Sunday, June 23, 2024
HomeKathy GyngellTCW's Top Twenty: Billionaire perverts behind the trans agenda

TCW’s Top Twenty: Billionaire perverts behind the trans agenda


As we approach the end of the year, we are repeating our twenty most-read articles of 2023, in reverse order. This is number 17 and it was first published on April 20.


‘This project . . . is backed by big finance, big pharma, big tech and all the corporations, international corporations, international finance houses, international law firms – they’re all driving the same narrative. And you have to ask yourself, why would this happen in the span of ten years?’ – Jennifer Bilek in an interview with James Patrick 

SINCE when did transgenderism become part of our vernacular? Today it seems to pervade our culture. Hardly a day goes by when there is not a trans story in the news or more evidence of the collapse of truth – the latest example being Channel 4’s Naked Education which sells the lie of two transmen’s ‘success’ stories – cancellation of anyone who dares call out the deceit, and evermore adults in authority dancing to the trans piper’s tune of ‘acceptable’ child abuse. Yet 15 years ago none of this existed. No child was asked in a school whether he or she was happy with his or her sexual orientation. Magazines did not obsess about the latest trans icon. Today they can’t leave it alone. Whether or not true, that pollsters can elicit that 20 per cent of Generation Z is likely to identify on the ‘LGBTQQIP2SAA’ spectrum and more than 5 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 30 identify as ‘transgender’ or ‘nonbinary’ is indicative of the speed of this revolution.

How did it happen in this timespan? One woman who has pursued this question believes this is no natural phenomenon or uprising like first wave feminism – there is no evidence of generations of trans people being cruelly oppressed, of a minority needing representation. On the contrary, transgenderism is a top down ‘ideology’ with close links to the transhumanist movement and megamoney-backed initiatives which can be traced back to early 2000s Silicon Valley scientists. Investigative journalist and feminist Jennifer Bilek has has located its genesis in two leading American transhumanists – William Bainbridge and the fabulously wealthy lawyer and bio-tech entrepreneur, Martine Rothblatt, a transwoman who had sex reassignment surgery in 1994.

In 2004, Rothblatt launched the Terasem Movement, a transhumanist school of thought focused on promoting joydiversity, and the prospect of technological immortality via mind uploading and geoethical nanotechnology‘.

Bileck believes that ‘Bainbridge’s religious, technological, religious cult’ met ‘Rothblatt’s fetish’ and that together they’ve driven ‘the ideology that people can be born in the wrong body through the institutions’. But it wasn’t to serve transgender people or people that thought they were born in the wrong body, ‘it was to destigmatise this fetish of adult men within the corporate world, within the community, within schools.’

James Patrick, the director of and the film Planet Lockdown, recently interviewed Bileck. The tale she has to tell is deeply disturbing. It is not about human rights but the creation of an ideology which says you can choose your sex and the money-backed ‘grooming’ of the media and institutions to ‘convert’ people to it, perhaps unknowingly, towards their broader transhumanist end. Follow the money as Bileck has done and you will see the billions of dollars given by big foundations to back and incorporate this ideology. The message comes from on high and its latent transhumanist purpose is not progressive but malign. For anyone in authority or with influence – doctor, parent, teacher, lawyer, celebrity, actor or musician – who is labouring under the illusion that encouraging or allowing children to change their gender is OK, this interview should be compulsory viewing.

A full transcript follows.

JAMES PATRICK: Hi, I’m James Patrick, the director of and the film Planet Lockdown. I’d like to introduce you to a very interesting woman named Jennifer Bilek. She’s a feminist and investigative journalist who’s dug deep into the transsexual issue. She’s found out it has an intersection with transhumanism and there’s huge, big billionaires pushing this issue and pushing it down our throats, frankly. Her work on the 11th Hour blog is some of the best work I’ve seen on this issue. And she gets to the bottom of the story and who’s behind it. Let’s hear what she has to say. 

