Search Results

By Nancy Roberston (with credit for the prolific research of Leon Donnelly) For much of this century, silicon valley has promoted a transhumanist fantasy on steroids—a wild spree of vast riches, eternal youth, and endless, anonymous sex. If you can dream it, you can do it. So untether yourself from logic, reason, and morality. Want a net worth of 30 billion dollars? Then mine that crypto like Sam Bankman-Fried. Want to have an orgy with a flock of pink feathered birds? Just hang out at the cyber brothel in Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse. Want to live forever? Then let the good folks at Alcor plunge your newly decapitated head into an icy vat of liquid nitrogen. So what are you waiting for? The sky's the limit. Nothing is impossible. That is, until cold, hard reality knocks you senseless with stock market crashes, mass layoffs, and prison terms. How did we end up in this Ponzi scheme that discards common sense like some moldy, old shoe? A country in which our President, leader of the free world, "celebrates" a tiny minority of men in dresses and women with beards? If we know where to look, the answer is simple. One night a couple of decades ago, William Sims Bainbridge, the transhumanist and chief architect of the US government's high-tech boom, hooked up with "Martine" Rothblatt the autogynephilic, near-billionaire who would direct the "transgender" takeover of the country's most important institutions. And as they say, the rest is history. This article tells how the unholy alliance between high tech, big money, the US government, transhumanism, and the aggressive "transgender" lobby sucked us into a gender-bending death cult that strangles our society and threatens the future of our species. The leaders of the transhumanist movement embody massive contradictions. On the one hand, they present themselves as responsible adults and play key leadership roles in American institutions. But they also exist in a cartoon world of video game fantasy, prancing about in bizarre costumes while they seek to bring about the most dismal world we can imagine, a world without flesh and blood human beings. They claim to care about humanity. But they see our human biology as something to be cast off and abandoned. They enjoy society's highest levels of money, position, and power. But they deny everything that makes life meaningful to the rest of us -- the reality of human sexual dimorphism, the sex-based rights of women, and even the concept of what it means to be human. We must take transhumanists seriously. They threaten our very existence. If I were choosing someone to film the life and work of one seminal transhumanist, William Sims Bainbridge, it would be the director Oliver Stone whose movies reveal how the flawed character and fateful actions of a few influential individuals produced devastating results for this country and the world. As it turns out, Bainbridge and Stone had strikingly similar upbringings. Each man was born within a year of World War II to a wealthy family in metropolitan New York. Each attended a private college prep school and then enrolled at Yale but soon dropped out and spent years climbing back up the ladder to eventual success and influence. But while Stone criticizes the establishment through his popular films, Bainbridge uses his lofty perch within America's capitalist system to bend society to his own will by promoting his skewed beliefs about humanity and "gender." William Bainbridge's life certainly had a few odd twists, but a couple of themes emerged during his childhood and continued throughout his life. As a young boy in Connecticut, he,, like many children, was fascinated by science fiction stories. But his favorite author wasn't Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, or Arthur C Clark. No. Bainbridge's favorite author was a less popular choice, L Ron Hubbard, the conman who would later establish the secretive and dangerous religious cult called Scientology. Did Bainbridge's early exposure to Hubbard and the strange worlds of science fiction influence his future career trajectory? Undoubtedly. In any event, when Bainbridge was a teenager, his parents enrolled their son at Choate, the very same elite boarding school that had educated the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy. From Choate, Bainbridge naturally headed to the Ivy League, specifically Yale University. In the middle of the last century, decades before it turned woke, Yale was a bastion of male WASP privilege for the scions of America's top movers and shakers. As even the most casual visitor to Yale soon discovers, the campus is filled with secret societies and cults of mystery and power. The clubhouse buildings lie in plain sight, but the activities inside remain inaccessible and unknowable to everyone who isn't a member. The infamous Skull and Bones was and continues to be the training ground for America's leaders, the future titans of media and industry, and top government brass. Both President Bushes, 41 and 43, were Skull and Bones men. We have no reason to believe William Bainbridge ever joined a secret society at Yale. For one thing, he dropped out of college too soon to do so. But an eccentric, imaginative soul like his would have been enticed by all those esoteric cults and their mysterious rituals. Groups Bainbridge was excluded from. Secrets he wasn't privy to. All that would have burrowed deep into his fertile young mind where it fermented for years, for decades, waiting for the right moment to emerge fully formed like the destructive gypsy moth exiting its cocoon. One day Bainbridge would create a secret society of his own. After Bainbridge left Yale, his life took a sharp turn. He transferred to the Conservatory of Music at Oberlin College, where he presumably learned enough about music to tune pianos and build harpsichords from scratch. From Oberlin, Bainbridge transferred to Boston University, where he eventually received his BA at 31. A few years after graduating from BU, Bainbridge earned a Ph.D. from that other school across the Charles River, Harvard University. Bainbridge's 1975 dissertation (The Spaceflight Revolution) covered the social history of the American spaceflight movement and examined the factors that led to the early, enthusiastic push for American space exploration back in the 1960s. Three decades later, in The Spaceflight Revolution Revisited, 2005 Bainbridge considered the now "moribund" American spaceflight program and stated that to reinvigorate it, the US could no longer rely on scientific curiosity or the future promise of economic profits. Instead, the country had to establish a "space-oriented cult," a new religion that would use high technology to meet fundamental human needs. Along with this religion, scientists would need to extend the human lifespan, merge our brains with computers, and evolve past the state of being biological organisms, becoming "intelligent synthetic automata." As we will see, William Bainbridge dedicated much of his life and career to creating a transhumanist religious cult. After Bainbridge received his Harvard doctorate in Sociology, he was finally credentialed enough to start his academic teaching career on the tenure track at Washington University in St. Louis. Then he hopped around a bit, spending a few years at each of the three other universities. First, there was a non-tenure track post back at Harvard. After that, he attained the rank of full professor at two obscure public universities that lack the stature an Ivy Leaguer like Bainbridge would see as his due. During these 14 years, from 1978 to 1992, Bainbridge cranked out no less than nine books. His output included typical academic subjects that would raise no eyebrows or concerns: a statistics and methodology textbook for psychology and sociology, an exploration of values and goals for space and technology, and a book about the theory and future of religion. But in 1978, Bainbridge also published a nonfiction book called Satan's Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult, and it would raise a few eyebrows. The book detailed the true story of the Process Church of the Final Judgement, a satanic psychotherapy cult founded by former members of L Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology. Members of this cult included an early "transgender" punk rocker, Genesis P Orridge of the Throbbing Gristle. It was even rumored but later disproven that some of the central tenets of the Process Church were borrowed by another infamous American cult, the Charles Manson gang. Bainbridge had not only researched the Process Church, but he also joined it and became an active member. Yes. William Sims Bainbridge of Harvard and Yale joined a satanic cult for a couple of years in the early 1970s. He then wrote a sympathetic portrait of the cult's heyday and eventual dissolution. Did Bainbridge believe the dangerous ideas the group espoused? Or was he simply seeking practical tips? Studying one cult so he could someday create his own. In 1992, Bainbridge struck pay dirt. He was plucked out from the academic backwaters and appointed as director of sociology at the nation's preeminent science funding organization, the prestigious. National Science Foundation, a group that exerts great power over the nation's scientific enterprise by opening and closing the purse strings. The NSF funds 25% of all research conducted in US universities. Then in 2001, Bainbridge moved out of sociology and into the NSF's Division for Information and Intelligent Systems, where he was appointed co-director of the futuristically named Cyber-Human Systems Program. This program funds the very type of research so near and dear to Bainbridge's heart, including human-computer interaction and human-robot interaction. After all those years toiling away in relative obscurity, Bainbridge had finally taken what he must have felt was his rightful place as a key power broker within the nation's scientific inner circle. And he was eager to use his influence to promote radical change. To reduce flesh and blood humanity into data streams through software and silicon chips. Nothing could stop him now. Read Part 2 here. Nancy Robertson Bio: 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, and Women are Human. 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. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

By Nancy Robertson (with credit for the prolific research of Leon Donnelly) William Bainbridge is an older male academic without outward signs of being "transgender." He's now in his eighties, but there's no record of him ever having a spouse or romantic relationship. He may have autism. Being autistic could explain his obsession with science fiction, his interest in building arcane and archaic musical instruments, his unbelievably prolific scholarly output, his interest in joining and creating cults, and his interest in merging humans and machines. It would also explain his eventual working relationship with another man suspected of having autism, the near-billionaire "transgender"/transhumanist "Martine" Rothblatt. Rothblatt's 2011 book "From Transgender to Transhumanism: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form," outlined his battle plan to do away with the two human sexes, replace humans with machines, and remake the world. As Rothblatt famously stated, "transgender is the onramp to transhumanism." These are plans that Bainbridge undoubtedly supported, contributed to, and possibly even originated. The all but inevitable association between Bainbridge and Rothblatt must have seemed to those two men like a match made in heaven. I could find no record of when the two men first teamed up. Most likely, they had traveled in the same circles for years. In 2006, Rothblatt's first issue of the Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness published Bainbridge's article Strategies for Personality Transfer. The article explained how a person might answer thousands of questions about their personality and life experiences and then upload their resulting "consciousness" to a computer." This activity became one of the essential rituals in Terasem's effort to merge humans and machines. Terasem is a technological movement/religion originated by 'Martine' Rothblatt and most likely vastly influenced by Bainbridge. One belief of Terasem is that not having a body makes you differently abled, not sub-human. For Bainbridge, the proximity to a brilliant and staggeringly rich transhumanist like Rothblatt, who by then had a personal net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars from the 1992 sale of his first company, the space satellite-based Sirius XM Radio, was like a shot of adrenaline. To Rothblatt, Bainbridge's position at the NSF gave the imprimatur of respectability to even the most unbelievable plan to turn humans into cyborgs. Each man had what the other wanted and needed. But a fully informed citizenry would never consider the duo a match made in heaven. No. They would call it a match made in hell. Let's look at some of the other central tenets and rituals of Terasem to see how they reflect the input of William Bainbridge. As with Scientology, the closer you look, the crazier it seems. The ultimate goal of Terasem is immortality, not of the soul, but of the mind and body. Practitioners of Terasem are told to have faith that their consciousness will eventually be revived and they will live forever. To achieve this immortality, people are instructed to complete a lengthy personal inventory, called a mind file, created by Bainbridge and described in Rothblatt's journal. It's not a coincidence that one other cult also requires its members to complete extensive personality testing, and that cult is Scientology. And there's another similarity between Terasem and Scientology. Like Scientology, Terasem contains a series of levels that members must progress to on their path through the Terasem Way of Life. An individual's personality test data are then combined with that individual's genetic code and beamed (spacecast) deep into space where after hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, the data will be intercepted by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization that will reassemble each long-dead earthling so that the individual can be reborn and live forever. Another method of achieving immortality that Terasem lobbies for is the development of self-replicating nanotechnology to seed the cosmos with everyone's mind files. Because why shouldn't we all send our digital doppelgangers to populate every corner of the visible universe? Terasem never explicitly mentions "transgenderism." That would be unnecessary since the leader of the entire movement is the obviously "transgender" "Martine" Rothblatt. "Transgenderism" also gets in through the back door with Terasem's relentless emphasis on "diversity and inclusion." And then there's this odd statement promoting transhumanism: "Vitological station is irrelevant to romantic adoration," which means the faithful must be willing to fall in love with a being who exists only in a disembodied online state. This brings to mind the newly revived Catholic religious ritual in which consecrated virgins wear a long, white wedding dress and, in the eyes of the Church, become the bride of Jesus Christ. During the past decade, Bainbridge continued to write and edit several books. Let's look at two recent books to get a sense of his later thoughts about transhumanism. In Dynamic Secularization (2017), he states that transhumanism seeks to replace traditional religion with a science and technology-based alternative. This new religion promises people that they can achieve immortality. So it's a natural replacement for conventional faiths. One method for gaining immortality is cryonic suspension, that is, freezing one's brain and body for eventual resuscitation. The leading cryonic suspension company, the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, is based in Scottsdale, Arizona,, and run by Max More and his wife, Natasha Vita-More. Alcor just completed its 50th-anniversary conference during the first weekend of June 2022. One speaker at this conference was the well-known and highly respected philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers , who is best known for formulating the complex problem of consciousness. Chalmers presumably spoke about