Search Results

A once legal bastion in high regard on both sides of the political spectrum, with a commitment to defending Americans’ constitutional rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has become a weapon of the state, a defender of the gender industry fronting for the techno-medical complex (TMC). They uphold that human sexual dimorphism is not real and are raking in funding from America’s elites to defend this lie. A current legal case being fought by the ACLU against the state of Arkansas, utilizes a $15-million endowment from Jon Stryker, heir to the Stryker Corporation medical fortune worth $14.7 billion, and his husband, Slobodan Randjelović. The gift is to assist in overturning a state ban that refuses to allow for drug and surgical experimentation on children’s sex. The gift from Stryker and Randjelović is one of several large endowments from philanthropic elites, deeply invested in the TMC and invested in institutionalizing gender ideology. In a press release in January, the ACLU announced its historic docket of Supreme Court cases will be named after Joan and Irwin Jacobs, two longtime ACLU supporters whose estimated worth in 2017 was $1.23 billion. The Supreme Court Docket naming is made possible through the Jacobses’ landmark $20 million gifts to the ACLU Foundation’s Bill of Rights endowment fund — the largest endowment gift in the ACLU’s history. In 1968 alongside Leonard Kleinrock and Andrew Viterbi, Irwin Jacobs co-founded Linkabit Corporation, a San Diego-based technology company. They later co-founded Qualcomm, a multinational visionary telecommunication giant with over 30,000 employees in all corners of the globe, as well as one of today’s innovation leaders. Jacobs has donated several hundreds of millions of dollars to several educational institutions, organizations and schools focused on the fields of engineering, computer science, and communications. Together the Jacobs' have funded the Center on Global Transformation, providing a new framework for exploration and analysis shaping the forces of economic change in the world, at the University of California San Diego, where they also have an engineering school in their name. They donated $110 million to the engineering program in 2003 with departments in nanoengineering, bioengineering, and AI. They provided a $75 million lead gift for a new facility at UCSD Health Center in 2010; with a challenge gift, that brought their contributions to a total of $100 million. The center was named for them and helped UCSD Health become a leader listed in the Human Rights Campaign Healthcare Equality Index in 2018. In December 2021, UCSD Medical School hosted a “transgender healthcare” symposium to provide a comprehensive review of different aspects of “gender-affirming medical care.” This course featured sessions on “gender-sensitive cultural awareness,” behavioral health care, primary care, and “medical and surgical gender-affirming interventions.” Upon completion of the symposium, it was anticipated that participants would be able to: *Identify appropriate terminology and pronouns for "gender identity" and sexual orientation including gender-neutral pronouns. *Summarize "gender affirmation" surgeries and appropriate referrals. *Discuss "gender-affirming" surgeries available at UC San Diego Health. *Discuss options for fertility preservation in "transgender and non-binary" individuals. *Identify key mental health issues in the "transgender/non-binary" community. *Describe the requirements needed for mental health providers to provide support for "gender-affirming" surgeries. *Describe healthcare issues related to "transgender and non-binary" adolescents and young adults. *Identify how to improve the patient experience for "transgender/non-binary" patients for better overall healthcare outcomes. The Jacobs’ also donated $133 million to create the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, a global technology Institute with a presence on three continents, including China. The institute hosted a “transgender symposium during the 17th Annual Seminar on Patient-Physician Relations. Cornell University, with which Technion is partnered, has published a "Transgender" Guide To "Transitioning" and "Gender Affirmation" in the Workplace. The Jaocbs’ provided the most significant gift ever to be bestowed on the Salk Institute, for $100 million, which would help raise an additional $200 million for Salk. The Salk Institute is embracing the artificial intelligence revolution and inventing new ways to investigate life. Joan and Irwin Jacobs also spent millions of dollars getting their granddaughter elected to congress in 2020, who is now stumping for the gender industry, which is the techno-medical complex. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs represented California’s 53rd Congressional District and outperformed her opponent with more significant experience. The figures on Jacobs' three years of tax returns, when they finally emerged before the election, also undoubtedly played a role in her outpacing Georgette Gomez, her rival and then the San Diego City Council president. Gomez paid nearly $9,000 in taxes on $82,000 income in 2019, while Jacobs’ 2019 taxes were reported at $1.46 million on an income of $7.19 million. Settling right into her role as a shill for the techno-medical complex, Jacobs rolled out her pitch for LGBTQ Inc., using the now tired and worn tactic of sewing a made-up ideology of disembodiment to the LGB human rights movement, and hitting all the high notes and bogus statistics to cultivate sympathy, including suicide and bullying, a need for training teachers about the bullying of gender non-conforming children, homelessness, etc. Jacobs went the extra mile though and stated she had both a “transgender” and gender non-conforming sibling. Even though the term "transgender" only entered the cultural lexicon two minutes ago and no one can tell us what this word means, this didn’t stop Jacobs from rolling right along as if this ideology was already engraved in stone and the term completely understood and agreed upon. Finishing strong in her pitch, Jacobs manipulated her audience by sharing her “firsthand experience with the hurt and pain that can be caused by misgendering someone, and how easy it is to be an ally by taking the extra time to normalize sharing your pronouns.” She explained this is why she supports ensuring that it is easy to access federal identity documents with the pronouns one identifies with and why she is using her platform to educate people about correct pronoun usage. In December 2021, she gave an impassioned plea against an epidemic of violence being experienced by “transgender people,” on the House floor. Though there is absolutely no coherent explanation of what this term means, Jacobs, like many politicians before her, performed what seemed like a faux soliloquy to drive her agenda of the political and social normalizing of human disembodiment. I am experiencing déjà vu, having written about two other billionaire families, the Pritzkers and Rothblatts, with a member of their family claiming to be the opposite sex and their heavy investments in biotech, pharma, and AI. While the gender industry is framed as human rights, what we see manifesting behind the scenes, over and over, with the most significant funders and drivers are enormous investments in technology, pharma, and AI. Rothblatt is also well invested in transhumanism, and has created a robot of his wife and a technological religion that is driving the disassociation of humans from their biology, which is now supported by the ACLU. 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

by Choko Ishioka It has already been revealed that there are many billionaires hiding behind this creepy ideological movement. They are like cult gurus, changing people's minds and intoxicating them with illusions. Among such magicians, there is one group that may shed some light on the nature of this issue. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental economic organization with 38 member countries to stimulate economic progress and world trade. Gender ideology has many flaws and does a lot of harm to society, yet it pretends to be a human rights movement. For example, Open Society is funding Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for “human rights,” while also helping to create legal medical identities for children which sterilize them and create other physical harms. When it comes to OECD, delegates from the member countries attend committee, and what is discussed and agreed upon in the meeting is reflected in the policies of each country. In other words, the OECD is not only a data aggregator, but it also influences the economic management of nations. Such organizations that influence governments are demanding that member countries legislate "self-ID", "non-binary", etc. which are no more than corporate illusions, no less magical than unicorns, that support the medical industry. The OECD says, ”Anti-LGBTI discrimination also reduces economic output by excluding LGBTI talents from the labour market and impairing their mental and physical health, hence their productivity”. But is that what they really mean? The OECD's requirements for member countries are mainly as follows; 1.LGB-specific provisions (i) equal treatment of same-sex and different-sex consensual sexual acts; (ii) legal recognition of same-sex partnerships; (iii) equal access to assisted reproductive technology. 