Notes on the Journey

Dangerous Lesbians Sitting in Chairs at Transgender Day of Visibility

safe_imageA complication, ‘crazy pain,’ as South Florida trans teen Jazz Jennings gets confirmation surgery


TLC’s “I Am Jazz” has been chronicling South Florida trans teen advocate Jazz Jennings’ life-changing journey of getting her gender confirmation surgery for the past year.

“Having my whole family with me throughout this entire journey has been so important,” the 18-year-old said in last week’s episode of the show which showed the first part of her surgery. The second part aired 9 p.m. Tuesday. “From the beginning they have just provided me with unconditional love and support and the fact that they’re here on this day just signifies that we’ve come so, so far since the beginning of this journey. This is really the final step, this is the final transition, and I’m so glad that I have them by my side.”

Read more here

Charlie Rae said:
There was a thread on twitter which detailed, scene for scene, the horrors of Jazz Jenning’s nationally aired recording of his pre and post-mutilation. The thread looks like it has been taken down but I happened to have copied some of the text to put in over at The TERF Exhibit.

Watching the videos were brutal. If you didn’t see, he came out in a lot of pain, continually wincing and groaning, he is having a hard time peeing, he has some kind of a blister, his stitches might come apart, and there were enough complications that he had to be taken immediately back to the hospital. They also aired a shot of the boy’s face as the doctors dilated his wound for the first time. My stomach is actually turning as I write this. This child abuse needs to end. Here is most of the text from the tread that was taken down:

“Context. This person has been suffering under this fake ideology since a child. Was put on drugs. And didnt have enough “meat” to make a “normal” sex change happen. So they did experimental surgery.

The surgeries are BRUTAL. Plastic surgeons do these but the reality is its mutilation. Its moving parts of the body to where they do not belong to create something that isnt real or functional. Complications are nightmarish and end in suicides often.

Dilation is the forcing open of the open wound that is created during the “creation” of a “vagina” with rods. You have to do it constantly multiple times a day. For years. This alone ruins lives and leads to suicide and regret

Here is a dilation chart and a chart on how “usable” a newly created vagina is over time and hygiene regimens. A year of unending pain , boredom and inactivity. Many suicides come from the first year due to this brutal regimen.

Medical complications are not just immediate. While there is chance of entire loss of the “new vagina” via necrosis. There are other things like the stream of urine being permanently disturbed. Meaning a mess all over yourself every time u go pee

While the producers chose silly upbeat music to cover this up. The reality is this scene is a realization of something that wont ever go back to normal. This person likely is never going to have a normal pee again.

And just 36 hours later disaster strikes. Because this is not a normal surgery. Complications are often NORMAL. You are cutting off skin and re-attaching it other places. In this case , loss of bloodflow would cause necrosis. Skin death

Do not hate these people. They are victims of an ideology that is spreading like wildfire. The best thing you can do is educate yourself about this and contact your representatives. These surgeries are a crime against humanity.”

Our Friends On The Left

“Our friends on the left are afraid to talk about the fad of the sterilization of minor children for sex stereotype nonconformity, as often determined by children’s preferences in 21st Century toys, clothes, and hairstyles. That’s because our friends on the left are worried that they’ll get fired or shunned by their unthinkingly neo-eugenicist neighbors, whose ideological forbears employed castration, hysterectomy, clitoridectomy, and primitive brain surgeries, that all attempted to cut the sex drives out of the wayward and deviant. The conservative women who stand with us share in our genuine horror at the idea that the modern “cure” for strongly deviating from sex-stereotyped behavior as a child should be the chemical sterilization or surgical removal of one’s genitals before adulthood.

Indeed, most reasonable people likely agree that castration, chemical or surgical, is a disproportionately harsh consequence for being a little boy who likes to play with dolls and costumes that Disney and Mattel decided to market only to girls. Similarly, mastectomies and hysterectomies seem like an extreme penalty for being a girl who likes dinosaurs, superhero stories, Legos, and clothes that are suitable for an active lifestyle.

We’re baffled that anyone thinks cosmetic genital alteration is a good option to offer young people. But here we are, in a country where such surgeries are prescribed as a treatment for unhappiness or eccentricity to people too young to drive, vote, or be allowed to buy alcohol. Our friends on the left consider it dehumanizing to children to take away their innocence by holding them to adult levels of responsibility when it comes to school conduct or legal infractions, but not dehumanizing to let them choose permanent sterility. How does that make sense?”

—Women’s Liberation Front



I recently read a statement made by a male transactivist that lesbians should have to ‘prove’ that they are lesbians. He further posited that there is no way to ‘prove’ it. So they must just be ‘transphobic’ and must be ‘obsessed with genitals”. The irony is that he is a straight male just spouting what straight males have harassed lesbians with forever. That women should be raped. All women. And that they just need dick and they’ll be somehow ‘fixed’.

Gays and lesbians are exclusive because they have a same-sex orientation. Stating that they have to accept the sexual advances of the opposite sex stems from rape culture and is homophobic. But that’s what transactivists are saying. They are suggesting that lesbians are focused on genitals and that that is ‘transphobic’. While there really isn’t such a phobia as ‘trans’, it IS homophobic to even imply that a homosexual cannot have a preference for a same sex partner.

Keep in mind that the language of transphobia is stemming from oppressors—overwhelmingly they are the straight, white, entitled male autogynephiles who are pushing for the rape and torture and erasure of lesbians.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. WE don’t have the privilege to identify in and out of our orientation.

Gay and lesbian terms indicate ‘same sex’ orientation and this doesn’t have to be ‘proven’ as some transactivists are now suggesting—any more than a heterosexual has to ‘prove’ their sexual orientation. We don’t have to be ‘inclusive’—because same sex, by definition, IS exclusive of the opposite sex.

Lesbian or butch is not a gender identity that one puts on and off on a whim. Homosexuality is not an ‘identity’. People keep conflating gender identity with sexual orientation. Gender dysphoria is a subjective feeling in one’s head. Sexual orientation is not.

It enrages me in this blatantly homophobic culture that so many liberal and middle-of-the-road ‘progressives’ actually think to harass and bully and abuse lesbians who have extremely low status in the grand pecking order, by virtue of being women who love women in the first place. And the abuse is coming from straight AGP males. How is this not obvious?

I mean, what sane woman would ‘choose’ to be bullied, abused, bashed, lose jobs and promotions, be raped and publicly scorned for loving a woman? What woman would choose to be unable to hold her lover’s hand in public, to have to refrain from sharing stories of romance at work and to be unable to disclose aspects of her life for fear of retribution? Homosexuality is an orientation I did not choose and one I cannot identify out of when it suits my narrative.

No, I don’t have to fucking ‘prove’ that I am a butch lesbian to any man. I owe no explanation for who I am, who I love and how I live. Transactivists, genderists, queer theorists, pomo adherents and identity politics fuckers be damned.


Note: Morgaine Oger is NOT a woman. Ms. Shepherd is under orders from the Canadian sector of the Andocracy not to misgender this man and so she has to refer to him as SHE. But I still live where I can tell the truth about sex and gender.

The North Pole Is On Fire


Massive fires are burning out of control in the Arctic Circle. Global Warming is accelerating exponentially. Human civilization is about to end. We will very likely all be dead by 2026 when the planet will no longer be able to support life as the atmosphere becomes Venus-like and plants are unable to sprout.

Chemical corporations and their close cousins, Big Pharma and Big Medical, have dreamed up a solution that they believe will reduce population while it keeps us all distracted from the fact that we are in the process of committing mass murder/suicide of all life on Earth.


I live in Iowa City. This spring the floods were so intense that farmers were unable to plant crops. Iowa City is home to Gender Enforcement Clinics, one for adults and one especially for children.

This upset me for awhile because I couldn’t understand why doctors would want to de-sex children. I did get caught up in trying to warn people about it. I wrote to various agencies – that had originally been developed to help women cope with male violence and male privilege – to ask them why they now believe that males and females are completely interchangeable and why it is that doctors are the only ones with the authority to determine what constitutes appropriate sex role stereotypes which are then enforced with cross sex steroids.

I was concerned that women were losing our right to have bodily privacy and that men would be invading our private spaces and taking away the Title IX protections we fought for by claiming that feeling like a woman literally makes you a woman, even if you have a penis. Of course they always answered me in terms that showed they believe that I am a bigoted imbecile. How ridiculous of me to get in the way of the mass sterilization project!

I follow climate data, which takes some diligence, since the United States government is officially closing it’s Arctic monitoring stations and sending all it’s climatologists packing. Yesterday I saw the headline The North Pole Is On Fire and it hit me, like a proverbial hot kiss at the end of a wet fist: TRANSGENDERISM IS DEPOPULATION. Our Corporate Chemical Fathers found a way to get people to flock to “gender clinics” to have themselves chemically sterilized under the ruse of “changing sex.” Because there is no actual sex change taking place. No chromosomes are being altered. Every cell in a person’s body remains their natal sex, no matter what kind of chemically-induced deformities develop that make a person APPEAR to be the opposite sex.


What is taking place at a gender clinic is that men and women, boys and girls, who are uncomfortable with our sex slavery gender role system and who have been led to believe will escape their pain by poisoning and mutilating themselves, are being DE-SEXED. Their ability to develop sexual gametes inside their testes and ovaries is being destroyed by synthetic corporate steroids. Planned Parenthood, which now has banned the use of the word WOMAN when referring to women’s healthcare issues,  is selling cross sex steroids to children because cross sex steroids are BIRTH CONTROL. Every medically transgendered person you see has been sterilized, neutered, rendered unable to bear children. (Except of course for the AGP perverts who get sexual thrills from dressing women’s clothes and going out in public to get a rush from the shock and disgust they see in people’s faces. It’s a sex addiction and they keep their intact penises while gaslighting everyone.)

People are flocking to these clinics to have themselves chemically neutered and paying to have themselves and THEIR CHILDREN sterilized. And any person, but especially any woman, who questions the wisdom of this sadomasochistic crap is subjected to severe sanctions.  

Every time I see a rainbow flag or the baby shower colors of the “tranz” flag, all I can see now are the mastectomy scars on a 12 year old girl.


And now I understand why this has happened and why it will continue and I am no longer going to actively oppose this lemming-like self-destruction. Transgenderism is a big distraction from the fact that we are now in the process of going extinct from carbon pollution. And it really is better if all the “tranz’ victims of the corporate medical system DON’T reproduce. More for me and my own grandkids as we all starve as the entire system collapses.