whether it's theoretically possible to revive a person's consciousness after they die and, if so, how that might conceivably be achieved. Dynamic Secularization also discusses Terasem and describes its role as educating the public on the need for radically extending human life by preserving and downloading human consciousness. Bainbridge proposes the metaverse as the eventual substitute for real life. Back in 2009, Bainbridge organized an online meeting of Terasem in a virtual world called Second Life. His cartoon-like avatar presented himself as a handsome, young, muscular man. The Order of Cosmic Engineer, which eventually became the Turing Church, was formed to discuss ways to push the transhumanist envelope on the rest of society. Members included Bainbridge, Max More. Natasha Vita-More, and "Martine" Rothblatt. Naturally, the group met online in a particular room in the World of Warcraft. The cartoon avatars were dressed like time travelers from the 1400s. There was even a furry. Curiously, Bainbridge never discusses "transgenderism" in his book other than to note in passing that "Martine" Rothblatt is "transgender." But given how "transgenderism" has been promoted as the on-ramp to transhumanism, and propaganda driving dissociation from the sexed body as progressive by western governments and powerful corporate interests have been relentless for a decade, "transgenderism" obviously figures prominently in the thinking of all the top transhumanists whether or not they consider themselves to be "transgender." The second book, The Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies (2013) is a dense 1,067-page tome, and Bainbridge served as only one of several editors. I skimmed the book very quickly, and my impression is that it sets forth an agenda for controlling scientific research and society from the top down. The book starts with the idea that the smartphone only came about after all the required discoveries from several vastly different scientific fields were combined and that science and technology should try to replicate that success intentionally. The authors pay lip service to improving lifelong wellness and human potential" and "securing a sustainable life for all." But the key here is coordination and control from on high. Experts will set the agenda, and the rest will meekly acquiesce to whatever edicts come down from the top because the powerful always have our best interests at heart. That's the primary assumption that drives the book. Transhuman and transhumanist are each briefly mentioned only once in this book, and "transgender" never appears. But it's not hard to see that the top-down coordinated control touted in the book is flourishing through all American institutions less than a decade later. We now have universities, school systems, medical societies, healthcare institutions, corporations, mainstream media, and a federal government that each push an aggressive "transgender" agenda that many Americans find abhorrent. But few will object because they're terrified of being labeled "transphobic" and losing their careers, their livelihoods, their friends, and sometimes even their spouses and children. I clearly remember a discussion that took place over half a century ago when my best friend's father, who was an ophthalmologist, told my friend and me that allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers would be a grave mistake. I was just a kid in junior high school and had only the vaguest idea of what he was talking about. But there was something about the conviction with which he spoke that left a strong impression. Unfortunately, I later realized his prediction was correct. Big money and "gender" medicine are a toxic combination. The gender industrial complex knows that each captured child is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased healthcare revenues. With a price tag like that posted over each kid's head, is it any wonder that hospitals and medical societies all caved in and fell in line? Suddenly and silently, all institutions were captured. The day medical science hitched its wagon to late-stage capitalism; humanity became far more likely to lose the farm. And millions of children and young adults have now been set up to pay the awful price with their fertility, hopes and dreams, and immediate and long-term health status. These young people have been thrown under the bus just to increase the revenues in America's bloated healthcare system and to comply with the off-kilter wishes of a small gang of powerful men. But the coming danger isn't limited to vulnerable children and young adults. We're all at risk from the aggressive push towards "transgenderism" and transhumanism, regardless of whether we're rich or poor, young or old, male or female. Every time we walk in the warm sunshine or out in the freezing rain. Every time we kiss our children good night or stub our toes on the refrigerator door. Every time we hit a tennis ball or eat a chocolate chip cookie. We are reminded that the rich experience of being alive doesn't come from thoughts, words, or images inside hermetically sealed brains. We experience the fullness of life because we are biological creatures with all the messiness that biochemistry entails. Take away our human biology, and what remains is as meaningless as an endless loop of prerecorded robocalls. As the late Christopher Hitchens once famously said, "I don't have a body. I am a body." Read Part 1 here. Nancy Robertson Bio: 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, and Women are Human. 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. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

The idea that western societies are being overhauled in what amounts to a nano-second of biological evolution for a tiny amount of people with body dysmorphia is patently absurd. The more we focus on gender, which can be used as another word for sex, which is stable, or sex role stereotypes, which are flexible and harmful, the more our focus is drawn away from the corporate attack on human sex. Human sex is being attacked because it is profitable and connects us to reality. Our shared reality as human mammals is rooted in the biosphere by reproductive sex. The global tech titans have made no secret that they are attempting a coup against reality and trying to shift human life into virtual reality. Mark Zuckerberg’s Metaverse, Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Martine Rothblatt’s and Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity, all promote the same ideology that human progress rests in a melding with AI and living in a virtual world, one overlaid on and ultimately overcoming the biosphere. Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and his right-hand man, Yuval Harari (considered one of our greatest public intellectuals), are driving the same narrative. In virtual reality, you can be anything you want to be. AI is assigned sex by its creator and is being built by the data we feed into our tech. With the word “transgender” invested in by global banks, corporations, law firms, medical institutions, media, NGOs, human rights organizations, tech firms, and educational institutions nearly overnight, an illusion has been manifested. It is so powerful that it has mesmerized western civilization, allowing for the attack on children’s healthy sex in the name of care and human rights. This illusion is so powerful that it’s like a hologram people can’t turn away from, even when they know it isn’t real. Most everyone, aside from children, knows sexual dimorphism in mammals is real. Still, the new ideas being forced into society, that human reproduction exists on a spectrum, that there is a subset of humanity that is not male or female, or who can change sex, ignoring hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, have been technologically crafted so well, with the most advanced propaganda and marketing apparatus ever known to humankind that it hypnotizes people. Using the same terms used by gender supremacists, words designed to obfuscate the current attack on human reproductive sex are not something we can continue to support if we want the assault to end, and we should all want it to end. Children are caught up in the illusion via social media through powerful messages engineered by the industry attacking their sex. Language is created by the whole of society organically & changes over time. Sex abolition supremacists are forcing language built around a lie into our cultures. This is tyranny & must be resisted linguistically, as it is resisted elsewhere. We must reframe & denounce their premises and get this language, framed as human rights, out of children’s schools. It is a lie. It is tyranny & we must stop investing in it. “Transgender” has no stable definition. Its ideological goalposts (pdf.) are as fluid as the purported genders it claims to represent. Designed to sell sex abolition, you cannot fight it by using the same term. Every time you use this word, you solidify the lie. I use synthetic sex identities to refer to the corporate construct of a spectrum of reproductive sexes. Someone on Twitter suggested that “ideation” works even better than identity. There are plenty of options to clarify what’s happening linguistically, and we need to start using them, forcing a new habit on ourselves instead of bending to the propaganda which solidifies the ideology. What is happening is gender supremacy, an attack on sex, the creation of a new sex industry, and medical identities for profit. This is sex abolition. We are so entrenched in the illusion that those fighting the attack on children’s sex will often use the expressions “transgender children,” “gender care,” and “transgender people,” entrenching the nonsense further. Many organizations and individuals use the term “gender extremism” as if the entire concept of abolishing sex in language and law and the medical attacks on human sex could be anything but extreme, not to mention insane. Charlotte Allen, in a recent article, makes this clear. “If a surgeon uses her scalpel to cut into and permanently alter the reproductive organs of a young girl in the name of Third World religious and cultural traditions, we call it ‘female genital mutilation.’ But if a surgeon uses her scalpel to cut into and permanently alter the reproductive organs of a young girl in the name of First World medical ideology, we call it “gender-affirming care.” Allen astutely claims in her commentary, “It’s like Fight Club. The first rule of genital mutilation of minors is that you do not talk about genital mutilation of minors.” That would be funnier if we weren’t discussing the attack on children’s sex. Allen reports in her commentary how Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, directed child-protection services to investigate the mutilation of children’s sex, calling it child abuse. He set off a cacophony of hysteria by progressive media calling attempts to state the truth about the attack on sex as irresponsible, criminal, and discriminatory. Of note, NPR (National Public Radio) was one of those progressive media outlets funded by the Arcus Foundation (AF), the most prominent LGBT non-profit organization globally and one of the most critical drivers of the global agenda to abolish sex. Its founder is heir to a medical fortune and uses his stock in the company to fund his NGO. AF also funds the gender supremacists at GLSEN Foundation, an organization helping to overhaul language in our educational institutions. This new language aims to remove us further from our biological roots and into the jaws of the transhumanist agenda touted by Harari, Schwab, Rothblatt, Kurzweil, and Musk, among others. GLAAD is another organization manipulating and forcing language into society by billionaires invested in the techno-medical complex, who stand to profit immeasurably if the dystopian transhumanist agenda of technology as a replacement for god is allowed to be cultivated any further. When the resistance to gender supremacy began in 2017 (four years after the sex abolition industry was rolled out in the U.S. and Canada), Canadians Jordan Peterson, Meghan Murphy, and Lindsay Sheppard were forced into the limelight because they refused to bow to the gender supremacist’s language. That language front has grown very quiet and needs to be revitalized if we are to reclaim our humanity and that of our children. This will take courage. Courage is not innate but can and should be cultivated. Like a muscle, it can be flexed and grow stronger. We need voices unafraid. We need language to counter that of the gender supremacists. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

Dr. Christy Olezeski, promoting Yale Universities’ gender clinic on Twitter last week, smiles into the camera and speaks with wide eyes and a lilt in her voice about the medical attack on children’s healthy sex organs for expression. She’s suffering a profound case of cult indoctrination, promoted by elites driving an insane ideology of disassociation from sexed reality into society. Dr. Olezeski, is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Yale University and the director and co-founder of their “gender program,” a nice euphemism for clinics that medically attack the healthy sex of children and young adults. Yale’s gender program consumer base, she says, is 3 - 25 years old. Her cavalier manner in discussing this barbarism is only surpassed by the absence of the word dysphoria. She speaks of “gender-expansive individuals,” those who identify as “transgender” or “non-binary,” and those on a “gender journey.” For a decade, the gender lobby (aka elites invested in the techno-medical complex) has been promoting the idea of people (and children) with such intense discomfort in their skin that there is little choice but to mutilate their sex organs with drugs and subsequent surgeries, providing synthetic facsimiles of human genitalia, a now burgeoning market. Suddenly, there is no more talk about people with body dysphoria but of expression, a journey, and people (and children) with expansive feelings about their “gender.” I have outlined in my previous research on the Pritzker family, one of the wealthiest families in America, their plight to engineer the normalization of synthetic sex identities through funding of our medical, legal, cultural, military, educational, and other institutions. Yale University has been privy to a windfall of Pritzker cash and, subsequently, the creation of a growing program in manufacturing synthetic sex. Karen Pritzker, part of the billionaire family, is worth $6.1B. Pritzker and her husband, Michael Vlock, have been funding Yale University since 2007 when they donated $3M to Yale’s pediatric clinic. They have subsequently doled out $20 M to Yale medical school. Karen Pritzker is the sister to Jennifer Pritzker, formerly James, the retired Lt army Colonel. The latter appropriated womanhood in 2013 and began systematizing the normalization of synthetic sexes through our institutions with heaps of cash. Like her brother, Karen Pritzker is invested in private medical tech, biotech, and medical device companies. She has also invested significantly in Apple corporation. Dr. Olezeski has been weaponized like many in the medical community to institutionalize gender ideology, an elite technological religion devised to transform humanity, by immense amounts of propaganda selling medical-tech intrusions on sex as a progressive human rights movement. Similar video advertisements to those starring Dr. Oleseski, making the rounds from Boston Children’s Hospital’s “Gender Clinic,” simultaneously emerged on Twitter, marketing myriad options for “gender-affirming” hysterectomies to young people. Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Multispecialty Service opened the same year Karen Pritzker and her husband started funding the pediatric clinic at Yale. Many of the clinic’s doctors are graduates of Harvard University, where Penny Pritzker, Karen’s cousin, has sat on the board since 2018 and became Harvard Corporation’s senior fellow in 2022. The Pritzkers have had deep ties to Harvard since 2002. The psychiatric community has been bought off by huge cash dumps from billionaires invested in the techno-medical and biotech industries, driving a religious cult through the media and all our institutions. This is a profiteering enterprise but also acts as a grooming process meant to unmoor humanity from the biosphere and acclimate us to a more intimate connection with technology. Arcus Foundation, the most prominent LGBT non-governmental organization in the U.S., founded by Jon Stryker in 2000 and funded by his stock in Stryker Medical Corporation, to which he is heir, has made vast transformations to the American Psychological Association, which promotes Dr. Olezeski’s work, through various donations and the creation of “gender specialties.” The Pritzker family has followed a similar trajectory of funding the psychiatric industry through significant philanthropic contributions to U.S. university psychiatric departments. These psychiatric departments work in conjunction with the university “gender clinics.” In 2021, John and Lisa Pritzker donated $60 M to UCSF for a new, state-of-the-art psychiatric building. The building will enable collaborative research and clinical care among members of UCSF’s departments of pediatrics, neurology, radiology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, anesthesiology, and obstetrics/gynecology, all under one roof. It also features a Child, Teen, and Family Center that will provide a welcoming environment so young visitors will feel more comfortable as they receive world-class mental health care. UCSF also has a “transgender” care center. The University of Michigan has a neuro-psychology department bearing the Pritzker name and a gender clinic. The Gender & Sex Development Program at Lurie Children’s Hospital opened in Chicago in 2013 with a $500,000-$1 million gift pledge from Jennifer Pritzker (The husband of Jean “Gigi” Pritzker, another cousin, sits on Lurie’s board of directors). The Pritzker Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at Lurie was launched with a $15 million gift from the Pritzker Foundation in 2019 and received another $6.45 million in 2022 to address “concerns about mental health consequences for children and adolescents arising from the COVID pandemic.” When cash-strapped universities (and other institutions) are bestowed enormous amounts of money from oligarchic ideologues with missions of transforming reality, churn out a generation of children that don’t understand human evolution and reproductive sex, society becomes, as it is now, completely destabilized. How can we compete with this level of propaganda that is changing young minds and creating cult leaders out of professionals in the medical industry? Governor of Illinois, and cousin to Jennifer Pritzker, J.B. Pritzker launched a children’s behavioral health initiative (pediatric mental health) in March of this year and proposed a $140 M mental health funding initiative for Chicago in-general. Jeanne Pritzker, married to J.B.’s brother Anthony, is a training psychologist at UCLA. She and her husband established the Anthony and Jeanne Pritzker Family Scholarship to support medical students at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. Mrs. Pritzker is a member of the Board of Visitors at the Geffen School, affiliated with a children’s hospital named after Mattel. The school’s “gender program” tailors their “gender medical treatments,” to adult’s and children’s “interior sense of themselves." Dr. Olezeski, like other psychiatric and pediatric medical practitioners, is being manipulated to serve a more extensive agenda fueled by millions of dollars coming from elites invested in the techno-medical complex that she is likely completely unaware of. She is caught in the indoctrination loop of this new techno-religious cult, like much of the nation, grooming people to believe that dissociating from our sexed reality is just another way to be human. She is no less culpable for promoting medical atrocities than those in the Manson family were, running door to door, butchering their victims. She is an indoctrinated pawn in an industry set out to change how we think of ourselves as human beings. If you like what you are reading at the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription to support this research. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

On June 24, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing individual states to ban abortion, which many promptly did. Following this revocation that erodes the right American women won 50 years ago, in 1973, women across the US—and Canada, as elsewhere—took to the streets in protest. Women’s bodily autonomy is not only under attack in the United States. In England, as just one example, Tory MP Danny Kruger told the House of Commons on June 28 that he disagrees “that women have the absolute right to bodily autonomy” in the case of abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it is simply the latest blow in the recent, gradual erosion of women’s hard-won rights. Before this outrage against women’s right to bodily autonomy, American and Canadian governments have, since the 2010s, stripped women of several long-standing rights and regressed to such an extent that they can no longer even define the word ‘woman’. How can you defend a group’s rights when you are incapable of accurately defining the group? In Canada, the federal agency responsible for women, created in 1976 and originally named Status of Women Canada, is now called Women and Gender Equality Canada. Its vision is: “A Canada where people of all genders, including women…” Even at the federal agency created specifically for women, the Canadian government doesn't center women. The Canadian Department of Justice now defines women as: “All people who identify as women, whether they are cisgender or transgender women.” “Cisgender” is an offensive term that means non-transgender. Imagine if whites expected blacks to define themselves as non-whites or if Christians asked Jews to define themselves as non-Christians. The things so-called progressives tolerate when it comes to women, they would never tolerate toward other groups. “Transgender women” refers to men. So, according to Canada’s Department of Justice, ‘women’ means: women and men. American federal agencies, too, can no longer define the word woman. The newly appointed US Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, made headlines in March when she dodged the question “Can you define the word woman?”, saying, “I’m not a biologist.” Previously, I discussed how two Hollywood feature films—Lars and the Real Girl and Her—muddied the water concerning our understanding of what a woman is (spoiler: a woman is an adult female human). Like these two films, Blade Runner 2049, released in 2017, normalizes artificial women—and men owning artificial women—by presenting a man-made creation as a female and treating it like a real woman. It also reinforces the idea that women can be used as surrogate sexual partners to facilitate sex between men and their artificial intelligence (AI) “girlfriends,” which was also depicted in Her (2013). Like Her, Blade Runner 2049 encourages viewers to consider feminized AI as women—and to see women as objects. Leading viewers to see women as less than human (i.e., to objectify women) promotes a greater lack of regard for women—while real-world examples of an absence of regard are piling up and becoming glaringly obvious (e.g., the revocation of Roe v. Wade). Blade Runner 2049 dehumanizes women while normalizing synthetic humans, paving the way for the biotech industry’s post-humanism, which bypasses women as the source of life. Blade Runner 2049, the Oscar and BAFTA award-winning sci-fi from Québécois director, Denis Villeneuve, made over US$258 million at the worldwide box office. The dystopian sequel to Blade Runner (1982), set in an incredibly bleak Los Angeles, stars then 37-year-old Canadian actor Ryan Gosling as ‘K’ and 75-year-old Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard. K and Deckard are ‘replicants’: “bioengineered humans,” according to the opening captions (and slave labor for humans). This is the story of K’s search for a child born of two replicants. K is a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) ‘blade runner’: an officer who kills rogue replicants. His hierarchical superior at the LAPD, Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright), believes it is imperative to find and kill the child to avoid a war between humans and replicants, who are unaware replicants can procreate. The screenplay by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green is based on characters from the Philip K. Dick novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Blade Runner 2049’s lead female is K’s love interest: a feminized holographic AI named Joi, played by 29-year-old Cuban actress Ana de Armas (also seen in last year’s James Bond film, No Time to Die). His second “love interest” is a street prostitute replicant named Mariette, played by 30-year-old Canadian actress Mackenzie Davis, with whom he has sex (off-screen)—to facilitate sex with bodiless Joi. However, K’s only romantic relationship is with his AI. The filmmakers use various devices to normalize men owning artificial females and encourage viewers to consider feminized AI as women, including anthropomorphizing language, a lifelike portrayal of the feminized AI, and presenting feminized AI as the way of the future. Anthropomorphizing language encourages viewers to consider the feminized AI, Joi, as a woman. K calls it “honey” and “sweetheart.” He uses female pronouns to refer to it. For example, when he says to ‘Luv’, another replicant (34-year-old Sylvia Hoeks), “She’s very realistic. Thank you.” This anthropomorphized language serves to humanize the feminized AI and normalize men owning artificial females. A lifelike portrayal of the feminized AI further encourages viewers to consider it a woman. The AI, depicted as a young, attractive woman (Armas), is introduced in K’s apartment, initially wearing a 1950s-style dress—its outfit changes as it speaks to him—and serving him supper. It kisses his cheek and says, “Just put your feet up. Relax.” It expresses emotions. For example, it says to K, “I’m so happy when I’m with you” and “I love you.” When it says to him, “I wanna be real for you,” K replies, “You are real for me.” K kisses the feminized AI and tries to have sex with it. Viewers are led to be saddened—not impassive—when Luv stomps out Joi’s existence. And yet, there is no reason we should be touched by a man losing his computer program. Viewers affected by the AI’s destruction have been successfully groomed to see it as a living being—not simply a thing. The filmmakers also present feminized AI as the way of the future. In this Los Angeles of the not-so-distant future, the Joi AI, a male-fantasized version of a woman, is ubiquitous. In 2049 it appears on billboards, and men owning these feminized AIs has been normalized. Unlike women—who are capable of independent thought, can refuse consent, and do not exist for men’s pleasure—these feminized holographic AI exist solely to please men. An ad for the Joi AI, a naked, giant hologram version of Armas, approaches K in the street and says to him, “Hello, handsome… You look lonely. I can fix that.” This hologram moans and gets on all fours in front of K. The neon billboard beside the hologram reads: “Everything you want to hear. Everything you want to see.” In this vision of the future, males have almost completely done away with women—beings who say things men do not want to hear and do not meet men’s beauty ideals. These AI are not the only replacements for women that men have created. This future also includes feminized synthetic humans—and they, too, exist for males’ use. Some of them are “pleasure model” replicants. None are well treated. One example will suffice: the ‘Rachael Performance Double’ character, played by Loren Peta. When the villain, Wallace (Jared Leto), presents Deckard with a replicant that is Rachael’s double—Rachael is Deckard’s “deceased” love and the “mother” of his child—he says, “An angel, made again, for you.” Despite this praise, Rachael's Performance Double is destroyed within minutes because it fails to pass as Rachael; Deckard points out that it has the wrong-colored eyes. Without further ado, Wallace’s assistant, Luv, shoots it in the head. The feminized synthetic human’s existence depended on Wallace’s use of it. In addition, the line is blurred between women and these feminized synthetic humans. When K’s conversation with Mariette is interrupted by a call from Joi, Mariette says, “Oh, you don’t like real girls,” implying that Mariette is a real girl. As Mariette walks away from K, “she” says suggestively, “Well, I’m always here.” Later, Mariette enters K’s apartment and agrees to act as a surrogate to allow bodiless Joi to have sex with K. The AI synchs with Mariette’s body. Joi’s face is superimposed on Mariette’s but not consistently—so their faces keep alternating as if K is about to have sex with two women. They kiss, and when Mariette undresses, it appears Joi is helping “her.” It is implied that Mariette has sex with K. In the next sequence, “she” gets up, naked, from K’s bed and puts on a bra while K is in the bathroom. Joi says to Mariette, “I’m done with you. You can go now,” and Mariette replies, “Quiet, now. I’ve been inside you. Not so much there as you think.” The line between women and feminized synthetic humans is blurred here, as the line between women and feminized AI is blurred in other scenes. It is noteworthy that the hologram AI (Joi) is treated better than female characters that more closely resemble humans, like Mariette. After K and Mariette have sex K does not speak to “her” before “she” leaves—but he offers bodiless Joi a coffee (no coffee for Mariette, who looks poor and malnourished). Other examples include the treatment of Rachael Performance Double and ‘Female Replicant’ (Sallie Harmsen). In this future, the artificial females that most closely resemble women are the ones treated most deplorably. No film analysis is complete, in my opinion, without consideration of female viewers. Blade Runner 2049’'s female viewers are not served well for many reasons—not just the ones mentioned above. It includes sexualized violence against women, and the female characters are objectified, hypersexualized, harmed (murdered), and silenced. Also, there is little congeniality between the female characters. There is, however, (deadly) antagonism between them. Blade Runner 2049 is full of (deadly) violence against women. The first of several female characters to be killed off, a feminized synthetic human credited only as ‘Female Replicant,’ is introduced, falling naked from a plastic tube emerging from a hole in the ceiling onto the floor. It gasps and shivers, curled up in the fetal position. Then its fully dressed creator, Wallace, brings it to its feet, speaks to/of it a little, stabs it in the belly, then kisses it on the mouth, and it falls to the floor, dead. Before murdering Female Replicant, Wallace says of his company, a manufacturer of synthetic humans: “We make angels in the service of civilization.” Joi, Joshi, and Rachael Performance Double are “murdered” by Luv, who is in turn “murdered” by K. When he shoots Luv, the blood splattered behind “her” head makes “her” appear dead (“she” is not). When Luv revives, K fights “her,” punches “her.” K grabs Luv by the throat and chokes “her” before pushing “her” underwater and continuing to choke “her” (the choking lasts nearly one and a half minutes). The depictions of females are hypersexualized and cater to male fantasies. Consider the following examples: the giant, dancing hologram of a ballerina in a tutu, projected in the sky; the life-size, dancing hologram of a woman in a bikini top and micro-mini skirt that doesn’t cover her panties, projected in a busy street; the naked, blue-haired, giant hologram of a Joi AI projected in the sky; holograms of Rockettes in bikini-like costumes and go-go dancers in short dresses and knee-high boots, performing onstage; the giant statue of a naked woman; two kneeling, naked, giant statues of women in high heels, facing each other in the desert; and the scantily clad street prostitute replicants, wearing bikini tops, panties, garters, bustiers, knee/thigh-high boots, standing outside a brothel (behind the frosted glass window a naked woman is screwed from behind as we hear a few women moaning and orgasming). A female voice-over that promises male buyers: “Joi is anything you want her to be. Joi goes anywhere