Huge Discount to Celebrate 100,000 Subscribers
At some point this week, we will reach a tremendous milestone of 100,000 subscribers, making this one of the biggest political Substacks in Britain and, indeed, the English-speaking world.
I appreciate every single one of you who follows and supports my work. To celebrate this coming milestone, I am offering a massive 25% discount on annual subscriptions for the next week. The offer will expire on 23 Feb so don’t miss out - click here to take advantage!
Thank you again for your support!
Konstantin
Congrats, although I think there's a fly or two in the ointment you're peddling.
For instance, I see that UK feminist Victoria Smith was rather less than "impressed", charitably speaking and with solid justification, with your views on gender exemplified by this tweet of yours (image in her article):
Konstantin Kisin: Feminists created the concept of gender and pretended that it can be separated from sex. That is exactly what I mean by opting out of being a woman. I understand perfectly well why they did this: so that women wouldn’t be told “you have a vagina, therefore you must wear skirts, stay at home and raise kids.”
https://glosswitch.substack.com/p/pencil-case-feminism
Konstantin, of course they can be separated -- sex refers to biology, gender refers to psychology; they're two entirely different kettles of fish. And the different personality traits that are encompassed by the term "gender" aren't joined at the hip with any particular sex. "gender non-conformance" writ large.
You might reflect on a rather brilliant analogy from the late great US Justice, Anton Scalia, which illustrates that dichotomy:
AS: "The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics … distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
And you might also consider a review, by US biologist Jerry Coyne [JC], of a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle [SFC] by a pair or transwomen, one the well-regarded evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden. The article is rather less than perfect -- something of a bridge too far in putting too much under the rubric of "gender" -- but it still underlines and illustrates the distinction between the "essential" traits that define the sexes -- ovaries and testicles -- and the traits that are merely "accidental" to the sexes, mostly the psychological and behavioural ones:
QUOTE; JC: First, they agree that sex is defined by gamete size, something that Roughgarden, to [his] credit, has always admitted:
SFC: Zoologists, botanists, ecologists and evolutionary biologists generally define sex in this way: males make small gametes (sperm), females make large gametes (eggs) and hermaphrodites, such as most plants and many marine animals, make both.
JC: But they also claim that every trait other than gamete size is not part of sex but is part of gender:
SFC: Beyond gamete size, everything else — including secondary sex characteristics, body size, shape, color, behavior and social roles — is gender. UNQUOTE
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/11/20/joan-roughgarden-and-jaimie-veale-on-sex-and-gender/
SFC: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/trans-gender-sex-female-male-21125145.php (paywalled);
SFC; Archive link: https://archive.ph/KluWD
Somewhat more technically and accurately, it’s not just any physiological or psychological trait that gets to qualify as a gendered one, as a either a feminine or masculine one. For example, our hearts, lungs, kidneys, and other organs don’t qualify as either masculine or feminine – as either of the two gender TYPES – since they’re not any more common to males than to females. Part and parcel of the durable concept of sexual dimorphism.
HTH ...
Your success is well earned my man. Glad for it, all of it.