Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhumanism. Chapter 8

This is the final in this series on Rothblatt’s book. You can read the rest of the series here:


The final Chapter covers

Unfortunately, for me, Rothblatt, like a lot of men, doesn’t know when to stop so he follows up this chapter with both an epilogue and an afterward. Sigh.

He’s quite triumphalist in this chapter. Once again he located the origins of women’s oppression of women in acknowledging the reality of sex. In his world if we eradicate single sex spaces and open all female only spaces, to men, we will eradicate sexism and women will be liberated. He is astonishingly naive (disingenuous?) in this belief. He has a recurrent theme that abolishing sex based boundaries is being accomplished and “nothing horrible happened”. At the same time evidence is building to demonstrate that horrible things are happening: now on an almost daily basis. Whether this is women being incarcerated with male rapists or a fetishistic teacher parading his sexual paraphilia in a school. This is the brave new world of Rothblatt. Where this man can force school children to participate in his gross sexual fetish, because it is protected by Canadian law.

School spokesperson had this to say:

Rothblatt twists the history of female oppression to serve his own purposes. He misrepresents the achievements of campaigners for same sex marriage calling it “gender blind” marriage. The truth is , in fact, it is legislation to allow same sex marriage. He celebrates the decline of “sexual apartheid” because it is a victory over “cultural fascism”; equating women’s rights with Nazis is the new #FemiNazi. A label beloved by all the MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) that preceded Martin.

Those who opposed same sex marriage campaigned on the basis of religion because they knew they would lose if it became a question of “civil rights”. That lesson was not lost on transgender identity ideologues who have managed to convince political elites that a man’s right to parade his fetish is the new frontier of civil rights.

Not content with forcing society to accept that men can be women the next frontier is transhumanism; 👇

In Rothblatt’s vision we will become hybrids of humans and computers and gain access to immortality. He wants to eradicate death.

He drops the names of the proponents of transhumanism should you wish to pursue your studies further. Julius Huxley, Ray Kurzweill and a man called FM 2030; who has had his head cryonically suspended in the quest to be revived. I did actually watch a documentary on FM 2030 which you can find here:

FM 2030

Theres also a website which Rothblatt promoted which now appears to be called Humanity Plus and has a YouTube channel. I am more concerned with the immediate impact of this ideology but clearly there are already developments to integrate humans with technology even if we may remain skeptical about the eradication of death itself.

Rothblatt clearly thinks this will be a reality in his lifetime so is laying the groundwork for laws to recognise legal personhood for his afterlife.

He justifies this by, once again, comparing a lack of recognition of post human computers to apartheid and sexism.

I destroy my enemy by making him my friend.

Rothblatt claims the victories of transgenderism are because they have followed a well trod path of advancement which includes the end of apartheid, slavery and the end of the oppression of women. At the same time he uses a revealing quote for his epilogue which reveals what he is really doing. He is forced teaming women and gay rights proponents to further his own aims. He is the enemy of groups he proclaims as “friends”.

No longer is there a war between the sexes, in Rothblatt’s world, instead it is a battle of technology and his preoccupation with separating women from childbearing emerges, again. He has a bad case of womb envy.

It is clear that he thinks he has won the battle over reality and we no longer believe there are two sexes. As always he misrepresents the arguments over sex by inferring, sometimes stating, that those of us arguing sex matters want to enforce sex based stereotypes and a belief in #LadyBrain. The people with the penises do in fact thinks differently which is why they are 99% of sex offenders.

How he squares this with his own statements is anyone’s guess. There is no such thing as male or female but Martine still claims he has the “soul of a woman”, uttered with all the confidence of a man.

Yet, like Eddie Izzard, he wants it both ways. He’s not quite ready to jettison that male privilege.

In conclusion.

