Wikipedia describes Gender Studies as:

“Gender studies is a field for interdisciplinary study devoted to gender identity and gendered representation as central categories of analysis. This field includes women’s studies (concerning women, feminism, gender, and politics), men’s studies and queer studies.”

Urban Dictionary has a different description:

“A field of study in universities which takes advantage of young impressionable girls (and beta-males), by convincing them that females are oppressed, and that men are the oppressors. Feminist dogma, and social justice are taught in gender studies classes. This leads these students to believe that, despite living in the most free countries in the most free era ever, that they are living in a tyrannical, futile system, despite all contrary evidence. This is used to justify discrimination against ‘cisgender heterosexual white males’, and any other majority group which may have been overlooked by this definition.”

Cisgender is an adjective for someone whose gender corresponds to their assigned sex. Urban Dictionary stirs the pot with:

Cisgender: “Normal. A term that is used as derogatory by the LGBT community who thinks everyone who is normal is the antichrist. People who like their genitalia how it came.”

Thus everybody is cisgender... unless they are a transvestite. In reality, we did not need a label for being normal. However, labels are useful if you with to denigrate individuals or groups. Cisgender is used to mock normal people. It is a term that is redundant and meaningless that is used by trannies and Social Justice Warriors to belittle the the normal majority of people using expressions such as ‘cisgender scum’. It thus becomes a derogatory term for normal people. Delusional persons use it to suggest that it is abnormal to identify as your birth gender. Rather than these people realising that they are insane, they suggest that anyone that believes that there are only two genders is insane and that cisgendered people are ‘transphobic’. Thus, cisgendered is an invented word created by some lunatic types to denigrate normal people. CEOofCE created this little story to give us an idea:

“I was born with a vagina and identify as a lesbian (i.e. A homosexual WOMAN) so I’m cisgendered and so is my sister, also born with a vagina and identities as a woman, who is married to cisgendered Bob (who was born with a penis, and feels like a man) who has 2 brothers, a very feminine homosexual cisgender (born with a penis, wears heels sometimes but feels like a better man because of it) brother, Joe, the other brother Jack is homosexual transgender (born with a vagina, feels like a man (possibly do gender reassignment) and dates both cis- and trans-gender men). I have no idea why people think cisgendered is a hate word or made by unicorns but it’s just a better term to use when talking to people who are trying understand when describing a difference between the two.”

We have already had a taste of Gender Studies with the invented term cisgender. There used to be two genders, but now the Gender Studies students claim there are more. The Oxford dictionary starts off with “either of the TWO sexes (male or female)...” but discretely adds “social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.” Gender studies suggests that one can be biologically one sex but identify as another gender. So the ever manipulated propaganda machine called Wikipedia adds: “People who are non-binary (or genderqueer) have gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine. They may identify as having an overlap of gender identities, having two or more genders, having no gender, having a fluctuating gender identity, or being third gender or other-gendered.” So the fruitcakes move onto: “Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men.” Thus they claim that sex is ‘socially constructed’. Remarkably, the type of person that takes a ‘Gender Studies’ degree, has to convincingly rehash this stuff to get their degree. In recent years, the comedians have been the serious ones dispensing social commentary and the academia are the jokers. Comedian George Carlin has to explain what the word ‘fuck’ means. [about his grandfather] He’d look at me and he’d say, “I’m going upstairs and fuck your grandma.” A comedian is required to tell us what we are supposed to do with a penis. The propaganda machine in all of its forms that is influencing us all and in particular our young and this includes porn and the lgbtq propaganda department is telling us to stick it and ejaculate everywhere except where a comedian tells us to put it. The old-timer, the grandfather puts it where it was intended, in grandmother’s vagina. He talks about: “mindless Hollywood cocksuckers” Even Marilyn Monroe, a Gentile actors said when she got a contract: “It means, I’ll never have to suck another cock again!” [McDougal, 217]

If you listen to these people for too long, you may start to think that there are more than two genders — there are only two genders! But you may get into a very serious argument with these types who will denigrate you for not accepting that there are more than two genders.

Even the World Health Organisation gets in on the con. “Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men.” and “It ... can be changed.” If a man thinks he is a cat or a dog, he gets adjustment therapy to convince him that he is a man rather than a cat or a dog. But if he thinks that he is a girl, he gets encouragement and can get his penis and genitalia removed. Age is no impediment. World Health Organisation defines gender in this manner:

“Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined. People are born female or male, but learn to be girls and boys who grow into women and men. This learned behaviour makes up gender identity and determines gender roles.”

