Monday, February 10, 2014


Liberalism wants to make sex distinctions - the differentiation between men and women - not matter. Someone who has really got with the liberal programme is an English musician who was once called Janine Rostron.

She has done what she can to blur gender lines, including changing her first name to Jam (her stage name is Planningtorock). She has made an album in which she claims that sex distinctions are untrue:
Rostron’s lyrics blaze with her new found confidence; on “Human Drama” she sings of gender being “just a lie”

She prefers, as far as possible, to be ambiguous in her gender:
Rostron continues to use vocal effects to de-genderise her voice – it can be hard to tell if you’re listening to a man or a woman.

She explains her decision to hide her sex in this way in terms of wanting to be self-defining:
playing around with gender alongside communicating what I feel is the emotions within the songs. Because I am really interested in expanding upon the limits that we live in – how we are defined – and it is an experiment.

It's that liberal idea that predetermined qualities that we don't get to choose, like our sex or our ethnicity, are impediments to a creative freedom to self-define who we are.

This makes her think of her womanhood as a limit on self to be liberated from, rather than a profound dimension of self and identity to be experienced and fulfilled.


  1. I hope this isn't too much off topic, but I have a prediction. The phrase "explore their orientation/gender identity" ,as it pertains to teens in particular,may one day in the future destroy a country. Aids is still rampant among homosexual males, if no cure or vaccine is found, it will reemerge among heterosexual at epidemic proportions because of the phrase "explore their orientation/gender identity." The mix of teen curiosity and uncertainty, with societal acceptance of homosexuality, with also gender confusion will result in everyone screwing everyone else and it will all be ok because we have experiment to figure out who we are. Then drop a little thing like the aids virus (or some other sexually transmitted virus) in the middle of that soup and there will be devastation to the first country that embraces the notion kids should "explore their orientation/gender identity." Russia has the right idea.

    1. Already happening among women from England who read a few too many chapters of Shades Of Grey and are heading off for exotic sex-tourism locations. HIV rates booming among them.

    2. I think you're partly right: telling kids that acting their sex is optional and they should pretend to be the opposite one is likely going to end in a watering down of sex distinctions, not to mention a bunch of personal problems for the "gender experimenters". Combine this with a general promotion of anal penetration--which is by far the most effective way to spread STD's and a great way to destroy your plumbing back there--and you're going to have higher rates of disease among young adults before they've had a chance to form a family. Not good.

      Anal penetration used to have a special stigma, regardless of the sex of the participants. That makes sense: a female anus is no more designed for penetration than a male's. There's a reason the stigma against sodomy used to be so strong, and in the interest of public health, it should be restored. Instead, I've read that some Christian leaders actually say now that it's harmless between married couples (nothing harmless about tearing your wife's anus apart) and then say "homosexuality" is inherently sinful. You have to wonder if they've ever taken a moment to think about why the defining act of homosexuality is evil, if every turn around and approve of it between married couples.

      I'm not so concerned about kids "experimenting" with each other, sodomy aside. That's been going on far before liberalism. Better that they look, see there's nothing different under the next guy's hood and move on then get stuck in the curiosity phase and call themselves "gay".

  2. Jam asserts she wants to be "gender neutral", but then goes on to say that she wants to work with women only. I guess she means to define what "woman" means to her, in her own personal gender-neutral, non-judgmental way.

  3. she is effectively defining herself as a woman who wants to be a gender gender, and promotes this identity through music. hardly interesting or new.

  4. Every country that has adopted neutral gender roles over natural gender roles is in catastrophic demographic decline and is deeply in now falls on Russia to show the rest of the World that there's a faithful and hopeful alternative to failed progressivism where freedom can once again reign supreme.

