The culture of death and the deconstruction of woman

“What is a woman?” has apparently become one of the most difficult and contentious questions of our time. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary can offer some basic guidance, identifying a “woman” as “an adult female person.” A woman is therefore a female person. Yet, what is a female? In order to explain its deep meaning, it is worth examining the word’s etymology, as its root talks about us and our history.

What is a “female”?

“Female” comes from the Latin “femella,” the diminutive form of “femina,” which is ascribable to two possible etymological explanations, both related to the concept of procreation and fecundity. The first explanation links the word “femina” to the Sanskrit root “dhâ-” (that turned into “tha-” in Greek and “fa-” in Latin), which refers to the idea of breastfeeding. Hence, a female is a person that has the potential of breastfeeding.

The second explanation relates “femina” to the Sanskrit root “bhu-” from which derives the Greek word φύω (fyo), meaning “I produce, I bring it into being, I generate.” In Latin, the union of the prefix “foe-” with the participial suffix “-mina” leads to the word “foemina” (“femina”). Hence, given that a woman is a female, a woman is the one that nourishes, that breast feeds, and gives life.

Conversely, a man cannot breastfeed and get pregnant, and not because of a sickness or some rare syndrome (as some women have to endure). A man can instead fecundate a woman. This is basic knowledge, and no one needs to be a biologist to be aware of this. Nevertheless, many in the media keep insisting that men too can get pregnant (Apple even produced emojis of pregnant men), stating that is no longer a woman’s prerogative.

But they fail to mention that a “pregnant man” can only be a biological woman. However, the new progressive ideology is apparently moving towards a world in which men can “get pregnant”. This would be the progressive utopia, where there are no longer men and women, but only blurred genders.

“He’s Expecting”

Recently, Netflix produced a Japanese drama, titled “He’s Expecting,” in which a successful man in his thirties, Kentaro, gets pregnant and delivers a baby through a C-section. In an interview with Japanese media outlet Madame Figaro, the movie protagonist stated that maybe one day this could become a reality. Indeed, his comments are not too far-fetched. Dr. Richard Paulson, past president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and director of USC Fertility, said that it would be possible to perform uterus transplants on men. “You could do it tomorrow,” Paulson told The Telegraph.

Furthermore, Dr. Aimee Eyvazzadeh, a reproductive endocrinologist based in the San Francisco Bay Area, told Salon that uterus transplants may well become a needed option. “I predict with our aging population, and the rise of infertility, we will need men to share the burden of growing our population,” Eyvazzadeh said, adding at least that this won’t happen in the near future, but predicted that “in maybe 200 years from now, it will be a reality.”

The ultimate goal of the progressive ideology seems then to cancel completely the woman—and partly it is already happening. Men are being allowed to take part in women’s sports (despite having a clear physical advantage), are being nominated as Woman of the Year (Assistant HHS Secretary Rachel Levine, born Richard Levine, was awarded USA Today’s Woman of the Year for 2022, and Caitlyn Jenner, born Bruce Jenner, won the 2015 Glamour’s Woman of the Year), and winning beauty contests (in 2018, Angela Maria Ponce, born Angel Mario Ponce, won Miss Spain).

In the Netflix drama, Kentaro tells Aki, the future mother of his baby, that he is the expecting one, and hence he knows best what is good for the child (we will no longer use the expression “mother knows best” but rather “pregnant-man knows best”). Aki’s presence in the movie appears superfluous. Kentaro is both mother and father, and she is left with no role as a mother (from “mater” in Latin, the one who, giving her body and enduring pain, organizes and prepares a child to life). In the movie, the special bonding between a mother and her baby during pregnancy looks meaningless.

The future society will be a male society, in which women are unnecessary beings.

Biology adapting to woke ideology

The proponents of progressive ideology seem eager and willing to use unethically the developments in science to reach their genderless society. They want biology to adapt to their own woke ideology. Plastic surgery can now change the appearance of a man, giving him the semblance of a woman, and in the future also make uterus transplants. (In Latin, another word for uterus is “matrix,” which also means “female,” and comes from the word “mater,” mother. Hence, the Romans knew better than us that a uterus belongs to a female, to a woman, to a mother.)

Progressive proponents may say a man that identifies as a woman is a woman. Yet, altering hormone levels and surgically adding breast implants and uteruses won’t make a man a woman. Furthermore, to transplant a uterus is not enough to have a child, as you need an egg to be fertilized.

And from where is this egg taken? From a woman, who donates (or sells) her egg to be fertilized in a laboratory (as it is sadly already happening) and then implanted as an embryo into a uterus transplanted in a man that may not have any genetic connection to the child, unless the egg was fertilized by his sperm cell.

Dismembering the woman

The woman is being told that the deconstruction of gender roles, selling her eggs, and male “pregnancy” are all a way to free herself from the oppression of the “patriarchy.” With the promise of liberation from the patriarchal society, accused of using her reproductive nature to oppress and gain power over her, the woman is being used and pushed to sell out her eggs, or – in the future – even her own uterus to the highest bidder.

Hence, the woman is not just cancelled but dismembered, and reduced to the commodification of her body parts.

The truth is that gender ideology does not fight for gender equality or to substitute the patriarchy with the matriarchy (where gender roles are still defined), but rather for removing genders all together. Yet, in doing so, the woman is being replaced by the man (how long before a magazine crowns a man as “mother of the year”?), while she pursues masculinization. In this process, the woman represses her desire of maternity, as they turn pregnancy into a mortification that prevents her from emancipation.

Gender ideology supporters remind us of Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, whom she identifies as the “Modern Prometheus,” because in his faults he shares similarities with the Greek Titan Prometheus, who dared to defy the gods. Just like Frankenstein, who creates a monster that eventually turns upon him, gender ideology tries to defy nature, producing a monstrous reality that will inevitably turn against humanity.

In the act of defying nature, the woman is being deconstructed, causing her own destruction. Consequently, the word “woman” becomes void of meaning, to the point where French philosopher Monique Wittig states that in fact the “woman does not exist.”

However, if there is no woman, there is no life, and all that remains is a culture of death.