The WHO starts to get dangerous:

“If health care systems are to respond adequately to problems caused by gender inequality, it is not enough to simply ‘add in’ a gender component late in a given project’s development. Research, interventions, health system reforms, health education, health outreach, and health policies and programmes must consider gender from the beginning.”

They are keen to foist this on all persons of the world. It is getting more like George Orwell’s 1984:

“Gender is thus not something that can be consigned to ‘watchdogs’ in a single office, since no one office can possibly involve itself in all phases of an organization’s activities. All health professionals must have knowledge and awareness of the ways in which gender affects health, so that they may address gender issues wherever appropriate thus rendering their work more effective.”

Thus nations must set up a network to enforce this nonsense and be evaluated on their process. In a café last week, I accidentally sat nest to an ‘Asean’ officer grilling an Indonesian bureaucrat on something similar. The get serious with:

“The process of creating this knowledge and awareness of – and responsibility for – gender among all health professionals is called ‘gender mainstreaming’.”

The internet is full of comments claiming that they want to be a special snowflake and that they make this bullshit up.

Hungarian officials believe that subjects such as Gender Studies serve no purpose and are based in ideology rather than science. Janice Fiamengo believes that: “Defunding such programmes in more liberal parts of Europe and North America and Canada, would trigger off feminist paroxysms of apocalyptic proportions.” She continues with: “Evidence drawn from the programs’ own websites suggests that, far from serving no purpose at all, they exist to create foot soldiers for feminist social change, mainly by transforming the role of women and greatly enlarging the reach of the feminist state.” Some of the lecturer do not even hide their intentions: “Director Nickie Charles researches how women ‘through involvement in social movements can bring about social change’. ” and “Gender studies programmes make no pretence of pursuing knowledge for the sake of truth. ... they advance theories of oppression and resistance, often employing a range of different kinds of feminist, Marxist, queer, post-modern, post-colonial, eco-critical, and other theories. ... The fundamental tenets of feminism — that gender is a social construct and that all major world cultures, especially western cultures, are built on a deep-seated misogyny resulting in the subjugation of women — are not up for debate. These tenets are presented as truths to be learned.” Thus, hundreds of thousands of students are learning dogma as truth. Thus its procedures resemble indoctrination rather than education. Part of the indoctrination process ensures that the dominant view is that gender is mostly, if not entirely, socially constructed. This has about as much science behind it as believing that men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Or the misandric 19th nursery rhyme:

“Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails, That’s what little boys are made of. Sugar and spice and all things nice, That’s what little girls are made of.”

Women’s Studies is defined as follows:

“Women’s studies is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to topics concerning women, feminism, gender, and politics. It often includes feminist theory, women’s history (e.g. a history of women’s suffrage) and social history, women’s fiction, women’s health, feminist psychoanalysis and the feminist and gender studies-influenced practice of most of the humanities and social sciences.”

Thus it includes Feminism.

The authors Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge propose in the book ‘Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies’ that Women’s Studies serves a political agenda, has dubious scholarship value and has practices that resemble indoctrination. Even Pope Francis spoke about ‘ideological colonization’, by which he meant that ‘gender ideology’ has become a threat to traditional family and fertile heterosexuality. It is difficult to take Gender Studies seriously if it dismisses biological reality as a myth or a ‘patriarchal construction’. Joseph Allen Boone points out that “many of the men in the academy who are feminism’s most supportive ‘allies’ are gay.” It is also to be noted that there is almost no consideration of the male perspective. Thus it is not a gender neutral study of gender and ends up being gynocentric. They make an assumption that a female-centred approach is justifiable because of perceived male dominance in academia. Oppressed women must have the greater insight into the workings of the world because male oppressors have been privileged. Thus male perspectives are not discussed in the study of gender. The course is taught with the presumption of male guilt due to patriarchy and privilege theories. Masculinity is demonised as if it has no merit with ignorant expressions such as toxic masculinity. Positive aspects of masculinity are ignored. Although the pundits claim that Feminism is about equality, its practice is anything but. By stating that the ‘Labelling someone a man or a woman is a social decision’. to the extent that it has no biological basis, it immediately goes into much more divisive crank ideology. This key plank of feminist thought requires an outright denial of natural, biological differences in male-female nature goes way beyond the commonly stated goal of simple equality. They study books such as one by Eckert and McConnell-Ginet:

“The chapter argues that girls and women are taught to desire men not because it is natural but because girls and women are bombarded from a young age by images of heterosexual romance. The implication is that there is something potentially nefarious about this process, and that girls might be better off learning a different way of being.”

