Gender Neutral Parenting

To us and our understanding, “gender neutral parenting” confuses a child’s identity, psychologically damages the child, and attacks the foundations of Natural Law.

1) A person’s identity is best built on the solid foundation of Natural Law, and that is why gender fluidity and confusion has been pushed at this late stage in the game, to weaken an individual’s ability to form a solid identity, and to have them build identities that are fluid and easily blown about by the winds and currents of externalized social pressures. Gender is so important in the quest for self-knowledge, that it gets its own principle, as it is one of only seven total laws of nature:

“Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all planes.” ~The Kybalion, The Seventh Hermetic Principle of Gender

And lest it be said that androgyny is the integration of masculine and feminine, please realize that the Natural Law of Correspondence, which states “as above, so below, and as within, so without”, means that internal balance will be manifested by an external other, such as my masculinity being highlighted by my feminine partner, and her femininity being highlighted by my masculinity. I get to know myself better through my interactions with my counterpart, but without her, I am aimless, and again blown about by the currents of my own pretentiousness and egocentrism. If we desire for our children to get to know themselves better, then we should allow them the space to form an identity around their birth gender, as well as allow them the opportunities to get to know themselves through the contrast provided by their interactions with the opposite gender.

2) The concept of transcendence, and how it interacts with holons in a holographic manner must also be considered.  Transcendence implies inclusion, as in, a molecule transcends and includes atoms, a cell transcends and includes molecules, tissues transcend and include cells, and so on and so forth. Thus, a person (child or adult) cannot transcend gender unless they fully integrate and understand their gender, and build an identity around it, and once accomplished, they will just go to the next level of transcendence, where there is another aspect of gender to learn and embrace (due to the law of correspondence again, “as above, so below”).

Now, I realize that the concept of transcendence, and how it applies to transgenderism may ruffle the feathers and hurt the feelings of some well meaning individuals who themselves have experimented with their gender, but I have thus far been unable to find a reasonable argument that refutes this particular point. It is not my intention to offend, but I must stay aligned with what I see as truth, no matter how much I would like to avoid offending those I care about; truth is my first love above all other loves. When new information comes in, I am always open to considering it, but so far this is where my viewpoint is on this particular point.

3) Additionally, the Hermetic masters have always taught that balance occurs as a result of picking a polarity and staying within it, and then as a matter of polarization (not to be confused with emotional polarization, which is a psychologically imbalanced state), it will attract it’s counterpart to it. This is one reason why the Seven Hermetic Principles (Natural Law) are also called the “Law of Attraction”.

“The Hermetic Master, or advanced student, polarizes himself at the desired pole, and by a process akin to “refusing” to participate in the backward swing or, if you prefer, a “denial” of its influence over him, he stands firm in his polarized position, and allows the mental pendulum to swing back along the unconscious plane. All individuals who have attained any degree of self- mastery, accomplish this, more or less unknowingly, and by refusing to allow their moods and negative mental states to affect them, they apply the Law of Neutralization. The Master, however, carries this to a much higher degree of proficiency, and by the use of his Will he attains a degree of Poise and Mental Firmness almost impossible of belief on the part of those who allow themselves to be swung backward and forward by the mental pendulum of moods and feelings.” ~The Kybalion, The Law of Rhythm

4) I would also add that “picking the middle” just because it is seen as balance, is the middle ground fallacy, and that is not how balance is achieved, but through polarizing in the truth, and aligning oneself with it, wherever it may be—left, right, middle, multidimensional, or a viewpoint not yet considered.  

“While the rational position on a topic is often between two extremes, this cannot be assumed without actually considering the evidence. Sometimes the extreme position is actually the correct one, and sometimes the entire spectrum of belief is wrong, and truth exists in an orthogonal direction that hasn’t yet been considered.” ~Rational Wiki

It is important to realize that masculine and feminine, male and female, are not viewpoints, therefore “compromising” the reality of one’s gender to “meet in the middle” is not balanced, but in fact removing one’s balance.

5) Lastly, the ancient Gnostics (a sect of esoteric mysticism) taught in their writing the “Hypostasis of the Archons”, which is their creation story, that the androgynous ones were actually the Archons, who we now refer to as the “Greys” and the “Reptilians”, and that they seek to enslave us by making us more like them. They are a mental parasite whose only real power comes through manipulation, making us think as they think, feel as they feel, and thus making us behave as they behave. It is said that the androgynous Archons were accidentally created by the Divine Mother Aeon Sophia, when she created without her masculine counterpart Aeon Thelete. The Aeon Christos decided to intervene, to return things back to normal, and redeem Sophia’s creation from Archontic domination.


About Nathan

2 Responses to “Gender Neutral Parenting”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Thank you for your thoughtful comment Zen Kitty, it is appreciated. After reading through your comment, I would say there is a gaping hole missing in your viewpoint, and that is the deeper “whys”, as what you seem to be explaining is the “what” and the “how”. For instance, why is this “gender craze” sweeping the world in a coordinated fashion all at the same time? Who might benefit from coordinating such a movement? Why are the gender norms there? Are some of the stereotypes not social constructs, but energetic truths? What is an identity, and why is it important for our psychological and spiritual development? What about family systems, and how children will play out the hidden secrets and shadows of their parents and family lineages? Might a child gravitate towards certain toys, styles, etc., as a reflection of a parent’s unconscious shadows and childhood patterns? This is a HUGE why that is overlooked by most well meaning people. I think that there is a vast lack knowledge and understanding from a multilogical perspective, and that it needs to be looked at in a way that sees the whole picture, and not just a limited and narrow picture of “it’s for the children”. We need a multilogical perspective that covers all angles, rather than a linear, one dimensional perspective that only sees what’s in front of them.

    The following was taken from’s “glossary of terms”, and it illustrates what I am talking about:

    monological (one-dimensional) problems: Problems that can be solved by reasoning exclusively within one point of view or frame of reference. For example, consider the following problems: 1) Ten full crates of walnuts weigh 410 pounds, whereas an empty crate weighs 10 pounds. How much do the walnuts alone weigh?; and 2) In how many days of the week does the third letter of the day’s name immediately follow the first letter of the day’s name in the alphabet? These problems, and the means by which they are solved, are called “monological.” They are settled within one frame of reference with a definite set of logical moves. When the right set of moves is performed, the problem is settled. The answer or solution proposed can be shown by standards implicit in the frame of reference to be the “right” answer or solution.

    Most important human problems are multilogical rather than monological — nonatomic problems inextricably joined to other problems — with some conceptual messiness to them and very often with important values lurking in the background. When the problems have an empirical dimension, that dimension tends to have a controversial scope. In multilogical problems, it is often arguable how some facts should be considered and interpreted, and how their significance should be determined. When they have a conceptual dimension, there tend to be arguably different ways to pin the concepts down.

    Though life presents us with predominantly multilogical problems, schooling today over-emphasizes monological problems. Worse, and more frequently, present instructional practices treat multilogical problems as though they were monological. The posing of multilogical problems, and their consideration from multiple points of view, play an important role in the cultivation of critical thinking and higher order learning.

    monological (one-dimensional) thinking: Thinking that is conducted exclusively within one point of view or frame of reference: figuring out how much this $67.49 pair of shoes with a 25% discount will cost me; learning what signing this contract obliges me to do; finding out when Kennedy was elected President. A person can think monologically whether or not the question is genuinely monological. (For example, if one considers the question, “Who caused the Civil War?” only from a Northerner’s perspective, one is thinking monologically about a multilogical question.)

    The strong sense critical thinker avoids monological thinking when the question is multi-logical. Moreover, higher order learning requires multi-logical thought, even when the problem is monological (for example, learning a concept in chemistry), since students must explore and assess their original beliefs to develop insight into new ideas.

    multilogical (multi-dimensional) problems: Problems that can be analyzed and approached from more than one, often from conflicting, points of view or frames of reference. For example, many ecological problems have a variety of dimensions to them: historical, social, economic, biological, chemical, moral, political, etc. A person comfortable thinking about multilogical problems is comfortable thinking within multiple perspectives, in engaging in dialogical and dialectical thinking, in practicing intellectual empathy, in thinking across disciplines and domains.

    multilogical thinking: Thinking that sympathetically enters, considers, and reasons within multiple points of view.

  2. Thank you again, and my desire is that more and more people learn to implement Aristotelian logic, and learn to think multidimensionally.

    >>couldn’t the binary construct of Masculine and Feminine be based in “monological” thinking<< That is not monological thinking, but comes through scientific observation, is the product of reasoned judgment, and is also a part of the natural laws that I already mentioned in the above article. All mystic traditions founded within ancient Hermeticism accept that there are only two genders, and that they are divine counterparts. The idea of it being a binary construct is only very recent, is based on an agenda that is a direct attack on the natural laws--and pointing out the attack on Natural Law and the law of gender was the purpose of our article in the first place.