Search Results

In 1977, 10 New York City women started a small philanthropic organization to support the work of lesbians and women of color. They came from a variety of backgrounds. Shortly after that, the organization now known as Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice was born. Reporting on its history for “them” magazine, in 2019, Elyssa Goodman spoke with their former director, who said, “initially no one wanted to fund them because they were an organization focused on the needs of lesbians and people of color.” The women were from various classes and ethnicities and decided to create a program that would primarily award funding to other groups led by lesbians and women of color. The funded organizations ran the gamut from gay liberation, workers’ rights, anti-war initiatives, civil rights, environmental principles, and more. The founding mothers of Astraea created one of the world’s first funds entirely for women. They decreed Astraea would always be comprised of at least 50 percent women of color. In 1980, Goodman reported, the organization’s first grants were given to women organizers and artists throughout the Northeastern United States and ranged from $100 to $1,000. The grants went to supporting the rights of incarcerated women, helping lesbian mothers maintain child custody, developing women’s art spaces, and even a lesbian choir. Astraea became a national organization in 1990. The first winners of Astraea’s Lesbian Writers Fund in 1991 were: Melinda Goodman, Yasmin V. Tambiah, Mariana Romo-Carmona, Magdalena Zscokke, and Ana Maria Simo, judged by Audre Lorde, Jewelle Gomez, Gloria Anzaldua, and Sarah Schulman. That year, the organization also bestowed its Sappho Award of Distinction and grant upon Audre Lorde. Those were the days—women for women. I could weep with nostalgia. A few years later the men moved into LGB social justice work and brought in all the earmarks of big business. Gill Foundation was founded in 1994 and began driving vast sums of money to create systematic change with big donors and, eventually, the power of big money. It represented, for Gill Foundation founder Tim Gill, a vast metamorphosis in philanthropy, which reflected changes in the economy. The so-called “new economy,” according to Gill, “had its roots in the high-technology industry, resulting in more people with disposable income than ever before. Moreover, many of the new economy donors brought with them the values and business practices they had learned from the for-profit community, combined with a desire to create social change in the same way their risk-taking helped create the new economy.” Once gay marriage was procured in 2015, Gill thought just like the businessman he is. Gender identity became the new cause celebre for his LGBT NGO. Gender identity opened markets in sexual identity, identities needing protection. By 2018, “transgender” and “gender identity” took center stage in their funding report. In 2000, Jon Stryker, banker, and heir to a multi-billion dollar medical corporation, founded the LGBT NGO Arcus Foundation, which saw the deconstruction of lesbian culture, the rise of fetishism, and the gender identity market. Where lesbians, gays, and bisexuals were once offered support in a grassroots movement of their kin, they were now set to be erased. In 2000, Astraea Foundation received its first Arcus Foundation grant, and its focus shifted from women to sexual and ”gender minorities.” Over the years, Astraea Foundation has seen close to twelve million dollars in funding from Arcus Foundation, the most donations to any Arcus Foundation grantee. By 2020 all that was left of lesbians on the Astraea Foundation Welcome page was the L in the LGBTQI+ acronym. In 2010 the grants to Astraea took another slight shift to support “gender minorities,” specifically in the global south, a distinct focus of Arcus Foundation. In 2011 beyond their usual hundreds of thousands in annual funding from Arcus, they received $200,000., specifically for initiating the Global Action for Trans Equality (GATE), a gender industry organization fighting for the depathologization of body dissociation & the erosion of women’s sex-based rights & sexual orientation. By 2012 Astraea was receiving three separate grants, in the hundreds of thousands, from Arcus Foundation. In 2013, GATE, with other gender industry activists and funders, got together in Berlin to explore new ways to bring resources to “trans” communities. At a subsequent meeting two years later in Istanbul, the International Trans Fund (ITF) was born to drive gender identity ideology south. Funded two and a half million dollars from Arcus Foundation to create the initiative, Astraea Lesbian Foundation, supported by Open Society Foundation and the US government under the Obama administration, hosted the meeting. In 2013 Astraea Foundation, among other monies they received from Arcus Foundation, also procured $50,000. for the Global Philanthropy Project (GPP). GPP is the primary thought leader and go-to partner for donor coordination on global LGBTI work. GPP Director Mathew Hart, with Astraea Foundation, has coordinated a movement to discredit those resisting gender identity ideology, framing anyone who disagrees with this ideology of body dissociation as rabid, bigoted religious conservatives, setting the international stage for global online conferences to promote the same. This GPP and Astraea Foundation movement to discredit those who critique gender ideology is driven by Arcus Foundation and is partnered with, The Baring Foundation in the UK, Dreilinden gGmbH in Germany, and ironically The Global Fund for Women. In 2014 the “I” was added to the LGBTQ+ matrix to support the idea there are a multiplicity of sexes (a new marketing constituency buying medical identities). By 2017 China, Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Tobago were added to the countries being colonized by Arcus Foundation through deep funding to Astraea to drive gender identity ideology (body dissociation) through the global south. A grant to Astraea to bolster the idea that intersex constitutes other human sexes received a whopping $400,000. grant. By 2018, Astraea Foundation was in full post-modernist mode, supporting queer identities and celebrating their part in getting gender bills passed. What has all this activism and money from the good ol’ boy's network culminated in? In funding for men, of course, with a mission to empower men claiming unique sex identities. In 2021 Astraea Foundation now exists as a handmaiden of the Arcus Foundation and the global movement toward human disembodiment for the profiteering of the medical-industrial complex. Astraea also receives funding from AbbVie Foundation, part of the worldwide Pharma giant that makes the puberty blocker Lupron, which has a starring role in the arrested development of children caught up in the gender industry. Through their lesbian front for Arcus Foundation, their funding supports the conversion therapy of young lesbians in the guise of "gender identity" and the male fetishization of womanhood. Though they may not be aware, they are contributing to a social engineering goal of deconstructing human sexual dimorphism and the erasure of women. Astraea Lesbian Foundation Mission and Vision statements now advocate for everyone’s issues, aside, it seems, lesbians, who have already been erased. 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.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” — Edward L. Bernays There is an apparition that is floating around the global institutionalization of “gender identity.” What is it? What is happening? We can see something going on but can’t quite make it out. Why are these changes being catapulted through western cultures, driven by big money and governments? This apparition has a name: Transhumanism. It is the unnamed issue that is sitting in the middle of the “gender identity” living room, which we can’t quite address. All the other tentacles of changes transforming society, wrought in the name of gender, grow out of this apparition, this thing we refuse to name and face. Transhumanism is the single most important thing to resist if we are to stop the deconstruction of our species. We, as human beings, are sexually dimorphic, and “gender identity” is deconstructing sex. “Gender Identity,” has many different iterations but most of us are looking at the sequences and missing the whole. We need to look at what "gender identity" does and not what it means. It destroys sex as a meaningful category and it is literally desexing children and young people. This is the point of it. This is how it is used by those forcing it into the culture, to normalize our dissociation from our sexed reality. The acceptance of desexing the human body is being invested in by billionaires in Pharma and tech, like Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual-transhumanist, and Jennifer Pritzker, another transsexual, and his family. They hold considerable investments in the medical, industrial complex. Tim Gill of the LGBT NGO, Gill Foundation is also driving the normalization of body dissociation globally via “gender identity” and is invested in tech and AI. Jon Stryker, the heir to the Stryker medical fortune, drives gender identity, or body dissociation, worldwide with the LGBT NGO, Arcus Foundation, which he founded. These men are all deeply wedded to global LGBT NGOs that drive body dissociation through our cultures under the banner of human rights. They are dismantling sexual dimorphism and promoting a multiplicity of sexes. This doesn’t suggest all these men know each other and work in unison, though most do. It means they are of a class that holds financial power, are already invested in tech and Pharma, and are aware of advancements that drive profits in these industries. Dr. Heather Brunskell Evans, an academic philosopher in the UK, recently quoted a report by Gendered Intelligence (GI), a global "transgender" lobby group advocating that children should be liberated to manipulate their sex characteristics. GI asserts that freedom for children and young people lies in “dismantling the culturally ascribed power of the biological.” This is a fascinating statement; the message from GI seems clear: that the biological reality of sex is a social construct, one perceived to wield too much power. A recently published UK Ministry of Defense report details advancements of human augmentation, not just as they pertain to the Ministry of Defense but to our lives as human beings. “Human augmentation can impact every aspect of our lives and even change the meaning of what it means to be human. It could change philosophical concepts, our belief systems, and ethical and legal frameworks in ways we have not anticipated,” it states. Aren’t we witnessing those changes now, in the new industry of gender, framed as a human rights movement? Gendered Intelligence, when discussing puberty blockers, drugs that have been found to cause irreversible harm, states, “It is important that children and young people … can experiment, change their mind, try out new styles, express themselves.” They are advocating for children to have free reign in choosing to augment their sex characteristics and to use dangerous drugs to do so. Laws are being rapidly adjusted across many countries simultaneously, aided by LGBT NGOs and “Transgender” organizations, to make legal adjustments allowing for the depathologization of disembodiment. An American, Martine Rothblatt, lectured in Canada in 2016, on the need for “tech transhumanists” to create a political apparatus comparable to WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health), which will establish social validity for “tech transhumanists,” in the way WPATH has done for “tech transgenders.” Rothblatt created the first legal framework for gender bills passing worldwide. He worked on the human genome project at the UN level and for NASA. He owns a biopharmaceutical corporation, created a religion of disembodiment, and has built a robot of his wife. Rothblatt has been writing about the changes to humanity that will deconstruct sexual dimorphism for at least a generation. He likens sexual dimorphism to South African apartheid and presents frequently at the $3.6 trillion-dollar business arm of the global LGBT, OutLeadership. He has written about the technological future of reproduction, where humans, melded to technology, will not need to copulate. President Biden recently passed another bill where “gender identity” will override the sex-based rights of women. Our language has already changed to obliterate our sexed reality. Is it plausible Biden doesn’t understand what he is doing? Obama, financially assisted into office by the Pritzkers, who Biden served as vice president, became the first president to use the word “transgender” in a state of the union address. Obama called a special meeting for “transgender” students at the White House, in 2015, earning him the title of “Trans President.” That the president of the United States would do this for a minuscule part of the population of children who have body dysphoria related to their genitalia is preposterous, as are laws passing across the world that allow men to claim female embodiment, as are the new corporate workshops for employees at global banks, who have dysphoria around their genitalia. It is insane that castration parties for young men are being celebrated and that Mastercard has created a credit card for those who disassociate from their sexed reality. It is not only important, but we must name this insanity instead of supporting the premise of a third category of humans that are not male or female for which society is being rearranged. The only thing that makes any sense in any of this is that people are being groomed for more significant changes to humanity, and laws are being changed to support those changes. This forced evolution of our species is upon us. We must understand that gender is a façade to normalize the desexing of our species toward a more complex melding with technology than we have seen thus far. We must be brave enough to face the transhumanism in the middle of the “gender identity” living room or be changed forever. 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.

Julie Bindel, a popular feminist campaigner in the UK, and Melanie Newman, a journalist trained in the law, wrote about “Trans rights” for the Critic in April. The sub-title of their article reads: “Women’s rights were not considered in legislation that allows trans people to decide their own gender effectively.” One might ask: If we are going to allow for the premise of “trans people” as individuals who adopt a performative ideology of disembodiment and are granted legal status based on performing body disassociation, why even think that women’s rights WOULD be considered? The idea of “gender identity” rests on the dissolution of the boundary between males and females. It is patently absurd to” (a) purport to fight the state’s attempts to deconstruct human sexual dimorphism in law and language; (b) discuss “transgender people” as a settled subcategory of humans, and then (c) be surprised that women’s sex-based rights won’t be upheld. If society accepts the notion of disembodiment, which Bindel does, of course, women’s sex-based rights will be obliterated. Women are half of the sexually dimorphic species of humans. It matters that feminists get this wrong because they have been at the forefront of fighting gender ideology since men in dresses began claiming womanhood. Feminists are setting a precedent for others who are resisting this dissociative ideology. Bindel’s article frames a war surrounding the violation of biological reality, as a fight between feminists and trans rights activists over conflicting rights. The paper introduces the establishment of the Yogyakarta Principles (YP) – a human rights guideline created in the early 2000s and since amended to include “gender identity,” a euphemism for body dissociation. The YPs are not law; they are guidelines created and pushed by LGBT orgs as they interface with corporations, big Pharma, big tech, and global human rights organizations such as the UN. The guidelines are used to drive the concepts of “gender identity” and “transgenderism” worldwide, to drive the legal and cultural deconstruction of sexual dimorphism. In Bindel’s article, one of the signatories of the YP amendments discusses the blind spot he and others had about the rights of so-called “transgender people” as they impinged on women’s sex-based rights. However, neither Bindel nor the quoted signatory defines “transgender” an incoherent, nonsensical term manifesting chaos and confusion. Bindel’s article starts by discussing the changes in the UK that allow for body dissociation to be legally acknowledged without medical intervention: “In 2004, with the passing of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) the UK became the first country in the world to legally recognize trans people as the opposite sex without medical treatment. The Act passed without controversy and with little media coverage. The law was framed thus: a transsexual person (the terminology used at the time by legislators and most trans people) must acquire a gender recognition certificate from a new gender recognition panel made up of lawyers and doctors.” Bindel appears to think that harms to women’s rights emerge simply from allowing for a legal acknowledgment of so-called “sex change” with no medical intervention. She is wrong. Harms to women’s rights is a perfectly natural and organic outgrowth of enshrining a lie about sex in the law. She is not alone in her error. Many other feminists continually make this mistake, manifesting a newly minted construct of “true trans,” i.e., men who’ve had medical interventions to support the delusion of changing sex, who then purport to understand that this is their own personal illusion (or delusion for some). But the deception is not personal when legally instituted and then marketed as another way to be human. Interviewing a fellow feminist and academic philosopher, Kathleen Stock, Bindel seems sympathetic to Stock’s suggestion that disembodiment is an acceptable sexual proclivity and that providing this paraphilia legal status and legitimacy is not a problem. The problem, says Stock, is how this paraphilia is shamed. She believes more discussions about the paraphilia, from which the term “transgenderism” has emerged, would be helpful. “If we could discuss autogynephilia in a less toxic way,” says Stock, “fewer men would feel they had to transition.” How Stock makes this assessment is beyond comprehension. “Transsexualism,” under its corporate rebranding to “transgenderism,” has never been so visible, celebrated, talked about, catered to, and driven, by marketing, the media, in Hollywood, at the corporate level, big banks, and medical institutions, than now. The exponential rise of surgeries to dismember people is off the charts. It is a given for Bindel that people who want to alter their bodies to perform the opposite sex should be respected and legally validated in the material lie of body dissociation, as long as their rights don’t override those of women. But how could women's rights remain intact if we allow for the physical violation of the boundary between male and female as a human rights premise? People’s rights are not the most important thing at stake here. The concept of “transsexualism,” as a human right and not a disorder, completely upends society, creating dangerous instability. People want to be kind to others with a condition, but this “disorder” has quickly morphed into being framed as a third sex or existing instead as some middle ground of sex between male and female. The war being framed as a war between “trans people” and feminists is a war for upholding biological reality against the institutionalization of a lie. Feminists claiming to fight for women’s sex-based rights cannot then enforce the legal validation of people who perform disembodiment. The minute you allow for disembodiment as a legal identity is the moment you give up your sex-based rights as half of the sexually dimorphic human species. 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.

A decade ago, most teachers, principals, and students in K-12 schools had never heard the terms “transgender” or “gender identity.” Within one decade that has all changed. By now, every teacher, principal, and student across America has heard the terms, even if they aren’t sure what they mean. The concept of “gender identity” often morphs depending on who you are talking to. There has never been a stable legal or logical definition of the term. Often, definitions are tautological, i.e., “Gender identity is a person’s internal, deeply held sense or psychological knowledge of their own gender.” What seems to be taking place in the culture is that “gender identity” has become a euphemism for body dissociation. Children are being taught that they can be a boy or a girl, that sex is assigned at birth, that sex exists on a spectrum and that they can choose which sex they are later. How did it Happen? President Obama and his handlers played a starring role in instituting gender identity ideology into K-12 schools. In 2008 Obama was just a twinkle in Penny Pritzker’s eye. As an Illinois senator in political obscurity, Obama was an unknown entity. Penny Pritzker, of the Chicago Pritzker billionaires, who share massive investments in the medical-industrial complex (MIC), set a mission of getting Obama into the White House. She succeeded in not just securing one term for him but two by introducing him to the titans of finance, including the head of Goldman Sachs. She helped fund his PACs and later became his Secretary of Commerce. Penny Pritzker is not the only important Pritzker in the story of how gender identity ideology got into our children’s schools, but Obama started doing her bidding immediately. In 2009, immediately after being elected, he signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which extended the coverage of Federal hate crimes law to include attacks based on the victim’s “gender identity.” “Gender Identity” was never defined. In 2010 he initiated anti-bullying campaigns in schools for LGBT students and began to pass other “transgender” legislation rapidly. This was the same year GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) began lobbying Illinois schools for anti-bullying protections toward LGBT students and students with a “gender identity” for which they were purportedly being bullied. It was the beginning of the drive to bring “gender identity” as a concept into children’s schools. Among GLSEN supporters is Walt Disney Corporation which has gifted one hundred million dollars to children’s hospitals across America and Europe, at least several of which have “gender clinics” for youth. This lobbying of schools for the anti-bullying of LGBT youth and children with “gender identities” began five years after the T+ started appearing under the LGB human rights banner and “transgender” organizations mushroomed globally. It was the onset of these terms arriving in American institutions with no explanation. Suddenly, “transgender” and “gender identity” were everywhere. GLSEN is also funded by Arcus Foundation, one of the most prominent LGBT NGOs in the United States, driving gender identity ideology globally. Arcus Foundation founder, Jon Stryker, funds his foundation with millions of dollars through his corporation, Stryker Medical. GLSEN is also financed by Gill Foundation, another massive LGBT NGO driving “gender identity" ideology under a banner of safety and anti-bullying for children. In 2010, by any standard, the shifting concepts of “transgender children,” or children with innate “gender identities” for which they were bullied, were not even a blip on the cultural radar. Yet, some of the most important and wealthiest people in America were taking measures for their protection in our institutions. It’s worth noting that though these new identities came into K-12 schools under a banner of sexual identity, the lessons about “transgender” and “gender identity” were brought into schools in both new sexual education curriculums and via anti-bullying campaigns, the latter of which parents could not opt their children out of. In 2013 Jennifer Pritzker, Penny Pritzker's cousin, another billionaire in the philanthropic family, released a statement to individuals associated with two business and charitable organizations that subsequently received comprehensive media coverage, indicating a name change from James Pritzker, to Jennifer Pritzker, to reflect his imagined status as a woman. At 63, with two marriages behind him and having fathered three children, he took up the mantle of driving “gender identity” into our cultural institutions through his Tawani Foundation, including funding Equality Illinois Education Project, another purported anti-bullying program used to drive the feeble ideology of “gender identity,” into children’s schools. By 2015, while the unstable concepts of “transgender” and “gender identity” were increasing in media spreads and TV reality shows and Hollywood stars were parading their children around as opposite-sex children, Obama became the first president to say the word "transgender" in a state of the union address. He hosted a youth summit at the White House for LGBT Youth and called a meeting specifically for “transgender” students, earning the title of "Trans President." Was he doing this for an infinitesimal segment of the population of children in K-12 schools with body dysphoria related to their genitalia? If so, why? What is a “transgender child?” What is “gender identity” and why do children suddenly have one? We, the American people, are still asking. We're not alone in questioning the construction of "transgender children." In the UK, Dr. Heather Brunskell Evans reports on lobby groups driving the narrative of "gender identities" and "transgender" medical identities in children that have no basis in material reality. Fast forward to 2019. JB Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, brother to Penny Pritzker, and cousin to Jennifer Pritzker, has invested twenty-five million dollars in early childhood initiatives. He also dropped all pretense of anti-bullying campaigns for LGB students in grade schools and initiated an executive order, creating an Affirming and Inclusive Task Force purportedly to “improve the learning environment for 'transgender,' 'nonbinary,' and gender nonconforming students by affirming and supporting them.” Sitting on the Task Force is the Associate Director of Community Programs and Initiatives at Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago (Jennifer Pritzker provided the funds for Lurie Children's Hospital's "gender clinic" in 2013). Though the 50-page task force report is meant to be a guideline, it makes clear that everyone in Illinois schools will abide by the dictates of an ideology that has never been discussed, evaluated, or approved by the public. This ideology sets children against the biological reality of their sexed bodies. At least now, we know who's paid for these dictates. 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.

Launched in 1993, the Victory Institute purportedly works to achieve and sustain global equality for people in the LGBT+ community. This is done through leadership development and training to increase the number, expand diversity, and ensure the success of openly LGBTQ elected and appointed officials at all levels of government. The Victory Institute has expanded its programming to include the Presidential Appointments Initiative – which works to place openly LGBTQ appointees in pro-equality presidential administrations. Dr. Rachel Levine, a man with a fetish of objectifying female biology and disembodiment, President Joe Biden’s Assistant Secretary of Health, is a product of these efforts. According to the group’s website. “When LGBTQ presidential appointees are empowered, they can significantly influence the policies and direction of agencies and the executive branch to make positive change for LGBTQ people (read: in this instance, push forward gender identity industry policies and laws that solidify human disembodiment as a human right and strip the advancement opportunities of females while claiming to advance their inclusion).” What we are looking at here, and as I have examined in other blog posts, where corporations and banks are currently in the business of normalizing the body-dissociating fetish of transsexualism for social engineering and profit, is Big Pharma garnering more and more political space for men with this fetish to arrange policies that support disembodiment, increase profits and curtail women’s advancement in the social and political realms. According to the LGBTQ Victory Institute, in November 2020, they and partners “were working with the transition team to field and identify potential candidates for appointed positions in the Biden-Harris administration,” the group continued, further explaining that their goals included pressing the Biden administration to have an LGBTQ cabinet member, an LGBTQ Supreme Court justice, transgender ambassadors, and that “openly LGBTQ people receive equitable representation among presidential appointees.” Anyone not yet aware of what “pressing” means and how it is accomplished, feel free to read my articles about this here, and here. The pressing comes from financial clout via the medical-industrial complex. Arcus Foundation is an American LGBT NGO juggernaut whose founder is heir to a multi-billion-dollar medical corporation. Jon Stryker funds his LGBT NGO directly from his stock in the Stryker medical corporation. He is poised to profit from driving gender identity ideology and normalizing the myth that humans can change sex with technology. Arcus Foundation has funded Victory Institute over ten million dollars since 2004. Victory Institute’s sponsorship list looks like a who’s who in trans funding, including Jon Stryker (aside his foundation funding), Tim Gill as well as his Gill Foundation, Tides, Unilever, Pfizer (One of the largest multi-national biopharma corporations worth nearly 52 billion dollars and invested in gene therapy and genetics), RBC Capital Markets, a global investment bank providing services in locations spanning 70 offices in 15 countries across North America, the UK, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, Google, Gilead, Comcast, AT&T, David Geffen, Jennifer Pritzker and David Bohnett, to name a few. Quoted in The New Civil Rights Movement, Annise Parker, the former Houston mayor who now serves as President and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, in a statement, said, “Rachel Levine’s nomination is groundbreaking and shows the Biden administration will choose the most qualified individuals to lead our nation regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity (read: disembodiment which makes the sexual orientation category null and void). Dr. Levine is making history and will transform Americans’ perceptions of trans people (read: disembodiment for humans) when she takes office and begins to work on their behalf." I wouldn’t count on safeguarding children from medical experiments related to gender identity being at the top of his list, though. In February of this year, Levine refused to answer the targeted questions of Senator Rand Paul on this issue, using an evasive statement suggesting “transgender medicine” is too complicated a field to provide an immediate answer as to whether children should be receiving life-altering drugs and surgeries without parental consent. Let’s, for one moment, avoid the apparent cognitive dissonance of hiring a man who thinks he’s a woman as a health secretary and why this is happening, and look to the standard inequality of hiring more white men into politics than anyone else and feeding it back to us as diversity. While the Victory Institute purportedly works toward more equitable representation of LGBTQ+ individuals, their in-house lack of social and political diversity of their own constituency mirrors all the inequities of sex, race, and politics of American society at large. As per the Washington Post in 2014, before the corporate drumbeat of diversity began to reach fever pitch: · 71 percent of elected officials in the US were men, 90 percent were white, and 65 percent were white men. · White men are 31 percent of the U.S. population but hold 65 percent of all elected offices. · White men have eight times as much political power as women of color. Now let’s look at the statistics over at the Victory Institute, struggling to procure this very illusive “diversity” of political representation. * Total number of LGBTQ elected officials 967 * Number of elected male officials 546 * Number of “Transwomen” elected officials 30 * Bringing the number of elected male officials to 576 *Or 63% of all elected officials, with men representing nearly the same as they do in in the overall population of elected officials. The Victory Institute's representation of female elected officials is 355, or approx. 37% These figures look almost identical as the ones in the culture at large. Where oh where is this diversity that everyone is clamoring on about? It certainly isn’t in the race category. Of the 967 elected LGBTQ officials represented by the Victory Institute *695 are white (567 white men) *73 are black *114 are Hispanic *8 are Native American *23 are Asian *4 are middle eastern *22 are multi-race Despite claims of diversity, white men, despite being less than one-third of the population, still hold a majority of elected positions, whether we are talking about the general population or that of LGBTQ nation. Brad Polumbo expels any myth of political diversity in a Washington Examiner article, where he slams the LGBTQ Victory fund for faking its mission and calling it a strange definition of “bipartisanship.” “The sad truth,” he says, “is that this group, like most modern LGBT activist organizations, is little more than a de facto arm of the Democratic National Committee, which seeks to advance an ideology, not an identity.” Not embracing gender ideology is not optional at The Victory Fund. When we move onto sexual orientation and gender identity, the entire meaningful structure of statistics at The Victory Fund dissolves entirely because, in the LGBTQ nation, men are calling themselves lesbians, lesbians are calling themselves men or non-binary, queer, pansexual, two-spirit, and gender non-conforming. It certainly is diverse at this level. It’s also nonsense because male lesbians obliterate the meaning of the word lesbian in the same way that men calling themselves women obliterate the meaning of the word woman, and pansexual has zero relationship to anything we need to measure society. Why are we measuring diversity at this level? Try to make sense of these categories of gender identities as they relate to human sexual dimorphism and how society is structured around it, and reason disintegrates. It is too difficult for most people to think about. The meaning of sex is being systematically deconstructed by the state, using same-sex attraction and LGBT organizations as a trojan horse. This is called progressive and human rights. Most people are going along for the ride, utterly oblivious to what awaits them in a society that cannot keep track of humanity because we have forgotten who and what we are. 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.

Guest Post by Ben Bartee A "sissy" is a "male-identified person who engages in feminization and sometimes humiliation in order to reach a different emotional or mental state." The process of "sissification" (becoming a sissy), which is the ultimate goal of sissy hypno (to hypnotize the viewer into "feminine" contortions), is explicitly sadomasochistic: "a process where submissive men learn to take on traditionally female roles. The submissive, known as a sissy, learns to adopt ultra-feminine behaviors and perform feminine activities under the guidance of his Dominant partner." The viewer learns how to "get fucked," "take dick," "suck dick," etc. The male genitals of the sissy are termed the "clitty" and the anus becomes the new "pussy" – which exists, in sissy ideology, for the singular purpose of pleasing men: "to be sissy is always to lose your mind. The technical term for this is bimbofication. Captions often instruct viewers to submit themselves to hypnosis, brain-washing, brain-melting, dumbing down, and other techniques for scooping out intelligence." -Andrea Long Chu Powerlessness is a major theme. According to trasgender academic Andrea Long Chu – who himself claims that sissy hypno "made him trans" -- sissy porn functions as a type of "metapornography" in which the viewer becomes aware of the psychological effects of the content they are absorbing through the medium: "Sissy porn’s central conceit is that the women it depicts are in fact former men who have been feminized (‘sissified’) by being forced to wear makeup, wear lingerie, and perform acts of sexual submission. Captions further instruct viewers to understand that the very act of looking at sissy porn itself constitutes an act of sexual degradation, with the implication that, whether they like it or not, viewers will inevitably be transformed into females themselves." Sissy hypno, in this way, is beyond porn for the sake of mindless consumption; it is perhaps unique among porn genres in that its creators have an explicit agenda. The central idea is that you, the target of the meme – usually an adolescent or 20-something, confused (as most young people are), sexually frustrated, nominally heterosexual male – have always been a woman deep inside. The proposition is that, until sissy hypno came along to tell you who who are, you had no idea of your true nature. Cui bono? Who benefits from transforming huge swathes of the male population "into women"? Certainly not the men themselves; web forums are awash with stories of addiction, destroyed marriages, and regret from men who have been sucked into the sissy hypno vortex. One such addict offered a colorful framing of the sissy hypno: "heroin of porn and pure unadulterated evil." What industries stand to benefit from the "sissification" of the thousands (perhaps millions) of men who have undergone "forced feminization" at the command of faceless voices that narrate sissy hypno videos? Porn platforms. Porn conglomerate Mindgeek -- "one of the top five bandwidth consumption companies in the world" – owns and operates Pornhub, YouPorn, Redtube, WhyNotBi.com, and TrannyTube. Sissy hypno content is found on all of these platforms. MindGeek generated $460 million in revenue in 2018. Countless other "boutique" sites like HypnoTube generate tens of thousands of pageviews each day. To put the competitive power of the porn industry in terms of grabbing and keeping the average internet user's attention in perspective, from November to December 2020, "more people searched 'Pornhub' than 'coronavirus' or 'Trump'.'" According to reporting from multiple outlets, MindGeek's "better-known financial backers… include JPMorgan Chase, Cornell University and Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based investment management firm." The bottom line is that porn generates substantial enough revenue to justify multi-million-dollar investments from the most elite institutions in the world. And, unlike other genres of porn, sissy hypno has the added benefit of direct, traceable correlation to additional consumption habits that we will explore below. The cottage transgender cosmetology industry. Miss Vera's Finishing School for Boys Who Want to Be Girls and other "cross-dressing academies" rake in cash from "sissies" in the transition phase. Per the FAQ page: "Our academy motto is 'Cherchez la femme'. In French, the verb 'chercher' means “'o look to' or “'o look for'. It’s perfect for you, dear student, as you 'look to' women for guidance and 'look for' the woman inside of you." The 6-hour "Femme Essentials" course fetches the academy $1,386 from the men who enroll. The cosmetics industry itself with specific makeup products marketed to transgender men. The hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and sex change industry. Transgenderism is big money for the medical industry: "The U.S. sex reassignment surgery market size was valued at USD 267.0 million in 2019 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.4% from 2020 to 2027. The rising incidences of gender dysphoria and the increasing number of people deciding for gender confirmation surgeries are expected to boost market growth over the forecast period." Sissy hypnosis porn frequently and persistently demands that its viewers actively pursue "feminization" by undergoing some combination of HRT and gender reassignment to "complete the transition" into womanhood. As a relatively new phenomenon, the long-term sociocultural effects of sissy hypno "metaporn" that actively solicits adherents to make dramatic, life-altering medical decisions remain to be seen. Given what little experience we have with this new form of cyber-coercion, though, the precautious conclusion is that the sky is the limit in terms of the collateral damage: "I increasingly would have automatic thoughts as soon as I saw a woman. I would see a girl and immediately think 'slut'. If they said or did anything, it would really irritate me and if I saw them fall over or have something bad happen to them, I would laugh. I would also have the urge to hit them, call them a stupid bitch or a dumb cunt. Any time a woman complained about something I wouldn't care, I would just be like 'well you should have done x differently'." In industry jargon, the unanticipated negative biproducts of economic activity are termed "externalities" – in the case of sissy hypno, financial ruin, self-loathing and misogyny, among others. Ben Bartee, is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Contact him via email (benbartee@protonmail.com), his website Armageddon Prose, or LinkedIn. Support his independent journalism at Patreon or via Paypal.

