US Government rules on Gender Identity

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Elvis » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:19 am

Heaven Swan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:12 pm wrote:This video is an entertaining way to learn about RadFem reasoning re: why transwomen aren't women and don't belong in feminism.



“You Are a Woman Hater. It’s Just That Simple.”

August 28, 2017
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... at-simple/

God this is good. Mancheeze critiques some YouTube dickhead’s video about how much he hates women and how women should pretend otherwise. I watched his video last week and it was as boring and offensive as you’d expect, but I could listen to Mancheeze go on forever. I nearly busted a gut laughing my ass off. She killed it. Five stars! True feminist entertainment.



I have to say, I couldn't turn it off, and I essentially agree with her. This is not a big issue for me personally, but the main reason I check these threads from time to time is I've slowly been re-undstanding it. A couple of guys I know well report that they like to feel feminine, and that dressing in women's garments and so on helps emphasize or maximize feminine aspects of their psyches. I can't in any way say there's anything wrong with that. One identifies as transgender (albeit still in a heterosexual marriage w/kids), for the other guy it's mainly a bedroom kink and occasionally wearing lingerie around the house. Neither knows any psychological or biological mechanism of their "different" desires, that is, they don't know why they feel and act that way. They'd like not to keep it a secret, the lifelong deception mindset is a burden. Neither is involved in controversial sexual politics or movements, and they'd never be so upset about transphobia that they'd go out looking to harm anyone over it.

So there's a broad range of expression and temperement out there, and I hope not all men who like to dress in women's clothes, put on fake boobs, shave their legs, or even get surgery, will be branded as the twisted kooks and misogynists who get all the attention. I'm just getting past seeing crossdressing as a Milton Berle vaudeville schtick, I can now not laugh when I see an obvious man in a dress (sometimes takes some self-control). The violence expressed in those Tweets is really disturbing, jeez. And the bathtub menstruation fantasy has got to be offensive to women.

For what it's worth, I suspect that some of these tendencies—or may I say urges—are connected with 'past life' experiences. Exploring this avenue could be enlightening for some individuals.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7433
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:48 pm

Transastronauts are astronauts.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:38 pm

hey Iam, thanks for the off-guardian link for over on the Global Research thread. The following article nails it on the why of the sudden emergence of 'trans activism'.
The whole article is an excellent deprogramming routine for those that still consider that AD and those of his ilk have honorable intentions.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/26/syn ... -politics/

More disturbingly, what we see in extreme transgender activism is what in previous generations would have been considered unthinkable: modern social outcasts, instead of being turned into the government and pop culture-abhorring Goths or punk rockers of the past, are instead now being repurposed to actually support official government lines and agendas regarding gender, the breakdown of families, and the erasure of sexual distinctions and associated protections. The aggression of the outcasts, which used to be turned against the state, is now being turned against enemies of the state and anybody that opposes its new reality warping transgender theories and laws. Trans-cultists are quickly beginning to resemble the brainwashed children in George Orwell’s 1984.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:50 pm

It's weird to think that Sounder lives In Trump's United States just as I do.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:14 am

Elvis wrote:
I have to say, I couldn't turn it off, and I essentially agree with her. This is not a big issue for me personally, but the main reason I check these threads from time to time is I've slowly been re-undstanding it. A couple of guys I know well report that they like to feel feminine, and that dressing in women's garments and so on helps emphasize or maximize feminine aspects of their psyches. I can't in any way say there's anything wrong with that. One identifies as transgender (albeit still in a heterosexual marriage w/kids), for the other guy it's mainly a bedroom kink and occasionally wearing lingerie around the house. Neither knows any psychological or biological mechanism of their "different" desires, that is, they don't know why they feel and act that way. They'd like not to keep it a secret, the lifelong deception mindset is a burden. Neither is involved in controversial sexual politics or movements, and they'd never be so upset about transphobia that they'd go out looking to harm anyone over it.

So there's a broad range of expression and temperement out there, and I hope not all men who like to dress in women's clothes, put on fake boobs, shave their legs, or even get surgery, will be branded as the twisted kooks and misogynists who get all the attention...


Radical feminists (i.e. real feminists) would like to see an end to the gender system, which they see as sexism (a tool to codify and enforce sex hierarchy). This would mean freedom for everyone to wear whatever clothes, make up, study whatever subjects and do whatever jobs they want without being shamed, policed and pushed back into their gender box.

Why can’t a man express his feminine qualities without claiming to “be” a woman, invade our private spaces and go after every hard won right we have won over the last century? Why can’t he play and experiment without attacking us and claiming to be more oppressed and more “woman” than biological women? There’s something sick and rotten here when something that could be so liberating spawns an anti-feminist movement complete with a band of death threat spewing, violent enforcers.


Elvis » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:19 am wrote:
Heaven Swan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:12 pm wrote:This video is an entertaining way to learn about RadFem reasoning re: why transwomen aren't women and don't belong in feminism.



“You Are a Woman Hater. It’s Just That Simple.”

