THE EXCLUSIVE POEM OF THE ONLY MALE GOD
 
(There is a compositional manifestation
  of human exclusivism,
  of subanthropic exclusivism,
  of physical subanthropic exclusivism.
  There is a unitary manifestation
  of sexual exclusivism.
  There is a dimensional manifestation
  of gender-based exclusivism,
  of unilateral gender-based exclusivism,
  of complemental gender-based exclusivism.
  There is a componential manifestation
  of male exclusivism,
  of aggrandizemental male exclusivism,
  of aggrandizing male exclusivism.)*
There is an operational manifestation
(of self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
  of intermediary self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
  of ideological self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,)*
of (principal)* self-aggrandizing male exclusivism.
It is supreme self-aggrandizing male exclusivism.
It is the image created by men of a male supreme being:
the man-god,
where there is no authoress,
where there is no goddess.
It is the male incarnation of the supreme being:
the son-god,
where there is no daughter,
where there is no mother.
It is the divine inspiration of a male superior being:
the last prophet,
where there is no prophetess,
where there is no priestess.
'He' is the King, for the King is 'He':
Son and Father, Creature and Author,
Symbol and Man above all,
symbol of self-aggrandizing male exclusivism,
(symbol of male exclusivism,
  symbol of gender-based exclusivism,
  symbol of sexual exclusivism,
  symbol of physical subanthropic exclusivism,
  symbol of subanthropic exclusivism,)*
symbol of exclusivism.
It is when men and boys exclude, are excluded or exclusive,
it is when women and girls exclude, are excluded or exclusive,
it is when the supreme being is conceived of as a male god,
it is when the supreme being is conceived of as a female god,
that there is no gender-neutral inclusiveness,
(that there is no sexual inclusiveness,
  that there is no physical anthropic inclusiveness,
  that there is no anthropic inclusiveness,)*
that there is no inclusiveness.

[*: lines between parentheses and the word principal
may be deleted altogether, but not separately]

All forms of partial physical subanthropic exclusivism somehow related to the sexual and/or excremental functions or parts of the human body can be labeled "sexual-excremental" (X.145). Sexual-excremental matters are a, or the main, concern of traditional exclusivist morality, both bourgeois and antibourgeois. Many pages in sacred books and codes of law have been, or still are, spent on relating unto the religious believer or the proletarian citizen whose urinogenital organs 'he' is allowed to see or touch, or rather not to see or touch, and in which place he is allowed to eject his semen, or rather not to eject it. Religious believers who find the present classification of exclusivisms sometimes rather detailed or too explicit, particularly in matters of sexuality, discharge of bodily waste matter and nudity, can simply be advised to read the relevant sections of their own books. On the other hand, they should, perhaps, not be advised to do that, for it might only confirm them in their opinion that it would be normal that moral notions like decent and indecent do not so much refer to the selling of one's conscience but to the selling of one's body; and do not so much refer to discussing the erection of nuclear missiles or other weapons for killing people, but to discussing the erection of a penis or ('even worse') a clitoris.

Sexual-excremental matters are also the concern, or a main concern, of sociobiology or sociobiological philosophers, and when we call a spade "a spade", we do in this respect nothing else than what sociobiologists do who write about the same things. However, contrary to the position taken here, a certain species of sociobiologically inspired animal beings try to 'warrant' ideological presuppositions by means of biological-materialist analyses and biased speculations. While explaining to people what the penis and vagina were (and still are) 'intended' for, the same kind of sociobiologist is not so honest to draw the conclusion that in that case their hands were never made to hold banknotes; or that their lips were never made to say prayers; or that their lungs were never made to inhale smoke. No such member of the sociobiological species will ever argue with the same fervor that the human body was not supposed to be used for killing other human bodies, or for building weapons aimed at the wholesale destruction of life on Earth. Exclusionist sociobiologists have willingly promoted racist, antifeminist, antihomosexualist and similar causes by drawing normative conclusions from the descriptions of mere correlations (if not of their own speculations) and from the utilitarian use or misuse of the concept of function and the value of happiness. The ideology of these exclusivists is nothing else than a doctrine of naturalness in a more modern, 'scientific' guise. This is very obvious when it is argued that 'nature is interested in making its creatures like what is good for them' and when this is used as a premise to 'prove' that certain groups of people should not do what they like.

It follows from the nature of sexuality that sexual exclusivism or sexualism (X.291) probably has the largest number of possible subdivisions of all forms of partial physical subanthropic irrelevantism. It follows from the overemphasis upon sexual affairs that interfactorial sexual exclusivism is an important unitary manifestation of it. It is exism re the sexual qualities, that is, gender and/or sexuality, as distinct from the nonsexual qualities of human or anthropically conceived beings. Its antithesis is suprasexual (anthropic) inclusivity (N.291.1).

