#GenderPolitics

[the-most-humble-blog]

🔥You’re Not “Non-Binary.” You’re Just Bored.

For centuries, men were men, women were women, and nobody had a damn identity crisis about it.

Now? Every other kid on TikTok is suddenly “non-binary.”

We went from “I’m a person” to “I’m an ethereal genderless spirit creature” in record time.

Why?

Because most of these people aren’t actually non-binary.

They’re just bored.

“Non-Binary” Is A Trend, Not A Reality

Let’s look at the numbers, because math doesn’t give a fuck about feelings.

In 2014, less than 0.5% of people in the U.S. identified as non-binary or genderfluid.

By 2021, that number skyrocketed to 5%—a 900% increase in less than a decade.

Among Gen Z? Over 25% claim to be “somewhere on the gender spectrum.”

Let me ask you something:

Did human biology change overnight?

Did evolution pull a U-turn in the last decade?

Or—and hear me out—is it more likely that being non-binary just became trendy?

Because if we’re suddenly seeing millions of people “discover” a gender identity crisis that literally never existed before, we need to ask:

👉 Is this real? 👉 Or is this just people desperate for attention?

The Non-Binary “Awakening” Is Just Tumblr 2.0

Back in the 2010s, this exact same pattern happened with:

“Pansexuality” (which, let’s be real, is just bisexual with extra steps)

“Otherkin” (people who insisted they were animals in human bodies)

“Demisexuality” (congratulations, you need an emotional connection to have sex—you’re just a normal person)

What happened?

It died off. Because it wasn’t real.

But gender? That’s the new hot trend.

And why wouldn’t it be?

You get instant validation online.

You get a special identity without having to achieve anything.

You get to be oppressed without having to actually experience hardship.

Who needs a personality when you can just claim a new gender every week and demand applause for it?

99% Of “Non-Binary” People Still Magically Align With Their Birth Sex

Let’s talk about how convenient this trend is.

Non-binary “men”—still act and dress like men.

Non-binary “women”—still act and dress like women.

You ever notice that?

They’ll scream at you that they’re not male or female, but 99% of them still look and behave like their birth sex.

They don’t transition. They don’t take hormones. They don’t change their physical presentation.

They just throw on a they/them pronoun in their bio and expect the world to rearrange itself around their new, fragile identity.

Because the truth is?

👉 They don’t actually believe they’re non-binary. 👉 They just like the attention that comes with it.

And in a world where being a regular man or woman is “boring,” what better way to stand out than making up an identity out of thin air?

Science Still Says There Are Two Genders—Cry About It

I know this upsets Twitter users with septum piercings, but:

👉 Every scientific study, every biological textbook, and every credible geneticist confirms that there are two sexes: male and female.

👉 99.98% of humans are born with either XY or XX chromosomes. (The other 0.02% are actual intersex individuals—a biological disorder, not a third gender.)

👉 No amount of “gender feelings” will change that.

So when someone says, “I’m neither male nor female, I’m non-binary,” what they really mean is:

🚨 “I am experiencing an existential crisis but instead of therapy, I decided to change my pronouns.”

And instead of saying “Damn, maybe I need a hobby,” they demand that the entire planet cater to their new self-diagnosed identity.

“But Gender Isn’t Biological, It’s A Social Construct!”

Wrong.

Languages across every culture—from Chinese to Arabic to Latin—have gender built into them.

Every civilization since the dawn of time has recognized two genders.

Animals, insects, and even goddamn plants operate on a male/female reproductive system.

But suddenly, in 2020, we discovered that all of history was wrong and Twitter activists are the new experts.

Sure.

The Harsh Truth: You’re Not Non-Binary—You’re Just Bored, Lonely, Or Looking For Clout

The explosion of non-binary identity isn’t a biological shift or a cultural enlightenment.

It’s a boredom epidemic.

People used to find meaning through:

✔ Building a career ✔ Raising a family ✔ Creating art ✔ Developing a real personality

Now?

People log onto TikTok, see a blue-haired activist getting 500,000 likes for saying “I just discovered I’m genderfluid,” and suddenly…

💡 “I’m non-binary too!”

Not because it’s real. Not because they ever struggled with gender before. But because it’s trendy, it gets attention, and it gives them something to put in their bio.

And the second this trend dies?

They’ll quietly drop it and pretend it never happened—just like they did with their Tumblr self-diagnosed mental illnesses.

Final Thought: Reality Always Wins

You can scream your gender feelings into the void. You can write 37 pronouns in your bio. You can throw a tantrum when someone says “sir” or “ma’am” in public.

But at the end of the day?

👉 Reality doesn’t care.

There are men and women. That’s it. That’s all there ever was. That’s all there ever will be.

And deep down? You know it.

Now go touch some grass.

🔥 REBLOG if you’re tired of the gender circus. 💬 COMMENT if you know someone who pulled the “I’m non-binary” stunt for clout. 🚀 FOLLOW for more brutal, no-BS truth bombs.

[karl-says]

Capitalism and the Patriarchy

Through the breaking down of our puritan beliefs about gender and dismantling restrictive gender roles and stereotypes, we bind ourselves, we can take crucial steps toward true freedom. The patriarchy and capitalism so are deeply intertwined, each benefiting and reinforcing the other; the former, through these gender roles, perpetuates inequality an thrives on the hierarchical structures it creates. While capitalism, exploits these divisions to maximize profit and control. Only when they saw more profit and labor did they finally accept women into the workplace.

[trolltitan]

The Hypocrisy of Modern Feminism: The Troll King’s Mission of Exposing It

Ever noticed how modern feminism claims to "fight for equality" but often promotes double standards? For instance, advocating for gender quotas vs. picking the most qualified candidate choices regardless of gender. Let's dive into the ironic world of Modern Feminism where ‘empowerment’ sometimes looks a lot like hypocrisy. Ready to laugh at the contradictions? Join the Troll King in exposing the farce that is Modern Feminism!

Remember folks, if you truly want equality, egalitarianism is king! The Troll King has spoken! 👑

[gravekilla69]

WOII: Week 4 - Semiotics

Today's session explored semiotics, examining how signs and symbols communicate deeper meanings. Semiotics plays a vital role in design by ensuring visuals don't just represent but also evoke specific emotions and responses from the audience (Chandler 78).

For my personal analysis, I selected a Nike ad with a simple white background and the tagline, "Yesterday you said tomorrow." The typography in this design is central to its message. The use of bold, clean type creates emphasis, drawing attention to the urgency of the words. The scale of the type suggests importance and motivates action, reinforcing Nike’s call to stop procrastinating and take immediate steps toward improvement.

The design's simplicity, with minimal elements, focuses on clarity and directness. The white background creates a sense of space and calm, allowing the message to dominate without distraction. The type itself, likely in a strong sans-serif font, communicates a sense of strength, confidence, and modernity, aligning with Nike’s brand values of empowerment and self-improvement.

The message, "Yesterday you said tomorrow," functions as an indexical sign, referring to the idea of procrastination. It speaks to a broad audience, particularly individuals who value productivity and self-discipline. However, it could also exclude audiences who view such ideals as overly commercial or stressful, instead preferring a more balanced, relaxed approach to personal growth.

This ad exemplifies how design principles like emphasis, scale, and space work together to create a meaningful message, demonstrating the importance of semiotics in visual communication.

Word Count: 254

--------------------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath, Fontana Press, 1977.

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge, 2002. Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1976.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Your Body Is a Battleground" (1989)

"I Shop Therefore I Am" (1987)

"Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face" (1981)

[executive-orders]

Government Agencies and Employees: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth (EO 14168)

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-02090

Analysis of Executive Order 14168

Title and Purpose:

The executive order titled "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" aims to reassert biological sex distinctions in federal policy, explicitly opposing what it terms as "gender ideology."

Key Components: (1) Biological Definitions:

The order mandates a strict binary understanding of sex, defining "sex" as an immutable biological classification. It differentiates terms like "male," "female," "man," "woman," "boy," and "girl" based solely on biological criteria at conception.

(2) Policy and Implementation:

Agencies are directed to enforce laws using these biological definitions. This includes revising policies, forms, and communications to exclude gender identity in favor of biological sex.

