Search Results

With Nancy Robertson [PART I of 3 Parts] Stella Morabito is a journalist whose work I respect immensely. Her new book “The Weaponization of Loneliness,” is a tour de force examination of how tyrants move populations toward their totalitarian interests. Stella’s perspective as a historian of Russian and Soviet propaganda, is filtered through the lens of Soviet tyranny and herewith is her detailed and brilliant discussion with Nancy Robertson, which I find extremely valuable. I have studied the tyranny underlying the gender industry from a capitalist perspective. In other words: Tyranny, American style. A capitalist market that is unfettered, uncontrolled, and left to run away, by its design, forces all the wealth of society upward, into the hands of oligarchs who then instill their tyranny on the populace via the market, which we see repeatedly with the gender industry and elsewhere. An ideology of transhumanism, positioned as a human right for a male sexual fetish of owning womanhood, is being forced into our universities, institutions, public policies, laws, and language, by capital, and those governing the capital. Oligarchs, such as the Pritzker family, Marc Benioff, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, and capital assets management firms such as Black Rock and Vanguard, who have technological and medical investments in transhumanism and the profits to be garnered from transhumanist augmentations, are tyrannically forcing on the public an ideology that is anti-reality/anti-human. They are doing so with the threat of financial isolation and abandonment from the market, The unfettered capitalist market has functioned as well as any dictator with an ideological bent and a drive for absolute control. It has led to a commoditization of all life, manifesting extreme isolation for all of us, from our families, from our communities, from meaningful rituals, from our land base, and now, with the burgeoning gender industry, from our bodies. All avenues of tyranny lead us to the same dark place from which we will eventually be unable to resist. I hope this discussion inspires you to political action soon. It is my assessment that we are rapidly running out of time to resist this global, totalitarian, juggernaut. Many thanks to Nancy Robertson for outlining and facilitating this important discussion. - Jennifer Bilek The following transcript has been edited for clarity. Nancy Robertson: Today I'm pleased to speak with Stella Morabito, a woman who’s had the most fascinating career. Stella spent ten years working as an analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency where she focused on propaganda and media analysis. She is now a senior contributor at the Federalist, an online magazine that carries her articles that focus on the social fallout of group think, propaganda, and mob psychology. Stella has written an insightful and relevant new book, The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer. This book shines a much-needed spotlight on the rise of totalitarianism which now expresses itself most dramatically in “transgender” ideology. “Transgender” ideology harms us all. It imposes compelled speech, “gender-affirming care” for vulnerable children and adults, and the loss of women’s sports and women’s safe spaces. This pernicious ideology has captured our most important institutions: schools, universities, hospitals, mainstream media, entertainment, corporations, and government. Everyone and everything have been affected. In The Weaponization of Loneliness, Stella explains how tyrants use totalitarian methods such as identity politics, political correctness, and mobs to gain power with devastating results for everyone. Fortunately, Stella doesn't just outline the problem. She explains how the average concerned citizen can work to defeat it. The Weaponization of Loneliness was published by Bombardier Books last year and is available on Amazon. I urge everyone to buy and read this extraordinary book because it will open your eyes and give you the tools and confidence to help defeat one of the greatest threats to humanity. Stella. Welcome. Stella Morabito: Thank you so much, Nancy. It's great to be here with you, and thank you for that introduction. NR: You're very welcome, Stella. Can you tell me about your experience as an analyst for the CIA and how that applies to your current writing on propaganda? SM: I have a master’s degree in Russian and Soviet history. And after I received my degree, I worked as an analyst at the CIA all throughout the 1980s. The focus of much of my work there was analyzing the communist media of the Soviet Union during that Cold War era. My experience gave me a clear window into how propaganda works, especially in a one-party State, which is what all totalitarian systems are. The Soviet Union had only the Communist Party. There was no tolerance for any other point of view. Part of what I studied was the Soviet use of psychiatry as a political weapon where dissidents were consigned to psychiatric hospitals for not accepting the propagandistic narrative. Dissent was considered a mental illness If you disagreed with the narrative, you were punished and ostracized. Unfortunately, I see the same patterns here today that I observed then, even in the fields of psychology and psychotherapy. And we also see this today in China. Their social credit system controls your access to goods and services, depending on how well you comply with their narrative. I fear that that’s what we're seeing more and more of in the United States. NR: Yes, unfortunately. Therapists today are now required to “affirm, affirm, affirm” their patient’s “gender identity.” Therapists will lose their license to practice therapy if they don’t comply. So these therapists tell parents their children will commit suicide unless they “affirm” This situation is growing increasingly dire. Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who some believe may enter the presidential race, recently stated that any parent who doesn’t affirm their child’s “gender” should be accused of child abuse. Child abuse -- it’s alarming! SM: People in the US are being bullied into accepting this narrative. And people are being punished for not accepting it. That's exactly how it works in any totalitarian system or social credit system. And if we don't push back and push back hard, we'll end up in a similar situation. NR: Yes. We must push back now, or the unthinkable will happen. SM: Yes. And that’s why I’m grateful to everyone who is fighting against this, especially Jennifer Bilek. Her 11th Hour blog is so necessary right now, and it’s made such a difference to have people come together and speak out. Women like the author JK Rowling; Kellie Jay Keen, the British women’s rights activist who was physically attacked by a “transgender mob in New Zealand earlier this year; and Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis, who spoke out against men in women’s sports on Twitter. Their actions help people open their eyes to these insidious narratives and programs that are taking over. This encourages people to stand up to the oppression and the bullying we see today. NR: Back in 2017, you gave a very prescient speech for the FRC, in which you said there were four ways in which the “transgender” agenda helps to instantiate totalitarianism. Can you tell us more about that? SM: Yes. I distilled the process by which what we call “transgenderism” is really a vehicle for totalitarianism and censorship. There are four conditions that have to be put in place for that to happen, and to subvert all our institutions, especially schools, universities, and the corporate world. The four conditions are: 1, consolidating state power under the guise of promoting individualism; 2, sowing chaos into the language; 3, state censorship; and 4, an aggressive campaign of propaganda and agitation. Under the first condition, gender ideology as a movement consolidates state power under the guise of promoting individualism and preventing discrimination. But the ideology actually serves to break down and destabilize our sense of identity. Children are told to be their “authentic selves” after activists in schools and culture indoctrinate them or perform what I call mind-rape upon them. You can't sustain the sort of “individualism” that requires us to deny reality to such an extent that we can't even talk to one another anymore. There are no limits. No boundaries. The “transgender” movement also sows chaos into the language. But language is how we communicate with one another. It's how we establish relationships with each other! NR: Yes, those awful new pronouns like “zir” and “zim” and “they” instead of he or she. SM: Linguists like Stephen Pinker describe pronouns as “function words” in a language. Pronouns prop up the structure of language and speech, like scaffolding. A pronoun is not like an adjective that can change, or a noun or verb, or any of those other parts of speech. You can’t change pronouns at will. You need a structure with agreed-upon rules so people can talk to one another. But when you change the pronouns, you've eliminated the structure of the language. NR: And pronouns are only one example. “Transgender” activists also want to abolish the word “mother.” SM: Yes. And ultimately this leads to the destruction of our relationships. It's all about regulating and dictating all human relationships. And in order to do that, you have to isolate people. And that's what this does. It destabilizes a sense of identity, the sense of self, especially for children. And once that's destabilized, you're in a state of isolation, and that makes you a whole lot more controllable. Sowing chaos into the language is number two. The third requirement is state censorship. Imposing “transgenderism” on a society requires state censorship. Everyone knows this deep down. Who hasn't been, you know, mind-raped by the idea of “transgenderism.” Everybody knows it's not true, it's not reality. So, the State shuts people up who don't agree with it. And then we come to the fourth requirement for total social control: a very aggressive campaign of propaganda and agitation, along with censorship, that pushes the narrative forward and forces people to accept it. NR: And now we have propaganda and agitation coming not just from the state, but from our largest corporations, too. Dylan Mulvaney as the “transgender” spokesman for Bud Light. And Target openly displayed tuck-it underwear in a “Pride” display next to colorful children’s clothes. Everywhere we look, we are bombarded with “transgender” propaganda. SM: These are only a few of the tools in the bag of tricks that enforce the narrative of “transgenderism” Meant to socially control everyone to get with the program. Our institutions are being taken over and getting away from their original mission. We see this, for example, in medicine. They are enforcing one particular viewpoint. One particular totalitarian structure. And “transgenderism,” of course, which is the focus of this interview plays a big role in that because it has such an effect on destabilizing the sense of self of the child as well as in all human relationships. NR: Yes. It’s very destabilizing. Let's talk about your new book, The Weaponization of Loneliness. When did you decide to write it? And why? SM: Well, all my life I’ve had a nagging feeling that there’s something more behind all the bullying that we see around us. Bullying on the playground, bullying by a toxic boss, bullying by a cult leader like Jim Jones, who in 1978 convinced almost a thousand people to commit “revolutionary suicide” in that compound in Jonestown, Guyana by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. That’s where the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” comes from. It means following the propaganda. And when you do that, it leads to your own destruction. But all this bullying, from the mean girls at school right on up to the world-class dictators wage war on private life and human relationships in order to gain power. I wrote the book because I wanted to understand how this happens. And at a certain point, I realized the patterns that tie all this together have to do with the impulse to conform. Human beings need to be connected with other people. And this need to connect with others is hardwired into us. That makes it easy for tyrants to exploit and control us. The flip side of this need is fear, the terror of being ostracized, cast into the outer darkness. And this fear is probably stronger than any other human impulse, even hunger. For example, look at what happened with anorexia nervosa. Teenage girls would starve themselves so they could look like skinny fashion models and feel accepted as beautiful. Their need to feel accepted was ever more powerful than their need to eat. The fear of ostracism and the need to be connected dictate so much of human behavior. Political correctness is a primary example. Someone might say to themselves, “Oh, I don't want to say what I really believe, because they might reject me.” That plays a huge role in moving the ball forward for totalitarians. It’s a huge vulnerability on our part. I wrote the book because I felt that we need to be much more aware of these dynamics in order to keep them in check. NR: These tyrants don't just threaten human connections. They also threaten people's livelihoods. SM: Yes, and in fact, the loss of one's livelihood is very connected to one’s sense of self. For example, why are so many American physicians going along with crazy things, including the mutilation of children? Why? Likely, because doctors put a lot of time, money, and effort into getting their degrees. And their occupation as medical doctors provides them with a high level of status and respect. And they don’t want to risk losing that. But they don’t understand that their compliance is a Faustian bargain. In the short term, you may feel like it will save you. But if you don’t push back, it will destroy you. NR: You have called the weaponization of loneliness a war on the private sphere of life. How does the State fill the void of isolation with their tyranny? SM: They just keep making you more and more dependent upon the State. And feeling less and less able to have access to the personal relationships from which we get our strength. Most totalitarians and tyrants know instinctively that the private sphere of life is where we derive so much of our power. The individual human being needs those very strong core relationships—in family, faith, and friendship--to fall back on when they're dealing with the world at large. Totalitarians have been trying to invade that sphere for at least two centuries if you go back to 1848 with the publication of the Communist Manifesto. One of the biggest points made in that pamphlet is to abolish the family. And once that happens, the only thing left is the State. And the State fills the vacuum. In a healthy society, bonding begins with biological bonding, and family bonding. And then it blossoms out into community bonding. So, if you get family breakdown you end up with a community breakdown, too. But when you do have strong bonds to fall back on, you're much more able to express what you really believe, even in the face of those who seem to reject you for doing so. And that’s because you have your family and strong friendships to fall back on. Family and friendships are exactly what totalitarians and those who have that totalitarian impulse want to do away with. Movies such as Gaslight, from which we get the term “gas lighting,” shows how psychological abuse so often begins with isolating the victim and making the victim feel like they’re the crazy one if they don’t agree with the narrative pushed by the perpetrators. And this can occur whether it’s a one-on-one relationship, a cult leader, or the dictator of a country. People are made to feel that if they don’t agree with a narrative, no matter how outlandish it is, they’ll be viewed as a social outcast. And so, the State becomes the Mass State. As the psychiatrist Carl Jung put it in his 1957 book The Undiscovered Self, the Mass State has no interest in the real relationships between people, between human beings. The main objective of the Mass State is to inject psychic isolation into the individual. That’s what “transgenderism” does. It injects psychic isolation, especially on the child. Why would a child go through with all these horrific things that interfere with their development -- whether it's puberty blockers or mutilating surgeries. Why? Because they want to feel connected, want to feel accepted, not rejected. And that’s why rapid onset gender dysphoria affects so many kids in school. Kids tell themselves, “This is the cool thing. I’ll be protected.” There’s so much bullying in schools, that becoming “trans” provides a safe haven because it is protected by anti-discrimination rules. And that can be tempting to them. NR: And unfortunately, “transgender” activists target the most vulnerable children. The children who might be on the autism spectrum or are unpopular for another reason. But if they declare themselves “transgender,” they can suddenly become heroes. SM: Yes, they want to feel accepted. And that need for connection, as I said, is easily exploited. The powers that be, whether it's a teacher or a school administrator or the Federal government, say they will protect you if you become “transgender.” They also tell you the enemy is the “cisgender.” That is, unless you’re a “transgender” ally. And nobody wants to be seen as the enemy or socially rejected. That's usually that's how it plays out in the child's mind and causes confusion. NR: Those poor children. SM: That’s why it’s so important to understand how the weaponization of loneliness affects people and destroys relationships. It isolates us, and therefore makes us miserable, confused, and powerless. [END PART I - PARTS II and III coming soon] Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of "The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer." Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. She has a Master's degree in Russian and Soviet history. Nancy Robertson graduated from Barnard College with a BA in psychology and then received a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Stanford University. Nancy is retired and has written articles for WoLF, Women are Human, and The 11th Hour Blog. She grew up in New York City in the middle of the last century. In 2022, she learned that three daughters of a deceased, old college friend were trying to become men through they/them pronouns, wrong sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries. She realized a strange cult of "transgender" madness had sprung up, infecting the US and much of the world. Nancy began to research and write about the gender industry to stop it.