JENNIFER BILEK: I’m an investigative journalist, and I write at the intersection of the gender industry, technology and runaway corporatism. I got into writing about this industry because I was in activist circles. I’ve campaigned for women’s rights since I’m in my twenties. I have campaigned for the environment, etc, etc. And there came a point around 2013 or so, that suddenly people were being deplatformed for acknowledging biological reality, that there are . . . that we are a sexually dimorphic species. There are only male and female sexes. We are a sexually dimorphic species, just male and female, and there isn’t anything in between.

Transsexualism has been around probably in the United States since the 1950s. Some people remember Christine Jorgensen made a big splash in the papers, but, you know, it wasn’t really part of our vernacular our, you know, social vernacular at all. 

You know, there was a few men who had this fetish, this adult male fetish of appropriating female . . . synthetic simulacrums of female biology for their, you know, sexual gratification. It used to be cross-dressing, transvestites. And then as soon as the medical industrial complex advanced to the point where they could make reasonably, you know, good fake sexes, you know, then, you know, they started to appropriate female anatomy. 

Well, in the 1940s, this guy, this guy William Sims Bainbridge was born. He graduated Harvard as a sociology professor. He’s written many, many, many books about cults, religions, technology, gaming, the future of psychological mind control. And he now works at the head of the National Science Foundation’s Cyber Human Program, which is the melding . . . it basically overlooks the ethics involved in human-cyber melding. And, you know, you can see this, this trajectory in the, you know, along the late 1990s, early 2000s. There was a big shift in the culture from, you know, data . . . from the digital age and the information age. And it’s sort of moved into artificial intelligence, transhumanism, robots, nanotechnology, biotechnology, etc. So this is kind of where we’re going now. This is like the future trajectory of this. But, you know, Silicon Valley has been pushing a transhumanist agenda for, you know, since the early 2000s, late 1990s. 

So then, Bainbridge meets up with another interesting character, Martine Rothblatt, who is also a transhumanist. And Rothblatt is, he’s a transsexual. He’s a man that’s appropriated simulacrums of women’s biology for himself. And he calls himself, you know, a transgender or a transsexual. And he’s travelled around broadly in the culture in many different circles, because he’s accomplished so many different things. He’s very well-renowned and very well, you know, appreciated for his accomplishments. So he’s been in the tech sector. He’s been in the medical sector. He’s been in . . . all over Hollywood, you know, he’s been on Oprah and he’s been on a million different shows, you know, with his robot wife, which he created. 

Rothblatt wrote a book. And it’s really, like, it’s really a blueprint of what’s going on in the culture now. This is his ideology, working off of the work of Bainbridge. Whereas we’re going to disintegrate the sexes, the boundary between the sexes, there’ll be no youth and age, there’ll be no, you know, male and female, there’ll be no . . . transhumanism is like boundarylessness. You know, you’re out there in cyberspace. Ultimately, while you’re getting there, it’s an upgrade in humanity, melding yourself with machines, you know, transferring reproduction, human reproduction to the tech sector. In, I think it was late 1980, he got together with a whole bunch of other transvestite lawyers and transsexuals, and they created a document which was the first, the very first gender bill, which brings disembodiment into the law, the sexual objectification of female biology, you know, into parts, and making a human right out of that. Right? 

JP:  What do you mean, disembodiment? 

JB:  Well, where he’s going is full-on disembodiment, where everybody lives in cyberspace. We live in a virtual reality. We don’t live in our bodies any more. We’re going to be uploaded into cyberspace. 

Well, in order to sell that to the public, you know, transhumanism and disembodiment as a life, you’re going to have to groom them and get them there. And the way to do that is to create this ideology that says that you can choose your sex. That’s disembodiment. You can’t choose your sex. You are the body that you were born as, no matter what happens to you. I mean, in 200 years, if they dig up my bones, you know, they’re going to find a female. You know, you can’t change that.

So the ideology is promoting the idea that you can. Right? So, and they’re driving this ideology into children’s schools, not only their schools, they’re driving it into their entertainment, their social media platforms, their schools, all the organisations that you know, that cater to children are all jumping on board with this ideology.

And this has only happened in the past ten years. I mean, before this we didn’t hear about this word, we didn’t hear transgenderism, we didn’t even hear transsexual. 2014 Laverne Cox was on the cover of Time magazine owned by Marc Benioff. And, you know, it announced a transgender tipping point, when there was really nothing preceding that to warrant that that would be a tipping point, 2014. It was just, like, dropped fully formed into the culture. And then, from then on, it was just like a chant, over and over and over and over and over again, you heard ‘Transgender. Transgender rights. Transgender rights are human rights. Trans rights are human rights.’ 

These huge NGOs, these very huge, powerful non-governmental organisations serving the LGB community worked hand-in-hand with international law firms like Hogan Lovells and Dentons and [unclear] Nextlaw and Open Society Foundation lawyers, to create, to start to create legal guides for transgender children. So they’re being, they’re, they start to build this edifice of transgender children, to drive this narrative, you know, that you can be born in the wrong body. 

And so we heard all these, you know, initial stories about these poor children born in the wrong bodies, right? Which is now, you know, a decade later, has morphed into just ‘expressing yourself’, right? You can be male, you can be female, you can be non-binary, you can, you know, have both your genitalias. And this is all about self-expression now. So it’s really morphed in the course of ten years into the right to augment yourself in whatever way you see fit. 

Bainbridge’s religious, technological, religious cult meets Rothblatt’s fetish. And they both take off together. And they’re both now in the techno-medical field here, right? And they drive this religion – and it is a cult. They’re driving it over media, and people are buying it. I mean, same people, people that are intelligent people, people are going, ‘Yes, you can be born in the wrong body.’

This project has, you know, is backed by big finance, big pharma, big tech and, and all the corporations, international corporations, international finance houses, international law firms, they’re all driving the same narrative. And you have to ask yourself, why would this happen in the span of ten years? You know, when human rights movements don’t act like that, they don’t come up like that. They come up against these entities, corporate entities, to fight oppression, not to, you know, to offer them, you know, more profiteering. 

So all of these people at the top are all thinking about this same thing and thinking about it in the same way. Do you know what I mean? It’s like Rothblatt and Bainbridge got together. They have this, you know, ideology that they’re forming. Rothblatt has actually written about it. He’s written about the technological takeover of human reproduction. He’s written about transgenderism being an onramp to transhumanism and how to drive that. He’s given conferences all over on how to do that. So he’s, he’s right there. He’s starring in this movie, you know? And he’s trying to drive this ideology through our institutions. 

Okay. So then you have all these gay men who suffered through the AIDS crisis. Even if they didn’t suffer themselves, they watched their brothers, you know, their cousins, you know, die. I mean, the LGB human rights movement was very, very young when AIDS hit, right? So immediately the medical industrial complex swoops in and is part of this movement now, right? And these philanthropic organisations come up to serve them right? And to serve the public. 

So once AIDS dissipates, though, you have these mammoth, you know, what were then LGB organisations, you know, teach them about, you know, safe sex and what . . . how the thing is, you know, how AIDS is transferred and you know, help for people, you know. So they were getting all this money, you know? And big pharma is profiting off of these AIDS drugs, and then suddenly, there goes AIDS, you know.

Then the issue became gay marriage for these organisations, right? And late 90s, early 2000s is when the first, when the two major LGB – what is now LGBT organisations – came up in the United States. You have Tim Gill founded the Gill Foundation, and then you have Jon Stryker starts Arcus Foundation, which is probably the most significant LGBT organisation in the world. Arcus Foundation, as well as Gill Foundation, send millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to our educational institutions, our medical institutions, prisons, organisations that serve the community, churches, everywhere, they’re everywhere, their money is everywhere. And it’s contingent though, that funding mechanism, is contingent upon adopting this ideology of gender ideology. 

And then these trans organisations started to come up. And this wasn’t to serve transgender people or people that thought they were born in the wrong body, but it was to destigmatise this fetish of adult men within the corporate world, within the community, within schools.

You know, when you’re sending millions and millions of dollars to these cash-strapped institutions, you know, like universities and schools and stuff, you know, and all they have to do is get on board with this progressive ideology. They’ve been told it’s progressive. Who cares? It’s part of the LGB, right? They don’t really think about what they’re doing. 

And then at the same time, the media is promoting this, ‘It’s a human right. It’s a human right. It’s a human right.’ Well, there’s thousands of, tens of thousands of children that are identifying as transgender now. And you have thousands of children on these puberty blockers that disrupt your growth, ruin your bones, provide all sorts of complications, water on the brain, etc., etc. And they usually graduate to cross-sex hormones, which are even more dangerous. And they’re going to be taking those for a lifetime, and they’re going to be sterilised.

And I think the first children’s gender clinic came up in, like, 2007. And now we have hundreds of them all over the United States. Where did they all come from and why? You know, nobody examines . . . nobody examines the issue. Why is this happening? Why are suddenly children like, oh, committing suicide in droves? They’re jumping out of buildings because they want to be the opposite sex. You know, like, we never heard about this before. If pharma could have made bank on this 50 years ago, we would have heard about it, you know?

This is totally a top-down arrangement of power and it comes, again, from the highest echelons of society, and finance, and then the owner of . . . the founder of Outright Leadership, which is the business networking arm of the LGB, comes out of banking. The guy that runs it comes out of banking. You know, Jon Stryker, head of Arcus Foundation, comes out of banking. There’s no Harvey Milk character here, do you know what I mean? There’s no grassroots activist here. These are all uber businessmen.

So you have a profiteering motive. Absolutely. Drugs, surgeries, surgery equipment. And not just the hormones and the puberty blockers, but you have the antibiotics, you have anti-rejection medications, You have myriad surgeries that people want to have after they have this attack, basically, on their sex, a medical attack on their sex, then they want to get their neck done and they want to get their Adam’s apple gone, and they want to have their jaw shaved off. And it’s like a compulsion, you know? And it’s driven through technology. It’s a consumerist orgy. And, you know, we’re the ones being consumed, you know? People, our sex is being actually deconstructed.

It’s not just an idea, an ideology. It’s actually happening. They are removing young women’s reproductive organs at major hospitals. So sex is actually medically being deconstructed as well as ideologically and legally and linguistically in the culture.

If you convince a whole generation of children that they can choose their sex, they’re not going to know where they come from. They’re not going to know who or what they are, because we as a species are connected to the real world, to the natural world, by sex. That’s how we’re tethered to everything else, everything in the universe, you know, in all the, you know, in the world, in the biological world, is reproduction. Regeneration, death; regeneration, death; regeneration, death. Right? 

But you’re teaching children that they can live for ever, that they can choose their sex, that they can choose whatever they want to choose. And this is madness. It’s absolute madness, because it goes against the grain of reality. You know, why are they driving an ideology of physical disassociation from your sexed reality? This is what’s going on here. Why is this happening? Confront that over and over and over again. 

Well, it’s all part of the medical tech sector that they’re going to profit from. If you  sterilise a whole generation of children, they’re going to need reproductive services, right? You can’t just go and make a baby in your backyard with your partner, right?

So, yeah, this is really an occupation. I mean, as a feminist, I see it as an occupation of womanhood. It’s not just using our biology like, you know, like it’s used in prostitution, or it’s used in the sex trades. This is, like, the pinnacle of objectification. ‘We’re going to take your biology. We’re going to wear it as a costume, first of all. And second of all, we’re going to transfer this reproductive capacity that you have to the tech sector.’ 

And this is why women are being legally erased in language in law. They just took ‘woman’, the word ‘woman’, out of the dictionary, in the Cambridge Dictionary, and they replaced it with ‘anybody that feels like a woman’. And the way that they do that, to transfer the, you know, human reproduction to the tech sector is through all the big fertility treatments that are out there now, you know, freezing your eggs and freezing your sperm and surrogacy. And they’re talking, you know, they’re researching womb implants, womb transplants. It’s profiteering, and it’s social control in the sense that they really, literally, want to break sex apart, the boundary between the males and females of our species. They want to break this apart. They perceive this as progress. You will be unburdened by sexual stereotypes, by sexual inequalities. Mothers and women won’t have to have children.

It’s like, look at the tampon. You know what I mean? Suddenly women could leave the house. You know, you didn’t have to sit in your backyard on this stack of rags, you know? It’s technology. It’s the advancement of technology to improve, you know, our lives. But we never get a say in any of that, you know? We don’t get to say. We don’t get to decide. We don’t get all the information. This is all elites deciding this for us, right? 

And it rides the bullet train of the market, you know? Everybody is profiteering off of this now, even if they have no idea what it’s about. You know, transgender modelling agencies, gender fluid makeup, photographers taking pictures of transgender children, you know, it’s everywhere. And this same message is being driven into their grade schools. You know, by second grade they’re learning about gender identity, taking hormones. 

And this is all brought in under anti-bullying programmes. These programmes were passed by Obama and funded by the Pritzker family, one of the largest . . . one of the most wealthy families in America. There’s many of them. Jennifer Pritzker was an Army colonel. He purports to be a female and runs around with, you know, synthetic sex characteristics of a female. And he drives this ideology into the psychiatric departments of major universities, into other medical institutions, gender hospitals, the military, etc., etc. And his company, Tawani Foundation, is partnered with Squadron Capital, which is a medical device company. So he’s following the same trajectory of Arcus Foundation – Stryker Medical is a medical supply corporation, right? And they’re going to be profiting off of these surgeries, not just, you know, so-called gender surgeries, but human augmentation. 

When we open the door to these kind of radical changes to our biology, you know, the way that we’re planted in the ecosphere, you know, once we let that go, that tether, anything is up for grabs. You know, they can manipulate your DNA, they can manipulate you any way you want. And that’s why these rights are, I mean, from what I can tell, why these rights, these gender rights are being passed, it’s not about people that are allowing a medical attack on their sex. It’s for future augmented human beings. 

I follow the money and money trails do not lie. They tell you the truth. And I don’t care how crazy I sound, because it doesn’t matter to me, you know? It just doesn’t matter. Just get the information out there so people can go looking for themselves. Because again, it’s not hidden. And none of this is hidden. It’s just that people are not looking for it. Do you know what I mean? They’re looking at the human rights angle. ‘These poor individuals,’ right? ‘who feel trapped in the wrong body,’ you know, ‘my heart breaks.’ 

You know, it’s so ridiculous. All the governments, all of the politicians, all the major banks, all the financial investment houses, all the medical institutions, the universities, the schools, the corporations, the law firms, they’ve all jumped on board within ten years for poor people that have identity issues, that have body dysphoria. I mean, come on, this is so patently ridiculous. And people just gobble it up.

I mean, you have people that have body dysphoria related to their limbs, you know, you know, body integrity identity disorder, and they feel like their limbs don’t belong to them. It’s usually a, you know, a lower extremity, a leg or a foot. And they, you know, they just feel like they want . . . they feel like they’re going to cut it off, you know, because it’s so . . . it just feels so wrong to them. And psychiatrists have notorious difficulty trying to treat these people. But we haven’t made any parades for them. We haven’t started a human rights movement for them. We haven’t put them on the cover of Time magazine. We haven’t had a makeup line for them, or a modelling agency. 

I could say the same thing for anorexics, that’s a form of body dysmorphia. Why is this only happening around these people, you know, who are claiming a synthetic sex identity? You know? And why has it happened across the board in so many different countries? And laws are changing and language is changing to uproot society, the way that we’re organised as a society. Why would you do that to people? I mean, it’s absolute insanity. It’s madness. Nothing means anything any more, right? There’s no boundaries. Boundarylessness.

I started following the money around this issue because if you want to know anything in America, you follow the money, right? And so I started following the money and I looked at all these different NGOs, these non-governmental organisations that were really huge. They were huge, like Arcus Foundation and Gill Foundation. They’re mammoth. They’ve each given like a half a billion dollars to spread this ideology through the cultures, you know, not just our culture, but, you know, Western cultures, because they fund other organisations that do the same thing, and they create this whole scaffolding, this political scaffolding to drive it, so that you have media people, you have people that are being trained in politics to get them into political institutions like the Victory Institute, for instance, that’s funded very heavily by Arcus Foundation. And like, for instance, Rachel Levine was part of that organisation. You know, they call people from different schools and different areas that are going to work for them, and then they train them to be in these positions to drive policy through the culture, right? Which Levine is doing, if you’ve seen him speak.

And so then they have media people as well, like GLAD is the media arm. So GLAD and Arcus Foundation are closely working together and GLAD goes about spreading information about how people are supposed to talk about this, because it’s a human right and you don’t want to offend anybody, right?

So the message comes from on high. And what I mean by ‘on high’ is not Arcus Foundation, I mean Stryker Medical. $17.1billion corporation and growing by the day, in 75 different countries. The medical industrial complex is bigger than the military industrial complex. 

So I’ve picked out a few different characters that are very, very prominent and are doing a lot of work to change society and to change people’s minds, to drive this techno-religion through our society. But there are many, many others, whether or not they actually know what they’re doing, it’s not quite clear to me, but they, most of them, come out of the techno-medical industry, the banking industry. 

We don’t see big oil men, you know, in the gender industry. Do you know what I mean? We don’t see automakers in the gender industries, do you know what I mean? This is all pharma, tech and big finance, you know? BlackRock, Vanguard. The ideology is just so patently ridiculous.

You know, I mean, there are men, grown men with adult diaper fetishes. Are we going to have, like, next year, are we going to have, like, changing tables in the corporate arena for them? You know, we have stores for them now, where they can actually go and buy paraphernalia for their fetish. But why are we, you know, why are we normalising fetish? You know, fetishes, really, it’s a compulsion and it’s objectification. You know, it objectifies if your fetish is for another person, it’s an objectifying of them, objectification of them.

So, and we’re seeing this because we’re dissociated as a society. You know, this has become our mode of expression now, dissociation and compulsion, addiction, you know, because we’re trying to fill up the holes that this society has created. And instead of looking at the society and how damaged and broken it is, that it’s not giving us what we need. All these aberrant behaviours are being supported in its stead, which is absolute madness. 

GLSEN is the educational arm of the LGBT Inc. And they basically take care of educating the populace in schools, in community centres about, you know, they dispense gender ideology to them, sort of like the old Christians used to come into the, you know, American Indian communities and indoctrinate them into Christianity. Well, this is very similar. It’s a technological religion, and they’re indoctrinating people to this ideology, promoting it as a human right. But it’s a technological religious cult.

You don’t get to bow out of this. I mean, that’s becoming abundantly clear to a lot of people, but they don’t understand why. Why can’t we talk about this, if this is a human right organisation, a movement for human rights, why wouldn’t you want to share that information with people? Why wouldn’t you want to get people on board with it? 

Everything is transphobic. You can’t speak about it. No debate. No debate. You know you can’t talk about it. You can’t even talk about womanhood, because that’s transphobic. Everything is transphobic. I mean, it’s becoming like a joke on social media now.

The construct of the transgender child had to be created. So, you know, these very, very large international law firms, lawyers, have created legal structure for transgender children. Right? And how to communicate about this, like, how to drive this ideology. They’ve created guides, basically, for people. Right? 

