Are We Being Poisoned (Part I)?

 

There is a point when even the most obtuse might notice that our leaders are not on our side. Many of the poorest were not in the sort of stable jobs that gave them furlough rights and a salary for doing nothing when we were locked down in 2020. Many did not have access to the paperwork that allowed for their mortgage or rent to be postponed. Those who continued working in situ, such as healthcare workers, were forced to get the jab, irrespective of their personal wishes. Their health is almost certainly worse as a result. Two days ago (at the time of writing), Pfizer executive Janine Small admitted to the EU Parliament that the Covid vaccine was never tested for transmission. Given that it does not, even officially, stop infection either – but perhaps reduces symptoms -, whatever this is, it is NOT a vaccine!

But I am not going over that issue. The lies, contradictory statements, unscientific balderdash, relentless fear-mongering and propaganda are an indisputable fact. Additionally, there is a wealth of official statistics that, once we remember that for two weeks after the “vaccine” one was counted as unvaccinated, show an alarmingly high rate of bad health and excess death from all causes among the injected.

An enlightening moment might be when one looks carefully at The Economist’s “The World in 2019”, on sale in December 2018 (a full year before the onset of the surprise pandemic that was itself so eerily predicted in Event 201 one month before), and sees how amazingly prescient it was, with its Leonardo da Vinci-type drawings of a panda, a pangolin, the gene helix on an arm, a stork carrying a bar-coded baby, facial recognition, a cannabis leaf, “Putin’s pipes”, the Four Horsemen - one masked, Pinocchio’s long nose… (in no particular order).

Another moment might be caused by the anomaly of a government encouraging, to the point of compulsion, its population to get the Covid jab, and then suggesting that it will pay for the funeral costs. The following is from the Australian Government official website:

However, Western governments have been poisoning their citizens for decades, while also actively creating wars to enrich hidden elites and massacre large parts of their own populations.

Secret germ and fungal experiments on unwitting populations are too numerous and documented to list in their entirety, and span decades. Some examples:

In 2002 The Guardian detailed in an article how the British Ministry of Defence conducted secret germ warfare tests on the public between 1940 and 1979, involving dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms, in more than 100 covert experiments. For example, between 1955 and 1963, planes flew from northeast England to Cornwall along the coasts dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. Cadmium is carcinogenic. In another experiment, between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people, from Torquay to the New Forest were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and the anthrax-mimicking bacillus globigii. Families in the areas used believe that children’s birth defects and handicaps were caused by the many experiments.

In the US hundreds of experiments were carried out. In 1950 the coast of San Francisco was sprayed with two types of dangerous bacteria, and one person admitted as a result to hospital died. In 1951 fungal spores were dispersed, mainly onto African-American workers, to see if they were more susceptible to fungal disease than Caucasians.

In 1954 insects were weaponized, as fleas were incorporated into bombs. The Soviets had already accused the US of dropping canisters full of insects infected with Chorea and the plague in Korea and China during the Korean War.

In 1966 light bulbs were filled with bachillus globigii and then smashed onto the rails in the New York subway, and subsequently breathed in by thousands of unwitting civilians whose clothes were also impregnated.

I am not going to detail the horrendous MK Ultra experiments here, but the degeneracy of those who designed them and carried them out is mind-blowing (no pun intended).

In the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study of 600 African American men, 399 with syphilis did not get the treatment they believed they were receiving, nor the penicillin that would have cured them, in an experiment that lasted for 40 years. The government finally granted free burial services to the survivors.

There are too many gruesome experiments to list here. However, the news in October 2021 that a ‘non-toxic’ gas was being released into the New York subway system should have rung alarm bells. Back in May 2020 a biocide was sprayed night after night into New York’s subway cars in a measure that would ‘eradicate the coronavirus for up to 90 days’. This is not how respiratory viruses are transmitted for a start; but, if it were to eradicate it for 90 days, then repeat spraying the very next night would be redundant. The US also uses chemical compounds to coerce and control prison inmates, in a measure that is increasingly used and clearly violates human rights.

In many cities worldwide, streets were sprayed with bleach in another absurd measure to purportedly stop Covid. These and so many other measures taken were ultimately proved to be utterly useless, not to mention incredibly unenvironmental. Sweden, which did not impose lockdown, nor mask-wearing, nor closure of schools, fared far better than Spain, which did all these things.

 

Malaga, Spain (2020)

 

The USA CDC has been genetically modifying mosquitos and then releasing them in Brazil, the Cayman Island, Panama and India. Since 2019 over one billion mosquitos have been released. In 2021, despite wide and persistent push-back from residents, Bill Gates-funded (to the tune of over $9 million)-Oxitec did the same in Florida, US. Such measures could, it is said, eradicate malaria, but are inherently undemocratic; and – as is so often the case – they could also have huge unintended effects, such as the eradication of plant pollinators, the development of mutating bugs resistant to known measures of control, the poisoning of birds and other insect eaters, or blood contamination of those bitten by the mosquitoes. In any case, technocratic, nature-modifying solutions really never, ever prove successful without unleashing another, unintended side effect that is just as bad as, or worse than the original problem.