August 28, 2017
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... at-simple/

God this is good. Mancheeze critiques some YouTube dickhead’s video about how much he hates women and how women should pretend otherwise. I watched his video last week and it was as boring and offensive as you’d expect, but I could listen to Mancheeze go on forever. I nearly busted a gut laughing my ass off. She killed it. Five stars! True feminist entertainment.



I have to say, I couldn't turn it off, and I essentially agree with her. This is not a big issue for me personally, but the main reason I check these threads from time to time is I've slowly been re-undstanding it. A couple of guys I know well report that they like to feel feminine, and that dressing in women's garments and so on helps emphasize or maximize feminine aspects of their psyches. I can't in any way say there's anything wrong with that. One identifies as transgender (albeit still in a heterosexual marriage w/kids), for the other guy it's mainly a bedroom kink and occasionally wearing lingerie around the house. Neither knows any psychological or biological mechanism of their "different" desires, that is, they don't know why they feel and act that way. They'd like not to keep it a secret, the lifelong deception mindset is a burden. Neither is involved in controversial sexual politics or movements, and they'd never be so upset about transphobia that they'd go out looking to harm anyone over it.

So there's a broad range of expression and temperement out there, and I hope not all men who like to dress in women's clothes, put on fake boobs, shave their legs, or even get surgery, will be branded as the twisted kooks and misogynists who get all the attention. I'm just getting past seeing crossdressing as a Milton Berle vaudeville schtick, I can now not laugh when I see an obvious man in a dress (sometimes takes some self-control). The violence expressed in those Tweets is really disturbing, jeez. And the bathtub menstruation fantasy has got to be offensive to women.

For what it's worth, I suspect that some of these tendencies—or may I say urges—are connected with 'past life' experiences. Exploring this avenue could be enlightening for some individuals.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:26 am

Thanks Sounder for posting the link to this fabulous essay that looks at the big picture behind the unified and resounding support by all aspects of the power structure for the transactivist agenda.

The article talks about the elite underpinnings of this support but so many low level leftist men (like AD), motivated by misogyny they can’t publically express in leftist environments, have gleefully seized onto supporting trans as a wedge issue and weapon to attack women and feminism.

Sounder » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:38 pm wrote:hey Iam, thanks for the off-guardian link for over on the Global Research thread. The following article nails it on the why of the sudden emergence of 'trans activism'.
The whole article is an excellent deprogramming routine for those that still consider that AD and those of his ilk have honorable intentions.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/26/syn ... -politics/

More disturbingly, what we see in extreme transgender activism is what in previous generations would have been considered unthinkable: modern social outcasts, instead of being turned into the government and pop culture-abhorring Goths or punk rockers of the past, are instead now being repurposed to actually support official government lines and agendas regarding gender, the breakdown of families, and the erasure of sexual distinctions and associated protections. The aggression of the outcasts, which used to be turned against the state, is now being turned against enemies of the state and anybody that opposes its new reality warping transgender theories and laws. Trans-cultists are quickly beginning to resemble the brainwashed children in George Orwell’s 1984.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:30 am

Forgot to mention.
I’m so happy to see IamwhoIam posting again. Was afraid he has gotten fed up and was gone forever.
Welcome back Iam. I missed your posts.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Jerky » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:07 am

Sorry, but this video by Mancheez or whoever is embarrassingly stupid on a number of counts. I happen to agree that trans women are biologically male, but in terms of making a good faith effort to address the points raised (entertainintly and intelligently) by ContraPoints (one of the better Youtubers out there on the Left) she fails in abject, absolute misery. It's just "YOU'RE A MAN!" ranting over and over again, allowing a half-second of Contra's video to play before stopping it and screeching "MISOGYNY!!! WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!? WAAAH!!!" I could feel brain cells exploding with every second of her idiotic shrieking.

J.

Heaven Swan » 06 Feb 2018 12:14 wrote:Elvis wrote:
I have to say, I couldn't turn it off, and I essentially agree with her. This is not a big issue for me personally, but the main reason I check these threads from time to time is I've slowly been re-undstanding it. A couple of guys I know well report that they like to feel feminine, and that dressing in women's garments and so on helps emphasize or maximize feminine aspects of their psyches. I can't in any way say there's anything wrong with that. One identifies as transgender (albeit still in a heterosexual marriage w/kids), for the other guy it's mainly a bedroom kink and occasionally wearing lingerie around the house. Neither knows any psychological or biological mechanism of their "different" desires, that is, they don't know why they feel and act that way. They'd like not to keep it a secret, the lifelong deception mindset is a burden. Neither is involved in controversial sexual politics or movements, and they'd never be so upset about transphobia that they'd go out looking to harm anyone over it.

So there's a broad range of expression and temperement out there, and I hope not all men who like to dress in women's clothes, put on fake boobs, shave their legs, or even get surgery, will be branded as the twisted kooks and misogynists who get all the attention...