And so my physiotherapist said to me: “Andy. I think I can manage to live without children.” I was shocked at the effectiveness of the penetration of the brainwashing. The brainwashing worked perfectly. Kill the best of the Goy! This Gender Studies is the scourge of education and has little connection with truth. Every component is sexist or misandric or gynocentric. The students are encouraged to think of detractors in any of many derisory labels that they freely bestow including racist or homophobic.

A commenter on Hungarian Free Press writes: “you are so blind to realize the truth about ‘gender studies’ and how harmful and destructive the feminist agenda is on society. It is a complete disaster in the West where these harmful ideologies are being allowed to flourish.” He is looking farther than what is good for women. Feminism is not good for women and it is not good for society. [1] Morrison jumps in with: “Every society needs reproduction to survive. In most cases ‘alternative genders’ do not fulfil such function therefore they are not useful for the society in this area. It does not mean they cannot excel in others. Different societies deal with such e.g. under Islam they are beheaded, in some strict countries they are jailed, in some countries they are treated like secondary citizens, in many countries they are left alone but not supported, while in other countries S.A., the USA, and Canada they are celebrated and encouraged to spread such alternative genderism.” [1] Marxism has taken hold in these countries. Martabuka comments: “Math, Science, Physics, Engineering are subjects that add value to the economy.”. [1] Again on the Hungarian Free Press

“To be fair, gender studies tends to be anti-objectivity and anti-rigor and is almost purely based in radically sexist ideology. It’s essentially a degree in misandry. It is certainly in opposition to societal well being and a fraudulent program.” [1]

Morrison adds:

“Natural gender is either Male or Female (in some extremely rare occasion could be hermafrodita), all others are created by social warriors in order to turn their society upside down.” [1]

An indoctrinated person might say that biological gender is biological sex not gender. Gender is what a person self-identifies as. A male can decide to be female or any of a number of variants on gender. This ‘social determinism’ is then decreed to be a rule. Gender Studies is turning predominantly girls into lifelong Marxist gender activists. We might notice that Gender Studies is ‘doublespeak’ for Feminist Studies in support of a Feminist domination of both sides of politics. The reality is that it is the differences between male and female that make a relationship exciting. By exaggerating the differences and blaming males for differences creates a rift between males and females that can be used for political ends. It reminds me of the roles given to women to destabilise society in previous communist revolutions.

Mao’s Communist revolution also brought women more job opportunities which is doublespeak for pushing them into the workforce without alleviating their domestic burdens. Women were often distributed to collective work situations with meagre pay and dismal working conditions. Peasant women toiled in the fields by day and returned home to the tasks of cooking and mending clothes.

And in Russia, women could become bricklayers:

There are exceedingly few males in Gender Studies classes.

Some anonymous writers have observed that:

“Contrary to popular opinion, in our experience, most students aren’t really committed to joining gender studies. Many of them don’t even have a clear idea about what they’re getting in to.”

We need to convince young students not to choose to study Feminist Marxism masked as ‘Gender Studies’. Better still, we need the Gender Studies departments shut down. One person claims that: “universities are all but feminist dictatorships”.