On 16 April 2020, in the early days of the pandemic of fear, Spain’s Health Minister, Fernando Illa, authorised the spraying of biocides from militaryplanes into the sky. I have spoken to many people about this and they seem unaware that, unlike their purported use in order ‘to destroy, deter, render harmless, or exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism’, biocides are in fact poisons for all living beings.

 

Luckily, a few months earlier in August 2019, some might say with fortuitous prevision and precision, the Spanish Ministry for Defence and the Spanish MedicinesAgency agreed to a state-wide deposit of medicines for emergencies and catastrophes, specifically antivirals and the manufacture of medicines for special situations.

 

A few days ago (at the time of writing) in an interview on 8 October 2022, Spanish ex-Minister Illa explains how the anti-vax ‘flat-earthers’ had been one of his Ministry’s main worries. It is a fact that in the entire Western world the narrative came down to vaccination against the coronavirus, despite their being real and historic reasons to query the possible efficacy of an injection against a respiratory illness and a plethora of other tried-and-tested remedies, plus the lack of long-term testing for the experimental gene-therapy. The Minister might, indeed, have worried more about the neglect of elderly, vulnerable people in the ‘care’ homes or isolated alone in their houses, which lead to tens of thousands dying alone or horribly mistreated before their time (mostly in privatised ‘care’ centres). He might even have worried about the needless use of ventilators used on conscious, breathing individuals, which caused death in almost 90% of cases, due to the Covid protocols applied in many Western countries. But not to worry! 

In other Western countries lockdown also had a large impact on mental health, and thousands of abandoned elderly patients died of thirst.

 

Does receiving the flu vaccine make the flu, if you get it, worse?  

It does make you more susceptible to coronavirus in general and human metapneumovirus.

But does it work at all? According to the USA CDC, not very much. The effectiveness in the graph below is based on estimates, which are likely to be boosted upwards, due to the CDC partnership with the very drug companies that produce the vaccines.

Also, please note the disappearance of the flu during the 2020-21 season, resulting in the vaccine effectiveness not even being officially recorded! 

As a sidenote, I intended to investigate exactly which companies provide funding for the various centres for disease control, such as the US CDC and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, but found a massive web of interconnecting semi-governmental agencies with absolutely no transparency over the billions of euros and dollars they manage, much of which is from private corporations. This is a project that will have to wait. 

Down this particular rabbit hole, of official misinformation, obfuscation and fear-mongering, it is easy to switch off, because the alternative – that our leaders are lying psychopaths – is a scary thought. 

But are they psychopaths?

In two-party representative political systems, as produced by first-past-the-post electoral procedures, it is easy for both parties to degenerate into a one-party system with two superficially different ‘Choose red or blue!’ factions. Both will invariably support indistinguishable economic measures and forever wars – there is nothing like war to allow public money to fall into unaccountable private hands. 

Most politicians are more akin to second-rate actors, reading their lines well, and looking the part on the screen. They will never explain to the public how obscure financial interests absolutely determine the political direction that a country can take and how any whiff of socialism will provoke these interests into trashing the pound or euro and rendering the huge debts that all Western countries have unpayable in a matter of hours, all the while profiteering off the chaos.

As George Soros said, as an investor he puts his humanity to one side and concentrates on making a profit. We live in capitalism that raises the more unscrupulous to the top (Gordon Gekko’s ‘Greed is good’!) and incentivises sociopathy. Roughly 4%, to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons.

As for the rest of the enablers who are not sociopaths, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it, as Upton Sinclair famously observed.

And yet, in the uplifting and rather remarkable book Human Kind: a Hopeful History, Rutger Bregman shows that the vast majority of us are compassionate, empathetic beings. One of the many anecdotes from the book is the following:

Tom Postmes, professor of social psychology at the University of Groningen has asked students the same question for years: 

Imagine an airplane makes an emergency landing and breaks into three parts. As the cabin fills with smoke, everybody inside realises: ‘We’ve got to get out of here.’ What happens?

On Planet A, the passengers turn to their neighbours to ask if they’re okay. Those needing assistance are helped out of the plane first. People are willing to give their lives, even for perfect strangers. On Planet B, everyone’s left to fend for themselves. Panic breaks out. There’s lots of pushing and shoving. Children, the elderly, and people with disabilities get trampled underfoot.

Now the question: 

Which planet do we live on? 97 per cent of people think we live on Planet B; but the truth is, in almost every case, we live on Planet A.