Radical feminists (i.e. real feminists) would like to see an end to the gender system, which they see as sexism (a tool to codify and enforce sex hierarchy). This would mean freedom for everyone to wear whatever clothes, make up, study whatever subjects and do whatever jobs they want without being shamed, policed and pushed back into their gender box.

Why can’t a man express his feminine qualities without claiming to “be” a woman, invade our private spaces and go after every hard won right we have won over the last century? Why can’t he play and experiment without attacking us and claiming to be more oppressed and more “woman” than biological women? There’s something sick and rotten here when something that could be so liberating spawns an anti-feminist movement complete with a band of death threat spewing, violent enforcers.


Elvis » Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:19 am wrote:
Heaven Swan » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:12 pm wrote:This video is an entertaining way to learn about RadFem reasoning re: why transwomen aren't women and don't belong in feminism.



“You Are a Woman Hater. It’s Just That Simple.”

August 28, 2017
https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/201 ... at-simple/

God this is good. Mancheeze critiques some YouTube dickhead’s video about how much he hates women and how women should pretend otherwise. I watched his video last week and it was as boring and offensive as you’d expect, but I could listen to Mancheeze go on forever. I nearly busted a gut laughing my ass off. She killed it. Five stars! True feminist entertainment.



I have to say, I couldn't turn it off, and I essentially agree with her. This is not a big issue for me personally, but the main reason I check these threads from time to time is I've slowly been re-undstanding it. A couple of guys I know well report that they like to feel feminine, and that dressing in women's garments and so on helps emphasize or maximize feminine aspects of their psyches. I can't in any way say there's anything wrong with that. One identifies as transgender (albeit still in a heterosexual marriage w/kids), for the other guy it's mainly a bedroom kink and occasionally wearing lingerie around the house. Neither knows any psychological or biological mechanism of their "different" desires, that is, they don't know why they feel and act that way. They'd like not to keep it a secret, the lifelong deception mindset is a burden. Neither is involved in controversial sexual politics or movements, and they'd never be so upset about transphobia that they'd go out looking to harm anyone over it.

So there's a broad range of expression and temperement out there, and I hope not all men who like to dress in women's clothes, put on fake boobs, shave their legs, or even get surgery, will be branded as the twisted kooks and misogynists who get all the attention. I'm just getting past seeing crossdressing as a Milton Berle vaudeville schtick, I can now not laugh when I see an obvious man in a dress (sometimes takes some self-control). The violence expressed in those Tweets is really disturbing, jeez. And the bathtub menstruation fantasy has got to be offensive to women.

For what it's worth, I suspect that some of these tendencies—or may I say urges—are connected with 'past life' experiences. Exploring this avenue could be enlightening for some individuals.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:57 pm

Heaven Swan » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:30 am wrote:Forgot to mention.
I’m so happy to see IamwhoIam posting again. Was afraid he has gotten fed up and was gone forever.
Welcome back Iam. I missed your posts.


:tiphat:

Goodness no! Fed up, Heavenly one, nah. I'm a bit like Audrey - I demand to be fed, and this place quite usually sates my appetite.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby liminalOyster » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:40 pm

Jeffrey Tambor officially booted from Transparent today. His two accusers, both trans-women, have periodically proclaimed their distaste for a cis male playing the titular role. Thusly, regardless of the validity of the accusations, it seems at least vaguely reasonable to point out that the allegations seem to have effected a desired political outcome on the part of the accusers - presumably the new season will feature a bonafide transwoman in a greater role. Right? or No? Strange times.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:57 pm

There probably won't be another season .

The producers are considering making "Transparent-the Musical".

https://www.publictheater.org/Tickets/C ... me=JoesPub

Besides, without Jeffrey Tambor the show would tank.


liminalOyster » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:40 pm wrote:Jeffrey Tambor officially booted from Transparent today. His two accusers, both trans-women, have periodically proclaimed their distaste for a cis male playing the titular role. Thusly, regardless of the validity of the accusations, it seems at least vaguely reasonable to point out that the allegations seem to have effected a desired political outcome on the part of the accusers - presumably the new season will feature a bonafide transwoman in a greater role. Right? or No? Strange times.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:05 pm

Don't miss the comment section.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/heal ... -feed.html

Transgender Woman Breast-Feeds Baby After Hospital Induces Lactation

By CEYLAN YEGINSUFEB. 15, 2018

Image

The study’s authors, Zil Goldstein, left, a nurse practitioner, and Dr. Tamar Reisman of Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York.

When a transgender woman told doctors at a hospital in New York that she wanted to breast-feed her pregnant partner’s baby, they put her on a regimen of drugs that included an anti-nausea medication licensed in Britain and Canada but banned in the United States.

Within a month, according to the journal Transgender Health, the woman, 30, who was born male, was producing droplets of milk. Within three months — two weeks before the baby’s due date — she had increased her production to eight ounces of milk a day.

In the end, the study showed, “she was able to achieve sufficient breast milk volume to be the sole source of nourishment for her child for six weeks,” according to the journal.