Gender Studies all but ignores the fact that ‘Christian Patriarchy’ was a power grab by women that put immense requirements on men with no requirements on females. Females could be narcissistic and manipulative so that men could be kept out of the house working in unpleasant conditions to bring money home to a wife. Gender Studies in full of illogic including their views on so called ‘Stem’ subjects (Usually classed as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.). Gender Studies teaches a student to be angry that there are not enough women in the STEM fields. Yet Gender Studies is encouraged over Stem. Gender studies discourages students from applying for STEM with the implication that it is too hard and that men dominate. Logic simply does not apply. My memory of university in the early seventies was that the engineering and science students worked to the level of self destruction and the non science students had a cruisy life of ease. Parents need to say to their daughters that they will not support them in a discipline that gives them no practical employable skill other than that of whining. In some colleges, Gender Studies is mandatory whilst mathematics is not. What is the logic of this? Gender Studies is apparently more important than Political Science. Mathematics is based on logic. It is difficult to disprove Pythagoras’s theorem, but a student would be welcome to try, but a statement such as: “class and sexuality are inextricably linked” is not to be questioned in a Gender Studies class. It is treated as ‘fact’. This is not education. Education involves thinking and regurgitating dogma is not thinking. Views from dissenting authors are never analysed. Rote learning is not learning at all. Gender Studies tends to create its own Gobbledegook in the form of incomprehensible jargon. Academic language needs to be precise. Take for example a paper published by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay (B&L) about the ‘conceptual penis’. These two created a hoax paper to demonstrate the state of Gender Studies and the humanities in general. It was accepted and published by the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Their paper was a mishmash of jargon from Gender Studies written to demonstrate the low academic standards.

Some did not think it a hoax because: “because it makes a good argument.” and “the language and ‘argument’ of the hoax piece is indistinguishable from sincere gender studies publications.” Here is an extract from ‘The conceptual penis as a social construct.’:

“Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.”

Here is part of the conclusion:

“We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

And:

“Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset.”

People were reading this without falling off their chairs laughing and the piece was given accepting peer reviews. Gender Studies is full of persons pretending to be experts in what they call ‘theory’. They use Gobbledegook to give the appearance of Academic complexity to put it on a level with mathematics and science. The greater the level of gobbledegook jargon, the more ‘intellectual’ the author. If no-one can understand the author, then the author must be more ‘intelligent’! They fall apart when so called intellectual ‘scholarship’ grounded in their ‘theories’ cannot be distinguished from deliberate nonsense as in the ‘conceptual penis’ or another paper about the ‘sexuality of carbon-fibre limbs’. Somehow they manage to use their ‘theories’ to demonise the disfavoured race and the disfavoured sex which is deemed to be the cisgendered male (white). Normal white males are the major targets of their derision. Perhaps they would like the white males to wear yellow stars? With a stated goal of ‘equality for women’, an oxymoron to anyone with a functioning neocortex, they have managed to be discriminatory to the point of genocide towards white males. They are the core and proponents of white genocide. It is feminism that is toxic. Women’s feminism is toxic to the point of genocide. Black women and other people of colour have begun to create their our own terminology to combat what they see as white feminism that they believe has a reputation for ignoring the experiences of women of colour. Terms such as whitesplaining have arrived. What is not noticed is that many of the key talking heads of feminism were Jewish who only identify as white when it suits them. They refuse and are religiously banned from breeding with white people and their religion has plenty of anti-goy statements. Tempers flare when Rose McGowan suggested that being called a woman was as bad as being called the n-word.

Intersectionality is a concept often used in ‘critical theories’ to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another. One comment shows that there is a strong conversation on oppression. This encourages a negative attitude and unhelpful in promoting happiness.

“Just because you are female, or disabled, or a person of colour, or have a certain body type (overweight, underweight, average) does not mean that your experiences of sexism, ableism or racism or sizeism are an exact match for experiences of other kinds of oppression (or even exactly like sexism, ableism or racism for someone else, of course).”

This is full on negativity encouraging victim mentality. Always ahead of the pack with:

“Cultural Marxist bullshit mainly espoused by self-loathing white leftist nutjobs and noisy minorities who live in the west and enjoy all its benefits, whilst bashing everything it stands for.”

The contributor put it in a sentence:

“Intersectionality is why I’m a useless twat and a failure in life and it’s all your fault.”

It can be thought of as an exercise in brainlessness. Another bright contributor contributes:

“A methodology of making any issue too complex to be resolved, thus keeping academic theorists in a job.”

One commenter gets carried away, but you may be able to understand why he said it:

“The act of spreading hate by calling it equality.”

So now we have a situation in France where a scandal erupts over a festival organised by black feminists that was allegedly going to be ‘forbidden to white persons’. Racism returns in the form in reverse as ‘The fight against racism has become an alibi for identity isolationism.’ [The International League against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA)] The return comment was:

“The white identity is so central to France that any event that brings white dominance into question swiftly triggers a solidarity that breaks down partisan political divides.”

Thus the determination to destroy the original structure of the local inhabitants. Replacement of the original culture is assumed in the answer. A form of genocide by replacement. Reason has been exchanged for ideology.