So this gets, you know, this is created through these ginormous NGOs, right? With these international law firms. And then they’re sent down through the community, you know, through people like, you know, organisations like GLAD, right, who take that information and now they indoctrinate the public. ‘This is a human right and some people are born in the wrong body. And it’s just the way that it is.’ And da-da-da-da-da.

You know, and then you have GLAD who, you know, takes care of the media. This is the way that you have to sell this to people. Right? So, and then these universities are getting, you know, all of this money to promote this ideology. And so they do, you know? So it’s coming from every single avenue that you can think of in the culture. 

Well, let’s see. Governor Pritzker just sent a bill through the schools in Illinois, Chicago specifically, that if you want health education in your school, you have to adopt gender ideology. You have to teach kids about gender ideology, which means they can, you know, you can change your sex, you can get hormones and puberty blockers, you can change your name. Very sexualised material as well, very intense sexual material, they’re teaching them. You know, anal sex and the gamut, you know, bondage and, you know, anything really that you can think of. They’re teaching them to young children.

And so if you don’t want this in this school, in your school, then you have to pull out of health education altogether. You don’t get any health education. If you want health education, then you have to do this. So this, I think, was sort of a, you know, the first real platform of its kind to sort of see how this went over, you know. Most parents said, ‘No, we don’t want it,’ which is a credit, a credit to them. But they’re still pushing it, they’re still pushing it all over the schools. And, you know, teachers adopt it, parents adopt it because they think it’s kind, you know? They don’t want to be seen as terrible people. This is part of the LGB. 

The LGB people have been accepted in society now. Usually somebody knows somebody in their family somewhere, right, who’s gay or lesbian or bisexual. And so it’s like, ‘Oh, this is just, you know, this is just part of that.’ This is what they’ve been told. Not once, not twice – over and over and over and over again. 

Well, the material that they’re being exposed to is highly sexualised. They’ve got Drag Queen Story Hours, grown men dancing around with a G-string on and makeup and hair flying, you know, fake boobs bouncing. You know, and this is supposed to be progressive and cool and fun. And they’re teaching them about, you know, very, very sexual material. You know, what partners do with each other. They’re teaching them about hormones and puberty blockers and that you can change your sex if you want to. ‘This is, you know, just the way some people are.’ It’s not a disorder. It’s not anything other than, oh, it’s just another way to be human.’

God, I think we should just throw the whole thing out, honestly, even as a feminist, I think that, because it’s just so . . . it’s so convoluted now, it’s just ridiculous, you know? I mean, you have . . . you have a female body – that’s really the only thing that makes me a female is my female body. It’s not because I like long hair, or because I like pink nails or want to run around in high heels or, you know, I cry myself to sleep every night, you know? No, none of those things. Those things are socially constructed, right? But they do have some relation, some, you know, small relationship to biology. You know, like testosterone really drives male aggression. I mean, even the women that are, you know, having their sex medically attacked, who call themselves, you know, ‘men’ discuss how, how aggressive it makes them feel.

We all have oestrogen and testosterone, you know, but like, overwhelming the body, that’s not meant for that causes changes, right? So there are propensities. And I really just say that with such caution, you know. Like, propensities of women and men to act a certain way because of their biology. We have, generally speaking, smaller hands. We take care of infants. It makes sense evolutionarily, do you know what I mean? But you know, when you get into, ‘Female brains are smaller and they don’t read as well,’ or, you know, ‘Men are better at math,’ or, you know, all those things are just ridiculous stereotypes. Right? 

But, you know, it’s very difficult to talk about all of those things in this particular climate, you know? So you have conservatives, for instance, going, ‘No, gender is not a social construct,’ right? ‘Females do like to do all these things,’ right? And then you have radical feminists screaming that it’s totally a social construct. I don’t think any of those things is actually real. You know, I think it hovers somewhere in between. 

But feminists, sort of, you know, they wanted to make . . . to, to sort of explain the difference between, you know, our biology and the role that is constructed for us under male supremacy, basically, where we get the shitty end of the attributes, that are docile and non-active and demure and, you know . . . whereas men get all the active qualities, you know, assertive, take action, blah, blah, blah.

So it was originally meant to talk about that hierarchy, right? But now it’s like, because like I said, in this particular environment, it’s completely useless. Just throw it the hell out, you know? Talk about sex, because while you’re discussing gender, the state, the corporate state is running away with human sexual reproduction and transferring it to the tech sector. 

Women are being erased in language in law. It’s like we don’t exist. You know, rapists are being put in women’s prisons, because there’s . . . it doesn’t matter. You know, sex doesn’t matter. Only gender identity matters. The feeling that you have about yourself matters.

So women are being erased in language and law. And mostly women are having their biology deconstructed. You know, young women are getting the double mastectomies. You know, they’re having their ovaries removed. They’re having their wombs removed. You know, it’s way, way top heavy with young women having their bodies, their sex bodies medically attacked. 

So this isn’t just some ideological thing going around of female erasure. This is actually happening. And you have to ask the question, well, why is this happening? Why would they do that? And when you follow the money, like I do, you find the answers. It’s all going to the tech sector, to the, you know, they want to take over human reproduction with technology. People worry about, you know, ‘Oh this is crazy. Where is it going?’ And, you know, but look at where it is. It’s absolute madness out there. You can’t say . . . you can’t talk about reality without bringing the law down upon you. Women are being arrested. Arrested. Legally arrested for saying that, you know, men can’t be women.

So where it’s going, you know, the money points to them sort of overlaying a virtual reality over the natural world and subjugating the natural world. All the big techie guys, they’re all talking about it. They don’t hide it. Metaverse for Zuckerberg, Singularity for Ray Kurzweil, who’s also mentored Martine Rothblatt, he says we’re, you know, in very short order, we’re going to be living as a different species. We’re going to be post-human. 

Now, he’s considered one of our greatest intellectuals, public intellectuals. He works for Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum. And he says that, you know, we’re building a virtual reality, that we actually live in a virtual reality already – which I actually agree with – and that it’s going to be more solidified, and it’s going to be more important than and more significant than the natural world. And this is where they’re taking this. Whether they get there or not is anybody’s guess, because there’s not a whole lot of planet left for them to destroy and colonise in order to get the resources to build the tech that they need to do this. However, but that’s never stopped anybody, do you know what I mean? ‘We can’t do it. We shouldn’t do it’ – never stopped anybody. 

Look at the way they’re sexualising children, too. I mean, this is like, you know, the first people to dissociate from their physically sexed body are, you know, rape survivors and kids who have been sexually molested, right? They dissociate, you know, because they’re being traumatised sexually, right? So, and they’re flooding children’s mainstream media, their schools and other institutions with this highly, highly sexual material. And it’s just really overwhelming. I mean, when you think about the things that we’re exposed to, I mean, as adults, I mean, the crazy, you know, sexual activity that’s out there, the wars, the violence, the shows that are on television, everything is so violent, you know. Before the advent of the internet, we didn’t have that kind of exposure to all of those things outside of our own little community, you know?

So we become traumatised. And traumatised people don’t move. Their initial response is to freeze, if you’re being traumatised. You know, somebody comes into a bank and they hold you up and they put a gun in your face, you’re going to freeze, you’re not going to do anything, you know? And people are really sort of frozen in terms of responding to this. This is absolute madness.

When you have a young man on national TV talking about his castration surgery and you follow him into the operating room. And then People magazine, you know, puts on a spread celebrating his penis goodbye party, where he has a penis cake, and this is a big celebration, this is absolute madness. And we should all be saying so. And the fact that we’re not is a very, very big problem, that we’ve gotten to the point where we can’t say what’s real, what’s horrible. It’s absolute madness.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.