Martine Rothblatt is no friend to women or homosexuals. He thinks he can be a bridge builder and “transgenderism” is a stepping stone to “transhumanism”; with a detour to destroy women’s rights to male free spaces. He wants the end of the idea of sexual orientation which would destroy gay rights to assemble only with the same sex. This is why Lesbians in Tasmania have lost the legal right to exclude trans-identifying males from Lesbian only events. Just to be clear, Rothblatt, thinks he has morphed from heterosexual male to be a “Lesbian”. This is from the afterword. 👇


This is a placard of one of the trans activists who were there to challenge Lesbians marching in defence of same sex attraction at #LesbianStrength2022

Undaunted some young lesbians were there, fighting back. #LesbianStrength2022

You can support my work here if you want to oppose the billionaires driving “transgenderism”.

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhumanism. Chapter 7


We are on the home stretch. This is the penultimate chapter.

This is the new edition of a book originally entitled the Apartheid of Sex. The author is a “trans-identified”, heterosexual male. He is married and fathered three children. He is also a transhumanist who believes we can live on as “cyber-conscious” beings after our flesh suits have degraded. You might think this would render him an outcast but, in fact, he is currently a trustee sitting of Mayo Clinic, who are a large hospital charity; sometimes described as foremost in the world.

You can catch up with the series here:


Beyond gay or straight.

If chapter 6 has not convinced you that Gender Identity Ideology is an existential threat to gay rights this ought to do it. Rothblatt wants any acknowledgment that sex is real, and that we are a sexually dimorphic species, eradicated. He wants to purge references to male and female from language or repurpose them to mean your subjective sense of self. This is all to validate the author who believes himself to have a female soul. Lest it is not immediately apparent what the consequences are for the L, G and B here are his thoughts.

Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual lose all meaning in a world where sex isn’t real and enough people have been sold a “synthetic sexual identity”. Note that Rothblatt does not insist on any hormonal/surgical treatment to justify claiming to be the opposite sex.

He is insistent, consistent and persistent with this messaging. He really wants it to sink in.

This is where the conflation with racism seeps in. He returns to this theme repeatedly to generate feelings of shame.

You would think bisexuals would get a free pass but, no, they fall foul of the “bi” which acknowledges two sexes. They have to be redefined as “multi sexual” so they don’t leave out anyone who doesn’t identify with the binary. Now he performs faux perplexity about the dating choices of Butch lesbians. The short answer is that same sex relationships do depend on sex organs. A Butch Lesbian who dates a “femme” lesbian would not be similarly attracted to a “femme” gay male because of his sex!


After sex has been abolished and we have all been recategorised according to colours (really! see chapter 6) this is how Rothblatt imagines the future. Notice how he cannot imagine a partnership that does not depend on “mount or be mounted”! Does he seriously think people don’t exchange roles in sex already? All he seems to imagine is a binary of passive v dominant which is the same old binary thinking.

Of course Rothblatt believes your identity is valid no matter your hormone/surgical status but he also normalises irreversible body modifications. 👇 Note the casual reference to “hysterectomy” to eliminate “her” period”. This is a serious surgery that will trigger early menopause and heighten the risk for early onset dementia. Also he is pretending to assume the use of a dildo changes someone sex. There is no point at which two females, who are in a sexual relationship, become a heterosexual couple even if one of them takes synthetic sex hormones has surgeries or uses a dildo.

He begins this paragraph saying there are no valid answers but proceeds to argue that it is valid that one “feels” male more than if they have surgeries. 👇

Notice he first says there is no valid answers, then gives this “valid” answer then undercuts himself again.

He digresses at this point to talk about laws against sodomy and gay marriage. Interestingly he claims that marriage was performed between two people based on their appearance. I suspect this may not be wholly accurate. The problem, he argues, only arises if they separate and one of them wishes to annul the marriage, perhaps to avoid spousal support.

Same sex marriage now exists, in U.K law and, in fact, most of the opposition to the Gender Recognition Act came because the opposition were largely opposed to same sex marriage. The bizarre consequence of the GRA (in the U.K) was that, initially, for people who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who were in a heterosexual marriage had to end; this affected women, predominantly because most GRC applications were from men. However, two people of the same sex could marry if one of them had a different legal sex. In effect parliament legalised same sex marriage for this special category of men and made it illegal for some women to remain in their marriage.