2. TI-specific provisions (i) depathologizing being transgender; (ii) allowing a non-binary gender option on birth certificates and other identity documents According to the OECD, the goal of "de-pathologizing being transgender" requires three policy actions: (Executive summary 1.1. Which laws are LGBTI-inclusive? ) ①Not categorizing being "transgender" as a mental illness in national clinical classifications. ②Permitting "transgender" people to change their gender marker, i.e. sex and first name revealing an individual’s gender, in the civil registry. ③Not conditioning legal gender recognition on medical requirements, including sterilization, sex-reassignment surgery and/or treatment, or psychiatric diagnosis. The OECD is trying to impose this ideology on all its members, even those with different cultures. Let's look at the example of Japan, a country with a culture very different to that of western societies, to see if this is really “diversity”. Japanese society was uninfluenced by Christianity until the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Homosexual activity was common between monks, Samurai, and even ordinary people. After the Meiji Restoration, many missionaries have come to Japan, but most Japanese are not very interested in Christianity except on Christmas day. They have never made homosexuality a crime. The concept of gender identity is difficult to understand for the Japanese. In Japan, “trans” can only be explained as a medical condition. The Japanese government has been under pressure from international organizations like Amnesty international to pass LGBT legislation since 2011. However, the Japanese government has not responded to the request. Homosexuality has never been banned and Japan has a legal “sex reassignment” law created in 2003 (Surgery required). There is no need for laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people. It would be a loss for the ruling party to make a law about gender ideology that is not favored by the Japanese people. 2021 was a “grim year in which the government’s listless handling of the coronavirus pandemic drove down its support ratings to dangerous levels” (The Times, Nov.1, 2021). Five months before the election, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) suddenly agreed to deliberate on an LGBT bill written by a coalition of the smaller parties. There was huge disagreement from those who knew the harmful effects of gender ideology, especially on Twitter. In the end, the bill was scrapped. Before the election in October 2021, the opposition parties and the LDP ruling party were at a press conference. When each party leader was asked in the conference, “Raise your hand if you support an LGBT law in 2022,” While all other party leaders raised their hands, only Kishida of the ruling LDP did not. This strategy of standing up to gender ideology activists seems to have worked. Even if the smaller parties formed a fierce opposing coalition, the LDP won more votes than expected in the election, gaining a majority in the parliament. However, there is a requirement from the OECD (pdf.). Japan is a country with a food self-sufficiency rate of less than 40%. And a country with few natural resources. Would such a country want to offend the OECD? The Japanese government would like to comply with the OECD's demands, wouldn't it? Then, what should they do? Rainbow education has begun in schools, to curry favor with the OECD. Public restrooms are becoming more and more unisex. TV programs and Magazines are praising LGBT. An increasing number of girls consider themselves “transgender” and wish to have puberty blockers. Current laws do not allow for “sex reassignment” until adulthood, but the age at which hormone therapy can be started is 15 years old. Now, a law that positions children under the age of 18 as " Rights Holder“ is being debated. Some are concerned that this law (tentatively called the Children's Basic Law) may also give children the right to sexual consent or “transitions.” Recently, uterus transplants are about to become a realistic option in Japan. Some doctors suggest transplanting uteruses removed from women pretending to be men be transplanted into women who cannot bear children due to uterine diseases. In addition to that, despite the rapid increase in the number of child abuse cases in Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare is now proposing to revise the Organ Transplant Law guidelines to allow the donation of organs from children suspected (but not proven) to be abused to death for organ transplant with only the consent of their relatives. The topic of surrogacy(代理出産) has also been in the news frequently. Apparently, the OECD want self-ID and easy access to reproductive technology at the same time. Even without enacting unpopular laws, gender ideology is spreading throughout Japanese society. If not in the direction of self-ID, there are significant sexual and medical changes taking place. Reproductive medicine will have a strong connection to “gender identity.” It seems, after all, that the Japanese government is trying to comply with the OECD's demands. In other words, the real meaning of the buzzword "diversity" may be to stimulate world economy drastically through global cooperation and investment in gender ideology, medicalizing sexual identity, and building a bigger marketing segment for Big Fertility. “Human rights” has become a magic trick for profiteering. Choko Ishioka, is a mother of 2cats. A Japanese who grew up under Japan's peaceful and democratic constitution and loves it so much.

As "transgender" activists like Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, GLSEN, Gender Spectrum, and others push more and more radical sexualization indoctrination on younger and younger children, it’s imperative that parents and other decision-makers about children’s education understand what is happening to their children at school. Advocates Protecting Children Advocates Protecting Children (hereafter “Advocates”) is a non-profit (501c3) organization dedicated to fighting the gender industry, and especially its predation on children in the form of unethical social and medical transition for the sake of political and financial profit.

By @ThinkBlackWoma1 A Twitter thread And, here we are. Now a thread on racism in the LGBT community and why black women like myself are wary of "allyship" with white ppl pushing back against "Trans" insanity. I'm pointing this out now bc TRAs will exploit this, and white ppl will blame black folks for bowing out. 1/ At this point, everyone either has already heard some argument to the effect of "preventing "transwomen" from doing X is like preventing black women from doing X." (If you don't know why this is offensive, just unfollow now and save us both some trouble). 2/ And/or you've seen the document from the "transgender" law center explicitly stating the strategy of instrumentalizing black people to push gender ideology. This is ass-backward as black liberation is about abolishing the social construction of race which is built on gender. 3/ Every heinous thing black ppl have and still endure due to white supremacy is founded on gendered abuse: wealth extraction via forced labor, enforcing a climate of terror to elicit compliance obedience and silence, denying education, etc. Entrenching gender reinforces racism. 4/ Many white ppl are swayed by the argument that being "Trans" is like being black bc they already believe black people were born in the wrong body. They locate the problem of race in us instead of in white people's beliefs. Note the similarity to girls with ROGD right now. 5/ But back to the main point... "Trans" is not the start of instrumentalizing black ppl within LGBT activism. This cooptation has always been there and has always been a problem. The most recent e.g. and the source of "Trans" BS now was the bad arguments made for gay marriage in the U.S. 6/ In the US the argument made was that preventing same-sex marriage is like preventing black women from marrying white men. This relies on the racist idea that black women are not really women. When black women rightly took offense, we were called homophobic. 7/ There are good arguments for same-sex marriage. This was not one of them. Black women are female, just like white women. The existence of "interracial" marriage does not somehow prove that the institution of marriage shouldn't discriminate on sex. 8/ Again, there are ways to argue against sex discrimination in marriage without creating the idiotic idea that black women negate the female sex class which is what has happened here. This idea that BW + WM = WM + WM which is what marriage equality argues is how we get TW = W. 9/ Whenever this is pointed out, white ppl invariably go silent bc they are usually very strong supporters of gay marriage, and they'd rather not connect the current fuckery of "Trans" activism with this bad argument even though the connection is blatant and obvious. 10/ This is also why most black ppl correctly feel that "Transness" is about whiteness, exactly as Dave Chappelle said. It is. The entire LGBT movement displays all the usual problems of white supremacy, including entitlement to using black ppl for personal/political gain 11/ The LGBT movement has gotten this far this fast precisely because it has always been primarily a white people's movement, and white people are not oppressed. Oppressed ppl don't make these kinds of gains this quickly. So they have to use black folks as avatars/shields. 12/ Black people are, categorically speaking, over it. All of it. Most white ppl want the T fuckery to stop, but don't want to analyze how the LGB, especially the G part, have contributed to this current moment, nor do they want to deal with the white supremacy problem. 13/ But a definitive win against this is impossible without addressing the root cause and admitting that using anti-miscegenation laws to argue that sex is irrelevant was not only racist but just a bad argument that has led us here. 14/ Invariably I will lose some followers who think that even pointing this out is homophobic. Indeed, weaponizing the idea that black ppl are particularly homophobic is in part how the LGBT movement was able to win such staunch support from many whites. 15/ Most liberal white ppl in my experience want easy solutions where they don't have to reckon with the messiness and/or their own complicity. They too are happy to use black ppl to win what they want while avoiding the consequences for us. And that's why we bow out. 16/ @ThinkBlackWoma1 must temporarily remain anonymous but can be found on Twitter.