It rescinds previous executive orders that supported gender identity policies, including those that allowed for transgender inclusivity in federal documents and services.

(3) Public and Private Spaces:

The order seeks to ensure that spaces like prisons, shelters, and bathrooms are segregated strictly by biological sex, not gender identity. This includes reversing policies that allowed transgender individuals in facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

(4) Legal and Funding Implications:

It instructs the Attorney General to reinterpret the Supreme Court's Bostock v. Clayton County decision, suggesting that it does not extend to sex-based distinctions in federal policy outside employment discrimination.

Federal funding should not support initiatives promoting gender ideology, which includes educational and health policies.

(5) Guidance and Reporting:

Agencies must submit updates on how they implement these changes, including changes to documents and ensuring federally funded entities adhere to this policy.

Potential Impacts:

Social and Legal: This order could lead to significant legal challenges, as it might be seen as conflicting with recent interpretations of civil rights laws concerning discrimination based on gender identity. It could also affect transgender individuals' access to services and rights in federal contexts.

Cultural and Political: The order represents a significant cultural and political statement, potentially deepening divides on gender issues. It might energize cultural debates over gender identity versus biological sex.

Administrative: Implementing this order would require substantial policy revisions across numerous federal agencies, potentially leading to confusion, legal battles, or delays in service provision.

Critique:

Human Rights Concerns: Critics might argue that this order infringes on human rights, particularly the rights of transgender individuals to live according to their gender identity, which is recognized by many international human rights organizations.

Scientific and Medical Perspectives: The simplification of sex to a binary model disregards a growing body of scientific research on sex, gender, and intersex conditions, potentially ignoring the complexity of human biology and identity.

Legal Precedent: Reinterpreting Bostock in this manner could face judicial scrutiny, as the original ruling was quite clear on protections under Title VII extending to gender identity.

This executive order reflects a significant policy shift, one that would require careful legal and ethical scrutiny for its implementation and effects.

Evaluation in Relation to the Law of the United States

Constitutional and Legal Implications: (1) First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Religion:

Speech: The order could be seen as restricting speech by mandating specific definitions for "sex" and "gender," potentially infringing on the freedom of expression for individuals and organizations that recognize or advocate for gender identities beyond binary classifications. Legal challenges might arise concerning compelled speech or censorship.

Religion: By defining "sex" strictly in biological terms, the order might conflict with religious freedoms if certain religious organizations or individuals hold beliefs about gender that differ from these definitions.

(2) Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

This clause mandates that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The order's definitions and mandates could be challenged if they are seen to discriminate against transgender or non-binary individuals by denying them equal treatment under the law.

(3) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020):

The Bostock decision interpreted sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Executive Order 14168 explicitly seeks to undo or reinterpret this legal precedent, which could lead to significant legal disputes. The Attorney General is directed to issue guidance correcting this interpretation, but this might not hold up in court without new legislative action or a reversal by the Supreme Court.

(4) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972:

The order mandates a strict biological interpretation of sex, which could conflict with current educational policies and guidance on transgender student rights under Title IX. Reversing recent interpretations might require Congressional action or new court decisions that align with the order's directives.

(5) Administrative Procedures Act (APA):

The order's directive for agencies to rescind guidance and change regulations might not align with the APA's requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking. Agencies must typically provide public notice and allow for comments before changing significant regulations, which could delay or challenge the implementation of the order.

(6) Federal Funding and Grants:

By directing agencies to ensure federal funding does not support "gender ideology," this could lead to legal challenges regarding the criteria for funding, especially if seen as discriminatory or unconstitutional under existing civil rights protections.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Civil Rights Lawsuits: Transgender and non-binary individuals or advocacy groups might sue based on violations of civil rights laws, arguing discrimination based on sex and gender identity.

Federal Court Challenges: Courts might need to adjudicate conflicts between this executive order and existing legal interpretations, particularly those from Bostock and subsequent administrative guidance.

Legislative Pushback: Congress could attempt to pass legislation either supporting or countering this executive order, leading to potential vetoes or further legal battles.