Dr. Tamar Reisman and Zil Goldstein, a nurse practitioner, of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York, say the case illustrates that, in some circumstances, modest but functional lactation can be induced in transgender women who did not give birth or undergo surgery.

“We believe that this is the first formal report in the medical literature of induced lactation in a transgender woman,” said the study’s authors, Dr. Reisman and Ms. Goldstein, a transgender activist and program director at the center. They were not immediately available for comment on Thursday.

Some hailed the case study, published in January, as a “breakthrough” for transgender families; others called it “dangerous” and “disturbing.” But if confirmed in wider studies, the regimen could represent a next major stage in transgender parenthood. Transgender men like Thomas Beatie, Trystan Reese and Kaci Sullivan have made headlines by giving birth. But breast-feeding for transgender women had not been officially documented.

Breast milk is considered the best form of nutrition for infants. Breast-fed babies have healthier immune systems, score higher on I.Q. tests and may be less prone to obesity than other babies. Advocacy campaigns have noted that the practice facilitates mother-child bonding, and saves families from spending money on infant formula. The World Health Organization, in setting new international bench marks for children’s growth, has said that breast-feeding is the biological norm.

But in the case published in Transgender Health, it is not known whether breast milk from this kind of induced lactation is equivalent to milk produced after giving birth by women who are not transgender.

Dr. Joshua D. Safer, medical director of transgender medicine and surgery at Boston Medical Center, called the study “a very big deal” and said he expected it to become very popular among transgender women.

“It’s out there on internet forums, but there’s a lot on the internet that’s true or untrue to varying degrees,” he said in an interview with the weekly magazine New Scientist. “It’s a very big deal to have this recorded in a reliable document.”

Others were skeptical about the study and what it could mean for transgender women.

“We all want to have the same experiences as women,” Maria Clifford, 38, a British transgender mother who has been using a surrogate to breast-feed her child, said on Thursday. “We need further testing and evidence to show that these drugs aren’t going to cause harm to the baby.”

“Breast milk is the most important product for the development of a child,” Ms. Clifford added. “We need to make sure it’s pure and hormone free.”

The transgender woman in the experiment — she, her partner and their hometowns were not identified — approached the medical professionals for hormonal medications in 2011 as part of transgender treatment. She had been receiving it for several years before she began breast-feeding, according to the study. She had not had gender-reassignment surgery nor breast augmentation.

She took on the responsibility of breast-feeding because her partner, who was five months pregnant when they approached the hospital, did not want to.

As part of the lactation treatment, the woman stimulated her chest using a breast pump. The study’s authors prescribed progesterone and estradiol, hormones that can influence lactation and that normally occur in pregnant women. They discussed with the couple using domperidone, an anti-nausea drug known to increase breast milk production.

The couple obtained it on their own in Canada, and Ms. Goldstein and Dr. Reisman advised them on the dosage. Though used in many countries, including in Britain, domperidone has been banned in the United States because of Food and Drug Administration concerns about its associations with cardiac arrest and sudden death.

Previous studies with transgender women have reported only the basic framework for what is known as nonpuerperal induced lactation, the process by which women are stimulated to lactate.

“There have been self-reported cases online of transgender woman trying to D.I.Y. regiments to induce breast-feeding, but this is the first case of induced functional lactation in academic literature,” Dr. Reisman was quoted in the journal as saying.

The study’s authors said that the woman was able to exclusively breast-feed the infant for six weeks. During that time, a pediatrician reported that the child’s growth, feeding and bowel habits were developing normally.

At six weeks, the woman began to supplement breast-feeding with a formula because of concerns about milk volume.

The woman’s hormone regimen was considered safe and similar to ones used on mothers who are unable to produce milk. But she continued to take the drug spironolactone, which blocks testosterone and “is excreted in human milk,” the study said.

The baby is now 6 months old, the study’s authors said. They wrote that it was unclear which parts of the regimen were most beneficial to producing milk.

Future areas of study include “the optimal dosing of estradiol, progesterone and galactogogues in inducing lactation, as well as the optimal frequency and duration of pump use,” they said.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:05 am

Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?

Exceedingly rich, white men (and women) who invest in biomedical companies are funding myriad transgender organizations whose agenda will make them gobs of money.

By Jennifer Bilek
February 20, 2018

As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.

I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.

Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.

These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination.
Who Is Funding the Transgender Movement?

I found exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a male who identifies as transgender); George Soros; Martine Rothblatt (a male who identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay man); Drummond Pike; Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations, including corporations.

Separating transgender issues from LGBT infrastructure is not an easy task. All the wealthiest donors have been funding LGB institutions before they became LGBT-oriented, and only in some instances are monies earmarked specifically for transgender issues. Some of these billionaires fund the LGBT through their myriad companies, multiplying their contributions many times over in ways that are also difficult to track.