The stories of parents caught between the techno-medical complex and their kids sucked into the gender cult have contorted my heart into positions I didn’t know it could stretch, so much have I felt for them. But listening to Youtuber, Karen Davis’s critiques of the parent advocacy group, GenSpect recently and the vitriol she is receiving from parents, I started to notice these organizations are now becoming a hindrance to real political action that might change the landscape for parents and for women whose rights even to name themselves are being rapidly stripped away. This past week, a mother from another organization of parents, which is umbrellaed under the GenSpect parent group, wrote a piece entitled It's Strategy People!!, in support of GenSpect. The group is called Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT) and is housed on the Substack blogging platform. The piece was a caged memo to feminist activists who have recently been pushing a harder front line that does not capitulate to gender ideology, and specifically putting Karen Davis, critiquing GenSpect and those aligning with her, on notice: Parents would not tolerate dissent from their narrative and the organizations buffering them from the public. ROGD, an acronym for Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, coined by Lisa Littman, a physician, and scientist, describes an explosive social phenomenon of children presenting with body dysphoria related to their sex. In the past several years many organizations to help parents navigate their children’s ROGD have emerged in various countries. 4th Wave Now, was one of the first organizations for people questioning the medicalization of gender-atypical youth, which was begun by a parent, and attracted other parents of children claiming unique sex identities and seeking severe medical interventions. On its heels, TransgenderTrend, a group of parents, professionals, and academics concerned about the number of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria, formed. Current iterations of these organizations and those finding themselves under the scrutiny of Karen Davis are Gender Dysphoria Alliance and GenSpect. While these organizations have been helpful in getting information to parents, supporting them when there seemed no place else to turn, they have become, for many of us in the pro-reality movement, an anchor on the necessity of ending the lie that anyone transitions, or that anyone’s body should be treated as experimental fodder for a corporate agenda to colonize human sex. As these organizations grow, through fundraising, the justification for their existence will need to be continually solidified with the idea that some children should be medicalized, that “transgender” is something real, which in turn solidifies the attack on women’s rights and on women who will not submit to this concept. These organizations, whether they realize it or not, are becoming part of the gender industry, supporting the medicalization of children in moderation and to hell with whatever happens to women in the process. In response to the PITT post, several feminist activists (myself included), a few parents, and a young person who’d almost been captured by the gender cult jumped into the comments section of the piece to articulate our concerns. The concerns focused on the continued anonymity of parents, partnering with organizations, like GenSpect, that solidify the concept of gender identity, and GenSpects message of better oversight for children with body dysphoria versus ending the medicalization of children’s bodies entirely and unequivocally. There is no such thing as a little bit of eugenics, and there is no such thing as “transgender people.” It is a corporate fiction. Those of us on the thread supporting a feminist analysis called out GenSpect’s support of the overall concept of “trans” people, that there is such a thing as “transphobia” (a slur being weaponized to silence women resisting their erasure), their affiliations with men in the sex research industries who support the destigmatization of pedophilia, their platforming of people who are self-harming and still claiming unique sex identities as well as pornographers, interviews with adult men who have autogynephilla, and their lack of a clear message about what they are accomplishing politically against the gender industry. This post is not to punish anyone for not being on a particular side or for not engaging in “purity stances,” a statement being thrown at people who hold to the reality that everyone is either male or female. It is an effort to get people to reflect on the broader picture, as most of my work tries to accomplish. On today’s PITT Substack, entitled, It’s About Winning! one parent wrote, “Once we’ve won and our children are safe, most of us parents will dissolve back into our normal daily lives, civilians once more.” Winning for who, I ask? Feminists and others have been here the whole time, fighting alongside these parents for their kids, exposing information, researching, organizing on-the-ground protests at gender clinics, tracking gender clinics, creating our own websites to get information out, writing articles, helping to get bills passed, organizing conferences, all of us operating as and with volunteers, while working full-time jobs, putting in hours and hours of our time, so that no other child is harmed and once these parents feel like their children are safe, its goodbye from them. Wow. Just wow. The privilege and entitlement dripping off these posts are astonishing. The defensiveness with which the expressed concerns in the PITT comments were met by parents had me thinking that “ROGD Parent” has become an identity on par, in specialness, with the parent of a “trans” child. It is being solidified into an untouchable, unquestionable category of victimhood around which parents are creating identities that have them avoiding moving into the next phase of response against the gender industry. They have been anonymous for years, and they are protected by organizations, soothed, offered comfort and compassion, and given a place to share their stories of suffering within a community of loose-knit allies calling themselves gender-critical. Their grief has become a shield against any inquiry. The organizations have helped create and solidify these parents’ identities as the walking wounded. Instead of moving beyond their grief into concrete political resistance that demands change, the parents are protecting the concept of gender identity while simultaneously begging for incremental change by calling attention to their woundedness and that of their children. These parents are overwhelmingly mothers, as are the parents solidifying their children’s identities of being “transgender.” As one parent participating in the comments on the PITT Substack told me after the comments were shut off, “this virtuous victim narrative is entirely absent of any sense of accountability for the impact that their actions and advocacy of this harmful ideology have on others. It denies the agency of both kids and parents, and it feeds a preexisting narrative of white innocence/purity without actually acknowledging the power-seeking aspect of "being trans.” Some of the themes that emerged on the comments thread at the original PITT post from parents were: * How dare you question us, we are suffering *There is no other group that has a higher stake in this debate *Only another parent going through this can understand how much we have suffered *We have a separate goal from others fighting the gender industry (we are special) - our goal is to save our children. *Women’s rights are not our problem - feminists should fight their own battles *GenSpect is our protector - how dare you question their motives *Anyone questioning or critiquing the position of GenSpect are attacking us and are cruel, horrible, and unsympathetic people *General outrage Some of the responses from women with years of political experience as activists, who have provided these parents with the information and support they need to understand what is happening to their children were: * You can’t solidify the concept of gender identity and simultaneously fight it and then expect children to be safe. *GenSpect is not doing much politically when what is needed is organized, strategic political resistance to the techno-medical complex and the institutions driving gender ideology. *Children aren’t safe if women aren’t safe. Leaving the ideology of gender identity intact leaves women unsafe. *Capitulation and supplication to the ideology and the media pushing it, is doing more harm in the long run to everyone, including children. *Effective resistance allows for critique, especially in response to a publicly published piece about political strategy. *Critique should lead to self-reflection, not defensive posturing *We care about children too, not just yours but children in the future who will be set up for medicalization unless the entire ideology is exposed for the lie it is and ended. *Kids are harmed by the lies that some children might need medicalization for their feelings. *Kids are harmed by the idea that anyone’s sex should be mutilated for identity. *Capitulation to gender ideology creates an atmosphere for those resisting the entire edifice of “transitioning” to be seen as extremists Mostly, women commented for two or three days. Though emotions ran high, the thread of comments in its entirety was rich with varying perspectives that could have been reflected on for a long time to come, leading to constructive change. I went back the day after making my last comment to do some reflecting myself, and the entire thread was gone. I was shocked. I understand the need to shut off comments at a certain point, but those managing the comments could brook no dissent to their views and removed the entire discussion. One of the commenters had luckily left her browser open and sent me the entire thread this morning, which I include a link to at the bottom of this piece for your reflection. I believe there is no way to avoid conflict and controversy in life. As women, we are socialized to avoid it at all costs, but it is often valuable to work through it instead of trying to eradicate it. No one has a corner on suffering here. Our society is being upended in its entirety. Women are being erased in language and law, threatened with job loss, social isolation, rape, and death. Some women have already been raped in prison by men claiming to be female. Children are being drugged, sterilized, and mutilated. Unity is more vital than separation, and consistent truth-telling is the only antidote to the enormous lie that there is any such thing as a “trans” person. I hope that women will find it in themselves to step beyond their fears and start telling the truth until telling the truth doesn’t look like extremism. Here is the original article on the Pitt Substack and the thread of comments for anyone interested in reading through it and reflecting on the changing landscape in the war against the gender industry: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15AD98rcB5w2U2eQ1MaE-muirqv0T1fcxIA70qKT7s1k/edit?usp=sharing 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.