The problem is that we have allowed a system to be imposed that effectively enslaves us and gives us a truly false idea of our potential for peaceful, meaningful existence. Even more damaging, it has given the very worst elements huge power over us. Mainly because we have let ourselves be convinced that this is the natural order of things. And if we are being poisoned like rats, so be it!

 

 

 This article originally appeared in: http://themirrorinspires.com/are-we-being-poisoned/

 

 

 

 

 

We've gone a long way backwards in human rights

There was a time when women couldn't be professional competitors in sports. Because - excluding synchronised swimming - women in general, as a collective, cannot compete with the heavier muscular mass and more streamlined shape of men. Women for most of history were kept to the sidelines and even mocked for their sports pretensions, and never allowed to earn money as professional sportswomen. This way the lie could be maintained that women were inferior for many lucrative jobs, not only sports but in the professions as well.

There was a time when women did not have any safe spaces. All could be invaded by men, and women were encouraged, and in many cases forced, to limit themselves to indoors as a result.

There was a time when women had no rights, over their bodies, over their children, over money.

There was a time when eugenics was openly favoured by some elites. 

There was a time when eunuchs were created, women were butchered for being hysterical and some men were castrated in order for the rich to use them as servants or listen to them singing.

Nowadays, these same elites have created a society so alienating and competitive, and with such poor intellectual standards in general culture and education, that many people are mentally ill and easily misled. Now these elites prefer to insist that the ideations of the mentally ill and confused have a material reality, and that our species is not sexually dimorphic. The corruption in media, politics and law allows this lie to be repeated so often that people forget what they knew not so long ago: that our species has exactly two sexes and that everyone actually knows that their biological mother is a woman.

There was a time when society forgot that great inequality is unfair and incompatible with democracy, because it is a fact that the very rich will buy political and economic advantage.

There was a time when unbridled capitalism and unchecked corporate power ruled the roost until human suffering threatened to create a revolution.

There was also a time when it was understood that well-being depends on a good personal immune system and that chopping off parts of your body, injecting poisons, or implanting synthetic substances not necessitated by specific medical reasons is a truly bad idea; and that transhumanism is a pernicious, horrible idea found in science fiction and nowhere else.

Why have we forgotten that creating eunuchs is a horrible idea and that desexing children is a crime?

Why have we forgotten basic biology and that good health depends on eating natural food, taking few pharmaceutical products and never taking any when one is well?

Why have we unlearnt that new-born babies that are taken away from their mother are on sale exclusively because the mother is poor, and because those who have bought the baby are treating her like nothing more than a slave and a breeder? That the buyers' attitude towards the mother and child is reprehensible and that they should never be allowed to buy another human being. That not only the mother's but the baby's most basic rights are being violated?

Why have we forgotten that there are no unsymptomatic ill people, that if you feel well you are well?

Why have we forgotten the simple fact that an economic and political system that gives us large corporations that have more rights than real people is not a system that cares about us as individuals? This system that gives a few great power over the 99%, is not a benign one and is leading us to hell.

Can we not see that a State that claims total rights over children, including the right to encourage those children to think they can change their sex, is a State that takes rights away from poor parents, not rich ones?

Why do we always allow our governments to spend millions on dangerous drugs supposedly to treat sick people at home and abroad; and, yet, we do not insist they provide clean water, basic housing and sufficient food, which would in itself keep the whole world healthy?

Transing Away The Gay

There's a point in the confusion between sex and gender when you realise that it is all on purpose. We are a sexually dimorphic species and all of us are either male or female and it shows in every cell of our body. We are mammals. There is no trans. Woman is simply the adult human female, the same as we give different words to the male and female of all animals we closely interact with (horse-mare, ram-sheep, drake-duck, cockerel-hen, dog-bitch, lion-lioness, stag-doe...). What 'woman' is NOT is a gender identity in one's head, as the trans lobby would have you believe.

Deconstructing sex in order to substitute one's subjective fantasies (and they are ALL about sex, or the lack of it, in the trans group) for reality is much more than a rights question for a vulnerable minority. It IS a tiny minority, but they have the same rights as everyone else, plus some fundamental extra ones now. They demand the right to force everyone else to accept their fantasies as reality, to gaslight us all till we no longer remember what is true; and, in this post-truth world, where memory extends to no more than a day ago, where logic no longer reigns and where group-think is everything, they demand to have their delusions taken as fact.

Everyone born was born to a woman, their biological mother, and until very recently everyone knew this. In our civilisation's death throws, we have been gaslighted and threatened with hate crime sanctions if we do not learn random people's absurd and often contradictory pronouns.