Conclusion: The executive order, while within the President's authority to issue, would likely face numerous legal challenges based on current interpretations of the Constitution, civil rights statutes, and judicial precedents. Its implementation would hinge on judicial review, potentially leading to a patchwork of enforcement depending on court decisions. This could result in a significant legal and cultural debate over definitions of sex and gender in U.S. law and policy.

The executive order raises several ethical considerations that can be analyzed through various lenses:

Ethical Principles and Considerations: (1) Human Dignity and Respect:

Positive: The order aims to protect the dignity of women by ensuring spaces designated for them remain exclusive to biological females, potentially safeguarding privacy and safety in intimate environments like shelters or prisons.

Negative: It might undermine the dignity of transgender individuals by invalidating their gender identity and potentially exposing them to harassment or discrimination by denying recognition of their lived gender.

(2) Equality and Non-Discrimination:

Negative: By strictly defining sex based on biology and rejecting gender identity, the order could be seen as discriminatory against transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals, potentially violating principles of equality under the law.

(3) Freedom of Expression and Identity:

Negative: The order curtails the freedom of individuals to express and live according to their gender identity, which could be seen as an infringement on personal autonomy and freedom of expression.

(4) Public Policy and Governance:

Positive: It might be argued that this order seeks to clarify policy for more straightforward application in areas like sports, privacy, and security where sex distinctions are seen as necessary.

Negative: It dismisses the complexities of gender identity, potentially leading to policies that do not reflect the diversity of human experience and could result in marginalization or harm to minorities.

(5) Legal and Scientific Accuracy:

Debatable: The order's definitions of "sex" and "gender identity" reflect one perspective in an ongoing scientific and legal debate. While some might argue it aligns with a traditional view of biology, others see gender as a more fluid and socially constructed aspect of identity, backed by emerging scientific research.

(6) Impact on Mental Health and Social Cohesion:

Negative: Policies like these could increase mental health issues among transgender individuals, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide, due to lack of recognition and societal acceptance.

(7) Legal Repercussions and Precedents:

The order positions itself against interpretations of previous legal decisions like Bostock v. Clayton County, potentially leading to legal challenges or a reevaluation of rights under existing civil rights legislation.

Ethical Evaluation Conclusion:

While the executive order might be well-intentioned in protecting what it perceives as women's rights and safety, it does so at the potential cost of the rights, dignity, and well-being of transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals. Ethical governance ideally balances the protection of one group without unduly harming another, promoting inclusivity and respect for all identities. This order might be seen as overly restrictive, potentially fostering an environment of exclusion rather than one of inclusion and understanding.

A more ethical approach might involve:

Creating policies that ensure safety and privacy for all while acknowledging and respecting diverse gender identities.

Consulting with a wide range of stakeholders, including transgender advocates, to craft inclusive policies.

Investing in education and awareness to bridge understanding between different groups, rather than entrenching divisions through policy.

Evaluation of the following rule in this Executive Order: "Female means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. Male means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell."

(1) Biological Accuracy:

Strengths:

The definition aligns with biological sex determination at a cellular level, where females produce ova (large gametes) and males produce sperm (small gametes). This distinction is rooted in biological science and applies across many species, not just humans.

It emphasizes the role of genetics in determining sex from the moment of conception, which is accurate from a biological standpoint.

Limitations:

Intersex Individuals: This definition does not account for intersex conditions where individuals may not fit neatly into binary categories due to variations in sex characteristics. For example, some intersex people might have a combination of male and female biological traits or might not produce typical gametes at all.

Developmental Anomalies: There are rare cases where genetic or developmental anomalies might lead to an individual producing atypical gametes or not producing them at all due to conditions like Turner syndrome (XO) or Klinefelter syndrome (XXY).

(2) Sociocultural Implications:

Binary Focus: The definition strictly adheres to a binary model of sex, which can overlook or marginalize individuals who do not identify with or fit into these binary categories. This can have significant implications for gender identity, legal recognition, and social inclusion.

Legal and Ethical Considerations: In legal contexts, such definitions might be used to determine rights, eligibility for sports, or other gender-specific regulations. However, applying this strictly biological definition could conflict with contemporary understandings of gender identity, potentially leading to issues of discrimination or exclusion.

