Search Results

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.

(Video) By Catherine Karena/Australia Sky News mocked the University of Melbourne (UniMelb) for their job advertisement for a 'Senior Advisor' of Gender Affirmation. I give three reasons why this hire is not just silly but deeply chilling... ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3FtA... ) Come February 2022, the Commission that was initiated by Victoria's Conversion Ban is ready to go to work. Katherine Deves a lawyer, outlines the role of the commission here: ( https://frayingthenet.com/2020/12/06/... ) Around the same time, the University of Melbourne has released the final drafts of its Gender Affirmation and Freedom of Speech policies. Policies that seem to be initiated after the harassment of Dr Holly Lawford-Smith in April 2021 when the Queer society objected to her creating a website collecting the testimonies of women impacted by males in their single-sex spaces: ( https://noconflicttheysaid.org ) In that April students and UniMelb staff engaged in defamation of Holly Lawford-Smith, assault, verbal abuse, harassment, stalking and recording of Dr Lawford-Smith's supporters. No sanction was forthcoming by the University for the abuse the QueerSoc students engaged in. Instead, work was commenced on the two policies that support compliance to gender identity ideology. See the April protest: https://youtu.be/ZCSScJUnyew Catherine is the founder of a non-segregated IT training program that puts youth who have a range of range of mental and physical disadvantages (autism, history of suicide, high anxiety, poverty etc.) into high tech companies after 4 months to earn 65-80K in their first roles. Her background is in training, change management, recruitment, tech start-ups, accessibility, business & context driven testing.

By Jess Grant/USA HBO’s documentary film Suited (2016) is an infomercial for the Gender Industry, selling (and celebrating) the amputation of heathy body parts in the pursuit of an “authentic lifestyle.” Told in the style of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the film follows the co-founders of a tailor shop in Brooklyn NY (Bindle and Keep), where they craft suits for transgender clients whose lives will, by the end of the show, be uplifted through the magic of bespoke tailoring. Though the movie is five years old, it’s still available for streaming and buoyed by the success of its co-producers, Lena Dunham and Jenni Konner (Girls). Suited is a good example of how American media normalizes body dissociation. The wide-scale marketing of gender-identity products and services (drugs and surgeries) uses a ruse as old as capitalism itself – plant a dissatisfaction in the mind of the consumer, then offer a fee-based solution. It’s an old trope, even in television. FX’s Nip/Tuck (2003-2010) always began with the plastic surgeon asking a new patient, “So tell me – what don’t you like about yourself?” Why would an otherwise respected media outlet like HBO stoop to shilling for Gender Inc? Might it have something to do with the fact that HBO was purchased in 2016 by AT&T, a corporate behemoth that’s been diversifying its portfolio with significant investments in healthcare and artificial intelligence? Rachel Tutera, one of Bindle and Keep’s co-founders, is 31. She describes her personal “gender journey” (to transmasculine), shows us her tattoos and explains her pronouns. Their business’ mission: “It’s all about just feeling great in your body, especially when people have been struggling their entire lives and they finally get into something that really fits them, fits them the way they’ve always envisioned. It’s not fashion anymore. And that’s what we’re after.” She and her partner Daniel are firm believers in Twain’s axiom that “clothes make the man.” But can fine tailoring accomplish what no amount of surgery and hormones ever could? Can a simple suit transform a woman into a man? This is Hollywood, so yes – anything is possible. Their first client is Derek, a “trans man” in need of a suit for her upcoming wedding. She’s looking for something that will hide her hips; she doesn’t want anyone guessing she’s female. Rachel and Daniel assure her they can accomplish this magic. We meet Derek’s conservative parents from rural Appalachia, and marvel at how accepting they are of their daughter’s gender transition. They recount Derek’s gender journey and calmly discuss her “top surgery” ($4-12K). “Top surgery” is a euphemism, used throughout the film and in our culture, for an elective double mastectomy, i.e. the amputation of healthy tissue for aesthetic or psychological reasons, rather than for life-threatening medical reasons (e.g. cancer). Nearly every client in the film discusses it, in the same casual tone that people used 20 years ago when they talked about getting a “full sleeve” of ink. Everett is an African-American third-year law student from the south, a “trans man” just starting to transition and come out. She’s in search of a power suit that will help her land that first job out of school. She faces hiring discrimination because of her gender-nonconforming appearance, and everyone (including this writer) is rightfully outraged at the blatant bias. Everett talks about coming out to her mom. “She didn’t approve of the fact that I liked girls. So I haven’t brought up my transitioning. But she’ll know once I start taking hormones.” In other words, Everett is a lesbian who’s decided it will be easier to love women if she’s living as a man. Her decision to transition is undoubtedly more complicated than that, but it’s hard not to see traces of lesbian erasure in the story of Everett’s coming out to her homophobic mom. I feel I should mention the unnamed, middle-aged blonde woman who sews all the suits. She’s never introduced to the clients or audience, yet she appears in nearly every scene, ironing fabric, stitching seams, threading needles. The owners may pitch in and help, but if so, it happens offscreen. All we see them do is measure clients and flourish swatches of pretty fabric. As usual, the women’s labor goes unacknowledged, invisible while in plain sight. Derek is getting a total hysterectomy ($26-43K). The doctors are going to remove her uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes and both ovaries. Mom sits by the bed, holding her hand. Derek explains her elective surgery. “For me it’s about congruency with how I identify as male. It’s strange having organs in my body I don’t really relate to, that I don’t have a purpose for. I think it’ll make me feel my body is more aligned with who I am as a person.” Derek’s marriage resembles a “traditional wedding”; a string quartet plays while the father gives away his daughter to a groom in a sharp-looking