These funders often go through anonymous funding organizations such as Tides Foundation, founded and operated by Pike. Large corporations, philanthropists, and organizations can send enormous sums of money to the Tides Foundation, specify the direction the funds are to go, and have the funds get to their destination anonymously. Tides Foundation creates a legal firewall and tax shelter for foundations and funds political campaigns, often using legally dubious tactics.

These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million. From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.

$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?

Transgenderism: A New Medical and Lifestyle Market

It seems obvious now to look at the money behind transgenderism. Many new markets have opened because of it. The first gender clinic for children opened in Boston in 2007. In the past ten years, more than 30 clinics for children with purported gender dysphoria have arisen in the United States alone, the largest serving 725 patients.

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in transgender medical infrastructure across the United States and world to “treat” transgender people. In addition to gender clinics proliferating across the United States, hospital wings are being built for specialized surgeries, and many medical institutions are clamoring to get on board with the new developments.

Doctors are being trained in cadaver symposiums across the world in all manner of surgeries related to transgender individuals, including phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, facial feminization surgery, urethral procedures, and more. More and more American corporations are covering transgender surgeries, drugs, and other expenses. Endocrinologists seeking the fountain of youth in hormones for more than a generation, and the subsequent earnings for marketing those hormones, are still on a quest for gold.

Puberty blockers are another growing market. The plastic surgery arm of medicine is staged for an infusion of cash as well as organ transplants, especially womb transplants for men identifying as women who may want future pregnancies. These surgeries are already being practiced on animals and the first successful womb implant from a deceased female donor to another female has already been a success. Biogenetics is poised to be the investment of the future, says Rothblatt, who has headed a massive pharmaceutical corporation and is now heavily invested in biogenetics and transplants.

Transgenderism has certainly made its way into the American marketplace, so it seems important to consider the implications of this as we pass laws regarding transgender individuals’ and our civil liberties. Transgenderism sits square in the middle of the medical industrial complex, which is by some estimates even bigger than the military industrial complex.

With the medical infrastructure being built, doctors being trained for various surgeries, clinics opening at warp speed, and the media celebrating it, transgenderism is poised for growth. The LGB, a once-tiny group of people trying to love those of the same sex openly and be treated equally within society, has likely already been subsumed by capitalism and is now infiltrated by the medical industrial complex via transgenderism.

Who Works to Institutionalize Transgender Ideology?


Much more important than funds going directly to the LGBT lobby and organizations, only a fraction of which trickles down to assist people who identify as transgender, is the money invested by the men mentioned above, governments, and technology and pharmaceutical corporations to institutionalize and normalize transgenderism as a lifestyle choice. They are shaping the narrative about transgenderism and normalizing it within the culture using their funding methods.
This can hardly be a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology.

This article will use the Pritzker family as a case study, both to reduce length and because they are emblematic of how this works. Those funding trans organizations and normalizing transgenderism are channeling funds in the same ways and invested in the same medical infrastructure. This can hardly be a coincidence when the very thing absolutely essential to those transitioning are pharmaceuticals and technology. It is also important to note that though the trans lobby has sewn itself to the LGB umbrella, LGB people as such are not lifelong medical patients.

The Pritzkers are an American family of philanthropic billionaires worth approximately $29 billion, whose fortune was gestated by Hyatt Hotels and nursing homes. They now have massive investments in the medical industrial complex.

Examining just a few of the Pritzkers in this article will give you some indication of their reach and influence as a family, especially as regards the transgender project and their relationship to the medical industrial complex. As you read, remember, transitioning individuals are medical patients for life and the Pritzker family are not an anomaly in their funding trajectory or investments in the medical-industrial complex.
Jennifer Pritzker

Once a family man and a decorated member of the armed forces, Jennifer Pritzker now identifies as transgender. He has made transgenderism a high note in philanthropic funding through his Tawani Foundation. He is one of the largest contributors to transgender causes and, with his family, an enormous influence in the rapid institutionalization of transgenderism.

Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions. Pritzker owns Squadron Capital, an acquisitions corporation, with a focus on medical technology, medical devices, and orthopedic implants, and the Tawani Foundation, a philanthropic organization with a grants focus on Gender & Human Sexuality.

Pritzker sits on the leadership council of the Program of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota, to which he also committed $6.5 million over the past decade. Among many other organizations and institutions Pritzker funds are Lurie Children’s Hospital, a medical center for gender non-conforming children, serving 400 children in Chicago; the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago; a chair of transgender studies at the University of Victoria (the first of its kind); and the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto. He also funds the American Civil Liberties Union and his family funds Planned Parenthood, two significant organizations for institutionalizing female-erasing language and support for transgender causes. Planned Parenthood also recently decided to get into the transgender medical market.

Jennifer Pritzker funds strategically, as does his family, by giving to universities that become beholden to his ideology, whose students go on to spread gender ideology by writing pro-trans articles in medical journals and elsewhere. Jennifer’s uncle and aunt, John and Lisa Pritzker, gave $25 million to the University of California at San Francisco for a center of children’s psychiatry. Jennifer likewise funds hospitals and medical schools where the alumni go on to create transgender specialties and LGBT medical centers, even though lesbians, gays, and bisexuals don’t need specialized medical services.

