Ritual castration dates back thousands of years and can be observed throughout cultures around the world. Eunuchs existed in China 4,000 years ago, were imperial servants 3,000 years ago, and were common as civil servants by the time of the Qin dynasty. Eunuch singers are known to have existed from the early Byzantine Empire, and Italy famously castrated young boys to preserve a feminine singing voice. At the height of Italy’s fascination with the castrati, in the 1720s and 1730s, it has been estimated that upwards of 4,000 boys were castrated annually. The hijras of India, now often referred to in Western media as trans women, traditionally underwent not only castration but also participated in prostitution, a practice that continues to this day.
Castration also figured in a number of religious castration cults. During the late 18th century, for instance, a religious sect emerged in Russia that preached self-mutilation, particularly of primary and secondary sex characteristics. The Skoptsy, as they were called, could be compared to Orthodox Christians: they believed in saints, heaven and hell, and that Jesus Christ died on the cross. Unlike mainstream Christianity, the Skoptsy sect also believed that Christ was castrated.
In decades past, the overwhelming majority of those claiming to suffer ‘gender dysphoria’, or a strong wish to inhabit the body of the opposite sex, were adult men with transvestic fetishism. These days, gender dysphoria is used broadly to refer not only to a male preoccupation with his status in society and the size or shape of his own genitalia, but to a discomfort with one’s sexed body in general. In this way, the male sexual practices of feminization and castration — whether surgical, chemical, or metaphorical — have been expanded to include women and children.
The reasons that women and girls experience discomfort with their bodies are profoundly different from the ways adult men express their desires to become “sissy sluts”, to “grow boobs” or get “girl skin”, or to otherwise inhabit female bodies for the purpose of arousal at being treated like, and degraded as, a woman. Therefore, I propose that what is really meant by “inclusivity” is the forced integration of women and children into male fetishistic proclivities in order to normalize them. In this, women and children are being treated as collateral damage.
Just as the Skoptsy, the hijra, and those responsible for the castrati actively indoctrinated children into self-mutilation, sometimes by force, so the modern transgender movement tirelessly targets youth. Through children’s books, social media, television programs, celebrities, and influencers, young people are being told that masochism and dissociation are not only to be celebrated, but an expression of identity.
It was necessary for the Skoptsy to alienate children from their families in order to achieve this; similarly, gender ideologues claim that parents are abusing their children when they attempt to protect them from harm. Gender ideology represents a new iteration on the strategies of previous self-harm cults. From the Skoptsy to the Castrati, women and children have long been mutilated to normalize the practices — whether religious, cultural, or sexual — of adult men.
The government conflates sexual orientation and “gender identity”. It should think again.
We know there are some billionaire donors funding the extreme trans rights agenda, including Republican ex-army officer Jennifer Pritzker, who is trans; medical technology heir Jon Stryker, who is gay; and the investor and philanthropist George Soros.
As for strategy, the answer may lie in the so-called Dentons document, prepared for a group of trans lobbyists by the world’s oldest law firm, with the backing of the Thomson Reuters Foundation. It set out a cuckoo-in-the-nest strategy that is all too familiar to those of us who remember Stonewall when it was simply campaigning for lesbian and gay equality: find a more popular cause to piggy-back onto, and be discreet about it. “[A] technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure,” the document advised. In other words, No Debate.
So what happens when that strategy unravels? When the media starts to disobey the “No Debate” edict, opponents of gender ideology refuse to be cancelled, and more and more people experience a Wizard of Oz moment?
But the real unknown is what lasting impact Stonewall has had on hearts and minds. A generation of young people now believes that sex is a spectrum, that children have the right to choose a male or a female puberty, and that any man who says he’s a woman should be allowed in women’s spaces. These young people are already becoming teachers, policy-makers, journalists and politicians, insisting that anyone who disagrees is a bigot who must be cast out of society. Taking Stonewall out of the equation won’t stop them imposing these ideas on another generation.
That’s the pessimistic view, but there’s also a more optimistic one. It’s often noted that identifying as LGBTQ+ has become a fashion for teenagers.
Fashions are, by definition, transitory. What’s more, ideas change very quickly under stress. Sooner or later, a group of detransitioners will bring a class action against the doctors and/or pharmaceutical companies who have facilitated a mass medical experiment on children. If it succeeds, it will be hard to find anyone who admits to ever having cheered the experiment on.
- Lia Thomas, 22, most recently competed in a women’s swimming event on November 20 between Princeton and Cornell
- She has been breaking records while competing with University of Pennsylvania
- Thomas previously competed for the school’s men’s team for three years before joining the women’s team. Her last men’s competition was November 2019
- Some have voiced their anger at her swimming success, claiming it to be ‘unfair,’ and many refused to refer to her as a woman
- NCAA rules dictate any trans female athlete can take part in women’s events if they have completed a year of testosterone suppression treatment
- It is unknown when Thomas began transitioning
In a surprising editorial published in the Washington Post, two transgender activists and psychologists, Laura Edwards-Leeper and Erica Anderson, are now advocating for “gender-exploratory therapy” for trans-identified youth before rushing into puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and sex-change surgery.
[W]hen we said it, we were vilified as bigoted transphobes who wanted to implement the barbaric and primitive practice of – get ready! – “conversion therapy.”
But when pro-trans psychologists say, “Many of our health professionals are affirming kids too quickly in their trans identity,” they are now enlightened thinkers whose views should be embraced with respect. How ironic.