He then spends some time talking about the multiple ways in which children could be produced in these relationships. Get your head around this? 👇 “If one of the women was a sterile man” . He is going for the terms “mother” and “father”.

This is also quite revealing. My other half is more nurturing than I. I still carried and gave birth to my two sons and I will always be their mum, just as their dad is their dad and nothing about being male should preclude him from being the primary carer, which he was. This 👇 is like something out of the 1950’s.


We have not, as a society, fully appreciated what happens to the human mind when they can cos play in cyber space. I remember being nonplussed by my son playing animal crossing. It was all perfectly innocent stuff but I wonder now how much living a “virtual life” impacts on the brain. Rothblatt is, naturally, celebratory about the experience of living a different identity on line. Are we fostering this disassociative state on line?

Are our kids performing their “gender” on line, receiving “affirmation” and never engaging with the reality of how they are perceived outside their bubble? Rothblatt seems to have a negative view of real life interactions because they reinforce sexist stereotypes. 😳 I am no fan of the “real life” tests as a gatekeeping tool of sex conformity clinics but now our kids are “affirmed” with only on-line reactions to judge acceptance rates, by we are setting them up for rejection. Are male “lesbians” getting “affirmed” on line and believing the propaganda? Dr Az Hakeem said his most “contented” patients were those with autism because take it all on face value; they took polite pronoun use as evidence they “passed” and were therefore accepted in female spaces.

Rothblatt laments the lack of sensation available in cyber spaces but hails the new technological developments which will allow cyber suits where the subject will be able to feel touch in the virtual sphere.

Doing this in the virtual sphere has no lasting harm written on your body, at least. The effect on the brain, given neuro-plasticity is probably under-researched though I did find one paper.

Disorders from problematic game use

Rothblatt mentions none of this. 👇.

Trouble is when you have taken synthetic hormones, removed your breasts had a hysterectomy or been castrated /had your penis inverted logging off is no longer an option.

Transhuman joy without orgasm.

There follows a section about living a post flesh existence with no ability to erotic function. He believes there will be “killer orgasms” in a future decades away. In my darker moments I wonder if he is watching the deliberate creation of a new inorgasmic breed of males and seeing how it plays out. Nothing suprised me anymore.

He concludes by singing the praises of all the joys of life that are to be had outside of sexual pleasure. Reading, conversation and witnessing the diversity of life with friends and family. If this doesn’t convince you he speculates on the future ability to grow humans, to adult size, in a man-made faux womb. He thinks market forces will make it happen.

If you want to tip the balance against these crazy billionaires you can support me here:

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman. Chapter 6.


Reading this book I have been by turns bemused and astonished at his belief system and effrontery. This chapter made me angry. Many /Most of you will have heard the acronym deployed D.A.R.V.O. in this “debate”. It stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse,Victim and Offender and it was coined by J Freyd. You can read it here:


This except gives a flavour and it should be a recognisable pattern, by now.

This whole book is an extended piece of D.A.R.V.O. This chapter exemplifies his technique. He misuses feminist arguments, feigns to care about women and oppose sexism while campaigning against them, similarly with gay rights. If you read one chapter this is the one!

He opens this chapter with this quote from Kurt Vonnegut. This from a man whose pretence is that he is really a woman. He is toying with us.

He begins by complaining that the language of “sexual apartheid”, that is using male /female “infects” our vocabulary. His choice of language implies our lexicon is disease riven and of course, in that case, it must be “cleansed”. This is the language of “cultural genocide” as pointed out by Dr Julia Long; specifically in relation to Lesbian culture. At the time Long wondered if she was being hyperbolic but on examination of the phenomena she concluded she was not. I am strongly inclined to agree with her now we have seen the widespread erasure of words to describe women and women’s experience. Think “Trans Women are Women” versus Women are “Cis-Women”. It is now verboten to use Transwomen because males must not have any suggestion their inclusion is subject to qualification or uterus-haver, gestator or pregnant person.