Here are just several current activities of Pritzker-funded medical school alumni and recipients of Pritzker money.

James Hekman founded the LGBT medical care center in Lakewood Ohio.

David T. Rubin sits on the advisory board of Accordant/CVS Caremark, the largest pharmaceutical chain in the United States. CVS acquired Target department stores’ pharmacies in 2015. Target, of course, is the site of a major social controversy about unisex bathrooms and is a corporate funder of the trans-pushing Human Rights Campaign activist group.

Loren Schecter is the author of the first surgical atlas for transgender surgery, author of pro-trans journals, was awarded for legal advocacy of transgenders, performs reconstructive surgeries, and is director of transfeminine conferences sponsored by World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). He also performs reconstructive surgeries at Weiss Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

Schecter is also the “surgeons only sessions chair” on the Scientific Program Committee of the newly formed United States arm of WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health), USPATH, holding conferences in Los Angeles for surgeons in transgender surgeries.

Robert Garofalo, a gay man, is director of the St. Lurie children’s gender clinic, head of the hospital’s division of adolescent medicine, and a professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, which J.B. Pritzker (whom we will meet later) funds.

Benjamin N. Breyer is chief of urology at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, specializing in transgender surgery.

Nicholas Matte teaches at the Mark Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto, with a specialty in queer studies. Jennifer Pritzker also funds the Bonham Centre. Matte lectures around the country on transgender issues, and espouses the idea that we are not a sexually dimorphic species.

Mark Hyman is the Pritzker Foundation Chair in functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine. Cleveland Clinic conducted the United States’ first uterus transplant.

Baylor College of Medicine is on the receiving end of the Pritzker School of Medicine’s “pipeline programs” for people studying to be doctors. Baylor is where the nation’s first child was born from a uterus transplant as part of an experimental program funding the procedure for 10 women in order to develop uterus transplants ultimately health insurance and taxpayers will pay for rather than being relegated to elective infertility treatment.

Jennifer Pritzker has also helped normalize transgender individuals in the military with a $1.35 million grant to the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara-based LGBT think tank, to create research validating military transgenderism. He has also donated $25 million to Norwich University in Vermont, a military academy and the first school to launch a Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program.

Pritzker’s funding is not confined to the United States, but reaches other countries via WPATH, in conferences for physicians studying transgender surgery and funding of international universities.

Penny Pritzker

Cousin to Jennifer Pritzker, Penny Pritzker served on President Obama’s Council for Jobs and Competitiveness and Economic Recovery Advisory Board. She was national co-chair of Obama for America 2012 and national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. To say she was influential in getting president Obama elected would be an understatement.

As Obama’s secretary of commerce, Penny Pritzker helped create the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), by facilitating an award of $70 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the first funding of its kind. Obama made transgenderism a pet issue of his administration, holding a meeting at the White House (the first ever) for transgenderism.

The administration quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to alter their passports, get cross-sex treatment at Veteran’s Administration facilities, and access public school restrooms and sports programs based on gender identity. These are just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama’s presidency.

Soros and Gill are two other major transgender movement funders who generated millions of dollars to get Obama elected, and Stryker was one of the top five contributors to Obama’s campaign. Under Obama and President George W. Bush, the federal government also funded the Tides Foundation $82.7 million, which in turn donated $47.2 million to LGBTQ issues over the last two decades.

Penny has funded the Harvard School of Public Health and, with her husband through their mutual foundation, The Pritzker Traubert Family Foundation, are funding early childhood initiatives as well as providing scholarships to Harvard University medical students. The Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Services wing physicians are all affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Penny Pritzker also sat on the board at Harvard, where student life offices teach students, many of whom go on to lead U.S. institutions, that “there are more than two sexes.”
J.B. Pritzker

Penny Pritzker’s brother, J.B. Pritzker, is an American venture capitalist, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and business owner. He is co-founder of the Pritzker Group, a private investment firm that invests in digital technology and medical companies, including Clinical Innovations, which has a global presence. Clinical Innovations is one of the largest medical device companies and in 2017 acquired Brenner Medical, another significant medical group offering innovative products in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology.

We have to look at why this is framed as a civil rights issue when the main issues seem to be capital and social engineering.


J.B. provided seed funding for Matter, a startup incubator for medical technology based in Chicago. He also sits on the board of directors at his alma mater, Duke University, where they are making advances in cryopreserving women’s ovaries.

J.B. is running for governor of Illinois in 2018 and put $25 million into an Obama administration public-private initiative totaling $1 billion for early childhood education. J.B. and his wife, M.K. Pritzker, donated $100 million to Northwestern University School of Law, partly for scholarships and partly for the school’s “social justice” and childhood law work.

