Jul 26, 2020. Updated: May 4, 2024.

Gender

Science says that gender isn't merely a social construct but an innate biological trait developed during conception which is further nurtured by societal factors¹² during childhood. Gender and sex aren't the same — gender is a psychological dimension and sex is a physiological attribute. In many cases, they align; but in extremely rare cases, they don't.

Those who experience this mismatch between sex and gender can live on with it and receive psychological help if required, or they can fix it by changing their sex to agree with their gender or by influencing their gender to agree with their sex. The former is more difficult, expensive, kind of irreversible and dangerous to the overall health, and must be administered only after 18 years of age, after due confirmation of the mismatch and upon the consent of the individual. The latter seems easier, cheaper, safer and can be administered earlier.

Since gender is a psychological dimension, it technically can be fluid — one can wear a certain temperament at a moment, and another the next moment. But such arbitrary fluidity may not be the best to lead a life because of the distress it causes to the person. It is best that gender isn't an arbitrary psychological dimension but a stable one that is aligned with the individual's sex.

A non-binary gender is not a gender since the terms merely implies non-association — not identified as man or woman. So a natural question rises: what are you then? Much like Zhen cannot identify himself as "not-Alex" or "not-Vikram", and can only identify himself as Zhen, non-binaries must have a gender that associates well with their psychology for the sake of accuracy. And this is a job for the psychologists and researchers, not for the activists. In the absence of such accurately defined genders, there are only two genders in humans.

The terms cis-gender male/female, transgender male/female and transexual male/female are the technically right descriptions of people. But I doubt whether such long terms can replace the current short terms of man and woman especially among cis-genders, especially when the larger population consists of cis-genders, and especially when trans-genders are not prevented from using the term "trans-gender". The benefit of migrating to the technically right term does not outweigh the inconvenience of doing that. For this reason, man and male, and woman and female are used interchangeably generally, and in this post too.

All gender have equal social, legal, political and economic rights, but they are different biologically, psychologically and physiologically. However small these differences are with respect to their similarities, they create the distinctions between the genders in the real world. Man is what he is because of his masculine traits and woman is what she is because of her feminine traits. Traits are attributed to men and women not because of their large presence in a particular gender, mostly due to evolution. Contesting feminine and masculine traits is contesting biology and evolution, which is contesting truth, which is foolishness. Eliminating sexism or empowering a gender must not mean eliminating the differences between sexes, gender and their characteristics.

Designed for The Body

For a long time, sex and gender weren't distinguished as two separate entities, thus making it a convention to interchangeably use sex with gender; such as man with male, woman with female. Societies have now started to distinguish sex and gender, but many design and social conventions that were actually based on sexual characteristics of a person are now confused to be based on the gender traits. This failure to distinguish what influenced a design or convention — sex or gender — is the root cause of many chaos with respect of gender. I give four examples of that — sporting events, wash rooms, prisons and pronouns.

In domains such as sports, we need to consider trans-people as a separate entity. Sporting events are separated into men's and women's because of the physical differences between the two, which is largely due to sex, not gender. Given the fact that biologically, males who identify themselves as women, and males who have transitioned into female still have larger aerobic, muscular and skeletal capacities than cis-gender females, it is unfair to females to allow such participants to take part in the women's competition. And because those males who transitioned into females aren't as physically capable as men any more, it is also unfair to ask them to participate in men's competitions.

The same holds true the other way — females who identify themselves as men or have transitioned to male aren't as physically capable as cis-gender men, while still are more capable than cis-gender women. Therefore, in the interest of being inclusive of transexuals, there must be two new categories in sporting events — transexual men and transexual women for females who transitioned to males and males who transitioned females respectively.

In the case of locker rooms, wash rooms and toilets, these areas are designed and built for the physical characteristics of a person, not the psychological. Therefore, those who have male genitalia must go to males' or men's room and those who have female genitalia must go to females' or women's room.

In the case of prisons, they too are designed for the physical characteristics of an inmate. Else, you would end up sending a male rapist to a women's jail just because he claimed to be woman.