Rothblatt makes it clear that he believes language is critical in achieving his project and questions whether the existing language may have been forced on an unwilling populace, rather than emerged as a simple response to the fact we are a sexually dimorphic species. This language, as he makes clear, has to change to make way for a “continuum of sexual identities”. This is where the project pronoun comes into play.

Rothblatt makes an appeal to authority by referencing Chomsky’s theory about the innateness of the human instinct to develop language. However he claims, because the words used to describe “gender” vary across time and cultures this is not innate. He also the way we describe “gender” may have emerged to enforce class divisions. I have no idea how he makes that leap and he doesn’t show his workings out.

Newspeak: Project Pronoun

There follows a section where Rothblatt plays around with the best way to de-sex language. He identifies for potential routes. One of them is to ask the recipient of your interaction what is their preferred mode of address. Rothblatt, correctly, identifies the difficulties with this. People may forget and inadvertently cause offence. Another alternative is to avoid any reference to language rooted in the reality of biological sex. We could invent a new lexicon. Rothblatt gives some examples of the newspeak.

The other option is to use existing words but change the way they are used.

Nobody can be unaware of the spread of pronoun propaganda. So many intelligent, otherwise thoughtful people are proclaiming their pronouns. This is not a neutral act. It signals agreement with an ideology that has now seen national media print statements like this:

This is not an isolated case. It is in fact because of IPSO the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Media reporting is only one issue. There is now an issue with male crimes, even rapes, being actually recorded by the criminal justice system as if they were perpetrated by females. What follows from this is the housing of male sex offenders in the female estate. This is where your virtue-signalling, pronouns in bio, leads.

Also no way am I calling my other half after a drug wreaking havoc in the prison system. In fact many women and men use “partner” anyway and lots of this changed language already evolved following feminist campaigning.

Rothblatt instructs his readers to call their vagina-having relatives by their preferred terms even if this is old-fashioned, sex revealing, language like “Aunt” or “Mom”. Superficially this sounds eminently reasonable but he can’t resist comparing those clinging to this language with the architects of apartheid; referencing Nelson Mandela. So you can call her “Auntie” but she is akin to a racist.

In New York you can be fined $275,000 for misgendering, in Ireland a man is in prison for breaching a court order which directed him not to return to the school where he worked; he is currently suspended, pending a disciplinary hearing, for refusing to use opposite sex pronouns for a boy. Whether you wanting it, or not, Martine, this is the world your authoritarian ideology has created. This is a classic reversal of victim and offender.

Deborah Tannen.

Rothblatt takes issue with a statement from Tannen by, in my view, wilfully misunderstanding the point she is making. Stating that women experience a male dominated society differently to men should be uncontentious. This does not mean we accept sex stereotypes as an accurate depiction of what it means to be a woman. Men do need to speak to women in a way that shows some appreciation of how we are obliged to navigate the world.

Martine, instead, makes the patronising assumption that anyone who opposes his gender identity propaganda just doesn’t understand. Tannen is not claiming Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus like a sexist man. She is simply saying we are not the same as men and the universal human is always a default male. A world built on the assumption we are the same is why office temperatures are always set a little bit lower than is needed for a female’s comfort or heart attack symptoms are overlooked. In this section we see some of Rothblatt’s motivation. Irritation that his need to perform woman face is rooted in a disorder. Why does he cling to the word “woman” and claim he wants to eradicate sex based language?

Women fighting for sex based rights = Racism

The theme that women defending the words to describe our lives and experiences is akin to racism is repeated Ad nauseum throughout this book. The repetition is designed to embed this thought process and trigger it whenever women defend their rights.


D.A.R.V.O on Steroids.

This has to be the most egregious lie at the heart of this book. Rothblatt is arguing that women asking for sex based language are causing females to identify out of their sex. Only a sick mind could blame feminism for the rise of girls identifying out of their sex and not Gender Identity Ideology but he really goes there. 👇

And this 👇

Not to forget our boys here a boy wanting to be a “mummy” is presented as a boon for children needing adoption. Rothblatt’s womb envy is off the scale. It is the utmost cruelty to pretend a boy can be a “mother”. We are not all earth mothers but we are the sex that carries babies and gives birth. Calling us “gestators” or “uterus-havers” or talking about “pregnant people” is seizing the forces of reproduction and erasing women’s labour, literally. I will forever despise men on the left for going along with this.

We used to know how to satirise this nonsense.

Stan wants a baby

Sexual Orientation

In case you have not woken up to the aim to eradicate sexual orientation, Rothblatt makes it abundantly clear in his writing. Here he returns to Chomsky and theories of in an innate language instinct. He has already argued that “gender” cannot be innate because we have no consistency of language to talk about sex/gender. Now he turns to sexual orientation. Is it innate?

He argues against it being innate, as some homosexuals do. There is a split on the issue. Early campaigners judged that arguing for it being innate would lend impetus for the campaign for equal rights. Some expressed concern that a “gay gene” would make natal gays vulnerable.

So, where does Rothblatt go with this argument? That’s right if you are motivated you can overcome your same sex orientation even if genetically predisposed.

Census Data & Femicide

Not for the first time Rothblatt uses extensive census data to document the phenomenon of aborting female foetuses/female infanticide. Remember Rothblatt’s wants to eradicate all sex based data including the census. If he gets his way we would t know the extent of this practice.

He then proceeds to express his horror that any biotechnology can be in the hands of sexists. Sexist man says what! (Only dogs can hear me now).

He does his usual trick here of switching from sex to gender. He is using the disappearance of the female sex to advance his own argument which is really about “gender identities”. He thinks if we stopped talking in terms of “sex” tweet will solve aborted, female, foetuses/female infanticide.

It’s not a coherent argument but he will use anything to justify his own need to cos play as his opposite sex stereotype.


He then extends the discussion of bio-ethics to talk about engineering transhuman subjects. He argues that there is a race to engineer a sentient “robot” and in order to make them resemble humans their consciousness must be designed to have the full range of human emotions, including “angst and dread”. In this race, he argues, mistakes must be made and we have to developing a new ethics to decide how we confer rights in those new “cyber-conscious” beings.

He then draws comparison with the abortion of a “horribly retarded or autistic” foetus. (His words not mine).

Right Side of History?

He finishes with a recommendation for an ethical panel to review decisions about terminating the “life” of these new beings.

I will return with Chapter 7. The final chapter. If you are not convinced this is a a dangerous man, by now, I don’t know what will persuade you.

If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here:

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


Martine Rothblatt: Chapter 4


This is from a series on this book 👇

This is the second edition. The original was titled: The Apartheid of Sex. The author is a trans-identified male who is also interested in “Transhumanism” which, crudely, envisages a post human life for man melded with technology. Most rational people would find his ideas ludicrous but, unfortunately, he is taken seriously and is now one of the trustees for The Mayo Clinic which is sometimes referred to as a world leading hospital. He is also very rich.

This post covers the fourth chapter of his book.

Notice he puts “objective reality” in scare quotes. Let us hope our politicians row back from following this book as if it were an instruction manual. The truth is this is a man and all the surgery in the world has not disguised him.

The chapter is broken down into the following sub-headings.

Love and Marriage

He starts with gay marriage which sounds perfectly reasonable until you see he wants the eradication of sex in life and law. Inevitably this means denial of same sex attraction.

This summarises his aims. 👇. To get rid of the recording of sex on any documents. Marriage to Rothblatt should be “sex blind”. He is also keen on mixed sex bathrooms and changing rooms. Basically he wants to penetrate all female spaces and he is quite clear a man, with a penis, can identify as a “woman”.

He is a qualified lawyer and very keen on using the law to get his own way. Here he argues that “transsexuals” are ideally placed to contest the recording of sex on marriage certificates.

A recurrent theme is drawing comparisons to the recording of race and racist laws against mixed sex marriage.

The Lovings were a couple who challenged the law which stated that their marriage was illegal. A fight they won, with the help of the ACLU, before they spent their energy attacking women’s rights in the name of Gender Identity Ideology.

Rothblatt argues that a legal case needs to quote the Loving v Virginia precedent to strike down the requirement to record sex on marriage certificates.

For the gay men and lesbians going along with this the goal is erasure of your sexual orientation. If you have not caught up with the #CottonCeiling /#BoxerCeiling now is a good time. The new generation of “transgender” ideologues think you are morally mandated to accept partners of the opposite sex if they identify as Lesbians/Gay men.

Let that sink in!

Government and Sex

Warming to his theme, Rothblatt argues that nobody is male or female.

He then uses the Ruth Bader Ginsberg case; in which she successfully won a male spouse the same rights as females, married to men in the armed forces. I am not sure Bader Ginsberg would have anticipated the way this case would be used by trans-activists; though she did act for a “transsexual” to be allowed to serve his time in women’s prisons.

Rothblatt’s thinks the government don’t need to collect data on sex for its census. He proposes that we add a “transgender “ or “other” category to the census. This has already happened in the U.K and it took a fight to make the Office for National Statistics (ONS) change the guidance to allow men to tick “female” if that was how they identified. A similar fight was lost in Scotland.

Rothblatt aims for a world in which “transgendered” becomes the main category.

In his ideal world the sex question would be dropped altogether and arguments about needing to know which diseases (and treatments) need differentiating by sex he regards as specious as arguments to record race. This is dangerous. To give one example; multiple sclerosis affects women in 68% of cases. At the same time men are more likely to get the progressive version of the disease and their prognosis is worse. Similarly we only recently discovered females were dying at higher rates after heart attacks. Turns out female symptoms present differently and they were being under diagnosed.

This next paragraph is a tiresome. A toddler realising the difference between males and females is a developmental milestone. Activists use this to argue that this is awareness of “gender identity”. Again he attacks the notion of female and male brains, at certain points, but he also argues for the “transgendered” brain. Separating the sexes has been done for safeguarding reasons because the male of the species have trouble regulating their penises. It’s not akin to Apartheid and it’s an odious analogy.

In Rothblatt’s ideal world we need a “Gender Pioneer” to challenge the legislature and argue against recording their sex, or their child’s, then all the other agencies will need to follow suit. We have already see Freddy McConnell fight to be recorded as the “father” on their child’s birth certificate; even though she is female. Another activist has spent years going through the courts to be acknowledged as neither male nor female. In addition a govt funded Research Council handed out a grant to examine this topic.

The bathroom bugaboo

This is the definition of “bugaboo”. He thinks women’s concerns are childish.

In fact there are huge inequities in toilet provision for females and women have been screaming into a void about this for decades. Yet the moment some men have “Lady Feelz” governments, public bodies and corporations have leapt into action. Clara Greed works in this field and has this to say.

You can watch Greed talking about this here:

Toilets WPUK

The author thinks that we can address issues with female provision by removing the division between male and female toilets. He recognises that males may feel discriminating against if urinals are removed and also that the vagina-havers will end up cleaning up male urine. He dismisses these concerns. He is also dismissive about rape. He calls these concerns mere “speculation”.

In fact this is the research.

Unisex spaces and women’s safety

Rothblatt instead chooses to focus on a woman who was arrested for using the male facilities to avoid the queues at the women’s facilities. She is now a campaigner for “potty parity”. Yep, Martine, we want equal provision but we don’t want to share with men.

Papering the Transhuman

In this section argues for the registration of artificial “humans”.

Martine is living in the realms of science fiction and in this chapter he argues for the registration of “trans humans” to enable people to live on in a different form. He has given this a lot of thought even down to worrying about he can maintain controls of his sizeable fortune.

So he wants to reorder the world to fit his fantasy and, thus far, he is getting what he wants.

You can support my work here: Donations gratefully received but don’t prioritise me above important legal cases, or your gas bill.

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman: Chapter 5


This chapter is called Science and Sex. The “science” as you will see is, to put it mildly, contested.

Rothblatt begins with this quote which is interesting because this entire book is built on belief not empiricism.

He opens with a discussion of Thomas Kuhn who talked about how new knowledge is created by a fracturing of belief in existing knowledge; resulting in a paradigm shift. What Rothblatt is pushing is an end to the “belief” in sexual dimorphism and establishing the primacy of “gender identity”. Notice this common rhetorical trick from Rothblatt, 👇the conflation of two different issues, belief in the fact of sexual dimorphism; does NOT mean a belief in two “mental natures”. These are separate topics.

Kuhn did correctly identify a flaw in academia, where young researchers are reluctant to engage in work that criticises their seniors and older academics resist a new paradigm; which could undermine their own body of work. Rothblatt knows what he is doing because he promotes the idea that this area of research offers “interesting” opportunities for young researchers to create “new knowledge”. He also uses “revolutionary” which is an attractive buzzword to the young.

This is the new paradigm that Rothblatt seeks to embed. Notice that he wishes to disassociate reproduction from the female sex class and promote a new model of “sociotechnical” means. He is, of course, a supporter of surrogacy and developments experimenting to manipulate science to enable the possibility to outsource motherhood and even to allow males to gestate a child.

Another trick he uses, somewhat repetitively, is to equate sex separated spaces with segregation of the races. This is a common tactic used by Nancy Kelley who called Lesbians, unwilling to date penis-havers, “sexual racists”. It was also used by David Lammy during the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, in the U.K.

He also puts the cart before the horse; claiming separation of the sexes allows women to be treated as inferior. In reality, single sex spaces were hard won women’s rights activists to enable women to participate in public life and end the “urinary leash”.

Bearing in mind Rothblatt campaigns to end the collection of sex based data in the census he is not afraid to use census based data to advance his arguments. The wording here is odd, almost as if he is suggesting female infanticide is to save girls from the sad fate of being a woman. In reality females are aborted / murdered because males are prized over females.

In common with a lot of people, who’s critical thinking has been corrupted by queer theory and post modernist ideas that, crudely, “language shapes reality”. He genuinely believes that if we do away the labels male and female then sexism will cease to exist. At the same time we will be unable to track this because data will cease to be collected. This has already started to have consequences in, for example, crime statistics where male sex offenders are having their crimes recorded under the female category.

Rothblatt again draws parallels with sexist science claiming female brains were different and inferior. Once again there are feminist neuro-biologists who have attacked much of the purported “science” of lady brain. Personally I think it is unlikely that there are no differences but certainly much of the research is built on flimsy foundations. Cordelia Fine debunks a lot of this research as does Gina Rippon. It is also worth noting that many trans-activists claim that there is such a thing as a “female brain” and it can “accidentally” land in a male body.

As always Martin cherry picks the research to undermine the notion of two sexes. His argument is that because some women can do maths or read a map then biological sex doesn’t exist.

Having set up this straw man Rothblatt proceeds to argue sexual dimorphism cannot explain female mathematicians so we need a new paradigm based on the idea sex exists on a continuum.

The problem is that Rothblatt thinks if we stop calling men male this will eradicate male aggression. This is magical thinking. Until the sex offending class stop being responsible for 99% of sex offences this idea is madness. 👇

Chromatic Categorisation.

So what does Martine propose to replace sex categories with? Unbelievably it is this idea.

Here is a handy chart that he includes.

Seriously! Now might be a good idea to post another quote from Rothblatt from this chapter.

Good luck with this endless navel gazing claptrap.

The above table speaks volumes about Rothblatt’s internal psyche. He seems to have retained the same dualism aggressive versus nurturing of every sexist man ever. He is leaving the categories intact! (See Janice Raymond on this, in my series on Transsexual Empire).

Oh, honey it really isn’t realistic and “ungenitally infected” WTF! 😳.

Finally he links this all back to project transhumanism. He anticipates “some” people will be resistant to trans humans just as there will be *some* people resistant to the eradication of the sexes. Yep. There will be, resistance is building.

