Seine Wirkungsmacht
war am Haupt
durch Zeichen
sichtbar gemacht
an seinem Hut
befestigt
auf die Stiege
im hohen Alter
gewagt
mit verdrehtem Gesicht
zum Portal hinab
da mag er
sich seiner
nicht mehr
erinnern
Seine Wirkungsmacht
war am Haupt
durch Zeichen
sichtbar gemacht
an seinem Hut
befestigt
auf die Stiege
im hohen Alter
gewagt
mit verdrehtem Gesicht
zum Portal hinab
da mag er
sich seiner
nicht mehr
erinnern
Zur Nacht
schläft
Freundin
und Freund
im selben
Bett
dann wird
es Tag
die Betten
unter dem
Fenster
an der
Wand
auseinander
gerückt
Krim-Rückschlag der Ukraine mit „psychologischen Auswirkungen“ auf Russland
Der Kreml bleibt bei seinem neoimperialen Weltbild
Die unteilbare Menschenwürde muss verteidigt werden
Das Gift
im neuen
Kleid
Der Wortschrei
des Betroffenen
wirft sich
ohrenbetäubend
durch den
Blätterwald
durch Straßen
und Gassen
Flüchtend
in den
Unterstand
naht das
Gesetz
der Massen
in den
letzten
Winkel des
bedürftigen
Daseins
Das was
sich in der
Bewegung
zeigt
auf wessen
Füssen
der andere
geht und schweigt
da wo die
Nacht
nach dem
Tag beginnt
dahin
in fremder
Welt
will
er seine Schüler
nicht mehr wissen
anerkennen
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
Dem Menschen ist seine Freiheit das Wichtigste und rechtfertigte Kriege schon immer damit, dass die Freiheit damit gewonnen wurde (wurde sie jemals dadurch gewonnen?) So kämpft jetzt auch Selenskyj wie ein Irrer für die Ukraine – lieber Tod in einem zerstörten Land, als unter Putin leben. Ich nenne ihn einen Irren, denn es ist irrsinnig gegen Putin kämpfen zu wollen ohne die ganze Welt in einen Krieg mit hineinzuziehen und das hat er bereits erreicht, durch die Zerstörung des Hafens von dem so viele Länder von Weizenlieferungen lebensnotwendig abhängig sind, neben dem Unfrieden, einem regelrechten Krieg wegen des russische Gases, was Inflation und Angst auslöst. Merkel hat in gutem Vertrauen den Vertrag mit Putin unterzeichnet, Merkel hat nicht versagt, sondern das Vertrauen wurde gebrochen durch Putins Gier nach einer Macht aus vergangenen Zarentagen heraus.
*
Wenn Gott unser Gott ist, dann gibt Er uns Frieden inmitten von Unruhe.
"Wahren Frieden und haben"
*
Die Unruhe bleibt
damit wir nicht hochmütig werden
Leben wir in einem Schwarzen Loch?
*
So viel ich weiss dreht sich die Muttergalaxie darum herum.
Die weisse
Limusine
wird im
Rückwärtsgang
in der Kehre
hinauf
im abschüssigen
Gelände
auf dem
Bergweg
überlang
In fortified
room
wooden
are the
People
fled
The big soul
is still
warm
an image
of the house of God
should despite
the robbery
the hordes
her firm
Seat in the
Preserve village
the fugitives
does not stay
choice
В укрепленных
комната
из дерева
являются
люди
бежал
Большая душа
по-прежнему
тепло
изображение
дома Божия
должен, несмотря на
ограбление
орды
ее фирмы
Место в
Сохранять деревню
беглецы
не остается
выборы
At the
crossroads
in the
stranger
want a
single
internally
after and
after two
various
Countries completely
to conquer alone
he can
themselves
in the street
do not decide
through which
City gate thoughtfully
different
Coat of arms he
to tread
should
Wie Schröder behandelt wird, zeigt, wie sich die deutsche Außenpolitik mehr und mehr von den USA einvernehmen lässt – Wie Schröder zum Opfer der deutschen Außenpolitik wird
*
Ein Angriffskrieg
wo Unschuldige
Frauen und Kinder
die Opfer sind
wir müssen
die unteilbare Menschenwürde
verteidigen
Compact:» Bis heute wird der Anschluss der Krim an Russland im Jahr 2014 als Totschlagsargument gegen Putin missbraucht. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, einer der bekanntesten Völkerrechtler Deutschlands, hat dagegen Stellung genommen. Die Krim wurde nicht annektiert War das Referendum auf der Halbinsel im März 2014 illegal? War die russische Unterstützung dafür ein aggressiver Akt? Aus rechtlicher Sicht […]
Der Beitrag Schachtschneider: “Die Krim wurde nicht völkerrechtswidrig annektiert.” erschien zuerst auf COMPACT. «
*
Ein Angriffskrieg ist immer gegen das Völkerrecht.
Wir wollen niemanden totschlagen, wir wollen die unteilbare Menschenwürde verteidigen.
Der Kunst
im zusammen
näher zu
kommen
das Nackte
im Gegenüber
mit allen
Sinnen zu
geniessen
den Preis
auf Papier
im zusammen
auf den
Einzelnen
von dessen
Ursache man
nichts weiss
verteilt
wieder entrissen
zur letzten
Schau auf
der einer
liegenden Frau
mit schwarzem
Latex
ein schmales
Dreieck
auf dem Rücken
das Haar
gleichfalls
geglättet
geschnitten
The inner world
the male world
to the outside world
has been with
Power threatening
against that
real life
as a
fearsome
Picture that
not break up
is contrary
posed
The pink
meat
the fish
fill that
whole
Plate
until the
white border
very fresh
and nobody
have him
ordered
The bleikur
kjötvörur
fiskurinn
fylla það
allt
disk
þar til
hvítur rammi
mjög ferskur
og enginn
hafa hann
pantaði
The blue one
Stone of
arrogance
the one on the
Reason of
his being
inflates
something else
right and
Order is
urban
landscape
lonely in
their
glaring light
the only
the order
knows
the abandonment
of mind
of soul
does not fall
in the weight
urbana
villam
solus in
eorum
clara
lux
tantum
ordinem
scitote
quod
relicta populo
animorum
ex anima
non cadunt
significans