The most marked sexual qualities are those of having male or female, sexual organs and all the characteristics that usually go with it. The fact that a person's body has male or female parts and predicates is a very easy object of social categorization. Sex- or gender-related exclusivism (X.582) therefore probably is, or has been, one of the most widespread and thoroughgoing irrelevantisms of (male and female) human history. Yet, it is not necessarily the case that one of both genders would always have had to 'suffer from' sex-discrimination, whereas the other would always have been better off because of this exclusivist attitude and practise. That a nonrelevant distinction is made between female and male, human beings by no means implies in itself that the total situation of the one gender is ameliorated, and that of the other deteriorated. Or, it may be that the situation of one gender is better in times of peace but worse in times of war. Moreover, what is 'worse' and what is called "suffering" may depend on an individual's or group's peculiar wants and interests. In this context worse and suffering are often used as purely happiness-catenary terms. The occurrence of 'suffering' or 'bad' situations in these terms is not what concerns discrimination as discrimination tho. Theoretically it could be that a community that discriminates on the basis of gender is a happier one on the whole than one which does not. This is precisely a reason why we are forced to reject utilitarianism (and sociobiological doctrines which rest on it). Those who reject it with us should therefore not continue to speak about sex-discrimination as if it were by definition a form of injustice in which one party must endure pain and distress, while the other would only benefit from it. A gender distinction is relevant or not, regardless of anyone 'suffering' or benefiting from it, unless perhaps, happiness or utility is the sole value embraced. (Note that when we speak ourselves of "something or someone suffering from sexism or exclusivism", it is the subject of exclusivism, that is, the moral agent or decision-maker, who is said to 'suffer', not in a factual, happiness-catenary, but in a normative, sense.)

Gender-centered exclusivism (X.582.0) is the interfactorial variant of gender-related exclusivism. It stands for policies of sexual apartheid and things like an obsession or sentimental preoccupation with the distinction male/female. It also stands for showing no or too little attention for sexism and other forms of gender-based irrelevantism. Its antithesis is gender-transcending inclusivity (N.582.0). Gender-based exclusivism (X.582.1) is the infrafactorial variant whose antithesis is gender-neutral inclusivity (N.582.1). (To illustrate the difference between both manifestations of exclusivism and both facets of inclusivity: the traditional so-called 'neuter' use of he and man is gender-centered and -based exism; the reactionary use of she instead of he for human beings in general is also gender-centered and -based; the antisexist use of she or he and men and women when not dealing with sexual or sexualist matters, is gender-neutral, but still gender-centered; and our use of 'e, 'er and person in contexts which are not sexual, nor sexualistic, is both gender-neutral and -transcending.)

Two but too obvious dimensional manifestations of gender-based exism are male exclusivism (X.582.50), the first complemental, and female exclusivism (X.582.51), the second complemental. The aggrandizemental components of both exisms are androcentrism and gyn(ec)ocentrism respectively. 'Masculinism' is a breed of androcentrism if, and to the extent that, it exclusively serves the interests of men or boys, even, or especially when this infringes the equality of the sexes. Similarly, 'feminism' is, properly speaking, a breed of gynocentrism if, and to the extent that, it exclusively serves the interests of women or girls. However, those 'feminists' who protect the interests of women and girls against the effects of sex-discrimination, and those 'masculinists' who protect the interests of men and boys against the effects of sex-discrimination, work for an antisexist cause. They take an interest in the conditions of females and males in order to contribute to the equality of both sexes, that is, to gender-neutral inclusivity.

A sentimental abnegational component of male exism is misandry, and of female exism misogyny. Both componential manifestations are nonintermediary. Of the intermediary manifestations we have examined many cases of lingual, gender-based and -centered irrelevantism in the Book of Instruments. This was necessary as we could not even have communicated in a gender-neutral and -transcending language, if we had not first disposed of these sexist or sexually irrelevantistic elements in the traditional variant of this language. Since this operational manifestation of gender-related exclusivism is already dealt with at several other places in this Model, we will not discuss it here anymore. The same applies to the principal operations of gender-related exclusivism, particularly to supreme androcentrism. With the canonical prose poem at the beginning of this section no further comment is needed to describe the Model position on this sort of supreme violation of the norm of inclusivity.

There is also a bilateral manifestation of gender-based exclusivism (X.582.13). The abnegational component of it involves neglect of hermaphroditism and/or androgyny or gynandry. If sentimental, this concerns discomfort or ignorance with respect to androgyny or gynandry. On the other hand, androgyny or gynandry can also be overemphasized. Typical of this breed of bilateral sexualism is the incitement directed at men to develop their so-called 'feminine' qualities, and the incitement directed at women to develop their so-called 'masculine' qualities. This proposal draws on the very presuppositions of unilateral gender-based exclusivism itself, and merely perpetuates them. The antithetical gender-neutral and -transcending position is to develop or not to develop one's qualities, regardless of what sexualists call them. Only those human qualities are (wholly) 'feminine' which no male can develop, and (wholly) 'masculine' which no female can develop. It is, then, both nonsensical to ask human beings to develop the qualities they cannot develop, and to ask them to develop the partially 'feminine', partially 'masculine' qualities they can develop indeed. For femininity, masculinity, gynandry and androgyny are neither good nor bad in themselves.