In the now-famous book, The Art of War, the author Sun Tzu, writes:
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
It is not enough for activists fighting for the reality of sex against the anti-reality marketing of the gender industry to take a multi-faceted approach and accept that we have different formulas of resistance. An effective strategy would have some baseline of acceptance in practices that reflect what we are fighting for, or we risk becoming inconsistent and illogical.
Part of the problem in the fight against the reality-denying gender industry is we don’t have leaders that meet from various organizations to take stock of actions and evaluate and formulate baseline strategies and tactics together that can be tailored to different aspects of the fight.
Beyond that, we must clarify what "transgenderism" is and is not.
There is no such thing as a “transgender” person. “Transgender” is a techno-medical complex (TMC) ad campaign creating the illusion that there is a subset of humanity that is not male or female to market drugs, surgeries, surgical supplies, special clinics, particular surgeons, research, and sterilization of young people who will need medical care for their entire lives. These young men and women will also be dependent on reproductive technology in the future. Enter: Big Fertility. As well as having written about the gender industry roots in the TMC, I have written recently about corporatists funneling money into gender clinics and simultaneously investing in fertility developments.
Medical identities are a product, "transgender" is a brand, and the “transgender” flag is a logo. The “trans” flag is no more representative of people than the whoosh of the Nike logo is representative of sneakers.
“Transgender” emerged from “transsexual” which is also not a subcategory of the human species but a group of people choosing a specific set of drugs and surgeries marketed to provide an illusion or satiate a desire. “Transgenderism” is the better ad as it broadens the bandwidth of people who will choose the drugs and surgeries. The marketing demographic is no longer solely adult men but teens and children, which takes the TMC profiteering into the future. It also broadens the bandwidth of surgeries, such as nullification or non-binary variations. Attacking the premise of “transgenderism” would be a good overall strategy for pro-reality activists.
The ties to the TMC currently being ignored can reveal what others don’t see, what is being obscured by a human rights narrative if we make the connections clear. It is obvious that hundreds of gender clinics for children emerging across the world in less than a decade, that these children are being sterilized, will profit the TMC. Consistently pointing this out to people would help others understand the profiteering underway. Showing people why women are being silenced, vilified, and our social power obliterated will have more impact if we make the connections to industrial profiteering poised for a technological takeover of our reproductive capacities. This is how the Opioid epidemic was quelled. The Sackler family was exposed, along with the TMC profiteering and the damage being done. Those invested in the TMC, who are behind the gender industry, also have names that should be repeated.
A recently leaked document from the Transgender Law Center (TLC), which is funded by the largest LGBT NGO in the world, driving gender ideology globally, exhibits what we are up against: people that are organized, that have evaluated strategies to win, and are now going to change their tactics because they aren’t practical to what they want to accomplish. Calling attention not just to what the document says but that it has been funded by a multi-billion-dollar medical corporation (Stryker Medical) through Arcus Foundation is an important context to include.
Many groups fighting the gender industry still platform people who appropriate the body of the opposite sex and are positioning them as allies within their organizations. Appropriating the body of the opposite sex is the pinnacle of sexual objectification, treating others as if their sexed reality were parts to be purchased in a Sears catalog. This could not have happened in a society that hadn’t already reduced women to sexual objects in the porn, prostitution, and surrogacy industries. These individuals, however nice they may or may not be, or how anyone feels about them, should be at least a hundred miles from any organization or individual fighting the gender industry because they are a living example of the problem (the illusion being marketed by the TMC). It doesn’t mean they have nothing to offer the world, or that no one should befriend them, or that everyone hates them, but it is a horrible tactic to have them platformed in a movement meant to tear down the gender industry. This is true for many reasons, not least of which is that it is sending an incoherent, double message to those who we are trying to reach.
Activists fighting the gender industry often lapse into using the language used by the TMC to advertise their drugs and surgeries. We say: “transgender athletes,” “trans-identifying people,” “transphobic,” instead of reframing questions asked of us in interviews that refuse the premise of “trans” as people. No one IS “trans.” People purchase surgeries and drugs that promise an illusion. Adopting terms like opposite-sex performers, medical sex performers, or other variations that don’t use our opponent’s language should be discussed, evaluated, and tried out for effectiveness in discussing the people who make these purchases. They are not a third sex. They are people who choose to purchase specific drugs & surgeries to support an illusion they choose for many reasons. They are not a coherent group of individuals.
Instead of listing men’s greater physical strength when discussing the issue of men in women’s sports, which everyone is already aware of, we might ask: Who decided on these changes and why? Why are societies worldwide rapidly being changed for a small part of the population who purchase drugs & surgeries? Who is funding these changes, and why? Calling attention to people who decide to take drugs & have surgeries puts the responsibility for their exclusion from their sexed sports on them. Decisions/choices have consequences.
Asking the right questions, instead of answering the wrong ones, can potentially put our opponents on the defense instead of women having to explain why our rights are essential. This is a skill that takes considered planning and practice. I am offering suggestions, but this can’t replace a coordinated effort of a broad constituency to create successful strategies. How will we get around using the terms set by our opponents? How will we help others understand what is happening? What will force our opponents to engage on our terms instead of allowing ourselves to be led into unproductive conversations?
This is what Sun Tzu meant when he wrote, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war.”
If people can be sold the idea that men can be women and that sex is not accurate, then other people with a little context provided can understand that the attack on women is corporate colonization - a technological takeover of human reproduction for profit and that children are grist for this corporate medical mill.
What is more believable?
Billions of years of evolution leading to human sexual dimorphism have somehow got it all wrong, or the corporate profiteering of the techno-medical complex, projected to reach ten trillion dollars this year, is opening markets in human sex?
When people realize entirely what is at stake, that this fight is not about some marginalized group of people but the industrial deconstruction of human sex for profit, they will organize and act, and we will win.
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.