suit. The relatives are lined up on their respective sides of the aisle. I couldn’t help wondering, though, if the marriage would have been so easily accepted if two lesbians had stood at the altar. There’s no doubt that the illusion of heteronormativity was facilitated by the appearance of a seemingly straight couple. The movie ends with a large public fashion show. The female models are all outfitted in suits made by Bindle and Keep, each of them gender-nonconforming in some way. It’s a triumphant ending, with lots of happy queer folk feeling good about how they look. And they DO look fabulous. But for me, as a Boomer who came of age in the seventies, a group of women like that, wearing suits and short hair, look like lesbians. I kept reminding myself that, no, they’re not lesbians. They’re "trans." And that made me sad. Because this movie unwittingly documents the gender industry’s deliberate erasure of lesbians. Jess Grant is a songwriter and recording artist from Seattle WA. Jess was introduced to radical feminism by Nikki Craft in 1980, helping the Preying Mantis Women’s Brigade drive the Miss California Pageant out of Santa Cruz, CA. He is also a dues-paying member of North America’s only revolutionary labor union, the IWW. These days, gender critical activism is his primary form of political expression. www.jessgrantsongs.com Suggested reading: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cnn-versus-biological-reality/

Ciaran Brennan/Ireland - Originally published 11/22/2020 in The Burkean To chorus calls decrying cronyism and state-sponsored nepotism, Irish Times journalist Una Mullaly was announced by the then Minister for Children Katherine Zappone to be appointed as Chair of the LGBT National Youth Strategy Committee in December 2016. A new role, reporting over three years, to help steer the state’s policy towards young members of the LGBT community, the group was additionally charged with doling out grants to various NGOs providing youth services. Almost four years on and the committee, chaired by Mullally, hands in its final set of recommendations to inform policy, and has had many of its recommendations already implemented. Under Freedom of Information requests we examine the cost of the strategy to the national coffers. From figures forwarded to us by the Department of Children, we can reveal that the accumulated cost of the group to the taxpayer is just over €840,000 in miscellaneous costs and grants paid out to selected LGBT charities and consultancy firms. Listed among the expenses is a payment of €13,467 paid to Mullally for her work chairing the committee. While large chunks of funds were transferred to specific LGBT related youth charities, a surprisingly large amount was given to various consultancy firms for their work preparing the strategy, with the auditing and strategy firm Mazars chief among them. Below is a breakdown of some of the main beneficiaries from the grants earmarked for various LGBT groups, and additional PR and consultancy firms who helped produce the report. It should be pointed out that for many of the LGBT organisations listed above, the grants received from the strategy is merely a very small component of their total income stream, with certain charities listing millions in state and private sector revenue per annum, according to their financial records provided to the Charity Commision. Alongside Mullaly on the committee was Catherine Cross, Education and Family Support Officer for the transgender pressure group TENI Ireland, and a receipient of grant money. Cross in her work for transgender activism has also helped compile reports for the Irish National Teachers Organisation on how to introduce children to trans issues in the classroom, as well as a study on challenging gender norms in primary schools for Educate Together. Further down the line of committee members we can see various Government departments, from TUSLA to the Department of Education and Health, Justice and Children represented rubbing shoulders with various CEOs and activists from the LGBT lobby. Also present on the committee was the CEO of the LGBT pressure group BelongTo, Moninne Griffith, a former director of the Marriage Equality Campaign, and one which Mullally was very prominent in. Taking fire from anti-trans feminist groups (TERFs) for their work in schools, BelongTo registered an income stream of just over €1.3 million in 2019 with further corporate funding being announced this February from Google to challenge anti-LGBT prejudices in Irish classrooms. Interestingly enough, the name of Síona Cahill, former President of the Union of Students of Ireland and Irish Independent journalist, but presently with the charity ShoutOut, cropped up as part of the committee. For those with long memories Cahill was embroiled as part of an undercover investigation by this publication into covert assistance provided to far-left organisations, and which resulted in the Vice President of her former organisation the USI resigning. According to accounts obtained through Freedom of Information, ShoutOut did receive the not entirely insignificant sum of €9,960 for various projects with their website. Rather interestingly, they listed a variety of corporate clients from AIB to DoneDeal who they provide workshops to on making workplaces more gay and trans friendly. Broken up into research, evaluation, and consultation stages, the strategy lists 59 specific actions to be fulfilled by the state on LGBT youth affairs. Among the more interesting of recommendations are as follows: A review and implementation of new hate crime and speech laws to be conducted by the Department of Justice Examining whether equality law is sufficient enough to prevent discrimination against the LGBT community and potentially seek to augment it. A review by the Departments of Health and Justice into specific sections of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, dealing with non-traditional families around the area of donor-assisted reproduction. A liberalisation to the Gender Relations Act to help under 18s transition quicker and provisions to recognise non-binary individuals under the law. Reviewing the feasibility of gender neutral toilets in Irish schools with consultation work to be included in all new designs for public works to have gender neutral facilities. Improvements in reducing the costs of and helping with the availability of PrEP and PEP medication. Both drugs are used to prevent the spread of HIV despite sexual exposure to an infected individual, often replacing the need for condoms to some. The maintenance and archiving of materials relevant to LGBT history in Ireland through the Irish Queer Archive. In addition, this strategy created various interdepartmental working