Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
Chapter three continues the theme of insisting biological sex does not matter. According to Martine science has now discovered the “brain continuum” and we no longer need to focus on separation people based on their genitalia. What he never addresses is the criminal tendencies of the penis people.
Prisons
He addresses the incarceration issue based on male on male rape addressing the case of Farmer v Brennan in Ruth Bader Ginsburg acted. Addressing male propensity to sexual violence by exposing women, the overwhelming victims of sexual violence, to heightened risk if one of the most morally bankrupt ideas of our time.
No such consideration is shown to other young men, who may be gay and vulnerable, but a man who claims to identify as a woman…. You can read my earlier piece about Rothblatt and prisons which provides some background about the Farmer case, below.
Rothblatt asserts that it is impossible to prevent rape in prison. How convenient for him to adopt this defeatist position. I will tell you one way we can prevent rape in the female estate, keep men out. As for pressing women into service as aids to rehabilitation this is pure misogyny.
Rothblatt thinks of everything. Men and women will have their fertility, temporarily, suppressed to make sure there are no “pregnancies” thereby enabling the cover up of rapes in the mixed sex environment. Of course it is necessary to know the sex of the prisoner for this to be effective which somewhat undermines his whole thesis.
He goes on to argue that “sex typing” is anachronistic. He has a little detour to condemn laws against cross-dressing and argues that when it was implemented in texas a large numbers of Lesbians were arrested.
Census
He also rails against the recording of sex for census purposes. Lest you think this is the ramblings of a mad man (it is but he seems to have persuaded a lot of people) let me remind you that the English census tried to make this a reality by allowing respondents to answer according to their self identity. It can hardly be a coincidence that there is a trans-identified male as a senior member of staff at the Office for National Statistics. (ONS). You can read about him here. He also held senior posts at the Government Equality Office.
He also claims that it is the recording of the data, by sex, which creates the discrimination in the first place!
We are back to the racial classification argument. Apparently the problem is that we are told we are male or female in the first place. Given the choice many would, he claims, all identify as “other”. I guess this explains the non-binaries who stupidly think this would enable them to dodge sexism. Sigh. People are really this deluded.
Sport
He really surpasses himself on the sport issue. As we watch numerous men identify as women for competitive advantage this 👇 argument makes him look ridiculous. “Would not men masquerade as women in order to have an edge in the fame and fortune that comes from athletic success?”
He even argues that females are segregated to save men from hurt feelings! Arsehole.
Luckily we can rely on Professor Fausto-Sterling to bring some science to the table.
Here comes the crazy if you have not seen enough. The Vagina People need to compete against men to up our game! Apparently we were only ever excluded so the nasty men could take all the top prizes. (Oh and he throws in a few references to the disadvantaged Japanese people to bring race into the argument, again).
Cyber People
Now some bonkers stuff about having multiple meat sacks and humans grown in twenty months!
Why? Multiples, of course.
If you are glad I am wading through this, so you don’t have to, you can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received. Level up the playing field.
Sonia Appleby is the safeguarding lead for the Trust that houses the Tavistock, or Gender Identity Development Service (GIDs). Sonia bravely took her employer to an Employment Tribunal ; which she won. You can read the full judgment below.
The full judgment contains many of the red flags that, no doubt, form part of the background to the closure of the Tavistock (G.I.Ds).
Sonia Appleby was the safeguarding lead for the NHS Trust which, until recently, housed the Gender Identity Service. Sonia’s case centred on the six issues she raised under the whistleblower policy and whether she suffered detriment as a result. She won her case and was awarded £20,000 in compensation.
In order to determine the case many staff were interviewed and some were cross examined.
Matt Bristow was not cross examined but his witness statement, on behalf of Sonia Appleby is on the public record. 👇 This encapsulates his concerns. Gay Conversion Therapy, in a nutshell.
Sonia was in the middle of an internal dispute between staff at the Tavistock about the best way to treat their referrals. Some staff believed in an innate “gender identity” where the children know best and it’s the clinician’s role to affirm their “authentic self”. This is an ideologically predicated perspective. Others were concerned about the other potential influences on the child’s internal belief system. Autism, same sex attraction, backgrounds of abuse or other trauma were present in a lot of the children. Some clinician were worried about the role of social media and the explosion of “trans” in the media fuelling a social contagion. Appleby was in the eye of the storm attempting to enforce child safeguarding in the midst of this, highly charged, environment.
The service had seen a steep rise in referrals, from mainly male it had switched to 76% female, waiting lists were long and the first court case, questioning the use of “affirmation” only had already been heard. This was the case of Keira Bell, a case I cover here:
It was not just internal strife that bedevilled the service. The issue had become highly politicised with women’s groups springing up to contest the attacks on female only spaces by trans activists. Controversial lobby group, Mermaids, was garnering a lot of media attention and the promotion of “transgender” children was peddled across the U.K media. Accusations of “transphobia” were rife.
Sonia Appleby had experience as a social worker and a psychoanalytical psychotherapist and was named lead for safeguarding children for the Trust. By June 2016 she was raising the alarm at the rise in referrals and the increasing workloads. She also noted deficiencies in record keeping. Staff were also raising concerns about the role of a private practitioner who had entered the fray.
Dr Webberley has been suspended from practice for a number of years, her husband, who worked alongside her, was actually removed from the medical register this year. G.I.Ds staff were beginning to see children who had not only socially “transitioned” but had already accessed puberty blocking drugs from private practitioners such as Webberley.
Dr Carmichael’s response to this requested meeting is described as “interesting” in that she expressed concern that she “was unsure the agenda here”. She claimed she was simply wondering what the agenda was for the meeting. The tribunal was not convinced by this explanation”.
This was Sonia Appleby’s first protected disclosure. Mermaids, Rogue Medics and tensions within the team.
The second list of concerns is even more damning. Again Dr Webberley features; as does the number of gay kids presenting as “transgender”; parental encouragement of their child’s identity; and Dr Carmichael’s unwillingness to listen all feature.