We have to look at why this is framed as a civil rights issue when the main issues seem to be capital and social engineering. There doesn’t seem to be a sphere of influence that is untouched by Pritzker money, from early childhood education and universities to law, medical institutions, the LGBT lobby and organizations, politics, and the military. If they were the only ones funding the institutionalization of transgender ideology they would still be fantastically influential, but they are joined by other exceedingly wealthy, influential white men, who also have ties to the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

Pharma and Tech Giants All-In for Transgender

Along with support by pharmaceutical giants such as Janssen Therapeutics, the health foundation of a Johnson and Johnson founder, Viiv, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, major technology corporations including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Dell, and IBM are also funding the transgender project. In February 2017, Apple, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Yelp, PayPal, and 53 other mostly tech corporations signed onto an amicus brief pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit schools from keeping private facilities for students designated according to sex.


As these corporations were pushing for transgender bathrooms, they were fighting President Trump’s travel ban and immigration policies. In reporting the incidents simultaneously, CNN News made the obvious connection between the corporations’ interest in the immigration ban and commerce, quoting a legal brief signed by the companies that said, “It is inflicting significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.” It made no such equivalent connection for the corporations’ interest in transgender rights. The obvious question would be: Why do they care? The obvious answer is: money.

It behooves us all to look at what the real investment is in prioritizing a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for a miniscule part of the population.

Melding this manufactured medical issue with civil rights frame entails the continuance and growth of the problem. Transgenderism is framed as both a medical problem, for the gender dysphoria of children who need puberty blockers and are being groomed for a lifetime of medicalization, and as a brave and original lifestyle choice for adults. Martine Rothblatt suggests we are all transhuman, that changing our bodies by removing healthy tissue and organs and ingesting cross-sex hormones over the course of a lifetime can be likened to wearing make-up, dying our hair, or getting a tattoo. If we are all transhuman, expressing that could be a never-ending saga of body-related consumerism.

The massive medical and technological infrastructure expansion for a tiny (but growing) fraction of the population with gender dysphoria, along with the money being funneled to this project by those heavily invested in the medical and technology industries, seems to make sense only in the context of expanding markets for changing the human body. Trans activists are already clamoring for a change from “gender dysphoria” to “gender incongruence” in the next revision to the international register of mental diagnosis codes, the ICD-11. The push is on for insurance-paid hormones and surgeries for anyone who believes his or her body is in any way “incongruent” with his or her “gender identity.”

Bodily diversity appears to be the core issue, not gender dysphoria; that and unmooring people from their biology via language distortions, to normalize altering human biology. Institutionalizing transgender ideology does just this. This ideology is being promoted as a civil rights issue by wealthy, white, men with enormous influence who stand to personally benefit from their political activities.

It behooves us all to look at what the real investment is in prioritizing a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for a miniscule part of the population, building an infrastructure for them, and institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings, before being human becomes a quaint concept of the past.

This article has been corrected to note the difference between Baylor University and Baylor College of Medicine. The two are no longer connected.
Jennifer Bilek is an artist, environmental activist, writer, and an engaged citizen.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/ric ... -ideology/
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:16 am

Considering the rapid rise of trans ideology in academia, we should follow the money

Universities are becoming more and more donor-driven — shouldn’t we be asking questions about how that funding shapes theory and discourse?

Image

Social scientists sometimes use the phrase “the structure/agency problem” to shorthand the perennial question of whether a particular outcome is the product of cultural, social, and historical structures or individual choices. Speaking very broadly, one could say liberal feminists put a little more emphasis on agency (the idea that women choose sex work, for example) and radical feminists put a little more emphasis on structure (the idea that prostitution exists within a larger context of capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy and exploits women, youths, and children). The structural framing has produced powerfully illuminating explanatory frameworks like “rape culture” and “structural injustice.” Nevertheless, preferentially looking to structural explanations cultivates habits of thought that are in some ways unhelpful at the present historical juncture.

The rapid and essentially unquestioned rise of trans ideology in academia is one example, though I think the pattern in question has negative impacts in other arenas as well. As many radical feminists have eloquently pointed out, trans activists have appropriated the rhetoric of feminist struggle and much of the actual history of gay and lesbian liberation movements. Trans activists have done this despite the fact that trans ideology comprises elements that are misogynist and homophobic, conceptually and, far more worryingly, in application.


Because trans activists use a familiar language of structural injustice (that is to say, by speaking in terms of civil rights, public access, and social discrimination), many academics have been reflexively supportive of their claims. But even skeptical analyses focus mostly on structural explanations. What is it about this moment in history that has produced such an incredible upswell in trans identification? Is it consumerist self-fashioning? Is it capitalist exploitation of the medicalized body? Is it the individualist search for meaning in an age of anomie? Is it globalization? Is it the internet?

With trans activism, we might do well to pay slightly less attention to structures, and quite a bit more to agents. Structures don’t organize repeated shutdowns of gender-critical blogs like GenderTrender, or, in a matter of days, accomplish the censoring of documentaries about transing children on the CBC, or endow university chairs. Particular agents do that stuff. Men, mostly.

