Kirsten Armbruster

Released May 17, 2022

After I've been written to again and again asking me to take a stand on the subject of trans, I've decided to respond to this again in short form at this point. I would like to point out, however, that in 2021 I made a differentiated analysis in my book "Criticism of Patriarchy" (pp. 563-604) in a separate 40-page chapter entitled "Homosexuality, intersexuality, transsexuality and transhuman transgenderism Perspective of Interdisciplinary Research on Criticism of Patriarchy (IPKF)” dealt with the topic. So here are a few conclusions in brief:

Basically, I think it is wrong to speak of transsexuality. On the other hand, I prefer the term transgender because trans is not about sexuality, but about the understanding of gender, which is something completely different.

The results of the interdisciplinary patriarchy criticism research IPKF made me think in terms of nature and biology. In doing so, I revealed that our current thinking about the male-female pair order is completely wrong, not only because it is caught in the heteronormative concept of sexuality for mammalian species, i.e. all mammals including the human species, but also on the reproductive level not true. Our societal coding of 50% father + 50% mother = child, with the father named first, is biologically completely wrong and is based on the patriarchal brainwashing that we are all subjected to. I have written two chapters on this in my book "Criticism of Patriarchy", the chapter "Of maternal biological facts and the patriarchal dogma of male "seed" that degrades mothers to passive vessels of men" (p.38-51) and the chapter " Male fertility delusion as the basis of patriarchy” (pp. 114-153). The first chapter can also be read using the search function in this blog.

The result of the IPKF in a nutshell: In all mammalian species, the focus of biology is not on the female-male pair order, but on the mother and in the case of menopausal species, to which humans even belong in an outstanding way, the mother-grandmother line is also particularly important for the survival of the species elementary. I have also written a separate chapter on this in my book “Criticism of Patriarchy”, namely “Grandmothers and mothers as carriers of human evolution” (pp. 293-304). I coined the term "Natural Integrative Order of the Mother (NIOM)". The man is part of this NIOM order, because in the course of evolution nature has arranged it in such a way that the male does not give birth to the male and the woman does not give birth to the female, but that the mother gives birth to all life. The fact that we are caught up in couple thinking today is therefore not natural or biological, but the result of male hubris normalization enforced by force, the core of the patriarchally told story of the “victors”. And how brainwashing works, we can understand very well today in the Putin twists that make you doubt common sense.

On the other hand, when one begins to think of the mother as the beginning of all human life, we can see that the biological order of man is not the couple, but matrifocality, and that the man, as a biological father, is an important but, in relation to the mother, a very important one contributes little to reproduction. (more on that in my book Criticism of Patriarchy). Matrifocality here means quite simply: mothers in focus, mothers in the centre. It is the logical biological order of man and has nothing to do with matriarchy.

If we approach the topic of transgender under this premise, we see that the two "warring parties" in the public discussion, which is carried out with heavy bandages in particular on Twitter, that on the one hand the TRAs, the so-called trans activists and on the other side the Radfems, the so-called radical feminists, basically both use the non-human species-appropriate pair order as a basis for thinking. The Tra's insist on being recognized as male or female, even though their secondary sex characteristics are assigned to the opposite sex, and the Radfems insist that there are only 2 sexes. They derive gender from the external sex organs and chromosomally, i.e. from the X and Y chromosomes. I think both are wrong, because the male-female standardization is the typical patriarchal couple standardization, while the mother standardization is made invisible and suppressed in patriarchy.

The solution to the problem that cannot be solved within the patriarchal pair order lies there n no longer to think in terms of the couple, but to think in terms of the mother, because sexual development begins in the mother's body. In my book "Criticism of Patriarchy" I therefore pointed out in the sub-chapter Transgender (p. 586-598) that the embryo cannot be thought of separately from the mother's body with all the complicated biochemical interactions in the course of pregnancy that we are talking about to this day hardly understand anything. In this context, I have suggested using a four-factor model as a basis for better understanding as a model for sex development, according to which the biological sex in humans is not only derived from the genetic sex, which is derived from the sex chromosomes X and Y, from the gonadal sex, which is derived from the ovaries and testicles, from the phenotypic sex, which is derived from the internal and external sex organs, but also from another sex-determining factor, namely what I call brain sex. This is based on the findings that, from a neuroscientific point of view, it is known that sex hormones are jointly responsible for gender-specific dimorphisms in brain development and the formation of gender-typical behaviors. With the embryo, however, we are not only dealing with these relevant influencing factors of the embryo body, but also with other highly complex possible interactions on the part of the mother's body. Since we all now know that research is still primarily male-dominated, it is immediately understandable that we are still groping in the dark when it comes to mother-body research.

I now assume that transgenderness is a biological fact, even if – as is also the case with homosexuality and heterosexuality – we have so far lacked measurable physiological parameters. I assume that trans men and trans women are expressions of biological gender diversity within the maternal order NIOM, which is always inclusive. I think that our erroneous couple norms, owed to patriarchy, are to blame for people feeling like they were born in the wrong body. I have serious doubts that surgeries and/or maybe even hormone treatments are really necessary for a good life, provided we don't live in a patriarchal, heteronormative world, with gender ideas that are completely cross-patriarchal at that.

Summary:

I consider the current discussion on the highly complex issue of transgenderness to be unproductive and not solution-oriented, and I consider Twitter in particular, with its emotionally toxic algorithms, to be completely counterproductive. It is right and important to give transgender space in society. Since I personally, as has often been explained, consider psychology to be deeply standardized by patriarchy and, as with homosexuality, there are no clearly measurable biological parameters, since we have so far had very little biological understanding of the subject, I support the planned self-ID law to give those affected social space for the only viable political path at the moment, just as homosexuals or bisexuals should be able to know and live their sexual preferences in a self-determined manner, which is by no means the case everywhere.

Trans people must and should be visible in our society and should hold political offices. I therefore consider the argumentation of the Radfems to be wrong, because they deny the existence of transgenderity with their insistence on only two biological sexes, which of course is part of the aggression spiral bubble in which this discussion has been moving so far. But I also think that the idea of ​​a Judith Butler that gender is not biological but only socially based and that transhuman transgenderism developed on this basis is downright absurd. Just as nature is the basis of life as a whole, biology is always the basis of human life. Therefore, it makes no sense to yell from the side of the TRA's: trans women are women and in the course of occupying women's spaces with violence. No they are not: women are women, trans women are trans women, men are men and trans men are trans men.

Diversity, and in this case gender diversity, is nature's way. And, since we unfortunately still live in the midst of patriarchy, the legitimate fears of the Radfems that are there must be taken into account when dealing with the topic of transgender: There must be spaces that are purely women and also spaces that are purely women's shelters, for example in sports, for example in prisons , for example in women's shelters, for example in connection with the exercise of free female sexual choice, especially among lesbians. And it must be growing in youth and