Pronouns

Pronouns are either singular or plural. Singular pronouns refer to one person, while plural pronouns refer to a group. Singular pronouns can either be associated with the sex of a person, such as he/she in English, and avan/aval (south Indian languages), or *tha and *thi (Hindi); or they can be neutral to the sex of a person, such as adheham in Malayāḷam, avarkal in Tamil, and unhone in Hindi.

For a long time, sex and gender weren't distinguished as two separate entities, thus making it a convention to interchangeably use man with male, woman with female and the sex with gender. But as science progressed, society started distinguishing sex and gender. However, these language conventions didn't undergo rigorous formal linguistic changes. This is the historical reason for pronouns to be associated with gender.

This association is however wrong. The very purpose of pronouns is to replace proper nouns with something easier and quicker to use. If pronouns are gender associated, the language would demand us to ask each person for his or her gender in order to use a pronoun on them. It is hard to believe that languages will be so stupidly designed that something introduced for ease of use (pronouns) will have the same degree of difficulty to use as what it is replacing (the nouns).

The idea that some singular pronouns are associated with sex and not with gender is plausible because physical characteristics act as easy visual cues to decide what pronouns to use, thus allowing us to easily address a person with a pronoun without having to follow a highly impractical social construct of asking each person what his or her pronoun is.

Now, if anyone argues that due to the lack of evidence of the use of common sense in the design of language, the association of pronouns with sex cannot be ascertained, the solution is to adopt this association now. This is sensible for the reason stated in earlier paragraph. The alternate solution of adding singular use for a plural pronouns just breaks the language as we have learnt it.

It is this misplaced association of pronouns with gender that has paved way for the debacle of mis-gendering. Consequently, "they" is being used as a "gender neutral" pronoun to address those individuals whose gender is unknown. This practice is ironical because the majority of the population identify as either "he" and "she", and therefore making "they" as the standard to refer individuals whose gender is not known will actually end up mis-gendering the larger group of hes or shes. In other words, in the quest to prevent mis-gendering of people, the pronoun "they" ends up mis-gendering more number of people just so few people is not mis-gendered.

The primary reason to not use "they" to prevent mis-gendering is that your cognizance of that person's gender is not necessary to decide whether to refer that person as "he" or "she", because these pronouns are associated with being male and female and not with being man or woman (technically speaking). Therefore, there is no need to invent a new singular use for the plural pronoun "they".

The non-binaries need not feel offended of being mis-gendered when they are referred to as he or she, avan or aval, or *tha or *thi (Hindi), since their genders are not being referred to with these pronouns, only their sexes are.

Singular pronouns are sex based, and it isn't complicated to solve the pronoun debacle we find ourselves currently in. Just get back to status quo and this problem is resolved.

Work

Most of the differences between man and woman are due to evolution. We are physically what we do; and for thousands of years, men and women have been doing particular jobs — man doing physically intensive and expeditionary jobs while women doing less intensive and managerial jobs — both indispensable tasks, each complementing the other and none superior to the other. These divisions of labour have also contributed to the evolution of physical differences between man and woman.

For this reason, the convenience technology brought to our work will affect our physiology — that which will only be evident in coming generations. Man, who took the deepest dive from highly physically intensive work to hardly physically intensive work, will be the most affected than women, who a took relatively shallower dive. This may even narrow the differences in man's and woman's physical features in upcoming generations.

However, the psychological differences between man and woman haven't been altered by technology — they still exist. Men outdo women at some psychological faculties and women outdo men in others. And if this difference is taken as a challenge merely to prove a point, men can do whatever women can and women can do what men can. But such capabilities are not natural affinities and will not fit in the real world since our daily actions are not driven by our crusade against the other gender, but by our affinity to do things and what we want to achieve. A division of labour based on reasonable grounds will continue.

There is no such thing as man's job or woman's job, but there is such a thing as a gender's affinity towards certain jobs due to the gender's traits, thus making man or woman an obvious or natural selection for certain jobs. Of course there are exceptions, but generally, there are jobs where women outdo men and where men outdo women, others where gender make no difference at all, and the rest where robots outdo both men and women.

Stating that one gender fits better for a particular job must not be misunderstood as stating that that gender must do only that job. There is no force on earth except nature that can tell a man or a woman what job to do or not to do. Nature is a result of both evolution (the past) and technology (the present). While the evolutionary traits remain the same among men and women, technology has reduced the physical intensity of many jobs, allowing women to do jobs that were done earlier only by men.

People work for two reasons — for money and/or to satisfy some emotional urges. Some people find meaning in their work, some enjoy a sense of satisfaction, some like to design and create great products and services which consumers enjoy, and so on. But work and explorations of both men and women must not result in an unattended home. Home is fundamental to family, which is fundamental to society, which is fundamental to civilization. It is therefore imperative that man and woman prioritise home and give it the necessary time and energy. Home must not be neglected in the interest of a fast paced modern life, career or earnings. Else, society will face dire consequences.

Home management is and has always been a full time job. Traditionally, women have been managing homes and patriarchy has been blamed for it by irrational feminists. The truth is, even in matriarchal societies, the house is ruled by the queen, not by the king³. This is because of the social pattern seen across various societies, which itself is a continuation of the practices of their previous generations whose jobs were divided based on physical intensity. More physically challenging work such as hunting, gathering, farming and construction were largely outside the house and carried out by men, while women managed the homes. The dynamics of work has changed now, especially with technology. However, technology is yet to equalise the physical intensities of chores — some chores are easy while others aren't. Therefore, women engaging in less intensive chores which are mostly inside the house and men engaging in more intensive chores which are generally outside the house will exist in domestic work.

Division of labour will exist because one person cannot do it all. Even if one can, it is only fair to divide chores between the members. This division has the potential to form new gender specific roles because of our tendency to tribalise. For instance: when men or women meet up, they often discuss their activities, which influences a larger section of the group to do these activities, which will then evolve to become activities mostly done by that particular gender.

So long as men and women remain different physiologically and psychologically, men's and women's affinity towards certain acts will remain and consequently, gender roles will continue to exist.

The fact is, while some gender roles are senseless and exploitative (usually of the women), others are sensible, efficient and bring order to a relationship, family or society. Gender roles aren't entirely as a social vice; their underlying principle could be. If there is any form of logical, sensible or scientific crux to a particular gender role, it must be continued for its benefit. Others must be thrashed.

Take for instance, the case of cooking. If a man believes that it is a woman's job to cook, serve and manage the kitchen, or for any other reason does not learn these skills or performs the associated chores, he deserves to starve. Similarly, if a woman does not learn these skills as an act of rebellion towards men, or for any other reason, she too deserve to starve. Food is one of the basic necessities to sustain life; and if a person, irrespective of gender, cannot and does not cook, serve and manage the kitchen, that individual certainly deserves to starve.

When it comes to work, irrational feminists often would like to put the blame on men for under-performances of certain women. One of the complaints is the existence of a glass ceiling in the career and the difficulties of cracking it. But none can have determined that the reasons for its existence are gender specific and imposed by men. Only after establishing this can the glass ceiling be attributed to gender oppression; and only then can work be done to break it. Otherwise, it is just another instance of blaming the pen for bad handwriting.

The other complaint is the existence of gender pay gap for same work. Indeed, same work must be paid equally, but same work must first be defined too. Assuming that a definition is agreed on, it now must be established using a multivariate study that the pay gap is due to prejudice or gender oppression. Only such pay gap can be considered to be a violation of gender equality and work be put to eliminate it.

Women empowerment must not be judged based on what choices women make, but on whether the choices made were free choices — whatever they are. Many have the tendency to judge women empowerment on the basis of the loudness of the choice an form the opinion that a woman who chooses to be a home maker isn't equally empowered as a woman who chooses to be a CEO. This isn't irrational.

