdom can we view these transcendent women unfiltered by the lenses of male observers (McNamara 1985:104). Perpetua, a Roman matron, faced the lions in Carthage on March 7, 203. She recorded her experience in prison which led her to a new vision in which all her mortal persona was burned away. An unknown spectator' possibly (most probably) Tertullian , rescued these documents and appended an eyewitness account of her death, resulting in an authentic female voice recording the emergence of her 'autonomous spiritual being from the cocoon of her womanhood' (McNamara 1985:105). Perpetua renounced everything that made her a Woman. She stripped away the emotions and the constraints of the feminine role she had once fully played. On the night before her execution, she dreamed that she had entered into the arena to fight the beasts. There she was confronted by a certain “ill-favored -Egyptian" who challenged her to fight with him. Also, there came to me comely young men, my helpers and aiders. 'And I was stripped, and I became a man' (McNamara 1985:105).

At the foot of the ladder lay a dragon of enormous size, and it would attack those who tried to climb up and try to terrify them from doing so.

* Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" as well as "the founder of Western theology".

Not "women's football" but human's football - or just football*!

* You don't say about a child that s/he plays "children's football", do you. If it's a girl you say 'she plays football' and if it's a Finnish girl you say 'hän pelaa jalkapalloa', where 'hän' is a sexless personal pronoun (as in most other language families except IE and semitic) and therefore not translatable to the indoeuropean sex segregated s/he. And when divided by biological sex then it should also say 'men's football', right.

As Peter Klevius for long has stated, evolutionary (i.e. biological) heterosexual attraction (the only analytically relevant distinction between the sexes, according to Peter Klevius - and islam) has to be "civilized" in our daily encounters - but without islamic sex segregation*. And the tool for this was given 1948 with Art. 2 of the Universal Human Rights declaration (the world's most translated document), which main purpose is to stand as the bedrock not only for legislation but also as a bulwark against sexism hiding in culture. In other words, we need to get rid of sex segregation. No matter of biological sex one should be free to lead once life as one wishes - which also means that you have the right to appear "feminine"/"masculine" (whatever that means) without being in any way criticized by e.g. Peter Klevius - as long as it's not part of sexism/racism against others.

Lily Parr, the world's by far best* football player ever - no matter of sex!

* If Marta (six times chosen as the world's best football player) when she was at her best, had time travelled and played against Lily Parr she would probably have outperformed her in dribbling although perhaps not in kicking. However, that's not a fair comparison - just think if Lily had stopped smoking and got the same training etc. possibilities as modern top players! And compared to Lionel Messi, who as a teenager was taken care of by the world's then best football club Barcelona FC, Lily Parr got just the very opposite - a ban on her putting her feet on any English football ground for the rest of her career!

Lily Parr was born in St Helens in 1905 where she as a child learned to play football in games with her brothers. At 5ft 10ins tall, Lily was said to have a 'fearless streak' and 'robust frame'. As a teenager, her first games were with her local side, St Helens Ladies.

There was a growth in interest in women's football in the late 19th century and early 20th because of the huge popularity of men's football combined with the fact that so many young women met football playing men in factories etc.

Dick, Kerr & Co was such a factory where women worked making munitions.

When in 1917 office worker Alfred Frankland saw the girls beating their male factory co-workers in an informal lunch-time match, he decided to be their manager, hence unleashing them on the general public, resulting in a game-changing and instantaneous success.

This really shows how sex segregation had kept girls/women back.

Dick, Kerr Ladies F.C. was one of the earliest known women's football teams, and  remained in existence for some 50 years, from 1917 to 1965, playing 833 games, winning 759, drawing 46, and losing 28. Nettie Honeyball's team in 1895 was possibly the first.  

The matches attracted anywhere from 4,000 to over 50,000 spectators per match. In 1920, Dick, Kerr Ladies defeated a French side 2–0 in front of 25,000 people that went down in history as the first international football game played by women. On the request of female physicians and others the English Football Association (FA) banned women from using fields and stadiums controlled by FA-affiliated clubs for 50 years (the rule was only repealed in 1971). There were 150 women's football clubs in 1921 when on 5 December same year the FA ban was announced.

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies was also the first female team to play wearing shorts.

'Big, fast and powerful', Lily Parr was said to 'take corner kicks better than most men' and she scored 'many goals with a left foot cross drive which nearly breaks the net', according to her profile in a programme of 1923.

A team-mate described her as 'having a kick like a mule'.

 
There were 150 women's football clubs by 1921 when on 5 December the FA decided to ban females from playing on its members' grounds. As a consequence the women's game declined but Lily Parr and other female players continued to play on non-FA pitches.

 

 

Dick, Kerr’s Ladies became Preston Ladies in 1926. Parr became a psychiatric nurse at Whittington Hospital but continued to play for Preston, finally ending her long playing career in 1951.

Why the "beautiful game" is also the hardest to master well

Although Lily Parr was taller than the average woman, most of the best players have been below average height, like Pele, Maradona, Marta, Messi, Modric etc.. However, Ronaldo is 187 cm and a former top player like Crouch is 203 cm. This just emphasizes the greatness of "the beautiful game" - a sport that fits everyone, yet is the hardest of all sports to master because it eliminates tools and hands while keeping the feet busy with multitasking with running and manoeuvring while also controlling the ball with the same feet.

The page below in this book made Peter Klevius wipe tears several times

How Sweden was an accomplish to the death of English football for women - and how Lily Parr & Co's heritage created the world's best football team in the 1970s in a forgotten rural setting in Sweden.

Peter Klevius has written a book with an in depth analysis about the history of England's hostility against women playing football. Although Sweden played an important role behind the scene, this has never before been scientifically scrutinized. It's hoped that Amazon will publish it so to make its existence more visible. Peter Klevius was about to go for self publishing but it seemed impossible to reach out in a meaningful way. After all, it's all about supporting girös and women who want not only to play football but also lo tead their lives as they wish without sexism.

Drawing (1979) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius

Perpetua: 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.'