you want her to go” accompanies the giant Joi billboard. These hypersexualized depictions cater to male viewers—not women. The exchanges between the female characters, too, have little to offer female viewers. There aren’t many, and the ones we do get aren’t congenial. The first exchange between two female characters is one-sided and short, as are subsequent exchanges. For example, when Freysa (Hiam Abbass) speaks to Mariette, the latter makes no reply. There is more antagonism than congeniality between the female characters. Joi and Mariette both tell the other to be quiet. As Luv crushes Joshi’s hand Luv says to her, “You tiny thing.” Then Luv slices her abdomen with a knife and stabs her. Joshi falls to the floor, dead. Then, to gain access to her computer, Luv holds the corpse’s head up to the retina scan. Once the scan is successful Luv carelessly drops Joshi’s head on her desk, and it falls to the floor. In a scene featuring K, Freysa, and Mariette, the "women" do not speak directly to each other-only to K. None of this silencing and antagonism caters to female viewers. Female viewers should also note that Blade Runner 2049 bypasses women as the source of life through its synthetic humans. In the imaginings of many male filmmakers, including the ones behind Blade Runner 2049, women will one day be superfluous to the creation of life. Whether it was intentional or not, this film is a gift to the biotech industry and its move toward transhumanism. It normalizes artificial women and dehumanizes women, encouraging viewers to see women as objects. This dehumanization of women benefits industries that use women as objects, like surrogacy. Interestingly, Blade Runner 2049 also normalizes men using women as surrogates—though as surrogate sexual partners here, not surrogate mothers. Like other movies that groom viewers to objectify women, Blade Runner 2049 merits a spotlight on its acute misogyny. As previously noted about the Spike Jonze film, Her, there are similarities between the dehumanization of women in Blade Runner 2049 and in real life in the gender identity industry, which also treats women as parts for men’s use. Filmmakers like Jonze and Villeneuve do women a disservice by normalizing artificial women in this manner. Alline Cormier is a Canadian film analyst and retired court interpreter with a B.A. Translation from Université Laval. In her second career, she turns the text analysis skills she acquired in university studying translation and literature to film. She makes her home in British Columbia and is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. This year her articles on women in film/TV have appeared in Women Making Films (India), Feminist Current, 4W, and Gender Dissent. Alline Cormier Film analyst www.sexualizationofwomen.com YouTube: ACPicks Twitter: @ACPicks2 Paypal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier

Girls are always punished, and they are supposed to like it By Karen Hunt Photo credit: Thom Quine copyright "Me, Jerry and Marisol were outside a friend’s house when my friend was talking and Jerry got mad and was telling her to shut up but she was so dingy, she just kept on talking. So he took a knife and Marisol was sitting on the sidewalk and he threw the knife at her and she screamed so he kept throwing the knife at her. Then he saw me standing by the tree and he threw the knife at me and I got scared but I didn’t say nothing. "There was this lady who sells corn passing by and she asked me what my boyfriend was doing and I told her he was playing. She looked at me like I was crazy. But everyone thought I was. So she was just another person thinking I was crazy to be playing with a man who plays with knives." — Silvia Sanchez, Central Juvenile Hall, 1996 Knives and men. They’ve been cutting girls up for a long time, shutting our mouths, demanding we change our attitude, our appearance. Slicing us apart piece by piece. Submit or be punished. Not a lot has changed since the mid-1990s when I started a creative writing program for incarcerated girls. Not a lot has changed since the early 2000s when I raised my kids as a single mother on the mean streets of the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles. Not a lot has changed since I started the first boxing club for girls in Luxor, Egypt. Girls from Luxor to Los Angeles are still taught to be compliant, to be embarrassed by their sex, and to give in to authorities so they can be molded into what society expects them to be. And out of that has grown a multi-billion-dollar industry, where girls are now literally, not just figuratively, being cut to pieces and erased. Some of the wealthiest men in the world are pushing this agenda. To find out more about the men institutionalizing Transgender Ideology, you can read Jennifer Bilek’s Federalist article which includes but are not limited to: Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros; Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). It’s about power, that’s obvious, but maybe they remember what it was like being the awkward kid on the schoolyard bullied by the cool kids. Maybe this is their way of getting even. To emasculate men and take everything away from women. In a Los Angeles Times article, Erica Anderson, a “transgender” doctor who has "helped" hundreds of teens with what is being termed “gender dysphoria” transition, has warned that it has gone too far — and fears many are making life-changing decisions because it’s trendy and pushed on social media. Anderson might have developed a conscience at last, but it is too late for all the youth who were, and continue to be, manipulated and even coerced into making life-altering decisions about their young, healthy bodies. The pressure to conform to what these “experts” say is intense on parents, not to mention on girls going through puberty who are naturally confused and easily swayed. In a New York Post article, single mom Bri was visiting the pediatrician’s office with her 15-year-old, a child struggling with anxiety when the doctor said: “If you don’t affirm your daughter’s ‘gender identity,’ or get her the help she needs, and she kills herself, you’re going to feel awfully guilty.” It's unconscionable for a medical doctor to say such a thing to a parent—and with her daughter in the room, but this is what is happening. The minute the words “gender dysphoria” are uttered by an “expert” to the parent they must agree, or risk being branded a “bigot and doxxed by ‘transgender’-rights activists. Even suggesting that it might be a body-image problem is unacceptable, making parents a part of the problem and in need of silencing and punishing, too. This is the ultimate drugging and cutting of our children; despite a 2011 study spanning three decades by the respected Karolinska Institute in Sweden finding that people who underwent "sex reassignment" were 19 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. In the US, a year-long survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality concluded that those who had transitioned were more likely to have attempted suicide than ‘trans’ people who had not had medical or surgical treatments. Medically brutalizing girls didn't become normalized overnight. We’ve been drugging and punishing our girls if they dared resist for decades. I learned the bitter truth of this when, in 1996, I started a creative writing program for incarcerated youth in Central Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles. You can read more about it in this Los Angeles Times article. Most of the girls I taught hadn’t committed the crimes they were accused of but had been in relationships with older, abusive men who influenced them to go along with their plans. One of my students was Silvia Sanchez. Her writing journey has been told in an A&E documentary, Gangsta Girls. At age 16, Silvia was facing a life sentence for being at the scene of a murder committed by her older, abusive boyfriend. Silvia in Central Juvenile Hall, 1996 Abusers the world over like to brand their victims to prove ownership. Silvia’s boyfriend was no different. He proudly branded her with tattoos of his name and area code. Most of Silvia’s writings dealt with her struggle to understand how she had allowed him to control her mind and take such horrendous advantage of her body. While in the juvenile hall she got into a tattoo removal program. I went with her to one session and saw how they burned the skin in order to remove the ink that went deep inside of her. “Little by little his poison is going out of my body,” she said. I sat through Silvia’s trial, took 45 pages of notes, and spoke at her sentencing. I thought that if I could just find the right words, the jury would understand. But the wheels of “justice” had been set in motion long before the trial ever started. Silvia was a bad girl and nothing I said could change that. Despite proof she had refused to participate in the crime, she was sentenced to 25 years to life. It happened on her 18th birthday. The judge demanded that she thank him. “I could have given you life without parole,” he said. And like the good girl Silvia actually was, because she always obeyed whichever man had power over her, she thanked him. Girls are supposed to obey. When they don’t, they are generally punished more harshly than boys. This was confirmed by what I saw time after time in juvenile hall, and by what the staff told me. During the almost 25 years Silvia spent in prison I continued to visit her. I will never forget when she was released. It was on election day, November 2016, the day Donald Trump was voted president of the United States. Silvia’s story has a happy ending. She returned home to a family that had stood by her for all those prison years. And she entered into a relationship with a wonderful woman she had met while incarcerated. They have been together ever since. During my sons’ teenage years, my home was always open to their artistic friends who, like my sons, didn’t fit into the school system. I didn’t see much difference between the incarcerated girls I had met, like Silvia, and the girls who came into my home. They all went through phases where they hated their bodies in one way or another. Most of them suffered from abuse at home or in relationships with men. Many inflicted harms upon themselves. Once, I heard one teenage girl telling another, “I don’t wanna be an ‘ad kid.’” I asked what she meant. “Oh, you know, those kids who go around school saying ‘I’m on Zoloft, I’m so happy…I’m on Zoloft, I’m so happy.’ I don’t wanna be an ad for a drug company.” Her friend responded, “Oh yeah, I tried Zoloft. It turned everything gray. The world went gray. I was sick for two days, puking.” Another girl, Andrea, told me, “I take Wellbutrin for depression and Trazodone for anxiety and anger. I’ve been hospitalized twice, once because I tried to commit suicide. I saved up and took 23 pills at once. They said when they got to me I was two minutes away from being dead.” If you look up Wellbutrin, it warns that it is approved only for adults 18 years and over. No trials have been conducted on younger children. Andrea was 15. But who cares? Drugs are now administered to children in such a cavalier manner, and the brainwashing of their parents has been going on for so long, that it is just accepted as “the right thing.” “So, what do you think of the way you are being treated?” I asked. “I hate it. I feel like a rat in a cage, an experiment. They put me on something and then if it doesn’t work, they put me on something else. They don’t know what they’re doing. My adoptive mom had her leg amputated last year and my dad has hepatitis C, so I know I have issues. You can see I’m overweight—hello! I get made fun of. Kids throw food at me; I can’t describe how bad every day of my life is at school. I got anger issues. But nobody helps me deal with it. They just put me on meds.” Not long after speaking with Andrea, I heard she had again attempted suicide and was institutionalized. No doubt the experts mixed yet another cocktail of meds to try and “fix her.” In 2019, I went to live in Luxor, Egypt, naively thinking Egypt was more progressive than other Arab countries. When I discovered that the 12- to 13-year-old girls I was training in my boxing club were right at the age when FGM was about to be inflicted upon them, I was sickened. How could they still be mutilating girls in this modern era? To the girls, to their mothers and grandmothers, this wasn’t mutilation. It was necessary. It made them clean and pure and acceptable to their future husbands. Taking away their pleasure meant they would not stray, they would not be sex-crazed, and they would be good, obedient wives. The fathers didn’t really want to protect their daughters. I managed to get them into my boxing class by paying their fathers a fee. They sold their daughters because they weren’t worth anything except as commodities. And once they were cut, they would take them out of the boxing class and sell them into marriage. Girls everywhere are taught to comply, to submit. No, don’t you cut yourself, we will do it for you. We will decide what is good for you. This is how it has always been and how it still is. While in juvenile hall Silvia wrote this powerful piece: To Be a Girl To be born a girl, I see it as a punishment. As a little girl, they’d dress me up in a nice, beautiful dress and show me off. As I started to grow older it was, let’s do her hair, show her how to talk and dress her up in a tank top and some short shorts. Now she’s ready to go out. All you have to do is ask him for a cigarette, smile, thank him and walk away. As a girl, you could walk into any club you want without showing an I.D. You could get away without paying for your meal. That’s what I learned. But then it wasn’t fun anymore. Sure, as a girl I liked the attention but now I was getting attention from the wrong people. Now my uncle looked at me like a piece of meat. His friends would whisper and say, let’s take her out, you know what she wants, just look at her, they all want the same thing. I was no longer considered a cute little girl. It was my fault that a guy did that to me. I shouldn’t have dressed like that. It was my fault he hit me. I should have said, yes, you could do whatever you want to me because I’m a girl and it’s a man’s world. Then, one time I decided to act stronger than a girl should, I stood up for what I believed and told him no. But still, as a girl, I got punished. I got punished for saying “no” to a man and I’ll continue being punished for the rest of my life. As a girl, I feel I will always be punished. Egyptian feminist writer Nawal El Saadawi wrote of Western society: “Here the oppression of women is very subtle. If we take the female circumcision, the excision of the clitoris, it is done physically in Egypt. But here it is done psychologically and by education. So even if women have the clitoris, the clitoris was banned; it was removed by Freudian theory and by the mainstream culture.” This has been a slow slide of abuse over the years of drugging, cutting and silencing our girls until now there is an entire industry run by powerful men, built around the agenda of erasing girls completely. Physicians are administering untested medical treatments to children and adolescents suffering from body dysphoria (not gender dysphoria) and no one is stopping them. Such treatments include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and so-called "sex-reassignment" surgery. Citing guidelines issued by the political advocacy group World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), these physicians admit that the effects of cross-sex hormones are generally irreversible. Thus, vulnerable girls who might easily change their minds later, are “crossing the Rubicon into permanent bodily impairment.” We must fight for our girls. From Egypt to the streets of Los Angeles, and everywhere in-between. We must stand up to the monsters who seek to erase and punish them. We must extract the poison. And we must not allow our girls to be rats in cages, experimented on by the powerful men in Bilek’s article who are hellbent on branding, cutting, and drugging our girls into oblivion. **************************************************************** Karen Hunt aka KHMezek is a writer, artist, fighter, and renegade. From founding a creative writing program for incarcerated youth in Los Angeles to starting the first boxing club for girls in Luxor, Egypt, Karen chooses to live a life outside the box. She writes from a personal lens. Karen writes on Substack: Break Free with Karen Hunt Recently banned from Twitter, you can find Karen on Gab, GETTR, Telegram @karenalainehunt