Work is indeed a tool of financial independence. But when women approach work as a crusade against men instead of a tool to live or to satisfy her passion, work no longer makes them independent, but further dependent on someone else. Take the case of motherhood. In India, we have the first generation of mothers getting back to work few months into their motherhood — some because of absolute necessity, some others for the myth off independence, and few for their careers. The most common arrangement seen is entrusting babysitting their infants to their parents (infant's grandparents) or hire a nanny. As for the first arrangement, it is an unsustainable arrangement because it is today's parents that become grandparents for the next generation, and I wonder if they will sacrifice their sense of independence, career or retirement life for their grandchildren when they could not do it for their own children. Such arrangements are also bad designs because with the average age of parenthood increasing, this design now demands that grandparents live longer, whose life expectancy isn't in our hands?

As for the second arrangement, it only makes the parents more dependent than independent. The simplest, most practical and most prudent practice is for parents themselves to care of their infants and fathers be the providers in the event if one has to work. The narrative created by irrational feminists that husbands providing for their wives and children is irrational masculinity does not have any logical substance. It roots from the same ego that encourages them to take dangerous plunges just to prove one's point at the expense of personal and social damages.

Work can be a leverage for women against the irrational masculinity of their husbands and in-laws. However, seeing work this way all the time and working to have fall back in the relationship means that she is already in a wrong relationship — a relationship that her work is keeping alive. It is advisable not to get into such relationships in the first place and see work for what it is: source of income and an opportunity for fulfilment.

Marriage

Marriage is not a corrective institution. Only when a person is capable of taking care of himself or herself and perform the necessary chores of sustenance, must he or she marry. Society often expects of a spouse to fix the other of some behaviours deemed as shortcomings. A spouse can certainly change the life of the other, but it is not his or her job to fix the other. If someone needs to be fixed, he or she is not ready for marriage in the first place.

Nor are spouses one mind in two bodies — a thought often propagated by religious figures. Couples are indeed two minds in two bodies; each with their own distinct personalities, likes and dislikes, and dreams and aspirations with equal rights to pursue without hampering their family responsibilities.

Financial differences between partners should not be a problem in relationships and marriages unless ego takes the better side of them. Money is essential to live, but it isn't the determinant of any aspect of life, let alone marriages. Had it been so, poor people would never have had a successful marriage; but that isn't the case.

Religious differences too should not be a problem unless the partners are intolerant of other faiths and arrogant that their closed ones too must follow their faith. It is my opinion that children too must be let to choose their faith instead of being indoctrinated. Religion is not a matter of inheritance; nor is it a family matter. It is purely a personal matter.

Marriages are not women bearing burden. In certain cultures, the marriage customs are designed to be unfair to the woman and her family: a dowry is expected in various forms, her family is expected to bear the inconvenience and cost of pregnancy, and in the case of a divorce, she has to go through an ordeal in order to get back the dowry. This does not sound like an fair partnership.

Marriage comes with the act of sex as a language for love, lust and racial continuity, but marriages are not a licenses for a spouse to have sex at a time when the other is not willing to. The claim that marriages come with sexual consent is misplaced because consent for a particular act, whatever it is, does not extend to perpetuity, but instead extends per act. That is not to say that each time, permission must be sought, for mating rituals do not begin like that. It only means that when an advance for sexual act is not welcomed or refused, it must be considered as non consent. One can continue wooing the spouse for some more time and try his or her luck, but nothing beyond that.

Marriage is not a restrictive institution. When one spouse moves to the others' house, their relationship with their own families does not end. They just happen to have a new extended family. If the wife has to seek permission from either her husband or in-laws to even visit her parents back home, or to stay with them for sometime, that's an environment of bondage. A wife is not a slave or a maid for the man and his house. She does not need to seek permission to go anywhere anytime. One must be restricted only by his or her responsibilities; not by another person.

Dowry

Marriage is not a monetary deal. Dowry has become a criteria to most men and their families to decide whether to marry a particular woman or not. A more unfortunate thing is that dowry has become, to some women and their families, a matter of status, decency, pride and respect. It is for this reason, and for the reason that when the dowry is not as per the expectation (or demand), a fair share of physical and mental abuses to the wife comes from the her mother-in-law, that men are not the sole culprits of the dowry system, but women too.

Despite many legal institutions criminalising the practice of dowry, it still exits in new names and descriptions: the most common one is the gold jewellery of the bride and a gift of lump sum money deposited jointly in the name of the bride and groom. It surprising that the bride's parents have an epiphany around the time of their daughter's marriage that they have a daughter, and buys her gold ornaments, and deposits a lump sum amount in a jointly owned account by the new couples. The groom's parents never do this for their son, or the bride's parents for their other daughters.

If there is an insult to the idea of manliness or masculinity, it is a man's demand, expectation and acceptance of dowry in any form, whether demanded or not. Some men who accepts dowry justify it to be a mean to provide for her. If his wife needs to be provided for, he must do so by himself. If he instead needs her family's money to provide for her, then he is not a provider but a middle man.

On the other hand, if his wife has an income and doesn't need to be provided for, and yet he has asked or accepted dowry, he did so simply makes him financially richer. Such a man, who made his marriage a trade deal and his wife a bargaining chip, and contributed to the continuity of the dowry system, has made men the cause of this vice, and hence is an insult to men and their manliness.

Therefore half of what is generally accepted to be the physical manifestation of manliness — his testicles — must be removed. Such men are not worthy of the two but just one.

Such men and their families are primarily responsible for the continuation of the dowry system and the evil consequences. Change must start from them and move to the women and their families who believe that what must be given must be given, considers dowry as a matter of status, decency, pride and respect, and pays it whether or not demanded. What can be spoken of such souls? They are equally responsible for the continuation of the practice and its consequences.

Then, there are parents or guardians who pay dowry out of fear that their daughter will be abused and harassed otherwise. How much blame must be put on them, or whether they should even be blamed — is debatable. But they too have contributed to the practice.

The truth is, there is an easier way to end the system of dowries. If all women unite and decide that they will not marry by paying dowry, this practice ends. Men will have no choice but to marry without a dowry. But fear of missing out dominates the thoughts, and parents do not risk taking such stands fearing their daughter will never find a 'good' alliance or will remain unmarried.

Last name

Societies, until sometime back, recognised individuals through their families or lineage; some societies still do. A person's last name, whether patronymic, matronymic or a family name, denotes the lineage and belongingness of that person. Spouses taking the family name of their partner's is an act of showing their new belongingness. It is also a gesture from the partner's family of their acceptance of the new member.

This certainly is not the only way to state belongingness or show acceptance. But actions often make stronger statements and such gestures have been misinterpreted by irrational feminists to be an act of transferring property; and therefore citing as proof for women being treated as properties. This argument is illogical because it implies that last names are property tags denoting the ownership, and if it is so, then everyone with a last name is a property — including men. If that be, both men and women are objectified and treated as properties whether sold or not. Hence, changing last name isn't transfer of property.

Irrational feminists who propose and fight for an egalitarian society must first pass the litmus test of transforming matriarchal societies to egalitarian. This would be an exemplary change and ease transforming patriarchal societies.

Now, on the issue of last name, as we are moving from a family centric identity to an individualist identity, it is sensible that spouses stay with their original last name. Marrying to someone does not change the fact that they are still the child of their parents; or that they are still a member of their family. However, whatever society we live in and whatever the reasons and circumstances are to change the last name, there is no oppression in spouses changing their last names post marriages, so long as it is done in free will.

Abortion

Abortion requires a much deeper discussion in various fronts such as life, morality and science; which is not discussed here. Here, I am only deconstructing the gender specific arguments around abortions.

From that perspective, a woman reserves the complete and exclusive say on terminating her pregnancy if and only if,

• her health is at risk, whatever the nature of conception is — whether consensual, non-consensual, natural or artificial.
• her conception is a result of non-consensual impregnation, whether natural or artificial, and whether or not her health is at risk.
• if the conception does not involve any direct participation of a man.

In every other case, man has a direct consensual participation in her pregnancy, and is as much of a parent to the unborn child as the woman is. Therefore, the man has a say in the termination of her pregnancy; or in other words, in the termination of his child.

Often, the biological design that only women get pregnant, carry the baby and deliver it has been used to snub men from decisions on abortions. However such a design is not man-made but natural. Besides, a man's co-operation is still required to get pregnant. Therefore such arguments must not be used to shun men from decisions on matters where men played a part too.

There is also the argument that abortion is an procedure conducted on one's body, and that a person has the right to make any decisions pertaining to his or her body. Therefore, a second person (therefore men) shouldn't interfere. While I agree with the notion that a person has the right to make decisions pertaining to his or her body, I cannot agree with the idea that an unborn child is an inalienable part of the woman's body. In other contexts such as making a ticket reservation, it may be sensible to consider an unborn child as a part of the woman's body — both as one since the separate individualities doesn't any difference. But in the context of abortions, the individualities of both lives are evident and are affected differently by the procedure — one dies, the other lives. An unborn child lives and grows inside the woman's body, and cannot be considered as an integral part of her body as her hands and legs are. It is a separate being to whom both the mother and father are parents to. Therefore, abortions cannot be brought within the scope of "my body, my right" argument.

Some have called abortions a reproductive right of women — thus not requiring the participation of men in the decision. Abortion is not reproduction; abortion is the termination of reproduction. The process responsible for reproduction is sex and the woman must have the complete prerogative over her sexual engagement. That said, it is not sensible to use rights to represent exactly the opposite of what the rights stand for: right to life cannot be used to to kill a life, or right to speech to deprive someone from speaking, or right to religion to prevent someone from practising his religion. One can choose to exercise a right or not (as in the case of voting), but one cannot claim to exercise a right when achieving the opposite outcome.

To contextualise, right to reproduction must be exercised before conception. It is a misuse to use this right to terminate a pregnancy that is caused by the exercise of the very same right, by wilfully and consensually indulging in sexual intercourse which results in pregnancy. Right to something is an argument better suited to use when someone deprives you of that thing. One cannot use it to undo an unexpected or undesired outcome resulting from the exercise of the very same right. Therefore, abortion is not a reproductive right but a termination right.

As said earlier, my attempt isn't to issue a verdict on abortions but is to deconstruct the gender specific arguments surrounding abortions. In fact, such nonsensical arguments surrounding abortion only makes it worse to judge abortion for it's true advantages and disadvantages and make a decision on it.

Progeny

From a home comes a family, and a from family comes the progeny. A new born must receive what it must receive in its upbringing, not just for its optimum growth but for the benefit of our species itself. Most of all, newborns need un-compromised time, attention and the physical presence of their parents, of whom, if one has to choose, of the mother. This design of a mother's indispensable role during the many years of the child's infancy is nature's design. Therefore, in the event where one parent must work during this phase, it must be the father, who is a more dispensable parent for the infant at this stage. He, for a brief period, becomes the sole provider for the family, in the interest of his progeny.

Therefore, teaching sons that they will be providers for their families is not irrational masculinism as many irrational feminists say. At the same time, a man must not feel any sense of superiority when he supports his family, nor must the mother feel any sense of inferiority when she and her child is supported by her husband — there is no place for such egos. It is only when the woman is extremely rich and her riches can support the many years of child rearing, or in an unlikely case of a social policy that supports all mothers during the many years of child rearing, can she not require support from her husband.

It can be argued that mothers can hire a babysitter for her infant get back to work within just few months into motherhood, and thus be independent of support from her husband. However, a mother is an indispensable and irreplaceable parent to an infant, and it is not advised to compromise her infant's optimum growth to satisfy her sense of independence or protect her career⁴. Doing so will be a moral crime to the infant as well as to human race, as procreation and the nurturing of next generation are perhaps the most important goals of a species.

Only if it is a matter of survival for herself and her infant, a mother working during her child's infancy is tenable. In such case, it is more apt that society takes care of such mothers and support them instead of leaving them no choice but to work. After all, nurturing of next generation is a human thing.

It is understandable and expected that irrational feminists would charge at the idea of women taking support from their husbands for child rearing. They just don't like the idea of wives being supported by their husbands — it somehow take their independency and equality.

So, the litmus test for them is to fight policies that give special considerations to pregnant women and single mothers, for independence and equality are concerns, why have special considerations during the initial phases of pregnancy and motherhood? They must also fight laws that prioritise a mother for the custody of her infant in case of a divorce, for if a mother is not the indispensable parent to the child, why the "an infant needs a mother" consideration? But they won't fight.

Equality

Gender equality must not be judged on the basis of outcomes, but rather on the basis of opportunities and free choice. Equality of outcome is undesirable, destructive and regressive for reasons discussed here. To sum it up from the perspective of gender, equality of outcome:

• is oppressive because as we adopt equality of outcome in every social system, we will have to force people to pick up a profession in order to fill up the x% quota in any industry.
• creates vacant job positions and backlog tasks if people are not forced to take up specific professions (since we can only hire people from a particular gender).
• disregards competence because men who are better than women or women who are better than men, do not get the opportunity (there are only x number of men/women allowed to be hired as per the system).
• is discriminative on the basis of gender, because the competent lost their opportunity due to their gender.

Some irrational activists cannot accept a gender largely choosing a specific profession. If a gender largely chooses certain profession through the exercise of equal opportunity, it is either because evolution has moulded them for these professions physically, intellectually and emotionally — thus establishing that gender's affinity for that profession; or it is because they like the chosen profession. Therefore, such gender gaps arising from natural affinities and free choices does not imply gender oppression. Swaying these gaps with persuasions and artificial stimuli in order to achieve an even gender spread is meddling with natural affinities of the gender and the free choice of an individual.

This is why one must not support organisations, campaigns or movements that, in a land of equal opportunities, aim to narrow the gender gap in a field, or increase gender representation in a field, or bring more women into certain industries. These movements result from the idea of equal outcome, not of equal opportunity. Instead, support organisations, campaigns or movements that work to ensure equal opportunity to all, and fight the idea of gender roles emerging from a false sense of superiority⁵.

The fact is, there is no rational reason to even consider such a meddling. What's fuelling the desire for equal outcome is just a thought⁶ that uneven gender gap rising from equal opportunities is inequality, oppression and gender discrimination. This thought is wrong because such gaps are result of free choice; and enforcing equality of outcome results in the destruction of equal opportunity — the same rights that the feminist movement originally fought for and achieved in many parts of the world. And by opportunity, I do not mean a position delivered in a silver platter, but a chance to compete based on merits.

Some argue that even in a system where there is equal opportunity for women as it is for men, but certain social settings like family restrictions on women not to work prevents their participation. This is true, but equality of outcome is not going to change that family or social restriction. A seat reserved for his daughter is not going to let such a father to permit his daughter to work, or such a husband to permit his wife to work. For that to happens, other means much sought.

Something about equality of outcome that most fail to notice is that for it to stay rational, it requires unemployment in the society. To ensure equal outcome there must be an almost equal number of men and women in the society, but the factors determining the sex and gender of an offspring are not particularly in our hands. Such system designs whose determinant factors are not in our hands are bad system designs. Also, in the event when gender ratio naturally sways to one side, we must either unnaturally influence gender of the offspring or practice sex specific infanticide to ensure and approximate equal number of men and women — both highly unethical moves. The alternative to these two options is to ensure a large number of unemployed citizens in the society, which will act as a pool for gender specific recruitment to ensure equal outcome. Either way, the equality of outcome becomes undesirable.

Reservations in civic systems, panels and boards on the basis of sex and gender are a violation of equal opportunity. Positions achieved through such systems will only garner disrespect and their opinions will be disregarded, because the position was not earned but captured with genitalia. Reservations, at its fundamental level, implies superiority and inferiority, thus justifying it only in systems where a particular gender has a disadvantage over the other because of evolutionary traits.

For instance, in India, in addition to the common seats, buses have seats and trains have compartments reserved for women. Such reservations are sensible as women's physical endurance is lower than of men's. Such reservations sort of levels the playing field.

If you are so much disturbed about an unequal participation of gender in a particular system, or want to empower a gender in a particular field, focus at the fundamental level. A good place to start is to understand why the gender has less participation. If evolutionary traits restricts them, let nature take its course, do not interfere. If the system prevents them, ensure equal opportunity. If social expectations or chauvinisms prevent them, focus work on removing them by education and inspiration.

The litmus tests for irrational feminists with respect to reservations is to not restrict their demands to only positions of power and wealth, but extend it to physically intensive jobs and positions of little or no power too. I wonder if they will do so.

Gender Neutrality

There are three ways gender neutrality is invoked — from the context of accuracy, from the context of equality and from the context of crusade. The first is justifiable, but the rest are idiotic.

Gender neutrality for the sake of accuracy is justifiable. One example is the naming of generic positions such as chairperson because a chairperson can be either a man or a woman. Once a man or a woman is wins the chair, that person can be addressed as a chairman or a chairwoman. Calling him or her as a chairperson is the type of gender neutrality that disregards gender in the name of equality, which brings me to the second context.

Gender neutrality to ensure gender equality is idiotic because that implies that insignificance of gender in a particular context, which implies that there is no question of gender equality any more in that context, because for equality to come into picture, the differences must be vivid (in this case, gender). One such examples is the case of gender neutral school uniforms.

Gender neutrality as a form of crusade is socially destructive. Consider the campaign to replace words such as "mankind" with "humankind" from existing literature, for the reason that these words represent human race with a masculine reference. While the argument of accuracy is valid, one must understand that such literature and the use of language derived during a time when men were largely running the world. Now that things have changed, the changes in languages must be adopted henceforth, without meddling with existing literature, because it violates the author's freedom of speech of the author and meddles with history.

Irrational Feminism

Some build false narratives around gender, hijacking the minds of girls and younger women, cultivating in them a tenet that women have always been oppressed by men, even in areas where they were not. Those exposed to such narratives grow up with a rebellion and with a desire to change the system and establish what they perceive as justice, and they indeed work for it. But work on misunderstood ideas and environments yields nothing and this failure is blamed on the tyranny of patriarchy, further inflicting injury to self, cultivating anger, becoming more rebellious and working harder, only to fail again. Irrational feminism fights an enemy that exists only in their minds.

Irrational feminists create the narrative of sexism, oppression and patriarchal dominance even where they don't exist, much like how a person suffering from jaundice sees everything yellow. They speak as though they were born to do one thing and one thing only: whine. Their idea of gender equality disregards science, evolution, the differences between man and woman, and their significances; and extends beyond equal rights delving into the very biology of human beings almost equating the genitals. Often, they don't seem to notice anything different in men and women except the genitals.

There are indeed oppressed women across many societies who must be liberated, and it is important that this goal is achieved at the earliest because they live in such suffocation, that if they discover irrational feminism meanwhile, however stupid it is, it would appeal to them as a ray of hope, a saviour and a way out of oppression. But the path of irrational feminism diverges from science and logic; it diverges from truth, thus further oppressing those following it. Therefore, the arguments of irrational feminism must be dissected, beaten and exhibited to the public, to inhibit people from following that path.

Irrational feminists have brought shame to the greatness of that version of feminism that fought for equal rights and equal opportunities. A ray of hope is that many women are recognising the stupidity of irrational feminism and are fighting back. Perhaps they realised that it is counter productive to the fight for equality if it is infiltrated by such extreme and idiotic ideas such as irrational feminism.

Irrational Masculinism

Man's upbringing is the root cause of irrational masculinism in him. The only argument I hear from such men is that men are superior — in what way, they have no idea; thus making the opinion an induced opinion. There are indeed aspects in which men are better than women, others where women are better than men, and few where both are equally bad and good. But being better does not mean superiority. If it does then men are superior to women and women are superior to men too, thus cancelling each other.

One must relinquish the idea of superiority of a particular gender while also accepting their personality traits that makes them better at something and worse at others.