The father of Gender Studies, John Money, taught that babies are born gender-neutral. In one way, this is just a silly circular argument since he defined “gender” such that a baby doesn’t have it. However, it comes to us from materialist existentialist philosophers like Sartre, who said that existence precedes essence. You first exist, and then you determine what you are. It is a denial that there are natures to things.
Implication:
This need not be limited to gender. Why not also apply it to the idea of human nature? Using John Money’s system, babies are born “human nature neutral” and will be told by their society what it means to be a human. But the authentic ones among us will demand the right to decide what they are for themselves. Maybe they aren’t human. Maybe they are cats. Who are you to say otherwise?
We know that some people do indeed think this. However, we also know that thinking something doesn’t make it so. It is very important for educators and educational institutions to teach their students how to understand the nature of reality.
Let’s debate. I can prove this foundational belief of Gender Studies to be false. What will happen to such departments after that?
Share this post