As an academic, there are several things I notice about that endowment. Sociologist Aaron Devor, the first holder of the chair endowed by American transwoman billionaire Jennifer Pritzker, spent a decade prior to that appointment as a university administrator. There is a real tension in contemporary public universities between rank and file faculty, who generally believe that the mission of public universities is most realizable using public funding, and administrators, who are generally eager to attract funds from private donors. Earmarked donations to pursue particular research agendas raise troubling questions about academic freedom and investigative independence. In 2002, McGill University turned down funding for an endowed chair to be dedicated to the study of Ayn Rand’s philosophy; in 2008, the University of Texas at Austin created such a chair with funding from a different corporate donor. Many academics (myself included) saw this development as part of the sad downward slide of the unfettered public university, supported by public funding and devoted to the public interest.

More broadly, it is immediately obvious why students and faculty at the University of Calgary were horrified to learn of President Elizabeth Cannon’s toadying to corporate donor Enbridge and rightly worried about whether oil and gas industry funding to research on topics like fracking will produce robustly replicable data (to put it mildly). But a chair funded by an American billionaire with a deeply personal interest in trans ideology comes in for no such critical consideration; in fact, Aaron Devor is the 2017 recipient of the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ Equity Award. I don’t expect that an Asian STEM professor holding a chair endowed by Enbridge and doing research on fracking is going to win next time, though as it happens Asian STEM profs have quietly done quite a bit to dismantle fantasies of white supremacy over the years.

Of course, while public funding during (say) the Cold War era may have been more lavish, it was often earmarked to promote imperialistic agendas on everything from designing weapons systems to subverting peasant movements in the Global South. Academics are well prepared to write about such “structural” dynamics and have documented and critiqued them at length. But exactly this intellectual habit of looking for “structural” interpretations (capitalism, the state, patriarchy, compulsory heterosexuality) leaves us ill-prepared to comprehend key aspects of the present moment. Donor-driven agendas can very rapidly attain ascendancy in the cash-strapped, administrator-driven contemporary university; when they self-fashion, as is the case with trans ideology, as instances of “structural injustice,” too many academic observers don’t stop to look for agents.

This is a very big mistake. Trends in global inequality mean, increasingly, that a tiny number of individuals hold a tremendous share of the world’s wealth. This is, perversely, a structural situation in which it makes a lot of sense to pay attention to individuals: rich ones, that is.
The disproportionate influence of Silicon Valley gajillionaires in trans activism deserves almost infinitely more attention than it has hitherto received. But the pattern is general: as “the public” gets poorer, there is less and less public money available for public universities. As a result, administrators pursue high net worth donors more and more assiduously, and so the servicing of idiosyncratic research agendas (such as transgender studies or Objectivism studies) inevitably proliferates. Julie Bindel has done wonderful work, for example, on why “sex work is work” is now the dominant academic viewpoint, and the degree to which advocacy for the adoption of that view has been funded by the sex industry .

Turning to my own experience, just paying a bit of attention to the way that whatever the latest fad in higher education “innovation” is being promoted by my own university’s administration is being promoted at the exact same time with the exact same claims to cutting-edge originality by administrators at the universities at which friends and colleagues work across North America has been very clarifying. Almost inevitably these fads lead back to either the Lumina Foundation or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, Bill Gates was surpassed as the highest net worth individual in the world by Jeff Bezos (of Amazon). You guessed it: the Bezos Family Foundation focuses on education. At the higher ed level, they are really interested in “youth leadership.” And would you believe it? “Leadership” has become kind of a buzzword at universities lately. Funny that.

Structural analysis simply won’t reveal the full story of what’s going on right now and in many respects may actually obscure it.

Two final points. First: methodologically, the kind of work that needs to be done to understand these dynamics is more traditionally journalistic than traditionally scholarly. This division of labour (and a certain amount of accompanying academic snootiness about it — that is to say, journalists looked at particularities, while academics sought the big structural picture) worked okay for much of the twentieth century. Traditional investigative journalism, however, is itself practically defunded these days (Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, for the record) and academics (the tenured ones anyway) are some of the only citizens left who have the salary and job security to try and pick up some of the slack. Damningly for the academy, however, to date it has been non-academic bloggers doing almost all the necessary gumshoeing. Second: it’s at the very least interesting that we are nowadays constantly exhorted to be on guard against “conspiracy theories,” which are in large part defined as trying to track particular outcomes back to particular individuals and particular relationships; or, to put it another way, as paying too much attention to agents rather than concentrating, as a Serious Person Ought, on structures. Here’s the thing, though: “structures” don’t harass bloggers, they don’t organize censorship campaigns, and they don’t endow research chairs. Rich and powerful men do.

Kathleen Lowrey is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta. She began following trans issues when they intersected with her primary field of research, lowland South American anthropology.

http://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/01/ ... low-money/
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:13 pm

Transistors are sisters.

Image
Sisters.

Clotheshorses are horses.

Image
Dobbin.

Transarses are arses.

Image
An arse.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests