top of page

Let’s Have No More Talk of Dysphoria

Updated: Oct 15, 2022

The media is selling disembodiment as expression, for-profit and they are including free shipping.

In less than a decade, the “transgender” “human rights” “movement” (I am already running out of quotation marks), replete with their own NGOs, has morphed from "born in the wrong body" to “gender identity disorder,” to “gender dysphoria,” to “gender incongruence,” to “gender identity,” to “gender expression,” complete with lines of make-up, fashion and body scars.

Should it be a surprise there is now a contagion of young women wanting to have their healthy breasts amputated? Is it possible they are absorbing the messages that promote body dysphoria as progressive, cool, and edgy by media conglomerates selling this exact message?

The culture was primed for this contagion by the media, which we’re groomed to believe, in most western cultures, is a free and open source of information in democratic societies. Remember all those stories, seven years back, of poor children “born in the wrong body,” boys with a love of the color pink and hair ribbons meant to rip at our heartstrings? Stories of families with young children who like the stereotypical things of the opposite sex flooded the media, across western cultures, constantly with the same narrative: discovery of an unacceptable identity, initial anxiety within the child and the family, and then all of them eventually overcoming the disruption. The families realized it was another “normal” way to be human. Everyone lived happily ever after. Yea, right. The media coincidently forgot to mention all the medical risks and problems for the rest of the child's life. NO BIG DEAL.

Seven years later, we have an epidemic of young women and many young boys as well, threatening their parents with suicide if their parents do not agree to allow their children to take wrong sex hormones and have surgeries on their sex organs on demand. At the same time, medical professionals affirm children’s disordered thinking. Advertising is nothing if not insidious which is what makes it so effective.

On one front, we have Johnson & Johnson marketing these procedures as totally routine “cosmetic” surgeries, surgeons smiling into cameras at gender clinics, cheerleading the most macabre reengineering of healthy human sex organs (open that link at your own risk), reality TV shows and mainstream magazines celebrating the castration of young men.

Men are walking fashion runways in pregnancy prostheses, and young women are being displayed in underwear ad campaigns; their surgery scars from the amputation of healthy breasts being promoted as empowerment. Meanwhile, journalists, academics, and those engaged in politics and policy are all being censored for attempting to critique this by the same media. Is this supposed to be an organic development across countries and media platforms simultaneously?

Hollywood stars “parade their children” who like to wear the clothing associated with the opposite sex, as little accessories in their fashionable lives, for the media. Others are feeding Kool-Aid to young people from magazine spreads who want these surgeries too.

While the media inundates us with these messages, taxpayers are forced to fund operations through new health insurance policies for surgeries on young people's bodies that are not sick or injured. All the while, gender ideology activists and their NGOs supporting the construct of “synthetic sex medical expressions” are depathologizing this monstrosity and attempting to sell the public the idea that sex exists on a spectrum, that human sexual dimorphism is a construct and that expressing how you feel about yourself by having your sex organs surgically rearranged is progressive. Access to wrong sex hormones is being offered to students on university campuses without medical oversight or recommendation. At the same time, LGBT organizations, who fund the media in exchange for the press supporting gender industry delusions, scream, "human rights!!”

Media platforms are owned by massive corporate conglomerates which interface with the medical-industrial complex (MIC). People think they are reading Glamour, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Wired, and The New Yorker, when they are reading Conde’ Nast, a corporate conglomerate with a massive investment in the MIC and gender as a medical identity. Ditto for Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Bazar, Good Housekeeping, Oprah, Seventeen, Women’s Health, etc., which are part of the Hearst media conglomerate, with vast investments in the MIC and the gender industry. Ditto for those watching ABC, ESPN, and Touchstone Pictures (among hundreds of other media platforms) owned by Disney, yet another conglomerate with significant investments in the MIC, including the gender industry. Disney holds high prestige with the LGBT Human Rights Commission for their "diversity & inclusion" policies which are corporate-speak for homogeneity of thought, and have funded $100,000,000 to children's hospitals across the country, including Texas Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, both of which have gender clinics. Pity, the children, caught in this corporate profiteering matrix. Meredith Corporation owns People Magazine (which covered the celebration of a young man's castration party), Parents, In Style, Health, Shap