Medical and Health: From a medical standpoint, this definition can be useful for certain treatments or research focusing on reproductive health. However, it might not provide a complete picture for all health-related issues where sex and gender might intersect differently with health outcomes.

Conclusion: While the rule offers a clear, biologically grounded definition of sex based on gamete production, it has notable limitations, particularly in its application to the spectrum of human biology and identity. It's crucial to complement such biological definitions with an understanding of gender as a social construct and to consider the lived experiences of intersex and transgender individuals when discussing sex and gender in broader societal contexts.

[dommingjeffsatur]

have yall ever read an omegaverse fic that had genderpolitics sooo good that a two sentence dialog sparked an half hour long rant about it? cause i have.

[regina-bithyniae]

you might hate it, but this is what genderpolitics radical centrism looks like

I'm literally so tired of you people lmfao

[guastellap]

Mother Destroys Woke School Board #shorts #genderpolitics

[kickstandfortrump]

Miriam Grossman Destroys Gender Ideology At Hearing #shorts #genderpolitics

[theadmiralwho]

Miriam Grossman Destroys Gender Ideology At Hearing #shorts #genderpolitics

[roadwarrior1157]

Father Destroys School Board With Facts #shorts #genderpolitics

[epitome-the-burnkid-viii]

#alternative #media #broadcasting #youtuberecommendedchronicles #lightworker #starseed #currentaffairs #youtube #esoteric #knowledge #space #cosmos #ascension #enlightenment #5dearth #crystalline #energy #spirituality #humanity #solarflare #solarflash #solarstorm #Rapture #lightwarrior #Apocalypse #endtimes #NewAge #ageofaquarius #philosophy #history #music #arts #anthropology🔮

[leituras-feministas]

ART OF FEMINISM: IMAGES THAT SHAPED THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY, 1857-2017 (ART HISTORY BOOKS, FEMINIST BOOKS, PHOTOGRAPHY GIFTS FOR WOMEN, WOMEN IN HISTORY BOOKS)

Feminist art and the fight for equality

Art and feminism: Once again, women are on the march. And since its inception in the 19th century, the women's movement has harnessed the power of images to transmit messages of social change and equality to the world.

A comprehensive international survey of feminist art: From highlighting the posters of the Suffrage Atelier, through the radical art of Judy Chicago and Carrie Mae Weems, to the cutting-edge work of Sethembile Msezane and Andrea Bowers, The Art of Feminism traces the way feminists have shaped visual arts and media throughout history.

Feminism and art history: Featuring more than 350 works of art, illustration, photography, performance, and graphic design-along with essays examining the legacy of the radical canon-this rich volume showcases the vibrancy of the feminist aesthetic over the last 150 years.

Readers familiar with Broad Strokes: 15 Women Who Made Art and Made History, Women Art and Society and Women Artists will enjoy The Art of Feminism

GET THE BOOK

Disponível em inglês

[generallygothic]

Yes, it is problematic, in that delightfully sexist way that the colourful, black and white pop. cinema of this era was, but it's charming nonetheless. 'I Married a Witch' (1942) is silly and funny, though not always in the intended places. If you can temporarily overlook the sociopolitical implications of the simplified, Hollywood-ified interpretation of a witch, then you will enjoy a light-hearted, cutesy-spooky piece of cinematic history. 🔗: For more film recommendations, check out Witch Watch: Top Ten on the blog - link in bio, or head to generallygothic.com/blog. 📸: 'I Married a Witch', dir. René Clair, 1942. Via Vanity Fair . #generallygothic #gothic #seasonofthewitch #witch #witchcraft #imarriedawitch #renéclair #1940s #1940scinema #blackandwhite #blackandwhitefilm #film #filmrecommendation #veronicalake #feminism #genderpolitics #topten #filmlist #filmcritic #goldenage #hollywood #witchesofinstagram #witchyvibes #witchaesthetic #salem #salemwitchtrials #witchtrails #execution #persecution https://www.instagram.com/p/BxxYWrAA0NR/?igshid=18rmde1joz3l6

[ellenhenryart]

Sold, thank you!

Find this design here 👉

https://www.teepublic.com/hoodie/22571091-minimal-feminist-female-smile