Updated: Oct 15
“Transgenderism” is an ad campaign selling body dissociation for profiteering with the fervor of a technological, religious cult. It is not a sub-category of humanity. Some people have surgeries & take drugs to perform the opposite sex, or more recently, sexlessness. They’re just men and women. We solidify a corporate illusion by referring to them as a particular category of human beings, a reverence we do not bestow on people who’ve had other types of body modification surgeries. There are no category titles or reverence for people who’ve had surgeries on their noses, or liposuction, for instance.
“Transgender” does not work to effectively define individuals or a group of people for communication purposes, let alone legally. It is vague and in constant flux. Linguistically, definitions seek to clarify communication. The word “transgender” does precisely the opposite. It sells through obfuscation. It works well as an ad campaign because it draws on people’s very personal experiences and feelings regarding their sex and sexual expressions. People are mistaking the ad for the thing itself. The reverence is for the illusion created by the ad.
The ad campaign of “transgenderism” is selling us the desexing of humanity as natural, edgy, cool, and progressive. It dons a dress of human rights, like the whoosh of the Nike corporate logo. It conflates sexual dimorphism with feelings about being sexually dimorphic, sexual expression, and sex-specific social roles. It is paid advertising by the techno-medical complex. All the men driving it and capitalizing on it, are deeply invested in the techno-medical complex.
Feelings can be experienced as very real, but they are not materially accurate in the same way sex is materially real, or gravity is materially accurate. You may profess undying love for another person based on how you feel and hate them so much several years later that you will do anything to ruin them, but what goes up must come down, whatever your feelings are about this fact. Ditto for the way male and female gametes reproduce the species. Feelings shift and change, sometimes very quickly, even feelings about our sexed bodies. Pippa Bunce, Director of Global Markets Technology Programs at Credit Suisse, changes his feelings about his sexed body every few days. The illusion being paraded that sexual dimorphism is the feeling, not the fact, is corporate propaganda that cultivates disassociation from reality for the profiteering of the techno-medical complex. I’ve written reams of material about why this is happening. In this piece, I am more concerned with the illusion itself, how captivating it is, and how it works to allude our rational minds, just like other advertisements.
A recent Daily Mail piece shows us how gender identity ideology, sex-self-ID, and the conflation of feelings about being sexed with the material fact of being part of a sexually dimorphic species become a soup of incoherence. This incoherence supports the ad campaign of “transgenderism,” precisely because it obscures the advertising marketing an ideology of disembodiment with the branding of human rights. The Mercedes Benz corporation uses sexually objectified females & the promise of great sexual encounters to coax men to buy their expensive cars the way those selling body dissociation for-profit use an illusion of changing sex to sell hormones, surgeries, and future fertility treatments to those whom they have sterilized. Beyond this, it is selling a promise of humanity that goes beyond our bodies into a future melded to a web of technology, where we can be anything we wish to be.
The reporters at the Daily Mail discuss how the results of sex-self-ID in the UK allow men to shop and try on clothing in women’s dressing rooms at high-end retail shops. Their sense of incredulity is apparent. How can this be allowed?
Heather Benning of the Women’s Human Rights Network, and Dr. Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women, both quoted in the article, campaign for the safety of women’s and girls’ intimate spaces against the onslaught of men pushing through sex-self-ID laws. Benning believes, like those she campaigns alongside, that “everyone can identify as they wish,” but thinks shops should not be letting men who say they are women into female changing rooms. This is a testament to the power of the “transgender” ad campaign selling body disassociation as a human right. Identifying as the opposite sex is not the problem for Benning but being in women’s spaces while performing womanhood as a man is. She has somehow erased that she wouldn’t be fighting at this front if men were not allowed to identify as anything they wish. Will we be fighting the installation of adult-size changing tables in restrooms next to men identifying as babies? We might if we keep repeating this ridiculous idea that anyone can be anything they identify as.
Dr. Nicola Williams tells us, “this is the whole problem with allowing people to self-identify their sex - it means you don’t have to look transgender or be transgender to be allowed into what should be a women’s only space.” Williams is momentarily caught up in a corporate illusion. She believes the campaign of “transgenderism” magically transforms humans the way other people feel the Nike logo magically transforms sneakers. Dr. Williams, no doubt, knows the transformation on both accounts is not accurate, but she is captivated nonetheless.
Miranda Yardley, a 54-year-old man who describes himself as a post-op transsexual (post-op being the operative word), is quoted in the article, stating, “the surrendering of women’s changing rooms to anyone who claims to be a woman is nothing other than the natural consequence of saying that anybody can be a woman.” Having this pointed out by a man donning facsimiles of women's biology via drugs and surgeries, one who has been platformed by women attempting to thwart the consequences of men performing womanhood in their spaces could give a person vertigo. He is exhibit A of corporate advertising so successful that people buy it while knowing it’s not real - Just as Nike feels like a better sneaker, not made in Chinese sweatshops like other sneakers, even though we know it isn’t true. Yardley is a model in the ad campaign run by the techno-medical complex for body dissociation; however, unwittingly, that role may be for him. He is “really “ “transgender,” because he exists as a "true brand" of the techno-medical complex illusion, his surgeries solidifying their ad. We know he’s just another man, but we are captivated by this idea of transformation anyway.
Nike is not a sneaker. “Transgender” is not a human. Nike is a brand - an ad campaign - selling better sneakers, enhanced sports performance, and athletic motivation to a distinct financial demographic. “Transgenderism” is a brand - an ad campaign - selling “improved” & “liberated” humanity, sex on a spectrum of cool medical-tech identities, to a distinct financial demographic, of especially vulnerable kids.
Debbie Hayton, another man performing womanhood, also exists as the techno-medical complex "true brand" and seems entirely oblivious that he is even starring in an ad campaign. He is exhibit B of this corporate illusion. The article quotes his reaction to high-end shops allowing men in women’s changing rooms: “The shop workers are left in an impossible position,” he says. “Shops have a duty to produce a clear policy they consult on, and everybody understands.”
Ad campaigns are for selling illusions. If they were clear, they wouldn’t be ad campaigns.
This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.