Peter Tatchell, a renowned gay LGBTQI+ activist, based in the UK, gave a TEDx Talk in 2015, in which he suggested that the broad social acceptance of gay culture within Western societies is paving the way for greater diversity in sexual expression and that this will constitute more enlightened societies. Drawing on the work of 1950s sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, Tatchell stated that the categories gay and straight are not watertight and that bisexuality is growing in popularity. He assures us sexual expression is becoming more fluid, existing on a continuum with gay on one end and straight on the other. Those in the growing middle express an amalgam of different sexual desires and attractions (and, let’s be clear, fetishes based on disconnection, objectification of others, and compulsion). In his talk, Tatchell outlined a path in which strict cultural attitudes that dictate what he calls “straight supremacy” will be eroded, and in its place will be more crossover between heterosexuality and homosexuality. He implies that most heterosexuals repress their feelings of same-sex attraction. When cultural standards, which he sees as established by “moralists,” are loosened, this will create a less homophobic society that will uproot the need for anyone to assert their LGBT identity. The heteronormativity Tatchell despises is the default sexual expression because it is the evolutionary path of our species' reproduction. Other wealthy gay men use influential organizations that evolved once the AIDS epidemic was quelled in the USA to deconstruct sexual dimorphism. These organizations were once there to protect their safety and human rights. Jon Stryker, founder of Arcus Foundation, and his husband, Slobodan Randjelović; Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation; Fabrice Houdart, head of Out Leadership; Todd Sears, founder of Out Leadership; and Mark S. Bonham of the Bonham Centre for Sexuality Studies in Toronto, Canada, are all extremely wealthy gay men institutionalizing gender identity ideology globally with the addition of Transgender, Queer, and Intersex (T+) to the LGB acronym within their LGBT non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The T+ is a trojan horse being used to dismantle sexual dimorphism, which Tatchell comes right out and calls “straight supremacy.” Though this might seem at cross purposes to their sexual orientations, what is at root is the same efforts to control women’s biology, to profit from women’s biology, and to upend women’s ability to prevent sexual access to children, that other misogynistic men have engaged in for eons. The wealth these men have amassed insulates them and grants them a sense of entitlement to all they desire. There is no pretense of care for women. In Peter Tatchell's TEDx Talk and in previous public statements, he seems to support sex between grown men and boys. This controversy has followed him like a plague throughout his career. During his talk, he mentions that this is perfectly natural behavior within some Aboriginal tribes while remarking on the coming freedoms available to us all when “straight supremacy” is abolished (He later notes on his website that he unequivocally does not support pedophilia). There are echoes of Tatchell’s TEDx Talk in a popular 2002 book The End of Gay: And the Death of Heterosexuality, by Canadian journalist Bret Archer, who proposed that as gay culture becomes more acceptable within society, it will become less relevant (as well heterosexuality) and that gay is just a moment in history leading to more fluid sexuality for all humans. One gay male reviewing the book summed up gay culture as “tired and bloated.” Another reviewer thought the book was an excellent way to highlight the difference between gay and queer. Queer is a postmodern term that examines and deconstructs the meaning of sexual orientation and sex-role stereotypes as they are overlaid on the reproductive sex of humans. On his website, Tatchell uses the same language as Martine Rothblatt, the transsexual transhumanist who authored the first gender bill giving legal structure to disembodiment via “gender identity” and who likens sexual dimorphism to the system of South African apartheid (emphasis mine). Rothblatt authored the 1997 book Unzipped Genes: Taking Charge of Baby-Making in the New Millennium, which maps the future of reproductive technology, genetic screening, and DNA mapping. The impetus for Unzipped Genes was Rothblatt’s work on the Human Genome Project, a multibillion-dollar effort to unlock the secrets of the human genetic code. Where does all this deconstruction and queering of sex lead us? None of these men tell us why being unmoored from sexual intimacy, each other, our roots in sex, our connection to the rest of nature, and our genetic heritage, make for a life worth living. They don’t say why having limitless sexual expressions with multiple people is a positive, either for individuals or society. Tatchell’s and his brethren’s utopia seems to be a world where all sexual expression, including the exploitative and fetishistic, are given free rein if the current iteration of LGBT Inc is any indicator. Women don’t fit into these men’s visions, which is why we are being erased in language and law. Children have become fodder for an experimental society, freed from women’s bodies and safeguarding and positioned for unfettered sexual exploration & access. As with Rothblatt, the rest of these men are also looking toward a technological usurpation of women’s role in reproduction to be transferred to the tech sector. A new platform in the UK called The Modern Family Show 2021 gives us a panoramic view of this envisioned world & an explanation of why T+, an ideology of disembodiment, was added to LGB. It also shows why so many rich men invested in Big Banking, Big Pharma, and Big Tech are financing the global gender industry. T+ breaks the boundary between the male and female sexes and opens our humanity, rooted in sex, for capitalist commoditization. The Modern Family Show 2021 was a one-day boutique event that occurred in September 2021, designed for the LGBT+ community and informing attendees about the UK and international family-building options: surrogacy, IVF, IUI (intrauterine insemination), adoption, fostering, co-parenting, fertility preservation, solo parenting, and egg/sperm donation, to explore the ways that they might create their families without using the evolutionary standard of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman. The platform was created by two men (at least they call themselves men, but how can we understand what that means today? Are men actual human beings, while women are objects to use?). These men chose one woman to be a gestating womb and another for her eggs to manifest offspring they call their own. The two men who founded the forum have another platform, a media company that advertises a technological smorgasbord for LGBTQ reproduction, TwoDads UK. Though the events’ promotional material mentioned adoption and foster care as part of the family planning offerings, most of the exhibitors, media partners, sponsors, and charity partners of the event were part of the corporate technological reproduction sector. Mermaids, a charity sponsor for the event, has starred in creating a new market for these industries by promoting the concept of “transgender children,” who are then sterilized by puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. UK journalist Jo Bartosch wrote a scathing exposé just last year on the political underpinnings of Mermaids, revealing lies about statistics, data breaches, and other bureaucratic flimflam. This begs the question of why the two dads who founded Two Dads UK allowed for Mermaids' partnership with The Modern Family Show. International Surrogacy and Egg Donation Agency, CRGH Surrogacy, Herts and Essex Fertility Centre, Laytons LLP (a law firm specializing in surrogacy), Surrogacy Canada (the largest egg donation and surrogacy program in Canada), and Fenomatch (who use facial matching technology to find the right donor for people), were all sponsors of the event. Fenomatch uses an AI algorithm to detect facial resemblance, focusing exclusively on phenotypical facial features, which means that donor-assisted children are more likely to look like their parents. Some of the exhibitors at the event included California Cryobank, Utah Fertility Center, Extraordinary Conceptions, European Sperm Bank, Fenotech, Pacific Fertility of Los Angeles, Surrogacy in Canada, My Surrogacy Journey, and Adoption UK. The main stage of The Modern Family Show platformed events such as My Surrogacy Journey, A Pregnant Man vs The World, Fenomatch AI Facial Mapping, Igenomix Genetic Screening, and Remaking the Human Body. For wealthy gay and transsexual men at the heads of finance and the techno-medical complex, deconstructing sexual dimorphism is a page taken out of Martine Rothblatt’s playbook on genetic engineering. It is his ideology that sees sexual dimorphism as equivalent to a holocaust (Unzipped Genes p. 11) that’s driving tech advancements in reproduction for-profit and social engineering, and that’s erasing women in language and law. In chapter five of Unzipped Genes, titled “Transgenic Creationism: My Perfect Monster,” Rothblatt discusses transgenics and the potential of creating designer babies, merging portions of genes from different persons or species. Did I mention Rothblatt owns a xenotransplantation farm? Xenotransplantation is any procedure that involves the transplantation, implantation, or infusion into a human recipient of either live cells, tissues, or organs from a nonhuman animal source. “With xenotransplantation technology,” Rothblatt says, “children have more than two immediate parents—immediate sources of genetic material—and one or more of these parents might not even be human” (Unzipped Genes p. 72). Calling this a modern family is quite a stretch, considering the offspring of these experiments will not be rooted in a set of parental genes but in a factory compilation of genes and bodies involved in their gestation. The diverse and inclusive Queer veneer these elite men are putting on a eugenics project that obliterates women as the source of life is the same old dance of woman hatred we’ve been dealing with for eons. But now it is amped-up by a tech frenzy wedded to unfettered corporatism and the power of what has become the LGBT+ Junta. 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 from londonremembers.com

One of the most brilliant tactics used by the gender industry in their pursuit of dismantling human sexual dimorphism for the profiteering of the techno-medical complex (TMC), was to tie their agenda of promoting body dissociation to the progressive human rights movement for LGB individuals. Nowhere is this more apparent than in a current legal case being fought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the state of Arkansas. The ACLU is utilizing a 15-million-dollar endowment from two gay men, Jon Stryker, heir to the Stryker Corporation medical fortune worth 14.7 Billion dollars, and his husband, Slobodan Randjelović to overturn a state ban that refuses to allow for drug and surgical experimentation on children’s sex. The TMC profiteering is the backdrop to the current LGBT. It is obscured by the creation of an ideology promoting medical identities pertaining to human sex, as advancement. The global healthcare industry is a 10 trillion-dollar industry. To grow within a capitalist economy, it must create new markets. Medical identities based on sex feeds this industry, which is why the “transsexual” brand of drugs and surgeries has morphed into the “transgender” brand of sex-on-a-spectrum drugs and surgeries. The ‘transsexual” brand of drugs and surgeries was purchased by a small base of adult men with a sexual fetish, choosing to colonize the opposite sex. The “transgender” brand is the repackaging of this fetish for youth to appeal to a bigger market via corporate normalization. The current ongoing ad campaign of glamorous, mythic individuals that are not male or female is seen as a ready cure for an anxious and disaffected population of teens. Young people can get testosterone delivered to their homes, mastectomies for body dysphoria, chest dysphoria, or simply to masculinize their appearance. Hysterectomies can be performed in full or in part, depending on how one feels, and non-binary surgeries give men the option of keeping their penis while inverting their scrotal sack into a makeshift hole for penetration. Sex-on-a-spectrum or human sex deconstructed into parts works out very well for the TMC, and Stryker Corporation which sells medical supplies and surgical devices. As a species, we are far more profitable as parts, than as whole beings. The transgender brand also paves the way toward supporting the assisted fertility market (AFM) by manifesting new additions to the consumer market that is LGB, who will also use AFM to create their families. Sterilizing children creates new consumers for AFM/TMC. The more people rely on reproductive technologies, the more our species, which is rooted in sex, morphs into something that is beyond human, something that is more intricately wedded to the TMC. Arcus Foundation, with its base in America, and a branch in the UK, is used as a philanthropic façade for the profiteering of Stryker Medical (and the TMC in general) to which, as mentioned earlier, the founder of Arcus Foundation is the heir. Jon Stryker has used Arcus Foundation, now the largest LGBT non-governmental organization (NGO) in the world, to send half a billion dollars of Stryker Corporation money all over the world, to create the construct of “gender identity.” Mainstream media conglomerates which are invested in TMC are helping to solidify the construct of sexed beings that are not male or female. Arcus Foundation has usurped the psychological community, and its vast funding machinations have driven gender ideology, through our educational, sports, religious and medical institutions, and human rights organizations. Stryker medical corporation money dressed up as human rights, has, as seen with this current case in Arkansas, also captured the ACLU, a once liberal bastion to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person under the U.S. constitution. ACLU has turned into a mouthpiece for the TMC driving gender ideology (disassociation from sex), as a progressive new lifestyle. They have received $4,705,000. dollars in funding from Arcus Foundation from 2007 until 2018. Last year, Jon Stryker made an interesting decision to fund the ACLU using his own private capital, instead of his LGBT NGO as he has done since 2007. It’s the same money since he has stressed that the funding of Arcus Foundation comes from his stock in Stryker Corporation and that its gift-giving is contingent on recipients adhering to gender ideology. This particular gift to the ACLU is the largest ever focused on LGBTQ+ rights and, as the Forbes article reporting on the gift exposes, it is specifically to fight this case in Arkansas. Is this switch in the presentation of funding sources to make clear that Jon Stryker’s $4.6 billion dollar piece of the Stryker Corporation pie is backing the pursuit of medicalizing children’s healthy bodies, to deter law firms from taking further actions against the TMC? It looks like Stryker is protecting the “Transgender” brand by sending a clear message about the power his billions have, to shape law. There are seventeen other states (Pdf.) lined up in support of the Arkansas ban, each with its own legislation to protect youth from experimental medical manipulations on their sex, so it's little wonder, Stryker is anxious. The amicus brief used in those cases states clearly that experimental “gender transition” procedures prohibited by Arkansas are fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, that there is a general paucity of evidence regarding pediatric “gender transition,” and that these experimental procedures come with serious, lifelong risks that children cannot fully understand. But 15-million-dollars from a medical behemoth like Stryker Corporation can go a long way in deterring law firms to take on cases against the TMC in the future if the ban in Arkansas does not hold. Arkansas is an important source of revenue for Stryker Corporation as one of its 57 offices, in 36 countries resides there. It was listed on a hero’s health care workers list in Arkansas by Arkansas Money & Politics, last year. The University of Arkansas Medical Sciences department spent five and a half million dollars on Stryker Medical supplies from 2019-2020 (Pdf.). Chase Strangio, a woman who has appropriated manhood, is Deputy Director for Transgender Justice for the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, the project funded by Stryker and Slobodan Randjelovic and legal signatory to the complaint filed against Arkansas for which the endowment was made. Strangio was named one of TIME Magazine’s 100 most influential people of the year in 2020. She has come right out and stated that “there is no binary, coherent thing called “biological sex.” She clearly moves out of the bounds of expressing care for children with a “medical condition” and into attacking human sex at its root. Jon Stryker and Slobodan Randjelović exhibit this same disregard for children’s healthy bodies as they act with impunity to attack their sex. She is also the main proponent of the ACLU’s fight to end Women’s Sports. The infiltration of our institutions, by gender identity ideology being driven by billionaire philanthropy coming out of the TMC, is also promoted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. The HRC is the rights organization set up to purportedly promote the rights of LGB people, which now includes a fictitious subcategory of individuals who identify themselves based on feelings, not sex. It has 3 million members. Chad Griffin, born in Hope Arkansas, is a political strategist who volunteered with former President Clinton and went on to become the president of the HRC from 2012-2019. The HRCF, according to Influence Watch, leverages the HRC’s position as the de-facto “representative” of the LGBT community, similar to but much broader in scope than the UK’s Stonewall, to pressure major corporations, law firms, hospitals, and local governments into implementing and expanding pro-LGBT policies, financially supporting HRC and withdrawing support from conservative and faith-based organizations through implicit threats of low scores on its Corporate Equality Index, Healthcare Equality Index, which evaluates more than 1,700 healthcare facilities nationwide, and Municipal Equality Index “scorecards.” In 2015 and 2016 Arkansas Children’s Hospital was listed as a Leader in LGBT Healthcare Equality by the HRC. In 2020, its pediatric “gender” clinic received top performer status. Considering the global LGBT consumer market is now 3.7 trillion dollars, corporations, organizations, and institutions have little choice but to support this constituency and its drive to deconstruct sex, lest it is thought of as discriminatory by consumers and corporations who do opt-in. It is the TMC astroturfing that is driving the narrative that dissociation from one’s sexed reality is progressive. They are the industry driving gender ideology into our schools (k-12 as well as universities), our medical and civic institutions, our human rights organizations, and our homes. The TMC is the beneficiary of new illusory identities manifested out of uprooting humans from sex. If we are to have any success in stopping them, they must be exposed along with their grandiose lie. There is no “transgender.” There is no “gender identity.” It is a corporate fiction cultivated to sell body modifications that unmoor us from our sexed reality. 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 Kay Warner/UK The financial services sector is very important to the UK economy. The City of London, The Square Mile, has consistently taken one of the top spots in the Global Financial Centres Index. (currently second to New York). British bankers for many years had a staid, respectable image. Traditionally represented by the bowler-hatted, briefcase and brolly equipped, pinstriped, often austere male bank manager. Imposing and solid, just like the building and the system he presided over. That image has gradually been updated with more and more women in senior positions, but now "gender identity" has taken hold of finance, just like other industries and the British financial sector has lost its grip on reality. The finance industry in the UK has two main regulators: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) An independent body funded by fees charged to registered firms and accountable to the Treasury, which is responsible for the UK financial system, and to Parliament. The FCA is the conduct regulator for around 51,000 financial services firms and financial markets in the UK prudentially supervises 49,000 firms and sets specific standards for around 18,000 firms. The FCA works alongside: The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) The PRA is a part of the Bank of England and is responsible for the prudential regulation and supervision of about 1,500 banks, building societies, credit unions, insurers and major investment firms. Note: The purpose of prudential regulation and supervision is to ensure that financial institutions and market infrastructures operating within the financial system are inherently safe and sound. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in partnership with the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Bank of England, launched a consultation paper on July 7 2021 on a draft code of conduct that proposes new disclosure rules with a view to improving diversity and inclusion for all businesses that come under its remit. Suggestions for improvement include: At least 40% of the board should be women (including those self-identifying as women); At least one of the senior board positions (Chair, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Senior Independent Director (SID)) should be a woman (including individuals who self-identify as women); At least one member of the board should be from a non-white ethnic minority background (as defined by the Office for National Statistics); The chosen gender of staff, rather than their legal sex, should be recorded. This focus on diversity, equality and inclusion of listed companies really has nothing at all to do with the original purpose of the FCA, regulating the finance industry. There are problems with these proposals as they do not take into account that: Self-id is not recognised in the UK The Companies Act 2006 already demands certain mandatory disclosures in annual reports The UK has existing data collection and reporting with data protection rules Certain protected characteristics are covered in the Equality Act 2010 The Public Sector Equality Duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 does not recognise self-id The UK banking industry, although ahead of the game in recruiting women to senior positions, is behind in closing the gender pay gap and these proposals will likely skew those statistics It is surprising that an independent body charged with the regulation of such an important part of Britain's economy appears to either disregard or be unaware of these issues. A closer look at the Financial Conduct Authority provides some clues. The FCA is a paid-up subscriber of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme and is placed within the top 100 Employers in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index. Note: Stonewall, a former bastion of LGB rights, is by far the largest and arguably most influential promoter of “gender identity” in the UK. After a cash injection of almost £100,000 from the ARCUS Foundation in 2014/15 to promote “transgenderism, “ (more on ARCUS here) Stonewall added the “T“ to the LGB and went on to amass a following of around 850 organisations all signed up to its Diversity Champion and Workplace Equality Programmes, including over 300 government departments and public bodies. Stonewall also has a School and College Awards programme. Often, pride comes before a fall and the information that Stonewall provides to its subscribers has recently been called into question, particularly misrepresentation of the Equality Act 2010. An independent report into the treatment of two University of Essex professors was critical about the influence of Stonewall on university policies. Akua Reindorf, the author of the report, described a “culture of fear” at the university and noted that Essex had adopted policies that reflected “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is”. The BBC aired The Nolan Investigation into Stonewall's incursion into government and public bodies in October, asking why this LGBTQ+ lobbying group was being given unprecedented access at taxpayer expense. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Department of Education, the BBC are amongst government departments and public bodies that have since withdrawn their membership. The FCA achieved 59th place in the Stonewall Top 100 Employers Rankings in 2020. (The scheme was suspended for 2021 due to the pandemic, but is now on course once again for 2022 with the introduction of new bronze, silver and gold awards.) There is a conflict of interest here as, in company with other public bodies, the FCA is required to submit all policies under the following headings to Stonewall to be assessed for the Workplace Equality Index. 1. Policies and benefits 2. The employee lifecycle 3. LGBT Employee Network Group 3. LGBT Employee Network Group 4. Allies and role models 5. Senior leadership 6. Monitoring 7. Procurement 8. Community engagement 9. Clients, customers and service users 10. Additional work Clearly, to rise closer to the coveted position at the top of the Stonewall Equality Index the FCA needed to do more. As the appointed regulator, what better way to improve the ranking than to capture all those listed companies and financial services markets by imposing a new code of conduct compatible with Stonewall's requirements. Join up with the Prudential Regulation Authority and capture the banking and insurance sector too. It would appear that, as another Stonewall Diversity Champion in this alliance, the Bank of England was already on-board with this new guidance, possibly even a prime mover in making the changes. The Bank of England updated its policies on equality for “transgender”, “non-binary” and “gender-fluid” employees earlier this year. (None of these terms, unlike sex, are based in material reality or recognised in the Equality Act 2010). In guidance to staff it said: "If you are transitioning, the Bank will aim to work with you to ensure that you feel supported in the workplace. Transphobic abuse, bullying and harassment directed at individuals who are transitioning will not be tolerated and will be dealt with under the Bank's anti-bullying and harassment policy." The Bank has told employees they may be able to claim for genital surgery for the purpose of identity under a private medical insurance scheme. Such surgery can cost more than £30,000. Offering the procedure through health insurance could speed up a process that can take years on the NHS. Banking giants Lloyds and Goldman Sachs have previously introduced policies to provide insurance to cover the medical costs of sex identity surgeries. (Read more here) Prestigious law firms Clifford Chance and Linklaters have similar policies. This is a big hammer to crack a very small nut, given the tiny part of the population that have identity issues related to their genitalia. We need to ask why these organisations appear to encourage more men to adopt this fetish. Having men presenting in the guise of women in the most prominent positions, visibly supported by the regulators, will make it almost a prime qualification for the ambitious. The importance placed by these and other organisations on LGBTQ+ groups, networks and “allies” makes it very difficult for other employees to raise objections to these policies. This is in clear conflict with the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010. The introduction of the policy at the Bank of England will lay down a marker in the City. Many other financial sector companies will undoubtedly follow suit, or rather follow skirt! The face of the financial sector, and the City of London is indeed changing. Across the Pond Shortly after the FCA Consultation Paper was published, it was reported that companies listed on the Nasdaq, the USA’s second-largest stock exchange, were to be subject to binding new diversity rules. The requirement in each company will be for two “diverse directors” including an individual who identifies as a female and another who is either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. Kay Warner, United Kingdom Women's rights, gained by previous generations, are under threat today from the insidious creep of the gender identity industry into all aspects of public life. https://www.facebook.com/71granhttps://grangry.blogspot.com/

By Alix Aharon "The Gender Industry" often forces us to accept certain ludicrous stances- whether it's the sometimes comical demand of men in drag to be seen as "lesbians", the more dangerous assertion that sex is a spectrum to this latest and most horrifying revelation that you can be nullified from your sexed body. Gender nullification is the latest in what is now called "gender-expansive bottom surgery", where Align Surgical of San Francisco California will remove penises, create holes, retain penises and create holes for penetration and fashion an altogether non-human experience. Click here for the gallery ( this is not for the faint-hearted). GLSEN's latest trans and "non-binary" survey reveal that the trend to identify as "non-binary" is far greater than at any previous point and it appears that this trend isn't going anywhere. As a direct result of that, predatory surgeons like Align Surgical have tried to address this demand by offering the latest array in genital mutilation. Align claims; While many patients might be interested in transitioning into either a male or female identity, there are plenty of individuals who feel that their gender identity does not quite conform in one direction or the other. Gender nullification surgery can enable non-conforming patients to enjoy a relatively smooth genital area. Nullification creates a relatively continuous and mostly unbroken transition from the abdomen down into the genital area, enabling gender non-conforming patients to enjoy a body that looks closer on the outside to the way they feel on the inside. It's hard to comprehend how surgeons fell so far from their duty not to harm as to be performing this level of destruction on patients who are expressing a level of distress in their bodies that they want to create their own genital surgery plans and designs. What's more distressing is that those working undercover for the gender mapping project have discovered that it may be possible to get a "non-binary" surgery for a minor; Gender Nullification and the array of procedures for "non-binary" identifying people is a stark reality check for those who thought "non-binary" was a Tumblr trend for angsty teenage girls. We need to be ever more vigilant of this level of deceptive nonsense trickling its way into our medical institutions, psychological institutions, and sex education. Planned Parenthood's language has been entirely overhauled since 2015, adopting all manner of "non-binary affirming", "pregnant people" and "non-binary identified" language. Sex And The City is the latest TV show to jump on the "non-binary" bandwagon with a cringe-worthy reboot of a "non-binary" "Che Diaz", played by similarly "non-binary" identified Sara Ramirez who discovered her "non-binary" identity a few years after being named an official HRC ally. The intervention of the medical community in this manufactured identity should give us all a chill. Alix Aharon is the founder of the Gender Mapper Project. Gendermapper.org. She can be found on Twitter @GenderMapper and on Gettr @AlixAharon

About fifty shrinks, doctors and intellectuals denounce an "ideological hold on the body of children" made in the name of the emancipation of "the transgender child". Originally published in L'Express 9/1/2020 Associated with the Observatory of ideological discourses on children and adolescents, a group of childhood professionals and researchers (doctors, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, lawyers, magistrates, National Education teachers, philosophers, sociologists, etc. .), about fifty personalities protest against the discourse on the "self-determination" of the child which, according to them, legitimizes a strong increase in requests for sex-change, particularly among adolescents. We can no longer remain silent on what appears to us to be serious abuse committed in the name of the emancipation of the "transgender child" (the one who declares that he was not born in the "right body"). On the argument of only feelings set up in truth, radical discourses legitimize requests for sex change. But it is at the cost of lifelong medical or even surgical treatment (removal of the breasts or testicles) on the bodies of children or adolescents. It is this phenomenon and its strong media coverage that challenges us and not the choices of transgender adults. Thinking perhaps of providing an answer, the Scottish government has issued, since August 12, new LGBT inclusion guidelines, according to which children from the age of entry into primary will have the possibility of changing their name use and sex at school without parental consent. Without their consent and even without them being informed if the child so requests. Children are made to believe that a girl could become a boy and vice versa because they would have decided it without even the opinion of adults, and this, increasingly young. What is happening in our neighbors could very quickly happen in France: the protean dissemination of these beliefs has resulted in recent years in considerable inflation of requests for sex change among children and more particularly among adolescents. According to Jean Chambry, a child psychiatrist in charge of CIAPA (Intersectoral Center for Adolescents in Paris), almost ten years ago, we had about ten requests per year, in 2020, it is ten requests per month (only for the Ile-de-France region). He speaks of a worrying acceleration of medical responses to these requests for transition. Trivialized discourses claim that we could do without the biological reality, the sexual difference between men and women, in favor of chosen singularities based solely on "feelings". These false discourses relating to ideology are transmitted on social networks where many adolescents in search of identity seek solutions to their discomfort. In the name of "self-determination" - a veritable slogan that appeals to all progressives - I am free to choose the body I want - children and adolescents are convinced that they can change their sex with the help of hormonal treatments or even mutilating surgeries. This rhetoric spread by activists in many Western countries makes use of sophisms intended to deceive. Abduction of childhood How did we get there? And do we (still) have the right to react without being insulted, threatened? How would these rights to self-determination be fulfilling progress? This phenomenon, "the child-transgender" is a contemporary mystification that must be vigorously denounced because it is an ideological regimentation. They would have us believe that in the name of everyone's well-being and freedom, a child, relieved of the agreement of his "reactionary" parents, would be able to "choose" his so-called gender identity. But the child is developing, his future is in constant evolution before reaching a stage of maturity. There is unanimity on the subject between neuroscientists, developmentalists, psychoanalysts, child psychiatrists, pediatricians, and all specialists in early childhood. The child, and even more so the adolescent, is subject to an influence whose consequences lead to mental destabilization, a break with the family if they do not support their child, and with all those who refuse to share their point of view. This grip generates an antisocial and accusatory discourse, a specific idiom, or even a Newspeak is imposed on those around you. The speeches of these young people are often stereotyped as if they had lost all critical spirit (which is a characteristic of control). We denounce this kidnapping of childhood. It is urgent today to inform the greatest number of citizens, of all trades, of all backgrounds, of all ages, about what could well appear tomorrow as one of the biggest health and ethical scandals, which we would have watched happen. without saying a word: the commodification of children's bodies. Because by persuading these children that sex was "assigned" to them at birth and that they can freely change it, we make them lifelong patients: lifelong consumers of hormonal chemical products marketed by pharmaceutical companies, consumers recurrent of ever more surgical operations in pursuit of the chimerical dream of a fantasized body. This dogmatism leads to the greatest confusion so that no one knows how to act and raise their voice, often for fear of certain LGBTQI+ associations. But this acronym covers very different people, some of whom are worried like us about current abuses. Some are subject to the law of silence that reigns in this environment. Witness the Swedish documentary Trans train where young adults, abandoned to their loneliness, and threatened in the event of public speaking, declare that they have been pressured by their trans community when they have expressed doubts or "detransitioned". (*) Confusion reigns, largely maintained for manipulation purposes affecting humanity in its deepest substrate: its evolution, its temporality, its wanderings, and its doubts. In the name of the rejection of an alleged sex assignment, we are witnessing, embarrassed, without understanding anything about it, an identity assignment. Thus Claude from the Club of Five, previously described as a tomboy, is presented today as transgender. We could laugh about it if it were not symptomatic of our time struck by political radicalism which preempts any debate. No, definitely, in the name of child protection we can no longer remain silent! We refuse that in the name of "human rights", we challenge this common base - the universalism of rights - which constitutes the foundation of humanity. *Young people regretting the process of social and/or medical transition undertaken which seems to them to be an erroneous answer to their questions or their discomfort Signatures Nicole Athéa (endocrinologist-gynecologist), Elisabeth Badinter (philosopher), Anne-Laure Boch (neurosurgeon, Salpêtrière Hospital), Thierry Baranger (honorary magistrate, former president of the Paris and Bobigny juvenile courts), Marie-Jo Bonnet (historian, writer), Jean-François Braunstein (philosopher, professor at Panthéon Sorbonne University), Anna Cognet (clinical psychologist), Alain Cornec (lawyer), Laurence Croix (lecturer, University of Nanterre), Chantal Delsol ( philosopher, member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences), Bernard Devauchelle, (professor of medicine and head of the maxillofacial surgery department at the University Hospital of Amiens), Marie Josèphe Devillers (lesbian feminist activist), Christine Le Doaré (lawyer, feminist activist), Catherine Dolto, (haptotherapist),Corinne Ehrenberg (psychoanalyst), Caroline Eliacheff (child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst) Xavier Emmanuelli (doctor, president of Samu Social international), Nicole Farges (psychologist, psychoanalyst), Natalie Felzenszwalbe (honorary lawyer), Isabelle Ferrari (co-founder AMQG (measured approach gender issues among young people) in Geneva) Christian Flavigny (child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst), Esther Fouchier (president of the Forum Femmes Méditerranée), Pascale Fourcade (psychiatrist), René Frydman (professor of medicine), Delphine Girard (professor of classics in college, secular activist), Bernard Golse (child psychiatrist, psychoanalyst (APF), professor emeritus of child and adolescent psychiatry, University of Paris), Julie Gosselin (computer scientist, feminist), Nadia Guenet (director of the 'radio program "the revolution will be feminist"), Liliane Kandel (sociologist, feminist, member of the editorial board of Modern Times), Annick Karsenty (president of the Association "women in solidarity" in Marseille), Aaron Kimberly (Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Canada), Frédérique Kuttenn (former head of the endocrinology and reproductive medicine department at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital), Rhadija Lamrani Tissot (psychoanalyst, linguist), Jean-Pierre Lebrun (psychiatrist, psychoanalyst), Manuel Maidenberg (paediatrician), Danièle Manesse (linguist, researcher in language teaching, Sorbonne-Nouvelle University), Céline Masson (university professor), Martine de Maximy (honorary magistrate, former juvenile judge), Isabelle de Mecquenem (associate professor of philosophy,member of the Council of Elders of Secularism), Scott Newgent (TReVoices), Sylvie Quesemand Zucca (doctor, psychiatrist), Gérard Rabinovitch (philosopher, sociologist), Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig (former president of the Bobigny Children's Court), Hana Rottman (paediatrician, child psychiatrist), Olivia Sarton (lawyer), Dominique Schnapper (sociologist, political scientist), Myriam Szejer (child psychiatrist), Sonia Timsit (psychiatrist, psychoanalyst), Claire Squires (lecturer, University of Paris), Samuel Veissière (anthropologist and professor of transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal), Jean-Pierre Winter (psychoanalyst), WHRC-France (Women Human Rights Campaign).Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig (former president of the Bobigny Children's Court), Hana Rottman (pediatrician, child psychiatrist), Olivia Sarton (lawyer), Dominique Schnapper (sociologist, political scientist), Myriam Szejer (child psychiatrist), Sonia Timsit (psychiatrist, psychoanalyst), Claire Squires (lecturer, University of Paris), Samuel Veissière (anthropologist and professor of transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal), Jean-Pierre Winter (psychoanalyst), WHRC-France (Women Human Rights Campaign (Rights of women based on sex).Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig (former president of the Bobigny Children's Court), Hana Rottman (pediatrician, child psychiatrist), Olivia Sarton (lawyer), Dominique Schnapper (sociologist, political scientist), Myriam Szejer (child psychiatrist), Sonia Timsit (psychiatrist, psychoanalyst), Claire Squires (lecturer, University of Paris), Samuel Veissière (anthropologist and professor of transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal), Jean-Pierre Winter (psychoanalyst), WHRC-France (Women Human Rights Campaign (Rights of women based on sex).Claire Squires (lecturer, University of Paris), Samuel Veissière (anthropologist and professor of transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal), Jean-Pierre Winter (psychoanalyst), WHRC-France (Women Human Rights Campaign (Women's Rights gender-based).Claire Squires (lecturer, University of Paris), Samuel Veissière (anthropologist and professor of transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal), Jean-Pierre Winter (psychoanalyst), WHRC-France (Women Human Rights Campaign (Women's Rights gender-based).

This blog post was not on my list of things to do today or any other day. I recently wrote about having a baseline of consistency regarding tactics within the pro-reality movement, fighting against the deconstruction of human sex. I thought I was done. Live and let live. I can make suggestions, but I can’t demand people take on specific strategies. Something happened this morning (I will get to this later) to make me revisit my last blog post and write this one. I have been going along for months, trying to adjust to my disappointment in some people who call themselves gender-critical or who are part of a movement that has become known as gender critical. Calling actions for reality gender critical is not a good strategy. It was a reaction to the corporate narrative of "gender identity." It was not well thought out. I use pro-reality because reality is what we are standing up for. Some pro-reality activists are supporting individuals, in myriad ways, who objectify human sexual anatomy and treat it like parts they can appropriate for their use with medically devised facsimiles. Even if they are victims of a rapacious system, they do not belong anywhere near the pro-reality movement and those of us at the forefront fighting it - not publicly. We are not missionaries; we are activists. People calling themselves “trans” are holding onto a system that pro-realists attempt to bring down - an industry that deconstructs reproductive sex for profit. Continuing to platform these individuals, discussing their fetishes, their identity issues, how they got to be where they are, having them speak as representatives of the pro-reality movement, using the corporate dictates of new pronouns, all while the state is stampeding over actual human sex, looks like lunacy (because it is) and it will never help us expose what is happening. It props up a corporate illusion. “Gender identity” is corporate framing. Responding to this frame with an endless discussion about “gender identity” is a losing proposition. Exposing the industry behind it is crucial. Naming reality consistently is vital. WE CAN NOT HAVE reality and hold onto an illusion at the same time. Facts will win in the end, but the damage incurred in the meantime is too ghastly to even think about. We are now nearly a decade into the war on reality. Though some people are starting to come around to an understanding that the public vilification of women, erasing us in language, taking away our rights, and maiming children, might have more to do with profit than with identity or human rights for the marginalized, most people are not even close to this realization yet. It is our responsibility as activists to get them there. But many of us claiming to resist this corporate coup that is the gender industry are still platforming and publicly supporting people who are living manifestations of it. I know from having lived with a psychotherapist for several years that most people who go into therapy don’t want to change. They want to be supported in their neurosis. They will generally fight to hold onto their problems as the therapist highlights how they are self-induced problems or that there might be a better approach to coping with them. The patient, at least initially, doesn’t want to do the work. It’s called resistance. As I look around in the pro-reality movement today, I see much of this. We want to fight the gender industry making mincemeat out of women’s rights and children’s bodies, but we want to hang onto our “trans” friends and call them by their preferred pronouns in public. After watching an episode this morning by the YouTuber, Karen Davis, dissecting a video of four women posing as men who’ve been highlighted by various pro-reality movement groups, discussing men performing their rendition of women and their sexual fetishes, I started to feel like I was hallucinating. The dissection of this absurdity came on the heels of months and months of other similar absurdities abounding in this great big mix of people trying to hold the line for reality, against the gangsters who are way too far ahead of us and trying to steal it. By the time Karen’s dissection of this travesty ended, I felt like I was in one big group therapy session, and all of us had ingested some psilocybin mushrooms before the session began. Karen Davis has not been around this movement very long. She came with fresh eyes and examined our movement with an exceptionally perceptive and critical gaze. I initially wondered if she was being harsh. Still, as she continued, undaunted by an onslaught of abuse for outing the hypocrisy inside it, I began to applaud her wild west truth-telling and sense of humor at the absurdity of it. It is just what we needed/need. Our tether to the world will be in chaos very soon if we do not stop holding onto what is killing us. The generation of children coming up right now won’t know who or what they are. The abolition of sex, a corporate plan well underway, described at length in my friend Kara Dansky’s new book with the same title, is being driven swiftly around the world. It is already embedded in the market and the law, but no one wants to change ineffective tactics or behavior. Well, it doesn’t look like our therapist is going away. I bet that Karen Davis will keep shining a light on what is happening here, so our best bet is to get to work and start changing some of our behavior before we go insane. I hate to beg, but I will beg if it helps. I am begging people to stop bringing their friends to work. Stop supporting people performing the opposite sex, or no sex, in public while you are being an activist against the denial of reality. You are not helping. Stop calling them brilliant and nice; stop discussing their paraphilias with us. We don’t care. Stop using them as virtue-signaling props in your organizations. Stop saying it’s only the drugging and maiming of children that is important - adults can do as they please. No one is “transgender.” It is a malignant illusion. It is corporate branding for strategically invented medical identities and positioned for an eventual tech take-over of human sexual reproduction. This will change what and who we are as a species. This is all corporate propaganda. All of it. People with Body Identity Integrity Disorder (BIID), who wish to have their limbs amputated because they believe they were born in the wrong body, are not getting any parades or public adulation for discussing their desire for self-mutilation and/or paraphilia. No magazine covers for these folks. No reality TV shows, endless propping up, and they have no human rights movement. There’s a reason for this. There is no lifetime of hormone treatments and ongoing surgeries, no fragile bones, risks of heart disease or strokes resulting from puberty blockers, and wrong sex hormones. Individuals seeking to have their limbs cut off will not need Big Fertility to reproduce because they’ve been sterilized by the “treatment” for their dysphoria. it’s over with one surgery, and their sex is left intact. Though the pain of dysphoria for people with BIID is seemingly no less real than for individuals who are fixated on the removal of their genitals, BIID is not very profitable to the techno-medical complex. Doctors are so adamantly opposed to removing limbs because it goes against their training of “first do no harm” that it hardly ever happens, and we don’t hear about BIID. There has been no lengthy propaganda campaign for BIID saturating all media (media that is controlled by the techno-medical complex) and driven into medical institutions. Consequently, there is also no social contagion. We have not seen hundreds of clinics emerge all over the world in less than a decade to “treat” BIID and remove limbs. When the fixation happens to a part of the body that will leave the root of people’s humanity unchanged, it is not lifted to the level of religious sacrifice like the mutilation of sex is. Those who reject the insanity of leg amputation to treat feelings are not treated as religious heretics. The medical community knows that it might not help, and there is no way back from amputating a healthy limb. The fixation on sex dysphoria and treating it with surgeries and drugs that attack the root of a person’s humanity is making a sacrificial religious offering out of an attack on humanity itself. The techno-medical complex has become our church. We cannot stop this if we continue to capitulate to it. I don’t honestly care who you love or who you want to hang out with at the bar. I really, really don’t. I don’t hate people that have chosen to take the wrong sex hormones and have their sex amputated. I realize many are victims. Children caught up in this are victims. Many people are also predators. All of them are just like the rest of us: male or female. No one is born in the wrong body. There are no unicorns, no fairy dust, no “transgender” people, no third sex, and there is no Santa Claus. There is no cure for the lies we are drowning in except for meeting them with the truth. 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.

In the now-famous book, The Art of War, the author Sun Tzu, writes: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” It is not enough for activists fighting for the reality of sex against the anti-reality marketing of the gender industry to take a multi-faceted approach and accept that we have different formulas of resistance. An effective strategy would have some baseline of acceptance in practices that reflect what we are fighting for, or we risk becoming inconsistent and illogical. Part of the problem in the fight against the reality-denying gender industry is we don’t have leaders that meet from various organizations to take stock of actions and evaluate and formulate baseline strategies and tactics together that can be tailored to different aspects of the fight. Beyond that, we must clarify what "transgenderism" is and is not. There is no such thing as a “transgender” person. “Transgender” is a techno-medical complex (TMC) ad campaign creating the illusion that there is a subset of humanity that is not male or female to market drugs, surgeries, surgical supplies, special clinics, particular surgeons, research, and sterilization of young people who will need medical care for their entire lives. These young men and women will also be dependent on reproductive technology in the future. Enter: Big Fertility. As well as having written about the gender industry roots in the TMC, I have written recently about corporatists funneling money into gender clinics and simultaneously investing in fertility developments. Medical identities are a product, "transgender" is a brand, and the “transgender” flag is a logo. The “trans” flag is no more representative of people than the whoosh of the Nike logo is representative of sneakers. “Transgender” emerged from “transsexual” which is also not a subcategory of the human species but a group of people choosing a specific set of drugs and surgeries marketed to provide an illusion or satiate a desire. “Transgenderism” is the better ad as it broadens the bandwidth of people who will choose the drugs and surgeries. The marketing demographic is no longer solely adult men but teens and children, which takes the TMC profiteering into the future. It also broadens the bandwidth of surgeries, such as nullification or non-binary variations. Attacking the premise of “transgenderism” would be a good overall strategy for pro-reality activists. The ties to the TMC currently being ignored can reveal what others don’t see, what is being obscured by a human rights narrative if we make the connections clear. It is obvious that hundreds of gender clinics for children emerging across the world in less than a decade, that these children are being sterilized, will profit the TMC. Consistently pointing this out to people would help others understand the profiteering underway. Showing people why women are being silenced, vilified, and our social power obliterated will have more impact if we make the connections to industrial profiteering poised for a technological takeover of our reproductive capacities. This is how the Opioid epidemic was quelled. The Sackler family was exposed, along with the TMC profiteering and the damage being done. Those invested in the TMC, who are behind the gender industry, also have names that should be repeated. A recently leaked document from the Transgender Law Center (TLC), which is funded by the largest LGBT NGO in the world, driving gender ideology globally, exhibits what we are up against: people that are organized, that have evaluated strategies to win, and are now going to change their tactics because they aren’t practical to what they want to accomplish. Calling attention not just to what the document says but that it has been funded by a multi-billion-dollar medical corporation (Stryker Medical) through Arcus Foundation is an important context to include. Many groups fighting the gender industry still platform people who appropriate the body of the opposite sex and are positioning them as allies within their organizations. Appropriating the body of the opposite sex is the pinnacle of sexual objectification, treating others as if their sexed reality were parts to be purchased in a Sears catalog. This could not have happened in a society that hadn’t already reduced women to sexual objects in the porn, prostitution, and surrogacy industries. These individuals, however nice they may or may not be, or how anyone feels about them, should be at least a hundred miles from any organization or individual fighting the gender industry because they are a living example of the problem (the illusion being marketed by the TMC). It doesn’t mean they have nothing to offer the world, or that no one should befriend them, or that everyone hates them, but it is a horrible tactic to have them platformed in a movement meant to tear down the gender industry. This is true for many reasons, not least of which is that it is sending an incoherent, double message to those who we are trying to reach. Activists fighting the gender industry often lapse into using the language used by the TMC to advertise their drugs and surgeries. We say: “transgender athletes,” “trans-identifying people,” “transphobic,” instead of reframing questions asked of us in interviews that refuse the premise of “trans” as people. No one IS “trans.” People purchase surgeries and drugs that promise an illusion. Adopting terms like opposite-sex performers, medical sex performers, or other variations that don’t use our opponent’s language should be discussed, evaluated, and tried out for effectiveness in discussing the people who make these purchases. They are not a third sex. They are people who choose to purchase specific drugs & surgeries to support an illusion they choose for many reasons. They are not a coherent group of individuals. Instead of listing men’s greater physical strength when discussing the issue of men in women’s sports, which everyone is already aware of, we might ask: Who decided on these changes and why? Why are societies worldwide rapidly being changed for a small part of the population who purchase drugs & surgeries? Who is funding these changes, and why? Calling attention to people who decide to take drugs & have surgeries puts the responsibility for their exclusion from their sexed sports on them. Decisions/choices have consequences. Asking the right questions, instead of answering the wrong ones, can potentially put our opponents on the defense instead of women having to explain why our rights are essential. This is a skill that takes considered planning and practice. I am offering suggestions, but this can’t replace a coordinated effort of a broad constituency to create successful strategies. How will we get around using the terms set by our opponents? How will we help others understand what is happening? What will force our opponents to engage on our terms instead of allowing ourselves to be led into unproductive conversations? This is what Sun Tzu meant when he wrote, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war.” If people can be sold the idea that men can be women and that sex is not accurate, then other people with a little context provided can understand that the attack on women is corporate colonization - a technological takeover of human reproduction for profit and that children are grist for this corporate medical mill. What is more believable? Billions of years of evolution leading to human sexual dimorphism have somehow got it all wrong, or the corporate profiteering of the techno-medical complex, projected to reach ten trillion dollars this year, is opening markets in human sex? When people realize entirely what is at stake, that this fight is not about some marginalized group of people but the industrial deconstruction of human sex for profit, they will organize and act, and we will win. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.