A common statement I hear from those critical of medicalizing children’s bodies to conform to some elusive gender identity, creating life-long medical patients, is that they don’t care what adults choose to do with their bodies. The exception is for children. We better start caring. To choose to appropriate the body parts of the opposite sex is sexual objectification. It exploits human wholeness, rooted in sex, and renders it into pieces to be reassembled into not only a costume but a commodity for use by another. For as bad as other avenues of sexual objectification and exploitation are - and they are terrible - we at least understand they’re not positive, let alone a human right. Even prostitution, which has been euphemistically rebranded to “sex work” by some, is at least not being sold to us, via corporations, as a positive lifestyle expression. Goldman Sachs, so far, has no coming out ceremonies at their banks for prostitutes and workshops for allies of prostitutes, as they do for men who appropriate women’s body parts. We do not yet have a “prostitute’s day of visibility,” nor do we have feminists, even those supporting prostitution as a working model, calling for a celebration of prostitutes’ visibility. This terrible blind spot of many feminists protecting men who appropriate the sexed body parts of women is a facet of our conditioning to femininity: to defer to men, to emotionally defend and take care of them at a cost to ourselves, especially if they present themselves as vulnerable. One trans widow, describing her relationship with her autogynephilic husband for an article about her marriage and its disruption, stated, "For his part, Tom's perspective was that if I loved him, I would accept that a transsexual has to do what a transsexual has to do – and sacrifice my own identity accordingly." This conditioning to demure to men and to emotionally protect them, at a cost to our well-being, is how the Boston Strangler got into so many women’s apartments in a metropolitan city, where women know well the dangers of inviting strange men into their homes. It’s how Ted Bundy, wooed his victims into isolation and to their ultimate deaths. Bundy, often walked with his arm in a cast, at night, on college campuses while fumbling with books or a kayak near his car to invite lone women’s help, and help they did. The Boston Strangler and Ted Bundy were not just killers; they didn’t just sexually objectify women; they were “nice” men. The Boston strangler was reportedly charming. Ted Bundy had women writing to him in prison after he was convicted. Ann Rule wrote a book about their friendship and camaraderie working together at a suicide hotline. He was described by her (and others) as clever and seemed to care about the people he saved via the hotline genuinely. Serial killers are often family men with outstanding community relations. Ed Gein, was the inspiration for many films, including "Psycho", "Silence of the Lambs", and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" due to his decision that the only way to become a woman was to turn her into this season's latest rage in bodysuits, as reported by Zooey Norman in TheThings. Norman writes, “anyone who knew Gein, skinning aside, described him as the kindest person they knew. Everyone was genuinely shocked when they found out exactly what his wardrobe and furniture were made out of.” As an activist fighting the gender industry, I am often asked, “but do you know any "trans" people?” The point is not that individual men with the fetish of appropriating female body parts are killers (though obviously, some are), but that women (and men) accept this particular brand of sexual objectification of our bodies, by others, at our peril. We must stop normalizing this fetish in public and the commodification of body parts that it is creating. Donovan Cleckley, in a recent and excellent piece of reporting on trans widows, describes the experiences of @transwidows. Discussing the sexual relationships with males who exhibit autogynephilia, she calls the psycho-sexual gas-lighting these men play out with their wives “topping from the bottom.” “The man with autogynephilia, more often than not, has a fantasy of being submissive and, to indulge in this fantasy, has to rope in the only person available- his wife- who is usually varying degrees of unwilling. He then sets all of the parameters of the encounter and acts out submission, persuading and coercing his wife to take the supposedly dominant role,” explains @transwidows. I love the expression “topping from the bottom” because it speaks very clearly to how the gender industry functions in society and how women (but not just women) are being roped into starring in an autogynephilic fantasy writ large and being used by the capitalist marketplace which is deconstructing our sexed bodies, literally dismembering us. The gender agenda presents itself as vulnerable, playing at submissive while seeking predominantly female attention and fully aware of its political dominance and ability to create subservience. Unfortunately, Gloria Steinem is not the only feminist or person falling for it. In a recent article in Gay and Lesbian News, James Dreyfus, calls out the tyrannical activism of those supporting the gender industry. He runs into trouble only when he starts to explain why LGBs are separating from the T. He is so cordial and demure when he says that LGBs simply have their own needs. He records a litany of abuses by gender activists and then states they are separating from T because of different needs. It’s like listening to a woman who has had the shit kicked out of her by an abusive husband suggest to their husband that they should separate due to their differing needs. No. How about you run far and fast in the other direction because he is abusive? Someone who would appropriate your body parts, or support those that do for their own needs, be they a sexual fetish, expression, a feeling, intense dysphoria, or any other sensation, is someone with no boundaries. How do we expect to have positive relationships when we cannot draw such boundaries for ourselves and then go so far as to coddle the people who don’t see boundaries because we haven’t drawn them? The erasure Dreyfus is standing up for, of “real transphobia,” is a myth. Gender activists, cultivated by rich corporatists, are “topping him from the bottom.” He will offer to people who would appropriate his sexed body, his protection, and respect and find out who’s really in charge - and I don’t mean women pretending to be men, I mean the global market. To submit to being the illusory “top” in the sexual role play of autogynephilia amped-up and driven by the capitalist marketplace is to be gaslit into believing capitalism doesn’t have the upper hand. Autogynephilia is the perfect manifestation of a market that has colonized and used all of the natural world for itself. That market is now coming for human sex - precisely, as usual, women’s sexual reproductive capacities. It is playing dress-up while it does so, being very charming and kind, very inclusive, while it lays in wait to make us into a lovely coverlet for the sofa. 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 Mr Menno image by Stella Perrett The medical industrial complex (MIC) is currently capitalising on a growing niche within the ‘gender identity’ market: detransitioners. Detransitioners are people who’ve had their sexed bodies medically and surgically altered to fit their mental image of themselves as the opposite sex or neither sex, and then regret the process. Detransitioners attempt to reclaim their sexed bodies through reverse surgeries and by stopping cross sex hormones. This process isn’t always successful. The process can be as intense on the body as the initial procedures. If they have gone too far in altering their bodies, detransitioners may never be able to get close to the body they once had. One man is seeking to change all that. Making a name for himself as a ‘reversal surgeon’ for men with transition regret, Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic, a Serbian medical doctor, speaking in a Dutch documentary in 2018, reported having operated on 14 men, with 60 more on his referral list. These surgeries cost an arm and a leg – literally: “We have to find enough flesh,” reported Djordjevic, “and enough of the right flesh, to create a new phallus, a scrotum and testicles. We use a piece of the arm, the leg or the back to create a new penis. After that we use some different tissue, for example oral mucosa or bladder mucosa or maybe some other part of the skin to create a very long urethra channel, and we use penile implants to enable an erection.” Multiple procedures are needed, and the process may take a year and a half. One newspaper quotes the price of this surgery at some €18,000, while another surgeon, Dr. Harold Reed, estimates it can cost from $75,000 - $100,000. Lee, a 32 year old detransitioner, convinced she was supposed to be male, who started taking testosterone and had a double mastectomy at 24, followed by a full hysterectomy at 26 (removal of the cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries), understands the expense all too well. At 30 she detransitioned and her insurance would not cover her breast reconstruction surgery. The surgery to reduce the size of her enlarged clitoris felt like too much of a risk. Garrett (22) another detransitioner moved in the opposite direction: at 21 he started taking oestrogen, followed by the removal of his testicles after just 3 months. A year later he got breast implants but within six months he decided to detransition, had them removed and stopped taking cross-sex hormones. He recently had testicular implants which he says makes him feel more like his “old self.” He will need a separate surgery to have the breast tissue removed that he grew while on oestrogen. With their gonads removed and no longer able to produce sex hormones naturally, both Lee and Garrett would have been permanently involved with the MIC whether they detransitioned or not – they’ve now simply changed which synthetic hormones they take. Unfortunately, even if the price is right, there are procedures that can’t be reversed - not yet, anyway. Dr. Djordjevic acknowledges that it’s currently not possible to create “functioning male genitals for a fulfilling sex life.” He sees this as a challenge: “We’re researching the possibilities for penile transplant surgery.” In recent years a number of penis transplants have successfully been performed: the world’s first in 2014, followed by a handful of increasingly complex operations. Increasing demand for penises means supply efforts must be met. A number of men already include their penises and scrotums as part of organ donation, but the biggest procurement issue is the not knowing when a donor penis will become available. It would make things a lot easier if the living were as happy (or desperate) to donate reproductive organs. This is where Dr. Djordjevic has his Martin Luther King moment: “There are 1.5 million people registered as transgender in Western Europe. About half of them are male-to-female, and the other half female-to-male. That’s 700,000 males [sic], whose penises will be removed and put in the garbage. My biggest vision is to collect all organs; uterus, ovaries, testicles, and penises. Collect these, create a bank in Europe and use some of these organs for better results and better functioning.” This ‘European Central Bank of Reproductive Body Parts’ would be a medical milestone in the commodification of the human body where we would not only be the consumers but also the consumables. There are no stats available on the market value of detransition surgeries and treatments. We don’t have accurate data on the actual number of detransitioners, let alone an idea of how many would be willing to undergo reversal surgeries. In the absence of cold hard facts what we do know is that an increasing number of detransitioners are sharing their stories on social media, detrans support groups are popping up around the world, and in online groups like the Reddit detrans group which has grown to 19K members. One gender clinic in Sweden, the Lundström clinic, has seen enough patients come back with regret to start offering trauma care. As safeguards for destroying one’s sex organs are steadily and systemically being eroded through concerted lobbying efforts around the world, sex surgeries on healthy sex organs will rise, along with the number of detransitioners. Profits from surgeries on people’s healthy sex organs are already projected to rise into the billions by 2026. In the smorgasboard of surgery and medicalisation it’s easy for the actual human to get lost. Maybe that’s the point – deconstructing the human body to mere fleshy Lego blocks to be repurposed and rearranged while the gender identity marketing machine sells the dream of ‘becoming your authentic self™’. The most tragic examples of the person being quite literally lost are those where transitioning leads to such unbearable physical and / or psychological suffering that the individual sees no other option but to end their life. The MIC can help here, too. In Belgium, Nathan Verhelst (née Nancy) died by euthanasia aged 44 after a disastrous phalloplasty and a number of failed corrective surgeries. In the Netherlands, another country where euthanasia is legal, Patrick de Veen has been given the green light for assisted suicide. After a vaginoplasty and years of ‘living as a woman’, he realised he was in fact a gay man – but now without a penis. He detransitioned, but the experience left him with PTSD, severe depression, and constant pelvic pain. If he goes ahead with euthanasia he will be given a lethal injection of drugs. It seems that even in the most desperate of cases, the MIC still wins while the detransitoner pays – with their life. MrMenno is a writer, satirist and multi-media producer who critiques gender and identity from a gay man's point of view. He is the first guest blogger at The 11th Hour Blog. You can support his work at www.patreon.com/mrmenno

Amazon is toying with our first amendment right to free speech. Following on the heels of Amazon shadow banning Abigail Shrier’s book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” about the transgender social contagion affecting young women, Ryan Anderson’s book, “When Harry Became Sally “was outright banned by the tech giant. The book, which had previously been on Amazon’s bestseller list, aimed to provide "thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment" and offered "a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity.” “The Transgender Industrial Complex,” reporting on the industry of gender, by Scott Howard, was banned by Amazon nearly as fast as it hit the platform in 2020, though it has reappeared. This week, Amazon temporarily took down the book “Desist, Detrans, & Detox: Getting Your Child Out of the Gender Cult,” by Maria Keffler. No warning, no email, just an initial de-platforming, followed by a cryptic apology and reinstatement. In February this year, Amazon reported that the company’s policies changed between 2018-2021, attempting to frame Anderson’s book as offensive for referring to LGBTQ+ identities as mental illness. Anderson refuted those charges. The banning itself is a blatant attack on free speech, speech that Amazon has described as hateful, though curiously, Hitler’s tome, “Mein Kampf,” didn’t make the banned-for-hate cut list. Amazon holds 80% of the book market, so a ban, a shadow ban, and a de-platforming with a re-platforming can cause damage to any profits a writer may secure through book sales, not to mention their reputations. The forced loss of income and damage to writers' reputations by de-platforming their books is egregious. But banning books goes far beyond egregious into territory we should be responding to. Beyond this tyranny and overt assault on our first amendment rights in America, lies a darker reality yet. Gender Identity has opened new markets for the medical-industrial complex. What happened between Ryan’s publication of “When Harry Became Sally,” its best-seller status, and the subsequent removal of the book, while other books on the topic of the gender industry were also being removed and shadow banned? Let’s examine. Here are some highlights of Amazon’s push into healthcare during 2019 and where they're headed. *Teaming up with JP Morgan Chase, and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon has set its sights on hospitals and outpatient clinics in the U.S., aiming to become the leading provider of medical supplies to them. *Amazon is among the tech giants making the biggest impact on healthcare and coupled with its vast number of users and sellers, it can be a fertile testing ground for future healthcare applications. * In March, Amazon made a $2 million investment in Boston-based Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to test artificial intelligence tools. * Amazon Web Services deepened its Next Gen Stats partnership with the NFL in December to advance player health. The partnership plans to use AWS artificial intelligence and machine learning to provide insights into player injuries and how equipment, game rules, and rehabilitation strategies can affect player health. Since 2018, Amazon has made several significant partnerships and investments in the healthcare industry, which will likely continue into the new decade. In 2018, Amazon purchased PillPack for 753 Million dollars to enter the online pharmacy market. Amazon formed Amazon Care, an online virtual medical clinic for employees. Later, Amazon made a second acquisition and snapped up a start-up called Health Navigator, which provides technology and services to digital health companies to be merged with Amazon Care. With the acquisition of PillPack and the recent release of HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant Alexa skills, analysts speculate that Amazon is preparing to disrupt the $934.8 billion global pharmaceutical industry, already allowing consumers to order and refill their prescriptions as quickly as they would buy clothing or toys off of Amazon Prime and creating a full-scale pharmacy business within the Amazon infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, as the new gender industry is poised for growth, Amazon is going all-in for its transgender employees (as well as their new pharmaceutical consumer base), creating a guidebook of benefits for their transgender employee, Aetna health plans. Amazon transgender employee Aetna health plans cover non-surgical medical treatment such as hormone “therapy” and mental health for minors with "gender dysphoria" (surgical interventions are considered when individuals reach age 18). Hormones and specialized surgical procedures for adults, such as double mastectomies, rib excision, nipple reconstruction, scrotoplasty, penectomy, vulvectomy, orchiectomy, vaginectomy, etc., are all covered. Amazon-Aetna also offers coverage for general surgeries related to changing one’s sex appearance: chin augmentation, laryngoplasty, liposuction, tracheal shave, facial bone reduction, rhinoplasty, facelift, etc., all for the “dysphoric employee.” Amazon, with its new health acquisitions, clearly has an investment in identity medicine, and if our constitutional right to free speech is the cost, so be it. This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

The media is selling disembodiment as expression, for-profit and they are including free shipping. In less than a decade, the “transgender” “human rights” “movement” (I am already running out of quotation marks), replete with their own NGOs, has morphed from "born in the wrong body" to “gender identity disorder,” to “gender dysphoria,” to “gender incongruence,” to “gender identity,” to “gender expression,” complete with lines of make-up, fashion and body scars. Should it be a surprise there is now a contagion of young women wanting to have their healthy breasts amputated? Is it possible they are absorbing the messages that promote body dysphoria as progressive, cool, and edgy by media conglomerates selling this exact message? The culture was primed for this contagion by the media, which we’re groomed to believe, in most western cultures, is a free and open source of information in democratic societies. Remember all those stories, seven years back, of poor children “born in the wrong body,” boys with a love of the color pink and hair ribbons meant to rip at our heartstrings? Stories of families with young children who like the stereotypical things of the opposite sex flooded the media, across western cultures, constantly with the same narrative: discovery of an unacceptable identity, initial anxiety within the child and the family, and then all of them eventually overcoming the disruption. The families realized it was another “normal” way to be human. Everyone lived happily ever after. Yea, right. The media coincidently forgot to mention all the medical risks and problems for the rest of the child's life. NO BIG DEAL. Seven years later, we have an epidemic of young women and many young boys as well, threatening their parents with suicide if their parents do not agree to allow their children to take wrong sex hormones and have surgeries on their sex organs on demand. At the same time, medical professionals affirm children’s disordered thinking. Advertising is nothing if not insidious which is what makes it so effective. On one front, we have Johnson & Johnson marketing these procedures as totally routine “cosmetic” surgeries, surgeons smiling into cameras at gender clinics, cheerleading the most macabre reengineering of healthy human sex organs (open that link at your own risk), reality TV shows and mainstream magazines celebrating the castration of young men. Men are walking fashion runways in pregnancy prostheses, and young women are being displayed in underwear ad campaigns; their surgery scars from the amputation of healthy breasts being promoted as empowerment. Meanwhile, journalists, academics, and those engaged in politics and policy are all being censored for attempting to critique this by the same media. Is this supposed to be an organic development across countries and media platforms simultaneously? Hollywood stars “parade their children” who like to wear the clothing associated with the opposite sex, as little accessories in their fashionable lives, for the media. Others are feeding Kool-Aid to young people from magazine spreads who want these surgeries too. While the media inundates us with these messages, taxpayers are forced to fund operations through new health insurance policies for surgeries on young people's bodies that are not sick or injured. All the while, gender ideology activists and their NGOs supporting the construct of “synthetic sex medical expressions” are depathologizing this monstrosity and attempting to sell the public the idea that sex exists on a spectrum, that human sexual dimorphism is a construct and that expressing how you feel about yourself by having your sex organs surgically rearranged is progressive. Access to wrong sex hormones is being offered to students on university campuses without medical oversight or recommendation. At the same time, LGBT organizations, who fund the media in exchange for the press supporting gender industry delusions, scream, "human rights!!” Media platforms are owned by massive corporate conglomerates which interface with the medical-industrial complex (MIC). People think they are reading Glamour, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Wired, and The New Yorker, when they are reading Conde’ Nast, a corporate conglomerate with a massive investment in the MIC and gender as a medical identity. Ditto for Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Bazar, Good Housekeeping, Oprah, Seventeen, Women’s Health, etc., which are part of the Hearst media conglomerate, with vast investments in the MIC and the gender industry. Ditto for those watching ABC, ESPN, and Touchstone Pictures (among hundreds of other media platforms) owned by Disney, yet another conglomerate with significant investments in the MIC, including the gender industry. Disney holds high prestige with the LGBT Human Rights Commission for their "diversity & inclusion" policies which are corporate-speak for homogeneity of thought, and have funded $100,000,000 to children's hospitals across the country, including Texas Children's Hospital and Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, both of which have gender clinics. Pity, the children, caught in this corporate profiteering matrix. Meredith Corporation owns People Magazine (which covered the celebration of a young man's castration party), Parents, In Style, Health, Shape, and until about two minutes ago, owned Time Magazine (Let’s not forget their famous cover of Laverne Cox). Meredith, like any other media conglomerate, has its health platforms and investments in the MIC. Time Magazine (of recent Eliot Page fame) was purchased by billionaire ($57 billion), Marc Benioff in 2018. But don’t expect things to get any better for an allowable critique of the gender medical industry at Benioff’s new platform purchase because you’ll be out of luck fast. Benioff is all on board for the violation of privacy, safety, and rights of women and girls and is jumping in where Disney left off, bestowing a whopping $100.000,000. to another California children’s hospital. And oh, look, they just happen to have a youth gender clinic too! There aren’t many media conglomerates feeding us information and it only fits within the allowable purview of their corporate interests. They are all on board the gender-as-medical-identity train, leading us to believe this uniformity of thought is organic acceptance by the populace which encourages group think acquiescence. In other words, people are being brainwashed into believing that disembodiment for profiteering is a human right and that most people agree with this - when most people don't know feck-all about what is happening because all they see are slick advertisements by the MIC-controlled media and messages from the LGBT NGO front which tell the media what to say. The mainstream media is being controlled and trained by LGBT NGOs fronting for the MIC and functioning as the arbiters of nothing less than reality itself. We have to get clear that this apparatus of the gender medical industry is being strategically driven by capital, technological developments, and the MIC through all our institutions, corporations, and governments. While we are all arguing about what identity means, as it is overlaid with sex-role stereotypes, the elites are running away with human sex. They are violating the boundary between male and female, opening markets to which our essential humanity becomes a-sky-is the-limit market to be mined. 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 2017, Jon Stryker, heir to Stryker Medical corporation, a corporation worth nearly 15 billion dollars, funded his LGBT NGO, Arcus Foundation, with 30 million dollars from his corporate stocks, consistent with his giving in previous years. Overall, he has personally funded his LGBT NGO half a billion dollars. With gay marriage and many successful supreme court rulings being secured for LGB individual’s rights, in many western cultures, the focus of modern LGBT NGOs, like Arcus Foundation, has shifted. The new LGB + "social justice movement" has centered on depathologizing body dissociation and creating profitable medical identities via a burgeoning new gender industry. The projected market growth for amputations of healthy sex organs & medically constructed faux sex organs is being reported at anywhere between 1.5 billion to 200 billion dollars, depending on who is doing the reporting, The human body is being commoditized into parts for sale: “Based on body parts, the Male to Female 'transition' surgeries are classified into genital, facial, and breast surgeries. The genital surgery segment is further categorized into vaginoplasty, orchiectomy, and phallectomy,” writes one blogger for Cosmetic Surgery Reviews. What is driving the booming market, according to Expert Market Research analysis, can be attributed to the rise in the health insurance policies for sex reassignment procedures and the growing technological advancements and rise in awareness about these surgeries which have contributed to a huge boost in the market. Global Market Insights, confirm that favorable government policies associated with "gender transition" surgeries are one of the major factors driving the industry demand. For instance, The Affordable Care Act is the government policy in the U.S. that provides insurance to the “transgender” and gender non-conforming population. The Affordable Care Act was initiated by Obama, who was helped into office by Penny Pritzker, a member of the billionaire Pritzker family, with their own investments in both the medical-industrial complex (MIC) and the gender market. Penny Pritzker’s cousin, Jennifer, is a man claiming womanhood for himself who has funded myriad gender programs in medical, military, and educational institutions across the globe. What Expert Market Research doesn’t tell us but is plainly obvious, is that everywhere we turn, “transgender” surgeries are being marketed as positive, progressive, and normal through Hollywood, its stars, the fashion industry, and the rest of the media, which interface heavily with the medical-industrial complex. . The gender industry is being promoted by the MIC to serve MIC profits. Arcus Foundation, again, is funded by Jon Stryker’s family stocks. Stryker Medical Corporation is an American multinational medical technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Stryker's products include implants used in joint replacement and trauma surgeries; surgical equipment and surgical navigation systems; endoscopic and communications systems; patient handling and emergency medical equipment; neurosurgical, neurovascular, and spinal devices; robotics, implants, as well as other medical device products used in a variety of medical specialties. Most of this equipment and these supplies are utilized in hospitals performing traumatic surgeries on young people’s sex organs. Are we to believe it is a coincidence that Stryker Medical Corporation and an LGBT NGO with a recent focus on transgenderism and medical identities are so integrally connected? We have all seen first-hand, through the opioid epidemic and the undue influence the Pharma Lobby has had over governments, just how far the medical-industrial complex reach is and the machinations they use for profiteering. In the United States, most of Stryker's products are marketed directly to doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities. Internationally, Stryker products are sold in over 100 countries through company-owned sales subsidiaries and branches and third-party dealers and distributors. Arcus Foundation has created and funded a vast international political infrastructure to drive gender identity ideology - or disembodiment - globally, funding trans organizations, LGBT organizations, religious, cultural, legal, educational, sports, police, media, medical and psychiatric organizations, contingent on those organizations adopting gender identity ideology. The foundation has funded studies of children as young as three years old, with this purported, elusive “gender identity” at odds with their sexed bodies, that will set them on a lifetime path of medicalization. There is no substantiating evidence that such a thing as gender identity exists. Yet, in all the countries promoting political bills which are erasing sex and replacing it with gender identity, Arcus Foundation’s footprint can be found in either direct funding to LGBT and "transgender" organizations pushing gender identity ideology into schools and institutions in those countries or through Stryker Medical which has 54 offices in 36 countries, across the world. Stryker employs 40,000 people worldwide, is one of America’s largest public companies, and brings in vast revenues for the 75 countries where they sell their supplies and conduct research and development. Of the top ten countries using Stryker Medical supplies, eight are currently hotbeds of trans activism and political pressure driving gender identity laws, including the UK, Ireland, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. America, home of Stryker Medical and its most extensive consumer base, along with Arcus Foundation, leads the pack. The next most extensive consumer base for Stryker Medical is the UK, where Arcus Foundation has another branch at Cambridge University. Singapore is home to yet another branch of Stryker Medical. In Singapore, the subject of gender identity is heating up with their Minister of Education accused of trying to interfere with students’ access to the use of wrong sex hormones, and where he is calling for calm. As reported by Manchester University, Singapore is one of Asia’s most highly developed and successful free-market economies, with a higher GDP than much of Europe. Multi-national corporations in Singapore include Bosch, Unilever, BMW, Walt Disney Company, Google, Facebook, and Hewlett-Packard (All major corporate supporters of gender identity). Singapore is the Asian headquarters for these companies. The economy depends highly on exports of electronics, computer products, and pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical companies with regional offices in Singapore include Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Merck & Co. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, whose global site is in Ireland, advocates for and funds the use of puberty blockers, along with TENI (Transgender Equality Network Ireland), even after the Irish College of GPs no longer claims puberty blockers and hormonal sex changes are reversible. Ireland, home to TENI, is a boiling cauldron of Trans rights activism. TENI is funded by Transgender Europe, which is heavily financed by Arcus Foundation (read: Stryker Medical). It is home to seven branches of Stryker Medical and 19 of the top 20 global pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies. Arcus Foundation is posing as a human rights movement, but it exists on millions of dollars generated by Stryker Medical Corporation. Jon Stryker has strategically driven gender identity (body dissociation) as a positive progression and ordinary human expression into our cultures, our institutions, our laws, and, more importantly, and dangerously, the global marketplace. Who else in the world, beyond the medical-industrial complex, could wield this much global power simultaneously? We cannot continue to avoid the elephant in the living room. Puberty blockers, wrong sex hormones, and invasive surgeries on young people’s sex organs are not a human rights movement but driven by the medical-industrial complex for profit. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand this. The evidence is right in front of us. The question is, will we face it in time to stop it? This research depends on the generosity of readers. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.

The medical ethic of “first do no harm” is being queered with an eye toward profiteering and the growth of the medical-industrial complex. With improvements in the plastics initially used in surgeries in the early 1900s, to reconstruct the atrocious damage to those injured in war, the use of these plastics has blossomed into a cosmetic industry of chosen body modifications worth nearly 17 billion dollars annually. Causing harm to the human body for image enhancement to align with one’s self-chosen ideal has become more and more popular. With advancements in technology, artificial intelligence, and an eye toward molding humans more closely with technology and AI, the medical ethic of “first do no harm,” is being shifted even more to accommodate these changes, until finally, we may see it disappear altogether as a solid principle of protection. Transsexualism, up until the past decade, was a medical disorder, needing strict psychiatric and physician oversight to weigh the cost of harm to the human body incurred to alleviate the psychological suffering of patients. In the past two decades, it has quickly morphed into a new realm of identity medicine, driven by elites heavily invested in the medical-industrial complex. In this new realm, the ethic of “first do no harm” is further stretched to help actualize individual identities as they relate to the sexed body, overlaid with cultural sex-role stereotypes. Transsexualism has been rebranded to transgenderism for marketing purposes and is being sold to young people as if it were a new fashion line. The harm incurred by the human body is seen, in this new realm of identity medicine, as subordinate to any psychic pain or emotional discomfort the individual suffers from, or just their desire for self-actualization. With these changes, greater and greater harms to the human body are being justified, medical ethics stretched beyond imagining, for an ideal body that reflects each person’s imagination. We are watching the queering of what medical ethics means, what harm means, and what the human body means. This is taking place on a global stage and within a corporate culture which is remaking their environments around this queering. The queering, or destruction of what is normal for human bodies can be seen at other fronts of the medical industry as it intersects with corporate culture. In a recent paper by Richard B. Gibson, in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, the marker for what constitutes a disability is also being questioned and queered. In addressing Individuals with body integrity identity disorder (BIID) who wish to alter their bodies to address a feeling of incongruity between their body image and their physical embodiment, often via the surgical amputation of healthy limbs, Gibson discusses a social model of disability that queers the harm experienced through these procedures. Gibson states, “this concept of harm is often based on a normative biomedical model of health and disability, a model which conflates amputation with impairment, and impairment with a disability.” His article seeks to challenge, or to queer this model, to queer harms and the medical ethics that would seek to avoid them, by reenvisioning the harm as only a matter of perception. In the social model of disability that Gibson is establishing as a premise, healthy limb amputation is only seen as an impairment because society is not set up to accommodate it, to see it as a spectrum of human body difference. He believes that “provided sufficient measures are put in place to ensure that those with atypical bodily constructions are not disadvantaged, the chronic harms of elective amputation would cease to be.” We see the same situation at Goldman Sachs and other corporations now, that are accommodating transsexualism, tuning the environment to accommodate the disorder by normalizing it as a sexual identity on a spectrum of sexual identities. It is to be seen as just another way to be human, not as a disorder. If you disagree openly, it is grounds for dismissal, censorship, and public vilification. It is no longer considered harmful to stop young people’s puberty, to make cross-sex hormones readily available to them, and to perform drastic, life-long sex organ amputations as long as the society and corporate culture is rearranged to accommodate these bodily constructions. This queering of medical ethics, to make invisible real bodily harm, is dismantling safeguards and boundaries of all kinds. The queering of sex, as if our bodies were parts, the changing of language that presents us as “menstruators,” as “women with penises,” as “gestators,” leaves our wholly sexed human bodies open to deconstruction for the profits of the medical-industrial complex which are sold back to us as liberation. But where does this purported freedom end, when elites driving this medical model of body dissociation are the same ones financially profiting from it? If you like what you are reading at the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription to support this research. Thank you. https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/jbportraits