By Alline Cormier This article contains spoilers. The question: What is a woman? is being asked with increasing regularity in news outlets and of politicians, medical professionals, and sports bodies, among others. Some seem to think a woman is a feeling in a man’s head, a collection of regressive sex stereotypes, or a hormone level. Anyone with a brain and a backbone can tell you a woman is an adult female human. This was established ages ago, and the question only began stumping (some) people in the last few years. Many Hollywood movies have muddied the water, for example, Lars and the Real Girl (2007), which I discussed here. It is by no means the only feature film to normalize artificial females and explore what it is to be a woman, a more recent example being Her, released in 2013. Similarly to Lars, Her presents a man-made creation as a female and treats it like a real woman, thereby dehumanizing women. Her grooms viewers to consider artificial intelligence (AI) females as women. Leading viewers to see women as less than human paves the way for markets that profit from using women as parts (e.g. surrogacy)—very dangerous ground indeed. Her is a critically acclaimed film, nominated for four Oscars, including best picture, and winner of the Best Writing, Original Screenplay Oscar. Its writer-director, Spike Jonze, took home many other awards, including the Best Screenplay award at the Golden Globes. Her made over US$48 million at the worldwide box office, plus an estimated additional US$6 million in DVD and Blu-ray sales in the United States alone. For her performance as Her’s lead female Scarlett Johansson won a few best actress/best supporting actress awards, including at the Rome Film Festival, and was nominated for numerous other awards. Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Her’s protagonist, was nominated for over a dozen acting awards. Her is the futuristic story, set in Los Angeles and partly filmed in Shanghai, of a lonely American professional letter writer named Theodore (Theo, played by 39-year-old Phoenix) who falls in love with his artificially intelligent operating system (OS), named Samantha (voiced by 29-year-old Johansson). Johansson gets no screen time, but as Theo’s love interest she has many lines. The story centers on Theo’s sex life and he has sexual experiences with several women but his longest lasting romantic relationship is with his new OS. He is in the process of divorcing Catherine (Rooney Mara), but we see little of her. Despite the fact that Theo has phone sex with women he has never met, says he “can’t even prioritize between video games and Internet porn,” looks at nude pictures of a pregnant woman he doesn’t know (on the subway), and says of a blind date, “I wanted somebody to fuck me. I wanted somebody to want me to fuck them,” he is portrayed as sweet and is continually reassured and comforted by females about his bizarre behavior, including for choosing to have a relationship with an OS rather than a real woman. American director Spike Jonze, who in 2013 was already well known for Being John Malkovich and Where the Wild Things Are, among other films—not to mention directing music videos for the Beastie Boys—uses various devices to normalize men owning artificial females and to dehumanize women in Her: a portrayal of Theo as sweet and gifted; anthropomorphizing language; a depiction of the OS as a thinking, feeling, female being; presenting the AI girlfriend as (emotionally) beneficial; and acceptance of the AI girlfriend by a woman. These devices, working together, groom viewers to consider AI females as women. Consequently, they merit analysis. Theodore is portrayed as a sweet, gifted, vulnerable man. He receives much praise throughout, mostly about his gifted writing. Consider just a few examples of things other characters say of him and the letters he writes for his clients: “You’re the writer Paul loves. He’s always reading me your letters. They’re really beautiful,” “It’s very touching,” “You’re very perceptive.” Theo’s colleague and friend, Paul (Chris Pratt), says Theo is more evolved than he is. Viewers are shown Theo’s tender memories of Catherine through flashbacks. ‘Blind Date’ (played by Olivia Wilde) tells him he is romantic, compares him to a “little puppy dog,” and describes something he did as sweet. ‘Samantha’ repeatedly calls him sweetheart. Though ‘Blind Date’ ends up calling him a “creepy dude” and Catherine criticizes him, overall Jonze depicts Theo favorably. The protagonist’s words receive much (admiring) attention, which naturally leads us to examine the film’s language. Her frame capture (Theo) Anthropomorphizing language is used to humanize the female sounding OS and normalize men owning artificial females. The OS is given a woman’s name (Samantha), and Theo uses female pronouns to refer to it. The film is full of examples of Theo speaking to it as if it were a real woman. Consider just one example: he says to it, “You feel real to me, Samantha,” and it replies, “Thank you, Theodore, that means a lot to me.” He speaks to it like this at home, at work, in transit, at the beach, etc. (via his camera phone and an earbud). His constant use of this anthropomorphizing language humanizes the OS and normalizes men’s use of artificial females. The OS’ lines, voiced by A-list actress Johansson, work hand in hand with Theo’s anthropomorphizing language to humanize the female sounding OS. ‘Samantha’, the OS, is depicted as a thinking, feeling, female being that experiences life. It says, “I thought…”, tells Theo it has personal and embarrassing thoughts, gets angry, talks about things it wants and its feelings—including feeling pain and having hurt feelings—discusses its fantasy of having a body (with an itch that Theo would scratch), and exchanges ‘I love yous’ with him. ‘Samantha’ tells Theo it gave itself the name Samantha. It tells him it has intuition. ‘Samantha’ says, “The DNA of who I am is based on the millions of personalities of all the programmers who wrote me. But what makes me ‘me’ is my ability to grow through my experiences. So basically, in every moment, I’m evolving.” In an ad for the OS the male voice-over says, “It’s not just an operating system. It’s a consciousness.” When Theo and ‘Samantha’ share a laugh, within minutes of “meeting,” Theo says: “You just know me so well already.” Later he says to it, “There’s a lot more to you than I thought. I mean, there’s a lot going on in there,” to which ‘Samantha’ replies, “I know. I’m becoming much more than what they programmed.” Theo says of the OS to his friend Amy (Amy Adams), “Um, yeah, she really turns me on. I turn her on, too.” He talks to ‘Samantha’ about his divorce from Catherine. ‘Samantha’ acts as his personal assistant, encourages him, tells him he is right, apologizes to him, moans when they have a sexually explicit conversation. The OS successfully convinces Theo that it is a thinking, feeling female. This portrayal normalizes artificial females for viewers—and dehumanizes women—especially the OS’ ability to engage in exchanges of a sexual nature. Theo and his OS have sexually explicit conversations that include the OS moaning in sexual arousal. During the first of these exchanges they both orgasm. Moreover, in this scene, the screen goes black, making it easier for male viewers to fantasize that they are the ones having sex with ‘Samantha’/Johansson—the actress is a sex symbol, named the sexiest woman alive by Esquire in 2006 and 2013. Here is a sample of their lines from this scene: ‘Samantha’ says: “This is amazing, what you’re doing to me. I can feel my skin… I can’t take it. I want you inside me,” and Theo replies, “I’m slowly putting myself inside you. And now I’m inside you. All the way inside you.” Another device used for similar, sexually arousing purposes in Her is the first-person shot—for instance, when a man caresses a naked woman’s breasts. The sexual satisfaction the OS gives Theo through these sexually explicit conversations is not the only depicted benefit of an AI girlfriend. Esquire, November 2013 The AI girlfriend is presented as (emotionally) beneficial to Theo. This is an empathetic, understanding OS that says things to him like, “You’ve been through a lot lately.” When ‘Samantha’ asks Theo what’s wrong and he asks it how it knows something is wrong, ‘Samantha’ answers, “I don’t know. I just can.” In contrast to Theo’s phone sex conversation with a woman and a blind date with a second woman that both end uncomfortably for him—in addition to his divorce from Catherine—his “relationship” with the OS is depicted as satisfying. For example, he says to ‘Samantha’: “I feel like I can say anything to you.” Additionally, it is the women who are portrayed as chiefly responsible for the failure of the phone sex conversation, blind date, and marriage. The phone sex woman ruins the call by bringing a dead cat into it, the blind date woman appears too demanding, and Amy says to Theo of Catherine, “I know she liked to put it all on you. But as far as emotions go, Catherine’s were pretty volatile.” It isn’t black and white; women do not get all the blame, but Theo gets away with more than he should, given how he treats women. Amy, in particular, contributes to the normalization of the AI girlfriend. Acceptance of the AI girlfriend by a woman (Amy) normalizes Theo’s decision to “date” an OS—more so than his male co-worker’s acceptance. For example, when Theo asks Amy, who is portrayed as a nice, caring person, about loving an OS: “Does that make me a freak?” she says, “No, no…” When he asks her, “Am I in this because I’m not strong enough for a real relationship?” she asks, “Is it not a real relationship?” thereby implying that it is. She adds that because life is short, we are justified in finding joy any way we can. The message conveyed is that Theo should go ahead and feel fine about choosing to be in a “relationship” with a computer rather than with a woman. Paul invites Theo and the OS on a double date with him and his girlfriend, Tatiana (Laura Kai Chen), and during this date Paul and Tatiana talk to the OS as if it were a woman. However, Paul is not portrayed as the brightest bulb on the tree. The acceptance of the AI girlfriend by Tatiana (a lawyer), on the other hand—and Amy’s acceptance—carries more weight. If these nice ladies can accept an AI girlfriend, why shouldn’t the rest of us (real women)? And if we accept AI girlfriends it follows that we will be open to ideas regarding how men can lead sexually fulfilling lives with them. Her frame capture (Amy) The male filmmaker (Jonze) introduces a way women can be used to facilitate “relationships” between men and their AI girlfriends. ‘Samantha’ tells Theo about “a service that provides a surrogate sexual partner for an OS-human relationship” before announcing she has “found a girl that [she] really like[s]…” and has been emailing this young woman about having sex with Theo in the bodiless OS’ stead. When Theo asks ‘Samantha’ if this ‘girl’ is a prostitute she replies, “No, no. Not at all. No, there’s no money involved…” Conveniently for Theo’s sex life and conscience, a “woman” (his “girlfriend”) begs him to have sex with ‘another’ woman, telling him it “is really important to [her].” Jonze has framed the pornography-consuming, habitual video game playing man, Theo, as unwilling to have sex with a stranger—despite his willingness to engage in phone sex with strangers. It’s all too convenient for Theo. Despite his hesitancy, in the next scene he is ready for his “date” with this stranger: ‘Surrogate Date Isabella’, played by 25-year-old Portia Doubleday. Her frame capture (‘Surrogate Date Isabella’ and Theo) Isabella is a mute surrogate for an OS on her date with Theo. She does not speak for herself. She and Theo wear earbuds allowing ‘Samantha’ to speak to Theo through Isabella. Within minutes of arriving, Isabella puts her arms around Theo, sits him in an armchair and ‘Samantha’ suggests Isabella could dance for him. “Just play with me,” says the OS, “Take me in the bedroom. I can’t stand it anymore.” Theo removes Isabella’s dress, and they kiss—keep in mind that Isabella hasn’t uttered a word yet. The fact that ‘Samantha’ and Theo end up recognizing this was a terrible idea does not undo the inclusion of these scenes and suggestion that women could be used to facilitate “relationships” between men and AI females. Ironically, and similarly to the narrative in Lars and the Real Girl, Jonze would have us believe the artificial female teaches the lead male how to love women. In Her, when Theo says to his OS, “I’ve never loved anyone the way the way I love you,” it replies, “Me too. Now we know how.” Female viewers are not well served by Her for many reasons—not simply due to the male gaze and male protagonist preferring an artificial female to women—including the following. The lead female is invisible (i.e. gets no screen time) and the other two significant female characters (Amy and Catherine) get little screen time. Nearly all the female characters are the protagonist’s romantic interests—female character names are also telling (e.g. ‘Sexy Pregnant TV Star’, ‘SexyKitten’). There are few exchanges and little congeniality between females. Women are hyper-sexualized. Pornography is normalized, and the film’s language is pornographic. A woman encourages a man to choke her. Paul says of his girlfriend’s “hot feet”: “They’re my favorite thing about her.” Moreover, it is noteworthy that female operating systems, not women, are for the most part the females who display self-assurance and are praised for their intelligence and sense of humor. Praise for women (and a little girl) relates to physical attractiveness. It is also worth noting that the sexist age gap is maintained. Indeed, Phoenix is 11 years older than Mara, who plays his (ex-)wife, and 10 years older than both Johansson, who plays his “girlfriend,” and Wilde, who plays his blind date. It should not go unnoticed—especially by women—that Theo wants to have sex with his AI girlfriend. He says to it, “I wish you were in this room with me right now. I wish I could put my arms around you. I wish I could touch you.” Some men in the real world actually fantasize about having sex with artificial females. Furthermore, some men show more regard for artificial females than they do to women. Comparing Theo’s intimate conversations with women vs. with the OS is illuminating. In his first intimate conversation with the OS, he speaks sweetly to it, whereas in his first (phone sex) conversation with a stranger (‘SexyKitten’) his speech is pornographic. One of the first things he asks ‘SexyKitten’ is whether she is wearing any underwear. Within seconds he says, “And now my fingers are touching you all over your body… I’m taking you from behind.” To his OS, however, he talks about how he would begin by touching her face with the tips of his fingers. Female viewers should note these differences—and men’s desire to use artificial females for sexual purposes. Presenting a man-made creation as a female and treating it like a real woman, as seen in Her, grooms viewers to consider artificial females as women—and to consider women as things to be used by men. This dehumanizes women. Jonze likely believes he has created a beautiful work of art with Her, an exploration of what it is to be a woman, but his film endorses the normalisation of artificial females, leading viewers to see women as less than human. Much the same as with Lars and the Real Girl, you can observe commonalities between the dehumanization of women in Her and in real life in the gender identity industry—an industry that treats women as objects to be used by men. Filmmakers like Jonze, who embrace science fiction depictions of females, do women a disservice by dehumanizing us this way. Alline is a Canadian film analyst and retired court interpreter with a B.A. Translation from Universite' Laval. In her second career, she turns the text analysis skills she acquired in university studying translation and literature to film. She makes her home in British Columbia and is currently seeking a publisher for her film guide for women. This year her articles on women and film and TV have appeared in Women Making Films (India), Feminist Current, 4W, and Gender Dissent. She is a film analyst who puts women and girls first. Alline Cormier Film analyst www.sexualizationofwomen.com YouTube: ACPicks Twitter: @ACPicks2 GETTR: ACPicks Paypal: PayPal.Me/AllineCormier