Just to contextualise this quote it comes from a man asked to define pornography and he said he couldn’t “but I know it when I see it.

If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here:

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


Martine Rothblatt: We are not our genitals: Chapter 2


Chapter 2: Transgender to Transhumanism.

This is the updated title to the Apartheid of Sex.

This entire movement is built on appropriation and plagiarism of ideas then distorted out of all recognition. Rothblatt is no exception. In this chapter he feigns support for feminist ideas but twists them to support his own identity as a female impersonator. Instead of fighting to allow different expression, regardless of your biological sex, Rothblatt wants to destroy the categories of sex and with it the very basis of our humanity. Sex stereotypes are culturally and temporally shifting so much of the expectations imposed on males and females are neither natural nor inevitable. It does not follow that the path to liberation is to deny those differences that remain and push the idea of a life dependent on pharmaceuticals or surgeries.

Penetrators & Recipients

Rothblatt outdoes himself with this statement. I am going to go out on a limb here and say Martine is a total prick! He knows exactly who the males are in this scenario despite his appalling language. Language which assumes a passive role for the female and assumes the missionary position.

This is one of the places where Rothblatt’s claims we have “transgendered” brains and confuses personality traits for “gender”. No, love you are just confused. Single sex spaces are in existence because of the male sex and it’s propensity to forcibly “penetrate” the female sex class who are unwilling recipients! It’s because of rape that women need single sex facilities and nobody is raping us with their personalities.

Rothblatt then attempts to represent feminist though about the origins of the status of females within society. He correctly locates it in our ability to reproduce and the uncertainty of male parentage. He also notes male envy of female biology and talks about all the societies in which the males mimic menstruation in their rituals. It is a tad ironic that he is a living embodiment of this envy which has driven him to claim the identity of “woman” for himself and push extreme technology to replace the role of females in gestation and childbirth. He also advances the theory that women were convenient targets for testosterone fuelled, male aggression.

He then treats us to theories about matrilineal societies and cultures which allowed women to express our full range of human attributes. Paying a bit of lip service to feminism before he drops this corker. Apparently he does acknowledge male violence, in comparison to females, but it’s O.K. we have laws about that kind of thing.

Rothblatt seems to think we have male anger under control and conveniently ignores the fact that female perpetrators make up a small percentage of domestic abuse perpetrators and the overwhelming perpetrators are male. The prosecution rates are woeful and none of this has stopped three women a week being murdered, by men. That *should* is doing a lot of work there Martin!

Then there is some guff about deadly female soldiers and a reference to Gertrude Erle who swim the channel two hours faster than her male predecessors, in 1926. Rothblatt’s conveniently overlooks the fact that females actually do have an advantage in endurance feats over long distances. They definitely do not in covering shorter distances. I refuse to give credence to the idea he is unaware of these facts.

A further segment plays to his “feminist” readers when he debunks the idea of #LadyBrain. He is not doing this for any “feminist” reason he needs this to be true so he can argue his brain is not in any way “male”. The thing is love, your brain is in a male body and that is the issue.

And here is what he really wants. See women are as good as men, ergo men can share mixed sex spaces with them. You are not in any group that is female, Martin, That is the issue.

Thisnis where he was heading all along. We don’t need to exile men from womens spaces. We are all one gender continuum and labels like male /female are repressive. Sigh.

Finally we are onto his other obsession. Transhumanism. Leading, surprise, surprise to sex robots,

Men can become women and machines can be transgendered /trans humans.

Finally if we accept that a man with a penis can live as “she chooses” then we can accept a disconnect between humanity and the new robot humans. Let me remind you this is a very wealthy and influential man. He has a God complex visible from outer space. Our children are being sacrificed on the alter of transgenderism to make way for his religion. We need to stop this Bond Villain on steroids.

Even up the fight donate to those of us working tirelessly to shed light on the dark underbelly of transgenderism.

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

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


Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman:



This is the second edition, with a new title, of Apartheid Of Sex.


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.

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


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.


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 👇


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.

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


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.


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”.


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.