There emerged some confusion about who was taking these issues forwarded and during a flurry of emails Appleby became aware that Dr Carmichael resented her being approached by her own staff. At this point a Garry Richardom is brought on board to play a role in safeguarding internal to G.I.Ds. This relationship gets off to a rocky start because he objects to her use of Jimmy Savile as a warning to the service.
Sonia explains this was something she routinely did to embed safeguarding in the service by using the example of Jimmy Savile who is the most high profile example of the NHS failing to spot /act upon a major safeguarding risk.
By 2018 a group of ten staff raised concerns with Dr David Bell. The claimant also raised another list of concerns raised by a staff member. Again the issue of homophobic parents raises its ugly head and a lack of understanding of the effects of puberty blockers.
She then conducted an audit of safeguarding referrals and noted that the rate of referrals was very low at G.I.Ds compared to other areas of the Trust. Appleby felt relations with Dr Carmichael were strained she was cast as someone asking “awkward questions”. At the same time Dr David Bell began interviewing staff and preparing his own report documenting concerns. This report was damning and would be leaked to the press. Once again homophobia is identified as an issue as well as the “excessively affirmative” attitude of staff who were seen as unable to withstand pressure to medically intervene.
Dr Carmichael’s response appears defensive.
At this point the claimant needed to establish a working relationship with a Dr Sinha who joined the service. This got off to a rocky start as he was briefed that she did not like to be managed and worked too independently, he reported that he found her argumentative but was unable to provide examples, to the tribunal, of incidents that led to this conclusion. There follows some exchanges that illustrate that Sonia Appleby was regarded with suspicion even when collecting data which was required for her job.
There followed a fifth protected disclosure based on the exit interview of Dr Matt Bristow. By this time Sonia Appleby is regarded with suspicion across the service and evidence is brought to the tribunal that staff were being discouraged from bringing safeguarding concerns to Sonia. Email trails who that staff were complaining about her “insubordination” and Dr Sinha embarks on disciplinary proceedings resulting in a letter being placed on her file. The tribunal found the way this was handled to be unfair to the claimant. Dr Sinha was found to be hostile and “punitive”.
Sonia was labelled as “not on side” by Dr Carmichael and evidence is presented illustrating that Sonia was safeguarding issues were not being referred, to her, by staff.
The tribunal concluded that there was a message being communicated that Appleby was hostile to the service and being cut out of issues in relation to her role as child safeguarding lead.
The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered detriment and an award of £20,000 was made. The picture that emerges is of a service riven with tension and suspicion where raising safeguarding concerns was viewed as a hostile act. The recurrent theme is one of homophobia which echoes my own experience. Our gay youth are poorly served/actively harmed by this service, in my view. The removal of the service from the Tavistock was long overdue.
You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received.
This is the second edition, with a new title, of Apartheid Of Sex.
Forward
The foreword to this edition was provided by Harold Blackman. Blackman was a historian and consultant to the Simon Wiesenthal centre. He opens by claiming that Martine, writing with lawyerly precision, will be seen as a visionary who made the case for the transgender movement.
Sex denialism
Like the first edition it relies, heavily, on the idea than any separation of the sexes is akin to apartheid. Furthermore Rothblatt’s vision includes the ultimate in sex denialism, to the extent that he opposes recording sex on any official documentation.
Rothblatt is not the only one drawing a comparison to South African apartheid. Here is David Lammy (U.K M.P. and the man who steered the Gender Recognition Act through parliament) using the same argument.
Brockman proceeds to argue that Rothblatt’s ideas, that there is “noabsolute binary male-female distinction” would have impressed Charles Darwin. He claims Rothblatt has built his case on evolutionary biology, animal and human, which turns out to mean a variation of the clownfish argument. For neophytes this is based on various fish who switch between male and female to balance out the sexes; his examples are the swordtail and butter hamlets.
If this argument fails to persuade, Brockman argues, Rothblatt has other contentions that may convince you. Perhaps you are more persuaded by the “transgendered brain” but, for Brockman it is the minimal differences between the sexes that should end “gendersegregation”.
If you wonder why women, fighting for single sex spaces, are often called “Nazi” this is an equivalence made frequently by Rothblatt.
Writing gay men and Lesbians out of history
No account would be complete without referencing the “transgender” contribution to the Stonewall riots, even though these accounts range from merely exaggeration to the totally fabricated. Brockman does not disappoint. For a true account of the Stonewall riots see Fred Sargeant, who was actually there.
Could there be any clearer statement of intent than this quote. 👇
”Gay straight and even bisexual will lose all meaning”.
Transgender to Transhumanism.
Not content with destroying sex based rights and gay history, Rothblatt is also going for, arguably, what it means to be human. Martine envisages a future when we escape the prison of the flesh and our own mortality. This is what underpins the Terasem movement; “indefinite life extension”
You can read the preface, in full, at the link below.
For this post I am just, briefly, going to cover the preface to the second edition. If you think Rothblatt sounds like a mad professor, who nobody could possibly take seriously, you would be very much mistaken (except for the “mad” part). The reason I returned to look at Rothblatt is that, as of this month, he has been appointed, as trustee, to the Mayo Clinic; who are a key player in “transgender” medicine and have been ranked as the first hospital in the world.
Here Martine talks about his vision of making ourselves into hybrids, escaping the limitations of our flesh by creating living, human avatars. It seems likely that this will be restricted to elites leaving the rest of us as a, flesh based, underclass.
The God Delusion
He came to the conclusion that technology would enable the ultimate separation of the mind and body and allow a fusion of human beings with computers. Clearly masquerading as a woman has not fulfilled his wishes and he is driven to more extreme measures. He has not changed from male to female that is an illusion/delusion. He remains an arrogant male with added god complex.
This is a man determined to master nature and by doing so he would remove all traces of what it means to be human. What kind of mindset would you need to have to envisage living as a floating brain hooked up to machines?
Bodily dissociative disorder.
This research likely has some bearing on Rothblatt’s fantasy world.
Martine believes his “mental gender” is more important than biological reality. What is truly astonishing is the complete lack of self-awareness. Everything about Rothblatt screams alpha male; uber masculinity and a desperate need to elevate himself above his fellow humans. The claim to a “unique” identity “beyond male or female” is a desperate bid for a new hierarchy, with Rothblatt at the top. He seems to be trapped in patterns of rigid thinking which confuses an inability to conform to sex stereotypes with “gender”; when it is really just your personality. He is selling the ultimate in conformity as non-conformity, carving sex stereotypes into, and out of, your own flesh.
In order to affirm his delusion Rothblatt needs to reshape society to accommodate his whims. Not satisfied by destroying the idea of sexual dimorphism, by eradicating the categories of male and female, he wants new categories beyond human and non-human. To be transhuman is to be beyond flesh; a hybrid of man and electronic circuitry.
Carceral feminism?
Throughout the book Rothblatt presents a bastardised version of “feminism” to claim that transhumanism, gender ideology, is a logical extension of feminist thought and to feign concern for women’s rights.
Note that Rothblatt claims the position at the top of the victim hierarchy claiming that men like him have it worse and it is they who show courage!
Rothblatt is one of the architects of the new subjugation, exemplified by the incarceration of men in female prisons. Here is a piece I did on Rothblatt’s vision for the carceral system, with a couple of quotes below 👇
Let that sink in. Single sex prisons has not prevented rape (male rape in male prisons) so we will introduce heightened risk, for females, by unleashing men on them. Women are to be incarcerated with males and given mandatory contraception to guard against prison pregnancy which, by implication, refers to the increased risk of rape. Notice also that women are pressed into service as aids to rehabilitation.
What is more horrifying is that this evil genius has had significant success with his bizarre vision. He has succeeded in mainstreaming ideas of the “transgender woman” versus the “cis woman”. We are putting men in female prisons, even rapists. We are lauding men like Martine as “stunning and brave”.
Brave New World?
Well worth reading Brave New World in the light of Rothblatt’s dystopian vision. Full text here 👇
Aldous Huxley imagines a world where babies are grown in test tubes and bred for pre-ordained social roles.
Mother is a dirty word, love, romance, monogamy are frowned upon. Strong feelings are ameliorated by drugs, an elite censors dangerous works including Shakespeare. The babies are brought up in a love free environment, nobody knows who’s offspring they are. Their careers train them for their station in life, electric shocks are administered if they show an unhealthy interest in the beauties of nature.
Unzipped genes: Taking charge of Baby-making
To appreciate the pertinence of Brave New World we have to look at another work by Rothblatt.
A couple of quotes so you can see the language Rothblatt uses. This is the language of a consumerism and eugenics. Choosing from a “menu”
I will cover “Unzipped Genes as part of this series. For now it is just worth knowing that this multi-millionaire is driving the spread of “transgender ideology” and even has his own religion.
I will break off before I dig into the chapters of his book. We are in Bond Villain territory here.
This covers the final part of this chapter. From Transgenderism, The Apartheid of Sex to Persona Creatus.
Transgenderism
Prepare to laugh out loud as Rothblatt claims “transgenderism” is a grass roots movement. The fact is that it is not possible to change sex. Your sex is coded throughout your body. This, in my view, is what drives the authoritarian dimension to this movement. If your life is built on a lie the only way to make silence the cognitive dissonance is to force everybody to “believe” it’s true. Hence the thought terminating cliche “Transwomen are Women”. Even then it is noticeable that it is this mantra never gets forgotten while “Transmen are men” is frequently omitted; which, ironically, is a bit sexist!
This is delusional. Granted females who take testosterone can, superficially, “pass” but males who wish to be read as female have a much harder time of it. Even extremely wealthy men who can afford lots of plastic surgery can be “clocked”. The insecurity this must breed would generate mental health issues by itself.
Rothblatt, who fathered children himself, talks about pregnancy and childbirth in such dehumanising language. He cannot bear the idea that women have a “monopoly” on this and wishes to reduce children to commodities and women to paid gestators. No consideration for the resulting babies or the health of the “womb carrier”. What a dystopian vision for the future of humanity.
This is what is known as “reaching”. Women are not cross-dressing when we wear jeans and a T Shirt. Men who cross-dress do so to facilitate masturbation. There is no equivalent in the female sex because sexual fetish is almost entirely a masculine phenomenon. The rapidly growing number of men who have begun to cross dress probably mirrors the rise in porn usage. Many of those men specifically fetishise the “inferior” status of women in those who practice “forced feminisation”. This kink depends on the idea that the most humiliating thing that can happen to a man is to be feminised. See the rise of “Sissy Porn”.
Rothblatt toys with the idea of masculinised or feminised brains only to pull back and argue we flow to our natural orientation for “aggression” (male) or “nurturance” (female). For all his fancy talk we are right back at sexist stereotypes. Female cross-dressing isn’t a thing no matter how you try to make it so…
Finally, this is not a Civil Rights movement, it only masquerades as one in order to colonise the female sex and strip rights away from women. It’s not grassroots either. It is backed by billionaires with “charitable” foundations, the pharmaceutical industry and all the apparatus of the Gender Industrial Complex. You are not “brave” you are an entitled man doing what men do best, destroying all that makes us human.
Apartheid of Sex.
This was the title of the first edition of this book. Yes, we are groomed into adopting “acceptable” behaviours for our sex from birth. Yes, we should work to dismantle as many artificially imposed restrictions, based on our sex. No, the way to do this is not to carve sex stereotypes into, and out of, our flesh. This is the opposite of liberation.
Rothblatt has this backwards. The destruction of the idea that women exist, as a separate sex class, with our own needs and aspirations, does not liberate women. This purported, grassroots, movement is Patriarchy on steroids, or cross sex hormones. It reduces women to an idea in a man’s head that he can project onto women and then claim as his own to play act. If Rachel Dolezal is an imposter then so are all the trans-identified men.
Once more. When the sex that is responsible for 98% of sex offences (probably 99% because some male crimes are now, falsely, attributed to females) mends its ways then we will know that something has been achieved. Women need male free spaces so we are shielded from male violence but also simply to meet and talk about our common interests or enjoy female camaraderie. Some men cannot bear women to gather without them. It is these entitled men who are at the vanguard of transgenderism. Is he really blaming male violence on their frustration that women have any space for ourselves? 👇
Nope. There are not billions of sexes there are personalities. There have always been people who reject the straight jacket of rigid sex stereotypes. We won’t liberate ourselves under the totalitarian movement that is transgenderism. Given the first men to claim they are women seem to be dripping with male entitlement, and a need to dominate, I have seen the trailer and I don’t want to live out the full film. No Thank you.