There is, without a doubt, a young generation containing many confused and unhappy people. It could not be otherwise in a constant climate of fear and paranoia, mad terrorists, constant propaganda, the war on 'terror', the war on a 'virus', the incapacity to talk about death and the incapacity not to talk about sex. TV and Tik Tok videos are full of fetish. The Trans Lobby is busy transing away the gay, telling young gay, bi or not- interested younsters that they were born in the wrong body, as though the body were a container and one rattled around inside it and could, and should, change it on a whim. The timing was perfect, as a generation brought up on excessive eating and lack of exercise looked at their bodies in dismay.

Many men, in particular, have lost their role in our society, which has no biological use for their larger size or musculature, their deeper voices, their testosterone. So, deeper voices are being used to shout women down, and deny women their own spaces. Having no new territory to move on to, a small and unpleasantly vociferous group of men are trying to take over women's reproductive capacity, and inundating our culture with unhealthy fetishes, normalising them and preying on young people. It has also allowed men within the trans-identified movement, to behave towards women with breathtaking misogyny, under the guise of 'trans rights'. 

It is all very Big Business with the added attraction of allowing Big Pharma to medicate youngsters for the rest of their (predictably shortened) lives with hormones and Frankensteinian surgeries AND with the bonus of leaving many of them sterile, which fits in nicely with the UN's 2030 Population Agenda being rolled out in all of the Western World.

Additionally, since adopting identity politics and wokeness, the Left is now a sorry shadow of its former self, defanged, stuck in subjectivity and only focused on defending groups of competing special interests, the smaller the better. It no longer poses a threat to rampant capitalism, which thrives on opposing one individual preference against another very well.

Our Godless, Gordon-Gekko 'Greed is good', late-stage capitalistic culture is so very bereft of ethics, so monetised, so lacking in meaning that to live life proclaiming your identity has become normalised. We no longer just are but can, we are told, assume an identity, as though the very serious business of life were merely a performance. The trans lobby will have you believe you can live life with one identity one day, another the next, transitioning from one to another seamlessly if you want. This make-believe is just that, and it is a lie when taken seriously, and gaslighting when imposed on others. Facts and logic matter.

Laws made in all our Western countries to reify the lie and ban reality are just another sign that our civilisation is in free fall. 

There is one good thing that comes out of this. It has given women (not the absurd and insulting 'cis' women epithet, but real women, the only kind) the opportunity to step up, organise and fight for the health of our society (half of which is us), as we have done so many times in the past.

The Great Reset and the Not-So-New Normal

Beware of 3-word slogans:

• The Great Reset
• Build Back Better
• Green New Deal
• Trust The Science

We already had (among others):

• Stay at home
• Flatten the curve
• Save the NHS
• Keep them safe
• Lock them up
• Covid-19 rising here
• Hands, face and space
• Track & trace

For those who still have a memory, there was:

• War is peace
• Freedom is slavery
• Ignorance is strength

With all the conflicting, illogical and farsical information and advice being given about the current coronavirus and its recent variants, you might wonder if the Great Reset was the trigger for the 2020 coronavirus and not the other way round. 

You might wonder if the situation that pushed the Federal Reserve into magically creating out of nothing hundreds of billions overnight, with very little press comment or publicity, towards the end of 2019, didn't make the horrible lab experiments at Wuhan and the probable leak of a nasty, enhanced virus more than propitious. Because in late summer 2019 the Western economies crashed again, for the third time this century, and the central banks did what they like doing best, which is printing money (or, as they like to say in this digital age, 'injecting' money) and giving it straight to large, zombie corporations. Which is why during the pandemic so many of the stinkingly rich have become much richer and why inflation is knocking on our doors, after three decades of printing money, pardon, 'quantitative easing'.

In the buses where I live, out of the speakers comes a repetitive and extremely loud exhortation to not speak to anyone, in order to stop the spread, preceded by a 3-note chime. Pavlov would have loved it.

The Great Reset rose to prominence at the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in June 2020 and refers to a plan to rebuild the world’s infrastructure ‘in a sustainable way’ (the Green New Deal). The funny thing about The Great Reset is how much it strongly resembles business-as-usual, only with EXTRA globalism. Most of the plan’s outlines include a further weakening of national boundaries and individual national autonomy, in favour of a more ‘universal governance.’ As usual, it is the rapidly vanishing Western middle class which must shoulder this burden, as their freedoms are further curtailed to meet the quotas of corporate-media-fuelled activism.

Much stress is put on the fact of global warming and, yet, none of our elite at the October 2021 COP26 summit saw a problem with the hundreds of private jets they used to get there, nor with the lavish dinners; although we, the little people, are told to eat less meat and dairy in order to save the planet. And, remember, private jets currently cause 50% of aeroplane emissions, not to mention the huge processions of limousines flown in specially, nor the electric cars and the generators to charge them. 

No mention was made of the fact that the military is the largest single source of global warming, especially the US military. No mention was made of the fact that capitalism, with its absolute need for exponential growth and technological advancement, will always end up trashing the planet and making more and more of us obsolete. It is an economic system that ultimately makes the generation of waste the primary engine of the economy.

Nothing was said of how the 99% - or 99.9% - of the world's population, including you and me, are not consulted over any of this, not permitted to be masters of our own lives, not even of our own bodies. COP26, however, did not have any restrictions concerning vaccination status.

Their solutions to specific environmental or scientific problems become entwined with LGBTQ+ rights, workplace equity, open borders initiatives and other unrelated social justice causes, as the New Left forgets about class struggle and embraces identity politics in a big neoliberal lovefest, thereby neutralising itself and subdividing the left. Therefore, a united response to a global pandemic mysteriously also equals trans rights activism, the most neoliberal cause ever conjured up.

Very absent from all this are the following:

• Removing big corporations' subsides and tax breaks, which would stop Big Oil in its tracks and remove most of the environmental problems that come with it, plus the corruption and cronyism endemic to big corporations and their revolving doors with government.
• Raising corporation tax on profits.
• Making fiscal paradises impossible by not allowing multinationals to move funds between one fiscal regime and another and by obliging them to pay tax on profit in the same country as sales are made.
• Penalising all air travel beyond a minimum number of flights or air miles per year.

So beware modern-day euphemisms: current state healthcare is NOT care of your health. The Green New Deal is not new and it's not green. Comfort is a poor substitute for freedom. The mRNA jabs are not vaccines. Our democracy is in fact oligarchy. The Opposition is NOT opposing the status quo. And the elites are getting richer and will stay in power.

And, above all, beware 3-word slogans.

Jaque al Rey

Tras el desastre para Podemos de las elecciones de la Comunidad de Madrid del 4 de mayo de 2021 conviene analizar cómo hemos llegado hasta aquí, y además partiéndose de unos comienzos tan prometedores.

UP aumentó sus escaños de 7 a 10, lo cual es positivo. En 2011, cuando Más Madrid y Podemos no existían, IU consiguió un 9,6% de los votos. En 2015 UP consiguió el 18,67%, y en 2019 el 20,29%. En estas elecciones de 2021, UP ha sacado un 24,18%; Más Madrid y UP han logrado un 8% más votos que el PSOE, cuyos votantes han abandonado el partido, unos en apoyo del PP, otros a la Izquierda real. De hecho Más Madrid ha subido en votos un 29% en los dos últimos años, y UP un 44%, nada menos. 

El debacle real ha sido de Ciudadanos (ese falso Centro) y del PSOE (esa falsa Izquierda), lo cual hace pensar que parte de la población se cansa de lo "políticamente correcto", lo de las palabras finas sin sustancia detrás, lo del auto-denominado "Centro" que luego se ubica en la Extrema Derecha. 

Y la gran victoria es de Vox -no de Ayuso-, que con solo un escaño más tendrá todo el poder sobre el PP de la Comunidad de Madrid.

Pero Podemos ha perdido su líder, carismático como nadie, capacitado y mediático como nadie. Dio un salto valiente desde la vicepresidencia -nada menos- al incógnito, y todo apuntaba a que iba a ser un acierto a pesar del casi total bloqueo de los medios de comunicación de masas, a pesar de los constantes bulos y mentiras de la oposición y su prensa y televisión, a pesar de la inutilidad absoluta del que habría tenido que ser un aliado desde el comienzo, Gabilondo, a pesar de la negativa de Más Madrid de apoyar un esfuerzo en común desde el comienzo. Más Madrid que prefiere de nuevo perder que juntarse con la única Izquierda que tenemos.

En el análisis de nivel de estudios, edad, sexo, etc. del votante, los más ricos y los que tienen más estudios votan a la Derecha. El inmigrante prefiere votar ligeramente a la Izquierda que a la Derecha. Pero -y es importante recordarlo- los inmigrantes son pocos en realidad, y la gran mayoría no vota. Y la abstención sigue siendo cosa de la Izquierda.

Ahora previsiblemente tendremos elecciones anticipadas en Andalucía, con una Izquierda no preparada para ello, sin liderazgo y sin proyección de proyecto.

Ya entre los derrotados se oyen voces proclamando que ha ganado el fascismo. Casi pero no del todo. Ayuso y Vox son la extrema derecha pero todavía no son el fascismo. Lo que ha ganado no es únicamente la Extrema Derecha, sino también la falta de una voz fuerte de Izquierdas, una voz que hable del elefante en la habitación: el sistema económico. 

La filosofía política de izquierdas, esa política "woke" -de la identidad-, esa que busca sin parar los votos de los colectivos, esa que es "políticamente correcta", ha demostrado una y otra vez que no vale. No porque los inmigrantes, los trans-identificados, los desempleados, los sintecho, las mujeres, etc. no deban tener derechos. Deberían tener una totalidad de derechos, claro que sí. Pero todos deberíamos tener derechos, y deberes, así que no hace falta señalar constantemente a minorías, ni perseguirlas buscando el voto. Además, muchas de esas minorías no votan.

Ha sido un error garrafal alienar a las feministas, clave en cualquier lucha contra el neoliberalismo, que es patriarcado aplastante en todas sus iteraciones. Y ha sido un error de principiantes tratar a las mujeres como un colectivo más, premiando al movimiento trans por encima de los derechos de las mujeres y niños. Ha sido un error hablar de "feminismos", en plural, como si cualquier postura contra la cultura dominante fuera feminista. Ha sido un error sustituir sexo por género, como concepto (lo cual anula decenas de leyes anteriores de protección de la mujer), como si la discriminación fuera hacia las emociones o sentimientos de uno, como si ser mujer fuera como un envase, a elegir, como si no se tratara de un espacio más de mujeres colonizado por hombres. Ha sido un error amenazar a los padres con quitarles la tutela de sus hijos menores con disforia, o incluso con hormonar o mutilar a sus hijos.

Ha sido un error hablar de subir los impuestos un poquito a los superricos, porque "deberían contribuir un poco más". Es que tener un Rey del Sol, o un Amancio Ortega, si lo prefieres -o varios- es incompatible con la democracia. Es que llegar a ser un billonario significa haber eludido impuestos, explotado a mucha gente, robado recursos de los demás y de generaciones futuras, comprado el poder, y muchas más cosas. A los superricos hay que hacerlos tributar sobre su patrimonio y sobre sus ingresos para que nadie tenga más de unos pocos millones. Ha sido un error tratarlos como si hubieran ganado "su" dinero, en lugar de lo que realmente ocurrió: se apropiaron del trabajo de otros. O lo hicieron sus padres. 

Ha sido un error no acabar con las diferencias fiscales entre regiones, las cuales suponen una "carrera hacia abajo" pero que benefician a Madrid a costa de las demás, aun siendo un juego de suma negativa. Ha sido un error no poner sobre el tapete una ley estatal de sucesiones, para que la riqueza no se concentre en pocas manos de una generación a otra.

Ha sido un error hablar de proteger a los pobres sin poner sobre la mesa viviendas, eléctricas, suministro de agua, banca... públicos, y para todos que los necesiten. Y un error poner en marcha ertes sin exigir a las empresas socorridas ratios máximas entre los salarios más altos y los más bajos, acordes con una sociedad civilizada (de 9:1, como mucho).

Ha sido un error no haber exigido a la banca rescatada hace 9 años ratios similares entre salarios, además de reconocer y asumir su deuda con la sociedad.

Ha sido un error no separar la sanidad pública de la narrativa de la pandemia, porque el consenso sobre la pandemia (su existencia, sus causas, su solución) que existe en el Gobierno Estatal no existe entre científicos y por tanto Ayuso ha podido aprovechar esta laguna para contraponer unas medidas incoherentes pero populares.

Ha sido un error sacrificar al Rey en lugar de la Reina, esa Ministra Cuir que tenemos, que promueve políticas anti-feministas y muy neoliberales en el Ministerio de Igualdad, con leyes redactadas con un copia-y-pega por el Movimiento Trans, con Gran Farma detrás. Habría sido una candidata buena para la Comunidad de Madrid, pudiendo competir con las otras candidatas como igual; y no habría sido necesario que dimitiera después. Madrid, después de todo, no es España. Y la Comunidad de Madrid representa únicamente a sí misma.

La Derecha dice que está celebrando dos buenas noticias: haber ganado las elecciones y la dimisión de Pablo Iglesias. Piénsalo al revés. ¿Te alegraste de la sustitución de Rajoy, por Casado? ¿Aguirre por González o Cifuentes? No, ¿verdad? Porque daba lo mismo, su política iba a seguir igual, una de la extrema derecha, de saqueo de las arcas públicas en beneficio de los amiguitos, insolidaria, mentirosa, injusta con las personas fuera de la élite, cruel con los animales... Pero ellos están de verdad festejando que hayan podido acabar con Iglesias, mediante bulos, insultos, sobornos, y 16 balas en una semana. Porque han decapitado a Podemos.

No hay asalto al cielo con una subida de impuestos de un par de puntos porcentuales a los superricos. No se hace con procedimiento tras procedimiento en los círculos, acta tras acta, cisma tras cisma. No se hace inventando palabras ridículas (todos, todas y todes) ni haciendo malabarismos lingüísticos para evitar usar sustantivos o pronombres masculinos. No se hace redefiniendo hombre como mujer, en contra de toda ciencia, meramente porque algunos hombres hayan decidido vestirse con ropa de mujer. 

El asalto al cielo solo es posible con un discurso revolucionario, una resistencia social y una desobediencia cívica en situaciones de injusticia. Los medios masivos no hablarán bien de ti una vez que te perciban como amenaza para sus intereses, así que seamos de verdad una amenaza para el neoliberalismo. Es hora de adoptar un discurso radical, manifestarse una tras otra vez ante los CIEs, parar cualquier desahucio, organizar quedadas con contenido interesante para jóvenes, y ofrecer ayuda práctica frente a la Administración Pública pero también censar a los que no están registrados para votar. Es hora de menos procedimientos y más pisar la calle.

El asalto al cielo no se hace buscando el voto de "minorías", sino moviéndose hacia la izquierda y manteniéndose fiel a una ideología radical, de raíz.

¿Qué está pasando en el Ministerio de Igualdad?

El 6 de marzo de 2021 se hizo público en prensa una recogida de firmas de, últimamente, más de 1.600 militantes e inscritos de Podemos, algun@s con altos cargos. En ella se hizo manifiesta una gran preocupación por el borrador de la Ley Montero (en realidad dos leyes presentadas casi al unísono, ambas con un fin parecido), la "Ley Trans". Dicha preocupación surgió tanto por la misoginia y sexismo de la ley, como por la amenaza real que podía suponer para la salud y bienestar de muchos jóvenes o incluso niños, menores de edad. 

Hay ya mucha información disponible sobre el porqué de esta preocupación, que se basa en la pérdida de derechos de la mujer (el derecho a espacios propios sin hombres, a ciertos cuidados sanitarios o pruebas médicas sin la presencia de hombres, de cárceles y otros espacios segregados), derechos ganados a lo largo de décadas de lucha y basados en el hecho de que el sexo es binario y relevante. La ley abría la puerta a que una parte minoritaria, pero con un perfil público muy conflictivo y agresivo, de los hombres accediera a estos espacios sin barrera ni recurso por parte de las mujeres.

Por otra parte, inducir a algunos jóvenes en una edad muy vulnerable a confundir el descontento que tengan con el mundo con una supuesta necesidad de cambiar su propia identidad o cuerpo es un error y de un tipo de ingeniería social experimental. Es, además, de un enfoque que encaja perfectamente en el neoliberalismo: si estás disgustado con tu vida, el problema no es de la sociedad, ¡cámbiate a ti mismo!

Hay numerosos casos de personas que han cambiado de parecer tras la mal nombrada "transición" (como si la vida ella misma fuera un videojuego) -y digo 'mal nombrada', porque no se puede cambiar de sexo y el problema siempre ha residido no en la persona sino en la sociedad, en los roles de género exigidos en la sociedad. La tasa de intento de suicidio no varía antes de o después de la cirugía, porque en realidad no soluciona nada, solo añade otra capa de problemas, de tipo físico. Los niveles de disforia tampoco se modifican significativamente.

La de-transición es típicamente parcial porque la hormonación contemplada en la ley para jóvenes pre-pubertad o, peor aún, la cirugía, hacen que la transición es a menudo irreversible. Y aunque hay ya cientos de jóvenes hablando de su de-transición, poca repercusión tiene en la prensa. Hay una lista de efectos secundarios serios de la hormonación de niños y jóvenes (para las mujeres: exceso de células rojas, hipertensión, diabetes, enfermedad cardiovascular, aumento de peso, acné, calvicie, apnea del sueño, problemas del hígado, dislipidemia, empeoramiento de los problemas psicológicos, esterilidad...). Y es que, aunque se repite como mantra que han "nacido en el cuerpo equivocado", el cuerpo de cada uno es perfecto y cumple con su función; en cambio las intervenciones con hormonas y extirpaciones sin serias razones médicas no son compatibles con una buena salud.

En otros países...

Ya existe una experiencia previa de leyes muy parecidas en otros muchos países y no es buena para las mujeres, ni para los jóvenes. Este último grupo se ve privado del sentido común, la perspectiva a largo plazo y el entendimiento de que los jóvenes muy a menudo se sienten confusos o descontentos durante unos pocos años, y esto es normal. En lugar de brindarles apoyo o ayuda psicológica, o incluso reivindicar que la sociedad que imponga roles rígidos de género tiene la culpabilidad, la Ley intenta empujarlos hacia la creencia que el problema son ellos mismos, así como hacia tratamientos agresivos y en muchos casos irreversibles. 

La Ley asimismo introduce unos contenidos totalmente ideológicos en la educación, y además en contra de los hechos puramente científicos. Borra el hecho biológico de que el sexo es binario tanto en el ser humano como en otros mamíferos, y el que es el género que es fluido, con muchas manifestaciones.

