[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne of the credos of modern gender theory is the concept, presented as a political goal, going by the flexible label: “equality.” It presents an admirable goal – shouldn’t we all want equality of rights in an ethical society? Yes, but that is distinct from the goal of what we now call simply “equality”.

Those promoting equality often claim it means “equality of legal rights,” but this is incorrect, and the error is evident. When we are told women’s legal rights must be protected to place them on equal footing with men, we construe two possible meanings. The first interpretation is that women are now legally disadvantaged in western culture. This idea dissolves when examined.

[unordered_list style=”green-dot”]

In western criminal trials, women found culpable of violent crimes are commonly excused by a collective fabrication of excuses[1][2], and sentenced more lightly than men[3] for the same offenses.

[/unordered_list]

[unordered_list style=”green-dot”]

Western family courts operate as a wealth extraction mechanism benefitting women and the courts – which participate[4][5] in moneys appropriated from divorcee men. In North America, [6]roughly 80% of custodial mothers receive a support award compared to 30% of custodial fathers.

[/unordered_list]

[unordered_list style=”green-dot”]

Universities continue to maintain female favouring affirmative action programs, in the face of higher female enrolment and graduation rates[7].

[/unordered_list]

The second interpretation of the call for continued bolstering of female-centric legal protections is that actual equivalence between men and women is either possible, or desirable. This is the dirty secret behind the ambiguously phrased calls for “equality.”

The problem begins with the pretence within a feminist-dominated academic community of the social construction of sex. This is often couched in pseudo-scientific jargon to avoid immediate dismissal in critical discussion. Culture and education clearly have impact on social and sexual roles. The claim by some academics of no biological basis for sexuality ignores the body of professional literature in the fields of psychology, biology, neurology and cognitive science.

Observation that sexually differentiated roles exist in nature should logically diminish the case for social construction. Oddly, this has not stopped ideologues from pursuing social policies along lines of literal equivalence of sexes. The belief that biological differences between men and women don’t inform cognitive, psychological and behavioural differences. Rather, it is all learned behavior. This new orthodoxy is the basis for continued efforts to mandate equality of outcomes in employment and education in spite of biological differences, and choices made by men and women.

The consequent quashing of individuality and choice would not be entertained in a context outside the social science pretence that sex is a learned construct. But on this foundation, legislated levelling of natural sexual differences becomes a plausible and ethical possibility. The psychological differences in men from women are seen as pathological rather than natural.

This idea provides the rationale used in some elementary school environments for medicating young boys whose natural exuberance and competitive behavior is treated as a disorder – molding them by medication into a more docile behavior model.

An concept of social construction of sex is also used to classify some normal behaviours outside a narrow range as deviant. The marginalization of behavior previously considered healthy goes farther than what is specific to sexual identity[8].

By treating sexuality as a purely learned behavior, or a product of education – we open the door to treating any aspect of human identity as purely learned. This justifies some gender academics to characterize non-conforming philosophical points of view as errant, or pathological. If you don’t agree, you’re clearly sick, or criminal, and subject to re-training.

This utility of a seemly incomplete viewpoint can explain the continued currency of social construction in scholarly writing. It gives it’s adherents a licence to abrogate some rights of self determination for those disputing the tenets of gender feminist philosophy.

Fortunately, practitioners of actual sciences such as biology provide a bulwark against the pseudo-science of constructed gender ideology. Science ceases to work if scientists indulge themselves in nonviable hypotheses.

[quote float=”right”]If you don’t agree, you’re clearly sick, or criminal, and subject to re-training.[/quote] Another barrier to pure social constructionism is the existence of individuals who suffer from sexual dysphoria. This is the condition a small percent of humans suffer from when their sexual self-image does not correspond to their physical selves. Not to be confused with homosexuality, an individual whose internal sexual identity doesn’t align with their body is not troubled by sexual attraction to members of the same sex, rather, they are troubled by their personal sexual identity failing to match what is externally manifested in their body. While unusual, the problem is common enough to be understood within the medical community.

The existence of individuals who suffer from sexual dislocation – sometimes labeled transexuals – is a continued vexation to gender feminists, because by existing, they disprove the hypothesis of sex’s social construction.

The public refutation of the academic clinging to of social construction is, unfortunately, not enough. Some academics and activists have demonstrated a will to suppress data, and to persistently repeat known myths in the advancement of political goals. A widespread public rejection of the doctrine of sexual equivalence will likely cause ideologues to modify only their language, and not the underlying quashing of human rights.

In legitimate academic debate, evidentiary rebuttal of a theory requires the modification or abandonment of the theory. That repeated factual refutations of the dogma of gender equivalence result in no substantive change to these articles of faith suggests a shortage of intellectual consistency. Although some academics couch their language in scientific jargon, the ideology of gender radicals is essentially religious.

[1] http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/04/12/another-women-walks-free-after-killing-her-husband/

[2] http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html

[3] http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/gang_lee/2/

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJjgOjq5uso

[5] http://www.achildsright.typepad.com/achildsright/titleivd.html

[6] http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php

[7] http://www.jhu.edu/registr/reports/retention06.htm

[8] http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/13/cut-the-line-do-the-time-texas-schools-increasingly-using-criminal-citations-against-unruly-children/