Persona Creatus
Rothblatt’s faith in technology to make a new kind of human is based on the role of technology. We have not begun to deal with the consequences of children born via surrogacy; which I predict will be grim. No child wants to know they were produced via a commercial transaction and separated from their biological mother.
This man wants to invent a new species like a fucked up genius with a god complex.
He imagines a world beyond flesh with artificial intelligence imbued with “personality”, to be treated as if it were human. I cannot think of anything more frightening than this “vision”.
Finally
You can support my work here. All donations gratefully received. They help me with costs and enable me to keep content open.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.
This is part of a series on this book. This is the second edition. The original title was The Apartheid Of Sex.
In this edition Rothblatt elaborates on his original thesis and introduces us to the real project. A new type of human. Human Avatars.
I am allowing myself a wry chuckle at Rothblatt’s attempt to claim there are more than two sexes and also that “transgenderism” is a grassroots movement and labelling male and female is akin to South African apartheid. He also claims this emerged from feminist thinking which is a familiar distortion and, sadly, has convinced many a woman who claims the feminist label.
Rothblatt uses the fact that men and women don’t tend to adhere to sex stereotypes as an argument that male and female is a continuum. It is certainly true that many, I would even say most, people do not perform a pure Barbie or a G.I. Joe; I would argue that uber conformist “feminine” women or “masculine” men are a minority. If we were to draw up a list of characteristics, traditionally associated with either sex, I challenge you to find one person of your acquaintance who doesn’t deviate. This could be my body building, HGV driving, brother who is afraid of spiders and enjoys bird watching (feathered variety) and does a mean Beyoncé impression. Or his dynamo of an ex wife, a diminutive blonde, who dealt with the said spiders and is super ambitious, a leader and a force to be reckoned with. Rothblatt recognises all of this but, for him, it adds up to “Men can become women”; all entirely unconnected to his own identification as a “transgender woman” I am sure. 🤔
Sex assigned at birth.
The first step in embedding this ideology is to claim the identification of sex is problematic. Sadly the NHS and the British Medical Journal have both adopted this terminology. In fact there are a tiny number of babies, with an indeterminate sex at birth. A simple Karyotype test will confirm the biological sex and which disorder of sexual development (DSD) he, or she, suffers from. Each of these DSDs affect either males or females, conforming that we are, in fact sexually dimorphic.
Martina’s biology lets him down here because the vagina is not visible: he means the vulva. He is right that the life a baby will have be shaped from the moment they are dressed in pink or blue. The baby will be treated differently in conscious and unconscious ways. Girl babies are left to cry for longer, for example, boys rewarded for “cheeky” behaviour and girls admonished etc, etc.
From this Rothblatt leaps to the idea that sex is not immutable but is a “lifestyle choice”. Notice all these conclusions validate his choice to “live as a woman” whatever that means. Methinks the wish is father to the thought.
Professor Ann Fausto-Sterling.
It’s worth spending a bit of time on Fausto-Sterling and her views. The 4% is an exaggeration that includes all disorders of sexual development, many of which create no confusion about the sufferer’s biological sex and are only apparent when , for example, menstruation fails to start.
Here is another contribution from the Professor, in which she claims there are five sexes. Later she claimed she was being “ironic”.
I include this exchange because it amuses me. Colin is right but I have to admire her magisterial put down. 😂 (I know that makes me a bit contrary).
Richard Lewontin
Rothblatt also presses Lewontin into service. I have made some enquiries about his work to try to determine if Rothblatt simply inserted (sex) and Lewontin was talking about race; for which he is well known. Lewontin has now passed on so we have to rely on his existing body of work.
This is a quote from Lewontin, he argued against classifying humans by biology in terms of race. From what I can ascertain he also railed against the exclusion of women from specific professions but I would doubt that he also thought men should be able to undress beside his wife. (He had a long marriage and they died within days of each other).
Lady Brain.
I am not entirely sure where Rothblatt lands, ultimately, in relation to brain sex. He seems to argue that there are no biological differences, between men and women in respect of our gray matter, but then he also talks of the “transgendered brain”; the idea that a female brain has landed in a male body. I am going to assume that the Lawyer in him throws a number of arguments at the issue, in the hope that one will stick.
Rothblatt spends a bit of time on this and brings our old friend Fausto-Sterling into play. All that needs saying is that nobody separates spaces by “brain sex”. Spaces are separated on the basis of which sexed body houses the brain.
New Feminist Thinking
Let us see which feminists he has pressed into service. Sylvia Law is based in New York and employed at a University so I am going to assume she is on the same page as Rothblatt. Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued for fair treatment for the sexes using a man as her first case, reasoning that the all male panel adjudicating may be stirred to sympathy for one of their brothers; I think she knew biological sex was real. Simone De Beauvoir gets trotted out all the time by the hard of thinking.
Simone De Beauvoir
What De Beauvoir was arguing was that what we assume to be the nature of women is actually largely due to. female socialisation. You can watch her talk about her position in this interview:
Knows which sex gestates and bears children. Argues this is not the cause of female oppression it’s the pretext.
Finally Simone thinks women need spaces away from men to discuss issues that affect us.
Margaret Mead
Margaret Mead is an anthropologist most famous for her book Coming of Age in Samoa. She also wrote a book called Male and Female. In that book she examines the different ways women and men are expected to behave in different cultures. In some women are regarded as too weak in another women are the beast of burden and believed to have more capacity to carry loads on their heads. Sometimes the male children are seen as the vulnerable ones, in others it is the female children. Like De Beauvoir she sees the way being male or female, in terms of expected behaviours, as societally constructed. She does not, however, disregard the existence of two sexes.
You can read the entire book via open library.org. She does have a lot to say about the way different societies accommodate more “feminine” men who are sometimes accommodated, as homosexuals, via various manifestations of transvestism. She does bear in mind that however the expectations of the sexes vary between societies there is a core truth that appears in all societies.
John Money
John Money was a sexologist whose posthumous reputation is now besmirched by his role in the Rheimer twins. One of the twins had his penis burnt off during a botched circumcision. His parents came to Money for help and they were advised to raise one of the twins as a girl. Later it emerged that the twins had been sexually abused, by Money, when they were taken to see him. In the end the twin, raised as a girl, discovered his secret which explained his inability to fit in as a “girl”. He reverted to acknowledge his birth sex. Both twins committed suicide. Rothblatt mentions none of this.
Money is brought in to claim that differences between men and women are few and that the day is coming for a male pregnancy since fertilisation has occurred in women without wombs. Even uterus implants in females have a low success rate in terms of live births.
Rothblatt argues that technology has made the differences between males and females irrelevant because machinery can allow anyone to do the “heavy” work and formula can substitute for breast milk. Martine seems to have a bad case of womb envy.
I will leave this chapter there and return with Transgenderism, The Apartheid of Sex and Persona Creatus.
This should give you an idea of Rothblatt’s scattergun style of argument. He is a master of appropriation, cherry picking arguments, leaving out inconvenient facts. He is compulsively driven to mould the world to validate his desire to be the opposite sex while, at the same time, obliterating the reality of the sex to which he claims membership.
If you want to see male entitlement, ruthless quest for dominance and a desperation to achieve mastery there is no better case study.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.
This study is from 2011. It followed 341 ”transsexual” persons for a median period of 11 years. They had ”transitioned” between 1973 and 2003. 191 were male and 133 were female.
The author’s explain there is a dearth of long term follow up and this remains the case, nearly 20 years later, measured against the end point of those surveyed. This despite sky rocketing numbers of children and young people, in particular, claiming a ”transgender” identity. In the UK there has been a 4000% + spike in females referred to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). Last time I looked the increase for males was 1152%. There are also rising rates of detransitioners. I cover this on my series on detransition.
This study sought to remedy the deficit in research by following up a cohort and evaluating patterns of morbidity, mortality and also criminality. Median length of follow up was 11 years. They looked at people who had undergone “sexual reassignment” from 1973 to 2003. The researchers also matched each group to compare outcomes measured against their biological sex and the sex the participants wished they were.
Abstract
The study looks at mortality and morbidity rates as well as patterns of criminality.
Results
As you can see mortality was higher, particularly due to suicide, psychiatric inpatient care remained higher for this demographic, females also had a higher propensity for criminality than the rest of their sex. (“Transsexual” males matched the pattern for their sex).
Despite the less than optimal outcome, hormonal /surgical treatments remain the recommended treatment for “Gender Dysphoria”. These are the treatments listed in the study which seem to assume patients are male. (I am basing this on the fact that females would not require body hair removal). However, from 1973 to 2003 the majority of patients would have been male.
This research followed patients from 1973 to 2003. Even then they point out that outcome data is scant. (Despite protestations to the contrary, the data still remains scant, in terms of long term follow-up). All the other studies quoted are referenced so can be looked at in more detail. (I will post on any that are open access). The rate of suicides does look high to me and later the authors compare these rates to the rate for their actual sex and the sex to which they aspire. ( Until I read this paper I also had no idea that people can actually die from complications following “sexual reassignment surgery”).
Other referenced studies. 👇
This is the one that followed up 24 “transsexuals” :
The same names appear on this study which looks like another worthwhile piece to follow up.
The data is inconsistent but overall the authors concluded the “evidence base for sexual reassignment surgery is of very low quality” .
This is a very good summary of the limitations of the research that does exist. Some of the reasons seem insurmountable (double blind, randomised trials, for example) but for others it is baffling why there has not been sufficient will to overcome them. I am thinking about the surgeries that were funded by the NHS, in the U.K. These should have made it possible to do long term follow up.
There follows a thorough outline of the methodology. For those of you interested in this it is a very comprehensive section. One thing to note is that accurate follow up needs to record biological sex and a way of coding “sexual reassignment surgery”; such that outcomes can be tracked. Those people arguing for the end to recoding biological sex in any formal documents are going to undermine this kind of follow up.
Of the “transsexuals” in this study their hospitalisation rates for psychiatric issues, other than gender identity issues, were four times the rate for the control group. This was prior to “transition”. As I have said before there are victims in this cohort; notwithstanding their plight has been weaponised against the female population.
There was an increased rate of criminal convictions after sexual reassignment.
More details on co-morbidities, substance use and accidents paints a picture of a vulnerable population both pre and post “transition”.
For this of you who like a graph what is buried in this one is that the suicide rate for this demographic is 19 times higher for this demographic.
The authors make a distinction in patterns for criminality based on the dates of their surgeries.
Notice that the differences in patterns of suicidality conform to birth sex not “gender identity”.
While the surgeries are deemed to alleviate “gender dysphoria” psychiatric co-morbidities remain. The authors may see this as a success because once post-operative there is nothing, material, that can be done to address the felling of a mismatch between their biology and their outward appearance. However, what if the psychiatric co-morbidities remain because they surgeons were treating the wrong problem?
The retention of a male pattern of criminality also suggests our politicians are wrong to place men in female prisons, regardless of any “identity”. To be clear there are more issues than male patterns of criminality to exclude males from female spaces. Women should be allowed single sex spaces for privacy and dignity, irrespective of safety. The increased rate among females warrants some research into the impact of testosterone on a female body.
More detail on those patterns of criminality. 👇
Strengths of this Study.
The period of time followed, low drop out rates and surveying a clear population of post operative “transsexuals” are all strengths. Also important was that the group surveyed are compared to both their biological sex and the sex they aspired to. This is important because, for example, the higher rates of criminality in females would have been masked if only measured against males.
There is a detailed sections on the limitations of the study. Among the arguments are that “transsexualism” was still only a low number of people, in Sweden; during the period covered by the survey. They argue psychiatric treatments have improved over this period. Furthermore people treated for other psychiatric conditions continued to have high rates of referrals for mental illness which, they argue, cannot be assumed to be because of the treatment they received.
Wherever you stand on the wisdom of medical responses to “gender dysphoria” it is clear that this patient group are poorly served in terms of follow up and long term, evidenced based, research. Even if you were to find a group willing to opt for solely therapeutic care to deal with their “gender dysphoria” ; to compare to those given hormones /surgeries, I suspect the results would be dismissed. The group willing to try therapy only, would automatically be assumed to be less “dysphoric”.
You can support my work here. Any contribution is gratefully received and enables me to keep my content open and cover my costs.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.
I decided to do a piece on this interview, mainly because I had come across the name among those “transsexuals” who took part in the hounding of Michael Bailey, the author of The Man Who Would Be Queen. Bailey had committed the unpardonable crime of demonstrating the existence of autogynephilia by undertaking field work on the Chicago “trans” scene. The hounding of Bailey was taken to extreme lengths, here is a flavour:
I have watched a number of interviews on this channel and the presenter’s (Dan Riley) style of interviewing, to my mind, facilitates a rather revealing exchange. The subject comes across as ultra-reasonable, at the outset. You can watch it here: 👇
The interviewer opens by quoting McClosky’s own words, from their memoir:
Riley then proceeds to comment on how McClosky’s own memoir talks about how he was very much a boy “into boyish things”. This is important because many older “transsexuals” claim they were always “gender non-conforming”, from a young age. After being presented with his own recollections McClosky starts to enumerate all the ways he was not like other boys; using his failure to appreciate the Red Sox, American football team, and his lack of fights with other boys. (Later it turns out he was actually the captain of his high school football team, somewhat undermining this testimony).
McClosky then relates how he began to cross dress “as lots of men do” age 11, in his mother’s clothes.
McClosky then explains that he is heterosexual and married the love of his life, in 1965. He would be married for thirty years and father two children but continued to cross-dress and considered himself a heterosexual cross-dresser. He is keen to emphasise how common the practice is among other men. Later we will learn that he concealed this tendency from his wife until, by his testimony, three months into his marriage. We don’t have his wife’s account as is often the case.
By 1995 he had discovered the internet and made connections with other, cross-dressing, men and began to attend real life events where he could indulge his fetish publicly. By his own account it took less than a year for him to desire this lifestyle on a full-time basis.
At the 10:18 mark McClosky claims there are equal numbers of female cross-dressers to males. Given that the sex of referrals, to gender clinics, has only begun to reveal sizeable numbers of female referrals, in the last decade, I am more than skeptical about this claim.
He also recounts that he has not had any sexual experiences since his “transition”. (This is not unusual for men whose erotic target is inverted such that he has “become the woman he loves” ).
Riley circles back to ask McClosky to elaborate about the disclosure to his wife.
At around the 16:30 point they talk about how difficult it was to be in any way “unusual” in the 1950’s and how inhospitable society was for all different kinds of people including communists, gay people or even women. To transgress, in this way, in the 1950’s the compulsion had to be strong. McClosky talks about the how compulsions are strong when they have you “in their grip”. He then elaborates about how total absorption in anything “whether good or bad for us, or good or bad for other people, that’s happiness”. He ends this segment with a reference to Che Guevara writing to his father about how great he felt after he killed his first person. 😳 McClosky calls this state of being as “the flow” and explains that the cross dressing was arousing right up until he began to identify as full-time, in 1995. He would have been 53 at this point.
Dr Ann Lawrence talks about the decline of an erotic charge once “transition” happens. This could be a self-serving denial, to ensure access to female spaces. It could be a reaction to a decline in libido due to drugs/surgery. It could be a psychological need to transcend the sexual motivation and purify the new self.
Jan Morris
There is some talk of the happy marriage and suppressing the desire to be a woman and an encounter with Jan Morris’s book Conundrum. I have written about that book in this thread. I can see why it resonates. They were both high performing, heterosexual, married fathers who “transitioned” late in life.
Of his previous life McClosky is keen to dispel the idea that he was unhappy. He was happy, he says but he is happier now even “ecstatic”. He is also keen to reject the idea he made a decision to “transition” ; it was not a choice it was a “realisation”, more of an “epiphany” than a decision. The location of this epiphany may be pertinent
He is keenly aware that the language is akin to talk of religion and, indeed he became an Episcopalian around this time. The reaction of his wife was only sympathetic at first, he describes her attitude as “hardening”. His mother was accepting but his sister was so alarmed she twice had him committed; though they have now reconciled.
The “trans” issue; Culture Wars
On the centrality of “trans” issues in the United States, McClosky ascribes this to the Trump administration and evangelical Christians. Unusually for a North American he recognises that the concern, in the U.K. originates on the left with the “terfs”. McClosky name checks JK Rowling and then tells us he has debated Kathleen Stock; who he stops short of lumping in with “terfs” and describes as a friend.
Ecstasy
Riley is quite adept at circling back to issues he clearly doesn’t feel have been explored sufficiently, so we break off talk of culture wars for McClosky to explain, more fully, how the “ecstasy” of “transition” manifests itself. One of the examples is seeing himself in the mirror now that he has had facial feminisation surgery. McClosky dismisses the more romantic notions of becoming your authentic self in favour of the more prosaic “You are what your social role is”.
Liberalism
As a liberal McClosky starts to defend the right of people to do what makes them happy providing you don’t interfere with the rights of others but he soon reconsiders this as placing too much of a limitation. He concedes that he did “interfere” with his wife’s life, who he hurt, but he still had the right to do what he did. As an aside he mentions (wistfully?) that she did not need to divorce him and that Jan Morris’s wife stayed. He seems to imply that his wife was too unsophisticated and small town to accept his new persona.
What do you enjoy about being a “woman”.
There is an interesting digression about the nature (inadequacy) of male friendships; which made me wonder if high achieving, competitive men are somehow closed off from intimate male friendships. Deep friendships involve a degree of exposing weakness and maybe that’s only palatable to do with women and not with men?