  5. To no effect, I have been "correcting" and pointing out whenever I can, that sex is not gender, and gender is not sex. This entry struck me as a particularly good example of the muddle of confusion that has resulted from the early academic/political activist gender benders theft of the term "gender". They stole the term from my grade school grammar books, from the 1950s. No one seems to care. Just like the earlier homosexual rights activist strategically stole "gay" away from the traditional America vernacular to soften the hated and too clinical "homosexual". Masculine, feminine and neutral are not sexes. Humans have gonads; the male's produces sperm, the female's eggs. A feminine male, or a masculine female may be sexually confused, but they are still a male and a female. Surgical mutilation still doesn't change their sex.
    In this short entry, you use sex and gender interchangibly. Jam and her interviewer reveal their own serious confusion.
    At a web site named DUMMY, David Mcfarlane interviewed Planningtorock.
    Mcfarlane writes: "She warps her vocals making them seem ambiguous at times, and alien at others."
    I listened to two of her songs. They're horrible. They're not musical. They're tedious and electronic.
    Well into the interview, they're discussing her reasons for wearing helmets or masks on stage.
    Mcfarlane: It wasn't about disguise?
    Planningtorock: No, not at all. It was like adding! (...) I had my helmets with me because I had just done a shoot on my own, and I wore them onstage – it was incredible because nobody knew if I was a woman or a man for a start. They didn’t know what I was; this was hugely liberating, also for myself – “I don’t know what I am either” – I thought that was interesting. That’s how it began. Plus I had a lot of resistance from the press to not wear the helmet: “I want to see your real face”. I mean, what is a real face?
    The next question makes my point. Mcfarlane is utterly confused by the whole sex/gender/biology complex, but uses the language anyway.
    Mcfarlane: On this album you haven’t given much to that same press, what with the prosthetic nose you’re wearing on the cover and in the video. It’s very alien, playing into the many genderless voices on the album – you are never sure if it male or female, in the biological sense, that is.
    What other "sense" is there?
    Planningtorock: That’s what I like though. In a way the video for Doorway was really an attempt to somehow make visual what I was trying to do in the music. The manipulation of the vocals is about playing around with gender alongside communicating what I feel is the emotions within the songs. Because I am really interested in expanding upon the limits that we live in – how we are defined – and it is an experiment.
    Mcfarlane: In the press release it does mention something about you embracing your “inner-trannie” on Doorway.
    Planningtorock: I quite like the word “queer,” to be honest…there is something you don’t know. It’s this room where maybe there is even more to discover about how we bodily represent ourselves.
    Mcfarlane: Just to clarify: it isn’t about sexuality or the interchange between “male” and “female”?
    Planningtorock: A little bit, a little bit about sexuality. That’s the thing though, just switching between male and female, I don’t find interesting. There has been sometimes when after I’ve performed someone has came up and said, “I didn’t know you were a women, I thought you were a dude in a wig”. So, OK, but what’s beyond that?
    Good question. I'm sure that some weirdo will splain it to us in modern gibberish.

    1. Buck, good comment, but I don't think rigorously talking about "sex" rather than "gender" solves a great deal. There are many liberals who would happily concede that there are distinctions of sex (e.g. differences in the reproductive organs), but who would then claim that such distinctions have no wider significance, i.e. they don't lead on to distinct forms of masculine or feminine being.

    2. Mark,
      Thank you sir. I agree, as I said, that I've experienced no apparent substantive effect. But, I find that the refusal to use the term "gay" improperly and approvingly can lead almost gently into a useful discussion of the actual meanings of the terms and the fraud (and its purpose) committed by the miss use. Likewise, simply explaining the miss-appropriation of "gender" puts the discussion back on a much better footing. I see absolutely no reason to approve or comply with their misappropriation of certain terms as their political tactic intends. They do it for a very powerful reason; and it works. These targeted changes worked their way into and through academia, then into public policy. Perhaps the law of identity. The essence of "gay" is highly distinct, purposeful, intentional and separates it in an important civilizational way from the unarguable existence of homosexuality. The miss use of gender is more subtle and easier for them to justify, but, to me, it's no less insidious. Words have meanings, and meanings matter. That's is why they have so relentlessly manipulated us to make certain we use their terms, not ours.

  6. Mark, For your info. I just saw this story. It's so on point, I had to send it to you.
    Valeria Jones (USA)
    by Gender Identity Harms Women on February 8, 2014
    Portland attorney Donel Courtney
    An attorney has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who claimed she was damaged because her co-workers referred to her as a woman, even though she “identified” as “gender neutral.”
    Portland attorney Donel Courtney says his client, Valeria Jones, identifies as neither female or male. Despite this, co-workers at Bon Appetit Management Co. continued to use their eyes and see her as a female even though she repeatedly asked them to stop. Specifically, those co-workers repeatedly called Jones “miss,” “lady” and “little lady” despite explanations that Jones “was not a female or a male and that the term was unwelcome.” Workers also directly said Jones looked like a woman (because she is a woman) and made female celebrity comparisons.
    The lawsuit, filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, says Jones preferred to be addressed by a general neutral pronoun. The suit doesn’t identify the term, so it is unclear if she uses “zie” or “they.” According to the suit, Jones began working in March 2013. When Jones filled out an application, Jones left blank a question asking about male or female identification. During the next few months, Jones spoke with managers about her personal preference — asking them to address employees as a group and present to employees information about gender identity.
    “Plaintiff cried regularly at work and at home during this time,” the suit states.
    According to Courtney, Jones’ hurt feelings about this is worth half a million dollars.
    Gender-neutral employee sues for $518,000.