According to Newgent, the reason that the medical industry has been so quick to transition kids is simple: they make a lot of money doing it, and they gain lifetime income in the form of hormone (and other drug) prescriptions). Being pro-trans in the medical industry can be quite lucrative.
As for these activists now speaking out, Newgent does not believe that they suddenly grew a conscience. Rather, she is convinced some are coming clean now for one reason only: she exposed their moral and intellectual compromise while filming a forthcoming documentary with them.
And what should we make of shocking news reports like this? “Children being treated for transgender issues at Sweden’s Karolinska University Hospital have allegedly suffered severe injuries as a result of hormone puberty blockers.
“Doctors at Karolinska University Hospital have reportedly long been aware of the injuries suffered by children as a result of hormone treatments, however, the injuries were not . . . made public until this week.”
Does this not sound criminal?
A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.
French and Belgian women’s rights demonstrators are once again sounding alarm bells over the violence they are facing from trans activists while trying to campaign on women’s issues.
On November 28, a small group of about 12 female activists took part in a march against violence against women in Brussels, holding signs protesting the sex trade, including pornography. But the women’s efforts were quickly drowned out by a sea of trans activists, who they say surrounded them and pushed them into a corner.
The women report they were “beaten, insulted, intimidated” and had their signs stolen and torn up by a gang of over 50 trans activists who swarmed them despite their signs having nothing to do with them.
In footage a participant uploaded on Twitter, masked and hooded trans activists can be heard chanting “cassez vous,” (fuck off) at the women.
Similar events transpired at a violence-against-women demonstration in Barcelona on November 25.
These are not the only two occasions of women demonstrating against the sex trade being targets of trans activist anger. Earlier this year, women who gathered in Paris were pelted with eggs and assaulted with red spray paint in their eyes.
Later, the statue where the incident had taken place was spray painted with words translating to “save a trans person, kill a TERF.”
In Barcelona, during a March 3 Women’s Day demonstration, according to Women Are Human, a group of trans activists could “be seen suddenly kicking away and stomping on the women’s signs.” Then, the trans activists turned “their destruction into dance moves and set it to the beat of music and a rhythmically clapping crowd.”
Later on, an effigy of a woman was hanged on a tree in the same area.
Ukrainian fertility clinic, BioTexCom Center for Human Reproduction, received sharp criticism from netizens for an advertisement posted to Twitter featuring a woman surrounded by babies with the text: “SALE: Black Friday.” The clinic wrote: “Hurry up and receive a discount. A unique proposal for our clients – 3 percent OFF EVERY PACKAGE.”
In May 2020, photographs from the Kyiv-based surrogacy clinic made global headlines when over 100 babies were left stranded after Ukraine closed its borders to foreign travelers in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
The highly profitable surrogacy industry in Ukraine specifically targets poor women from small villages.
BioTexCom is also one of a few fertility clinics worldwide that is commercializing an untested and highly controversial method of genetic engineering that it markets as “mitochondrial donation.” This involves interfering with mitochondrial DNA of an egg to force an embryo to carry the genetic material of two women and one man, resulting in what is advertised as “three-parent” babies.
Tetiana Shulzhynska, a Ukrainian woman who underwent a surrogacy procedure in 2013 because she desperately needed to pay back a bank loan, attempts to warn other women. Shulzhynska contracted cervical cancer just months after giving birth. In 2020 she told The Guardian, “In a contract, they protect only babies, they don’t care about us.”
Moreover, Dutch researchers who analyzed the health records of more than a million children conceived through assisted reproduction involving frozen embryo transfer found they were more than twice as likely to develop childhood cancer. In addition, a study by the University of Cambridge found that children born via surrogacy are more likely to suffer from depression.
Prostitution is laced with mortal peril: women who sell sex are 18 times more likely to be murdered than women who don’t, according to one study. Yet these women have throughout history been cast as second-class citizens, not worthy of the same concern as other victims.
How best to prevent violence against those selling sex, the vast majority of whom are women, is a question that has long divided feminists. For some, it is about decriminalising the selling and buying of sex, which in England and Wales would mean dropping criminal offences such as kerb crawling, soliciting and running a brothel. There will always be prostitution, so the argument goes, so best to keep it out in the open. Others agree that the selling of sex should be decriminalised in all circumstances and think women should be provided with ample support to get out of prostitution, but argue that the buying of sex, an almost exclusively male activity, should always be a crime.
The full decriminalisation argument is driven by a belief that it is possible to sufficiently strengthen the agency of those who sell sex to transform it into “sex work”, like any other job. . . . Women railing against this are depicted as prudes constrained by their own squeamishness about sex.
There are two reality checks that bring these theoretical arguments crashing down to earth. The first is that for every woman or man selling sex who regards it as a positive choice, and there are some, there are many more who have been trafficked or exploited and are effectively enslaved to criminal networks, working for a pittance, or for drugs to forget the trauma of being forced into selling yourself to be penetrated again and again, or for nothing at all.
Second, as the feminist campaigner Julie Bindel exposed in her 2017 book The Pimping of Prostitution, decriminalisation and regulation has not been the success its advocates claim.
Decriminalisation can’t make prostitution safe because it is inherently dangerous and exploitative. How is a woman selling sex supposed to maintain safe boundaries or withdraw consent when a man physically capable of killing her is hurting her?
To accept that prostitution is always going to happen, and therefore the best we can do is regulate it, not only means tolerating the abuse of women: it is to be complicit in its expansion.