Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire: Final


If you have heard of Janice Raymond you have probably heard of this quote. 👇

This quote appears in the Appendix and those who use it claim Raymond had only nefarious intentions. This was not entirely unexpected, to Raymond, who knew she would be accused of intolerance. In fact it is a much less angry book than I had anticipated; this may be because the #CottonCeiling had not emerged or the research about autogynephilia. The Cotton Ceiling was coined, in 2012, by a trans-activist and porn star Drew De Veaux and refers to Lesbians who won’t date men, who are heterosexual, and identify as women. It’s a repurposing of the glass ceiling but, in this case, the ceiling is the Lesbian’s knickers. Autogynephilia refers to men who fetish the idea of being a woman and often have a history of transvestic fetishism involving masturbating while wearing women’s apparel. Often the items are stolen from relatives or sometimes strangers. The term was coined by Ray Blanchard in 1985.

This is the final of a series, you can read the rest below:


Suggestions for change 

Raymond makes a number of suggestions for change to reduce the seductive route of “transsexualism”. The proposals stop short of making it illegal.

The legislation proposed would address the issue of sex role stereotyping that harms women, in particular, but also men who don’t adhere to the expectations for the male sex.

Sadly, in 2022, the teaching in our schools has moved from teaching sex stereotypes to teaching the idea one can literally be born in the wrong body. I covered quite a few of these teaching materials in this series. 👇 (State sponsored propaganda)

Transgender Guidance: Education

There were more suggestions which would help women and girls as well as gender non-conforming boys and men. Girls would have something to aspire to be as adults, men who fetishise women as “weak” won’t have a stereotype to flee towards. At the same time softening the aggressive, male stereotype, will help the none fetishistic type of “trans” identified males who flee their sex because of a rejection of this stereotype. Both types of males need to be educated out of the false idea that women are a universal “mother” who owe them protection.

If Janice Raymond had been listened to how many of our young gay males (my son), Lesbians, autistic kids and kids in care could we have saved? She said this over 40 years ago! 👇Instead we gave the Gender Industrial Complex free rein.

Instead of telling those suffering from a disconnect from their sex Raymond suggests consciousness raising. Rather than “affirming” their belief they are the wrong sex, and activating the conveyor belt to hormones and surgery, they would be supported to do explore their subconscious motivations. They would become actors in their own narrative not passive fodder for the “Gender Industrial Complex” .

Rather than creating a lifelong medical patient we could empower an alternative path for men /women in flight from the socially prescribed “gender performance” for their sex.

Like feminist consciousness raising these are steps that the “transsexual” counselling could take. 👇

This would allow the exploration of issues affecting the subject and their impact on society, broadening out an individual tragedy to a societal trend. Raymond is also keen to recognise that it must be the “transsexuals” themselves who must lead these groups. In 2022 we know that many of these males do deserve the term “deviant” but for those males who are not autogynephile we would probably use the term “men who deviate from male sex stereotypes”. 👇

Exploring the idea that gender non conforming men are not “females trapped in male bodies” may just supply a new narrative that saves these men from a life of hormones and surgery.

Why is it not acceptable to say that the primary motivations should be to save these males ( and females) from a lifetime dependence on medical intervention? Is there any other condition where we argue that it is bigoted not to wish people with “gender dysphoria” to recover?

Below 👇 Raymond points to the wider harms of perpetuating sex stereotypes which is a side effect of the belief that a “lady brain” can be born in a man’s body. Men and women who are not inclined to the stereotypical behaviour, for their sex, could be a force for good in challenging sex stereotypes. Instead they are “tamed” by the Gender Industrial Complex so that the stereotypes remain intact.

To accomplish this we need to take the treatment away from those who are ideologically (or financially) invested in creating lifelong medical patients.

Furthermore we need to hear more from those who oppose the medical “solution” such as Charles Ihlenfeld who abandoned the field having become disillusioned.

This is another quote from Ihlenfeld:

Raymond also suggested we need to hear more from people who resolved their own gender dysphoria without resorting to medical treatment.

Sadly, in 2022, the voices we are hearing from are those who have had physical interventions and now regret it.
We also need to stop promoting “trans” as a lifestyle choice. This is what the media coverage was like in 1979, how much worse it is in the 21st Century? The media has effectively acted as the marketing branch of the Gender Industrial Complex for decades.

It is critical that we hear from homosexual men and Lesbians who reconciled to their sex and sexuality as well as women, of all sexual orientations, who know what it is like to find the burden of being a woman, in a misogynist culture, oppressive.

Those caught up in this belief system need to know that the problem’s manifesting as a belief in “trans” identification are normal reactions to the straitjacket of societally enforced sex stereotypes. It is natural, even inevitable, to rebel against these expectations. It can be resolved in your natal sex by bravely, and stunningly, rocking a gender non-conforming life!


In conclusion I find Raymond’s book astonishingly prescient, thorough and compassionate. If only I had encountered it earlier and her warnings had been heeded. I sense that she felt she would be dismissed as scaremongering but, if anything, her darkest predictions pale against the 2022 reality. I can’t wait to start her new book.

You can support my work here or consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack.

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


Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire 7


This is the penultimate part of my series on this book. It was written in 1979 but is a must read for anyone wishing to understand the origins of this movement and the implications for women’s rights and gay rights, especially Lesbians.

You can find the rest of the series here:


This is the final chapter of the book, before the Appendix.


The chapter opens with an interrogation of the historical origins of the myths surrounding androgyny. I will skip over this part but if you are interested in delving this is the chapter for you. Moving into more modern times, Raymond argues that the concept of “androgyny” pretends to be about this 👇

In reality the concept of androgyny leaves the dualism “masculine v feminine” intact and postulates the idea of two inadequate halves:

As Mary Daly called it:

The “transsexual” accepts this dualism and modifies his, or her, body to fit either the “masculine” or “feminine” archetype rather than attempting to transcend the limitations of a normative idea of what it means to be male or female. The male constructed “woman” accepts the truth of these stereotypes and adopts risky and invasive medical/surgical treatments to carve those stereotypes into, and out of, his flesh. This, it should be obvious, is antithetical to a true women’s rights project.

What should tolerance look like?

Raymond was aware that her attitude would be dismissed as intolerance and bigotry and she has some thoughts about “tolerance”. The concept of a “transsexual” shores up a sexist society and, moreover, it is not in the best interests of the individuals who place their bodies at the disposal of the Gender Industrial Complex. A treatment pathway governed by integrity would engage in consciousness raising to allow the “transsexual” subject to examine the sexist underpinnings of his belief system and attempt to reconcile with his biological sex.

Here is what she had to say on the pseudo-tolerance that is asked of women re the issue of “transsexuals” .

#BeKind = #BeCompliant

This is a false “tolerance” that does not serve the transsexual well and the way women are exhorted to #BeKind and uncritical of “gender clinics”, or their customers, looks more like an oppressive tactic than a genuine call for compassion. It’s really #BeCompliant.

This is socially prescribed “tolerance” compelling women to accept our impersonators when nobody told the black community they had to accept Rachel Dolezal. Given that this now includes the sterilisation of children as young as 10, in the U.K, I don’t think calling it “evil” is hyperbole.

Raymond also raises the spectre of “polysurgery” in which the “transsexual” pursues ever more surgery to “correct” his features which fail to conform to the ideal “feminine”. Thus breast implants, facial feminisation surgery, shaving of the adam’s apple and even re-situating the hair line. Not to mention electrolysis and speech therapy all aside from the removal of the testicles, inversion of the penis and a life times dependence on synthetic hormones. All the time knowing they are seeking the unattainable:

Or as per Jan Morris 👇

Raymond hits on an important reason why women have found themselves expressing sympathy with men who are uncomfortable with their bodies. There is barely a woman alive who doesn’t understand this 👇.

The difference is that feminists became critics of the sexism inherent in the inculcation of bodily hatred in the female sex: 👇. Raymond poses the question of why persons, afflicted with a conflict about their sexed body, don’t band together to address the underlying reasons rather than hand themselves over to the medico-industrial complex?

Raymond also asks if the revolutionary potential of the “transsexual” has not just been neutered by the gender industry their plight has also been used, to great effect, in the new backlash against feminism/women’s rights.

The scale of this backlash has become clear in the last decade as men take women’s places in sport and politics and the word “woman” is being erased; even when talking about issues that only affect the female sex.

Quite apart from the negative consequences for the “trans” patient there are wider ramifications that ripple out to wider society such that this “individualist” solution has had devastating consequences, mainly for women.

Women are waking up to the consequences of this ideology for our rights and even our ability to name ourselves and exclude men from any spaces where we are vulnerable or organising to defend /advance our rights.

You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received.

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


Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire 6


Chapter V

In this chapter Raymond looks at the ethics of, so-called “sex reassignment surgeries” and their impact on individuals and society. What has come to pass is far worse than anticipated even though Raymond felt her dystopian predictions would be disbelieved.

The medical model has emboldened the medical priests in service of the Gender Industrial Complex to extend their practices far further than anticipated in 1979. We had not yet begun to experiment with puberty blockers for children.

The medical model prioritises surgical responses to a psychological problem. In 2022 the extensive evaluation has been jettisoned in favour of immediate affirmation and prompt access to hormonal treatments, followed by surgeries. The “transsexual” subject is not encouraged to challenge their discomfort with normative “gender” roles but, instead, to modify their body the better to perform a role more in keeping with their inclination.

As Raymond points out there is nothing revolutionary in this approach it is, in fact socially conservative, especially in relation to internalised homophobia. We are encouraging young homosexuals to retreat into a faux-straight medicalised closet.

The Gender Clinics have a monopoly on the “synthetic sex identity” business and do their best to restrict critics of the affirmative model or the practice itself. It is not in their interests to question the belief in “born in the wrong body” because their business model depends on a belief in “trans” ideology.

Raymond also makes the excellent point that any revolutionary potential in those at odd with the sex stereotypes is contained, neutered, in effect, by sex-conversion practices. Instead of rejecting the sex stereotypes they are, instead, having an opposite sex stereotype carved into, and out of their flesh.

Those designated “transsexuals” could turn their discomfort into real social protest and ally with feminists, gay men and Lesbians to disrupt normative expectations for their sex. Instead the social determinants for their dilemma are hidden by a process of mystification by the Gender priests. It is just the new face of defeatism against the sex hierarchy

Hormonal /Surgical interventions thus act as a social tranquilliser.

Raymond reminds us that the man who invented lobotomies won the Nobel prize. His patients were taken from mental health units and it has been well documented that this demographic is riddled with competing mental health diagnoses.

Another way in which Raymond was prescient was her speculation about the social control dimension which is masked by notions of “informed consent”. The notion of consent means the transsexuals are not seen as coercively controlled /manipulated into this solution but as enthusiastic participants. This was in 1979 before we had “Gender Identity Ideology” propaganda indoctrinating our kids from their nursery days. The Gender Identity Ideologues groom our kids so that the destination of the gender clinic has been normalised for a generation.

Writing from a U.S perspective Raymond speculates about the consequences if the Gender Industry was state run. In the U.K we have watched that play out in the U.K. with the state sponsored spread of Gender Identity Ideology now taught as “fact” in many (most) U.K schools and Universities. Raymond also anticipates the large scale social engineering we have witnessed unfold over a decade, aided by the internet.

At this point Raymond, almost apologetically, raises the expected skeptical reaction to her dystopian vision. Her prediction was eerily accurate. She also hits on another feature of this topic. People don’t want to believe it even now when it has clearly panned out as Raymond predicted. Though, I would argue, on a much larger scale than even she, would have predicted.

Raymond also points to the experimental nature of these surgeries and known cancer risks from exogenous hormones. She also speculated aboutthe lack of discussion about the pain from these procedures. This is very common from the YouTube generation who minimise the negative medical consequences from their surgeries. ( In the U.K we may just be puncturing this denial as new waves of detransitioners share their post operative complications).

One of Raymond’s theories is that their is a masochistic aspect to these surgery subjects; almost as if the pain to be reborn as your authentic self is worth it, or a rite of passage which shows they really are a “woman” or “man”. Speaking personally I would not rule out some sadists in the Doctors / Surgeons working in this field. I have no doubt that some get a perverse kick out of “forced feminising” males or mutilating teenage girls. Yes, this is dark but there are dark minds at work in this field.

It is worth posting Raymond talking about John Postgate at this point. Postgate was a microbiologist at Sussex University. He proposed a male pill to limit the number of female children. (This did not get a mention in his Guardian Obituary. Ironically he had three daughters himself.). This is a dark proposal and it gets worse when he speculated about the social consequences.

Informed Consent.

In the modern context the notion of “informed consent” seems little more than a means of trying to dodge legal liability. There is also the vexed question of children as young ten “consenting” to puberty blockers. Again Raymond was ahead of the game questioning how the “transsexual” could really give meaningful “informed consent” to these experimental procedures. For Raymond the transsexual subject is not encouraged to explore the societal conditioning that created this mind/body split in the first place.

There follows a lengthy section on parallels with the Nazi experiments which included one 13 year old boy who is reported as having been turned “into a woman”. This is interspersed with Richard Green lamenting that there has not been enough willingness to use “transsexual” subjects to further research in this field. The relevance of this line of enquiry is summed up by this quote.

The other issue that should concern us all is what this says about our priorities. This 👇 still holds true 50 + years later.

Finally Raymond was ahead of the curve with this prediction: I will wager even she did not anticipate the rate of growth over this last decade.

If you can support my work you can do so here. Thank you in advance.

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


Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire 5


This is part of a series. You can find a link to Janice’s superb work and marvel that she predicted much of what is unfolding in 1979! Lesbians really are the canary in the coal mine on women’s rights and we owe our Lesbian sisters a great debt.

The last chapter included this quote, from 1973! In include it again here because it frames this chapter beautifully.

Raymond has an interesting footnote to this chapter explaining why she really did not want to write the chapter but felt she must. Even in 1979 there were some Lesbians keen to accept men who claimed to be both women and lesbians. Raymond was clearly keen not to amplify the divisions except for a damn good reason. This topic is the very best of reasons and we can now see how it played out all those decades later. Lesbians were removed from Pride Cymru for protesting the #CottonCeiling and Lesbians in Tasmania have lost the right to exclude males from Lesbian events. In 1979 things were just starting down this path.

The “transsexual” community would have been much smaller in 1979 but Raymond argues that their presence raises important issues for feminism.

The nature of the men claiming to be Lesbians was on display even 50 years ago as they inveigled their way into Lesbian/Women’s groups and rose to prominence.

Raymond notes that a trans identified male, Sandy Stone, took a role in a purported all women venture, Olivia Records. This became quite a contentious issue and Raymond noted that, had he been sincere, he would have recused himself rather than stoke divisions.

She mentions Renee Richard (“trans” identified tennis player) as causing similar issues and another name with which I was not familiar. 👇 Barsky seems to be somewhat in the tradition of Mridul Wadhwa, in Scotland, who infiltrated a rape crisis centre and became the Chief Executive.

Raymond’s point is that despite their small numbers these “lesbian identified” males bring with them a male energy and don’t have the baggage which comes with being a woman, and a Lesbian. Arguably this makes them more inclined to seek leadership roles and compete for dominance within the women’s organisations. Their numbers may be small but their impact is out of proportion to their numbers.

Raymond draws an analogy with the historic use of Eunuchs to control the leader’s harem.

Raymond cautions women to remember the role of eunuchs to police women’s spaces and notes that it was these men who were able to invade those spaces where other men were excluded. This gives them privilege over other men and the attraction of female only spaces is appealing to these men. All the more appealing is Lesbian spaces, which are women centred and therefore the ultimate validation for men who identify as women.

To Raymond the “transsexual lesbian” is a boundary violator who uses deception, where he passes to trick his way into female only, Lesbian, events but she was opposed by some Lesbians.👇

This conflict has played out in the U.K with prominent Lesbians (Ruth Hunt, Nancy Kelley and Linda Riley, to name a few) having taken a lead role in dismantling lesbian boundaries. It is perhaps the case that the aforementioned were simply motivated by money /career advancement but Raymond argues there are complex reasons for the way in which Lesbians have been seduced into accepting “male lesbians”.

Some may be naive and draw a false equivalence between the historic oppression of Lesbians and the new oppressed class of the “transsexual”. Some may not quite of shaken off an assumption of male superiority. Some were responding, as women, accepting a care giving role to this group.

Others are grateful to have been noticed in their struggle by any male and some, she argues, are acting from the remnants of being male-identified and subconsciously or otherwise prioritising men’s rights over their own. The effect of this incursion is to sap women’s energy, cause division and force women to fight battles on Patriarchal terms.

Raymond questions whether anyone has the right to “self-define” in a way that impacts on another group. We don’t look kindly on those who self-identify as black. for example. Whether it is biology or socialisation or a combination of the two the fact is men are different to women. “Transsexuals” may indeed have their own issues to resolve but the place to do so is not in women’s groups.

Furthermore, she continues, the “transsexual” is from the same stable as penthouse depictions of lesbians, a man made version of what a woman is.

As it is 1979 there is no coverage of autogynephilia which casts even more light on heterosexual men who identify as lesbians. Cotton Ceiling rhetoric had, presumably. reached the same heights as it has today. Even without these darker manifestations Raymond had a very clear understanding of the pitfalls of lowering boundaries for the benefit of *any* males.

You can support my work below. Only if you are able and don’t prioritise me above any legal cases That said any donations help.

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


Janice Raymond:Transsexual Empire 4


Chapter III

This chapter packs a lot in so I will devote an entire post to it. Raymond covers the way mothers are blamed for their “transsexual” son and daughters. She then unpicks the way stereotypical sex (ist) role expectations shape the “trans” narrative. The “fathers” of this ideology are steeped in sexist assumptions about women and normative expectations for their male subjects. The “mothers” are to blame and the male architects of this ideology are blameless or, even worse, heroes for rescuing these “defective” males (according to their ideology, not mine) and providing a role for them.

The “transsexual” subject is expected to perform woman face effectively, to access medical treatment; they must “pass” as women to be allowed the feminising treatments. It is worth noting that this “passing” includes using women’s spaces thus pressing women into service as, unwitting /unwilling validation aids.

Robert Stoller is one of the male figures behind this ideology. He also “blames the mother”.

Apparently we are afflicted with penis envy, we are dominant and assertive and we project our envy onto our sons.

The fathers are absent and the marriages are failing. Not because of the absent father but because of the dominant, assertive or depressed mother. We are also to blame if this afflicts the daughter.

Richard Green puts more emphasis on the role of peers in the making of the “transsexual” child.

We don’t escape criticism entirely. Now we are too prone to providing our child with a surfeit of emotional support, co-sleeping etc. Every generation the rules about what makes a good mother change which serves to make every generation “wrong” and severs contact with the previous generation of mothers; who have their advice dismissed as old-fashioned. The absent father is a repetitive theme but he seems to escape the opprobrium dished out to the mothers, quelle surprise!

Green also espouses biological causes for the condition which, I imagine, is also the mothers fault for having an inhospitable womb. He also considers that societal acceptance of a “deviant sexuality” plays a role; by which he means homosexuality.

It is the lack of acceptance for the homosexual male that is also a driver for the wish to be “female” and Green speculates that increasing societal acceptance may lessen this desire.

It’s a tragedy that, rather than fighting for real acceptance of homosexuals, organisations like Stonewall pivoted to “trans activism” thereby introducing a new homophobia into the purported “gay rights” struggle.

This point and Raymond’s note are tragic in the consequences for our gay boys, now on the Turing Treatment rather than embraced as the gay men they are.

“Transsexual” voices.

Raymond quotes extensively from a study by Thomas Kando on “transsexuals”. As a group they show the greatest respect for males and express highly regressive perspectives on women. Below is an interesting footnote on the laws surrounding prostitution in 1970’s Louisiana. 😳

The “transsexuals” in Kando’s study aspire to roles they equate with femininity. Here is a sample: 👇

They tend to embody sex stereotypes and express hostility and competition with women; a competition in which they can present themselves as the likely victor, as if man made women are the superior kind.

Their need to be validated involves an adherence to sexist stereotypes in order to sharply differentiate themselves from men.

Take Jan Morris who was a married father and successful journalist before embracing his “inner” woman. The concept of autogynephilia doesn’t appear in Transsexual Empire but may make an appearance in Raymond’s new book “Doublethink”. Morris seemed to meet a lot of the diagnostic criteria. Here he is talking out his new life and celebrating the sexual objectification at the hands of a man.

There were a lot of fawning interviews with Morris by women who regard themselves as feminists. I was astonished how blatant his sexism was in his book Conundrum, but to be fair, to his female interviewers, many of us were late to understand autogynephilia.

One of the participants, without a trace of awareness, expressed their views about child rearing again emphasising how deeply they adhere to sex stereotypes.

Still another expressed blatant homophobia. Something I have seen expressed a lot in this context. It seems having the “trans” label allows a man to say he is only attracted to “straight” men and get a free pass, despite what this betrays about their attitude to homosexuals. The men have to be men who are attracted to women to validate the male to female constructed “transsexual”.

Such attitudes are not uncommon as exemplified by Juno Dawson who described his fiancé as “straight” and once argued being a gay man was a consolation prize for those not “transitioned”.

Kando concludes that “transsexuals” are reactionary in their views. The “Uncle Toms” of the gender wars.

Raymond writes that Kando does not seem to appreciate the significance of his findings. His subjects have just swapped one set of stereotypes for another leaving society wholly unchanged. In part the gender industrial complex shares the blame because adopting a stereotypical performance “as a woman” was part of the process of being accepted for surgery. If it is the stereotypes that give rise to the condition of “transsexualism” propping them up will perpetuate “gender dysphoria”. It is, sadly, far easier to blame the mother than to tackle the deep rooted sex sterotypes that burden women and even men.

A Lesbian speaks.

Even in 1973 there had were Lesbians opposing the infiltration of “feminised” males into Lesbian spaces. Here is Robin Morgan speaking out. 👇

Raymond makes it clear, in this chapter, that the “transsexual” project is antithetical to women’s rights. It shores up the patriarchal norms used to limit women’s lives. Men who choose this role and claim it is the only way to be an authentic “woman” are men’s rights activists.

You can support my work here. Only if you are salaried and can afford to contribute. My work is open but donations help keep the wolf from the door.

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



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.

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


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.


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”.


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.

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


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


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.


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.

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