Transitioning Children
Deidre says “straight” people don’t understand “transitioning” and then uses Kathleen Stock (a Lesbian) as an example of one of the people who don’t understand. Riley probes the issue of child transition within Deidre. The response is unequivocal:
“That’s a silly argument, Here’s why. I can give you ten reasons. Here’s one. It’s not irreversible”. Bizarrely, McClosky gives himself as an argument even though he “transitioned” at 53 and immediately afterwards conceded that yes, indeed, some things about the change are, indeed, irreversible. So, not a convincing argument, in fact this is rather silly. It gets worse.
This is a man who fathered children.
He then uses the example of people who failed to study at school, claiming that is similarly irreversible; except it is clearly not hence mature students! There follow a number of illogical examples, becoming an alcoholic, dangerous driving moving your children around because you are in the army. All will have irreversible effects, says McClosky so why pick on this one thing?
It gets worse. After conceding he didn’t start cross dressing till age 11 he then begins to talk about the kids who “knew” at age two! Something tells me Donald was not a hands on Dad. 👇
In this case, for McClosky not to allow “him to be him” is cruel “it’s child abuse”. For McClosky the fear of regret is based on a “fairy tale” because he has not met anyone who regrets it. He is rather patronising about Dr/Professor Stock. To him she is misguided but the consequence of her mistake is the “arousal of hatred against transgender people”. He then compares it to racism and the fear of the sexual potency of black men, by whites racists; the fear of granting women the vote; and the rise of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany. A transperbole hat-trick.
And the inevitable dismissal. This is how we know you don’t know what a woman is! 👇
Those irrational women!
”It’s irrational and based on data that the “terfs” completely make up” He then says the “terfs” have been aroused by dangerous rhetoric; just like Trump voters. There’s some repetition here and he is a bit testerical but he then moves onto State interference in parenting. Naturally his concern is State interference to “stop” childhood “transition” but, in fact, all of the cases of State interference have been taking children into care because the parents wouldn’t medicalise their children. After some more silly arguments about the State not interfering if you fail to read to your child it is clear Deirdre’s patience is wearing thin. He doesn’t believe the onus is on him to rebut the “terfs” arguments.
There is a bit more waffle on “terfs” wanting the State to interfere with parents who think they have “trans kids”. In fact many of us just don’t want the State to use tax payers money to sterilise kids or the take children away from “non-affirming” parents. [This has happened in Canada, Australia and the United States. Even in the U.K we have had Social Workers interfere, with parents trying to protect their kids from the Gender Industrial Complex.
At the end of the interview McClosky talks of their responsibility to be a role model and speak up for “transgender” people. He also brings up Michael Bailey as I mentioned in the first paragraph. So, I had a quick look to see if Bailey had commented on McClosky. I was not disappointed. Here’s a flavour of what McClosky put him through. (Notice that he did not refer to the estrangement from his wife and children in the above interview). 👇
Another admission which puts a different slant on an “innocent” way to pass the time:
Sometimes we learn as much from what is left out as what is kept in….
You can support me with a donation here. All contributions, however small, help me keep my content open.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.
As an archivist I have tended to cover people who are key influencers in this debate, but I have probably focused too much on those with whom I disagree. To remedy this I am going to give Graham his own series. I know it’s not exactly Netflix but his role needs to be on the record. I will start with his appearance on Newsnight, interviewed by Sarah Smith. Transcript below and a link to the YouTube.
Smith starts the interview in, what seems to me, an accusatory tone. Full disclosure, I dislike this style of interview intensely, with both male and female interviewers. I think the idea is that if you rattle the subject they may reveal more than they otherwise would. At the same time, female interviewers tend to come in for more criticism, in general, and clearly it’s a very emotive topic, for me, so, I am not exactly impartial. That said, having watched it a few times, I am inclined to agree with Linehan’s sense that it was an ambush. Here is how the interview opens, after a perfunctory introduction. 👇
White Knighting?
Linehan explains that he felt obliged to step into the debate because he was witnessing the abuse and vilification heaped upon women, like Jane Clare Jones and Kathleen Stock, Graham felt a duty to speak up and also more able to, as he is self-employed. (As we have seen this did not protect him). Had a woman said this it would be unproblematic but I could already see he would be vulnerable to the accusation of “White Knighting” (Smith will raise this later in the interview). As an aside, men really can’t win on this one. I have been irritated myself with Johnny Come-Latelies entering the fray, who seem unaware the women have not been screaming from the rooftops, on this topic, for years and years. Linehan has been at this for years, at significant personal cost, and it is difficult to navigate how to be a male ally in this fight. I would just say, in comparison to Matt Walsh, Linehan is practically Graham Greer.
Also, to feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries, I am a Jane-Come-Lately and, no doubt they are, justifiably, irritated their pioneering work gets less mainstream attention, than it should. In the end I suspect the media will amplify whichever voices they find more palatable /moderate, to the frustration of us all.
Toxic Debate
Next Smith questions whether Linehan is adding to the debate in a constructive manner. 👇
Graham asks for examples and she duly delivers, with a bit of a chuckle, I might add. I presume she doesn’t think these interventions are funny because she is highly critical of Linehan’s rhetoric. So is it a “gotcha” chuckle?
It’s worth pointing out that Smith seems unaware that women are routinely called “Nazi” ; for speaking up about sex based rights or opposing “trans” medical treatments given to children. This, sadly is not confined to those my son dismisses as “nutters on theinternet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:
Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.
Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.
Puberty Blockers!
Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.
I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are FerringPharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.
Furthermore, children put on puberty blockers will invariably progress to cross sex hormones. (98%) and they will be sterile and have ruined sexual function. Don’t take my word for it, here is Marci Bowers; a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs surgery on “trans” patients. (Infamously on Jazz Jennings).
I should also add that Bowers also works to try to help rectify female genital mutilation and is one of the most high profile to speak up about this. Cynics may see this as damage limitation, and it could be self-interested, it could also be a genuine concern at seeing the results of puberty blockers on the operating table. This is because boys will have stunted genitalia which will not only make it harder to re-identify with their sex but will also make any genital surgery more difficult; crudely there will be less material to work with.
Less heat, more light, Sarah.
This is Smith’s response to the concerns raised about puberty blockers. I am tempted to say “less heat, more light,Sarah!”. Notice she does not respond to the substance of Linehan’s point but dismisses his expertise and focuses on the “offence” angle. Well, given this is happening to my son I frequently call it “Mengele Medicine”. Sue me!
Graham pushes back hard on this point and his rebuttal comes across strong when you watch him speaking. (at the 2:30 point). Here is the exchange. Notice she cuts him off and doesn’t allow him, from my vantage point, to make his point.
I also found this an astonishing admission after Linehan raises the issue of the 35 staff members who have departed the Tavistock. Many of those ex-staff became whistleblowers and some of them were interviewed by other Newsnight Staff!
I am inclined to concur with the theory that Newsnight were worried about the excellent research done by other journalists on the same team. This may represent real divisions in the Newsnight team or a belief that a hostile interview, with Linehan, would persuade Stonewall et al, of their “balance”. (The BBC was still in various Stonewall “schemes” at this point.).
Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.
Sarah also seems to be woefully unaware, or disingenuous, of what is being taught in schools about “gender Identity”; I am going with disingenuous because her own employer produced something, aimed at children, claiming there are a hundred genders. She seems to be arguing for bodily autonomy here 👇. Remember kids are referred to the Tavistock as young as three and we start puberty blockers at 10 years old. Should it be entirely up to them?
Graham pushes hard back at this point and again, you can see the passion and urgency in the recording. (Time stamp 3:07).
Smith is utterly dismissive on this point; calling it ridiculous exaggeration.
Gay Eugenics.
Graham then brings up the reports of homophobic parents at the Tavistock.
Here are the reports of the Tavistock whistleblowers supporting his claim. Smith studiously avoids responding to this point.
Both sides!
Linehan makes it clear that the women he supports are being deplatformed, attacked and getting rape and death threats online. He sees it as his role to amplify these voices. He says he would be happy to step aside once they are given a fair hearing. He also points out that he has had threats, police visits and been doxxed, as had his wife.
Smith does not respond to any of this. Nothing about the sterilisation of proto-gay kids. Nothing about the silencing of women, the threats or aggression. Instead she, predictably, attacks him for his presumption.
There is some repetition of Smith accusing Linehan of ramping up the toxicity of the debate as if the interviewer wants the viewer to be left with that impression and not what is being done to children. She shows no curiosity about this, at all; which is shocking for an ordinary citizen, let alone for a, purported, journalist.
Graham points out that a number of prominent people, even ex Stonewall founders, pleaded with Stonewall to open dialogue, precisely, to detoxify the discussion. Stonewall refused, the same day. Smith could have probed this a little further but, instead, she read out a prepared statement from Stonewall. There is no surprises in their content, it’s the usual claim that “trans” people are oppressed, abused and hate crime victims.
Graham is allowed a final response until he is cut off. He is cut off at the word children which seems fitting since this is what will be remembered from this interview; the complete unwillingness to consider that something really dark was happening at the Tavistock.
Conclusion.
Linehan is probably correct in his assessment that this interview was not a serious attempt to address the concerns he, and many others, were raising. However it felt, at the time, I think he has been vindicated and Sarah Smith should be haunted by her role. Imagine if so many journalists had not failed to do their job? Had this been stopped at the time of this interview maybe the reckless prescribing, currently harming my son, would have been stopped.
Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.
If you think what I am doing is worthwhile you can support me here.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.
Forgive the title, especially those of you with experience of actual apartheid. This is the title of a book by a heterosexual, married, trans-identified male : Martine Rothblatt.
I have written about Rothblatt before but, as of August 2022, he is now on the board of the Mayo Clinic, which among other things, provides “transgender medicine” ; hence he needs a further post (s). 👇
Rothblatt is a remarkable person with an impressive list of achievements, some of which. seem laudable. For me, his finest hour was his actions when he discovered his daughter had a life limiting condition, pulmonary arterial hypertension. One source stated that this was expected to take her life within two years, though Rothblatt is quoted as saying within three months, in one article. Irrespective of any discrepancies about the time frame it was a life threatening condition, at that time.
Rothblatt threw himself into research to search for a cure. Of course, it helped that Rothblatt was a millionaire, but he does seems to have done the initial research himself. He is evidently a smart guy so I find this plausible.
His mission was successful: He found a scientist willing to help, at a price, and the results saved his daughter’s life.
It’s possible there are some distortions /exaggerations in these accounts, the money sure played a role but he was tenacious in his fight to save his daughter’s life and it seems churlish to try to diminish that achievement. Whether this success fuelled a “God complex” seems like a reasonable supposition based on his future activities.
Onto the more controversial stuff:
First off, Rothblatt was described as the highest paid “female” CEO. I wonder if Rothblatt’s ponders whether another man might take an award /post/ achievement away from his daughter? (source moneyinc.com).
He also has an interest in cyber technology, specifically constructing robots with an ambition to make them sentient. He created one, called BINA48, to which he uploaded information, about his wife, based on her digital footprint. Rather spookily the robot is called the same name as his wife, Bina, and the creation is referred to as a “gynoid” .
This takes us onto another of Rothblatt’s pet projects, not unconnected with the robot wife.
Rothblatt’s is a renowned transgender activist but he has the added twist of transhumanism.
👇 “One of <his> goals is to tear down walls and barriers that exist between the digital world and biological existence”
Before I do a full review of the book I refer you to these articles on Rothblatt. Their coverage is such that it would be superfluous to add more here.
First up from the women are human site. (Superb resource, well worth signing up).
Next is part 1 of a series on the 11th Hour Blog. Worth reading the whole series which will give you an idea about how strategic this movement is. It took a lot of planning to spread this ideology, globally. U.K readers while find our own Stephen Whittle pops up.
I will do a detailed review of the book, Apartheid of Sex, for this blog;for completeness. However, my thread 👆is quite comprehensive so I will postpone that until I have read and reviewed his other book. (Post script: I have now read the book, Transgender to Transhumanism, and it is a new edition of the Apartheid of Sex, so I will cover that and post on the differences, if it seems worthwhile).
My content is open access but donations help cover my costs and keep going. You can support my work here.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology, full-time to resist the colonisation of the female sex, the sterilising of gay and autistic kids and the bizarre anti-human nature of synthetic sex identities. (Jennifer Bilek).
