Author: womangendercritical

Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire 3

Covering chapters I & II.

Raymond takes us through the early history of the pioneers of “sex reassignment” surgery and the commencement of hormone therapy. For those of you interested in this Chapter I is where you will find it. I will confine my self to a few things that interested me from this section.

Firstly the lack of available statistics on “transsexual” surgeries. This made me wonder if anyone keeps record, today, especially in light of private providers. I assume we can obtain figures for those obtained on the NHS. I would love to know how much this has cost the taxpayer especially as we are now likely to face the compensation costs for those irreversibly harmed.

This also leapt out at me. Some states (New York) mandated health insurance providers to include “transsexual surgeries” . In New Jersey medicaid would cover it and this prompted some feminists to contrast the lack of federal funds for abortion.

Writing in 1979 this is overwhelmingly a male phenomenon but there are some “female to male transsexuals”; exact ratio is subject to speculation but she ends up on around 25%. For Raymond these women are mere tokens to camoflauge that this is, essentially, a male project; driven by men and for men. The women act as a kind of “beard”.

Another paragraph that leapt out at me, particularly because I am covering Janice’s work at the same time as Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt is a male who defines himself as a “woman” and is keen on taking over female reproductive capacity such that “gestation becomes a commodity”. Karen Horney has written about womb envy and Greenson, below, writes of men and their “repressed envy” of the female sex. 👇

Raymond also speculates that men are over-represented in “transsexuals” because they are socialised to “fetishise and objectify” women already by rape and pornography.

Chapter II: Born or Made?

Chapter II looks at the theories used to explain “transsexualism”. They are divided into the social and biological and this chapter focuses on neuro-endocrine explanations with a particular emphasis on John Money’s work.

He advances a range of explanations: 👇

Superficially, as Raymond points out, many of Money’s arguments do seem eminently reasonable. Although there are feminists who take a hardline, anti-biologically determinist, stance about sex differences (I was once one of them) most of my acquaintance accept the likelihood of an interaction between nature and nature. I still acknowledge that there is a danger in a “born that way” defence of rapists or “blame it on the testosterone” arguments or even a sense of hopelessness in fighting sex stereotypes. I think we can avoid both of these traps even if we agree that the influence of nature does not only occur from the neck down.

Notwithstanding this chapter questions a lot of the research on the influence of hormones and behaviour with a few examples. Dosing female (monkeys) with testosterone was alleged to increase aggressive behaviour but Raymond provides research showing the impact was higher in females who already showed dominant behaviour. She also provides an example of a high testosterone, dominant, male who lost his dominant display when he lost dominant status, in a new group, and had a concomitant decline in testosterone. Worth delving into this chapter to explore this issue and, as a corrective, read Carol Hooven’s Testosterone and, for balance, the works of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon.

As Raymond points out we are not monkeys and 👇

Some of the analysis fails to take into account the prevailing culture. Behaviours associated with “masculine” or “dominant” behaviours change over time and what was once called “tom-boy” behaviour, or considered deviant, was the norm for girls in 1979. I can concur, as a tree-climbing, jumper off buildings kind of girl, we were all like that when I grew up, as a working class girl in the North of England.

Raymond, unsurprisingly, finds Money’s frame of reference a bit sexist and akin to Thomas Aquinas.

There is a really interesting section on the development of the foetus which starts on the female pathway until later differentiation, when the foetus can follow a male path. This is overlooked by Money who treats oestrogen as a “passive” hormone and testosterone as “active” which mirrors the Aquinas treatment of the female sex.

Money’s choice of language is also revealing.

Money argues that we are all wired to have a “gender identity” in the same way we are programmed to acquire language. Raymond remains unconvinced.

For Raymond these are the same old, tired, arguments with a new spin.

Money argues that a person’s “gender identity” is hardwired into them by eighteen months and to disrupt it will have catastrophic consequences.

This is antithetical to the feminist project of rooting out those behaviours that prepare women for a subordinate role. Feminist conscious raising encourages women to transcend these, artificially opposed, limitations. For the “trans” lobby we must, instead, believe “gender identity” is fixed and immutable. We must therefore believe in the “trans” child.

Money’s position on sex stereotypes is set out in Sexual Signatures, Tucker and Money. It’s interesting that he uses the example of foot binding which many of see as paralleled by the rise in breast binding in teenage girls.

Money argues that sex stereotypes will always exist and any programme to challenge the is doomed to failure. He wants these structures to remain intact but allow some individuals an opt out clause.

Raymond asks the question what other attitudes would we accept are ingrained and immutable? Would we shrug our shoulders about racist attitudes? Below she calls out his egregious sexism.

The scene was therefore set for the modern “pro-affirmation” approach at “gender clinics” leading to the rising rates of detransitioners we are seeing in 2022. This approach underpins legislation across the globe that accepts an immutable “gender identity” as akin to sexual orientation. That this policy is underpinned by the work of a sexist, paedophile should give people pause for thought.

If you can support my work here is one way. 👇 I do this full-time. If you can help me keep my content open free for all your support is very welcome. Thanks, if you can, I know times are hard.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire 2.

Before we get to the meat of her thesis there is a chapter setting out her methodology and defining terms.

I am only going to pick out some key points but it is well worth reading in full for an explanation of her methodology and word choices. This is a strong opening paragraph which sets out the premise of the work. “Transsexualism” has a specific impact on females and it is therefore not surprising that feminists engage critically with the concept of “transsexualism”. Conversely it is not surprising that various shades of mens rights activists, conscious or otherwise, have embraced the concept with unseemly haste.

Raymond devotes an entire section to language which will surprise none of the women who have wrestled with the pronoun issue, irrespective of which side of the argument you fell.

Before choosing to use the term “transsexual” Raymond unpacks what she means by this term. She is not using it in the sense of “true transsexual” but to signal that some men (it was overwhelmingly men, in 1979) have constructed a “social identity” based on sex (sexist) stereotypes.

She also notes that the term is of relatively recent usage and was coined by a man embedded in the Gender Industrial complex, such that it was in the 1960’s. Benjamin formed an organisation which eventually became WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health). He was one of the first people to reject therapeutic help to reconcile feelings of “gender incongruence” and instead propose medical treatment so the dysphoric person can make their body fit their mind.

At its heart the “transsexual” phenomenon undercuts women’s attempts to question/ undermine sex role stereotyping and thereby tackle the oppression of the female sex class, by reifying those same sex (ist) stereotypes; by carving them into, and out, of human flesh.

The word “gender”, as Raymond explains is therefore problematic for feminists in its reliance on those same sex (ist) stereotypes. Feminists, of old, used the word “gender” to try to unpick expectations for the sexes which for females were a way to set limitations. The use of gender has been hijacked by the Gender Identity ideologues for precisely the opposite purpose. For them “gender identity” exists it may not always align with your biological sex but instead of this becoming a liberation project for women it leaves the sex stereotype system intact and deals with anomalies by arguing the “gender identity” exists in the wrong body. 👇 A byproduct (arguably, by now, the main aim) was the money making machine which became the Gender Industrial Complex.

Many men made the pilgrimage to Casablanca for superficial “sex-conversion” therapy including Jan Morris the Wales based travel writer. The words of George Burou make it clear that it is the patients own imagination, or faith, that is doing the lion share of the “work” in believing he is now a “woman”. The whole project depends on “trans” as a secular faith which Raymond calls “theodicy” and which I read as “theoidiocy”.

Raymond returns, repeatedly, to the obscurantism of the word “transsexual” which masks the mechanisms at work to construct the “transsexual” and to perpetuate the delusion which we are now inculcating in our young. What “gender dysphoria” does is to problematise males who deviate from the masculinity script. What it does not do is question the script. The medical empire now creates and perpetuates this dissociative disorder because it generates huge profits. 👇.

The extent of the profits to be made I cover in this piece. CAGR is the Compound Annual Growth rate. 25% is a very healthy CAGR.

Mining profits from healthy bodies

Raymond may be the earliest person, I have read, to recognise that this is not a civil rights case it’s a consumer generating activity.

If I build them they will come!

The term “trans” is a marketing term which sells a solution to a societally generated problem. Just like all advertising cultivates dissatisfaction to create a market for the solution. It is the diagnosis that has misdirected clinicians to ignore the myriad of reasons why people claim a “trans” identity and provides a label and a ready made treatment pathway. It’s a profitable pipeline.

The danger of this was raised with Domenic Di Ceglie who opened the child and adolescent branch of the Tavistock, Gender Clinic. He seemed to find this question amusing.

Research

Raymond spoke to a number of “transsexuals” in proportion to the contemporary male:female ratio. She also spoke to people who worked at “gender clinics” and therapists /counsellors who worked with “transsexuals”.

Patriarchy

Men in flight from their masculinity are in flight from the expected roles for men in a patriarchal society. The society that generates the problem then sells a synthetic sex identity to the men whilst ignoring systemic issues. We thus perpetuate the problem for the afflicted and then use them as a means to sell the solution to other young men. The product thus becomes the advert, the ultimate in self-commodification.

It’s an individualised solution to a societal problem. The sex (ist) stereotypes must exist for the men to identify the liberation of adopting societally defined “feminine” behaviours. Furthermore, order to provide a place of refuge for men, in flight from their sex, women must run the refugee camps and we must remain there too! This is what “cis” means; that women who “identify” as women are accepting the sex stereotype /role for their sex. No wonder many women are resisting the “cis-woman” label.

The construction of the myth of the “transsexual” and now “transgender” person has wider societal impact than the hormone/surgery patient. It requires a whole edifice, belief system, to support this delusion; co-opting us all to validate these synthetic, sex, identities.

I will return with further chapters as I defer the temptation to read Double Think her new book. (I am very tempted by the way).

If you can support my work here is one way. 👇 I do this full-time. If you can help me keep my content open free for all your support is very welcome. Thanks, if you can, I know times are hard.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Janice Raymond:Transsexual Empire

I am about to embark on Janice’s new book, Doublethink, so now is a good time to cover her 1979 book Transsexual Empire and do a series on her work. The edition I am reading is her 1994 version which is available on her website here: 👇

Transsexual Empire

Introduction:

The introduction to the 1994 edition outlines her thesis but also allows her to address her critics. I will do a full post on the introduction because a) she’s worth it and b) she provides many useful rebuttals to critiques of “gender critical” women. Here are the chapter headings.

Raymond opens with the closure of the “gender clinic” at John Hopkins University. The clinic was shut down after the publication of Transsexual Empire and some people, at the time, attributed the book as a catalyst for the closure. Indeed some people still do this today. Raymond rejects that and also calls into question the public reason for the closure, suggesting it was not the whole story.

In public this was the reason given: Simple lack of efficacy in the surgical/hormonal treatment of “transsexuals”.

Raymond suspects another motive related to John Money.

These views were not restricted to Money but were, Raymond notes, quite prevalent in academic circles.

Aside on Peter Tatchell

Many of us have noticed a resurgence of the defence of paedophilia now being normalised, in some circles, as “minor attracted people”. It is notable that Peter Tatchell is still revered despite this public letter. 👇

Lest you think this is an aberration from his past you can this on his website even today. A whole section dedicated to lowering the age of consent plus a rather disturbing post about a fourteen year old.

Lee

The piece is hedged with caveats opposing paedophilia but Tatchell takes at face value Lee’s account of having sex from age eight.

Back to Transsexual Empire.

Raymond references The Lancet expressing concern about “transsexual surgeries” as late as 1991. How soon we forget!

Worth remembering that the inverted sex ratios (now 75% female referrals at the Tavistock) is a very recent phenomenon.

She goes on to suggest a number of reasons for the predominantly male “transsexuals”. One of the reasons is that females were sold alternatives. We were already profitable trying to live up to female beauty standards. 👇

The complexities of the surgeries, for females was another factor.

Phallioplasty remains a surgery with a high rate of complications such that I call it failioplasty. The results come at significant cost in terms of harvested flesh from their arms.