Transgender man who gave birth loses high court privacy ruling

Guardian journalist loses right to anonymity in legal action seeking to be registered as father

Fred McConnell
 When Fred McConnell asked to be registered as the father of the child, the registrar said he could only be registered as the mother. Photograph: Eleni Stefanou

The first transgender man to give birth and seek to be called the child’s father has lost a high court case to protect his privacy despite warning that he and his child could be victimised and bullied as a result.

Fred McConnell, 32, a Guardian multimedia journalist who transitioned from female to male before giving birth in 2018, can now be named as the first person to give birth who wants to be registered as the child’s father.

McConnell had been living as a male for several years, including taking testosterone from the age of 25 and undergoing chest reshaping surgery in Florida, before he sought to get pregnant, which required him to stop taking testosterone.

Prior to attending a fertility clinic he applied for a gender recognition certificate, which was granted before he gave birth. This meant he was legally male when his child was born. But when he went to register the birth and insisted he should be registered as the father, the registrar said he could only be registered as the child’s mother.

McConnell sought a judicial review in the family division of the high court of that decision and during the case, which has yet to conclude, his identity and that of his child were protected by an anonymity order.

However, media organisations requested that order was lifted, arguing that McConnell had been cooperating with a documentary about the conception, pregnancy and birth of his child, using his real name, and that he had been interviewed about his experiences in the Guardian.

The judgment on whether he should be allowed to be called the child’s father is expected later this week.

Lawyers for the Telegraph Media Group, Associated Newspapers, News Group Newspapers and Reach PLC said McConnell had “put himself at the forefront of the debate on transgender rights” and it was legitimate for them to want to name him as claiming the right to be called the child’s father.

They said there was public interest in the question of how the law should recognise transgender parenthood and that it was artificial for the public not to make the link between the man in the documentary exploring the reality of giving birth and the man in court challenging the law.

McConnell’s lawyers had argued that linking his name to the case was unfair given the amount of adverse comment including “insensitive and sarcastic” reporting in Mail Online’s coverage of the anonymised hearings. They warned that he would be the subject of online trolling, doorstepping by the media and other distressing behaviour.

Lawyers representing his child also argued that if the father’s name was known the potential for the child to “be the target of playground bullies was all too plain” and that reporting about the case would not benefit from naming McConnell, while the consequences for the child would be “extreme”.

Responding to the ruling, McConnell said: “Protecting my child has always been and will always be my number one concern. This was the purpose of the anonymity order. Now that my anonymity has been lifted, I embrace the opportunity to draw focus on to the need for equality in this area of the law. All children should be able to have their legal parents correctly and accurately recorded on their birth certificates.”

His legal team said the UK’s system of birth registration does not treat families equally and that unless it is changed McConnell is being forced to register as “mother” on his child’s birth certificate. They said this was the case for all transgender fathers, whether or not they carry their babies, and for transgender women, who are forced to register as “father” in all circumstances.

His lawyer, Karen Holden, said: “Having an accurate birth certificate is vital as it stays with someone for their entire life and forms part of their identity. We took on this case to support changing a part of UK law that denies equality, creates inaccurate documentation and fails to serve multiple groups with the LGBTQ+ community”.

When McConnell was born, his registered gender was female. He realised he was trans in 2010, aged 23, and lived as a male, starting testosterone treatment in April 2013. In 2016, he sought advice from a fertility clinic about getting pregnant and his hormone treatment was suspended, his menstrual cycle restarted and he became pregnant in 2017 through artificial insemination using sperm from a donor.

His case demanding to be registered as the child’s father was heard at the high court in February, but the court reconvened in May after it emerged that McConnell was co-operating with the documentary Seahorse, about the conception, pregnancy and birth, which had been shown at film festivals and is set to be broadcast later this year by the BBC. Throughout he is openly named, but there was no reference to his claim to be registered as the child’s father.


The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism



“What we live through, in any age, is the effect on us of mass emotions and of social conditions from which it is almost impossible to detach ourselves. Often the mass emotions are those which seem the noblest, best and most beautiful. And yet, inside a year, five years, a decade, five decades, people will be asking, ‘How could they have believed that?’ because events will have taken place that will have banished the said mass emotions to the dustbin of history.”

–Doris Lessing, Prisons We Choose to Live Inside (1987)

The epidemic of supposed gender dysphoria among children and adolescents—“transgenderism”—has often been described as a cult. The designation is in some ways apt. Though lacking a charismatic leader usually found in such movements, other expert descriptions of cults certainly apply: “designed to destabilize an individual’s sense of self by undermining his or her basic consciousness, reality awareness, beliefs and worldview, [and] emotional control.” Cults also lead the target to believe that “anxiety, uncertainty, and self-doubt can be reduced by adopting the concepts put forth by the group.” The promise is a “new identity” that will solve all problems, even as it separates one from family and previous life.

This is especially true in cases of so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, in which previously normal teenagers (usually girls) suddenly announce their desire to transition to the opposite sex. It is readily apparent how a teenager struggling with severe or even common adolescent angst could be lured into such a group.

Perhaps transgenderism is better described as a form of “social contagion.” This term refers to “the spread of ideas, feelings and, some think, neuroses through a community or group by suggestion, gossip, imitation, etc.” The explosion of cases of gender dysphoria, previously an exceedingly rare condition, over the last few years has coincided with a meteoric increase in sympathetic attention to the topic in regular and social media—thus suggesting social contagion. Parents whose children “come out” as transgender when their friends do certainly agree with this explanation.

Individuals who have been ensnared in but escaped from the transgender movement describe it as an ideology, with elements of both the political and the religious. The devotion to the ideology is so deep that, as one psychiatrist describes the mindset, “[a]nyone who hesitates in supporting transition and [sex-reassignment surgery] is a dinosaur committed to an outgrown, inherently discriminatory understanding of trans persons and needs to be defeated in court or in the public arena.”

And yet these descriptions—cult, social contagion, ideology—fail to capture the uniqueness and enormity of what is happening with the transgender movement. Past and current cults have seduced their victims into losing all sense of reality and embracing bizarre and dangerous beliefs; social contagions and mass crazes have affected large groups of seemingly intelligent individuals; ideologies have taken hold that have altered societies and cost lives. But now we are facing something different.

Previous cultish or similar social phenomena have generally been limited to some degree by time, space, or eventual return of the senses. But Western civilization is now gripped by a cultural cyclone that is blowing through such limitations with totalitarian force. Transgenderism has shaken the foundations of all we know to be true. Scientific knowledge is rejected and medical practice co-opted in service of a new “reality”—that “gender” is independent of sex, that males and females of any age, even young children, are entitled to their own transgender self-identification based only on their feelings, and that literally every individual and every segment of society must bow to their chosen identity at risk of losing reputation, livelihood, and even freedom itself.

Remarkably, this revolution is happening without any credible scientific evidence to support it. The concept of changing one’s biological sex is, of course, nonsense, as sex is determined by unalterable chromosomes. An individual can change his hormone levels and undergo surgery to better imitate the opposite sex, but a male on the day of his conception will remain a male on the day of his death. And as discussed below, the idea that there is a real personal trait called “gender” that challenges or invalidates the identity significance of biological sex is equally fallacious. But the absence of genuine evidence is simply ignored, and faux “evidence” is created to validate the mania.

So far. But there are signs of cracks in the grand edifice of transgenderism. As Dr. Malcolm warned in Jurassic Park, “Life finds a way.” So does reality. At some point it will reassert itself, and we will ask how this ever could have happened.

The Science of Sex and Gender Identity

Before exploring the revolution, it is necessary to outline briefly the science in the area of sex and gender identity. According to guidelines of the National Institutes of Health (which itself is currently funding ethically dubious studies related to the treatment of gender-dysphoric patients), grant applicants for health studies must consider sex as a biological variable “defined by characteristics encoded in DNA, such as reproductive organs and other physiological and functional characteristics.” Human sex “is a binary, biologically determined, and immutable trait from conception forward.”

Although certain rare congenital disorders of sexual development (“intersex” disorders) can result in ambiguity about biological sex, there is no “spectrum” of sex along which human beings can be found. Biological sex is binary. According to University of California–Santa Barbara evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright, “The claim that classifying people’s sex upon anatomy and genetics ‘has no basis in science’ has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences.”

By contrast, “gender identity” is a psychological phenomenon, not an immutable characteristic, and not found anywhere in the body, brain, or DNA. There is no medical test that can detect it. Because twin studies show the infrequency of both genetically identical twins’ suffering gender dysphoria, the condition clearly is not genetic. Nor is there any evidence to support the common claim that a patient has a “girl’s brain in a boy’s body,” or vice versa, as repeated in media sensations such as I Am Jazz. To the contrary, every cell of a male’s brain has a Y chromosome and every cell of a female’s brain has two X chromosomes, which is true regardless of whether the individual “feels like” the opposite sex. Any “evidence” of an innate gender identity is utterly fictitious; to the contrary, there is much unrefuted evidence that various psychological and environmental factors are determinative.

Not only can the feeling change, research shows that it does so in a great majority of cases (at least for child patients). For example, children with gender dysphoria who are allowed to experience natural puberty will come to accept their sex by adulthood in 61 to 98 percent of cases. By contrast, children who are subjected to transitioning treatments such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (discussed below) almost always go on to live as transgender adults. Data on the persistence rate of adult patients is unreliable, primarily because so many patients are lost to follow up. But many of those patients are increasingly seeking medical help to reverse the procedures.

There is no evidence that so-called gender-affirming treatment (GAT) has any positive effect on the long-term psychological well-being of individuals who suffer gender dysphoria. Such people do, in fact, have high rates of suicide before treatment (with the rate of suicide attempts nine times the rate of the general population). But a study from Sweden, a highly “affirming” country for citizens who consider themselves transgender, shows that undergoing GAT does not reduce the suicide rate for these patients. In fact, their rate of completed suicide was found to be 19 times the rate for the general population.

The History of “Gender Identity”

In light of the dearth of credible scientific support, where did the concepts of gender identity and transgenderism come from? Origins rest in a group of “sexologists” of the 1950s, prominent among them German-born endocrinologist Dr. Harry Benjamin and PhD psychologist Dr. John Money.

Until that time, the psychoanalytic professions considered the desire to be a member of the opposite sex as a (rare) disorder to be treated with psychotherapy. Benjamin, however, theorized that this desire indicated “a unique illness distinct from transvestism and homosexuality . . . and not amenable to psychotherapy.” He called this condition “transsexualism” and urged its treatment with “sex reassignment” surgery (a longstanding interest of his, dating back to his early-career fascination with efforts to change surgically the sex of guinea pigs). Perhaps related to his own unsatisfactory personal experience with psychotherapy, “Benjamin forever after deplored psychoanalysis as unscientific.” He thus ignored (according to his own case-history write-ups) blatant signs of psychopathology in the patients whom he treated medically for confusion about their sex.

Like Benjamin, Dr. Money of Johns Hopkins University designated transsexualism a condition to be treated medically rather than psychologically. Money changed the terminology used, co-opting the term “gender” from the realm of grammar (i.e., the classification of nouns by which they are designated masculine, feminine, or neuter, in certain languages), to now mean “the social performance indicative of an internal sexed identity.” In other words, Money decreed that an individual could have a “gender” that differed from his or her biological sex. “Transsexual” thus became “transgender.”

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) describes the linguistic innovation as follows:

From a purely scientific standpoint, human beings possess a biologically determined sex and innate sex differences. No sexologist could actually change a person’s genes through hormones and surgery. Sex change is objectively impossible. [Sexologists’] solution was to hijack the word gender and infuse it with a new meaning that applied to persons.

There is not and never has been any scientific basis for Money’s dichotomy between gender and sex, interpreted as the idea that a person can be born into the “wrong” body. (As pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Quentin Van Meter puts it, “There is zero point zero zero” science behind the concept.) Yet Money’s social–political construct now dominates medicine, psychiatry, academia, and the culture at large.

Money’s enthusiasm for administering irreversible medical treatments to transgender patients led Johns Hopkins to establish one of the earliest programs for that purpose, enlisting psychiatrists, psychologists, endocrinologists, and surgeons. Under their ministrations, patients underwent hormone treatments and surgery to amputate healthy organs and create faux new ones. Despite ethical objections from psychoanalysts and many surgeons (“it is one thing to remove diseased tissue and quite another to amputate healthy organs because emotionally disturbed patients request it”), Johns Hopkins forged ahead with the experimental practice.

Not until 1979 was Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry Paul McHugh―a physician who recognizes the psychological basis of gender dysphoria and who characterizes the possibility of sex change as “starkly, nakedly false”―able to shut down the program. But McHugh is no longer the chief of psychiatry, and the zeitgeist barrels ahead; so “in solidarity with the LGBT community” (note the political language), the program has recently been revived.

Other surgeons and hospitals lacked the scruples of Dr. McHugh. By the early 1970s, so-called sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) was becoming routine, leading the director of the gender-identity clinic at UCLA to declare that “the critical question is no longer whether sex reassignment for adults should be performed, but rather for whom?” Medical institutions have scrambled to add to the proliferation of gender clinics in response to, as admitted by a Dallas endocrinologist, “patient demand” rather than medical necessity.

With respect to what used to be classified as “gender identity disorder” (GID), medical associations have bent to the prevailing political winds. In 2013 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) changed the DSM-5 to replace GID with “gender dysphoria,” a term that now focuses not on the psychological basis for a patient’s rejection of his sex but rather on the distress produced by that rejection. If there is no distress, reasons the APA, there is no problem—it is perfectly normal, and certainly not a “disorder,” for a person to refuse to acknowledge the significance of his or her body. The “stigma” supposedly disappears.

(The APA has so far resisted the demands of some transgender activists to “de-pathologize” the condition completely. The absence of a recognized diagnosis means the absence of insurance coverage. So in the professional literature, transgenderism occupies an uneasy limbo between a psychiatric condition and a normal state of human identity. Someone has to pay for these expensive “re-assignment” procedures.)

The American Psychological Association’s guidelines acknowledge that not all clinicians believe in affirming the beliefs of gender-confused patients (at least when those patients are children), but they largely adopt the agenda of the transgender radicals. The organization states flatly that “gender is a nonbinary construct that allows for a range of gender identities, and that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at birth.” Having adopted this manifestly unscientific foundation, they go on to build their house of cards around a political rather than medical scaffold.

The political reclassification of gender dysphoria has gone global, with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) May 2019 decision to remove the condition from the list of mental disorders and refer to it as “gender incongruence.” WHO explained this move as necessary to remove discrimination against dysphoric individuals and declared that their right to GAT should be guaranteed.

Transgender Totalitarianism

Transgender orthodoxy (or ideology or theology) has thus seized Western society with absolutely no basis in fact. It is difficult to identify any comparable cultural phenomenon at any point in history. Nations have been engulfed by political movements such as National Socialism, based on fabricated science about racial identities, but those movements were different in kind from the transgender revolution. Even totalitarian political systems are built less on broad citizen acceptance than on the naked power of the armed State. By contrast, transgenderism is defeating reality without firing a shot.

At various points in history, the field of medicine has embraced evidence-free practices, such as lobotomies in the early twentieth century, as has the field of psychotherapy (phrenology, for example). But in none of these cases did the professions as a whole demand absolute acceptance of, and perhaps participation in, the groundless doctrines. Instead, the practices were confined to a narrower group of experimenters who had limited and only temporary success against the reality of science and common sense.

This is not the case with transgenderism. Supposedly sophisticated and highly trained medical professionals across the spectrum now not only ignore the absence of evidence, they deny even facts that have been obvious to every sane human being since creation.

Actual physicians now declare under oath that there is no physical basis for determining whether a human being is male or female. Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of a new Duke-affiliated gender clinic, testified in a North Carolina court, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity. . . . It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.” This would come as a surprise to the millions of doctors and billions of other normal people who have been classifying individuals that way since the beginning of time.

This politically based insistence that black is white has enshrined treatments that are extraordinarily damaging to patient health, both physical and mental. Pediatricians refer dysphoric children to complicit endocrinologists, who administer hormones with harmful and often irreversible consequences, who then refer the children to complicit surgeons, who wield the scalpel to remove healthy organs and create pathetic, non-functioning replicas of others. Psychiatrists or psychologists may be involved, but often only to rubber-stamp the patient’s supposed need for the radical treatments. Gender clinics spring up like mushrooms after a shower of acid rain.

Professional medical societies cower before these activists and create guidelines based not on science but on politics. Dissenting physicians are bullied into silence, leading the outside world to believe the lie that the medical profession as a whole supports the “affirmation” of gender identity as incongruent with biological sex. Medical ethicists muse that physicians’ participation in these schemes should be required as a condition of licensure.

Claiming a place among actual medical societies, and presenting itself as the gold standard in transgender treatment, is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). WPATH purports to be the voice of medical experts on this issue but operates more as a political-advocacy organization―no professional degree of any kind is required for membership. Despite the “all comers” approach to membership, WPATH’s guidelines for treatment are considered gospel in some parts of the medical profession.

A noteworthy aspect of WPATH’s 2011 revision of its Standards of Care was its encouragement of a new paradigm for obtaining informed consent from patients. As described by Dr. Stephen Levine, a psychiatrist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine:

[The new model] asserted that patients know best what they need to be happy, generally meaning that patient autonomy is the singular ethical consideration for informed consent. . . . This includes children and adolescents. The mental health professionals’ roles in recognition and treatment of the highly prevalent psychiatric co-morbidities and decisions about readiness were de-emphasized, particularly by the pronouncement that there is nothing pathological about any state of gender expression.

According to WPATH, then, doctors are to sublimate their ethical concerns about treatment of dysphoric patients to the current desires of those patients.

WPATH has spawned USPATH, which openly proclaimed the political mission of its 2017 conference: to “stand as a strong statement of support for continuing the rapid developments in trans health in America, and for the community of health providers, researchers, and advocates who are advancing that care.” At that conference, organizers bowed to threats of violence from transgender radicals and cancelled the appearance of Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist who takes the apparently loathsome position that patients will generally be happier if they can be reconciled with their biological sex. The only concern among these supposedly objective professionals about how to silence Zucker’s lone skeptical voice was how to do it without getting sued.

Transgender activists in the medical profession go a step further: They even support legislative prohibitions on what they call “conversion therapy.” This means psychiatrists and other psychotherapists are banned from even exploring with a patient the underlying psychological basis for the dysphoria. To paraphrase Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh, referring a gender-dysphoric patient for “affirming” therapy is similar to referring an anorexic patient for liposuction. But doctors in the new gender industry collude with the political gender radicals to ban the very psychiatric treatment that could spare a patient a lifetime of warring with his own body.

Just as history offers no parallel for the moral and professional rot in the medical field, it contains nothing comparable in the wider culture:

• The transgender revolution has captured all categories of government, with legislative, executive, and judicial branches rushing to impose policies preferred by the activists.

• It has captured the media, which dutifully present the radical ideology as the new normal and paint opponents with a hostile tinge. Social-media giants such as Twitter routinely censor any content deemed insensitive to dysphoric people, even a simple statement of truth such as “men aren’t women.”

• It has taken over public and some private schools, from preschool through higher education. If a student claims he’s transgender, he is, and all students and personnel must treat him as a member of his newly chosen sex.

• It has taken over American business, with requirements (sometimes self-imposed, and frequently in response to well-funded bullying) for public pledges of allegiance to the new orthodoxy. Corporations are now urged not only to support the concept but to apply pressure in the public square against dissenters.

• It has corrupted religion, especially mainline Protestantism, by replacing Scriptural teachings with the dogma of narcissistic choice and entitlement.

• It has corrupted athletics, with biological males now allowed to compete against smaller, slower, less muscular women and girls to the inevitable detriment of the female athletes.

• It has corrupted the law, with statutes that were enacted without any thought of gender identity now being interpreted to elevate the “rights” of the dysphoric over those of other citizens. Even the federal statute that was enacted to protect girls’ access to meaningful participation in sports (Title IX) has now been inverted to protect the male invaders of girls’ teams.

• It has corrupted research, with the federal government now funding unethical and unprofessional research projects that are designed to support a particular outcome rather than arrive at scientific truth. Further, it has ginned up outrage at any research that reaches conclusions contrary to transgender dogma.

• It has corrupted language, with demands for false and fabricated pronouns to refer to transgender individuals, and with enforced redefinition of basic terms such as “man,” “woman,” “father,” and “mother.” What even radicals referred to ten years ago as “physical sex” or “biological sex” is now routinely deemed “sex assigned at birth,” as though the attending obstetrician recorded whichever sex first came to mind.

• It has trampled religious freedom, including the rights of couples who wish to adopt or foster children and the organizations that help them. Unless these individuals and organizations agree to speak and act in accordance with transgender mandates—to deny their most fundamental beliefs—they will be forced out of these critical childcare and family-formation programs.

Perhaps most seriously, it has bulldozed the ancient, fundamental rights of parents to protect and guide their children. The Obama administration issued guidance recommending that school officials not notify parents whose child is experiencing gender confusion; and though that guidance is no longer in effect, keeping parents in the dark remains the rule in some states. Parents who do know of the problem but reject the notion that their child is trapped in the wrong body are subjected to emotional blackmail directed by the “experts,” who, of course, profit from this new industry. Warned that without hormones and surgery their child will commit suicide, parents are told bluntly that their choice is between a “live daughter and a dead son,” or vice versa. If they still refuse to consent to what they know will harm their child, the government may strip them of custody. When the medical and governmental establishment excludes the natural protector of a child—the person who knows and loves him more than anyone else on earth—from decisions that can literally ruin the child’s life, civilization itself is undermined.

Trans Kids

During the decades after the widely publicized “sex change” of Christine (né George William) Jorgensen in 1952, medical experimentation in this realm was largely confined to adult patients. There was no serious attempt to medicalize children confused about their sex (to the extent there were such children—statistics from 2011 estimated that only 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the adult population suffered gender dysphoria, so presumably the percentage of children was even smaller). But a particularly disturbing feature of the current transgender mania is the insistence that even very young children can “know” they are of the opposite sex, with the resulting conclusion that they are entitled to medical assistance in permanently transforming their bodies to match their feelings.

The modern treatment regimen for gender-dysphoric children originated with Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist who founded the nation’s first gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. The process includes potentially four steps: “social transition,” in which the confused child is referred to by a new name and new pronouns and is allowed to dress and otherwise act as a member of the opposite sex; suppression of natural puberty by administering puberty-blockers called GnRH agonists, which supposedly will give the child more time to decide on further transitioning steps before his or her body can develop naturally into sexual maturity; “hormonal transition,” the administration of powerful physiology-manipulating, cross-sex hormones; and then “surgical transition.”

The undisputed physical effects of this GAT are shocking. According to massive research compiled by the American College of Pediatricians, administering cross-sex hormones and puberty-blockers carries enormous risks: heart disease, blood clots, strokes, arrested bone growth, osteoporosis, cancer, crippling joint pain, depression, and suicidal ideation. Interference with normal puberty and sexual maturation, which results from both puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, will also cause sterility and permanent sexual dysfunction. These are merely the known effects; because this type of treatment is so new, long-term consequences are unknown. GnRH agonists are not FDA-approved to inhibit normal puberty and are used off-label for this purpose.

The surgery (SRS) is gruesome. Female patients may be given hysterectomies, vaginectomies, and double mastectomies—all of the removed organs, of course, perfectly healthy—and some  surgeons are stripping skin from girls’ forearms to create non-functioning replicas of penises. Sex organs (penis, testicles, scrotum) of a male patient are removed, and a faux vagina is created that must be kept openwith a dilator to prevent the wound from collapsing on itself and healing.

In other words, these “affirming” doctors battle against normal systems of the human body, which retaliates by fighting off the intrusions. Patients will be engaged in this war for the rest of their lives.

An objective observer would assume that doctors who participate in GAT are pushing or overstepping the boundaries of acceptable medical practice, risking discipline from the governing authorities. In the current political environment, not so. In 2017 the Endocrine Society issued guidelines that allow treatment of dysphoric children and adolescents with puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones despite the known and as yet unknown health risks.

Though the guidelines are replete with admonitions to “monitor” various aspects of the patient’s health during GAT and to involve mental-health professionals in largely unspecified ways, the only thing they advise an endocrinologist not to do is administer puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones to pre-pubertal children. Otherwise, all bets are off. Even age limits for receiving irreversible cross-sex hormones are flexible, since there may be “compelling reasons” to do this to teenagers younger than sixteen. As long as there is a “multi-disciplinary team” in place to “monitor” the increase in heart attacks and strokes and bone deterioration and malignancies and crippling depression, all should be well.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Endocrine Society’s subordination of sound medical practice to political demands is its treatment of the permanent sterility that will result if the GAT is fully implemented. The guidelines take a casual approach: “Clinicians should inform pubertal children, adolescents, and adults seeking gender-confirming treatment of their options for fertility preservation.” Nothing about serious counseling to explain the enormity of this decision. No recognition that children and adolescents cannot be expected to grasp it anyway. No, just tell the kids—for whom having children of their own is at this point beyond their imaginations—about “options for fertility preservation.”

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has not issued ethical guidelines about participating in GAT, but the worldview of this professional organization is evident from its description of these surgical procedures as “gender confirmation” surgery. The Society’s website advertises facial “feminization” or “masculinization” surgery as well as “transfeminization” and “transmasculine” “top” and “bottom” surgery.

As suggested by the Endocrine Society’s guidelines, until recently puberty-blockers were not used before the patient reached age 11, cross-sex hormones before age 16, and surgery before late adolescence or adulthood. But the industry is lowering the ages of administration regardless of what any guidelines recommend. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a California pediatrician gaining notoriety for pushing the envelope in this area, altered the protocol for a federal study she is performing to allow administration of cross-sex hormones to children as young as age 8. Double mastectomies are being performed on girls as young as age 13. Stanford University pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Tandy Aye is urging legislative changes to allow adolescent minors to undergo sterilizing surgery, even though the idea that a minor can fully understand the ramifications of sterility is, to say the least, inconsistent with what is known about adolescent brain development. Some surgeons are already performing mutilating surgery on minor boys, arguing that “age is arbitrary” and that teens are better off having the grotesque and painful procedures while they are still at home where their parents can supervise post-operative care. These surgeons claim to perform these permanent, life-altering procedures only on “mature” adolescents. Maturity, of course, is determined by the ideologically driven doctor, and apparently with little or no recognition of the obvious emotional problems of a boy who wants to be castrated.

Presumably medical guidelines will be modified to accommodate the experiments these pioneering practitioners want to perform. As it is, elite transgender doctors such as Olson-Kennedy simply flout the guidelines at will and do whatever they want. One could conclude that the guidelines that do exist are there for appearances only—to help direct inexperienced physicians how to handle these patients in politically correct ways, and to present a veneer of sober reflection to ward off intervention by some professional or governmental body that might actually shut down some of the horrors.

The insistence that children’s feelings be honored, even unto inflicting irreversible treatments and surgeries, is alarming and unprecedented. For good reason children are not allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, vote, drive a car, sign a contract, or access certain entertainment. Nor are they allowed to obtain other medical treatments without parental consent. But powerful adults are arguing that the feelings of children who are too young to buy cough syrup should override all contrary considerations.

Dissent is not tolerated. Anyone—whether parent, physician, teacher, classmate, or other—who questions their decisions is labeled a transphobe, a bigot, and must be silenced.

Why Now?

Why is this happening? Why has a fog of lies descended on entire societies such that even children are being sacrificed to this voracious leviathan?

Volumes will be written about the underpinnings of the mass transgender hysteria. A few considerations:

• The transgender mania naturally results from the relentless march of the sexual revolution. The denial of human nature began with the birth-control pill’s decoupling of sex from reproduction. That led to the separation of sex from marriage, which dissolved restraints on non-marital sexual activity and non-marital childbearing. A family of mother and father was no longer considered necessary for creating children, which meant there was nothing special about the maleness and femaleness of romantic partners. Enter Obergefell, which by discovering homosexual marriage as a constitutional right obliterated even physical, biological distinctions between the sexes. And if there is no meaningful distinction, a human being should not be confined to one sex but rather should be inherently capable of moving between the sexes or stopping somewhere in the middle.

• The mania results from the elevation of the narcissistic autonomous Self, which is entitled to whatever choice it deems desirable at the moment—even a choice that violates physical reality.

• The mania results from the developing concept that patient desire should be the primary if not sole determinant of medical treatment. The WPATH guidelines make clear that the demands of the patient trump the ethical concerns of the physician. Carrying this concept to its logical conclusion, one dysphoric man argued in a chilling essay in The New York Timesthat a doctor should be obligated to provide the mutilating surgery the patient wants to better resemble a woman—even if the patient knows and admits that the surgery will cause great physical harm and will fail to relieve, and perhaps will even increase, his emotional distress. Under such a standard, the physician ceases to be a healer and becomes merely a tool for fulfilling the fevered desires of a troubled patient. And unlike a healer, a tool has no right of conscience, no legitimate basis for refusing to participate in the requested procedures.

• The mania results from the cult of experts. Parents whose every instinct screams that their children need psychotherapy, not GAT, yield to professionals who claim to know better. If the expert says the appropriate treatment is X, then every non-expert is expected to submit without question—even if the folly of the recommended course is a flashing red light.

• The mania results from hubris. One GAT physician describes the heady adulation from desperate patients and families: “Every single encounter is so rewarding. They tell us, ‘You are my hero. You are saving my kid’s life. We don’t know what we would do without you.’” According to researchers who interviewed surgeons involved in the early phases of SRS, the surgery appealed to some physicians’ desire “to prove to themselves that there was nothing they were surgically incapable of performing.” Change a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and ye shall be as gods.

• The mania ultimately results from the decline of religious faith. None of the cultural evolution described above could have happened in a society that still recognized the reality of God, and of biblical and natural law. And to paraphrase Chesterton, the person who does not believe in God believes not in nothing, but rather in anything.

Of course, one should never dismiss the lure of one of the oldest temptations known to humanity: greed. Some professionals in this expanding area of practice no doubt desire to ease the suffering of confused patients. But the health care professionals who have uncritically accepted the quackery of the unholy Money–Benjamin alliance, as well as the pharmaceutical industry that will churn out drugs and hormones which hapless patients must take for a lifetime, will reap the benefits that are projected to hit almost $1 billion by 2024. This kind of reward can go a long way toward easing the twinges of conscience.

Cracks in the Edifice

This bleak picture suggests that humanity has been infected by a monstrous virus that so far has resisted all remedies. But scientific and moral truths can be buried for only so long, and there are signs of their revival.

One encouraging development is the increasing number of physicians publicly proclaiming the nakedness of the transgender emperor. Indeed, that analogy first came from Dr. Paul McHugh writing here in Public Discourse, who has been outspoken against the fallacies and the harm of the transgender revolution.

Other physicians have joined his chorus. From the American College of Pediatricians (established in reaction to the increasingly politicized American Academy of Pediatricians) to individual physicians who speak the truth at no small risk to their careers—see two events hosted by Ryan Anderson at The Heritage Foundation here and here—resistance is growing.

An example is a letter written by five physicians (Drs. Michael Laidlaw, Quentin Van Meter, Paul Hruz, Andre Van Mol, and William Malone) and published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. These physicians challenged the emerging orthodoxy among providers that gender-dsyphoric young patients should be administered GAT, presenting undisputed evidence of our inability to scientifically diagnose the condition, the manifest medical risks of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the scientific research supporting alternative treatments. The fact that the Journal was even willing to publish the letter suggests that medical sanity has retreated but not surrendered.

Professionals who are challenging the transgender narrative span the political spectrum. A group called Youth Trans Critical Professionals defines itself as “psychologists, social workers, doctors, medical ethicists, and academics” who “tend to be left-leaning, open-minded, and pro-gay rights.” However, they declare, “we are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition.”

Some mental-health professionals are also challenging the legal restrictions on their ability to provide the best care for dysphoric patients. An Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist relies on the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion in his lawsuit to overturn New York’s ban on “conversion therapy.” In Tampa, Florida, a federal magistrate ruled in favor of a similar suit filed by two psychotherapists. Such legal challenges are an encouraging sign that some professionals are willing to do the right thing for patients regardless of the potential harm to their careers.

The credibility of these physicians and other mental-health professionals is bolstered by the witness of doctors who do not necessarily reject the transgender concept outright, but who are troubled by the prevailing ethic that evidence should be replaced by feelings. Physicians such as Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Levine think medical treatment may be helpful in some situations but resist the more radical claims of the gender industry and its allied activists.

Another promising development is the advent of networking groups for parents who have seen the gender madness harm their own children and families. These parents are unwilling to have “experts” tell them things about their children they know are untrue, and rush the kids into medical interventions they know will ruin their children’s lives. Groups such as Transgender Trend4thWaveNow,  and the Kelsey Coalition  (named for the FDA pharmacologist who refused to authorize thalidomide for the market) have organized to help parents resist and defeat the abuse that is being perpetrated on their children. You can read the stories of five such parents here at Public Discourse.

Many of these parents are reacting to the most cult-like aspect of the mania—so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which has gripped their adolescent girls. The parents tell sadly similar stories: The daughter, perhaps struggling with depression or another mental problem, is exposed to transgender ideology through either other individuals or the Internet; she spends hours watching Internet videos about transgenderism and the magical power of GAT to sweep away anxiety; she suddenly decides, perhaps along with friends, that she is transgender; she insists on being evaluated by a “gender specialist,” who agrees with her self-diagnosis and quickly starts her on either puberty-blockers or cross-sex hormones; the specialist ignores information from the parents about other aspects of their daughter’s experience that may be contributing to her delusion; and both the daughter and the specialist warn the parents that she will kill herself if they stand in her way.

But the new networking organizations have enabled parents to understand the scam in its full malevolence and to realize they have allies in their resistance. Like the professionals mentioned above, many of them are not politically conservative. What they all have in common is a recognition of truth, a rejection of lies even when offered by experts, and a fierce determination to protect their kids.

Some government entities have begun to question the skyrocketing numbers of children denying their natal sex. In Great Britain, the Minister for Women and Equalities recently ordered an investigation into why the number of children requesting gender transition increased 4,000 percent in eight years. Even laypeople—even bureaucrats—understand that such a startling surge in dysphoria cannot be occurring naturally. The willingness to examine the issue is another welcome sign that the mania may in some ways be releasing its grip.

In the United States, many government entities have embraced the transgender movement without serious study. But there is at least some sign of a correction there as well. For example, the Trump administration has taken several steps to restore the rule of law in this arena.

One was the February 2017 rescission of the Obama administration’s school “guidance” that expanded the interpretation of “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity. A related development was the Justice Department’s October 2017 announcement that Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, would not be interpreted to apply to actions based on gender identity. Since Congress clearly intended the 1972 (Title IX) and 1964 (Title VII) statutes to cover only biological sex, these steps demonstrated a welcome return to the norms of self-governance.

In May 2019,  the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) moved toward a scientific definition of  “sex” in federally funded health programs. While the Obama administration had decreed that statutorily prohibited discrimination on the basis of “sex” should encompass discrimination on the basis of “gender identity,” HHS recently issued a proposed rule reversing that expansive and unlawful interpretation. “Sex,” the proposed rule clarifies, will be given its scientific meaning, referring only to demonstrable biological sex rather than to amorphous, changeable feelings of gender identity.

Finally, HHS strengthened enforcement of pre-existing conscience protections for individuals involved in healthcare provision or research. This means these professionals cannot be forced to violate their consciences by participating in GAT or related research.

Although governmental policy could change as soon as the administration does (for example, the so-called Equality Act would cement extraordinarily damaging and totalitarian policy with respect to gender identity), this pushback holds out hope for a future restoration of reality-based policy-making.

Another example of resistance comes from the world of sports. While boys and men who “identify” as female are handily defeating girls and women, notable personalities are taking exception. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, herself a lesbian and vocal supporter of “gay rights,” called male participation in women’s sports what it is: cheating. The recently organized group Fair Play For Women publicly advocates for the rights of women and girls to meaningful participation in athletics—which means restricting their sports to biologically female athletes.  Every photograph of a bigger and stronger male defeating a girl, and maybe eliminating her opportunity for advancement and scholarships, develops the public understanding that transgenderism incorporates a significant degree of narcissism and unfair entitlement.

Feminists are beginning to recognize the threat of transgenderism not only to fair competition in athletics but to women as a whole (see herehere, and here). If a male is allowed to join the female sex simply by declaring he feels like a woman, is there really such a thing as women? Is there any basis for protecting women in private spaces (such as restrooms and locker rooms), colleges, dormitories, even prisons? Is there any way to ensure that programs designed to help women, such as dedicated loans or set-asides in government contracting, are restricted to actual women?

Transgender radicals are so concerned about the resistance from feminists, especially lesbians, that they have created their own slur to describe the leftist dissidents: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFS. The name-calling, however, has not deterred these feminists, who recognize that enshrining legal rights based on gender identity rather than sex “would eliminate women and girls as a coherent legal category, worthy of civil rights protection.”

Perhaps the most powerful voice leading to a restoration of sanity will come from “detransitioners” —individuals who underwent medical transition, realized they had made a tragic mistake, and are now speaking out to warn other victims of the gender industry.

Walt Heyer endured years of gender dysphoria that he now understands was influenced by mistreatment from his grandmother and childhood sexual abuse. As an adult he underwent hormone therapy and surgery and lived for eight years as a woman before de-transitioning. A regular contributor to Public Discourse, Heyer is now in his late 70s and devotes his life to helping other victims recover their authentic lives as he did. His website,, has been accessed by hundreds of thousands of users from 180 countries, and he reports enormously increased traffic as the transgender virus has proliferated.

Other adult detransitioners are similarly outspoken about the folly of “sex change” (see Hacsi Horvath’s scholarly work on transgenderism and Rene Jax’s harrowing account of his experience in Don’t Get on the Plane.) But with some victims, the realization of the truth comes much earlier. More and more adolescents and young adults are speaking out about the mistake they made in transitioning and warning other young people not to be sucked into the cult (see herehere, and here, for example). Although reliable information on the level of regret about GAT is unavailable because so many patients are lost to follow-up (perhaps some to suicide), the more detransitioners speak out, the more will feel comfortable doing so.

The lucky ones are those who got out before surgery or other irreversible treatment. As for the others, perhaps the legal system will eventually provide recompense via malpractice suits. Just as legal liabilitydissuaded psychotherapists from pushing the “recovered memory” theory with troubled patients, the prospect of substantial payout to GAT victims may cause practitioners to think twice.

Is This Time Different?

Every time the forces of the sexual revolution claim another victory—dismantling the norms of sexual morality, or achieving acceptance of homosexual behavior, or imposing same-sex marriage, or coercing third parties to celebrate the latest milestone—individuals of more traditional values think that this time, the radicals have gone too far. Surely this will be the development that swings the pendulum back to basic decency and common sense. But instead, the revolutionaries have pocketed the victory and advanced relentlessly on to the next goal.

But perhaps the transgender movement is different. The damage inflicted by the previous campaigns was real and profound, but it was not immediately obvious. It has taken decades, for example, for the consequences of “anything goes” sexual behavior to become apparent—family disintegration, fatherless and broken children, increased substance abuse and other cultural pathologies—and even now ideologues resist the conclusion that these trends resulted from the cultural shifts they advocated.

By contrast, the damage of transgender affirmation is immediate and apparent. The medical harm alone is undeniable, and the mental anguish festers and grows. The affected children and adolescents, especially, become the walking wounded whose shattered lives testify to the abuse inflicted by “experts” who profit from their misery. The voices of detransitioners penetrate the politically correct chatter to warn that what’s happening is destroying lives, here and now.

Hacsi Horvath, an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California at San Francisco, has written at length on the bizarre acceptance of the fantastical concept of gender identity:

In my opinion—which is based upon extensive research, as well as  my own 13-year-long experience in pretending to be a woman—GD  is only superficially concerned with one’s sex. It’s more a disturbance of identity . . . . There is absolutely no good reason why gender dysphoria has essentially been excluded from 15 years of research in new “transdiagnostic” approaches to treating people with depression and anxiety disorders. . . . GD is not sui generis, unique, super-special! It is well within the spectrum of conditions efficaciously treated with transdiagnostic approaches. It is as though the “transition” promoters of mainstream transgenderism had some kind of racket going on.

Fellow survivor Walt Heyer pulls no punches in describing the enablers of the transgender mania. Especially with respect to affirming the false beliefs of minors, he says:

This is child abuse. . . . We are manufacturing transgender kids. We are manufacturing their depression, their anxiety, and it’s turned into a huge industry that people are profiting from after kids’ lives are completely torn apart.

He concludes: “There is absolutely nothing good about affirming somebody in a cross-gender identity because it destroys their life. . . . It’s insanity.”

The transgender castle that radicals have constructed by sheer force of will is built on shifting sand without supports of any kind. The wave that will sweep it away is gaining strength. May the time come soon when we will all say, with observers of past hysterias, “How could we have believed that?”


The Hormone Health Crisis | with Endocrinologist William Malone, MD

This is about the ethical concerns that doctors are confronting in the corporate push to medicalize  the emotional pain caused by our sadistic gender role hierarchy. If the SHOE (sex role stereotypes) doesn’t fit, capitalist medicine wants you to maim the FOOT to fit.


trans_childrenI’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.

Professionals who question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy could find themselves out of a job.

Michelle Cretella | July 5, 2017

Transgender politics have taken Americans by surprise, and caught some lawmakers off guard.

Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina.

But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us—children—and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,” professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices. I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012.

For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years I have served as its president.

I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics.

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Here’s a look at some of the changes.

The New Normal

Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear.

Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.”

Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.

They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children.

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

(The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.)

The transition-affirming protocol tells parents to treat their children as the gender they desire, and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric.

If by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

So-called “bottom surgeries,” or genital reassignment surgeries, are not recommended before age 18, though some surgeons have recently argued against this restriction.

The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations.

There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals.

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story.

Here are some of those basic facts.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

Some brain studies have suggested that some are born with a transgendered brain. But these studies are seriously flawedand prove no such thing.

Virtually everything about human beings is influenced by our DNA, but very few traits are hardwired from birth. All human behavior is a composite of varying degrees for nature and nurture.

Researchers routinely conduct twin studies to discern which factors (biological or nonbiological) contribute more to the expression of a particular trait. The best designed twin studies are those with the greatest number of subjects.

Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time.

Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time.

But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the identical twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. (Diamond’s study reported 20 percent identifying as transgender, but his actual data demonstrate a 28 percent figure, as I note here in footnote 19.)

That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime.

The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology.

Studies like this one prove that the belief in “innate gender identity”—the idea that “feminized” or “masculinized” brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth—is a myth that has no basis in science.

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty.

But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

Puberty blockers have been studied and found safe for the treatment of a medical disorder in children called precocious puberty (caused by the abnormal and unhealthy early secretion of a child’s pubertal hormones).

However, as a groundbreaking paper in The New Atlantis points out, we cannot infer from these studies whether or not these blockers are safe in physiologically normal children with gender dysphoria.

The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.

With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern.

For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones.

This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

Advocates of the transition-affirming protocol allege that suicide is the direct and inevitable consequence of withholding social affirmation and biological alterations from a gender-dysphoric child. In other words, those who do not endorse the transition-affirming protocol are essentially condemning gender-dysphoric children to suicide.

Yet as noted earlier, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.

In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative.

Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who commit suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria.

Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.

52676600_606372733167830_2444819067056422912_oI took a break from monitoring the expansion of the sadomasochistc gender cult in Iowa City, but I picked up an issue of the trans rag, The Real Mainstream, that is published here and distributed in kiosks and the library and this story reached out and slugged me in the jaw. Fuck this shit. This is eugenic child abuse. Why won’t people wake up and see what these monsters are selling to the public?


“When I grow up, I want to be a girl.”

Genevieve Carter (not her real name) is, in many ways, a typical nine-year-oldthird-grader. She loves gymnastics and math, and is the embodiment of childhood enthusiasm. Her thick brown hair falls below her shoulders, and her bright smile frequently lights up her face.

She is also transgender.

“She used to say she wanted to be a builder,” her mom, Louisa, says. “Then she started saying she wanted to be a girl when she grew up.”

This was three years ago, while Genevieve was in Kindergarten. That summer, Genevieve’s parents started letting her choose whether to dress as a boy or a girl. She always picked to be a girl, and has been known as one ever since.

“Children as young as 2-4 likely have a concept of their gender identity.” Says Dr. Katie Imborek, medical director of the University of Iowa Health Care Offsite Primary Care and co-director of the UI Health Care LGBTQ Clinic. “It is not uncommon to see children this young displaying gender non-conforming behaviors. However, they may be somewhat older before they have dysphoria related to the way that they wish to express or practice their gender.”

“I never felt perfect.” Genevieve said. “I always felt that something was wrong, that something was missing.”

After attending kindergarten as a boy, Genevieve started first grade as a girl. Louisa met with the school over the summer and later with the teachers to make sure they understood and to answer any questions they might have.

“Public schools cannot discriminate against your child for being transgender.” Says Max Mowitz, Program Coordinator at One Iowa. “In Iowa, they are protected under the Civil Rights Act.”

If your family lives in a very non-affirming town, Mowitz says, ask the child what he/she/they wants. Most would rather be out, even knowing the backlash they might face.

The first thing to do when your child has told you he/she/they might be transgender is to start going to therapy/counseling. Not because it is a mental health issue, but so the child can talk about it with a professional. Make sure the mental health professional is LGBTQ affirming. Family therapy is a good first step to deciding how to support your transgender child.

Louisa explains that it is important for the parents to see a therapist as well. “Many parents feel a sense of loss. It is a valid feeling, but you need to make sure not to show it to your child, but to deal with it with a therapist instead.”

She also says parents may need to work on coming to terms with the fact that their child is looking and sounding different. “Make sure not to misgender them.” She adds.

“Discuss it with your pediatrician or family medicine provider.” Says Imborek. “You want a referral to a pediatric endocrinologist who can discuss options of puberty blocking medications, usually around the age of 9-14.”

Genevieve has an appointment every year to discuss how things are going for her. Her family is on the lookout for signs of puberty so she can get the hormone blocking shots.

Some adults worry a child might believe they are transgender, then change their mind after taking the puberty blocking medications. There is a small number of children to whom this does happen, but the hormone shots are not permanent changes.

The puberty-blocking medications prevent the child from the traumatic experience of going through puberty as the gender with which they do not identify. Experts agree that kids who grow up in the gender with which they identify have fewer mental health challenges than those who grow up as the wrong gender.

In the early stages of your child expressing their gender identity, parents may struggle with allowing them to express themselves. If your son starts painting his nails, you may worry they may be bullied because of it and want them to stop. “It is difficult to risk your child getting bullied.” Mowitz told me. “But it is more difficult for your child not to do it.”

“I got teased in Kindergarten for having girly stuff.” Genevieve explained. “I had a My Little Pony lunchbox and backpack. But I told a teacher and the girl was told to stop.”

“Your child will experience bullying from internalized homophobia and transphobia.” Mowitz explained. “The best thing you can do for them is to be supportive and affirming of who they are.”

As a parent, you may be LGBTQ-affirming in a general sense, yet still struggle with a transgender child. “You need to understand your own stance and then be their ally.” Mowitz says. “Speak up if you hear transphobic comments, and hold family and friends accountable.”

Genevieve’s only worries right now, as a nine-year-old transgender girl, are that she can’t “make a baby,” and that when she gets to dating age, people might “freak.”

But Genevieve also says she knows she has a good support system, and they will help her through it.

“I feel better than I did [when I was a boy]. Some days I actually feel perfect; I don’t feel like anything is missing.”



“JAZZ” after his castration surgery to cxreate a fake vagina



Of course they will never allow my comment to be viewed, but this is the comment that I left: ” In a short time, this androcratic sado-religious practice will be revealed for what it is, eugenic sterilization and mutilation of gender non-conforming children. For the sake of profits for the medical cartel. Expect massive lawsuits. This insane practice does absolutely NOTHING to break down the sexual power hierarchy that creates the hallucination we call gender, in fact, it forces gender conformity through mutilation of healthy children’s sexual organs, along with experimental poisoning with drugs that have never been tested for safety in kids. These kids are the guinea pigs. Shame on all of you for promoting this horror.”


No child should ever have this done to them. What the hell is wrong with people?



This is the kind of information women of my generation passed along to each other in the olden days, 50 years ago, before Roe v. Wade:

The Modern Woman’s Guide to Self-Abortion

By Anonymous Raging Grandmothers and Hags (ARGH!)

In December 2015, a desperate woman in Tennessee named Anna Yocca attempted to end an unwanted pregnancy by stabbing herself in the vagina with a coat hanger.  She severely injured herself and was bleeding profusely. Yocca’s boyfriend, who had been present in the home while she was trying to self-abort, drove Yocca to an emergency room.  Anti-choice medical personnel at the hospital called the police who arrested Yocca on attempted murder charges.  Yocca was taken to jail. Her bond was set at $200,000. (The boyfriend remained a free man.)

Yocca is not the only woman in the US incarcerated for failing to be a good incubator. In April 2015, the state of Indiana sentenced Purvi Patel to 20 years in prison for the crime of feticide. Patel miscarried late in her second trimester, possibly spontaneously and possibly after taking pills to self-abort. Bleeding heavily, she sought medical attention. An anti-abortion doctor decided Patel should have been acting more grief stricken about the situation. He disapproved that she had disposed of her fetus at home instead of bringing it to the hospital. Patel’s failure to cry along with the fact that before the miscarriage Patel had mentioned abortion pills in a text message were enough evidence to convince a jury she was a murderess. Throwing the fetus in the garbage was portrayed as an especially evil act, even though flushing the remains of a pregnancy down the toilet is an everyday occurrence and standard procedure for the half million or more women who miscarry every year. (Medical providers routinely advise miscarrying women to flush miscarried tissue. This is standard practice in miscarriage care.)

Given that abortion rights are disappearing in the United States, we are likely to see more and more women both attempting to self-abort and going to jail for crimes against fetuses.

There has never been a golden age of accessible abortion care (although having an abortion got much easier in the U.S. in the 1970s, IF you had health insurance and IF you recognized the pregnancy early enough). Legal or not, women have always helped each other end unwanted pregnancies, usually safely and with good results. It’s time to revive the art and sisterhood of underground abortion.  ARGH! has prepared this starter guide for self-abortion.

Rule #1: Never use a coat hanger.

Or a knitting needle or any other sharp object. Blindly stabbing yourself in the vagina or cervix in hopes of ending a pregnancy is more likely lead to injury, infection, and blood loss than a successful abortion. As Anna Yocca learned, medical authorities may turn you over to the police if you go to the hospital with coat-hanger abortion injuries.

Rule #2: Learn how to visualize your cervix

Patriarchal medicine intentionally keeps women uninformed about our most basic anatomy and physiology. Most adult women have had a pelvic exam with a speculum, but very few women have ever seen their own cervix. Fewer women still know how to visualize their own cervix outside of a medical office. Carol Downer, founding mother of the women’s self-help movement in the late-60s and early 70s, had given birth six times but knew very little about her own body. While working in an underground feminist abortion clinic, she saw a woman’s cervix for the first time and had an instant epiphany. Her response was, “That’s it?! It’s only a few inches away and has a hole in it for easy access! We can do this ourselves!”

ARGH! recommends feminist collectives start practicing cervical self-exam. Gathering with other trusted feminists and seeing each other’s cervices breaks patriarchal taboos. Visualizing the many different ways to be a normal woman with normal genitals helps us heal from toxic porn culture and also forms the basis for learning safe woman-centered abortion techniques. Your collective should consist of well-vetted women you trust.

You can learn the basics of self-exam here:  and here Women’s Health in Women’s Hands is also an excellent comprehensive resource.

You can purchase a speculum here:

#3 Learn Menstrual Extraction

Did you know there’s a relatively easy way to complete your period in 20 to 60 minutes instead of 3 to 7 days? Menstrual extraction gently vacuums the inside of the uterus, removing menstrual fluid and any early pregnancies that may be present. Menstrual extraction can safely end a pregnancy up to eight weeks past your last period. Learning menstrual extraction takes practice, practice that can be obtained within your self-help group. Any woman who has a menstrual cycle can volunteer to help train others.  Motivated self-helpers will find it relatively easy to assemble menstrual extraction equipment. You can learn more about menstrual extraction here:

#4 Learn how to abort with pills

Medical and political authorities have placed mifepristone, the drug known as “the abortion pill,” under lockdown. Only one US supplier controls access to mifepristone and even doctors face extreme difficulties purchasing the drug. Luckily, other medications can be used to safely self-abort. Every woman interested in maintaining control over her own reproduction and helping other women do the same should learn about misoprostol (also known as Cytotec).

A prostaglandin drug originally designed to prevent stomach ulcers, misoprostol causes uterine contractions leading to expulsion of anything inside the uterus. Midwives and doctors use this drug to treat post-partum hemorrhage and also to stop heavy bleeding from miscarriages. The international feminist organization Women on Waves distributes misoprostol to women needing to end pregnancies in countries where abortion is illegal. Women on Waves and Woman Help provide detailed information on the use of misoprostol on their web sites.

Women can purchase misoprostol over the counter at pharmacies in Mexico and other Central American countries. Pharmacies in the US and Canada require a prescription for the drug.

Hypothetically, women may be able to obtain prescriptions for misoprostol from mainstream medical providers. A woman could tell a doctor or nurse practitioner that she needs to take ibuprofen for joint pain or a sports injury but has a history of stomach ulcers.  She could say that in the past she sprained her ankle and took a drug to protect her stomach from the ibuprofen. Could she please get a prescription for this drug again? She should not volunteer any information about her sex life or imply in any way that she knows misoprostol can be used to end pregnancy. She should stick with the story about joint pain and needing to protect her stomach. If questioned by the provider, this hypothetical woman would need to say that she is not heterosexually active, or that she is using a reliable method of birth control.  This technique could be used to stockpile misoprostol for a women’s collective.

Rule #5 If anything goes wrong, LIE!

If you are aborting with misoprostol, be prepared for some serious pain and bleeding like a heavy period. This is normal. Many women attempting to self-abort have unnecessarily gone to emergency rooms because they were not prepared for the pain of abortion. Natural miscarriages involve a similar kind of physical pain.  Pain cannot kill you. Heavy bleeding can, though. So know the warning signs of serious problems and seek medical help if these develop.

The International Women’s Health Coalition gives the following guidelines:

“Women should seek medical attention if they experience any of the following side effects after taking misoprostol:

–very heavy bleeding (soaking more than two large-sized thick sanitary pads each hour for more than two consecutive hours);
–continuous bleeding for several days resulting in dizziness or light-headedness;
–bleeding that stops but is followed two weeks or later by a sudden onset of extremely heavy bleeding, which may require manual vacuum aspiration or D&C;
–scant bleeding or no bleeding at all in the first seven days after using misoprostol, which may suggest that no abortion has occurred and require a repeat round of misoprostol or surgical termination;
–chills and fever lasting more than 24 hours after the last dose of misoprostol, which suggest that an infection may be present requiring treatment with antibiotics; or
–severe abdominal pain that lasts more than 24 hours after the last dose of misoprostol.”



And don’t be shy about lying if you go to the hospital!  Menstrual extraction leaves no visible trauma; there is no way a doctor could know that a woman had undergone the procedure. Misoprostol is cleared from our systems quickly so hospital staff will not be able to tell you took a medication, even though they may try to scare women into admitting they aborted by claiming it is possible.  They will not be able to detect signs of misoprostol within just a few hours of the time the medication was taken.

Complications from menstrual extraction and misoprostol abortions look just like complications from a miscarriage. All hospitals are equipped to handle these common medical problems. If you tried to self-abort and now feel you need medical attention, tell all medical personnel you encounter that you think you are having a miscarriage.

If you have a choice, do not go to a Catholic Hospital!

And remember to act very, very sad. Your poor baby, you wanted this baby so badly, now you are so heartbroken. Purvi Patel was arrested for failing to produce enough tears to satisfy a misogynist doctor, so CRY! (If you’re having trouble getting the tears going, we suggest you think about our sisters in Afghanistan being stoned for the crime of reporting rape, our sisters in El Salvador in jail for suspicious miscarriage, our little sisters all over the world being trafficked as “child brides” and rape slaves, and the fact that you live in a country where embryos have more rights than the women growing them.)

Sisterhood is powerful. Now is the time to start meeting collectively with other women you trust and reclaiming our right to end our own pregnancies. Our bodies, our decision!  We will not be incubators! Every child a wanted child!

The following resources and references contain priceless information for women seeking to put women’s health back in women’s hands.

Natural Liberty: Rediscovering Self-Induced Abortion Methods. Sage-Femme Collective

A New View of a Woman’s Body. A Fully Illustrated Guide by the Federation of Feminist Women’s Health Centers

A Woman’s Book of Choices. By Carol Downer and Rebecca Chalker

The Story of Jane: the legendary underground feminist abortion service. By Laura Kaplan

Women’s Health in Women’s Hands

A feminist critique of “cisgender”

By Elizabeth Hungerford

[first published June 8, 2012 on the Liberation Collective blog]


Consistent with common usage of the term “cisgender,” the graphic below explains that “…if you identify with the gender you were assigened [sic] at birth, you are cis.”

I cannot find a way to attribute the artist of this drawing. All leads are appreciated.Another Trans 101: Cisgender webpage describes cis this way: “For example, if a doctor said “it’s a boy!” when you were born, and you identify as a man, then you could be described as cisgender.” [i] Likewise, girl-born people who identify as women are also considered cisgender. WBW are cis.

Framing gender as a medically determined assignment may seem like a good start to explaining gendered oppression because it purports to make a distinction between physical sex and gender. Feminism similarly understands masculinity and femininity (e.g., gender) as strictly enforced social constructs neither of which are the “normal” or inevitable result of one’s reproductive sex organs. Feminism and trans theory agree that coercive gender assignments are a significant source of oppression.

On closer inspection of the concept of “cisgender,” however, feminism and trans theory quickly diverge. Feminism does not believe that asking whether an individual identifies with the particular social characteristics and expectations assigned to them at birth is a politically useful way of analyzing or understanding gender. Eliminating gender assignments, by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation.  Feminism claims that gender is a much more complicated (and sinister) social phenomenon than this popular cis/trans binary has any hope of capturing.

First, “masculinity” and “femininity” are not monolithic, static concepts that are wholly embraced or wholly discarded. Socially assigned gender roles encompass entire lives’ worth of behaviors and expectations, from cradle to grave. Most people’s identification with their “gender” assignment is not a simple Y/N.  One may be aesthetically gender conforming, but at the same time, behaviorally non-conforming. Or vice versa. Or some combination of both. Most of us are not walking, talking stereotypes. It is unusual for a person to both appear and behave in unmodified identification with their assigned gender at birth. For example, a female-born person might wear pink dresses and lots of makeup, but behave in an assertive, detached, and highly intellectual manner. Or a female-born person might appear very androgynous, without any feminine adornment at all, but express herself gently, quietly, and with graceful concern for those around her. What about a female who is aggressive and competitive in her professional life, but submissive and emotional in her personal life? Who decides whether an individual is sufficiently identified with to be considered “cis”? Or sufficiently non-identified with to be “trans”?  “Cis” and “trans” do not describe discrete social classes from which political analysis can be extrapolated.

Additionally, one’s identification with their “gender” may change over time. Gender is not an immutable characteristic. While some people argue that “gender identity” is a deeply felt, unchanging personal quality;[ii] the existence and prominence of late-transitioning[iii] trans people drags this claim into very questionable territory. One may be gender conforming for many years, then slowly or suddenly reject the characteristics of their assigned gender. How an individual identifies in reference to their gender, whether it be masculinity or femininity, is not necessarily stable, nor should it have to be.

The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;” nor does it address people with hostile relationships to gender in general. As a woman-born-woman who rejects femininity as females’ destiny, I surely do not identify with my assigned gender in the way that “cis” describes. Indeed, no one holding radical feminist/anti-essentialist views about gender could be considered “cis” because, by definition of these views, we reject gender as a natural social category that every person identifies with. Feminists do not believe that everyone has a “gender identity,” or that we all possess some kind of internal compass directing our identification with “gender.”

Identifying with something is an internal, subjective experience. Self-assessments of gender do not equal self-awareness, nor do they provide insight as to how gendered oppression operates in the broader, external social sphere.

By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other.

See graphic, above. The cis/trans* binary does not break down any structures of normalcy because it doesn’t describe how such systems operate. It doesn’t explain how a person will be treated by society or what kind(s) of power they hold relative to others. External observers cannot reliably determine whether someone considers herself “cis” or “trans;” they simply pass judgment by categorizing superficial expressions of masculinity or femininity as appropriate or inappropriate. In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not.  Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years.

“IT’S A GIRL!” (see graphic above) means something in regard to that baby’s life. Assuming she makes it to adulthood, that is.[iv]

For “It’s a girl!” to make sense, it must refer to a long string of gendered words that help the community understand what to expect out of babies called “girls.”

The single utterance, “It’s a girl!” does not a baby girl make. The drama of gender is a repeat performance—it must be reenacted continually to form a pattern. Butler writes, “the body becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time.” 273 She explains, “[t]his repetition is at once a reenactment and reexperiencing of a set of meanings already socially established…[v]

The pattern of gender, constituted through gender’s repeated performance on the stage of life, demonstrates that males and masculinity are institutionally dominant over females and femininity.  Gender is not just a fun dress up game that individuals merely identify with in isolation from all contextual and historical meaning, but the most powerful tool of structural oppression ever created by humans.

Notwithstanding variations caused by intersecting factors such as economic class, national jurisdiction, and cultural differences; the collective female social location is consistently less than similarly situated males in terms of: (i) material resources received as an infant and child, (ii) respect, attention, and intellectual encouragement received as an infant and child, (iii) risk of being sexually exploited or victimized, (iv) role within the hetero family unit, (v) representation and power in government, (vi) access to education, jobs, and promotions in the workforce, (vii) property ownership and dominion over space.[vi]

Recognizing this, feminism understands gender as a powerful– but not inevitable– tool of organizing social relations and distributing power, including physical resources, between the sexes. The near-universal quality of life disparities enumerated above are created, enforced, and replicated through the enforcement of gendered difference and the meanings assigned to these differences. Being born with female appearing genitals and, as a direct result, being coercively assigned the feminine gender at birth, is clearly not a (cis) privilege, nor is it socially equivalent to males’ masculine gender assignment. Female-bodied people and male-bodied people are not similarly situated persons in regard to gender based oppression. Gender is not simply a neutral binary. More importantly, it is a hierarchy.

Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. While a man’s gender conformity with masculinity—both aesthetic and behavioral— will substantially insulate him from sex and gender motivated oppression and violence, a woman’s appropriate conformity to stereotypical femininity does not. The 2011 SlutWalk campaign (hopefully) served as a grave reminder that victim-blaming, woman-blaming rhetoric is alive and well in mainstream social discourse. The perception that women “bring it on ourselves” or “ask for it” when we dress in certain, undeniablyfeminine ways is very wrong, but also very real. Some predators are even documented as specifically targeting conventionally “attractive” women.

The first good-looking girl I see tonight is going to die.

Edward Kemper, serial killer.[vii]

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of beauty for women, feminine-appearing women (trans or not) will be eye-catching targets for misogynistic violence because of their perceived “beauty.” In other words, because they are feminine-conforming.

Further, socially defined feminine behaviors such as hospitality, care-taking, and a socially structured desire for male sexual attention contribute to women’s vulnerability to exploitation. When a woman’s social performance (trans or not) is consistent with feminine subordination to male authority, rapists and other abusers may target these women as easy victims on the assumption that they will be less likely to resist unwanted advances.

Rapists often select potential victims using gut feeling.  Subtle attempts to invade our personal space and to force conversation with us are tests of our boundaries used by rapists to confirm their gut feeling.  We send a strong message when we enforce our limits and preferences for touching, revealing personal information and feelings, and having people in the space that surrounds us.[viii]

Feminine socialization conditions women to be accommodating to others, listen politely and attentively, and express emotional concern for those who appear downtrodden. As a result, women still make up the majority of workers in underpaid “caring professions” such as social work, teaching, and nursing. This tendency towards altruism and giving of trust allow feminine-behaving people to be taken advantage of by those who recognize it as an opportunity to leverage their “feminine” generosity for personal gain.

As long as stereotypical femininity remains the controlling standard of appropriate behavior for women (trans or not), we will continue to struggle not only with setting boundaries against others’ predatory and/or exploitative intentions, but we are also doomed to walk uphill against the professional double standard recognized in the groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins:

An employer who objects to aggressiveness in women but whose positions require this trait places women in an intolerable and impermissible Catch-22: out of a job if they behave aggressively and out of a job if they do not. [ix]

The behavioral characteristics of femininity are economically and intellectually devalued as compared to the traits of masculinity. Power is gendered. As a result, males continue to control almost all of the world’s resources and power, including the positions of institutional authority required to direct social reform.  Within this patriarchal context, women’s compliance with feminine behavioral norms simply does not result in social empowerment. It can’t. And it won’t. Because “gender” isn’t designed to work that way.

Eliminating sex-based gender assignments, while leaving hegemonic masculinity and femininity intact,isn’t going to rectify this imbalance. The cis/trans* binary is a gross oversimplification of the gendered dynamics that structure social relations in favor of male-born people. Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing.

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”

up [ii] Levi, Jennifer L., The Interplay Between Disability and Sexuality: Clothes Don’t Make the Man (or Woman), but Gender Identity Might. 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 90 (2006).

up [v] Clarke, Jessica A., Adverse Possession of Identity: Radical Theory, Conventional PracticeOregon Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2005.

up [vi] Special thanks to Virginia Brown for articulating these disparities.

up [ix] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 U.S. 228, 251).

up [x] [Here is an example of a trans woman listening, understanding, and incorporating feminist critique of gender into her work. It is possible. <<this link is dead.] Update May 2013: Here are links to blogs written by transwomen who listen to women: or or maybe even


Download a pdf of this article here.

Silencing Women

0_F-HooHGH-bg5hDac.jpgSilencing Women


I originally wrote this piece in response to the banning of a woman on twitter a few weeks ago. I was struck by the ease with which women are silenced on that platform, and how much that silencing reflects the experiences of so many women who have experienced abuse. Shortly after finishing writing it, I was myself, permanently banned from Twitter.

I was silenced for much of my childhood and young adulthood. I was abused in a number of ways. I live with the impact of that on me every day. Chronic anxiety. A constant checking and rechecking of what I think. A careful examination of others views to see if my own match up. In the area of personal relationships a constant checking and rechecking of what I feel. Silencing is a potent force and living under the injunction of silence is a hard habit to break.

I’m not unusual. Many of my female friends have experienced abuse. If not in their childhood, then as adults in coercive and violent relationships. And many of us did not talk about it. We grew into ourselves with a knowledge of our own uncertainty. Even feminism didn’t help. The movement that had focussed on the liberation of women fell by the wayside in the 1980s. Instead we were promised a new feminism, that liberated us just enough to enjoy lipstick and anal sex, and campaign for the rights of men to buy women’s bodies. Just never quite enough to talk openly about the things men did to us.

I learned quickly, that talking about men’s violence and its direct impact on me as a woman, was not ok. Not ok within our families; often not ok within our peer groups. I learned that the abuse I experienced at the hands of men, could not be located structurally anywhere within contemporary mainstream politics. The silence imposed on me as a child was replicated by the silence imposed on me as a young women. And for a while I barely spoke.

Like many of my peers who have experienced trauma, I wound up in a job that required me to care for others, and through that work I gained a lot. First some self esteem — I could do something. Secondly I learned that as long as I stayed silent I couldn’t fully recover from my history, so I learned to speak out, and sidestep those who wanted to silence me. Finally my work helped me engage politically. For most of my adult life I identified as and felt myself to be part of an effort to support human rights and progressive politics. I was a comrade and a sister.

Then in 2015, a man was made ‘Woman of the Year’ by Glamour magazine. I found it funny. It must be just another piece of Hollywood excess, I thought. They’re ‘aving a larf. Then I found out this was not at all funny. In the interests of progressive solidarity, woman were being instructed to acknowledge that some men are born with a “female brain”. All their lives, we are told, they struggle with this lack of alignment between their biological sex and their “internal gender”. As progressive women it was our duty to fight for their right to be recognised as women in every way. Across communities and campaign groups this was rapidly accepted. In particular within the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties, these new ideas became not so much policy, but a tenet of faith and a new orthodoxy.

Although I’d been aware of the issue for a while, it was in the summer of 2017 that I began to try and discuss it within labour circles. I knew of course that this was controversial. But progressive politics is pretty tough, and while I expected to have some direct and impassioned debates about this, I hoped and believed we’d be able to find a way forward.

The ideas were really important to me. If anyone could say they were a woman, then what was a woman? If a man could declare himself a woman, would that mean he could circumvent the legislation — primarily the 2010 Equality Act — that protected same sex spaces in refuges, healthcare facilities and prisons? If I requested a female healthcare professional to do my smear, could I object if instead a man who believed himself to be a woman turned up at the other end of the speculum? If — as happened in Labour party branches across the country — a man could declare himself a woman, and become the local women’s officer, then who would represent women in the party?

So I asked. And I said how I thought this might be a problem. And I asked for other views — and for a chance to debate and talk about it.

I was really shocked by what came next. There would be “no debate”. I didn’t have “the right” to discuss this matter. I needed to stop being “a bigot”. There was no engagement with different political interpretations of gender and certainly not the longstanding feminist belief that gender was a repressive social force that supported women’s subjugation.

Shortly afterwards, the position of the left and the progressive parties was made clear. The Labour Party announced it would open all spaces reserved in the party to discuss and make policy around women’s issues, to anyone who declared they were a woman. Groups of Labour MPs worked with gender activists to create blacklists of gender critical women to be expelled from the party. In the Greens, women were to be known from now on as “non men”. In the Lib Dems women who were gender critical were bullied and harried on line and in real life.

Slowly women and women’s groups started to challenge this — and immediately they were criticised for doing so. In the 2017 attack on a woman walking with friends at Hyde Park Corner to a debate they had organised, we saw the anger of the men we denied — and the lengths they would go to to compel compliance.

The debate grew most fiercely in social media — partly because social media is where a lot of political debate takes place, but also because women were silenced in so many other spaces. The sections of the media allegedly dedicated to women — the glossy monthlies and less glossy weeklies — exhorted us not just to accept, but to celebrate trans women as women — and to pillory those women who didn’t, as old fashioned or bigoted. On our TV stations and in our newspapers, again we were told that this was simply happening, and that those who sought to discuss it were “on the wrong side of history”.

The feminist role models we were presented with were either trans women — like Shon Faye who hosted Amnesty’s “Women Making History” festival in May 2018 despite repeatedly advocating that women should be silenced and shunned, or Monroe Bergdorf who claimed “women are doing feminism wrong”. With the exception of a few publications, women’s perspective on this major change in their own identity was been excluded or condemned.

In the UK the work of ordinary women, and of two organisations in particular — A Woman’s Place and Fairplay for Women — gave us information and support to talk about and discuss gender. They also helped us find a public voice. Despite repeated attacks on both organisations, and almost daily reports of women’s meetings being disrupted by violent young mainly male balaclava’d activists, these organisations amplified women’s concerns and gave us a voice loud enough to be heard. With record numbers of responses to the governments consultation on Gender Self ID, many from women critical of proposals, the headlong lurch towards legislative change has slowed. We still await the government’s full response, but perhaps here at least now, women — by refusing to be silenced — have turned a corner.

But in so many ways the damage has already been done. Labour, Greens and the Lib Dems have shown themselves to be structurally misogynistic. This has been demonstrated not just through their willing acceptance that there is no objective definition of what a woman is, but also they way they have treated women who have different views. Many of the male activists who women worked alongside for years have revealed a different side to themselves — one that does not condemn rape threats or sexist abuse, one that is happy to exclude women from political life because they have a different perspective.

Many women no longer have much confidence in mainstream politics to represent their views fairly — and nor should they have. We have been badly let down.

For me, the silencing I experienced as a child and as a young woman has echoed throughout the this period. A woman who is unable to speak about her experiences, beliefs, her worries and her concerns about the oppression of women is silenced no more subtly than the child who’s told not to talk about it at school, or the woman who is disbelieved when she says she has been harassed or assaulted. Replicating this censure at a structural level has perhaps always been the business of mainstream politics. But to see it so clearly now, is both a gift and and a curse.

A curse because as long as women are abused by men and by patriarchy on that grinding day to day basis, that saps us of our strength and confidence, this will be an effective weapon against us. A gift because — well I can speak only for myself right now — because its finally visible. Its out there. We see you. And having seen you, we cannot unsee you.

I cannot unsee the young male labour activist who told me I needed to be “raped to my senses” or the Lib Dem councillor who called me a “bigot and bitch”. The women on social media for whom rape threats, graphic insults and pictures of guns are an everyday occurrence, cannot unsee these either. Witnessing this daily evidence of structural misogyny reminds us we have to fight, we cannot stay silent.

Despite or perhaps because of the attacks on women, feminism — as a grass roots, woman driven political phenomena — has possibly not been stronger in the United Kingdom since we had to fight for our suffrage. We will not be silenced, however much we are abused.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: