@ An Alien's Angst

Even stranger than the fact that western society is asking these questions is that every single answer I've heard given is wrong.

~~"Man and Woman are sexes"~~

~~"Man and Woman are genders"~~

~~"Man and Woman are feelings"~~

~~"Man and Woman are infinite and changeable identities"~~

The failure to figure the obvious, I’ve found, is mostly a matter of language.

Most speak without understanding of the meanings of their words. Instead, they convey what they like feel a given word means and expect others to have those same feelings about it. Yet, when those feelings are not shared, there is break in communication. This issue might go unnoticed in more trivial context, like in discussions regarding colors, emotions, or technical terms. However, when it comes to something as fundamental as what other humans are, this inevitably leads to discord and fragmentation.

Still, this is how the mainstream thinks language is supposed to work. It views words as arbitrary vocalizations whose meanings are determined by collective feelings, which means that, to the average American, all words are effectively slang.

Not coincidentally, this mirrors what the current drivers of our culture — women and Marxists — think about everything. They believe (or at least want you to believe) that things like technology, art, religion, news, human relationships, science, etc... are merely mediums for expressing and validating feelings. And, they believe that when these areas don't align with their emotional perceptions, they must then be altered to do so. For these types, life is primarily about feeling validated and fostering positive emotions — or "fellowship," to put it in Christian terms.

So, it is no surprise that they see culture wars as battles between people with “good” feelings and people “bad” feelings that hurt other people’s feelings. Proponents of this view love pretending this isn't the case because they know how it sounds, but it's always evident when you talk to them.

However, getting back to the point, language is not just a collection of generally meaningless grunts used to tell each other how we feel. Instead, it is both a record and a system for transmitting the realities of our world across time and space. Think of language as an ever-growing inheritance of human knowledge with words — and each element of their construction — being its most fundamental units.

That is why culture wars — to those of us who understand the point of them, regardless of politics — are wars for reality. They are about determining and reforming the worldview of a people. And, playing with their inherited sum of human knowledge is one of the most potent ways in which this is done.

In fact, that this has already happened twice is why nobody can figure out what "Man" and "Woman" are. These concepts were unanchored from our reality first by Catholicism and then, further, by Marxists. So, while not technical by any means, this first post of the series will be mostly definitional.

Much like The Case For Transing series, you'll have to shed your catholicized premises and preconceptions in order to follow. So, if you're open and willing to find answers that differ from centuries of zeitgeists, then come along and discover the first foundational truth of it: that Man and Woman are really... archetypes.

What Are Archetypes?

Psychiatrist Carl Jung believed that the human psyche is inherently structured, with certain psychological constructs being passed down through generations. To describe one particular kind of these constructs, he introduced the idea of "archetypes."

Archetypes, as he defined, are recurrent patterns of characters, themes, or symbols that appear across time and space in areas such as art, dreams, literature, and religion. They are considered to be universal, having been deeply ingrained within an ancestral reservoir of shared human instincts and experiences called "the collective unconscious." And, it is from this place that archetypes serve as the psychological blueprints for human behavior, thought, and emotion.

Now, if you still follow, it’s important to keep in mind is that archetypes are not fleeting; they are not arbitrary or even fundamentally malleable. Instead, they're long standing bits of social information hardcoded into to humans through evolutionary processes because they’ve somehow increased their ability to survive on Earth.

However, being less sold on the idea of all archetypes being universal, I will refer to what is described above as "super-archetypes" (which I believe Man and Woman are) and patterns that are only endemic to a given population as "archetypes." I will also use "archetypes" as a catchall, so use context.

Where Do Men and Women Come From?

So, if Man and Woman are these pervasive and guiding images in human psychology (archetypes), then how did they come to be so?

Well, they're are probably among the very first archetypal images to have emerged from our prehistorical chaos, and this is likely because they’re the most procreative human pair when mingled. So, here is how they must've formed:

1. Humans who embody the patterns we associate with "Man" and "Woman" produce more children, more quickly than those who do not.
2. Their children are both more likely to embody these patterns as a matter of heredity and to see these patterns in their development.
3. These children grow up and seek to recreate the conditions of their own rearing, causing them to select for mates who embody the "Man" and "Woman" patterns.
4. A self-reinforcing cycle of proliferation is created.
5. These patterns are solidified within the collective unconscious of a group as the archetypes, Man and Woman.

Over time, human groups that had these images came to outnumber and outlast those who did not, resulting in Man and Woman — in a sort of reproductive emergent order —becoming super-archetypes.

"But, what are 'these images' and 'these patterns?’”

What what are we we talking about when we say “a man” or “a woman?”

For that, we need to go more esoteric places.

Sex

While not terribly esoteric yet, physical sex is the first half of the pattern for Man and Woman.

Thankfully, we've retained enough sanity that I don't have to do much explaining in regard to what it is. You already know that Sex is the set of bodily configurations (shapes) required for our species to reproduce.

They are Male and Female.

Only 2.

``` Transmission Note:

Intersex is not a third, it is just an amalgamation of the two in a reproductive system that doesn't not really accommodate it. However, in a reproductive system that did accommodated it, it would simply be Sex itself (like capital-G Gender) and male and female would be recognized as subsets or modes of Sex (small-s sexes). ```

+ Gender

"Gender" is the word that is most often brought up when speaking of men and women. It has been subject to culture war de-coherence and play first on the part of Christians and now by their atheistic children, Marxists. The result is that the meaning of “gender” is now utterly confused, politically motivated, and almost entirely incommunicable. Without it, we no longer have a word to describe a very real facet of the human experience.

That is why, when talking about "Man" and "Woman," it is important to understand that they are not genders, but are half derived from Gender.

Gender is actually a bastardization of the bimodal states required for Aeonic beings to generate new emanations. Physical sex is the same. However, where sex is the explicitly material bastardization of this, Gender is the psychological arising from sex .

As above, so badly botched as to be nearly unrecognizable below. But, I will better hide the Gnosticism for "secular" sensibilities and provide you with more obtuse wording: Gender is the prime set of socio-psychological orientations that are given rise by human sexual dimorphism and evolutionary process. They are psychologies that, together, result in the reproductive dominance of our species where shapes alone would not suffice.

Out of male, female, and the reproductive pressures of evolution come Gender: the polar set of masculine and feminine.

• Masculinity being the psychological disposition toward self-assertion
• Femininity being the psychological disposition toward self-mutilative affirmation seeking

Note again, that there are only 2. Any other human "gender" is no gender at all - only a sub-classification by distance from one of these polarities.

Additionally, a given human cannot choose or change their Gender polarity. Psychological orientation is mostly set by time of birth.

= Socio-Sexual Cast(e)

Now, combine a roll of the dice for Gender polarity and a toss up for reproductive shape, and you will have a very basic "pattern" — a formula for a certain kind of human with certain characteristics. What we now call "Man" and "Woman" are 2 (of 5) possible human socio-sexual patterns, and they are quite obviously as follows:

• Male + Masculine = Man
• Female + Feminine = Woman

``` The bodily capabilities align with the psychological dispositions. This is what they call "cis." Especially, in regard to reproductive strategy.

``` Across time and society, this is what we consistently mean and connote. We are referring specifically the concept of a masculine male for "man" and a feminine female for "woman," because these are the patterns that Archetypal Man and Woman encapsulate and integrate into human sociality, with individual men and women being casts of them.

Traditionalists will deny, claiming that they mean only sex. Yet, they are always among the first to either strip manhood from a un-masculine male or womanhood from an unfeminine female, using appeals to "real men" and "real women" — aka the archetypes. Similarly, critical theory adherents (Marxists) will claim that they mean only gender and have no such archetypes. Yet, in order to "feel like" a man, to "feel like" a woman, or even to "feel like" neither and believe you should be perceived this way, you must necessarily have images informing what it means to be these things — aka the archetypal images.

``` Transmission Note:

Traditionalists are not presenting their belief accurately and this is most likely on purpose. When they claim to believe that only genitalia determine socio-sexual cast(e), they do not mean that they believe all adult males are men and all adult females are women. They mean that they believe that all adult males should be or "are called" to be men and all adult females should be or "are called" to be women.

This is a religious belief and the rhetorical trick is done to remove both the possibility and the validity of humans that are neither men nor women from common thought. It has backfired obviously and resulted in... The Woke. But, those who are neither man nor woman do exist, and they all have archetypes associated with them, though they are rarer and often less developed.

```

Why It Matters

All of this matters because Man and Woman are not "just" archetypes, but socio-sexual archetypes.

They are concerned with the way that humans interact and organize in the context of living together, modeling roles associated with and best suited to the respective abilities and inclinations of the humans that embody them. In other words, socio-sexual archetypes account for the fact that different kinds of humans are... different and must be utilized differently within civilizational contexts.

A masculine adult male, for instance, is both able and inclined to do things that a feminine adult female cannot and vice versa. Similarly, a masculine adult female is able and inclined to do things that a feminine adult female cannot. These differences in being call for accommodation in terms of how we order aspects life such as division of labor, resource management, social norms and mores, sex relations, childrearing, war, etc....

Now, of course, different “cultures” may have different archetype ratios and they do order things differently, but all still with these un-ignorable socio-sexual considerations.

After all, peoples that ignore them and do not order optimally die and are replaced by those that do.

This makes the socio-sexual archetypes and their casts so not only in the sense of being molded, but also in that they're literally evolutionarily enforced social castes. Humans are constantly recognizing, referencing, and upholding them by default. And, within this protocol Man and Woman hold the greatest amount of space and consideration, again, due to their reproductive dominance.

``` I'm not saying it's a good thing or that it shouldn't change, I'm saying that it's how it is.

``` Knowing this is important regardless of our endeavors. If we want to thrive, we have to understand the basic natures of the humans around us and what they introduce. In fact, not knowing what others around you are, on the most basic level, is a sentence to ineffectual behavior.

Consciousness begets intelligence.

The Definitive Answer

So, you’ve gotten this far and heard me out.

You know what Sex is, you know what Gender is, you know that there are 5 possible human combinations of them, and that these combinations manifest as Socio-Sexual Cast(e)s.

Great!

However, I cannot say all of that without making this crucial point: men, women, and socio-sexual cast(e)s in general do not really exists outside of human sociality. This does not mean that they are "not real," it only means that they are civilizational — that they’re for interacting with other humans productively, as heavily implied earlier.

For fictional instance, Tarzan is not really a man or any other socio-sexual cast(e). He may be an adult human male and he may be embedded with an image of Archetypal Man, but he cannot embody it or probably even acknowledge it until he joins a modern human group. This is because he cannot fill the roles or have the interactions in which a male represents a socio-sexual archetype. He is rendered without civilizational place and, until he can find it, he is feral - a humanoid beast.

Having this understanding means that sociality must be appended to the definitions of Man and Woman for a reality-aligned interpretation of them and their casts. So, our final explanations are now as follows:

• Man is the archetypal image of a psychologically masculine, adult human male existing as a participant member of a human civilizational unit.
• • A man is a cast of Man - he is an individual human patterned after and embodying Archetypal Man.
• Woman is the archetypal image of a psychologically feminine, adult human female existing as a participant member of a human civilizational unit.
• • A woman is a cast of Woman - she is an individual human patterned after and embodying Archetypal Woman.

I did mention earlier that certain roles and inclinations are associated each socio-sexual archetype. These are the natural implications of being earthly social animals with a given profile, and I will explore what they are for the two “cis” patterns in the next installments.