WPATH: Guidelines V 8 {1}


World Professional Ass. for Transgender Health.

WPATH set the treatment protocols for “Transgender” health that guide organisations the world over. You can download the full guidance here: 👇

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People Version 8

The new guidance, published in 2022, adds a section for Eunuchs who are now to be included under the, ever expanding, transgender umbrella.

This organisation is listened to by the U.K. NHS. Those endorsing this guidance include Marci Bowers, President Elect of WPATH, who I wrote about here:

Marci Bowers

This is a reminder of a public statement made by Bowers about the impact of puberty blockers on sexual pleasure. Bowers still signed off this document.

Also signing this off was Diane Ehrensaft. She is infamous for telling parents how pre-verbal babies can signal their “gender”. It might be a girl who tears barrettes out of her hair to tell you she is a boy. Or this example 👇 of a boy who signalled his discomfort with his sex, she claims, by unsnapping his onesie.

Diane Ehrensaft was also associated with the discredited accusations of ritual, satanic abuse back in the 1980’s/1990’s. You can find a lot of her presentations on YouTube. This is another example of her magical thinking. This woman is taken seriously. 😳.

In the U.K the guidance is endorsed by the Nottingham “Transgender” clinic and the local University, Medical school.

Chapter 1 covers terminology and settles on “Transgender” and “Gender Diverse” but makes it clear these were not uncontroversial choices and notes that other cultures may use different terms; a theme expanded on in Chapter 2. Estimates of the “transgender” population are covered in the third Chapter recognising there are higher numbers selecting a “gender diverse” identity in the younger population; hardly a surprise since they have had gender identity ideology rammed down their throats for up to a decade. Chapter 4 is a long winded reminder to #EducateYourself in which they exhort govt. bodies, healthcare providers etc to learn about the “transgender population”.


I am going to skip over what they have to say about assessing adults and go straight to Chapter 6 and assessment of adolescents. They note the spike in teenage referrals and the over-representation of females and they are still describing puberty blockers as “fully reversible

At the same time they are keen to point out that a natural puberty is “irreversible” leaving lasting changes to the body. One of those changes, for male children, is penile growth, those who have puberty blocked will have stunted genitalia and, as a result, operations to mimic female genitalia will be much more problematic.

WPATH contradict themselves numerous times in this chapter. Here 👇 they talk of the dangers of “extended” pubertal suppression and potential impact on neurodevelopment. This calls into question WPATH’s own claim that they are “fully reversible”. They recommend against prolonged useage. Predictably, they use this “danger” to argue for the earlier introduction of cross sex hormones.

They also recognise that brain maturation continues into the mid 20’s ; which concerns those of us who have children who embarked on these drugs in their late teens.

It is worth quoting the factors, listed below, in teenagers who embark on irreversible changes to their bodies. Increased risk taking, a sense of urgency, peer pressure all raised as potential influences with adolescents embarking on “gender affirming” treatments.

The authors do at least reference Lisa Littman’s research on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria but cast doubt on its validity for these reasons: 👇. A biased sample drawn from parents skeptical about “affirmation” as a protocol.


Littman also undertook some work on detransition which I cover below: 👇

Littman and Detransition

WPATH admit there is a dearth of follow up studies on youth transitioners especially any that track them up until adulthood. 👇 A systematic review is therefore not possible. Remember we have been doing this for 25 years!

They then quote the “only” study to follow into children into adulthood but note this is only from 13 to 20 years old, right before brain maturation, which is expected to continue to around age 25. This is a study 👇 is from 2014. We are now in 2022!

They also cover another study and the author has accused them, publicly, of misrepresented their work. He believes that detransition is underestimated, contrary to the claims made by WPATH.

Because the phenomenon is now undeniable they do cover detransition. In this survey 25% had detransitioned before age 25.

You can read my series on detransition here 👇


Despite concern that there is a social contagion element to kids identifying as “gender diverse” the authors continue to push for promotion of “transgender” identities as a simple variation in nature that has existed since the beginning of civilisation. Certainly there have always been people who struggled to live within, rigidly enforced, sex stereotypes, many of whom were simply gay/lesbian. Claiming there have always been “trans” people on the back of gender non-conforming homosexuals is blatant propaganda. The existence of synthetic sex identities emerged only in the last century.

Plus ca Change.

This is the long list of demands WPATH issue which are all likely to continue the “social contagion” by promoting the idea that “gender identity” is real and a more meaningful category than biological sex. All this will do is continue to encourage excessive rumination and a search for meaning under the ever expanding list of “gender identities”.

Number 11 is an instruction to make toilets mixed sex, once again disregarding the need, especially for females, for sex separated facilities. A major impediment to the spread of this ideology would be the removal of any such incentives. It cannot be good for your mental health to hand your sense of self over to other people’s presumed perception of you as male or female. This need for validation of your identity drives ever more authoritarian moves to force society to collude with this most basic of untruths. This creates a false of reality and a danger of it all crashing down when the compulsion to believe your “gender identity” is non-existent.

Emotional Blackmail of parents.

They continue with a long list of adverse consequences, including suicide, for parents who don’t express 100% support for the synthetic sex identity. Parents are to be force-teamed into agreeing with the medicalisation of their children and even used to justify earlier surgeries on the grounds they can help with “post-operative” care. This is also used to justify earlier surgeries.

And heaven forfend you suggest that reconciling to your biological sex /sexuality is the healthier outcome. That would be “Conversion Therapy”. 👇 I cannot think of any other “condition” where doctors are actively discouraged from trying to avoid a life times dependence on drugs.

Breast binding and Tucking.

Instead WPATH recommend the promotion of breast binding and tucking male genitalia, despite the health risks.

Here is a list of side effects from using breast binders:

For tucking a significant risk is testicular torsion. 👇 Sounds a bit grim.


There is clearly no appetite for addressing the concerns raised by rising rates of detransitioners and WPATH have opted to include these surgeries for under 18’s. Here are their recommendations. They list includes orchiectomy, vaginaplasty, hysterectomy, facial feminisation surgery and phalloplasty.

Phalloplasty is included even though, elsewhere, they recommend against it, for under 18’s because of the high rate of complications.

There is some quoted research on orgasmic potential for those undertaking a “vaginaplasty” which claims 84% will be able to achieve orgasm. Which means 16% will not and, crucially, they do not include figures on what point the males had their puberty suppressed. This means they are not presenting any data allowing us to extrapolate orgasmic potential for those who have had puberty suppressed from a young age.

Despite this the document pushes for earlier “Gender Affirming Health Care” (GAHT) for under 16’s including double mastectomies for minors.

Human Rights Groups

We must never forget that all of this is advocated by, formerly respected, human rights organisations. Amnesty International is one such and they are also quoted in this document. This Mengele medicine would never have reached this stage without putative claims this is a new Civil Rights cause.

I will do a series and cover the other chapters. Next up the section on children.

You can support my work here if you want to tip the balance away from 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: 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.



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.


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.


Martine Rothblatt: A Billion Sexes!


Chapter 1.

This is part of a series on this book. This is the second edition. The original title was The Apartheid Of Sex.

In this edition Rothblatt elaborates on his original thesis and introduces us to the real project. A new type of human. Human Avatars.


I am allowing myself a wry chuckle at Rothblatt’s attempt to claim there are more than two sexes and also that “transgenderism” is a grassroots movement and labelling male and female is akin to South African apartheid. He also claims this emerged from feminist thinking which is a familiar distortion and, sadly, has convinced many a woman who claims the feminist label.

Rothblatt uses the fact that men and women don’t tend to adhere to sex stereotypes as an argument that male and female is a continuum. It is certainly true that many, I would even say most, people do not perform a pure Barbie or a G.I. Joe; I would argue that uber conformist “feminine” women or “masculine” men are a minority. If we were to draw up a list of characteristics, traditionally associated with either sex, I challenge you to find one person of your acquaintance who doesn’t deviate. This could be my body building, HGV driving, brother who is afraid of spiders and enjoys bird watching (feathered variety) and does a mean Beyoncé impression. Or his dynamo of an ex wife, a diminutive blonde, who dealt with the said spiders and is super ambitious, a leader and a force to be reckoned with. Rothblatt recognises all of this but, for him, it adds up to “Men can become women”; all entirely unconnected to his own identification as a “transgender woman” I am sure. 🤔

Sex assigned at birth.

The first step in embedding this ideology is to claim the identification of sex is problematic. Sadly the NHS and the British Medical Journal have both adopted this terminology. In fact there are a tiny number of babies, with an indeterminate sex at birth. A simple Karyotype test will confirm the biological sex and which disorder of sexual development (DSD) he, or she, suffers from. Each of these DSDs affect either males or females, conforming that we are, in fact sexually dimorphic.

Martina’s biology lets him down here because the vagina is not visible: he means the vulva. He is right that the life a baby will have be shaped from the moment they are dressed in pink or blue. The baby will be treated differently in conscious and unconscious ways. Girl babies are left to cry for longer, for example, boys rewarded for “cheeky” behaviour and girls admonished etc, etc.

From this Rothblatt leaps to the idea that sex is not immutable but is a “lifestyle choice”. Notice all these conclusions validate his choice to “live as a woman” whatever that means. Methinks the wish is father to the thought.