Jean-Leon Gerome, Pygmalion et Galatée, esquisse à l’huile (Pygmalion and Galatea, oil sketch), 1890 By Donovan Cleckley Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. - Abigail Adams, in a letter to John Adams, March 31, 1776 There has been a rising tendency among critics of transgenderism, not all of whom are even critical of gender, to scapegoat feminism. Women have been prototypical scapegoats à la “wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman” (Ecclesiasticus 25:19). Representing the right-wing point of view, Matt Walsh argues that feminism provided the necessary foundation for transsexualism and transgenderism as its more contemporary incarnation. Walsh asserts: Feminism set the stage for trans activists by insisting for years that there are no significant or inherent differences between men and women apart from anatomy. They are the ones who came up with the idea that most differences between the sexes were ‘social constructs.’ Now the ‘gender critical’ feminists want to pretend to be the leaders in the fight against trans ideology, all while refusing to admit that it is a direct descendent of their own ideology. These women will absurdly try to flip this around and claim that those of us with more ‘traditional’ views on sex are the ones who somehow set the stage for transgenderism. But our view was dominate [sic] for millennia and transgenderism never existed during that time. Feminism comes along and trans ideology follows almost immediately behind it. Try to piece this together, ladies. It’s not a coincidence. Yes, ladies, let us try to piece this all together, as best we can. Most feminists have argued that women and men experience different socialization on the basis of sex from birth to death. By nature, women’s bodies and men’s bodies differ, with clearly differing needs, medically and otherwise, but their behaviors do as well. To what extent socialization versus biology influences these differences has been debated among feminists. In The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, first published in 1979, Janice G. Raymond wrote the first extensive critique of transsexualism, precursor to modern transgenderism, from a feminist point of view. She addressed the question of “the real differences between men and women,” which men have continued pressing upon women to answer. Raymond writes: Men, of course, have defined the supposed differences that have kept women out of such jobs and professions, and feminists have spent much energy demonstrating how these differences, if indeed they do exist, are primarily the result of socialization. Yet there are differences, and some feminists have come to realize that those differences are important whether they spring from socialization, from biology, or from the total history of existing as a woman in a patriarchal society. The point is, however, that the origin of these differences is probably not the important question, and we shall perhaps never know the total answer to it. Yet we are forced back into trying to answer it again and again. Raymond continues: No man can have the history of being born and located in this culture as a woman. He can have the history of wishing to be a woman and of acting like a woman, but this gender experience is that of a transsexual, not of a woman. Surgery may confer the artifacts of outward and inward female organs, but it cannot confer the history of being a woman in this society. Whatever did womankind do before What Is a Woman? and Walsh opening that jar of pickles? Women actually understood the difference, so there is that fact to be twisted—pickles on the side. Characteristic of developing feminist criticism of the 1970s, Raymond’s analysis recognized that there are significant differences between women and men, whatever the origin of these differences may be. There was a degree of idealism present in early feminist writing of the era, a notable example being Shulamith Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution in 1970. Women continued to develop their analyses, which, as seen in Raymond’s work, accounted for precisely the complexity that modern commentary willfully overlooks. To Walsh’s other point, a big part of why transgenderism did not exist millennia ago is the basic fact of burgeoning technological development in recent centuries. Cavemen were not banging rocks together and making breast augmentations to give each other and get their rocks off. One may as well ask why the Renaissance lacked space travel. As Jennifer Bilek has emphasized, the development of “synthetic sex identities,” a part of what Thomas Szasz first termed pharmacracy, did not come from nowhere. Doublethink: A Feminist Challenge to Transgenderism, Raymond’s 2021 book, puts forth a timely feminist critique, worth serious consideration, though her work has been seriously neglected when not relentlessly caricatured. “Remember the Ladies,” Abigail Adams reminded her husband, a Founding Father and the second U.S. president, who also forgot the ladies. “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” she continued. “Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.” In a memorable line from her letter, she asserts that, if men do not redress such tyranny over women, then “we are determined to foment a Rebelion.” To which John Adams replied, “We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.” He wrote that the ongoing American Revolution led to a questioning of traditional hierarchies, “that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters.” Yet he also noted that his wife’s letter “was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented”—that is, women. The ladies have long pieced it together. What is a woman to do? Thousands of years before Adams wrote to her husband in 1776, men treated women as vassals for their sex: property. During this time, marriage was the primary method for men to possess women—apart from prostitution, seen as its shadow. Among the early abolitionists, Sarah Grimké and Ernestine Rose commented on how the wife’s identity became subsumed within that of the husband. Over marriage’s function in civilizing women to death, the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments identified how it made women “civilly dead.” Studying how the man’s identity had eclipsed woman-as-wife, spanning much of recent history, modern transgenderism seems like the most logical transition in men possessing women. Where once she became subsumed within man’s identity, possessed, woman herself now becomes an identity for man to possess. Man’s sense of proprietorship over woman not only set the stage but also, still, remains the most jarring pickle. Donovan Cleckley holds a BA in English and Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Montevallo and an MA in English from Tulane University. His research focuses on the relationship between women’s rights and gay rights, literature and sexual politics, and the social and political implications of transgenderism as an ideology, an industry, and an institution. Learn more about his work at https://donovancleckley.com. Here is the PayPal link: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/donovancleckley

By Alan Neale The world’s largest financial institutions, in alliance with Big Pharma, have embarked on a global campaign to normalize body dissociation and the deconstruction of human sexual reproduction. Two asset management firms - BlackRock and Vanguard - are at the apex of this push. Jennifer Bilek has analyzed, here, how these two corporations use the leverage of their investments to push the ideology of ‘gender identity’. This is an ideology that denies material reality but creates numerous new profit opportunities. Firstly by constructing artificial ‘identities’ that segment the market into new (and highly profitable) sales opportunities. And secondly by encouraging the body dissociation that enables the commodification of our sexed bodies and allows the highly exploitative and profitable surrogacy industry to flourish. BlackRock and Vanguard are based in the USA, but their reach is global. In the UK they manage 8-9% of the shares in three of the four main high street banks - Barclays, Lloyds, and HSBC. They are not passive shareholders. Larry Fink, BlackRock CEO, made it clear in his 2022 Letter to CEOs that “Capitalism has the power to shape society and act as a powerful catalyst for change.” Promoting gender ideology is one of the ways Fink uses that power. I first came across BlackRock when I was researching Just Like Us, an LGBT+ charity that promotes body dissociation to primary school children in the UK. I was intrigued by the fact that BlackRock was a major corporate supporter of Just Like Us, and surprised to learn not only that BlackRock is a major investor in AbbVie, the supplier of puberty-blocking drug Lupron, but that its CEO, Larry Fink, is co-chair of the trustees of a New York hospital heavily involved in what it calls ‘gender-affirming medical interventions’ (newspeak for chemical and surgical construction of synthetic sex identities) for young people. Policy initiatives from asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard in the US cascade down to retail banks in Europe. Here, recent policy development is de-banking - denying opponents of the gender industry access to money transfer services. ‘Doing the right thing’ (Netherlands 2021) Back in November 2021, I learned on Twitter that a bank had closed the account of a Dutch feminist organization Voorzij (For Her) because its activities “do not match what we stand for as a company.” The bank, bunq (‘Bank of the Free’) made its position clear in a Twitter thread and press release, translated here , including “The bank believes that the foundation (Voorzij) discriminates against trans women by not standing up for their interests.” bunq, like many banks, disguises its support for the gender industry by pretending that what it is promoting is social responsibility and human rights. Its 2022 Managing Board Report claims that “our users rely on us to continue enabling them to grow, contribute and make life easy ….. as always, doing the right thing is the one simple compass we’ve relied on since our very beginning.” It is a sign of the times that “doing the right thing”, for a supposedly ‘progressive’ institution, is understood to include an attempt to shut down a feminist organization, in a country where women have only been allowed to have a bank account since 1956. Realizing how easy it was for a bank to use its power to take away the financial independence that women had so recently acquired came as a shock. I hoped, naively, that this was just one ‘challenger’ bank, in one country, and that there were many retail banks that don’t act in this way. I underestimated the global ambitions of the 10-year-old bunq - it operates not just in the Netherlands but in a number of other EU countries, and this year it has applied for banking licenses in both the US and the UK. I also underestimated the extent to which other banks would adopt similar exclusionary policies. ‘Doing what’s right’ (UK 2022-3) In June 2022, the UK’s Halifax Bank (a brand of Lloyd’s Bank) posted a tweet saying simply ‘Pronouns matter, #ItsAPeopleThing’, with a photo of a name badge, ‘Gemma (she/her/hers)’. A number of people replied, questioning the bank’s priorities. From time to time over the course of a day, Halifax employees would issue one or other of the following explanations: “We want to create a safe and accepting environment that opens the conversation about gender identity. We care about our customers and colleagues' individual preferences. For us, it’s a very simple solution to accidental misgendering.” “Wearing pronouns is completely optional. We’re offering our colleagues the choice because we understand how important it is to create a safe and welcoming environment that normalizes the conversation around gender identity.” As the day wore on, more and more customers questioned why the bank was so keen to normalize ‘the conversation around gender identity’. Eventually, when a customer simply asked “Why are you trying to alienate people?”, the Halifax response became more hostile: “We strive for inclusion, equality, and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account.” The next day, a tweet from rival bank HSBC weighed in with support, not for the questioning customers, but for Halifax: “We stand with and support any bank that joins us in taking this positive step forward for equality and inclusion. It’s vital that everyone can be themselves in the workplace.” Care about customers’ individual preferences clearly doesn’t extend to customer preferences for banking services that allow them not to lie about an employee’s sex. Again, as with bunq in the Netherlands, the fact that they are protecting the interests of the gender industry is disguised by pretending that its policies are based on a concern for human rights. Bribery and corruption It was not long before UK banks moved on from inviting customers to close their accounts if they disliked the bank’s values, to closing customer accounts if the bank disliked the customer’s values. Except it’s not really about values. It’s about silencing critics. Bank account closures hit the headlines in June 2023, when ex-UKIP leader and ex-MEP Nigel Farage revealed that his bank accounts had been closed. He acknowledged that he may have been identified as a PEP (a Politically Exposed Person, a high-profile politician deemed to be at risk of bribery or corruption). He suggested, though, that it was possible that his account was closed because banks disliked Brexit and blamed him for it. Coutts, Farage’s bank, initially claimed that the accounts had been closed because it required a minimum balance of £3 million in savings, or £1 million in borrowing, and Farage’s balance had fallen below it. But Farage obtained a document from Coutts which stated that his views “don’t align with our values”, and suggested that his having an account with them “presents a material and ongoing reputational risk to the bank. His publicly-stated views were at odds with our position as an inclusive organization”. It became clear that having a balance below the required minimum was not the only reason Farage’s accounts were closed. In the wake of the massive publicity that Farage generated about his bank accounts, evidence emerged that banks were closing the accounts of a number of individuals and organizations who are not in Farage’s league financially, but are opposed to gender ideology. Silencing critics One bank account that was abruptly closed, without notice, was that of Wings Over Scotland founder Stuart Campbell. Wings Over Scotland have consistently exposed the capture by the gender industry of political institutions in Scotland, and Campbell believes that this was the reason for the closure without warning of his personal accounts by First Direct, a division of HSBC. Similar cases followed in quick succession. Our Duty is a support group for parents concerned that their children have been persuaded to embark on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Their application for a business account was blocked by Metro Bank, a month after the bank joined the Stonewall Diversity Champion scheme. A bank manager explained that the Our Duty website “conflicts with the ideas and culture we are pushing.” Yorkshire Building Society closed the account of a vicar, Richard Fothergill, days after he posted a comment on their portal that he disagreed with their promotion of gender ideology, and which linked to a news report that was critical of Drag Queen Story Hour. YBS claimed that their banking relationship with Fothergill had broken down beyond repair as a result of his comment. Professor Lesley Sawers, the Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland was told by the Royal Bank of Scotland (a brand of the NatWest Group) that her joint bank account with her husband would be closed, with no explanation given. When she approached another bank to transfer their joint account she was told this would not be possible as there was a mark against her name. ‘Investigative Reporting Optimisation’ UK banks are not called upon to justify account closures. If necessary, they could quote their terms and conditions, which allow the closure of an account where the customer has ‘behaved in a threatening or abusive manner to our staff’. Presumably, a bank that is aiming to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion (as so many of them are) could interpret a customer’s unwillingness to use a staff member’s preferred pronouns, or a statement of disbelief in gender ideology, as abusive. They could then quote this to Stonewall as evidence of their ‘inclusivity’, and be rewarded for it. First Direct and its parent company, HSBC, have added terms and conditions which give them even more leeway than those of other banks - they justify account closure where ‘You’ve misbehaved either to us or when using our services,’ or if ‘you’re involved in any criminal activity. It doesn’t matter whether or not this is linked to banking with us.’ Far more revealing than banks’ terms and conditions is who they appoint to key positions. HSBC (First Direct’s parent company) is particularly interesting. Its ‘Head of Investigative Reporting Optimization’ is Hannah Graf, who describes the role as “working to prevent global financial crime.” This seems strange, as his previous job was as an engineering manager and Captain in the British Army. Not so strange, though, when you learn that he was awarded an MBE for ‘work updating LGBTQ policy in the British Army’, was Stonewall’s ‘Trans Role Model of the Year’ in 2019, and is a patron of Mermaids, the disgraced UK charity that promotes the medicalized transition of children. I wrote about Hannah Graf and his spouse Jake, and their celebrity role as pioneers of ‘transurrogacy’, on the 11th-hour blog here. Their fame as a ‘trans’ couple was enabled by a surrogate mother who provided them with two children, using eggs from Jake that had, before her ‘sex change’, been fertilized with donated sperm and frozen. (Hannah regrets that he never had his sperm frozen before his ‘sex change’, which deprived him of being genetically related to the children. He advises young men contemplating taking cross-sex hormones to learn from his mistake and make sure they freeze and store their sperm beforehand). Hannah’s skill set doesn’t seem particularly appropriate for detecting financial crime. Still, one can’t help being aware that his life experience might be useful for a bank wanting to be able to identify critics of the gender industry and deprive them of access to a bank account. Certainly, it would be hard to find anyone more deeply implicated in different aspects of the UK gender industry to appoint to such a strategic role. Why? It is often wondered why retail banks, who depend on being able to take deposits from customers and lend money to them, should think it worthwhile alienating the 51% of the adult population who are women, in order to have greater appeal to the 0.5% who claimed in the 2021 Census that they had a ‘gender identity different to their sex registered at birth’. I suspect that banks imagine that their customers have taken on board the ‘trans’ narrative about being the most oppressed group in society, and will be susceptible to arguments that they should ‘be kind’, respect people’s preferred pronouns, etc. And having ‘trans inclusive’ policies, as advised by Stonewall, will be a low-cost way of scoring well on Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index (Many High Street banks appear in Stonewall’s list of the top 100 UK employers - HSBC came highest in the 2022 Index, at no 12). To understand why retail banks are so keen to be approved by Stonewall we have, again, to follow the money. As STILLTish uncovered, here, it was a donation from the Arcus Foundation (founder Jon Stryker, heir to the medical corporation of that name) that preceded the transformation of Stonewall from a gay rights organization into one promoting the gender industry. And it’s not just BlackRock and Vanguard who influence the policies of UK retail banks. Many investors who want their money to be employed responsibly rely on ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) ratings to guide which companies to invest in. ESG ratings are provided by a number of different financial institutions, whose activities are unregulated in the UK, and whose rating criteria are far from transparent. A good score on Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index will almost certainly result in a higher ESG rating. Investors wanting to be socially responsible may be persuaded that their investment is curbing global warming, or promoting gay rights. But by putting their trust in an ESG rating, they may not be aware of how much they are giving support to the gender industry. So ’trans inclusion’ will be a convenient low-cost policy for banks, concerned that a low ESG rating might depress their share price, to adopt. Following the publicity surrounding the closure of Farage’s accounts, the UK government has indicated that it will strengthen regulatory requirements to make it clear that customers should not have their accounts closed because of their political beliefs. Such a change will protect the accounts of elite politicians like Farage. But this will not deter banks from using account closures to silence critics of the gender industry. It will not be hard for banks to engineer a complaint that an individual or organization has ‘misgendered’ another customer or a member of staff, and to use that complaint as justification for closing their account. At a time when opposition to the onward march of the gender industry is mobilizing, the willingness of retail banks to deprive activists of the ability to transfer money is a sinister development. In a modern economy, access to a bank account is a basic requirement - for individuals, and especially for organizations. As the Dutch feminist group Voorzij explained in a statement about their bank’s decision to close their account, “As a foundation, a bank account is crucial. After all, we need money to maintain our website and organize activities. So we are not only silenced - it’s impossible for us to function.” The gender industry is destroying lives, and destroying the language with which we understand our lives. It must be resisted. We need to expose the financial institutions that fund the gender industry, including the rating agencies that measure ESG performance. And expose, too, the retail banks whose accounts we depend on for the financial transactions that are needed for us to resist effectively. *** Alan Neale is a retired university lecturer and researcher, now a full time carer. He likes to believe that patriarchal capitalism's colonization of our bodies and nature can be halted before it becomes total. He tweets occasionally @canfordheather

By Lisa Logan ''You companies can do what we-government-cannot, and will never do. You have to change the world on this issue.” – (then) Vice President Joe Biden On the stage at the BSR19 Conference hosted by Business for Social Responsibility, Beth A. Brooke-Marciniak, Board Director and Former Global Vice Chair of Public Policy for Ernst & Young relayed details about a private meeting at Davos a few years back with (at the time) Vice President Joe Biden (Figure 1). The back door meeting convened a group of companies working behind the scenes to use their collective political and financial power to push LGBTI policy in business practices. According to Brooke-Marciniak, (now President) Biden sat down with these businesses, looked them in the eye and said, ''You companies can do what we-government-cannot, and will never do. You have to change the world on this issue.” Heeding his words, that same group of companies supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and operating in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, launched PGLE in 2019. Figure 1 Tweet thread by @iamlisalogan One of the many Collaborative Initiatives housed at the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), the PGLE, or Partnership for Global LGBTIQ+ Equality, is a coalition of 29 organizations committed to leveraging their individual and collective advocacy to accelerate LGBTIQ+ equality and inclusion in the workplace globally and in the communities in which they operate. They do this in three ways outlined on their website (Figure 2). Figure 2 From PGLE's What We Do page The first of their mandates is to operationalize The United Nations (UN) Standards of Conduct for Business, produced in 2017 in collaboration with the Institute for Human Rights and Business. They have been successful thus far, getting 400+ companies to sign on as supporters of the LGBTQIA+ business practices outlined in the Standards (Figure 3), which asserts businesses’ responsibility to combat discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and intersex persons, and how they can and should address this issue in their governance, in the business market, and in the broader community. PGLE’s role is to provide tools and resources for companies to self-assess how they are doing in these areas through scoring systems that identify gaps in their implementation of the 5 standards, and then to provide recommendations on how to close those gaps and strengthen policies, processes, and methodologies to support LGBTIQ+ inclusivity. Some of the tools used to accomplish this are the UN LGBTIQ+ Standards Gap Analysis Tool, the UN Global Compact's WEP's Gender Gap Analysis Tool, and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's 2022 Corporate Equality Index (CEI). Figure 3: 400+ organizations, including Twitter, have signed on in support of the UN Standards of Conduct for Business. While the use of these tools and the metrics that come out of them are supposedly voluntary to participate in, it can benefit businesses to offer them up to activist banks and investors who use ESG (Environmentalism, Social Responsibility and Governance) scoring to determine which businesses deserve to receive capital based upon how dedicated they are to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It can also disadvantage those who don’t or those who receive a poor report from these tools. Figure 4 - Excerpt from the article, "Why & how to build stronger corporate LGBTQ+ inclusion" (Sirvinskas, A., 2022, Conservice) In a 2022 article (Figure 4) on ESG Reporting from Adam Sirvinskas titled, “Why & how to build stronger corporate LGBTQ+ inclusion,” the author hints that because investors are asking more about what companies are doing in regard to responsible investment, treatment of employees, their dedication to sustainability initiatives and “other activities that fall under the ESG umbrella, it’s important to have answers to these questions.” This type of reporting has become so normalized, in fact, that one could argue many businesses are actually being forced against their will into adopting and measuring policies and practices that cater to the Sustainable Development Goals because the banks and investors they do business with that are participating in this racket are behaving like a cartel, threatening to withhold capital from businesses if their ESG score isn’t up to snuff. In his article, Sirvinskas rightly points out that Walt Disney choosing to speak out publicly against Florida’s bill that banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity for kindergarten through 3rd grade was not just a decision that was morally grounded, but also financially motivated. He notes that “sustainable investments received a $120 billion inflow in 2021, more than doubling the $51.1 billion received by ESG funds in 2020 and setting another new annual record. And it appears the upward trend will continue. Global ESG assets are expected to hit $53 trillion by 2025, according to Bloomberg, accounting for more than a third of the $140.5 trillion in total assets under management.” It is because of this shift in investment capital that the recent backlash and boycotts against retailers like Target, Budweiser, and the like for promoting the LGBTQIA+ agenda in their marketing and products, while annoying to the company’s short-term bottom line, would theoretically have no impact on these companies’ long-term financial health or change their overall behavior. The real impact of these customer punishments will actually be realized in the blowback companies receive from the metric gods in response to their pandering attempts to get in the good graces of their customer base again (e.g. Budweiser abandoning their transgender spokesperson Dylan Mulvaney, or Target moving their transgender clothing line for kids to the back of their stores). Their temporary reverse in course will be a unique opportunity to show how actions like these—that aren’t in line with the socio-political ideology of their banks and investors—can cause a related dip in their ESG and CEI scores, exposing this cartel operation for the RICO and Anti-Trust law violations that it presents. That’s why consumers can and should continue to use their boycotting power strategically, heavily targeting only the companies who lead the pack in their industries in “coming out of the closet,” so to speak. This way, their efforts won’t become watered down in their attempt to punish every company and lose their real impact in the public and in the news cycle. The fluctuation in scores tied to businesses’ support (or lack thereof) of these initiatives because of public pressure will provide the credible proof needed to able to prosecute this at the federal level, showing how these regulatory metrics are being used improperly to push a top-down political agenda. Figure 5 - Excerpt from Forbes article (McGowan, J., 2023, Like Target, Walmart’s ESG Report Focuses On LGBTQ+ Pride Issues) on ESG and CEI scoring and reporting. Unless and until this is addressed, there will be no letting up when it comes to the LGBTQIA+ agenda being shoved down society’s throat. The 300+ member companies that are clients of corporate consultancy giants like BSR will continue to be strongly advised to sign on to the UN Standards for Business, join coalitions like the PGLE, and stay the course in making commitments to “inclusivity” that boost their CEI and/or ESG score or be costed out of business. For instance, in order for a company like Target or Walmart to get a perfect CEI score (Figure 5), this “requires donations to LGBTQ+ causes, refusal to donate to non-religious organizations that discriminate based on LGBTQ+ issues, and support of gender transition.” This might explain why member corporations of BSR like Chick-Fil-A, who have long defended and upheld their conservative values, are now willing to throw that out of the window and adopt Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies. They have no choice to but to comply. It also explains why Twitter, who signed on in support of the UN Standards for Business, throttled the extremely popular Daily Wire documentary, What is a Woman?, on the night it was set to be live streamed free to Twitter’s audience, because it “misgendered” a few people in the movie. Figure 6 - Quote from Benito Mussolini, an Italian dictator who installed a totalitarian regime, a form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom, and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The bottom line is that reporting metrics like ESG, CEI and the Standards for Businesses endorsed by the United Nations and the World Economic Forum are putting a stranglehold on both willing and unwilling corporations in an attempt to transform not just America’s culture but cultures across the globe. It’s allowing unelected bureaucrats through public-private partnerships to drive the adoption of unconstitutional business practices and policies that governments wouldn't be able to enforce in law on their own. This merger of state and corporate power, Corporatism, is what dictator Benito Mussolini appropriately called fascism, (Figure 6) and will install a totalitarian regime similar to his that will be able to unlawfully enforce its political agenda upon the free will of the people through coercion and/or repression. This corruption and the political and cultural upheaval resulting from it must be stopped in its tracks as quickly as possible, before it’s too late to be reined in. Lisa Logan is the host of the YouTube Channel Parents of Patriots and author of the Substack Education Manifesto. If you value her work, please consider supporting it here. As a wife, mother and accidental activist, she has made it her mission to expose the sinister agenda behind the changes to education and other captured systems & institutions in an effort to save our children and the future of our country.

By Alline Cormier This article contains spoilers. Introduction by Jennifer Bilek When the real lives of women begin to resemble a science fiction movie, the very name for ourselves, our biology and reproductive capacities being socially and legally erased by the gender industry, perhaps examining the latest sci-fi movies can help us process what is happening. I am excited to welcome back Alline Cormier to The 11th hour. You can find more of her fantastic film reviews in the Guest Posts section of this site. Is I AM Mother only imaginative fiction or is it an embellished harbinger of things to come? We read and see increasingly more research being conducted into technological reproduction for people who are same-sex attracted, womb transplants for those who cannot have children on their own, and womb implants into men. Biotechnologies for people who have been sterilized in new medical procedures manifesting a synthetic sex identity are well underway and considered progressive and good. The ethics of these quickly developing technologies and the psychological and ethical problems they create for society, are also being investigated. I invite you to consider the promotion of sterilizing youth for identity purposes, as positive, and the legal, political and institutional erasure of women happening under the banner of gender identity. Is this progress? Is this human rights? If we let go of organic sexual reproduction for the promise of a technological liberation and the "opportunity" for everyone to have children, what is the trade-off? Perhaps I Am Mother, has something to tell us. I Am Mother (2019) Bypasses Women How crucial are women—that is, adult female humans—to motherhood generally and the development of embryos and fetuses in particular? Is it possible to bypass women in the creation of babies? Can an AI droid raise a child as well as a human mother? These questions are explored in I Am Mother (2019), a post-apocalyptic sci-fi available on Netflix that reimagines our species’ boundaries. The chilling, depressing film that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival before being acquired by Netflix was directed by Grant Sputore and is based on a story co-written by Sputore and Michael Lloyd Green (screenplay by Green). It centers on a girl raised in isolation by an AI droid in a futuristic facility in the middle of nowhere after being artificially gestated in a machine. Though a droid is presented as less than ideal in a mothering role here, I Am Mother brings us one step closer to artificial wombs with its depiction of a technological process that bypasses women for the creation of our species. In Sputore and Grant’s vision, women are superfluous to the creation of life. None of the film’s characters have proper names. The girl, who looks around 16 years old, is known simply as Daughter (played by Danish actress Clara Rugaard). The droid is called Mother (voiced by Australian actress Rose Byrne but acted by New Zealander Luke Hawker). A woman who seeks help at the facility after being shot is known only as Woman. She is played by Hilary Swank, best known for her Oscar-winning performances in Million Dollar Baby (2004) and Boys Don’t Cry (1999). At the end a baby boy is born and simply called Brother but we don’t see much of him. Contributing to the film’s depressing effect is its lack of life and color, however, its most chilling aspects are the treatment of females and absence of mothers. The story is set primarily in a minimalist, sanitized building named the UNU – HWK Repopulation Facility. We don’t get a look outside until an hour and twenty minutes into the movie, which runs just under two hours—a real shame given that it was filmed in South Australia. The film’s color palette is very limited: mostly grey and black, though Daughter wears red. In this facility that she has never been allowed to leave there are no plants and no non-human animals, except for a mouse that gets in, briefly, before Mother shoves it into a furnace and torches it. Mother is authoritarian, controlling, and a creepy presence in Daughter’s life. The more we learn about it, the more we hope Daughter will escape its control. The film opens to the sound of explosions and rumbling. Lights flicker in the dark hallway of the facility. As the camera advances down the long hallway, captions inform us it has been one day since the ‘extinction event’, there are 63,000 human embryos on site, and the number of current human occupants is zero. At the end of the hallway, doors automatically slide open to a room in which a machine powers up without human assistance. Multiple robotic arms work on a black and grey droid. If you’re picturing C-3P0, think again. Whereas C-3P0 had humanoid facial features and endeavored to be helpful, Mother’s only humanoid facial feature is a frozen happy smile mouth and it is cruel. The mouse in the furnace is just the tip of the iceberg. Now activated, the droid stands and with its five fingers, pushes a button, and pulls a tower-like container full of human embryos stored in objects resembling transparent floppy disks from a containment unit that releases a white gas. A robotic arm removes from this tower one of the floppy disks—in their center a tiny plastic sphere traps the embryo—labelled APX01. The droid inserts the embryo floppy disk into a machine suspended from the ceiling that drops the embryo into one of its nine, large glass spheres (nine babies may be artificially gestated simultaneously). Picture high-end fish tanks. These are the artificial wombs. Cut to a close-up of the embryo in its little bubble within the glass tank. Four thin wires attach themselves to the embryo’s bubble. A timer indicates that just under 24 hours remain, so we conclude it takes 24 hours to “gestate” a baby in this artificial womb. The droid sits on a grey chair facing the artificial gestation machine. When the timer goes off it approaches the now foggy spherical tank in which a full-term baby moves its legs. The top half of the sphere is removed, revealing a baby lying in a glass bowl of sorts, and a liquid that appears to be water spills out. As the droid removes the crying, wriggling infant from the bowl and places her on a blanket, it says, “Shh. There you go. It’s okay, little one.” It wipes her with a cloth, wraps the blanket over her, and picks her up. As the droid walks away with her we see that the room contains dozens of incubators. The droid rocks the crying baby, playing recordings of ‘Moon River’ and ‘Baby Mine’. In a quick succession of short clips we see the infant grow to childhood (e.g. taking early steps, feeding herself). Eventually a girl runs, sleeps on a bottom bunk, hugs the droid, practices ballet, makes origami animals with the droid, and applies stickers to it. When we see her smile at the droid holding her in its arms, she looks happy. The little girl, who looks around six now and is played by Tahlia Sturzaker, speaks her first lines to the droid: “Why aren’t there any more children, Mother?” The droid replies, “There used to be, before the wars.” When the little girl tells Mother she doesn’t want to be a human because they ruined everything, it tells her humans can be wonderful. It also says, “Mothers need time to learn. Raising a good child, it’s no small task.” Next, captions inform us that 13,867 days have passed since the extinction event, and the facility’s current number of human occupants is one. Thirty-eight years have passed, but the girl who awakes and eats breakfast looks like a teenager—our first clue that something is rotten in the Repopulation Facility. Mother prepares Daughter (Clara Rugaard) for an upcoming examination. Then she lies in bed watching a video of Johnny Carson interviewing Steve Martin on The Tonight Show in 1978—the first humans viewers see Daughter exposed to. But the lights go out and Daughter becomes anxious, calling out, “Mother?” The droid recharges at night though, so it is no help to her. Daughter takes a flashlight and walks through the darkened facility’s hallways. She finds the aforementioned mouse near an airlock and traps it in a glass container. The power comes back on, reactivating Mother. Despite Daughter’s protests, Mother disposes of the hapless mouse in the furnace. The droid’s justification for this cruelty: “Surface contamination levels remain hazardous to you and to all the unborns who will one day call this their home.” On the night of her birthday, when her bedside lamp crackles, Daughter goes investigating again. She discovers someone knocking at the airlock. Donning a hazmat suit she opens the doors to a woman (Hilary Swank) who has been shot. As Daughter saves this woman we learn that Mother lied to her about a deadly contagion outside. The droid also lies when it tells her, “This facility was designed by humans as a fail-safe programmed to activate in case of their extinction. To give humanity a second chance. One that began with you, Daughter.” Woman paints a different picture of the droids, telling Daughter, “I’ve seen them torch babies, starve families out of their—. You’ve no idea.” Later she tells her, “That thing feels nothing for you. It can’t.” Daughter, trained as a doctor, removes the bullet from Woman’s side, saving her. She invites Woman to move into the facility, but Woman is deeply distrustful of all droids, including Mother. Then Daughter takes her exam. For doing well on it Mother allows her to choose an embryo that will become a member of their “family.” After selecting a male embryo, Daughter inserts it into the artificial gestation machine. While the male fetus grows, Daughter discovers Mother’s lies and past crimes. She opens a filing cabinet used to store APX02’s exam results, as well as the female embryo containment unit, and sees that embryos APX01 and APX02 are missing. She now understands that two embryos came before her. Through more digging she learns that APX02 was deemed a failure at seven years of age and “aborted.” The child’s file contains an image of her; she is the little girl we saw at the beginning. When Daughter roots around in the furnace and finds a small jawbone with teeth, the horror of Mother’s actions hits her. Eventually Woman escapes the facility with Daughter, into a barren landscape of dead, leafless trees rising out of the fog. When they reach a cornfield—the first plants we see, nearly an hour and a half into the film—Woman tells Daughter the corn (and spaceship flying overhead) appeared six months earlier. Before then, she says, there wasn’t a plant for miles. They reach Woman’s home: a beach littered with containers from a container ship that broke on the rocks. Woman has a dog but neither it, the ocean nor Woman’s company induce Daughter to abandon her plan to return to the facility for her baby “brother.” When Daughter returns to the facility and asks Mother why it raised her, the droid replies, “To make a better human: smarter, more ethical. I was raised to value human life above all else. I couldn’t stand by and watch humanity slowly succumb to its self-destructive nature. I had to intervene, to elevate my creators… Your whole life I’ve taught you to see the bigger picture. Have I failed? Or are you prepared to be the woman your family needs?” The droid is presented as less than ideal in a mothering role, and yet Daughter still forms an attachment to it. At the end, she finds it difficult to destroy the droid, despite her knowledge of its crimes. Curiously, Daughter forms no lasting attachment to Woman—a member of her own species. She rejects a woman who could have been a surrogate mother to her. Disturbingly, I was left with the impression that filmmakers Sputore and Green might believe an AI droid could raise a child as well as a human mother could. In the end, the droids are victorious because Daughter chooses to follow the path Mother traced for her, becoming a mother to her “brother” and responsible for the stored embryos rather than joining forces with Woman. In the final sequence when Daughter enters the embryo storage room it is clear she intends to be the mother of a very large family. Finally, and in consideration of female viewers, it is worth noting that I Am Mother has little to offer them. Technically, it fails the Bechdel test—a test that serves as an indicator of the active presence of women in movies—since none of the female characters have proper names. There is little congeniality and affection between its female characters and it includes antagonism between females (e.g. Daughter strikes Woman). Judging by I Am Mother’s nods to the misogynist Blade Runner films, Sputore and Green are fans. And of course, all three films bypass women as the source of life. Females are less sexualized in I Am Mother, but as in its Blade Runner predecessors they are harmed. As just one example, Mother grabs Woman by the throat. It’s also noteworthy that the film’s only woman (Swank) is killed off. Though this occurs off-screen it is strongly suggested that a droid kills her in her home. Mother, voiced by Byrne, is “killed” (shot) by its own “daughter.” And the little girl from the beginning ends up in the furnace. It’s all pretty grim, especially for female viewers. In I Am Mother Sputore and Green present a vision of anti-reality in which women are not crucial to the development of embryos and fetuses. In their vision it is possible to completely bypass women in the creation of babies. The fact that women are bypassed in this process is not portrayed disapprovingly—it passes without comment. None of the characters lament the absence of human mothers. There is no outrage over the artificial wombs. Indeed, the film normalizes for viewers the use of artificial gestation machines (and AI in our homes), bringing us one step closer to artificial wombs. Whether intentionally done or not, I Am Mother, like Blade Runner 2049, is a gift to the biotech industry and its move towards transhumanism. This depiction of a new way of reproducing our species without women flouts our species’ boundaries. Ignoring material reality is the province of film but does it follow that it must be anti-human and anti-woman? On being inspired by the Boston Dynamics’ robot, Sputore said in an interview for Collider: “We’re entering an interesting realm where this stuff that’s traditionally been very science fiction is now kind of coming close on science fact. Like, this stuff is very real and could be something that we’re facing in the near future. So we had the benefit of being able to look at the stuff that’s actually being done in labs in the world right now using them for inspiration. And if you can reference something real, why wouldn’t you?” It is perhaps not insignificant that Sputore is a commercial director—so a background in advertising. I Am Motheris his first feature film. It was produced by his company, Penguin Empire, and Southern Lights Films. The Penguin Empire’s website boasts: “We have a proven track record of creating visually stunning, impactful ads that resonate with audiences and drive results for our clients.” Which leads me to wonder, who are his clients? Is he trying to further a biotech industry agenda or is he simply another regressive male, comfortable with the erasure of women? Alline Cormier is a Canadian film analyst. This year her articles on women in film/TV have been published in The 11th Hour, Women Making Films (India), Feminist Current, 4W, and Gender Dissent. She is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. Her website is found at sexualizationofwomen.com, and she tweets @ACPicks2. PayPal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier

Many people have complicated feelings about being human in sexed human bodies. These feelings do not collapse the reality of the sex binary. There are only males and females. As a species, we are part of, and in relationship with, a complex biological system that is a continuous process of death and regeneration via sexual reproduction. We don’t live in isolated bubbles in space where we can individually opt out of this reality but inside an entire biological community. Our sex is our tether to this natural world. This is true even if we are not having sex. It is true even if some individuals don’t or can’t reproduce. It is true even if some people’s sex characteristics are not biologically ordered as usual for our species. We are still, as a species, sexually dimorphic mammals and are rooted in the material world by this fact. We must hold fast to this root when battling the hydra of gender ideology. Gender ideology was corporately constructed to break this bond, to introduce us to new ways of reproducing our species. The ideology was seeded everywhere before it was dropped on our societies, promoting a human rights movement. It is deeply entrenched in all our institutions, corporations, media, and the market. More problematic is its solidification in our minds. Even those attempting to resist this anti-human agenda want to hold fast to the concept of beings outside our species’ boundaries. We are moving out of the digital age and into new realms of technology and biotechnology. Experts in these fields have been reimagining our species' boundaries toward a complete fusion with AI. This is not something that has been hidden from us. More and more articles, videos, conferences, courses, laws, & politics are focused on this vision, one of transhumanism. Still, this is not generally discussed regarding gender ideology, one crucial area where we are being groomed to accept this fusion and a fundamental impossibility. When we discuss gender ideology and the myriad ways it plays out in our lives and societies, most of us attempt to argue within the premise of a human rights frame, which has been established for us and is constantly repeated. We must divorce ourselves from this premise because it is wrong. The fundamental premise is not rights but reality vs. anti-reality. I could say virtual reality instead of anti-reality, but “virtual reality" does nothing to reveal the rupture of our social cohesion and sense of ourselves this vision is causing humanity. It does not even hint at the chaos being sowed in society. Gender ideology is homophobic and misogynistic because it is anti-human. It seeks to take us beyond our human borders, creating a bridge to a technological vision of our species' formation and existence that goes beyond the boundary of our sex. It does so with deep, fervent, and tyrannical religiosity, as some people are rapidly becoming aware of. The frame of human rights obscures all this and has us boxing ghosts because we argue our case within this framework: Women’s "rights" vs. “tran$” rights; children have a "right" to be free from medical attacks on their sex, but adults have a "right" to choose what they want; everyone has the "right" to express themselves. The deconstruction of sex is not a human right. It is deeply anti-human. Adapting our societies to this rupture of reality in the material world means solidifying the virtual reality being constructed for us and overlaid on the real world. This is what the gender industry does. This is its objective, above and beyond anything else it does, beyond the fallout from its mission. This is where our arguments must be framed and reframed. Reality versus anti-reality. Society is organized around our species' sex binary because it abides by the order of the physical world where we live. When some adults choose to obscure the sex binary via medical-tech adjustments and demand the rest of the world validate this anti-reality performance, calling for legal rights to maintain this lie, we must return to boundaries. The integrity of our sex binds us to the rest of the natural world. It keeps us whole and tethered to the earth. Without it, we would be lost in space. We are being groomed away from biological reality in favor of virtual reality. This process has been well underway for some time. With the advent of the internet and cell phones, and more recently, lockdown, the process has been accelerated. The kids growing up on tech and being the most removed from the real world are the most susceptible to the prolific indoctrination on their platforms. If this sounds like tin-foil-hat territory, ask yourself what “men can be women if they say they are” sounds like and why you see so many politicians terrified to say that women are adult human females when the inquiry is made. This terror matters. The financial, political, and institutional pressure to conform to this virtual reality where we can choose our sex is intense. Gender ideology demands that we order our societies to conform to a lie, and governments worldwide are ceding this ground. What could be more important to address and resist when this lie attempts to sever us from reality? This is also not the only boundary being deconstructed for profit and human engineering. The boundary between public and private is also being eroded simultaneously. We are being thrust, as adults, into a realm of publicly paraded and corporately sanctioned fetishism promoted as healthy. Children are being inundated with lies about the reality of sex and forced sexual intrusions in the name of their health and sexual education. Teaching children that there is nothing wrong with nakedness is a far cry from dismantling the private sphere and compelling them into private adult human experiences. We can’t opt out of this if we want to participate in society because it is now everywhere. It is traumatizing and is grooming us into further violations of our boundaries. We have no way to evaluate and assess our world and relationships when everything is in public, there is no private realm, and we are forced to adapt. It is like living in a mass sexual psychodrama, a panopticon from which there is no escape. Discussions of biological boundaries are the way forward in confronting the hydra of gender ideology and the lies it is attempting to solidify in society and our minds. We must hone our message. We can't get lost in the quagmire of “rights” discussion. This is not an issue of rights for the marginalized versus others’ rights. This is an issue of reality versus anti-reality. We don’t rearrange societies, laws, language & reality to accommodate other people’s subjective identities. Feeling like a cat - whatever that would mean to someone who isn't a cat - doesn’t dictate that litter boxes are installed in public toilets. We arrange laws & society based on material reality because it respects the integrity of life & people’s boundaries based on real life. This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. 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.

By Alline Cormier In a new documentary called Dead Name, about the parents of children claiming a cross-sex identity, a psychiatrist, Stephen Levine, shares his haunting perspective: “I’m well aware of the anguish of the parents, and it’s not just a one-time anguish that is settled by kind words from the doctor. It’s ongoing, continued anguish. Many of the parents I’ve seen have gone into therapy as a result, have become depressed and anxious, can’t sleep, and so forth. And they don’t know what to do… But I think for every parent who gets involved wisely with other parents, there are probably more parents who just deal with this by themselves, in shame and in horror and in sadness.” Dead Name was removed from Vimeo last Monday. The popular video platform censored BrokenHearted Films’ for “violating their Terms of Service prohibiting discriminatory or hateful content.” Vimeo removed Dead Name after 34 days—along with BrokenHearted Films’ entire dashboard with all its financial information and other analytics, according to director Taylor Reece. Reece received an email from Vimeo stating: "We have unsuccessfully published your film." This is an interesting claim, given that, according to Reece, viewers from 16 countries bought the film. Contrary to claims of hatred, which have become a pattern across social media, tech platforms, payment platforms, and elsewhere, as a reason for the cancellation of material critiquing wrong-body ideology, hatred, and discrimination seem to have nothing to do with why Dead Name and other films are being fast-tracked to the dead heap of censorship. As Reece explains, there is nothing hateful or discriminatory about the film, which discusses the personal experiences of parents whose children say they are the opposite sex. It seems the critique itself is what is being canceled, not the content of the critique, and this is a dangerous precedent being accepted across various countries. Dead Name is a timely exploration of the experiences of parents of children labeled “transgender.” The film foregrounds interviews with three American parents: Amy, Bill, and Helen. For most of Dead Name’s 50-minute running time, these thoughtful, caring parents share their moving experiences and what happened to their children when they—or someone in their circle—decided they were “trans.” The film also includes brief interviews with a psychiatrist and a reporter. Near the end credits, we hear briefly from other parents of children swept up in wrong-body ideology. Mainstream media has ignored the plight and effects on the immediate family of children affirmed as “transgender,” an amorphous word with only a brief cultural history. Since thousands of children across western cultures, generally from mid-to-upper class backgrounds and white, are suddenly clamoring for drugs and surgeries to alter their sex characteristics, it stands to reason that their parents are a group we would want to hear from. The fact that Reece shines a spotlight on some of these parents, giving them a rare platform all but wholly denied them in the current “no debate” climate, is what makes Dead Name significant—and so timely. Amy, Helen, and Bill’s stories share many commonalities. They talk of their child being influenced by others and becoming withdrawn, of feeling alone and powerless to protect their child, of others treating them like terrible, unsupportive parents for questioning their child’s new identity, and of not wanting other parents to go through what they went through. They describe this period of their life as a nightmare—their sadness and distress are palpable. They remark on the incongruity of others, presuming to know their child better than they do, and discuss being let down by mental health professionals seemingly intent on rushing their child to adopt a cross-sex identity. One psychiatrist told Bill he was an unsupportive, abusive father for failing to identify that his son was “transgender.” In Amy’s daughter’s case, there was no psychiatric evaluation. According to Bill, professionals’ hands are tied by the trans-affirmative model, and insufficient attention is given to other paths, for example, the watchful waiting approach used in other countries. He remarks, “How the affirmative model ever got approved is mind-boggling.” He, Amy, and Helen relate how this approach is portrayed as the only way. The message generally conveyed, Helen tells us, is: “If you don’t do it this way, you’re wrong.” In a post-credit sequence, the mother of a trans-identified child observes, “There were entire senior classes of kids graduating from high school in small schools where every single kid identified as ‘trans.’” This fact should raise red flags, but institutions, media, and the medical industry are seemingly in thrall to an activist narrative that body dissociation is progressive. Young women with double mastectomy scars on display are being used in advertising. According to this mother, a “transgender” identity has become social currency for children, a way “to be part of something unique and unusual.” Having been a teenager myself, I can sympathize with that desire, but none of my “unique and unusual” choices led me to remove body parts or become a life-long medical patient. Amy, Helen, and Bill make thoughtful observations about wrong-body ideology and ask valid questions that merit much more discussion than they currently engender. Amy asks her interviewer, “Where does our species go if you can cut off your body parts like this?” She wonders what her grandmother would think of all this and asks: “How are we getting so far from reality?” When I heard Helen consider her grandmother’s thoughts on this, I knew exactly what she meant. Over the last couple of years, especially, I’ve regretted my grandmother’s death because I know that were she still alive, she wouldn’t hesitate to express in her forthright manner that wrong-body ideology is nonsense. Growing up on a farm, she knew perfectly well that castrating a bull didn’t make it a cow. Helen asserts that people must stand up for the truth. She adds, about her son Jonah, “And the truth is: he’s not a ‘transgender girl.’” Helen doesn’t consider, at least openly, that there is no such thing as a ‘transgender child’ or person. Body dysphoria can’t be a wholesome identity and a medical condition simultaneously. Helen, a soft-spoken woman in a loose-fitting blue T-shirt, recalls how, in 2014, after splitting up with her wife, she got a call from her four-year-old son Jonas’ daycare director, who told her Jonah said he was a girl—a call that left Helen shocked and confused. Shortly after that, the preschool sent a letter to all the parents, informing them they had a new student named Rosa (Jonah) and that the school wanted the parents to support “her.” Helen, who received the same letter, recounts how this made her feel invisible and without any control over the social transitioning of her son. Sunlight streams through the window on Helen’s right as she describes how, feeling completely helpless, she did not know what to do. She describes how it became a crusade about Jonah’s new female pronouns, which everyone had to use. Rather than challenging the idea that Jonah was the opposite sex, Helen says: “It was all about me having to accept this.” In footage of Jonas taken at this crucial period of his life, viewers see him stating that he believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Home video footage also shows Jonah doing stereotypically masculine things—playing with guns and spaceships for example. When Jonah was six, Helen says his kindergarten teacher told him about “sex-reassignment surgeries.” In Helen’s footage, she asks him about this. It becomes apparent that Jonah’s teacher shared information way beyond the understanding of any six-year-old. Helen tells her interviewer: “I started to learn about the puberty blockers and the hormones and the surgeries, and if my nightmare could’ve gotten worse, it got worse. Because now I knew there would be a permanent end to this. There could be physical changes to my son that could never be turned around, and he could be permanently harmed. And it would be a complete lie.” At this time, Jonah developed two identities: a ‘boy identity’ with Helen and a ‘girl identity’ at school. Helen agreed to call him Rosa and gave him the choice of ‘boy clothes’ or ‘girl clothes’ but believed using female pronouns would harm him. A mother of two boys, I found Helen’s story heartbreaking and chilling—as with many of the revelations made throughout Dead Name. When Helen remarks: “His well-being and mental health have been sacrificed. He has learned to navigate this world by not saying anything and telling people what they want to hear” I imagined my sons in Jonah’s situation and was outraged on Helen’s behalf. No one’s children should have to suffer this. Helen describes how she would have to be very careful speaking to others because she did not want them to think she was "transphobic" or not accepting of her child. Helen, like Jonah, was learning to censor herself. She ended up going to court over a child-custody battle with her ex-wife. American Canadian clinical psychologist and sexologist James Cantor attended as her witness. Though Helen got sole legal custody of Jonah, she cannot stop her ex-wife from calling him by a girl’s name and using female pronouns when speaking to him. Amy, the mother of a teenage daughter, recounts how in 2015, her daughter—who had shown no signs of childhood gender dysphoria—suddenly announced she was “trans” and said she needed a new name. She had started hanging out with a friend that identified as the opposite sex. Interviewed in what appears to be a sunny park, Amy says: “We didn’t get the time to process what was going on… I could see that this was coming from somewhere else… This just came from somewhere and swept her away.” Amy’s “easy” child, her daughter, became combative and had terrible rows with Amy, who questioned her daughter’s desire to “transition” to the opposite sex. Her daughter told her: “You have no idea how difficult my life is. I need to do this now.” She states that her daughter became verbally abusive and would say, “If I kill myself, it’s all your fault.” Their fighting led to arguments between Amy and her husband. Fearful that their daughter would take her life, Amy’s husband urged Amy to stop fighting with her. A counselor who treats gender non-conforming youth met with Amy and her daughter. At their first meeting, after talking with Amy’s daughter for 20 minutes, the counselor told Amy she needed to support her daughter as best as she could (in her new opposite-sex identity). This meeting led to another blow-up and her daughter moving out of the family home. In another segment of the film, Bill, wearing a blue golf shirt, is interviewed about his son, Sean, in what appears to be his kitchen. He tells us of Sean’s short-lived, difficult life—full of hardships it would pain anyone to hear. At two, Sean was diagnosed with cancer, and his leg was amputated. At five, it was discovered he had a form of leukemia, which resulted in a bone marrow transplant. When he was eight, his older brother died of a heroin overdose. Sean’s mother also died. Moreover, Bill says Sean likely knew he was sterile due to the chemotherapy. Sean had suffered so much trauma during his childhood—trauma Bill believes played a part in Sean embracing wrong-body ideology. Following these traumatic events, Sean was diagnosed with stage four colon cancer. According to Bill, it was at this point that Sean wanted hormones “to become a girl as quick as possible.” Sean set up an appointment with an endocrinologist at the hospital. However, the endocrinologist at RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology), who had been following Sean, canceled this appointment, as cross-sex hormones would be fatal to Sean in his condition. Bill maintains that in Sean’s case, there were no signs of early childhood body dysphoria. Certainly, the numerous pictures we see of Sean as a child (with his buddies, his prom pictures with his girlfriend, etc.) do not indicate that he “identified” as female. Bill believes that during his freshman year at college, Sean fell in with the wrong crowd and says Sean was going to move in with three girls who were “involved heavily into the trans thing” and told him how pretty he would look as a girl—named Eliza. When you hear Bill, say Sean died while at college—not to mention how he learned of his son’s death—your heart can’t help but go out to him. In a surreal moment in the film, Bill tells the audience about the police officer sent to Bill’s home to inform him his daughter had died. It prompted Bill to believe the officer had the wrong parent, as he did not have a daughter. Bill believes there is a strong possibility that Sean was taking cross-sex hormones at the time of his death because when Bill viewed his body at the funeral parlor, he didn’t recognize him. He looked so unlike himself that Bill thought the staff had the wrong body. In relating her lonely experience of her daughter’s “transition,” Amy tells us: “It is so easy to find groups to push you along the way, that move you onto this train, and it is so hard to find people on the other side.” She was in what she describes as a nightmare for close to a year before she found a parent support group. Both she and Helen found strength and hope in a community of people who understand their situation as they, too, have been caught up in it. Now Amy is there for other parents living this nightmare. In footage of a PEC (Partners for Ethical Care) protest outside a gender clinic, we see parents holding signs with the following messages: “Gender clinics harm children,” “No child is born in the wrong body,” “Stop tranzing gay kids.” Brandon Showalter, a reporter at the Christian Post, remarks in his interview: “What I would see consistently is that this ideology ruined everything it touches. And that the heartbreak and the devastation of parents and families were just staggering… To be forced to watch the slow-motion dissociation and disintegration—chemical disintegration sometimes—of their children was just like living in a horror movie. And that has only increased through the years.” Mothers of children claiming an opposite-sex identity, interviewed in the post-credit sequence, express how this ideology has alienated their children from them, taught them that their parents are not safe, that they are the children’s enemies and toxic if they are unwilling to be 100% supportive of the child’s desire for a medical attack on their sex. A so-called “dead name,” we learn, is a wrong-body ideology term referring to one’s name before it was changed to correspond to the new, opposite-sex identity—in most cases, the name given by one’s parents is the “dead name.” It refers to a dead identity. Synthetic sex promoters would have us believe it is criminal to use someone’s “dead name.” Bill explains how, following his son’s funeral, people Sean had met at college decried, on the funeral parlor’s website, the use of Sean’s name rather than the name he had recently begun using, claiming he had been “dead named.” Most parents watching this documentary will sympathize with Bill and his decision to use Sean’s real name on his grave marker. After all, we understand that young, impressionable people can easily be swept up in nonsense—but at the end of the day, somebody has to be the adult in the room and act reasonably. If we don’t, where will this ideology take our children? Dead Name is dedicated to the memory of Sean Mahoney. It can be purchased here: https://www.deadnamedocumentary.com/ Alline Cormier is a Canadian film analyst. Her articles on women in film/TV have been published in various women-led publications in Canada, the United States, and India. She is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. Her website is found at sexualizationofwomen.com, and she tweets @ACPicks2. PayPal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier

Part III: Healthcare Campaign Endorsing and Funding Partners By Mothers Grim Photo Ted Eytan/Wikimedia Commons Years ago, my daughter abandoned herself and sought services at a designated ‘leading’ healthcare institution. They did not care for her and instead used her as a live human specimen to create a 21st-century 'transman.' I have not seen my daughter since. This is the story of how healthcare ‘leaders’ have been installed to harm my daughter and countless impressionable young people in America to create the burgeoning 'transgender' medical complex. Here are links to part I and part II of this series. Part III: Healthcare Campaign Endorsing and Funding Partners HRC’s Health Equality Index (HEI) was initiated in 2007 to push the lie of the 'transgender' human. Aside from the toll on the minds and bodies of patients, perhaps the most disturbing aspects of this campaign are the endorsing and funding partners – the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), Pfizer, Inc, and PhRMA. As leading participants in the Corporate Equality Index, they reap the benefits of lobbying Congress via the Business Coalition, broadening the scope of their wrath. My daughter’s college health center was her first go-to source for testosterone, a drug once known for athlete doping and roid rage. In the 21st century, testosterone was being resurrected for young women and girls to manufacture the modern 'transman,' and my daughter had become a victim. The college provided connections to a clinic for the full smorgasbord of 'gender identity services. My daughter’s breasts were surgically removed, mimicking her campus peers in the year that followed that first injection. I now know many colleges participate in HRC’s campaign to harm students and encourage family separation when concerns arise. GLMA has been an endorsing partner of the HEI since its inception in 2007. GLMA was founded in 1981 and is the largest and oldest association of LGBTQ professionals. Like other groups formed in the ’80s, their focus was HIV/AIDS. ‘T’ and ‘Q’ were added to their tagline in 2012, and 'transgender' and queer initiatives began consuming more attention. GLMA’s conferences are loaded with sponsors from the medical industry, including both PhRMA and Pfizer. Among the GLMA board of directors is Paula M. Neira, a male with a synthetic female identity who was the first clinical director of Johns Hopkins Center for 'Transgender' Health and a leading expert on 'transgender' military service. Another is Jona Tanguay whose research has focused on harm reduction for participants of chemsex, a practice involving male sexualized drug use. While GLMA professes to be a ‘healthcare’ organization, information concerning the alarming rates of 'transgender' identifying youth, the skyrocketing cohort of females now comprising this population, or the lifetime risk of drugs and surgeries is absent. Instead, female testosterone use has broadened markets for products to assuage drug-induced libidos. Is this a female version of chemsex? The images above were recently on the front page of GLMA’s website. By 2011, the HEI was funded by grants from Pfizer, Inc and later by the Pharmaceutical Research and Medical Association (PhRMA), a 33-member trade group and lobbying arm for drug companies. This explains the prevailing affirmation-only agenda and the intersection of corporate and pharmaceutical interests in the CEI. Pfizer is a supplier of testosterone prescribed to females claiming synthetic male identities and estradiol, progesterone, and spironolactone prescribed to males claiming synthetic female identities. From Reuters to the Vatican, Pfizer has a way of getting around despite a conviction in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history for fraudulent marketing in 2009. The drugs prescribed for synthetic cross-sex identities are not FDA-approved for such use rendering it illegal to promote them for this purpose. While the FDA Guidance for the promotion of drugs is skewed to favor drug sales, it is impossible not to make a correlation between Pfizer’s involvement with HRC and the promotion of drugs for the 'transgender' medical complex. There is no shortage of testosterone bottles, injections, or patches that make cameos in "female-to-male" social media. In 2017 HRC and Planned Parenthood teamed up in a YouTube lifestyle campaign promoting testosterone for females. A 22-year-old 'transgender'/ ‘nonbinary’ female tells the audience, “I am certainly not stabbing myself with a needle once a week just for some extra likes on Facebook.” Parents report that social media is often a leading factor in a child’s synthetic sex identification. As the young woman injects herself, the testosterone vial is conveniently turned away from the viewer. It would be a blatant breach of the law to expose the brand for this non-FDA-approved use. In another questionable promotion of testosterone use, a nurse from the University of Iowa LGBTQ Clinic injects a bearded female with testosterone. While the bottle remains small in scale, could the blue oval be the Pfizer symbol? The YouTube video has been viewed over 800k times in four years. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics also earned a top score in the 2022 HEI. Pfizer also has its fingerprint on studies claiming hormone-affirming therapy is beneficial. But is it? Read to the end of the study to discover that drug companies Pfizer and Arbor are convenient sponsors. Once unthinkable cultural oddities now saturate the American way of life. It is no wonder Pfizer even goes to bat for them. Cheerleading for the 'Transgender' Day of Remembrance is great for business. Along with Pfizer, PhRMA also provided grants to the HEI. Plain and simple, its members are out to sell drugs. Messaging abounds in media today, like this ad by PhRMA member Lilly in which the scarred chest of a female flashes across the screen while the narrator professes the lie, “the body you were randomly assigned at birth.” Of the 906 participants in the 2022 HEI, over half received the esteemed ‘leader’ designation. The Department of Veterans Affairs topped the list of participating facilities, with Kaiser Permanente and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) coming in a distant second and third. Faith-based hospitals are hardly exempt from the coercion and lure of money, with 65 HEI participants. While more participants hailed from the coasts, dollar signs have been too hard to pass up, and facilities are now strung out across the US. There are even ‘leaders’ among university student health centers such as UCLA. As any parent who has had a child disappear into a 'transgender' identity on a college campus knows, most colleges today are part of the vortex drawing young prey into this machine. Do all these student health centers strive to be Health Equality Index leaders? With over 19 million college students, this population has been the perfect testing ground to reset age restrictions on 'gender' services and indoctrinate a generation into the falsehood of 'gender' medicine. The students populating the medical programs today are now privy to the industries captured with university credits earned toward proliferating the lie. In a bizarre twist of what it means to care for fellow humans, students are being educated to harm future generations. Over 100 academic medical centers and 30 children’s hospitals participated in the 2022 HEI, with all but a few receiving a ‘leading’ score. Boston Children’s Hospital and Vanderbilt are among the ‘leaders.’ Vanderbilt is even among over thirty healthcare facilities to have participated since the HEIs inception in 2007. Did they always intend to add children to their transgender' services? They were covering cross-sex hormones and surgeries on the student health plan by 2016. Why would they stop there? HRC has a couple of reports that help answer that question. One is “Supporting and Caring for Transgender Children,” a 2016 document written in conjunction with the American Pediatric Association (APA) and the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (ACOP). Written by controversial doctors like Diane Ehrensaft and Ximena Lopez, and using celebrities like reality star Jazz Jennings, a young man with a synthetic female identity, to lay out a gender affirmation approach including drugs and even double mastectomies for older adolescents that make the average citizen wince. Another HRC report from 2020, “LGBTQ Inclusion in Children’s Hospitals,” was written that dispels the lessons from the HEI. The forward is written by the CEO of Boston Children’s Hospital, Sandra Fenwick, who says, “I am so proud of Boston Children’s role as an HEI LGBTQ Healthcare Equality Leader.” The report claims the HEI is the nation’s leading benchmark tool in affirmation. The real problem is that the only tool available today is affirmation. The report is ultimately the product of a 2019 focus group session of eleven children’s hospitals, all with gender clinics, which aimed to assess the unique challenges of "gender services" for children. Conscientious objections, visitation policies, hostile parents, sex trafficking, and negative hospital publicity are all mentioned as unique challenges. How many other medical services for children have sex trafficking concerns? What about the obvious - the mental and physical harm these drugs, surgeries, and practices are having on children? The hospitals, though, show no concern for these things and actively work against parents. Allowing young patients to refuse visitation from a critical caregiver, providing safe spaces, separating parents, sticker campaigns to normalize the industry, and the like are offered as ‘remedies’ – or rather ways to stifle dissent and sell services. For gender clinics wishing to expand services, a guide is available that reads like a how-to on proliferating business practices. The foreword is by the CEO of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Madeline Bell. The report concludes with a long list of controversial resources for families and caregivers, including the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), the American Pediatric Association(APA), the Trevor Project, and many others. Healthcare ‘leaders’ are bestowed with what HRC deems “the coveted designation of ‘LGBTQ+ Healthcare Equality Leader.’” For being 'leaders,’ participants get to advertise with a special logo and receive a ‘toolkit' of resources' to reach out to potential LGBTQ+ clients in their area. Cloaked under the label of a ‘healthcare leader,’ it is with these tools an industry has blossomed to harm the bodies of youth. Concluding Thoughts In earlier years, accusations of HRC being too focused on gay white male issues was normal. Today an obsessive focus on corporately constructed synthetic sex identities reigns. As the AIDS crisis has morphed over the years, the pharmaceutical giants have settled on what makes the most money – novel drugs. Robust competition in the HIV drug space and vaccine research is the focus. They have also settled on new horizons to create a new kind of person – the 'transgender' human of the 21st century. It is a scandal of epic proportions. The expensive, repurposed drug azidothymidine (AZT) once ravished the lives of countless homosexual men. Desperate for a cure, patients at first bowed to the pharma industry's deceit, but the drug was toxic. Thanks to a handful of dedicated citizens, the story broke through the lies swirling at the time, and men from the community rallied to save their brothers. Today a devastating turn of events is underway in which the same community is feeding members directly into the arms of big pharma. Big pharma is content to use these humans as specimens for their grand 'transgender' experiment. This time the organizations professing to rally for the LGBT cause represent the industry itself. There is nothing to be cured here but an industry raging out of control. The demise of AZT was swift. With puberty blockers, a lifetime of cross-sex hormones, and supporting surgeries and medications, the harms might emerge more slowly, but no doubt they will be great. Those exiting industry capture will have broken minds and bodies needing genuine healthcare. The healthcare industry is in such a rapid downward spiral it is difficult to imagine a system to support the carnage that is sure to ensue. Allowing young people to grow up in their natal bodies and removing the farce of synthetic sex identities would negate concerns and terminate the fast-growing parental and public outcry. It would also kill an industry whereby children are trafficked into gender medicine. Instead, the NIH has renewed the sham 'transgender' study that involved Garofalo at Lurie Children’s, UCSF, and other hospitals for an additional five years. The four lead hospitals have also formed the Trans Youth Care Research Network. Remember the 2002 Corporative Equality Index? There were only a handful of top scorers among a few hundred participants. With loads of financial backing, HRC’s mass manipulation campaign to create a culture of acceptance has excelled beyond all imagination. Today more corporations and institutions than ever support their cause. 'Gender identity" cannot be captured in a bottle or studied under a microscope. It must be believed that HRC has been the ringleader and psychological manipulator to make believers of us all. Medicine and gender ideology thrive on one another, with the gender-confused and allied believers now servants to their big medicine masters. In 2019, I sat in the audience while a brave mother, a detransitioner, and doctors recounted the devastation underway to younger and younger patients, all for the lie of the 'transgender' human. The acceptance of a lifestyle so dependent upon drugs, surgeries, and impossible beliefs was not long ago foreign to most Americans. As the very intentional 'transgender' tipping point backed by the pharmaceutical industry and loads of funding and NGOs rages on, so does the ‘peak trans’ tipping point. This is the point at which the reasonable among humanity realize that coexisting is impossible, nor was it ever intended. HRC’s mission is to stamp out any sense of normalcy or human decency, making life miserable for those who question its tenets. The veil is not yet lifted on all the machinations at work, but the train left the station before 2002 and picked up steam in 2007. The HRC engine is now taking society to very dark places with trainloads of human specimens. What are we doing? When the day comes that my daughter realizes healthcare ‘leaders’ have unleashed great harm upon her, I will be alongside her, fighting for the truth to prevail. Part I of this series can be read here. Part II of this series can be read here. Mothers Grim is an independent journalist's pseudonym for exposing the grim realities of the gender industry. She counts among her friends' many mothers who have children, like her own, caught up in an industry perpetuating what she trusts one day will be considered crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, what she writes is neither nursery rhyme nor folklore.

Part II: Healthcare Institution Capture By Mothers Grim Image credit: Flickr. Years ago, my daughter abandoned herself and sought services at a designated ‘leading’ healthcare institution. They did not care for her and instead used her as a live human specimen to create a 21st-century 'transman.' I have not seen my daughter since. This is the story of how healthcare ‘leaders’ have been installed to harm my daughter and countless impressionable young people in America to create the burgeoning 'transgender' medical complex. Here is a link to part I. Part 3 coming soon. Part II: Healthcare Institution Capture . In Part I, readers were introduced to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Equality Indexes that were established as means to capture willing patients and allied supporters for the 'transgender' medical complex. By 2007 corporations and states supported the cause, but this year, the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) index was added, and their true colors began to shine. The goal was to create a baseline understanding of existing healthcare industry policies on issues of concern to the GLBT community.” The actual purpose, though, was never patients but fueling an industry that at one time was relegated to a few controversial physicians. By injecting guidelines like inclusive language, training protocols, and intake forms to capture confused patients into their tangled web, they have succeeded. By 2007 my children were now in middle school, and I was alert for unusual activity. The noise of the opioid crisis flashed across screens, sexual abuse by prominent clergy, coaches and teachers made headlines, and The Mitchell Report was recently released, exposing the illegal anabolic steroid use among prominent athletes. With a diehard athlete for a son, I was paying attention. The report mentioned an increase in the use of steroids among male high school athletes as younger generations modeled the behavior of star players. I read up on the harms, including addiction, psychiatric effects, cardiovascular damage, and other concerns. For my daughters, anabolic steroid use was hardly a worry, though. It may seem counterintuitive, but the HEI is a project of HRC’s Health and Aging Program. Wrong sex hormones have been shown to reduce lifespan and increase suicide risk in the only long-term study ever completed on 'transgender' patients. Other drugs used in 'gender' medicine, including puberty blockers and finasteride, also do not lend themselves to aging well. At the inception of the HEI, advisory groups were established. These members all hailed from fields with conflicting interests in big pharma and politics, rendering only one conclusion possible. It has always been about the business. The cast of advisors from the initial HEI report in 2007 to the report in 2011 close to doubled and included a cardiologist from Cigna, a ‘medical outcomes specialist’ from Pfizer, a director in integrative medicine, a member of a healthcare accreditation organization, and others from the fields of law and medicine. Just looking at a few of these characters provides some clues. Keep in mind 2007 was also the year the first gender clinic opened at a children’s hospital on US soil. I desperately reached out to an almost identical cast of characters when my girl succumbed to this madness. The cast of evil-doers providing her ‘care,’ the university, the insurance companies, lawyers, and doctors, a lot of them heard my plea. They cannot say they did not know. It is clear to me now. From the inception of the HEI, their goal was not caring for patients but concocting ‘leaders’ for profit. Among HEIs healthcare advisors was the controversial doctor Robert Garofalo, at the time a director of an LGBT facility in Chicago known as Howard Brown Health. Howard Brown Health was established in 1974 when local medical students saw a need for healthcare for homosexual men with STDs. Now they are one of the largest healthcare and research organizations for LGBTQ health in the world. High rates of hepatitis b among their target population led to the involvement in research and vaccine trials, and ultimately the first hepatitis b vaccine in the late 70s. This vaccine is now on the childhood immunization schedule, a feat that I now question. When AIDS began its wrath on the homosexual population, Howard Brown stepped in, and by 1984, they became involved in the Multi-center AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). By the late 80s, toxic drugs like AZT and later nevirapine were being used in treatment protocols for AIDS patients. In 2004 Garofalo spurred efforts to create Howard Brown’s Broadway Youth Center. He was the link between the local children’s hospital and Howard Brown. Today the center provides food, housing, and educational services and their version of ‘healthcare.’ My daughter was sucked into the 'gender' vortex in college and not in high school through the glitter offerings of a youth center like Howard Brown. She was at least afforded the opportunity of a more mature mind and body to begin her downward spiral, avoiding puberty blockers and their affiliated harms altogether. Over my dead body, would I have permitted the medicalization of my child for this lie. Would this have permitted time to get ahead of the scandal that was not yet widely reported? Some parents have lost custody of their children when they decline these horrific procedures. The ‘might haves,’ ‘could haves,’ and ‘would haves’ spin constantly in my mind, but when my daughter entered college, there was radio silence from the media, and the stars did not align. Instead, my daughter’s college and medical facility took over and declined even to acknowledge parental concerns. Garofalo was also the president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) in 2007 when the HEI got started. He had discovered his fame and fortune in LGBT medicine before 2007, so he was already an asset to the industry. When he again participated in the HEI in 201l, he was employed by the now-defunct Children’s Memorial Hospital and Northwestern Feinberg School of medicine. When Lurie Children’s Hospital opened on the campus of the Feinberg School of Medicine a year later in 2012 and then launched a controversial gender program a year after that, Garofalo was the perfect candidate to take the helm. This clinic was funded by the 'transgender' identified billionaire Jennifer Pritzker whose family has played a leading role in the transgender industry. Garofalo was also one of four recipients of the 2015 controversial NIH study, a sham study designed to greenlight an industry for the creation of 'transgender' youth. Also on both advisory groups was a member from UCSF. UCSC Benioff Children’s Hospital is home to a controversial gender clinic that, along with Lurie Children’s, sits at the pinnacle of the child 'gender' industry. The same year the HEI was launched in 2007, UCSF received “one of the largest [donations] ever given to an American university for child and adolescent mental health services” from the Pritzker family. Like Lurie Children’s, they were also on the receiving end of NIH funding in 2015 for the sham 'transgender' youth study. Other members advising the HEI hailed from Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a group whose members come from the healthcare and public sectors. SEIU is also on the receiving end of the Pritzker family's push for 'transgender' medicine. Another advisory member was 'transgender-identified' male activist Mara Kiesling who founded the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) in 2003. The NCTE’s website is full of biological inaccuracies. It provides “tips for journalists,” including a linked article that guides reporters away from criticizing 'gender-affirming' medical treatment for 'transgender youth.' The report hails from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard. ‘Misinformation’ here is tainted by industry goals. Boston Children’s Hospital is the teaching arm of Harvard and the location of the first gender clinic that opened its doors for service the same year this advisory group gathered. Several years ago, the parent support group I joined was contacted by a reporter who was writing a story. Our family situations were fraught with deceptive teens parroting activists' claims of suicide, estranged children, and battles with schools overstepping boundaries. We were desperate to get our children away from these medical professionals. In the other ring was a newspaper with financial backers long ago captured by the industry sales pitch. Carefully crafted pieces making the 'transgender' sale littered its content. While we never stood a chance with the mockingbird media at the time, a handful of brave reporters have been with us through thick and thin. A representative from the Mautner Project also advised the HEI both in 2007 and 2011. The Mautner Project started as an initiative in the 90s for lesbians with breast cancer in the DC metro area. By 2013 the Mautner Project had folded into Whitman Walker Health. Whitman Walker is a health clinic in Washington DC that proliferated during the AIDS crisis in the 80s, expanded into lesbian health in the 90s, and was struggling to the point they were shutting down programs by 2005. 2005 also happens to be the year they pushed into 'transgender' medicine. Within a few years, they had regained economic footing. Today medical students participate in rotations at the clinic where they learn 'gender-affirming' care. In a perfect display of the ability of iatrogenic medicine to create more industry needs, the Mautner Program has increased its services to include males. This makes sense as estrogen use increases breast cancer risk for males seeking services to approximate females. By 2011 a member of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations was also an HEI advisor. This commission was started over 70 years ago and is an international organization that now accredits over 22K healthcare facilities. The HEI works with The Joint Commission and Center for Medicaid Services (CMS) to fulfill their elusive 'gender identity' goals, which shift as HRC makes strides in the legal arena. Despite a 2011 report by The Joint Commission that showed concerns over suicide ideation, substance abuse, and long-term cross-sex hormone use among the 'transgender-identified,' an affirmation-only approach has reigned in recent decades. Could it be that The Joint Commission is just another arm funneling money into the 'gender' industrial complex? The Joint Commission pushed on and, in 2011, added a new standard prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and ‘gender identity’ and launched efforts to guide hospitals in this endeavor. None of this in 2011 was required by law. Now though, the pressure is on HEI participant hospitals to garner an HEI ‘leader’ designation initiated this same year with these new requirements. It was not until 2016 the Affordable Care Act provisions were interpreted to include ‘gender identity,’ all with the help of HRC and the various businesses and institutions that were now raising money for these expanded services. The HEI has gone on to provide free training for credit, help in fulfilling legal, CMS, and Joint Commission requirements, and the opportunity for healthcare corporations to “reach out to a highly loyal market.” The 'transgender' sale looms large, and HRC makes participation easy. Sifting through my daughter’s childhood treasures one day, I saw a drawing that made me smile. There is a green line across the bottom of the page and a blue one across the top. In descending family order floating across the middle of the page are five smiling stick figures, the girls with curled lines on either side of lopsided faces and the boys with a single line across their foreheads. As the baby, she is the smallest of the five of us. The scribbled beard my daughter drew on her dad’s face is one of the things that make this picture so endearing. Many years after HRC launched its health campaign, my daughter would be prescribed testosterone from a facility that had earned a ‘healthcare leader’ designation, and her beautiful smile would be sacrificed for the hairy grin that can only be rendered by a toxic injection. The primitive preschool art now also ushers in thoughts of anger at an industry undermining the bodies of a confused generation. What is as clear now as it was the day our daughter’s ‘transgender’ announcement first came is that under our care, she knew exactly who she was. Part 1 of this series can be read here. Part III can be read here. Mothers Grim is an independent journalist's pseudonym for exposing the grim realities of the gender industry. She counts among her friends' many mothers who have children, like her own, caught up in an industry perpetuating what she trusts one day will be considered crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, what she writes is neither nursery rhyme nor folklore.

By Mothers Grim (Image attribution: Flickr) Years ago, my daughter abandoned herself and sought services at a designated ‘leading’ healthcare institution. They did not care for her, and instead used her as a live human specimen to create a 21st-century 'transman.' I have not seen my daughter since. This is the story of how healthcare ‘leaders’ have been installed to harm my daughter and countless impressionable young people in America to create the burgeoning "transgender' medical complex. Part I introduces the campaign. Parts II and III will delve further into the makings of this scandal. Part I: Introduction and the Campaign Beginnings Little did I know, but before my baby girl was born in the 1990s, the underpinnings of a medical scandal began to brew that would one day steal her away. AIDS had long since reared its ugly head but was not on my radar. The proliferation of healthcare facilities and NGOs born from this crisis, though, would one day be used to undermine the lives of every generation since Generation X for the lie of the 'transgender' human, and my daughter would one day be a victim. A welcome and loved addition to our family of four, my girl grew to love soccer, reading, arts and crafts, hikes with her dad, goofing around with her siblings, and sleepovers with her friends. There were no drag queens in our town or gender bread lessons in our schools in these precious years. Still, the wheels of big Pharma, non-profit organizations, politics, and scientism were churning in such a manner that would soon create an epic medical scandal. By the early 2000s, when my girl was just entering grade school, a mass manipulation campaign on the part of a leading non-profit was initiated to coerce much of civil society to support a new medical protocol entailing the lie of the 'transgender' human. Sadly, my girl would one day be chosen for this scandal, but not yet. She was busy being the girl she was, and I was busy cheering her on. Part II of this story continued from 2007, when significant strides were made to push the 'transgender' industry into healthcare. Through the middle school years, my budding teen was having new adventures in drama, sports, debate, and so many other things. Still, there were no drag queens in our town, and I had never heard of a ‘gender clinic’ for a good reason. There were none - at least not until later that year. When my daughter entered college many years later with top grades and a glowing resume, the campaign for the 'transgender' human had been in full swing, but I had no idea. I soon learned to peer beyond the smokescreen when my daughter cloaked herself in a 'transgender' identity on her college campus within months of her arrival. In the years since the smokescreen has cleared to unveil lies and corruption behind the scenes. The pinnacle of the campaign appears to have always been the capture of healthcare, and today, an industry has blossomed that is participating in some of the vilest experiments on the most vulnerable in society, children. In part III, this story will dig deeper into the endorsing and funding partners of the healthcare campaign. The movement is chock full of non-profits, financial backers, practitioner greed, deceptive advertising, and pharmaceutical ties colluding to create an unprecedented healthcare scandal. My daughter is still a woman today. Only now, she lacks breasts, has questionable mental and physical health, and is alienated from those who love her most. This is what the ‘leaders’ have done to her. It is what they wanted to do. I remain her mother and love her dearly, but I now fight for the sons and daughters of others as she continues her imprisonment in a medical scandal raging out of control. The Campaign Beginnings Today much of society is parroting the same nonsensical and dangerous lie regarding the reality of the human person in favor of the disembodied belief of 'transgenderism.' The industry depends upon the elusive concept of ‘gender identity,’ a lie that now litters everything from kindergarten classrooms to patient intake forms across America. While the guiding medical organizations might account for the framework gaslighting patients and Hollywood characters that have long influenced the young, this cannot account for the all-encompassing madness that is inescapable in everyday life. Enter one of the biggest ringleaders of the 'transgender' drive – the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Under the guise of ‘civil rights,’ HRC has whipped much of civil society to support a concept considered absurd not long ago, the idea of a 'transgender' human. They have stripped away inherent rights to natural bodies, undermined biological origins, and packaged it under the rainbow of ‘equality,’ ‘diversity,’ and ‘inclusion.’ The illusion of a society raging against a marginalized community has garnered sympathy for their cause. Not only have they captured corporations, institutions, and governing bodies, they have reached their goal and have helped mastermind some of the most disturbing ‘leaders’ in modern medicine. Civil society has been manipulated to support these disturbing ‘leaders’ in performing horrific medical procedures, even on youth. The truth is that all arms of HRC today support the 'transgender' medical complex, where lies and medicine go hand in hand to reap profits. In 1982 ‘AIDS’ was first defined by the CDC after it had begun to ravish the lives of homosexual men. Today the AIDS space is dominated by the drive for novel HIV medications. Among the non-profits that then appeared on the scene was the Human Rights Campaign Fund, created in 1980. By 1984 HRC Foundation was formed to focus on LGBTQ+ research, advocacy, and education. Today the foundation claims it “envisions a world where all LGBTQ+ people can participate fully in the systems that shape our daily lives,” but this is a lie. HRC’s allegiance is to the industry profiteering not only from the AIDS crisis but also from the carefully crafted phenomenon of the 21st-century 'transgender' human. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is even an HRC platinum corporate sponsor. In 2002 HRC first set its sights on corporations establishing the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) as a “national benchmarking tool on corporate policies, practices, and benefits pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, 'transgender' and queer employees.” HRC has become a de facto government evaluating businesses for all things LGB, and in more recent years, all things ‘gender identity’ while they pick away at the political component. They honed their skills on the sexual orientation agenda. A document titled 'Transgender' Inclusion in the Workplace: A Toolkit for Employers is provided to make the job easy. The most influential corporations and lawyers climb on board following the toolkit provided and serve as role models for other corporations to succumb one day. The CEI report states, “The most considerable progress measured over the 19-year history of the CEI and continuing in 2021 has been the wide-scale adoption of 'transgender'-inclusive initiatives across businesses.” It is the 'transgender' cause conducting the train over the cliff with America’s businesses in full support and its youth inside. Far more devastating than the loss of the American corporation to this lie is the loss of young people who are becoming live human specimens for an immense medical complex. Political capital is at the heart of the CEI. Culling from the CEI, HRC’s Business Coalition has been established to spearhead legislative efforts. The 'transgender' lobby has increased its power from a mere 13 to 528 member companies comprised of the most powerful corporations in the country in 20 years. Today these efforts are geared towards the passage of the Equality Act, a bill introduced in 2015 that would provide ‘gender identity’ protection under federal law. Many coalition members hail from the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries or industries that would benefit from the bill’s passage. These include pharmaceutical corporations represented by Pharma’s top lobby group, PhRMA. Members include Abbvie, makers of Lupron for puberty suppression, and Pfizer, makers of testosterone and other drugs for cross-sex identities. Coalition members include investors BlackRock and Vanguard, heavy contributors to the 'transgender' medical complex, and two children’s hospitals with gender clinics, Children’s Minnesota Hospital and Nationwide Children’s Hospital. Indulging my teen girls in their latest fashion whimsies at the nearby Target was a welcome excursion at one time. The clothing was reasonably priced. After Target refused to carry a book by a reporter with whom I once spoke, visits to the store ended for me. The author’s book was a bestseller with stories of girls like my own sucked into the vortex of 'transgender' medicine. It is an important story but barely skims the surface of this looming disaster. As a member of the Business Coalition for the Equality Act, Target Corporation’s allegiance lies beyond the realm of reality, and this is not my world. Perusing the CEI scores from 2021, it is clear not everyone is rallying for the 'transgender' cause. The CEI provides “unofficial” ratings of the Fortune 500 companies that failed to respond to HRC's repeated efforts to get them in on the gender game. Most non-participants received a lousy 0, 10, or 20 rating. In other words, they failed miserably. Perhaps corporate cheerleading for harmful policies like allowing men in women’s private spaces is not every corporation’s cup of tea. Perhaps treating delusions as facts creates too much employee tension. Or maybe, some employers are more concerned about the bodily integrity of their employees than an elusive identity. However, low scores among participating Fortune 500 companies are outliers in the 2021 field of over 1,000 corporations. HRC next looked to conquer the states and, in 2004, added the State Equality Index (SEI), establishing “a comprehensive state-by-state report that reviews statewide laws and policies that affect LGBTQ+ people and their families.” They worked with the Equality Federation Institute and statewide LGBTQ+ organizations for this task. Another organization born in the era of AIDS and rallying for the LGB cause, the institute’s efforts today are geared toward all things 'transgender.' With donations from the Gill Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Open Society Policy Center, and others with questionable motives, the Equality Federation has become a clearinghouse for tracking and advocating for LGBT bills with over 40 state partners. Years ago, I met with a congressional aid in my blue state. The aide was utterly clueless about 'transgender' issues but listened with wide eyes as I told him what was being done to children at the hospital gender clinic a few miles away. Today this hospital is HRC’s version of a ‘leader.’ The Equality Federation also advocates for HIV policies, including Ending the HIV Epidemic Plan, a plan to promote pharmaceuticals like HIV prophylaxis PrEP for male to female-identified patients. HRC is also working to push legislation for insurance coverage of this high-cost medication and offers financial support to students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become ‘peer educators.’ With astronomical sums flowing into The Ending the HIV Epidemic Plan and its fascinating history, it seems fair to question the intent here. Not only has ViiV Healthcare donated to the federation, but they are also members of the Business Coalition for the Equality Act. ViiV Healthcare partnered with Pfizer and Glaxo-Smith Kline in 2009, and now hold a portfolio of 17 HIV drugs. Although HRC was already dabbling in healthcare via the CEI and SEI, in 2007, they added the Healthcare Equality Index(HEI), and their true colors began to shine. The goal was “to create a baseline understanding of existing healthcare industry policies on issues of concern to the GLBT community.” The actual purpose was never the patient but fueling an industry that at one time was relegated to a few controversial physicians. They have succeeded by injecting guidelines like inclusive language, training protocols, and intake forms to capture confused patients into their tangled web (A deeper look at the HEI will be undertaken in Parts II and III of this series). In 2012 HRC added the Municipal Equality Index with the slogan, “Equality drives economic growth.” What more needs to be said? The Long-Term Health Equality Index (LEI) was launched in 2022, along with an LGBTQ+ advocacy group for seniors called SAGE. SAGE was first known as Senior Action in a Gay Environment and is the oldest and largest non-profit supporting older LGBT adults. The since transformed title, Services, and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and 'Transgender' Elders, is indicative of the growing breadth of their work to fully encompass all identities. The initial efforts of the LEI are to evaluate “senior housing communities based on the equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ+ residents.” Like the other indexes, they started small and will no doubt add benchmarks and criteria. But is Sage looking out for seniors, or is it too interested in industry expansion? On its board sit prominent people in law and medicine, including Kevin Williams, the Chief Medical Officer for Pfizer Internal Medicine, and Cindy Rizzo, the Senior Advisor of Evaluation and Strategy at the Arcus Foundation, a foundation funding body dissociation in healthcare. There will be a growing population of aging 'transgender' Americans living in mentally and physically broken bodies thanks in part to the campaign creating a population of such patients for the 'transgender' industry to use as their medical experiment. As each equality index got underway, the industry profited while civil society became more burdened by the 'transgender' lie. Part II of this series can be read here. Part III can be read here. Mothers Grim is an independent journalist's pseudonym for exposing the grim realities of the gender industry. She counts among her friends' many mothers who have children, like her own, caught up in an industry perpetuating what she trusts one day will be considered crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, what she writes is neither nursery rhyme nor folklore.

We exist in a simulated reality, somewhere between actual reality (the biosphere) and a Metaverse (Singularity, augmented reality, virtual reality, cyberspace - take your pick). Anyone minimizing the transhumanist agenda for which the current “gender” insanity is both a front and a grooming mechanism should pay closer attention. Sex is our tether to life more than anything else - it connects us to the entire ecosystem. This is why it is being attacked medically, linguistically, legally, and politically across many governments. “Transgenderism” is a corporate ad campaign for the profiteering of the techno-medical complex on par with and poised to exceed the opioid crisis. It also goes far beyond mere medical profiteering. “Gender ideology,” along with an assault of propaganda from other realms, is constructing a virtual reality, one in which we are already steeped but made more potent by breaking our last tie to the real world: Our sex. Human emotions and our ability to respond to crises are being overridden by constant exposure to trauma. Tech connects us to massive amounts of sexually degrading material, wars, & violence hitherto unknown to the human psyche. It does so as it separates us from each other and the land into which we were born. We dissociate to protect ourselves & have become hardened to genuine emotion and our ability to sense reality. By contrast, a veneer of insipid caring has been imposed on us, corporately cultivated by ads and propaganda, much like the alcoholic drowning in performative emotions while intoxicated, all the while their real feelings are being smothered in booze. During World War II and the Vietnam war, Americans united in solidarity; we worried about our families and those around us who were losing family members. We knitted clothing for the soldiers and sent gift boxes. We wrote letters. We gathered with our neighbors for news. Today, it is the rare individual who can tell you how many wars we are currently fighting. We don’t care. We are dissociated from the vast amount of violence we are exposed to through tech. The more we dissociate, the less we genuinely feel & empathize, and the more atrocities we stand down to and accept as normal. Nowhere is this more appallingly apparent than at the front of the gender industry, where children’s sex is being medically brutalized under the banner of human rights and medical care. We have become fodder for a tech mill intent on melding us with machines. We are not that far from the posthuman condition the corporate state intends to create. Many of us in the western world are centralized in cities and spend far more time close to machines than we do with our real-life friends and family members or with the natural world. We are insulated in our cars, our offices, in front of computers, and on our phones - on the internet. We don’t live in the biosphere, surrounded by a tapestry of the life we are a part of and in interdependent relationships. We don’t know where our food comes from, and we would prefer it that way because if we knew, we wouldn’t want to eat it. Likewise, we don’t know what is in our food. We don’t know what most people we love had for breakfast. Reality has become a tourist attraction, a place we visit in our time off from the near-virtual reality we exist in. If the medical community tells us children’s sex must be medically attacked to fit with the feelings of dissociation they’ve developed in a dissociated environment, who are we to argue? If the gender industry tells us this is a human right, it must be so. If Hollywood and the media promote this as a brave lifestyle, who are we to judge? If we can’t help ourselves, the children & the future will be lost to us. Indeed, we are so immersed in synthetic reality already. Many of us find it acceptable for children’s & adults’ wholly sexed humanity to be reduced to manufactured, consumable parts for others. We take the medical and political assault on human sex in stride, believing it manifests a particular type of person that needs a new category and rights within the law to function outside the reality of being a sexually dimorphic species. They call themselves “trans,” suggesting they transition from something to something else (they don’t), taking themselves out of the human category where the rest of us live. Those living as humans don’t announce that we are humans. Still, suddenly we’re being referred to, and referring to ourselves, as “biological” men and women - as if there were anything else. Society is being radically & rapidly changed by corporate interests and our enslavement to technology to accommodate the illusion of a different kind of human. Thus far, these humans have not transitioned from or to anything. They are humans, like the rest of us, but the myth is powerful, and everyone buys in. These humans are consumers and are situated as living ad campaigns for the reduction of wholly sexed humans to parts. But we can’t FEEL this. We can’t feel our deconstruction. We feel what we’ve been told to feel, that this is brave, that these people suffer more than anyone else. They are the most vulnerable, the most suicidal, and the most oppressed. They are consumers. Their emblem, a pink, white and blue flag, is a corporate logo, once replacing the POW flags at the White House and now hanging at the ISP in Antarctica. It is no less potent than the swoosh of the Nike logo, convincing us that the product is superior. It’s not real. These same corporations promoting body dissociation as progressive, telling us they care about the marginalized, are destroying the natural world as they build us synthetic simulacrums and cultivate our acceptance that it is a utopia. In 1965, Monsanto gave us AstroTurf for our lawns, destroyed the integrity of our food, and now we have synthetic sex identities. We are encased in a virtual world we can’t see. I am not making this up. Silicon Valley, in bed with the medical-industrial complex and supported by billionaire bankers, is selling us a singularity, a neuro-linked reality, a metaverse, a virtual reality. They are telling us what they are doing as they are doing it. We are so ensconced in it that we don’t know what is real, what we feel, what is the truth, or what is right. Where will we be in ten years? Think how far we have come from those who gathered around the radio with overburdened hearts and later the first TV broadcasts, just over a century ago, to learn the fate of their fellow humans in faraway wars. We now gather around the television as voyeurs while the castration of a young man, Jaron Bloshinsky (aka "Jazz Jennings"), is promoted as “reality” entertainment. Young women who’ve had their healthy breasts medically excised are being used in corporate ads selling liberation from our sexed reality. Our sex is more pertinent to our existence in a living biosphere than anything we think. It is our root in the real world. How will we free ourselves from this virtual reality imposed by corporate interests, telling us our sex is not real? Any embrace of the “transgender” myth solidifies a virtual reality the state is building for us, a cult into which we’ve been brainwashed. It isn't real. It isn't a type of person. It is an ad campaign for our dissolution - the deconstruction of human reproductive sex and, ultimately, humanity as we know it. There are no “gender people.” This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. 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.

By Alline Cormier This article contains spoilers. Gen-Xers, myself included, grew up without cellphones and even, to a large extent, personal computers. A significant part of our childhood was spent playing outside—unplugged. I have fond summer vacation memories of leaving the house right after breakfast every day to run around the neighborhood with my cousins and friends, returning home only briefly for meals. After supper, we would play Kick the Can until dark—or until the parents called us back in, not on cellphones but shouting from porch steps. Nowadays, many of us, irrespective of the generation we belong to, spend hours of every day “plugged in” to our electronic devices. Over the last two decades, we have increasingly left the natural world, effectively living a significant part of our lives online (or staring at screens). In Surrogates, an action sci-fi set in the not-so-distant future starring Bruce Willis, 98% of humans do not leave their homes; going outside to interact with the world is left to their remote-controlled android (the robotic “surrogates”), which look like a more attractive version of themselves. At the same time, they remain safely indoors, plugged into “sim chairs.” Unlike some futuristic films, Surrogates does not normalize synthetic humans or encourage viewers to embrace them. Instead, it encourages us to reject synthetic humans, live unplugged, and embrace our vulnerable humanity. Given the ever-decreasing amount of time we spend unplugged, as well as the push by some to normalize body dissociation and transhumanism, it may be interesting to take a closer look at Surrogates. Released in 2009, the Jonathan Mostow-directed film made over US$119 million at the worldwide box office. The screenplay by Michael Ferris and John Brancato is based on a graphic novel series by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele called The Surrogates. The film explores a future in which we are almost entirely disconnected from the natural world, each other, and ourselves. In this future, just about everyone owns a surrogate—and most of the feminized surrogates resemble Barbies, especially Maggie, the protagonist’s wife. Set in Boston, Massachusetts, Surrogates follows a middle-aged FBI agent named Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) and his partner, Jennifer Peters (Radha Mitchell), as their search for a murderer leads to a search for a weapon capable of killing the human operators of the robot surrogates simply by shooting the robots. The murder victim is the son of inventor Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell), dubbed the “father of surrogacy” as he is one of the founders of VSI, the surrogate industry’s leading manufacturer. Canter’s son’s death is especially alarming as the whole point of robot surrogates is to protect their human operators from harm by eliminating the risk of injury—it shouldn’t be fatal to use them. Before the weapon is used to kill more humans, Greer and Peters must find it (the weapon is a device that disables the surrogates with a virus that defeats the built-in fail-safes, killing the human operators via signals). Surrogates, frame capture (Peters and Greer) Though most people have surrogates in this future, a minority opposes them, refusing to live through surrogates. These rebels stick to their territories (surrogate-free zones) and do not mingle with surrogates. The rebels are led by the Human Coalition leader, named The Prophet (Ving Rhames). In Boston, this zone is called the Dread Reservation, and inside it graffiti reads: “Unplug yourself!” Giant banners featuring The Prophet say LIVE. I found it interesting that the people who oppose synthetic humans live in poverty. In contrast, those who go along with surrogacy and the way of life promoted by the tech industry get to live in affluence. Only compliance is materially rewarded. Bruce Willis’ character, Greer, is introduced through his younger-looking robot surrogate, which, unlike its operator, has a full head of hair. I figure if Beach Ken Dolls had a dad, this is what it would look like. However, early on, Greer loses his surrogate—it is destroyed by rebels—and is forced from this point on to interact with the outside world as his vulnerable human self, not via his remote-controlled android. Even before the loss of his surrogate, we see Greer attempting to connect with his wife, Maggie (Rosamund Pike), a disfigured, very depressed, heavily medicated woman who is too scared to leave her home. It seems she never leaves her bedroom, where her sim chair is located, preferring to let her surrogate interact with her husband, even in their apartment and despite his efforts to spend time with her. Just as the Greers’ sim chairs are in separate rooms, they grieve their young son, who died in a car accident before the story begins, separately. She shuts him out; he yearns for a connection and physical contact with her. However, even Maggie’s surrogate keeps him at arm’s length. Because viewers are meant to sympathize first and foremost with Greer, his sadness over the absence of connection in his marriage shows us what the filmmakers consider a significant disadvantage of synthetic humans. Surrogates, frame capture (Maggie and Greer) The movie opens with The Prophet urging people to unplug from their chairs. He adds: “We’re not meant to experience the world through machines… Those machines walking around out there? They’re a lie. You have been sold a lie.” In a later scene, The Prophet says to a crowd at a funeral on the Dread Reservation, “You can try to escape by living through a puppet, through a machine. But, deep down inside, you know you’re living a lie.” In two scenes, the filmmakers make it clear that people’s use of surrogates allows them to lie to others about themselves concerning significant facts easily. Although this can be advantageous to the operator, the filmmakers also demonstrate how this constitutes a drawback. In the first of these scenes, viewers discover, along with agents Greer and Peters, that the human operator behind the surrogate Canter’s son was making out with outside the nightclub is not a gorgeous young woman with long blond hair but an overweight, bald man. I thought this inclusion was a nice touch, given the men in real life who have pornified female avatars for online interactions with others. In the second scene, Greer says to the beautiful, young, feminized lawyer surrogate he sits with: “Honey, I don’t know what you are. For all I know, you could be some big fat dude sitting in a sim chair with his dick hanging out.” Usually, I’m not overly fond of Willis’ characters’ vulgarity and four-letter word vocabulary, but here I didn’t mind how he exposed the truth about some men’s online behavior. Surrogates, frame capture (Greer, Peters, and a dead human operator in a sim chair) Shortly after the movie’s halfway mark, Greer rejects Maggie’s surrogate, calling it a “thing” and telling it he wants his wife, the woman, in her room. In the end, this FBI agent—not the rebels—is the one who destroys all the surrogates once all the human operators have been safely unplugged. He is reunited with Maggie in their dead son’s room and holds her in his arms. We eventually discover that the anti-surrogacy movement was funded with millions of dollars by the inventor of the surrogates himself, Dr. Lionel Canter, who had a change of heart about humans’ use of surrogates. Canter says to Greer, “Surrogacy is a perversion. It’s an addiction.” By depicting the surrogates’ inventor and the story’s hero rejecting surrogates and desiring their destruction, the filmmakers make their position on synthetic humans plain. Unlike Blade Runner 2049—which I previously analyzed here—a film that normalizes synthetic humans, thereby paving the way for the biotech industry’s post-humanism, Surrogates rejects synthetic humans and encourages us to live unplugged. Finally, and in consideration of female viewers, it is worth noting that Surrogates has little to offer them, beginning with the small number of significant female characters. It boasts just two: Peters and Maggie, one of which is killed off twice. Indeed, a man breaks into Peters’ house and shoots her dead before hijacking her surrogate, and later a different man shoots her surrogate in the head. In this second murder scene for Peters, we see the actress shot and fall to the floor. Moreover, soon afterward we see Maggie’s surrogate lying “dead” on the floor of her workplace, eyes open. Even though we know this is an android—not a human—I still found it disturbing to see Rosamund Pike lying dead on the floor like this; there isn’t much difference between the way she looks here and the way we’ve seen her in many other movies—Gone Girls, Made in Dagenham, and Pride & Prejudice to name just a few. Surrogates, frame capture (Maggie’s “dead” surrogate) Surrogates fails female viewers in other ways, including the following. It barely passes the Bechdel test (a test that serves as an indicator of the active presence of women in movies); just one of the five very brief exchanges between female characters passes. There is next to no congeniality between the female characters. Double standards abound, beginning with men's and women’s costumes. Peters wears low-cut tops and high heels, whereas Greer is buttoned up and wears sensible shoes. Many female extras are scantily clad. For example, the feminized surrogate that makes out with Canter’s son—dressed in a tuxedo—just after “meeting” him on the dance floor of a nightclub, wears a bikini-like outfit. Additionally, the sexist age gap is maintained: Pike, Willis’ screen wife, is an actress 24 years his junior. The other woman he is paired with, too, is much younger. He is 18 years older than the actress (Mitchell) who plays his FBI partner, Jennifer Peters. Though Surrogates offers little to female viewers, it’s good to know that it’s out there, promoting the rejection of synthetic humans, lives led “plugged in,” and “perfect,” plasticized versions of ourselves. We could do worse than Hollywood feature films starring A-list actors that encourage people to live authentic lives and spend time outside, not to mention reminding us that big tech can sell us lies. Alline Cormier is a Canadian film analyst. This year her articles on women in film/TV have been published in The 11th Hour, Women Making Films (India), Feminist Current, 4W, and Gender Dissent. She is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. Her website is found at sexualizationofwomen.com, and she tweets @ACPicks2. PayPal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier