In Germany, prosecutors prosecute professor for criticizing gender theory

We have already wrote about German evolutionary scientist Ulrich Kutscher, who was brought to trial for daring to question the pseudoscience underlying LGBT* ideology and gender theory. After several years of legal ordeals, the scientist was acquitted, but that was not the end of the matter. Recently, he informed us that the prosecutor's office is trying to overturn the acquittal and reopen the case, this time with a different judge. Below we publish a letter sent to us by the professor. According to him, he has repeatedly accessed scientific materials collected on the website of the Science for Truth group and in the book Viktor Lysov's "Rhetoric of the Homosexual Movement in the Light of Scientific Facts", which he regards as one of the most valuable resources.


This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of a man whose name is little known to the general public, but whose intellectual legacy is now profoundly influencing our daily lives. This is John Money (1921-2006), an American psychologist from New Zealand, who invented the so-called "gender identity".

In July 2017, I was interviewed by the Catholic online magazine kath.net on a controversial topic at the time: same-sex marriage and the right of gay couples to adopt children. Here I summarize the dire consequences I have faced as a result of my public statements about Mani's bitter legacy.

In the article: “Marriage for everyone? This absurd decision does not surprise me. " (Ehe für alle? Diese widersinnige Entscheidung überrascht mich nicht), I referred to my then popular book "Gender Paradox" (Das Gender Paradoxon), in which I devoted many pages to Mani and his ideas, including the failed 1965 experiment on "sex reassignment" (castration of a child). He used David and Brian Reimers as test subjects. These twin brothers born in 1965 subsequently committed suicide.

In addition, with reference to John Money's concept of “affectionate pedophilia,” which he openly endorsed (ie, nonviolent erotic interactions between boys and gay adults), I discussed the problems that can arise when men who are attracted to exclusively male bodies adopt a minor. a boy with whom they have no genetic connection - stepfather effect, Cinderella effect, emotional abuse of children, absence of mother, etc.

The interview caused an uproar among German students involved in the LGBT* movement, and it didn’t take long for a coordinated attack on my integrity as a scientist, including negative media articles and an internet storm, to follow. Eventually, in December 2017, the state court in Kassel, where I lived, brought a case against me. It was based on the absurd charge that I had invented (or “falsified”) biomedical facts and data with the criminal intent of discrediting homosexual couples, who, according to the prevailing narrative, are equal to or even superior to the biological mother and her husband.

This March, after several rounds of open court hearings in 2019, 2020 and 2021, with the active support of an excellent lawyer, I was acquitted of all charges. You can imagine how relieved I felt. A judge at the Kassel District Court explained in detail that my statements are protected by the right to freedom of speech, whether they are true or not.

But as German tabloids continued to claim that I was “spreading false biological facts,” I responded with a 588-page book, Criminal Case in the Biology of Sexuality: Darwinian Truths About Marriage and Children's Welfare in Court (Strafsache Sexualbiology. Darwinische Wahrheiten zu Ehe und Kindeswohl vor Gericht), which was published in October.

First, I recap the life and accomplishments of the hero and villain of this story - Charles Darwin and John Money, respectively. I also cite the Russian biologist Konstantin Merezhkovsky (1855–1921), who may have had pedophilic tendencies, but was nevertheless a world-class scientist and the spiritual father of the theory of symbiogenesis.

I then describe the biological basis for sexual reproduction between two parents, the Darwinian paradox of homosexuality, and the two meanings of the word pedophilia. The first is Mani's "affectionate pedophilia", and the second is the mental disorder of erotic pedophilia, as defined by the Austrian psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902). I document that Krafft-Ebing's “sexual preference disorder”, causing great harm to the victim, be it a boy or a girl, and Mani's notion of nonviolent “excess parental love” are separate biological phenomena, although overlaps may occur.

This so-called "love for girls or boys" (the original meaning of the word "pedophilia") exists almost exclusively in men, although Mani's "eroticized excess of parental love" can also occur in individual lesbians, of which I cite several testimonies.

And then I describe the witch-hunt I faced in court. All my arguments, based on solid scientific publications and monographs, were ignored by the prosecutor's office. I found myself in a ring of quasi-religious gender ideology invented by John Money. I found that this pseudoscientific system became dogma in the mainstream of German politics.

Let me summarize the main points of John Money's gender ideology. Her core belief is that humans are social constructs with flexible biological characteristics. It can be difficult to comprehend how radical this concept is. Ever since Darwin's masterpiece The Origin of Species came out in 1859, evolution has been the dominant scientific basis of human behavior.

Gender ideology is sending Darwin to the trash bin. One hundred and fifty years of science, to which I dedicated my life, have been scrapped. People are worried about the backwater rednecks who believe in "scientific creationism." But this is much worse: humans are viewed as social beings with no evolutionary past; men and women are equal members of the same genetically identical clone (see my article on MercatorNet "An evolutionary biologist examines gender theory").

Moreover, according to gender ideology, homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply different ways of making love. Children don't need a mother and a father; a gay or lesbian couple can be equally effective in caring for the job. Adoption, IVF or surrogate motherhood are all great without the biological parents involved in any way. Children will never ask about their ancestry; they don't need a natural family with sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles, grandparents. And, revealingly, child abuse, whether physical, emotional or sexual, occurs in natural families as often as in gay and lesbian families. Finally, Mani's “affectionate pedophilia,” which I talked about in my controversial interview, can be beneficial and beneficial for boys under the care of some homosexuals who call themselves “boylovers” (boy lovers).

During the court hearings, I refuted all these irrational allegations, as documented in my book. I also presented as evidence the article MercatorNet Toxic Combination: Pedophiles, Baby Farms, and Same-Sex Marriages... Despite the fact that it had a documented history of gruesome child abuse by Australian pedophiles in gruesome detail, the state attorney was again unimpressed. His message was simple: forget about human biology and all your awkward facts. Gender ideology shapes our postmodern worldview. Old-fashioned Darwinists (like you) should be punished for spreading false "biological" statements about sex and gender - especially in relation to homosexual couples, who are considered ideal adoptive parents and role models for children.

Finally, I want to quote from the British professor of philosophy Kathleen Stoke, who was forced to resign from her position at the University of Sussex due to aggressive attacks from trans activists. “It was like the Middle Ages,” she wrote. I dare say that my German witch-hunt was much worse. The University of Sussex is pretty much supported Kathleen Stoke's right to free speech. When I was terrorized and attacked by homo- and transactivists, neither my former university nor any government agency came to my aid.

The reason is clear: John Money's postmodern gender ideology dominates the public consciousness in Germany.

Since the State Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaften) is under the control of German politicians, in particular the Ministry of Justice, I expect that new charges will be brought against me. But I am confident that the truth will prevail. As victims of LGBT* persecution know well, the process is the punishment. But I am not discouraged. I will continue to fight for Darwin (who was a loving father of ten children), evolutionary science and human biology!

Dr. Ulrich Kuchera, Professor of Biology, Academic Advisor
www.evolutionsbiologen.de

PS

Rejecting an appeal by the prosecutor's office, the Frankfurt Regional High Court upheld the acquittal of biology professor Ulrich Kutschera for his statements about homosexuals.

“These partially exaggerated and polemical statements are an unpunished expression of opinion,” the rationale says.

12 thoughts on “In Germany, prosecutors prosecute professor for criticizing gender theory”

  1. Write an article about the norm. What is the norm? What are the criteria for the norm? How is normality from abnormality determined? Otherwise, talk a lot about the norm and not the norm, but a detailed article and, as a result, there is no clear idea of ​​this phenomenon. Thank you.

    1. And you yourself do not understand what is good and what is bad? Pedophiles and homosexuals are bad. your daughter can be fucked and you for one thing.

      1. Darling Daria. I understand that very well. I also understand what is good and what is bad. But the fact is that in today's children and adolescents, and in the future - adults, these concepts are purposefully blurred. They are told that the norm does not exist, and they believe in it, because this is said by smart adults who can speak beautifully, and even give links to scientists. They have no literate landmarks. Clear and crisp. There are already people among young people who do not see anything wrong with incest. Hence my question-request. So they need to explain what the norm is, what is good, what is bad, etc. But sometimes, reading, for example, comments on the Internet, I see that many people do not have enough knowledge, links (and they are now required by everyone), arguments, etc. to clearly and clearly convey to them this seemingly simple information.

    2. The norm is too broad a concept. What norm are we talking about - a) sexual, b) biological, c) psychological, d) medical, e) social, or some other?

      Let's analyze the above.

      a) The criteria of the sexual norm, according to the order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of 1999, are “pairing, g̲e̲t̲e̲r̲o̲s̲e̲k̲s̲u̲a̲l̲̲n̲o̲s̲t̲̲, sexual maturity of partners, voluntariness of the relationship."
      The Sexological Institute of Hamburg has proposed similar criteria for the partner norm:
      1) gender difference;
      2) maturity;
      3) mutual consent;
      4) striving to achieve mutual agreement;
      5) no damage to health;
      6) no harm to other people.
      There is also the concept of an individual norm, which emphasizes biological aspects. In accordance with these criteria, the following types of adult sexual behavior are normal, which:
      1) for unintentional reasons do not exclude or restrict the possibility of genital-genital intercourse that could lead to fertilization;
      2) are not characterized by a persistent tendency to avoid sexual intercourse.
      In the classic work on sexual psychopathology, Psychopathia Sexualis, it is considered abnormal "any manifestation of sexual feelings that does not correspond to the purposes of nature (ie reproduction), provided that there is the possibility of natural sexual gratification."
      Here one should distinguish between a separate sexual act, which is not aimed at procreation, and a general sexual desire, which is not aimed at procreation. That is, if a person is constantly attracted to a sexually mature, healthy, morphologically normal and willing partner of the opposite sex, then even with the use of contraceptives or situational extravaginal forms of intercourse there is no deviation from the norm. It appears when the sexual instinct is triggered mainly or exclusively by those forms of sexual intercourse or objects with which procreation is impossible.

      b) From an evolutionary-biological point, attraction to an object, reproduction with which is clearly unfeasible (a person before or after reproductive age, a partner of the same sex, a creature of another species, an inanimate object, etc.) is a pathology (that is, a deviation from the normal state), because it stops the transmission of DNA to future generations and extinction occurs.

      c) This is also a deviation from a psychological point of view. After all, if a physiologically normal person with a healthy reproductive system given to him for reproduction comes into sexual arousal only in a non-reproductive context and finds it difficult to do this under normal circumstances, then we are talking about mental pathology. That is why, until politicians intervened in psychiatry, homosexuality was a mental disorder and was on the same list as pedophilia and bestiality.

      d) In medicine, a condition of the disease is considered a deviation from the norm. By definition, a disease is an undesirable state of the body, expressed in violations of its normal life, life expectancy, adaptation to the environment, and limitation of functional capabilities. Why homosexuality meets this definition is discussed here: https://pro-lgbt.ru/394/ and here: http://pro-lgbt.ru/397/

      e) The social norm is the most conditional and relative of all, since it depends on public opinion and legal norms, which can easily be changed and imposed. Here, normativity is manifested in the form of conventions, conventions and standards of behavior adopted by the majority of members of a certain group.

      1. pro-lgbt, thanks for the answer! Yes, about the norm in all cases and meanings. There is a lot of talk about pathologies and deviations, but very little about the norm. It's just great, but I would like to see the same, but more extensive (with links, arguments, etc.) material in the form of a separate article. Few people read the comments, which is a sin to conceal, but not all articles are mastered, but still a separate detailed article about the norm (in all senses), in my opinion, is extremely necessary. Thanks to!

      2. I'm wondering, how are you going to promote this information into popular culture so that more and more people know about it? It is clearly useful, but the media with pseudoscientific research has already flooded the entire Internet. I would also like to compare heterosexual, gay and lesbian relationships and their differences in the form of a separate article. Where are the minuses, and where are the pluses of such contacts.

      3. norms are determined by the risks that a factor or behavior carries. They vary by age and health status. For example, a medicine can cure or kill, as well as the norms for the consumption of certain products. Teenage masturbation can kill, but in prison it will save. The sun contributes to the production of endorphins, and can burn, etc. In my profession, there are many hygienic criteria for the safety of the environment and the internal environment, including the social one. If specifically about homosexuality, then on your site there are enough horrific consequences of such an orientation (lifestyle), unfortunately they are understandable to adults, but not to children: they perceive fairy tales and shows. The country began to restore education programs, including sex education, by the way, most adults do not understand the difference between sex and sex education. In general, this topic really needs to be standardized, the trouble is already in every smartphone, which means in the minds of children. On my page I try to collect these norms and concepts.

    3. The norm in terms of gender idiocy is the coincidence of biological sex with the imaginary one. After all, prl is unchangeable in humans. The maximum that there is is a change in appearance and hormonal levels. And in terms of sexual preferences, the norm is a preference for an unrelated partner without obvious reproductive incompatibility. The butt is not a sexual organ and has no reproductive functions. Sex is still for reproduction, not for pleasure. And the pleasure is to watch an evolutionarily strengthened mechanism for stimulating reproduction, and not an end in itself. I say absolutely captain's things

  2. Dear: I really appreciate your work, I follow you from Latin America. Please continue this work so that homosexual and transsexual advocates update their "scientific" research.

    God bless you forever.

Comments are closed.