groups in order to move forward on LGBT youth issues, as well as mentioning that the continued religious patronage of the majority of Irish schools was viewed as a hindrance on advancing certain issues. Presently the Department of Children has passed from Zappone to yet another LGBT activist Roderic O’Gorman, who has begun chairing strategy meetings with Mullally’s committee. This is not the first time that an Irish journalist has embroiled themselves into the mire of controversial LGBT lobbying. Seamus Dooley, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, was a board member of the infamous GLEN organisation before its disbanding under a cloud of controversy with claims of financial mismanagement and bullying. Incidentally the chairperson for GLEN, Margot Slattery (currently chief diversity officer for the multinational Sodexo), has reappeared this time as on a government committee on fighting racism along with other left wing activists. While Mullaly has accrued a negative reputation over the years from her activism, famously clashing swords with John Waters, looking under the hood of this committee we see the sheer extent to which the policy making apparatus of the state has been hijacked by the LGBT lobby. Our LGBT activist caste came of age with the Marriage Referendum having been cultivated for decades on the political exterior of Irish life but now exists as an interwoven and networked cabal operating at the intersection of the state and corporate world greedily pursuing its agenda. If the political history of this state was marked by the infamous avarice of brown envelope politics in the 20th century perhaps our era will be defined by our left wing activist caste. Mullally strategy committee isn’t the most costly of state boards to ever have existed, however it raises questions as to how far the state has been compromised by LGBT militants. Questions which will likely go unanswered by the mainstream press. By Ciaran Brennan @CBBurkean @TheBurkeanIE - Amateur Archivist -Creideamh agus Athartha

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

Women have become occupied territory, like the Americas, in the 1500s. Women are fighting to hold on to their sex-segregated spaces, just as the indigenous sought to hold on to their land, many of them not even realizing that destroying sex-segregated spaces is not the colonizers’ ultimate objective. Rich corporatists have already settled the desired area and are poised for the continued extraction of resources. Men’s claims on segregated spaces, such as women’s bathrooms and prisons, are like planting a flag after the work has been done; this is not the colonization itself. The occupied territory is female biology, specifically reproductive capacities. Corporatists use the religion of gender identity in much the same way the early colonialists of the Americas used Christianity to ”save souls”, setting up missionaries just like the LGBT non-governmental organizations are setting up gender camps, and institutions for the new woke religion. Both have laid the groundwork to mine, extract, and ultimately destroy by tranquilizing the colonized with dreams of salvation. Women’s bodies are the new territories that are conquered for profit. Queer theory is here to save people from the "hetero supremacy" of sexual dimorphism while the corporate colonists plunder the new land. It’s not just womanhood on which these encampments have been established, but human sex itself. While men’s reproductive capacities (one sperm cell is all that’s required to create life) are extracted and mined, women’s biology is taken over and deconstructed. Calling this process a human rights movement is psychological warfare. This occupation and colonization of female biology is not metaphysical. It is not happening just linguistically or legally, but in material reality. Marina Terragni, writing for RadFem Italia this year, reports on the rising ratio of males pretending to be females versus females pretending to be males. Marking the differences in choice, she writes, “An important difference: While among males pretending to be females (MtFs), the use of hormonal therapies and surgery—castration—is increasingly rare in favor of a self-identification that keeps the body intact (self-ID), females pretending to be males (FtMs) very frequently resort to chemical support and double mastectomy or top surgery (much less frequently than the construction of a pseudo-male sex). “On the symbolic level,” she continues, “both types of transition tell the same story. It is always about the cancellation of the female body.” I venture that this cancellation is not symbolic. Women—their biology—are literally being cancelled, deconstructed, erased, and stolen via technology and the profiteers using it. In 2019, Dr. Giancarlo McEvenue, hired by the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant, spoke to a rapt audience about removing healthy young females’ breasts for purposes of identity. In 2018, an ob/gyn at UCLA gave a presentation of the various types of hysterectomies performed on young women who want to be men. Over 40,000 young women are begging for money on the financial campaigning app GoFundMe to have their breasts removed—sacrifices to the gender identity gods. Reporting for NPR in 2018, Michaeleen Doucleff alerted us to the rising rates of surgeons performing cesarean sections worldwide. “Since 1990, C-sections have more than tripled from about 6 percent of all births to 21 percent, three studies report in The Lancet. In America, the national average jumped to 32 percent in 2015–a 540 percent increase throughout one generation. The rates for Brazilian women are even higher, with Brazil having the highest rate of surgical deliveries in the world. The C-section rate for women in private hospitals in Brazil skyrockets to 80–90%. While many women resist this tech takeover of reproduction, for elites, cesarean births have become a status symbol. “It’s a money machine,” reports one woman who felt pressured into having a cesarean birth. “C-sections can be easily scheduled and quickly executed, so doctors schedule and bill as many as eight procedures a day rather than wait for one or two natural births to wrap up.” The World Health Organization has long campaigned to reduce elective C-sections, which are nearly twice as deadly for mothers than natural births and require longer recovery times for mothers and babies, but profiteering rules the day. Maria do Carmo Leal, a researcher at the National Public Health School at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Brazil, says, “[T]he high C-section rate reflects an extreme manifestation of a medical culture that treats delivery as a health problem and not as a natural process.” This is the same industry creating a health crisis out of the natural puberty of healthy children via gender identity ideology, medicalizing their normal sexual growth processes, and feeding the tech reproduction industry. Once the concept of “trans” children is normalized and institutionalized, as it is now by large NGOs like Arcus and Open Society Foundations, the sterilization that goes with the medicalization of their identities turns them into capital for Big Fertility. Though the market for fertility treatments for people who pretend to be the opposite sex is still tiny, fertility preservation start-ups for these individuals are already taking shape. With the market for genitalia surgeries for identity purposes set to reach the billions by 2026 and more young people ingesting wrong-sex hormones, these start-ups, like their gender clinic predecessors, are bound to increase. Gender ideology promotes the deconstruction of sexual dimorphism and normalizes disassociation, so people become comfortable with more invasive forms of technological reproductive procedures. This ideology grooms an entire generation of children to dissociate from their sexed bodies. Children are taught that their sexual reproduction is a separate process from who and what they are. The gender industry has reached its current apex in the surrogacy industry, often funded by the same corporatists and billionaires—like Marc Benioff—who drive the gender industry, by funding clinics to medicalize children’s natural puberty. Benioff has also invested in Overture Life, which automates the embryology lab, making in-vitro fertilization more accessible than ever. Jeff Bezos is another billionaire investing in Big Fertility. In 2019, Amazon launched its first fertility center. The Bezos family recently donated $166 million to Langone Hospital, one of nine hospitals in Brooklyn, NY, performing surgeries on people’s genitals for identity purposes. The surrogacy industry interfaces intricately with the LGBTQ community and the gender industry as lesbian and gay couples, plus individuals who have had their reproductive capacities ruined with drugs and surgery to pretend to be the opposite sex, clamor to have children who are biologically related to them. Jennifer Lahl, the founder and president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced a powerful film trilogy about the surrogacy industry that catalogs the harms wrought by the commercialization and exploitation of women for their eggs and wombs and the multimillion-dollar sperm donor market. A new tech start-up chronicling surrogates and egg donors in a database has recently raised a million dollars in capital from the US and Israeli investors. This colonization of sexed bodies for profit drives the current attacks on women worldwide. Like indigenous people centuries before, women have become “brutal savages” in the way of progress (extraction from their bodies). The hatred fueled against women for naming these attacks for what they are is necessary to the colonization process, as is in any system of human enslavement. Using women’s eggs and women themselves as wombs is only the current apex of the gender industry, which seeks a tech takeover of reproduction. There is yet another pinnacle to which the corporatists strive to consummate female erasure and a population that reaches beyond its human bounds. Israeli scientists, reported to The Guardian in 2021, have successfully gestated hundreds of mice inside an artificial womb. They placed newly fertilized eggs inside glass vials rotating in a ventilated incubator and grew the embryos for 11 days—the mid-point of a mouse pregnancy—outside their mothers’ bodies. The Guardian examines reproduction without pregnancy, a pursuit of prominent transsexuals such as Martine Rothblatt and Petra De Sutter, along with other men who pretend to be women and are interested in lactation, feeding children with their chests, and having womb transplants. Rothblatt, the author of the first “gender bill, " whom I have written about here and here, covers the topic of technological reproduction in his book Unzipped Genes, based on his work on the Human Genome Project. Petra De Sutter is central to the UK movement for “altruistic surrogacy.” A Belgian gynecologist and politician representing the Green Party, he has been a Deputy Prime Minister in the government of Prime Minister Alexander De Croo since 2020. He has also worked as a professor of gynecology at Ghent University and as head of the Department of Reproductive Medicine at Ghent University Hospital. He is the first transsexual minister in Europe. In addition to his role in the Senate, De Sutter served as a member of the Belgian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 2014 until 2019. He served as the Assembly’s rapporteur on children’s rights concerning surrogacy arrangements (2016) and the use of new genetic technologies in human beings (2017). In 2018, De Sutter discussed gene editing, transhumanism, and the future of technological reproduction—sans women—in a TEDxTalk. Women’s bodies are occupied territories already mined in the surrogacy industry. Their wombs are used, their eggs are harvested and preserved, their fallopian tubes and uteruses are surgically removed (a third of women have hysterectomies), and their healthy breasts are amputated. All of this is framed as progress. This is rapidly being normalized. It is not enough for us to fight for our sex-segregated spaces because we want safety. Where is there to hide when the entire world is set up to surveil our sexed bodies and to humiliate us into submission? It is not space we need. We need to reclaim the boundaries of our bodies. We have been denigrated, humiliated by the porn industry, and used in the sex trade. Men are wearing facsimiles of our sexed bodies as their own, speaking out of mouths that call themselves feminist, that say they are women; they are speaking not just for women, but as women. This is what corporatists are fighting for: an erasure of boundaries so they can invade us entirely. It is precisely why trans rights activists cannot tolerate the idea of third options for restrooms and prisons. Women’s fear of speaking up and calling this out while there may still be time to help others see and understand must be overcome. Big Fertility is growing fast. The gender industry and Big Fertility, and what they do to women, will dwarf prostitution, porn, and the sex trades. Nothing will be left of our bodies when those driving the industries that deconstruct sexual dimorphism for profit have the keys to the kingdom, when they have eviscerated us and taken our reproductive capacities, our sex, replaced it with technology, and left us as empty husks. 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.

NO DDL ZAN NO "GENDER IDENTITY" NO GENDER IDEOLOGY NO CANCELLATION OF THE WOMAN AGAINST A TRANSHUMANIST SOCIETY, FOR ANOTHER WORLD VISION A representative of the Rainbow Families and the Italian Left during the demonstration in support of the Zan Bill in Milan was clear: “The real goals are gender self-certification and the right to rent a womb”. “The Zan law”, you said, “is a law of perspective that looks to the future"”. The next step is “Law 40, which leaves behind single women who cannot access assisted fertilization. We want the revision of the now ancient law 164/82 on transition paths (obtaining free gender self-certification). We want a season of rights in which we talk about Medically Assisted Procreation (MAP) and surrogacy of maternity (GPA), and the recognition of the sons and daughters of rainbow families. The Zan Bill is just the beginning ". If the Zan Bill passes this road will open up. The defense of homolesbotransphobia is only a pretext to erase the material dimension of bodies and sexual difference, to erase the woman, expropriate her from procreation and occupy her spaces, to speed up the steps to block puberty in increasingly younger groups, to strengthen gender stereotypes, to make gender neutral ideology penetrate schools with unicorns and neutral pronouns, to legalize the rented uterus, to extend Medically Assisted Procreation (MAP) for all, to cancel the mother - she from which we come into the world - stating that we are born of two fathers or two mothers, to artificialize procreation with “transhuman” pregnancies and artificial wombs. The LGBTQ + rights agenda has become a powerful force, its supporters are at the top of the media, academia, politics and especially Big Business, Big Philanthropy and Big Tech. The concept of gender identity and the neutral body prepare the way for the construction of the posthuman cyborg to go definitively to constitute a neutral, fluid and unlimitedly modifiable humanity. The desire to erase all limits and, in fact, erase the material reality of bodies, represents a meeting point between transfeminism, queer and transhumanism to normalize the genetic modification of bodies. Women and the body of women become a terrain of appropriation and conflict, but in this terrain we will not yield anything, as the stakes are a transformation - anthropological and ontological mutation of the human being. First signatories: Silvia Guerini Cristiana Pivetti Roberta Trucco Emanuela Risso Adhesions to the communique followed About a year ago, the Zan Bill against homobilesbotransphobia was approved in the House of Duputates. On 27 October, the approval process for the law was blocked in the Senate. But stay alert, the direction at the European level as well as at the international level is clear: “gender identity”, gender neutral ideology, artificial reproduction towards a post-human and post-nature world. Communique in Italian: https://www.resistenzealnanomondo.org/necrotecnologie/no-ddl-zan-no-identita-di-genere/

Political Cartoonist and Science fiction/fantasy illustrator STELLA PERRETT (See 40 years of Stella’s work at: radicalcartoons.com) presents with The Campaign Against Pornbots, fighting against dehumanised pornographic representations of women and girls. Follow them at @robotcampaign

By Senator Claire Chandler Most readers would by now be aware of the controversy over the lobby group Stonewall convincing Government Departments and public agencies in the UK to adopt and promote gender ideology. Members of the public and women’s groups in the UK have been asking for years why the public service was parroting highly contested gender ideology promoted by Stonewall. Ideas like removing the word ‘mother’ from maternity guidance; putting male sex offenders in women’s prisons; allowing males to play in women’s sport; and promoting the idea that children can be born in the wrong body. Now, the BBC has produced a long overdue investigation revealing how government agencies and bodies (including the BBC itself) were influenced to promote these ideas after they signed up as members of the Stonewall, competed for ‘diversity’ awards from Stonewall, and paid the lobby group to ‘train’ them on ‘diversity and inclusion’. We know that it was the inappropriate influence of a lobby group that caused government departments in the UK to promote gender ideology and undermine the rights of women and girls. So what made Australian bureaucracies follow suit? In Australia, dozens of government agencies are signed up as paid members of a lobby group, Pride in Diversity, which uses the same tactics as Stonewall and openly boasts about taking advice from and working closely with Stonewall to “capture leading practices”. That’s the “leading practices” which have been exposed by the BBC, resulting in government agencies quitting the Stonewall schemes in droves. Given the backlash over these practices, you would think Australia’s public broadcaster might do as the BBC have done and investigate the influence of their gender lobby counterparts here in Australia. Don’t hold your breath though. The ABC are one of more than 30 agencies funded by Australian taxpayers who are paid members of Pride in Diversity. This year, as the ABC churned out puff pieces on the inclusion of biological males in women’s sport and on children’s gender clinics promoting ‘affirmative’ medical interventions, they were given three awards by the lobby group: ‘Gold Employer’, ‘Most Improved’, and ‘Best External Media Campaign’. The ABC is far from the only Australian tax-payer funded organisation signed up. They’re joined as members of the lobby group by all the major Government Departments and many other agencies: Attorney General's Department Department of Agriculture Department of Education and Training Department of Jobs and Small Business Department of Defence Department of Finance Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Department of Health Department of Home Affairs Department of Human Services (DHS) Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet (PMC) Department of Social Services (DSS) Department of the Treasury Australian Border Force Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) Australian Federal Police (AFP) Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) Australian Research Council (ARC) Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Geoscience Australia IP Australia National Disability Insurance Agency National Indigenous Australians Agency Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman Safework Australia How can the public service provide impartial advice to Ministers and parliamentarians on protecting women’s sex-based rights when they’re signed up as members of, and competing for awards from, a lobby group promoting gender ideology? I’ve spoken publicly and in the Senate on a number of occasions about Government Departments inexplicably adopting radical positions like deleting the word ‘woman’ from a pregnancy vaccination guide; signing Australia up in support of a UN report promoting gender ideology, and defining women as “anyone who identifies as a woman”. It all suddenly makes sense when you realise there are awards and ranking points on offer for statements like these. Is it any wonder that since joining the Senate in 2019 I’ve been unable to locate a single public service agency prepared to agree with the basic proposition that single-sex sports, facilities and services for women and girls are essential? A dangerous agenda which erodes the rights of women and girls is being sold to bureaucrats by a lobby group and slipped into public policy under the guise of ‘diversity and inclusion’. We can only hope that the recent investigations in the UK prompt similar scrutiny in Austrailian and elsewhere around the world. Senator Chandler is a passionate Tasmanian and proud representative for the great state in Canberra.

In America, there are rich transsexual and gay men at the helm of the gender industry, many of whom I have written about before, here, here, and here. These elite white men and their collective wealth drive a narrative through the USA and other western societies that sexual dimorphism is inaccurate. They have captured human rights organizations, academia, sports associations, the media, and medical institutions. They are forcing their biology-denying, fetishizing ideology into children’s school curriculums and libraries and corporate culture. Like Jon Stryker, founder of Arcus Foundation in the USA, the largest LGBT NGO in the world, Canada has its own wealthy, gay male philanthropist, who emerged out of the financial industry, and is driving the anti-reality ideology of "gender identity" in his own country, and beyond. Mark S. Bonham was included in the 2017 OUTstanding LGBT Business Leaders list, sharing accolades from the organization with Martine Rothblatt, the transsexual transhumanist at the heart of the gender industry. Bonham was awarded OUTstanding Philanthropist of the year in 2018, by the Association of Fundraising Professionals. He has had a decorated career in the Canadian financial industry and received his Master of Science in economy, with a focus on Capital Market Theory, from the London School of Economics. Bonham has funded millions to LGBTQ++++ issues in Canada, including but not limited to, Egale Centre, the city of Toronto’s first LGBTQ homeless youth shelter, and The Casey House Hospital (an AIDS-specialty hospital) in Toronto. He is the author of three LGBTQ books to date: A Path to Diversity: LGBTQ Participation in the Working World (2017); Notables: 101 Global LGBTQ People Who Changed the World (2015) and Champions: Biographies of Global LGBTQ Pioneers (2014). Bonham also funded and is a co-founder and Managing Editor of the online biographical encyclopedia QueerBio.com, a source of biographical information on over 15,000 historical and contemporary LGBTQ individuals from around the world in the categories of sports, business, the arts & entertainment, literature & poetry, activists, politicians, and much more. In 2018, QueerBio.com had over six million page views. In 2016 he became manager of Veritas Foundation, a non-profit charitable public foundation, with a mission to be Canada’s authoritative source for individuals, groups, and companies to participate in the country’s charitable sector. Like Jon Stryker in America, he helps to guide the corporate and philanthropic donations of Canadian elites. Bonham also created the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, funded by American transsexual and billionaire philanthropist Jennifer Pritzker, who received an award for his contributions in 2016. Pritzker founded a similar program at the University of Minnesota, in the USA, in 2017. The Bonham Centre is the world’s largest degree-granting research center on LGBT+ issues. The Pritzker family and their billions of dollars are prominent drivers of the institutionalization of "gender ideology" in America and the development of the body-dissociating ideology into an industry. The Bonham Centre offers an undergraduate program and a collaborative graduate specialization (MA and Ph.D.), hosts academic and community events, and supports research in queer, “trans,” and sexuality studies. It also sports a newly minted Queer, Trans Research Lab (QTRL). Part of the Bonham Centre’s curriculum is the Committee on Schools and Education (CSE), a school and community outreach program which functions similarly to the GLSEN Foundation in the USA, funded by Arcus Foundation. The founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, moved to become Executive Director at Arcus Foundation in 2012. The CSE is composed of university scholars from diverse institutions as well as independent scholars, K-12 educators, and professionals who work in schools and community-based organizations serving children, youth, and their families. A primary goal is “to move sex education from its current focus on risk, protection, and control to a focus on the body, desire, and agency. It promotes further research into how sexuality education is currently proceeding within the confines of existing institutional and social constraints and alternative ways in which it might be re-imagined.” Nicholas Matte, a woman who thinks she’s a man, is a teacher in the Sexual Diversities Studies Program at the Bonham Centre and curates the Sexual Representation Collection. Through her extensive involvement with “trans” archiving, she also facilitates student engagement with a wide range of significant primary resources, such as the University of Victoria’s “Transgender” Archives and the Digital “Transgender” Archives. The University of Victoria's “Trans” department is also funded by Jennifer Pritzker. Martine Rothblatt has received an honorary doctorate of law from the university and has been a guest speaker at the "Trans" department. In 2016, Matte was part of a panel discussion on Genders, Rights, and Freedom of Speech, hosted by The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Steven Paikin is a Canadian journalist, author, and documentary producer. Popular Canadian author and speaker Jordan Peterson also sat on the panel, where Matte explained to the other panelists and the host that “it is not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex (11:22), this is a misconception of “cis” culture and institutions,” she said, and added, “there is no such a thing as male and female.” Bonham, like his American counterparts, driving the dismantling of sexual dimorphism through American and European institutions, is a businessman, a corporatist, not a grassroots activist. He is President of Bonham & Co. Inc. in Toronto, Ontario, a private holding company offering investment portfolio advice to select elite clients. His investment portfolio includes diverse industries such as FinTech, Health Sciences, Consumer Products and Services, and Technology. The Bonham Centre funded the development of the Advancing Dignity Initiative (ADI) in Canada (pdf), presented in 2015, which works much like the MAP (pdf) Project, founded and funded by Arcus Foundation in the USA, in 2008. The ADI report's purpose is to “highlight how several countries, including Canada, can and do use foreign policy and refugee policy to promote equality based on sexual orientation, 'gender identity,' gender expression, and intersex status.” The stated mission of MAP is “to speed achievement of full social and political equality for LGBT people by providing donors and organizations with strategic information, insights, and analyses that help them increase and align resources for highest impact.” The ADI report concludes with this commentary: “We also note that most programming and policy work in support of the human rights of LGBTI people have focused predominantly on the rights of LGB individuals. Far more research, programming, and policy is required in order to ensure that human rights violations faced by trans individuals and intersex individuals, in particular, are afforded the attention and concern that they deserve.” The incredible danger these documents reveal is both the breadth of organizations involved in steering human sexuality and dismantling human sexual dimorphism and how LGB and intersex conditions are being used as a Trojan Horse to drive an ideology of body disassociation through global institutions and governments. Most people in western societies want equal and fair treatment for same-sex attracted people. Educational efforts toward the extension of that equality are welcomed by many institutions without consideration of what the “T,” the “Q," and the "I” are doing amid a movement for same-sex attracted individuals. The plan of “T+” is not hidden, by any means, though it may seem incredible to the untrained eye or to those assuming that “T+” is an organic extension of LGB human rights. Martine/Martin Rothblatt, who created the draft for the first “gender bill,” has written and lectured extensively about the project to deconstruct human sexual dimorphism in his books, from Transgender to Transhuman/A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form and Unzipped Genes/Taking Charge of Baby-Making in the New Millennium. Everywhere we look in western cultures, what is being promoted as “gender identity” is the dissolution of sexual dimorphism toward a tech takeover of reproduction and the opening of the human body for commodification. This anti-reality ideology, now in medical schools and children’s grade schools, is racing through law in western cultures. The ability to speak about these transgressions against reality is censored and framed as hate speech. We are in a fight for our lives and must accept that what we are looking at here has no relation to a human rights movement. Accepting the concept of “transgenderism” is a death knell for humanity. 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. Photo credit: Hive.com

I was going to open with an apology to my readers who are anticipating more information about the gender industry, that I am again using my blog to deal with personal business. However, this business needs public airing. Readers, other journalists, and media platforms should be informed about the lack of journalistic respect happening for my work because I am confident it’s not an exception. Using another writer’s research and presenting it as your own, is a very low manner of conducting oneself. Today a fellow journalist sent me a Twitter link of a third journalist, Mary Harrington, @moveincircles on Twitter, giving a speech at a conservative convention. My friend sent me the tweet because it echoed my work. The part of Harrington's speech, contained in the link, was close enough to the issues I am always writing about, and they are still novel enough, that he recognized them. Harrington writes for The Spectator, The Daily Mail, the American Mind, and is a contributing editor at Unherd, where her recent speech at the convention was published. In the snippet of her speech sent to me by my journalist friend, Harrington talks of an emerging bio-state, opening our bodies, deregulating human nature itself. I have introduced this concept in my work repeatedly, in tweets, articles, posts on my blog, and in interviews, all but the tweets copyrighted material, going back to the beginning of 2018. I write about the intersections of "transgenderism," technology, and capitalism. Creating markets out of the dissolution of sexual dimorphism, which opens our bodies in new and profitable ways for the state, is a distinct vision of mine regarding what I have called the gender industry, being driven by elites. I refer to what Harrington calls the “bio-state” as the techno-medical complex all the time, and often discuss how the boundary violation between male and female, the deconstruction of sexual dimorphism, being cultivated through the ideology of gender identity, is the very purpose of the “transgender” agenda. Mary also speaks about the deconstruction of sexual dimorphism, in her speech. “You might enjoy watching trans activism abolish sex dimorphism, to own the feminists, but the ideology is coming for your kids too," she writes. I don’t own knowledge. Knowledge happens with the exchange of ideas. Harrington wasn’t totally lifting the words out of my work, as a plagiarist might do, but these concepts were definitively born out of my research about the gender industry, as many people involved in this fight know, and common journalistic respect warrants a mention of this fact.. I had half a mind to ignore this because so many people are using the research I began on the gender industry, that many of them don’t even know where it came from. To be honest though, at this point, I get more respect from people on social media, carrying the concepts I write about forward, and citing my work, than I have gotten from some journalists. I am thrilled for the most part that my work is in cyberspace and is informing people, that they are taking it in their own directions. But when journalists who’ve been following my work, take to using my research, while rearranging it with different words, conveying the same new ideas, with no credit or citation, I find it insulting and a dereliction of duty. I found and read the speech by Harrington from which the video snippet was made, which was published a couple of days ago (11/1/2021). It went places I haven’t gone in my own work, critiquing feminism. She covered so many pertinent issues and interesting ground, I wanted to be happy she used my work and that it is poised to open more discussions. The thing that made me think twice about ignoring this, is that Mary Harrington has done this to me before. Several days ago, I had an exchange with Harrington on Twitter about an article she wrote in August for the Spectator World, where she used quite a lot of my research on Martine Rothblatt and Jon Stryker of Arcus Foundation, without crediting me or citing my work. I was aware the article was coming, because Mary asked me for an interview, sent a zoom link in July for us to engage. I agreed to the interview, and she agreed to credit me. We had a great chat in July. When the article came out, in August, I was annoyed that she hadn’t credited me. I was silent about it. She rearranged the research enough that it would not read as overt plagiarism and I am busy. Here is that exchange: Several days ago, Harrington, being tormented by TRAs on Twitter over the article in the Spectator, in which she should have cited my work, tagged me in a thread she made. For anyone familiar with my post about the UK feminist/journalist, Helen Joyce, and her similar actions and subsequent harassment by TRAs, you won’t be surprised about my feelings of Deja vu. Ironically, Harrington thought this tweeted thread would cultivate my sympathy and for a moment it did. But, as I reread the article and saw my work heavily reflected again, I reached out to Harrington in Twitter DM, to ask her why she didn’t cite me or credit me in the article. This is our exchange: Harrington didn’t deny using my work, as Joyce did, but admitted it. She just "couldn't make a citation work without things going weird." Wow. Nothing like a big "Fuxk you," to start one's day. When I told her this was an unacceptable response, that I would like her to go back to the Spectator and ask them to add a citation or credit, she refused saying she relied heavily on Helen Joyce’s book (TRANS). Except, Joyce’s book wasn’t out yet. Joyce’s book didn’t hit the stands until September. Harrington had obviously been following my work, appreciated it enough to ask for an interview, just as Joyce had, used the information in our exchange, and then claimed it as her own, as Joyce did. I took it upon myself at that point to go to the Spectator and ask for a citation. After a brief description of the incident and sharing my correspondence with Harrington, the editors at the Spectator were happy to offer a citation, and it is now in the piece. They didn’t seem to think it was weird or difficult. Funny, that. I didn’t hear from Harrington again after saying how disappointed I was, that it showed no good faith on her part. She continues to mine and mime my work. This is a disgraceful way for journalists to behave. I want it as a matter of public record that this is occurring. Generally, those who would use another’s research are frightened off by big-name lawyers that a major publishing house or major news platform can afford but think nothing of using work from a personal blog. As this is the second time this has happened to me (that I am aware of), it gives me pause about continuing my blog. I know it serves many of us in this fight. The work has kept me sane through the institutionalization of this worldwide cult. Mostly, the thought of leaving parents without the blog as a resource weighs heavy on me. I feel like I am between a rock and a hard place. I came across an article this morning where the employees of a health company pushing for their dismissal, over their refusal to get a COVID vaccine, decided to ban together to give themselves legal corporate status, providing leverage against the company attempting to fire them. It struck a chord for me, that those of us who are blogging, may need to find an advantageous legal strategy by banding together, against those that think nothing of using our work without citation or credit of any kind. It saddens me to have to think of this when I could be doing more research, writing more posts, all because of a lack of simple integrity and solidarity on the part of other journalists. Why don’t they care, I ask myself? I do what I do to help all of us. I am not winning any popularity contests, as they learn when they use my work. It’d be laughable to think I am in this for financial prosperity. Why treat others, with the same goal of ending this madness, with such a lack of regard? If I do make the decision to stop the blog, I will let readers know, in advance. Right now, I will persevere. I will continue to call out journalists publicly who engage in this behavior, and I will, finally, speak with a lawyer. In closing, if you like it, put a citation on it. If you like what you are reading at the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription to support this research. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

(Part2) by Choko Ishioka ⑶ What is in common? Let’s take a look at “Nijiiro Diversity. 認定NPO法人 虹色ダイバーシティ | LGBTがいきいきと働ける職場づくりをサポートします (nijiirodiversity.jp) The founder of Nijiiro Diversity is Maki Muraki, who for a time was in a same-sex partnership with Kanako Otsuji, a member of the House of Representative. This organization is also sponsored by Pfizer, and they are also in contact with local bar associations and give lectures to government ministries and municipalities across the country. This organization has deep ties with Dentsu. The origin of Nijiiro diversity is the Diversity Research Institute, which was established in 2007. 調査・研究・コンサルティング | ダイバーシティ研究所 (diversityjapan.jp) The institute's business partner is the Sasakawa Foundation and Nippon foundation. The Nippon Foundation (nippon-foundation.or.jp) HOME | THE SASAKAWA PEACE FOUNDATION (spf.org) Those were founded by Ryoichi Sasakawa, a man who had been associated with the government since World War II. Sasakawa was a close friend of Mussolini and was detained in Sugamo Prison as a Class A war criminal, but was later released. He was also a friend of Nobusuke Kishi, a former member of the Tojo Cabinet who was also a Class A war criminal. Nobusuke Kishi became Prime Minister in the LDP after the war. What these rainbow organizations and the ruling LDP have in common is their involvement with giant corporations such as Dentsu and the Keidanren (Japan Business Federation ) as well as foreign companies. The Keidanren has close ties to the military industry and advocates revisions to the Constitution. Japan's Dentsu gets $700 million windfall from government SME aid scheme amid opposition criticism | Reuters 性的指向・性同一性（性自認）に関するＱ＆Ａ　（令和元年版） (nifcloud.com) The LDP's gender identity survey report(2019) also mentions the names of two huge interest groups, Dentsu and Keidanren. What do these facts mean? A number of gender identity-related ordinances have been enacted by local governments. As far back as 2006, the LDP had gender issue investigated by an outside think tank. 暴かれた「ジェンダー論の権威」の虚構 | 日本政策研究センター (seisaku-center.net) （This link is valid only in Japan.） The UN Human Rights Committee pointed out that the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence does not provide protection for same-sex couples and that the pension system does not cover LGBT people, and so on. It also called for a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The government accepted the UN's recommendation in 2008. 日本：性的指向と性自認を理由とした差別撤廃へ向けた具体的措置を : アムネスティ日本 AMNESTY But the government did not make a LGBT related law. In 2017, there was an investigation into LGBT issues by the House of Councillors' Legal Affairs Committee, but the government still did not enact a law. LGBTの現状と課題 (rilg.or.jp) It may be that they thought that voters would not accept it. However, local governments are creating more and more ordinances that include a clause that "does not discriminate against gender identity" without informing the public. A search for "性自認(gender identity)" in the ordinance database yielded 224 hits for ordinances containing the word. 検索 - 条例Webアーカイブデータベース (doshisha.ac.jp) What does this mean? The government wants to make LGBT-related laws. But the supporters of the ruling party are against it. So first of all, local governments are making ordinances secretly. The ruling party probably wants to make a national anti-discrimination against LGBT law next. In the past few years, there have been PRIDE marches all over Japan, and the mass media have all come together to promote diversity. And last year, the LGBT bill was discussed, but the bill was still not submitted to the legislature. This was due to opposition from the ruling party. Indeed, if you listen to the opinion of the supporters of the ruling party, they are skeptical of gender identity ideology. And this October, there will be an election for the House of Representatives. Many Japanese are getting poorer, and the wind is blowing harder against the ruling party. The LDP wants to come up with some kind of policy that will win votes. This is where the LGBT issue comes in. Japanese women can see the incidents that are happening in other countries on Twitter. Also, in 2021, there was the Tokyo Olympics, and trans women competed in the women's category. Women are very afraid of the ideology. At the request of women's groups, the LDP has issued a policy of “not submitting anti-discrimination against LGBT bills, which means “LDP can protect you”. The women may believe the ruling LDP. But what if the LDP later reneges on its promises? It is true that the LDP is notorious for easily reneging on its promises. The referendum law for constitutional revision was revised in June 2020. This made it easier for the LDP to revise the Constitution. As we all know, the LGBT anti-discrimination law functions as a law to suppress speech. If the ruling party breaks its pledge and creates an anti-discrimination law against LGBT, they can easily revise the constitution. If the constitution is revised, Japan will be militarized, the government's authority will become very strong, and the people's rights will be restricted. In this way, Japan will strengthen its military power and its military industry will become even bigger. The foreign companies that have already acquired Japanese companies will also reap huge profits. Choko Ishioka, is a mother of 2cats. A Japanese who grew up under Japan's peaceful and democratic constitution and loves it so much.