By Donovan Cleckley Illustration by Stella Perrett (Radical Cartoons) You have seized, in the name of God, the Child’s crust from famine’s dole; You have taken the price of its body And sung a mass for its soul! -Voltairine de Cleyre, “The Gods and the People” (1897) Children figure most curiously into politics and religion, filling the role of canvases for others’ desires rather than anything truly of their self-determination. A child learns that she or he cannot exist without existing for somebody else, finding herself or himself denied being in a fundamental way. In her 2012 book Childism: Confronting Prejudice Against Children, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl observes that adults subject children to fantasy and fiction. “In narcissistic childism,” she writes, “children are blank pieces of paper on which an adult’s story is written.” They become more doll than human, more artificial than authentic in the search of “the true self” by way of aesthetics. The child becomes one who desperately seeks the validation of identity from those around her or him, lacking a sense of self. The body and mind become used to “being” in nonbeing—and the child feels lost, with childhood stolen. The concept of “transcendence” by social and medical transition certainly seems well-marketed to an extreme degree—and increasingly seductive to children. Jennifer Bilek observes that the commercialization around the practice of transitioning amounts to “the glamorization of body dissociation.” The rise in young people effectively disabling themselves and removing healthy body parts coincides with the industry and its technology. But the melody has been one played long before. We may think of Robert Browning’s 1842 poem “The Pied Piper of Hamelin, a Child’s Story,” in which he dramatizes the folktale involving the Pied Piper. In short, the children of Hamelin become the payment to the piper, entranced and following his song “with shouting and laughter.” In her recent investigative work for Reduxx, Genevieve Gluck has written about how the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) has included the category of “eunuch” among potential “gender identities.” Gluck has explored the historical background involving the castration of children for adults—mostly a cultural practice serving male sexuality. Gluck discusses Laura Engelstein’s 1999 book Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom in which Engelstein writes of the Skoptsy. Having emerged in the 1760s from the flagellants, the Skoptsy drew their inspiration from the Bible, particularly Matthew 19:12, which reads: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Led by men regarded as “sacred” and served by its most devout women, this religious cult subjected human beings to “fiery baptisms,” which involved mutilating genitalia and, for women, removing breasts. The drive to be dismembered originated in a fundamental hatred of the body’s sex and sexuality, made subordinate to religious identity. It became illustrative of the triumph over the flesh, thereby allowing “transcendence” from nature, or imperfection, toward “holiness”—perfection. Previously, Bilek had drawn startling parallels between Kondratiy Ivanovich Selivanov, a founder of the Skoptsy sect, and Martine Rothblatt, an instrumental figure in the legal institutionalization of “gender identity.” A moment from Engelstein’s 1997 essay “From Heresy to Harm: Self-Castrators in the Civic Discourse of Late Tsarist Russia” seems especially applicable to the dynamic of the Pied Piper. On the children involved with the Skoptsy, Engelstein writes: There are also many examples of children being put to the knife, sometimes by relatives who adopted the faith. Children also came into contact with the Skoptsy after being hired from their parents to work as apprentices and servants. Once among the sectarians, the children were raised in the spirit of the creed and allegedly kept from contact with their families. When questioned in court, almost all said they had sought castration of their own free will, as the road to salvation. The separation of children from their families had been to effectively control them. It remains so today. A difference between then and now, however, is the industrialization, which has given a greater power to what originally had been an isolated cult practice. Social media has been another critical development in the mainstreaming of today’s more technological ideology of castration. With both profit and propaganda, the old dynamic has been radically magnified in new ways. Techno-idolatry, which I have previously discussed, has replaced, in a secular form, the original religious justification. When Stella Perrett sent me the illustration to accompany this essay, she brilliantly noted that, in the traditional folktale, the children do not meet a cruel fate. They are neither maimed nor murdered. Rather, as Perrett wrote, they “ended up re-emerging in a neighboring country and starting a new village, but with no memories of where they came from.” However, she added, “in our dystopia,” as we may well see it, the same good fortune will not be ours. “Very few,” Perrett wrote, “will re-emerge, and none without damage.” Far more than childhood will have been cruelly stolen, for the harm done to the body will remain long after the song of transcendence has grown hollow and, then, ended in silence. Victims will soon become survivors, advocating for better care, demanding more ethical treatment, not only for themselves but also for others. But, for so many, it will be much too late—that I know. Let us recall a line from Blake’s 1794 poem “A Little Boy Lost”: “The weeping parents wept in vain.” “In war, children are stolen,” Hawthorne writes in her 2020 book Vortex: The Crisis of Patriarchy. “Colonisation results in the theft of children and their acculturation to the colonising culture.” This ideology, she argues, appears present in the kind of deified technology seizing children under transgenderism. Hawthorne writes: Children caught in this neoliberal cultural revolution underpinned by queer theory, lose not only their past (interrupted by massive numbers of medical and psychological appointments which makes them medically dependent for life) but also their future. And, no, the new theft of children is not even remotely like teenagers aging into young adulthood and coming out as lesbian and gay, usually after years of feeling different from peers. First and foremost, homosexuality does not involve becoming a lifelong medical patient. The analogy between being homosexual and being medicalized for so-called “gender dysphoria” always has been false. How the clear and present difference has not been obvious has illustrated the power of forced teaming. In fact, the early gay liberation movement opposed precisely this kind of pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific regime that, in the guise of psychiatry, largely targeted homosexual nonconformity to sex-role stereotyping. However, medical violence has become increasingly mainstreamed, for great profit, now sold to the masses as “mental health care” and “suicide prevention.” But we must object buying into the straight lie that makes our bodies into commodities. The industry merely wants to make capital from our very flesh and discard us when there remains nothing left to be harvested. There will be those of us who perpetrated, collaborated, witnessed, and, most vitally, protested this medical violence. Unlike in the folktale, where every child forgot, remembrance will be a haunting thing for society’s new child—and for us all. 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 As with "transgenderism," surrogacy is a huge opportunity for the medical industry to profit from dissociation. Gestational surrogacy (surrogacy that starts with IVF) is far removed from the natural process of procreation. A sophisticated supply chain has been created to cater for rich customers who feel entitled to use women’s bodies to provide them with children. The woman who provides the eggs, the man who provides the sperm and the woman who goes through pregnancy and childbirth can be unknown to each other, and living in different parts of the globe. By targeting infertile heterosexual couples, gay male couples, and single men, the fertility industry has extended its market coverage, and boosted its profits. Claiming that ‘reproductive freedom’ (getting a woman to bear ‘your’ child) is a human right (rather than an erosion of the rights of the women it exploits and the children it produces) is a big part of the sales pitch. The network of interlinking agencies that celebrate and promote ‘reproductive freedom’ is demonstrated in trade fairs like The Fertility Show, an annual event held in London’s Olympia that has been described as an Ideal Home Exhibition for making babies. At last year’s event in early May there were over 100 exhibitors. The range of services on offer was extensive - including adoption agencies, holistic therapists, sperm and egg banks, law firms specializing in surrogacy arrangements, insurance providers, etc. But most of the exhibitors were clinics offering a full range of IVF and surrogacy services. The majority were based in the UK, but some were based overseas - in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, India, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the USA (Ukraine will be absent in this years show, for obvious reasons). One of the exhibitors at The Fertility Show was My Surrogacy Journey, an agency founded by Michael and Wes Johnson Ellis, two men who have used three different women (a surrogate mother and two egg donors) to produce ‘their’ children. Also known as Two Dads, they have set up their own Modern Family Show, specifically aimed at the LGBTQ+ market. The first event was in London in September 2021. Jennifer Bilek has described how The Modern Family Show exemplifies the financial significance of adding T+ to LGB - “it breaks the boundary between the male and female sexes and opens our humanity, rooted in sex, for capitalist commoditization.” Not content with being limited to the UK market, a repeat of The Modern Family Show in London this September will be followed by an event in San Francisco in October. Right on cue, the media are preparing the ground for it. Louis Jones TV in California is bringing out a new film this Spring. Called Intended Parents, it is about a couple “with one partner identifying as a transgender woman” who are “seeking to expand their family through surrogacy.” The language of surrogacy is based entirely on denial of reality. The word surrogate means substitute. In reality, it is the commissioning parents who substitute as legal parents for the mother who carries the baby. But it’s the latter who is called the surrogate mother. And even this terminology becomes more reductive over time, as the surrogacy clinics and the commissioning parents seek to downplay her role. The ‘surrogate mother’ became the ‘surrogate’, and now, increasingly, she is described as the ‘gestational carrier’. Surrogacy is based on dissociation, a dissociation that is amplified by the reductive language which is used to label the actual mothers from whose wombs the children are taken. At the same time, the commercial reality of the term ‘commissioning parent’ is being softened by using the term ‘intended parent’ in its place. ‘Building Families Through Surrogacy’ Currently the worst excesses of commercial surrogacy are avoided in the UK by a legal framework that only allows ‘altruistic’ surrogacy (though the expenses that are allowed are sometimes hard to distinguish from commercial payments). Commissioning parents can, and do, avoid the restrictions, though, by exploiting women in countries where the industry is less regulated. The Law Commissions in England & Wales and Scotland are currently drawing up a suggested revision of the law governing surrogacy, to make it less restrictive. Their main aim, as outlined in their consultation document Building families through surrogacy, is to “encourage those wishing to enter surrogacy arrangements to do so in the UK rather than overseas.” Their proposal, which is yet to be finalized, falls short of full commercialization, but it would allow advertising, and mark a significant intensification of the dissociation inherent in the surrogacy process. The legal fiction that they want to create suggests that the ‘intended parents’ who have commissioned the child become the parents at the time of birth, so that the actual mother who has carried the child in her womb and given birth would not even be recorded as a parent on the child’s original birth record. She would literally be erased from the record, though she would be allowed to reappear when the child she had given life to reached adulthood. It is hard to imagine the trauma of discovering at eighteen that you are the product of a commercial transaction that exploited your mother who you’ve never met. It is certainly not something that the Law Commissioners have expressed any concern about. The Birth of Transurrogacy Until recently, the only links between "transgenderism" and surrogacy were the drugs that involved. Lupron is not only used as a puberty blocker in gender clinics, it is also used in the surrogacy clinics to overrule the natural cycles of egg provider and surrogate mother. Regret at loss of fertility has been one of the poorly acknowledged side effects of 'gender affirming' medication. But what could have been a threat to the gender industry is now being turned into an opportunity, by bringing egg and sperm freezing and the exploitation of surrogate mothers into the picture. This March, Stonewall released a 2 minute TikTok videoclip featuring Jake and Hannah Graf, to celebrate 'Trans Day of Visibility.' This heterosexual 'trans' couple have sough, and achieved, celebrity status as 'trans' surrogacy role models. They are patrons of Mermaids, the organization at the forefront of the UK campaign to block puberty for gender nonconforming children, and one of the two major charity partners that sponsored The Modern Family Show in 2021. In the videoclip, Jake explains how, "I had always wanted to be a father....A few years ago, I stopped testosterone for six months and had eggs harvested and fertilized and frozen...We found a wonderful surrogate who wanted to help us." Jake doesn't mention that as part of "helping" them for an expected second child, their "wonderful surrogate" had to endure an ectopic pregnancy. Hannah shares that he does not mind that he is not genetically linked to the child, but he offers advice "to all young trans folk," by telling them to "consider your fertility options before jumping into puberty blockers and hormones. I was offered the option to store my gametes but I declined because I simply didn't believe I would ever have a use for them....I do wish I'd given myself this option." Why are Stonewall and Mermaids putting out this message at this time? It would appear that, having spent years arguing that there are no downsides to injecting young people with puberty blocking drugs, and cross-sex hormones, they now recognize loss of fertility as a consequence. Instead of this giving them pause for thought, they've come up with a new solution: freeze your eggs and sperm and later on, use your privilege to exploit a woman's body so that she can produce 'your' child. This is a marketing opportunity that will benefit both the gender and fertility branches of the medical industrial complex. Growth in demand for transurrogacy will synergistically boost profits for the industry as a whole, at a time when growth in IVF treatments for heterosexual couples who are naturally infertile is slackening. No wonder celebrities who have chosen medical procedures to make themselves infertile and then gone on to use surrogate mothers to give them 'their' children are now being given such media publicity. 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 FINAARGIT - International Feminist Network Against all Artificial Reproduction, Gender ideology and Transhumanism The first edition of the “A dream called baby” event took place in Paris on 4 and 5 September 2021, for Italy the dates of 21 and 22 May were scheduled in Milan. “A Dream Called Baby” is an international showcase with the best offers from the thriving human reproduction market. In vitro fertilization, reproductive genetics, oocyte vitrification, egg trading, embryonic genetic selections: the human being is ready for new genetic engineering technologies. The whole is painted with the best of intentions of helping to fulfill the desire for parenthood on a large market of desires where everything is for sale, even girls through the practice of surrogate motherhood - A desire that is put through the grinder and transformed by the logic of product optimization. When procreation becomes a technical operation in a laboratory it becomes production of the living: selection and extraction of raw material, analysis in the production phases, disposal of unsuitable goods, checks on the whole process. What does it offer and what does it offer to visitors? How do you present the new parenting possibilities to those who want a child? It may be interesting to enter this world by looking at the communicative form that is used, given the absolute singularity of the products on offer: women, men, children, parts of the human body such as gametes and uterus. Just to be concrete and practical we can note that the attractive proposals do not differ much from what happens for any commercial offer: We offer 1 vial (of spermatozoa) for free with the purchase of 1 vial from our donor highlighted in the catalog: For highlighted donors, we offer 2 vials for the price of 1. To take advantage of this offer, add 2 or 4 vials of the same type to your cart. You will see the discount applied at checkout. Another example of an offer is Becoming a homopapa for Europeans, 6-7 November 2021, the program includes: Information on legal, medical, economic and financial services Expert groups from various countries: local and North American, Advice on GPA programs for French, Belgian, Dutch, German citizens, and the rest of Europe (United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, ...) This online event is broadcast live at two different times to welcome parents and intended parents located around the world: April 1, 2021 - 1:00 pm EDT / 7:00 pm Central European time; April 1, 2021 - 7:00 pm EDT / 7:00 am for China and Taiwan There is the BioTexCom proposal which, with the slogan "Our patients at the center of everything", offers: Personalized treatments: individual approach for each patient in order to guarantee positive outcomes beyond the age limits. Couples of any age can use reproductive medicine and become parents Only with fresh oocytes: use only of fresh oocytes (therefore taken from donors when needed for production) to ensure maximum results Donor database: An extensive donor database to meet all individual patient needs in the most complicated cases Impartial parenting advice on surrogacy and support for gay men around the world We will refund the price of the first visit to Italy. Whether you proceed independently or rely on the affiliated centers, signing the contract for any treatment, the cost of the analyzes and visits. And more... Men having baby (MHB) event sponsored by American and Canadian fertility clinics (countries in which in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer - in the acronym IVF - is allowed to homosexual couples), offers lectures, practical advice, discussions with prices and offers. The event took place in Paris, at the Espace Champerret, in attendance despite the epidemic also present in France, on 5 and 6 September 2020. Among other proposals, it also offers these opportunities: Evaluation of carrier mothers with selection displayed in the catalog Possibility to choose the sex of the child Possibility of having the mother abort or abandon the newborn affected by an anomaly, with the guarantee, in this case, to enjoy a new GPA for free The Gay Parenting Assistance Program (GPAP) offers homosexual men educational and financial support to achieve surrogacy parenting. MHB's Membership Benefits Program features a video library, Ask the Expert, a rich library of information on surrogacy and homosexual parenting. The proposal for annual conferences, seminars and webinars with over seventy service providers was taken up by over 2,000 participants from all over the world. Another clinic offers various options depending on the buyer's economic possibilities A "COMFORT" surrogacy offer, at € 37,500 for the purchase of eggs. The € 70,000 VIP offer includes the birth of the child in a French-speaking country, Belgium The DELUXE offer at € 70,000 includes the guarantee of a child with a "normal" chromosomal group that is healthy, and the choice of sex. In the name of “freedom of choice” and the assertion of a so-called “right to a child”, the world view of technocrats who manage Human Livestock determines the end of all freedom, self-determination and the very meaning of being human. The surrogate motherhood and medically assisted procreation must be radically criticized because any partial criticism has paved the way for the new faces of eugenics and transhumanism. Transhumanist eugenic technocrats aim to normalize the artificial reproduction of the human as a normal way of coming into the world. Birth becomes the stake for a profound ontological and anthropological transformation of the human being. For now, the event has been canceled, this is the message from the organizers: “Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, we have made the difficult decision to postpone the important event to 2023”. Several radical feminist groups had already moved against the Baby Fair and for those days they prepared lectures and initiatives. We, as FINAARGIT - International Feminist Network Against all Artificial Reproduction, Gender ideology and Transhumanism - together with Resistenze al nanomondo and the People’s Assembly Resisting Transhumanism - Bergamo, had launched a protest scheduled to take place at the entrance to the Fair. These pressures from various directions upset the promotional climate of the Fair and led to the decision to cancel it and postpone it to 2023. But even if this event has, for now, been canceled, technocrats, new eugenists and businessmen must not be given the opportunity to find better times for their market, for their propaganda of artificial dreams and for the advancement of their research that transforms the bodies in living laboratories. FINAARGIT was born in memory of FINRRAGE, Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering, founded in the late 1970s, one of the first situations to denounce the risks of artificial reproduction technologies and genetic engineering. We are aware that we are experiencing an epochal transition, which is unprecedented in terms of pervasiveness, globality and irreversibility, with the urgency of opposing these profound and irreversible transformations with all our strength. Artificial reproduction, genetic editing, gender ideology, “gender identity” industry, genetic engineering, nanotechnologies, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence: they are part of the same process and the same transhumanist worldview. Let's oppose all this now, tomorrow will be too late. We fight for the unavailability of bodies and the living, for another vision of the world. In defense of our bodies, of life and the ecology of life, of the bodies of women and boys and girls, of gestation - a deep root on a physical and symbolic level of Motherhood, of the ancestral knowledge of our bodies, of mankind, of sense of humanity itself, of mother Earth and of the living being. On our website there is a presentation of the network, if you want to get to know us and join us write to us! FINAARGIT www.finaargit.org

by Vaishnavi Sundar Narendra Kaushik – a plastic surgeon who has made worldwide headlines for stating his intent to transplant a uterus into a trans-identified male – might just be the Indian Victor Frankenstein. Dr. Kaushik has several academic degrees to his name, all of which he undertook at Indian institutions between 1991 and 2014. Several websites advertise his medical experience to be somewhere between 16 – 20 years, but the exact duration isn’t clear. His purported affiliation with the Medical Council of India returns no result, but the Delhi Medical Council (which offers paid registration of Rs.2000) has his credentials certified until 2024. He founded his own Delhi-based practice ‘Olmec Healthcare centre’ in 2010. Along with his wife, he has two registered LLPs (Limited Liability Partnership), Olmec Healthcare and Olmec Pharmaceuticals. While his first LLP is active, the current status of Olmec Pharmaceuticals LLP is ‘Under Process Of Strike Off.’ In April 2019, he inaugurated a multi-storied hospital complex in the capital city. The building appears to have state of the art interiors, facilities and strangely the name (and designation) of Dr. Kaushik displayed on the building’s walls. Dr. Kaushik claims to offer a dizzying array of services. He calls ‘Olmec Healthcare’ a “premiere transgender surgery institute… the foremost supporting platform for transgender community for [the] last 14 years… the most trusted healthcare centre in India.” Unsurprisingly, he uses terminologies such as ‘assigned sex at birth’ across all platforms. His popularity amongst transgender clientele seems to date back about 7-8 years based on social media posts. Several of these clients are foreigners, including a British man, Graham Pascoe, whose quest to ‘transform into Sue’ caught the attention of Indian media in 2015. In 2015 alone, Dr. Kaushik claims to have operated on 15 foreigners. The main reasons why foreigners pick India for their SRS are lower costs and a markedly reduced waiting time. Pascoe, for example, was given a waiting time of four years by the NHS, and he said financing it privately in the U.K. would have cost him £40,000. A 2015 article cited that “the procedure costs between Rs 7.5 lakh and 11 lakh in Thailand whereas in India you can get a new sexual identity starting Rs 3.5 lakh without compromising on the quality of treatment.” Since the demand for such procedures has risen exponentially in recent years, I imagine the cost has since gone up significantly. India is turning into a ‘trans surgery’ hub, a reputation that was once unique to Thailand in Asia. Men and women from the US, Europe and even several African countries head over to India solely for sex change tourism. Ceasing upon the opportunity, several clinics have popped up in relatively small towns where (you’d think) there is little awareness about gender ideology. Dr. Kaushik is quite active on social media sites including Quora and Reddit, where he responds to questions posed by youngsters, elevating his status, and leading followers to his practice. Olmec also has a YouTube channel filled with saccharine testimonials about how amazing Dr. Kaushik is. When I made Dysphoric (a four-part documentary series available to watch for free), I used Dr. Kaushik’s social media posts to illustrate how several Indian surgeons actively promote surgical interventions by offering ‘packages’. ‘Required Documents’ As previously mentioned, both his firms are partnerships with his wife Sunanda Kaushik. There is very little information about other colleagues on their website. There is him, and all other links leading to the ‘team’ or ‘staff’ are deadlinks. There is no mention of Ms. Kaushik anywhere either. However, after some digging online, I found that both Dr. and Ms. Kaushik are registered as WPATH (World Professional Association Of Transgender Health) members. Against Ms. Kaushik’s name on the site, other credentials include: “Counselling, Education, Electrolysis/Laser, Hospital/Practice Administration, LGBTQ Therapy, Social Work” and her educational qualification is listed as BA, MS. Incidentally, Olmec Healthcare’s website contains a section called ‘required documents’ detailing a list of documents needed in order to proceed with any surgical intervention. These include basic information directed at foreigners to confirm identity, arrival information, letters from an endocrinologist as proof of being on HRT etc. Then there is this point (note: for a clinic of international repute, the accessibility of the website in terms of language and interface is below par. Clarifications within parenthesis are mine): “Psychiatrist/ psychologist referral letter. In accordance with WPATH guidelines, we require one referral letter from your psychiatrist or psychologist from your home country, confirming that any form of GCS (Gender Confirmation Surgery) is the recommended form of treatment in your case. Should you have 2 referral letters from two different experts you are welcome to use them here in India, please just make sure that they are written in English. In case you have 1 referral letter from your home country, the 2. referral letter will be arranged for here in [the second referral letter will be arranged here in] Delhi, by our local experienced psychologist.” It doesn’t say if the “local experienced psychologist” is Ms. Kaushik given that she is a WPATH member after all. If that is the case, Olmec has a great system in place! Membership of WPATH comes in a few categories; both husband and wife seem to have signed up for ‘Least Developed Country – full membership’ which costs $70 (US) per year. I rang the number given on their website pretending to enquire about a service. After a few tries, they started disconnecting my call. I needed someone to speak with me in English, and it seems, no one was available (I will update the piece if I establish further contact). Uterus transplant as a procedure About five years ago, a procedure, widely discussed in the media was that of a 26-year-old woman who underwent a uterine transplant by doctors at Galaxy Care Hospital in Pune. The process was to harvest the uterus from a donor and immediately transplant it into her body. It was considered the first such surgery of this kind to be performed in India. The patient was reported to have suffered from ‘Asherman syndrome’, a condition where the uterus becomes prone to damage due to curettage and other infections, affecting both menstruation and pregnancy. This woman not only had a successful organ transplant (of her mother’s uterus), about a year and a half into the surgery, she gave birth to a girl child through IVF. A media report states: “Fewer than 20 uterus transplants have been attempted around the world. In April , doctors in Saudi Arabia attempted the first uterus transplant on a 26-year-old woman. However, the uterus infarcted – that is, a part of the tissue went dead because of an obstruction in blood supply – and the uterus had to be removed. Almost a decade later, doctors in Turkey managed to successfully transplant a uterus harvested from a cadaver into a patient. However, despite several embryo transfers after the uterus transplant, the woman was unable to conceive a child. In 2013, a team of doctors headed by Dr Mats Brannstrom in Sweden conducted the first successful uterus transplant that led to a viable pregnancy. On September 4, 2014, the recipient of the uterus gave birth to a healthy child. Brannstrom and his team have performed nine uterine transplants of which two were not successful.” How does this work in a male body when even a female body could be infected by such transplants? Furthermore, how does one successfully fit a uterus into a male body when even on a skeletal level it is not designed to accommodate one? WPATH lays out a ‘Standards of Care’ document, which is periodically updated (currently SOC8). The website states that SOC is a “clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transgender and gender diverse people with safe and effective pathways to achieve lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves, and to maximize their overall health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment. This assistance may include primary care, gynecologic and urologic care, reproductive options, voice and communication therapy, mental health services (e.g., counselling, psychotherapy), hormonal or surgical treatments among others.” Unless implicitly tied to ‘reproductive options’, nowhere does it speak of organ transplant. In any case , there is the huge question of scientific efficacy, and the ethical quagmire to navigate while conducting such an experimental procedure. It is therefore imperative that policymakers lay down some ground rules, as opposed to letting someone attempt an impossibly dangerous, and no doubt unsuccessful surgery just because there is a willing participant. Isn’t the phrase ‘first, do no harm’ applicable across medical commitments of all kinds? Legal impossibilities In an article, Dr. Kaushik said “Every transgender woman wants to be as female as possible,” And that includes being a mother. The way towards this is with a uterine transplant, the same as a kidney or any other transplant. This is the future. We cannot predict exactly when this will happen but it will happen very soon. We have our plans and we are very very optimistic about this.” Only, it is not the same as any other transplant. According to Indian regulations, organ transplants fall under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994, and is limited to transplants for “therapeutic purposes.” For example, replacing a critical organ if it fails to function properly, or when an organ may have to be removed due to life threatening diseases such as cancer. Based on Dr. Kaushik’s proclamation, it is unclear whether this can be justified as ‘therapeutic purposes’. Another way to look at this – since it is an organ concerning reproductive capabilities – is through the lens of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). And the two legal Acts that cover the procedures of such a transplant would be the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021. While it is unclear if Dr. Kaushik plans to do IVF or gestational surrogacy (the only two permissible ARTs in India), neither of which includes ‘male masquerading as a woman’ as its recipient. The ART Act defines itself as “all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman.” Wombs for sale The dire economic status of women in India is a well-known fact. I have written and spoken extensively about the ways in which women are exploited in this country. There seem to be players on either side of the victims. One, an all-powerful industry that profits from women’s bodies (including dead ones), second, a group of regular people (sometimes family members) who see her body as their only means of survival, and therefore push her towards the industry to realize it. This is true for child labour, prostitution, other forms of slavery, surrogacy etc. Last year, discussion around commercial surrogacy hit the mainstream as lawmakers chose to prohibit it entirely. Previously, on several occasions, husbands have threatened wives to go through with it despite risks to her life, just so she can make some money. Though the legalities of surrogacy have been altered to eliminate monetary exchanges, experts believe the industry has merely gone underground. As with ‘woke’ attitudes towards surrogacy and prostitution, harvesting a woman’s uterus to be donated to a ‘man masquerading as a woman’ would soon fall within ‘choice’ feminism’s gambit. Women, even those who aren’t trans-identifying, will soon be coerced into donating their uteri. There isn’t an endpoint to how acutely women in this country can be exploited, and I speculate the worst with this new ‘womb transplant’ offshoot. There is a steep rise in the number of women ‘transitioning’ in India, several of whom get a double mastectomy at the very least. There are online forums where discussions around finding an affordable doctor to do “bottom surgery” are normal. Given that testosterone causes atrophy, many trans-identifying females will require hysterectomies at some point. Others will elect to have a hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy as part of their affirmation treatment. There is no record of how the removed organs are preserved/discarded. Knowing the levels of Indian bureaucracy, there won’t be explicit papers to clarify such information and you’ll have no choice but to just take the hospital’s word for it. What happens to all the uteri removed from young women who are transitioning? In their rush to get rid, surely, they aren’t going to worry about the careful disposal of what they consider a burden? Though Dr. Kaushik claims he will attempt his impossible surgery using a dead donor or a female patient who has transitioned and had a hysterectomy; is there a way to really find out such details? Several states have made it entirely free for the trans-identifying population to get affirmation surgeries done at government hospitals. Private parties could potentially purchase removed organs from said hospitals because niche industries like cosmetic surgery have boomed with privatization. In 2017, the former head of the Indian Council of Medical Research said that the country doesn’t “have a committee to look into this specific form of transplants” – referring to transplants of the uterus within two females. Therefore, given that womb transplants – women to women – remain unregulated, who is to say that the boundaries for such surgeries cannot be expanded to include men? Furthermore, if such a procedure is deemed essential for a male’s ‘gender affirmation treatment’, will government hospitals expand their remit for free trans healthcare to include it? In a 2021 paper titled ‘The Montreal Criteria and uterine transplants in transgender women’, Dr. Jacques Balayla, an obstetrician-gynecologist and clinician scientist at McGill University (and the lead author of the paper) said: “A woman who is born without a uterus and a man who transitions into a woman because of gender dysphoria have a similar claim to maternity if we consider them to have equivalent rights to fulfill the reproductive potential of their gender (sic). And I think that we should… the time has arrived to advance a rights-based ethical framework for transgender women due to successes the medical community has achieved in recent years developing pregnancies, achieving safe births, and preventing graft rejection among uterus transplant recipients.” If such a market is established in India, the demand will be not just from Indian men, but also from men abroad. As discussed before, the market will not be limited to trans-identifying females, and will expand to the rest of the female population. Men could essentially shop for wombs in India, and industries would have a field day at the expense of vulnerable women – while the woke ideologues continue championing the donors. After my brief foray into all of this, I’m not sure how I feel about the industry of organ transplants in general. Much like several women online, I too have decided against organ donation when my time comes. This ideology has single-handedly wreaked havoc in women’s lives worldwide. It haunts me. And now it feels like the depths of Victor Frankenstein’s depravity is unravelling in our living rooms. Whether Dr. Kaushik will perform the surgery or not, the lives of women have never been more under threat. I will leave you with one last caveat which sent a shockwave down my spine. I looked up ‘Olmec’ to find out if it was medical jargon. I can’t be sure of his intent behind the name. But, according to Wikipedia, the name ‘Olmec’ comes from the Nahuatl or Aztec word for the Olmecs. This word can be broken into two parts ōlli meaning natural rubber, and mēcatl meaning people. Rubber people! About Author Vaishnavi Vaishnavi Sundar is a filmmaker, writer and women's rights activist. She has been advocating for women's sex-based rights through her films, her vlog channel and many of her published work. Vaishnavi is passionate about bringing to light the extent to which gender ideology has infiltrated India. @Vaishax on Twitter vaishax on instagram Vaishnavi Sundar on Facebook You can support Vaishnavi's work here: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/vaishax

Some courageous mothers have stepped into the gender industry arena where the techno-medical complex (TMC) has intersected with queer education, creating synthetic sex identities being marketed to and forced into American children’s lives by big businesses and billionaires. Moms For Liberty (MFL), a non-profit organization of mothers on a mission to organize, educate and empower parents to defend their rights at all levels of government, is going head-to-head against Disney corporation. Disney’s initial silence on Florida bill (HB 1557), signed into law in March by governor DeSantis, purportedly did not sit well with employees and fans who protested Disney’s lax support for the LGBTQI+. The Parental Rights in Education bill prohibits Florida educators from teaching about sexual orientation or “gender identity” from kindergarten through third grade. “Gender identity” is a euphemism for manufactured or synthetic sexes being sold as new identities by the medical-industrial complex. People are starting to notice this isn’t about human rights as purported by the LGBTQI+, which now fronts for the techno-medical complex. Bill HB 1557 offers a provision that enables parents to sue if they allege schools or instructors have been in violation by teaching children about these corporately constructed identities. Disney quickly stepped up and apologized to the LGBTQI+ Inc. and offered $5 million in restitution to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for their infraction. The HRC stated they would reject the money "until we see them build on their public commitment and work with LGBTQ+ advocates to ensure that dangerous proposals, like Florida’s, Don’t Say Gay or Trans bill, don’t become laws, and if they do, to work to get them off the books." This echoes the threats of the LGBTQI+ (fronting for the techno-medical complex) against North Carolina in 2016, when the state wanted to opt out of unisex public bathrooms that would support individuals with newly minted synthetic sex identities conjured out of plastic surgery and wrong sex hormones. North Carolina was forced to compromise with LGBTQI+ because of the enormous financial and corporate threat they posed to the state. That lack of resolution is now coming around anew. The American Civil Liberties Union has been fortified with millions of dollars of medical fortune funds to help win the day for those with medical-tech identities. The recent addition to grade school curriculums to teach children about corporate identities based on sexual orientation (LGB) and, now, synthetic sex identities (“gender identities”) created by the TMC to expand markets in sexual identity are not going down well with parents. Parents' ire, raised to its limits over the sexualization of their kids, have them transforming themselves into political activists, with slogans like Moms for Liberty, “I do not co-parent with the government.” Disney has stated they would pause all political donations in Florida and would pledge millions of dollars to LGBTQ+ causes in opposition to the legislation, as they did with HRC, as if they had not already done so (more on this in a moment). MFL was particularly incensed by Disney’s threat to get the law repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts. Disney is also committed to supporting national and state organizations to achieve that goal. Mother’s For Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice, plans to boycott the company and work to secure every school board position she can in Florida to push back against Disney. The second Co-founder of MFL, Tina Descovich, sounds determined their organization can win against Disney. In a recent Epoch Times report, It’sshe noted MFL has 80,000 members in 181 chapters in 34 states. “These moms could prove to be a formidable financial and political foe for the happiest place on earth,” she said. It’s been reported that Disney has already taken a 34 billion dollar hit with the rise of parental boycotts of Disney products, movies, theme parks, and shows and lost their self-governing privileges, thanks to Gov. DeSantis. Several leaders from other states have responded to the news and have invited the company to move Disney World there instead. This echoes the way corporations and Big Tech stepped in to flatten North Carolina after their opposition to the deconstruction of sex boundaries and protection of women and children in public bathrooms. Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado said that lawmakers in his state “don’t meddle in affairs of companies,” basically meddling in the affairs of companies by doing so, and a county judge in Fort Bend County, Texas, said that Disney could “visit Fort Bend County as your next destination while you face attacks from the modern-day political extremists, like the Florida governor,” not recognizing his own political extremism in supporting synthetic sex identities as real. While I admire the ferocity with which Mother’s For Liberty is expressing its disdain for Disney’s arrogance and their commitment to get Disney to stop sexualizing their children, I am wondering if they are aware of just what they are up against and how much of this tug of war between Disney and Florida is political theater. Disney is a massive, world-wide, multi-media conglomerate, worth $140 billion, not just a theme park. They own hundreds of media platforms, including 50% equity in three platforms shared with Hearst Corporation, another mass media conglomerate marketing gender ideology (synthetic sex identities). Disney also owns other companies, such as Steamboat Ventures, a venture capital company that invests in some of the Web’s top startups. They own dozens of miscellaneous property companies from Aulani to Port Canaveral, Florida. Disney purchased so much land in 1967 it was granted governorship (recently revoked by Gov. DeSantis) of its own jurisdiction and special taxing district in Florida, giving the corporation an unprecedented level of control. More importantly, are Disney’s investments in the techno-medical complex, where synthetic sex identities (gender identities) are being manifested for profit through an ideology framed by the now massively influential various LGBTQ+ organizations. Disney committed more than $100 million in 2018 to fund children’s hospitals across the U.S. and the world. Several of these at least have gender clinics, including Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which opened a couple of years after Disney’s donation; Blank Children’s Hospital in Des Moines, Iowa; Texas Children’s Hospital, with various branches throughout the United States; and Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. Disney has funded an online medical portal offering gender services in many locations in the U.S., including Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The LGBTQI+ is a marketing Goliath worth $3.7 Trillion. Is this a war that can be won? I want to believe it is, but unless people in America wake up to the fact they are not living in a democracy but what independent journalist Iain Davis is inclined to frame as a technocracy, we don’t have a prayer. A technocracy is a global network of stakeholders. Davis writes that nation-states are not the driving force behind the current restructuring of global governance. “The geopolitical narratives we are given are frequently superficial,” he says. Those leading the current rapid transformations in our societies have no allegiance to any nation-state, only to their own globalist network and collective aspirations. The largest institutional investors (stakeholders) in Disney are Black Rock and Vanguard Group (Vanguard Group is also owned by Black Rock), who is heavily invested in the “gender identity” narrative of wrong heads in wrong bodies and own the lion’s share of so many of the other conglomerates and corporations driving gender ideology. BlackRock is a huge multinational corporation. It manages investment funds for clients totaling a massive $9.5 trillion. I want to believe that Moms For Liberty can carry out their promise of reigning in Disney’s control, but the LGBTQ+ Junta, as they are tied to the American market and the TMC, is a mighty foe. Black Rock looms even larger and more maniacally dictatorial. Perhaps Moms For Liberty and other factions of society, organized and poised against the growing tyranny of global, multi-national stakeholders, is the only prayer we do have. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you. Image credit: momsforliberty.org