The results vary in terms of appearance, and require additional technical aids to sustain anything approximating an erection. The complication rates are very high as per this paper based on 1212 patients.

FTM “genital surgery”

Raymond quotes a writer questioning why “transssexualism” is not views in the same light as identifying out of your age or race. This is one theory. 👇

Even in 1979 Raymond identified the targeting of children. How much worse this is in 2022 when we are grooming children?

Swapping “gender roles” is inherently conservative because sex stereotypes must exist in order that the “transsexual” has a template against which to role play.

Good rebuttal to those who call us “biological essentialists” 👇

Remember when David Lammy MP (U.K) called us dinosaurs?

What do “male lesbians” want?

Raymond reframes the wording in the original edition and writes that males want entry into all female environments but especially Lesbians because they wish to be part of these spaces because of their envy of Lesbian solidarity. The only form of “cultural appropriation” that is acceptable to modern day, social justice warriors.

Raymond also responds to those who accused her of wishing to strip those that claim “transsexual” identity of their human rights. I won’t reproduce it here but basically she thinks they should bet as men, not as women. She also addresses those who accused her of being a conspiracy theorists because of the title. Will be interesting to see if she still thinks this now we are seeing all the money behind “transgenderism”.

She also adds a note about the rise of “transgenderism” and the ever expanding alphabet soup. Ultimately she concludes that, even with those identifying out of the “binary” they are not “transgressing” but conforming.

She also does not miss the integral role of the “sex industry” and how many of the trans-identified males spend time in prostitution. We have all noted that SWIW and TWAW go hand in hand. (Sex Work is Work and Trans Women Are Women).

Female fetishists? I don’t think so.

Martine Rothblatt tried this trick; pretending women wearing trousers are the same as men in fishnet stockings. Nope, not going to fly!

There is some discussion of KD Laing and the cover she did with Cindy Crawford. For Raymond it was not a radical stance. (I have a vague memory that Laing was a disappointment on the “trans” issue but I can’t recall why). That section was an interesting discussion.

Stone Butch Blues was also covered. Tells the story of growing up a Butch, working class, Lesbian in the 1950’s and 60’s. Ultimately a sad story with one character taking hormones and having a double mastectomy and posing as a man, only to find she belongs nowhere.

I will leave this post there and return to look at Chapter one.

If you can support my work here is one way. 👇 I do this full-time and am not salaried. If you can help me keep my content open and free support is very welcome. Thanks, if you can, I know times are hard.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: Chapter 3 : Law & Sex

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.

THE APARTHEID OF SEX: Rothblatt

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.

Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Sonia Appleby case

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.

Ms_S_Appleby__vs___Tavistock_and_Portman_NHS_Foundation_Trust

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:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman:

Foreward.

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 “no absolute 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 “gender segregation”.

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.

Fred Sargeant on the Stonewall Riots

The eradication of homosexuality

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.

Martine Rothblatt’s The Apartheid of Sex 15 Years Later

Part of a series on Transgender to Transhumanism. More to follow.

You can support my work here, should you feel able.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman: Preface

This is the title of the second edition of the Apartheid of Sex, authored by a trans-identified male: Martine Rothblatt.

Preface

You can read more about Rothblatt here :

Apartheid of Sex 2 : Martine Rothblatt

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.

Internet gaming: Bodily disassociation

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 👇

THE APARTHEID OF SEX: Rothblatt

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 👇

Brave New World

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.

Support for my work is gratefully received.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: Billions of Sexes. Part 2 of Chapter 1

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: A Billion Sexes!

Chapter 1.

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:

Simone De Beauvoir

Here are a few clips:

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.

You can support my work here.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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.

£10.00

Long Term Follow up: Transsexuals

I have quoted this study often but never actually featured it on my blog. Time to remedy this deficit. Study linked below:

Long Term Follow up TS

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.

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.

These were the other two referenced studies.

You can access the second one (7) here:

5 year follow up

Here are a few more studies:

/

References to the quoted studies:

I could only find links to a full copy for this one.

11. Gooren, Giltay et al

Back to this study.

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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.

£10.00