Peter Klevius: Hominin bipedalism evolved because of better hands

A thorough throw paved the way down from the trees

Although more upright standing in the trees started the development of hands, what really made a difference was the capability to throw stones to scare predators away. This led to cracking rocks in amaller pieces which was the first step towards s.c. stone tool technologies. 

How come that only Peter Klevius has come forward with this selfevident theory (Wikipedia doesn't know of such a theory on its 'bipedalism' page).

Don't forget citation, dude!

Peter Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Why Africa was impossible and SE Asia necessary for human evolution

Peter Klevius to Chinese people: I'm not a racist like many in the UK parliament - although I certainly look like one.

UK origin of Sinophobia: The 19th century Opium Wars were triggered by UK's imposition of the opium trade upon China. Lord Palmerston regarded the Chinese as uncivilized and suggested that the British must attack China to show up their superiority as well as to demonstrate what a "civilized" nation could do. The resulting concession of Hong Kong compromised China's territorial sovereignty. There's also the background to South China Sea. Behind the Huawei etc. Sinophobia: The Pact between the US freeloader and the Saudi Devil. UK created a devil's kingdom in Arabia, and US made a devil's oil pact with the Saudi custodians of islam - hence infecting the world with petrodollar and anti-Human Rights sharia islam (Saudi based and steered OIC).

                                             *

Peter Klevius simple evolution tutorial for simple minds - e.g. ignorant anthropology professors etc.

 Peter Klevius evolution formula, first published as an article 1981 and as a book 1992 (ISBN9173288411) and on the web 2004, 2008, 20010, 2012. Do note that those who didn''t hybridize resulted in the fossile diversity that has puzzled som amny an anthropologist. Also consider that Peter Klevius general evolution formula (first published 1981) covers everything including the fractured oceans(s) that led to diversity after the cambrian explosion and extinction.

Peter Klevius annoying habit of repeating Peter Klevius, and his self citations, isn't a neural defect but has to be evaluated against the very thick wall* between him and Harvard, Stanford etc., which makes his existence almost invisible. Not to mention the enormous moat* concisting of "spiritualists", creationalists, religionists, alienists, conspirationalists etc.

* 'Wall' and 'moat' come from old Swedish words still in use today, i.e. 'vall' and 'mot'. Don't trust fake etymology - trust Peter Klevius who would be extremely embarrassed if he were proven wrong.

Peter Klevius evolution formula (published 1981, 1992): Isolation-fluctuation* and hybridization. There's no difference between the evolution of Universe and the Sun and its surrounding, or the evolution of "life". We lack a coherent definition of "life" and will never get one. However, comfort yourself with Peter Klevius 'existence-centrism' and UN's negative Universal Human Rights.

* No dude, there's no "extinction" other than the one you use practically in Wittgenstein's language game. If the dinosaurs haven't disappeared then why would the hominies.

Peter Klevius' appeal for the understanding of the disability concisting of how a super high IQ combined with a flawless hormone/dopamine/serotonine balance* makes him the "extremely normal" whom no one really likes - except for those who know him 100% longterm and have survived their annoyance of own shortcomings mirrored in his disability. So Peter Klevius "bragging" about himself is easily outweighed by his disability - if this fact may comfort you. After all, intelligencephobia is so PC that the only intelligence that is possible, i.e. the individual one, is denied while the oxymoron "group intelligence" is hailed. Peter Klevius + 9 half idiots would have an average IQ as a group - so what?!  

* If you get annoyed while reading this, then ask yourself if you would be equally annoyed when reading about the qualities of a sports star, an actor/actress, a singer etc. See my point?
However, unlike you, Peter Klevius also suffers from the ethical dilemma of sitting silent and have peace  while clearly understanding he has something to offer. And pretending to be "humble" would only diffuse him into the realm of easily dismissed (from whatever direction at whatever time and subject) opinionaters.
 

Peter Klevius on cosmology, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):

'The basis of existence is motion/change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are regenerated. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. equilibrium) where time/change ultimately would end. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity.'
(Klevius 1992:23). An example of evolution and devolution is a star cycle ending in a super nova - incl. everything in it.

A lump in a nebula is the "island" on which a star is born.

1. Peter Klevius concept 'existence-centrism' (1992) is the only way to understand and handle the traps for logic that language creates. Existence-centrism is the immutable truth that we can't sidestep. All your (or humankind's) collected experience at every single moment limits what you can say. And as a consequence, metaphysical statements are either impossible or just "meta-metaphysical".

2. The formation of structure not only rests on previous structure but is the very evidence for it.

The evolution of life may be described as based on strong fluctuations (isolation) and weak fluctuations (hybridization).

Speciation needs isolation. After migration hybridization
stops further speciation and explains fossil diversity
as well as existing phenotypes.
Human evolution in retrospective is a repeated chain of
speciation and hybridization.

Different types of life depend on different types of isolation and fluctuation.

Early hominines (before more advanced use of tools) were not specialized to really anything except bi-pedalism, but could do a little and eat a little of almost everything. This made them moving around in a way that excludes isolation other than on islands.

Therefore "part time islands" constitute the best evolutionary labs.

And SE Asia is the perfect cradle which has had a longterm and varied hiatory of island/mainland fluctuations incl. between islands.

 Peter Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory

The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (50,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.

Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)

If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:

The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research (which fact came handy for those who want to dismiss it) because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern "indigenous" Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.

 Peter Klevius 1992-2010: From tropical SE-Asia to cold and protein/fat rich North Eurasia to global humans. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best theory on consciousness and how the brain works (see e.g. the "stone" example pp 31-33, or the 1994 EMAH paper that was sent to Francis Crick ), but also connected the big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan people go to the Moon, after all, they had several iceages time to do so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the discovery of Homo floresiensis  Klevius immediately told the world that here was the "missing brain link". When six years later Denisovan was found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except lesser details.

Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.

Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa

In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.

Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004 and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu, 1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a, 1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H. erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe. Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html). However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade, or so.

Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
.

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion's WAP lyrics gives Peter Klevius (the Knight of Sex Trapped Princesses) the perfect example of female sex confusion - thanks.

 

 

Peter Klevius, the Knight of Sex Trapped Princesses and (sadly) the foremost expert on sex segregation and heterosexual attraction: 

 

Vaginal discharge (i.e. WAP) is produced the most right before and during ovulation. This is the evolutionary trick to make it easier to get pregnant. Peter Klevius trick is (when needed) spit. However, although Peter Klevius since his early teens has been extremely sensitive to heterosexual attraction (i.e. extremely fit and healthy) this sensitivity has never made him vulnerable for female seduction, because unlike many other men (especially many muslim men) Peter Klevius de-couples a woman's ass from her brain - only to recouple them when the woman so wants.  


Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: Beat it up, nigga, catch a charge
Look, I need a hard hitter, need a deep stroker
Need a Henny drinker, need a weed smoker
Not a garter snake,
I need a king cobra
With a hook in it, hope it lean over
'fore I have a nigga runnin' me (Pow, pow, pow)

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: I could make ya bust before I ever meet ya
If it don't hang, then he can't bang
You can't hurt my feelings, but I like pain
If he fuck me and ask "Whose is it?"
When I ride the dick, I'ma spell my name, ah
I don't cook, I don't clean
But let me tell you how I got this ring (Ayy, ayy)
Put him on his knees, give him somethin' to believe in
Never lost a fight, but I'm lookin' for a beatin' (Ah)
In the food chain, I'm the one that eat ya
If he ate my ass, he's a bottom-feeder

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: Talk your shit, bite your lip (Yeah)
Ask for a car while you ride that dick (While you ride that dick)
You really ain't never gotta fuck him for a thang (Yeah)
He already made his mind up 'fore he came (Ayy, ah)

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: He got some money, then that's where I'm headed
Pussy A1 just like his credit

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: He bought a phone just for pictures of this wet-ass pussy (Click, click, click)
Pay my tuition just to kiss me on this wet-ass pussy

Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion: Make it cream, make me scream

 

Peter Klevius: Talking about eating the whole cake! Btw, for Peter Klevius it's easy to either shorten or prolong the act (many ladies out there would agree because he has always asked) - however, to syncrinize it doesn't usually come (sorry for the cheap pun) naturally cause there are two completely different machineries involved.  

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Monday, November 12, 2018

Klevius sex tutorial and suggestion for DSM-6 (no pun intended).

What is the difference between a "Tomboy" and gender dysphoria? Klevius answer: Sex segregation.

Human Rights rather than religion (Klevius drawing from 1979 - used in many exhibitions back then).
Klevius vocabulary for those poor souls who haven't followed his previous tutorials (shame on you):
Sex is biology (male, female or in rare, and for this analysis irrelevant, instances hermaphrodites).

Gender is ever-changing extremely varied cultural expectations, norms or even laws (e.g. sharia) based on biological sex.

Sex segregation doesn't mean having women and men competing in different groups in sports because of biological differences (no more than e.g. weight groups). What it means is a biologically unfounded cultural prejudice based on biological sex.

Heterosexual attraction is the only relevant way of distinguishing between women and men. Why? Because every other distinction is cultural - and giving birth to a child has nothing to do with men. However, heterosexual attraction only affects some women (usually younger ones) and only monumentarily. Moreover, because heterosexual attraction only exists in males (as a built in address for sperm delivery) but directs towards, and affecting, females, it can't define some imagined "totality" of femininity/masculinity. And perhaps most importantly, unlike what Tertullian thought some 1,800 years ago, the Western world has actually proved (as had so called "primitive" societies long before - see Klevius 1992) that women showing their bodies in public isn't "a sport of nature" (see Klevius PhD thesis - extracts available on this blog, see e.g. below). Men can actually live with it without becoming rapists or necrophiliacs (a term Klevius has introduced to describe male sexing - e.g. up-skirting - of women who aren't even aware of it or interested in being the target of "the male gaze").

Dear reader. Klevius, the world's foremost expert (sad isn't it) on sex segregation, challenges you to find any logically inevitable relational sex difference between men and women, except heterosexual attraction. Monotheist religions are founded on it but have used its reproductive consequences for cultural self reproduction. This in turn explains why all monotheisms in general and islam in particular have problems with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and ant-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration which gives equal rights to all - without exceptions for sex.


Two female "Tomboys" are given different diagnosis although nothing is wrong with any of them. Why? Because of desperate sex segregation (see e.g. Klevius Warning for Feminism 1998).







A (female sex) is a "Tomboy". Boys and girls like her. She also enjoys her heterosexual attraction (i.e. biological femininity) but on her own terms.

B (female sex) is also a "Tomboy" but is bullied by boys and girls and calls herself Rick and feels bothered by heterosexual attraction. DSM-5 diagnoses her with "gender dysphoria".

The reason B called herself Rick was the surrounding cultural sex segregation. If A should have been equally treated she might also had wanted to call herself Rick.

In Warning for Feminism (1998) Klevius pointed to the fact that the desperate effort to sex segregate has been proportional to de fact de sex segregation in practical life. And the main tool for this has been to enclose girls/women in cultural "femininity".

When Klevius daughter played football in San Francisco she was the only one with short hair. And when Klevius commented on it for the other parents they just looked confused and embarrassed when checking the sea of long pony tales waving in front of them. Klevius got the impression that they hadn't even thought about it before.


Klevius wrote:

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Klevius' sex tutorial on Women's Day

British siekh leader Lord* Indarjit Singh: Cigarettes are to cancer as muslims are to sexual grooming/abuse. However, he also cowardly added that 'it's not islam'!

 * i.e. elected by a politician for the purpose of supporting a certain political ideology or cause. Such "life peers" are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives, but their titles are not hereditable by their heirs.

Sikh and Hindu organisations have signed an open letter claiming that sex-grooming gangs "predominantly originate from a Pakistani muslim community, while their victims are almost always of a White, Hindu or Sikh background".

Klevius comment: How could it possibly 'not be islam'? Islam seems to be defined as 'without negative consequences' although islam itself eagerly points out such negative consequences of the "disbelievers" infidels" or "wrong believers" and proudly tells us that we all should be muslims and if we don't we are just crap - i.e. we are no longer "innocent" and therefore the legitimate target for whoever lunatic muslims. This is what your imam means when he says (usually via BBC to make it sound more serious) that 'islam forbids attacks on innocent people'.

Islam is all about sex apartheid (sexism) and "hatred against "infidels" (racism). In fact, Klevius blog Origin if islam - the worst crime ever against humanity, started as a blog against sex segregation and racism.

Klevius has been loaded with at least the average (probably more) tesosterone since his early teens (i.e. 10-30 times more than most women). Klevius has also had the opportunity to befriend a lot of representatives of the opposite sex. Not a single one can report abuse or failure. However, Klevius has never seduced anyone - precisely because he has always considered himself prepared for sex whenever while simultaneously never been in need for sex and therefore left the initiative to the one with a lower libido! Moreover, Klevius has never had sex without heterosexual attraction as the motivation - which fact in no way should be seen as criticism of other forms of sexuality. Likewise Klevius has often sneezed in the kitchen because of white pepper but never deliberately thrown white pepper around just because of the pleasure of sneezing.

The power and curse of biological female heterosexual attraction - leading to stupid cultural "femininity" and due sex segregation/apartheid

Teenage girls (and many women as well) realize the power of their asses but mis-connects it as part of their personhood. And often with disastrous consequences when males act without respecting basic Human Rights, i.e. seeing the individual that's connected to the ass.

Is RFSU suffering from sexual correctness or what's going on here? The pic below is from RFSU's campaign "Don't put it in".

Is this man a victim of MGM (male genital mutilation) or is he just religiously mutilated - or both?!

RFSU: 'Don't put it in!'

The video from which the first pic is taken has been a success in Thailand and - Saudi Arabia!

RFSU's picture (top) modified by Klevius (bottom)


The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning) is a Swedish nonprofit organization that works with public opinion formation on sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as information and education about sexuality and relationships. One of RFSU's main issues is the right to free abortion. The current Secretary-General is Åsa Regnér.

RFSU was founded February 24, 1933 by, among others, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Gunnar Inghe and Hanna Lundin. Ottesen-Jensen was chairman from its inception until 1959, and has come to be strongly associated with the organization, whose journal, Ottar, was named after her.

RFSU works with information, education and advocacy by organizing courses, conferences and debates. Moreover the RFSU carries an extensive international work with similar organizations in other countries. RFSU is the Swedish national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

RFSU's booklet “Sex: your own way” for teens is about sexual feelings and what you can do when caressing, making out, masturbating or having intercourse with someone.

It is aimed at everyone, whether you have sex on your own, with someone else, or don’t want to have sex at all. We’re also writing for those who would like to have sex with someone, but haven’t done it yet.

RFSU believes that sex isn’t just something you do or feel. It’s also about knowledge. It’s good to have facts and tips, so you can make your own decisions – now and later in life. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their body and their sexuality.

Openness is a key factor for prevention and sexual health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose, to be oneself and to enjoy.

Klevius additional clarification

For analytical purpose one needs to distinguish between heterosexual attraction (residing only in the "male gaze") and physical sexual acts (incl. intercourse, masturbation etc).  Most people are able to feel sexual pleasure just as Klevius feels pleasure by inhaling a little white pepper enough to make him sneeze.

However, although men have a stronger overall sex drive (plus the heterosexual attraction* feature programmed in their brain) than women, the latter may feel a strong urge sexual around the time of ovulation.

* Do keep in mind that 'heterosexual attraction' is here biological, not cultural! Rapetivism, nymphomania etc are cultural.

The relaxation of the smooth muscle in the vagina and clitoris and the increase of blood flow into these organs is thought to be essential in the female sexual response. However, unlike Klevius (and most other men) who is always ready for hetero sex (but never in need for it) women are most receptive for sex only a couple of days per month. And how else could heterosexual reproduction function if not based on heterosexual attraction implanted in males as a code for seeing females as sexually attractive? The pistil is receptive for pollen but to get them she has to attract them, e.g. via honey bees etc. And many male fishes get aroused not by the female fish but by the eggs on which they spray their sperm without a penis. 

However, due to the fact that religion has made sex so culturally weird, we now have a situation where heterosexual attraction is used by both men and women as an excuse for sex segregation/apartheid.

To really see the confusion surrounding heterosexual attraction do consider the following:

Wikipedia: The term heterosexual or heterosexuality is usually applied to humans, but heterosexual behavior is observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals.

Klevius: Would you believe it! 'Observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals'! Since we left the germ state of being, heterosexual attraction has been the rule of sexuality. It's the very definition of sexual reproduction, dude! And even in creatures with both sexes within the same individual there has to be heterosexual attraction to get the sperm to the egg.

Wikipedia: Heterosexuality is romantic attraction (Klevius: impossible), sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender (sic).

Klevius:  Thus single sentence is packed with stupidities. Heterosexuality can never be romantic attraction because it's purely physical. 'Hetero' means different biological sex. And what would cultural 'gender' have to do with biology!

Wikipedia's senseless babble continues: As a sexual orientation (sic), heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional (sic), romantic (sic), and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity (Klevius: How could physiology suddenly become cultural?!) based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community (sic) of others who share those attractions."

Klevius: Unbelievable conflation of poorly understood (or poorly conceptualized) concepts. Heterosexual' can not be anything else than based on biology, i.e. sex - no matter what you or someone else thinks about it. And yes, you can well be attracted to someone of the opposite sex without it being heterosexual! And the other way round, a man can get heterosexually attracted to someone of the same sex who mimics the opposite sex. What determines heterosexuality is what the man thinks it is. To understand this you may compare a cyber sex robot whom you can't distinguish from a living person.

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

Islam is a grave violation of women's sexual freedom (incl. freedom from sex all together). However, Human Rights freedom lets you lead your life as you wish.

The main outlet of islamofascism - i.e. the "respectable" wrapping that really makes it tick. By allowing sharia islam into UN history repeats itself. Either UN as a whole or sharia islam (islamofascism) has to go.

It's precisely UN's and PC babblers' "diversity" (islam) rhetoric that paves the way for and legitimizes muslim "extremisms" and gives their cause something to resonate from.

Saudi based OIC (and its sharia declaration against the most basic of Human Rights) and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani constitutes the backbone of islamofascism today. So what do you have to say - you half to one billion anti-sharia "muslims"? Talk louder cause Klevius can't hear you!

Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 21, 2012

Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!

Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!

Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'.  And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!

Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of Human Rights!

BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.

According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!

While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.

* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.




Klevius wrote:

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Heterosexual attraction & sex segregation in islam

Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100 yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what möst feminists deny) an open de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape. What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!

Posted by Peter Klevius


Klevius wrote:

Monday, April 15, 2013

Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction

Researching rapetivism in research

“I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field, By Kate Clancy.

Klevius (who seems to be, sad to say, still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation): Sexism is a widespread social disease fueled by sex segregation/apartheid. And it's not cured by covering in burqas and Sharia.

Sex segregation results in girls being stripped off their humanhood and hence becoming the sole target for heterosexiual attraction and cultural sexism. Usually the only sex freed relationship outside a girl's own sex  in a sex segregated world is with close male kins (because they lack bio-heterosexual attraction).

Rapetivism , i.e. the enslavement/abuse of confined/veiled girls/women as physical and cultural reproducers of as many new muslims (i.e. islam) as possible under the threats from Sharia and apostasy ban, is, in fact, a form of HSA perversion , i.e. "cultural/physical necrophilia" that rests on cultural sex segregation. However, although islam is the ultimate sex segregation/apartheid, most of us, at least partially, still suffer under milder forms of the same cultural disease. This (+ our untreated vulnerability for fascism) is the main reason why evil medieval islam has been able to rise its ugly face of slavery/racism/sexism again.

(text extracted from Klevius old original writings)

So underpinning these rapes and sexist attitudes lies a cultural sex segregation/apartheid that is codified in the Bible and driven to ultimate excess in the Koran/Sharia.

God made Adam in his image but to entertain Adam he created a being called Eve from the least valuable part of Adam's skeleton, i.e. a ribbon which happens to be the only bone that has multiple copies and which doesn't cause much of a trouble even if broken.

Educate yourself on the crucial difference between positive and negative Human Rights!

Klevius wrote:

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Muslim stupidity behind islam's misogyny

Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), sex tutorial for muslims and their accomplices in their crimes against Human Rights

Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain (BBC's sharia presenter) and Michael Adebolajo all have islam and its Human Rights violating sharia in common

onislam.net (a deceptive but popular A/Q site for naive/ignorant people): By covering herself, a Muslim woman declares that she is equal to man and has brains. She closes the door to being seen as “a piece of meat”.

Klevius: Really! Muslim women have brains! A muslim brain, is it? However, Klevius has always enjoyed seeing his infidel girlfriends and wives as heterosexually attractive (i.e. what muslims see as “a piece of meat”). However, unlike all true muslims (defined according to onislam.net) and many sexist non-muslims as well, Klevius has always seen women as equal to himself - even while appreciating their heterosexual attraction and during sexual acts. This approach seems to be radically different from muslim sex predators who, following the Koran and onislam.net etc., see "infidel" girls/women as sex slaves 'their right hand possesses'. In other words, whereas muslim women just belong to an inferior "race" in need of male dictators, non-muslim women are considered even lower than that. Klevius approach, however, goes in the very opposite direction and makes it possible for him to encounter, on an equal basis women with or without heterosexual attraction! Klevius is the opposite to Casanova or Don Juan and has never ever seduced a woman - and he is extremely proud about it. Why should he even try to lure her into something and consequently loose the human virginity in the relation?! And how could one fully enjoy a relation with a woman if there are mutual "no go zones" - not to mention restrictions laid on her? And what if the woman isn't interested in heterosex or sex at all? The fact that Klevius might appreciate the look of a woman's body doesn't make him believe the woman wants it. And although Klevius has nothing to say about voyeurism emanating from women themselves, he completely disapprove of peeping Tom. Likewise Klevius can not comprehend how anyone could be aroused by seeing a naked woman who isn't herself aware and positive to it. Klevius files such perversions under necrophilia. 

onislam.net: As for women praying behind men, it is not, my dear (sic), because they are inferior. Muslim prayers involve bowing and prostrating. If women were next to or in front of men, their movements would be distracting. It is again, to keep their chastity and avoid focusing on their bodily existence.

Klevius: Poor muslim men. They seem to be real extremists. Although Klevius would love to be unique, facts seem to prove him "extremely"* normal". Unlike muslims, the majority of civilized men have no problem seeing female bodies without connecting it to sex or sexism, not to mention rape etc. Where Klevius differs from many other civilized men is only when it comes to sex segregation, i.e. the prevalent but so problematic confusion produced by mixing heterosexual attraction with the human person. And in this both men and women have been guilty of upholding a perverted view on each other. This is also why Klevius always refers to the (negative) Human Rights declaration from 1948 which clearly states that one's sex ought not to infringe on one's Human Rights - as it does in islam and which caused OIC (all muslims Saudi based and Saudi steered world Umma organization) to abandon Human Rights and replace them with misogynist sharia.

* Among 1.5+ Billion muslims and another 1.5+ Billion naively/ignorant (or purely evil) muslim supporters, Klevius normality has to be underscored in the same way as his normality in defending Human Rights isn't "extremism" but extremely important today.
onislam.net: In Islam, the husband is responsible for all the expenses of the household. Then, in return, the wife is to guard his property and her chastity in his absence. She is to obey him in things regarding their life together.

Klevius: An imprisoned whore!

onislam.net: A Muslim husband has the right to order his non-Muslim wife not to serve pork or alcohol in the house. Yet, he is also responsible not to offend her creed or prohibit her from her given right of worshiping, according to her Christian or Jewish faith.

Klevius: Only Christian or Jewish faith? What about people outside the book, i.e. the majority of the world's population? And is she allowed to eat pork? More to the point, Klevius would hate to be a family dictator. Why? Because Klevius believes in democracy. Which fact doesn't exclude criticism of bad decisions/opinions. And the best way to criticize is to highlight possible drawbacks and let her balance them just as she would do against his. I.e. that kind of criticism that isn't allowed against islam!

onislam.net: But, if a Muslim woman were to marry a non-Muslim man and he ordered her to serve pork or alcohol, what would she do? What if he ordered her not to pray or fast?

Klevius: She doesn't have to eat it, does she, precisely because he is a non-muslim. Or should we interpret it as muslim women aren't allowed to even touch wine bottles or pork packages etc. Islam is a laughably rigid system of restrictions and impositions. And a civilized non-muslim man would probably not "order" a woman at all. Only in the worst ever ideological hate crime is it today possible to even hint at such stupidities.

onislam.net: A Muslim wife is originally obliged to obey her husband, in order to maintain peace and love with the family relations. Yet, off course a woman should obey Allah first. So, if there is conflict between the husband’s demands and Allah’s orders, it puts a great strain on the marriage. Thus, Islam prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man.

Klevius: Not at all. The will of "Allah" is completely deleted in islam. The real reason is that the kids should become muslims. And this extreme one way immoral is perhaps the most striking feature of islam compared to civilized Human Rights thinking.


onislam.net: Even if a non-Muslim wife doesn't respect Islam the Muslim husband has the right to demand certain behavior from her.

Klevius: "Certain behavior" like domestic sex slavery and responsibility to foster her kids to muslim jihadis and not according to her own beliefs.

onislam.net: Men and women do not have the same responsibilities and rights in Islam. For example, the wife has the right to  stay home and care for her young children. She can instill the best values in them. She can build a strong family… and strong families build strong healthy societies.

Klevius: Healthy societies?! The majority of the most unhealthy societies are and have always been muslim caliphates, nations or muslim communities! No matter if a muslim nation is rich due to slavery or Western oil money, or poor when this is lacking - the result is always unhealthy societies!

Iyad Madani, the Saudi dictator family's islamofascist leader of the world's muslims most important organization OIC.

Posted

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 inevitable 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.

.

Posted by klevius