Más sorprendente aun, la Leyes Trans no definen ni sexo ni género, y además mezcla los términos sin piedad. 

¿Pero el Movimiento Trans representa a los transexuales por lo menos?

El término "Movimiento Trans" esconde la realidad de que no representa ni a los transexuales (que, hay que recordar, son menos del 1% de la población), ni a sus intereses. Además, el mismo término 'transexual' NO significa que uno es de ambos sexos; uno es en todo caso de un sexo determinado, con característicos secundarios ambiguos. A la vez el término 'trans' engloba un sinfín de condiciones y parafilias, muchas de las cuales no son aptas para que los enarbole el Estado.

Los grandes inversores internacionales reconocen que estos tratamientos suponen un área de enorme crecimiento actual con unas previsiones tremendas, además de no ser en absoluto una amenaza para el capitalismo (mientras que el feminismo, sí que lo es). George Soros, el gran inversor, apoya estos tratamientos por su aspecto financiero y, según el Washington Post, es en gran medida responsable del empuje del Movimiento. Este Movimiento encaja dentro del movimiento transhumano promocionado ampliamente por todos los multimillonarios del "tech", así como los grandes inversores, incluyendo -¿cómo no?- Bill Gates. Es una visión de la humanidad aterradora y muy reñida con los valores del feminismo, incluyendo el ecologismo.

El Movimiento Trans está recibiendo de los inversores y de la Gran Farma cantidades ingentes de dinero y, además, está acaparando las subvenciones que se destinaban hace poco a otros colectivos, por ejemplo de lesbianas, gais... En EE.UU. varios albergues para mujeres vulnerables y maltratadas han tenido que admitir a violadores trans-identificados para no perder su subvención, y precisamente varios de esos hombres se han portado como los predadores que son. Hay mujeres-trans violadoras que están en la cárcel de mujeres y que han cometido en la cárcel más violaciones. Es posible que estos casos sean anecdóticos, pero no menos serios por ello. Una propuesta de ley donde se sabe ya de los problemas inherentes y muy graves no debería seguir en pie.

Se sospecha que los partidos políticos también a través de lobbies están recibiendo fondos para promocionar la ideología trans.

No ha habido debate real por parte del Ministerio de Igualdad, lo cual citó una encuesta por email no ampliamente difundida ni cuyos resultados han sido publicados en detalle, para justificar que la Ley tenía apoyos. En cualquier caso, puesto que el Proyecto de Ley no había sido publicado con anterioridad, la encuesta no fue basada en el Proyecto Ley en sí (porque no habían visto el texto), sino en la cuestión de si los transexuales deberían tener protección por ley, lo cual es ampliamente aceptado por la población y ya es un hecho dentro de la ley desde hace décadas. 

Lo que está demostrado es que el día 6 se hizo público en prensa una recogida de firmas de militantes de Podemos, algunos fundadores del Partido; y 2 días más tarde, el día 8, Día Internacional de la Mujer, el Ministerio dio una demostración del mansplaining cuando organizó para que una mujer-trans, o sea, un hombre vestido de mujer, nos explicase cómo las mujeres hacemos mal las cosas en apoyarnos en el trabajo doméstico de otras mujeres para poder trabajar fuera de casa. 

El discurso podría haberse centrado mejor en que las mujeres no tienen la culpa, que es verdad que ellas, no los hombres, acaban siendo el último escalón del trabajo, que ellas hacen un doble trabajo, dentro y fuera de la casa, y que hace falta mucho más apoyo institucional para las mujeres, que en muchos casos tienen grandes dificultades para poder trabajar fuera de la casa. El Ministerio hizo un "gaslighting" de las mujeres, y dio protagonismo a un hombre en el día de la Mujer. Más inexplicable dentro del feminismo, se procedió a filtrar en prensa y redes que eran personas de la "Extrema Derecha" que se estaban manifestando contra la Ley.

No se puede equiparar la situación de la mujer (mayoría absoluta de la población) a la de minorías. Las mujeres, como clase social, sufren una opresión que perdura en el tiempo por su sexo. Bien entendible es que el neoliberalismo prefiere la política de identidades, con la población fragmentada. Considerar a la cuestión de la mujer como una identidad más, y no como el resultado de nacer y crecer con el sexo femenino, es luego hacer malabares para ver quién recibe qué recurso; y la experiencia en el Extranjero ha demostrado que el Movimiento Trans intenta apoderarse de los recursos destinados a colectivos de mujeres. 

Es un Movimiento que no se pronuncia sobre los hombres que están parasitando las organizaciones ideadas para mujeres, como se ha visto en la irrupción de hombres acosadores en grupos de lesbianas, el ingreso de hombres en refugios para mujeres, en los intentos de "cancelar" a muchas feministas, y en la agresividad con la que se meten con feministas en las redes o en otros ámbitos.

Curiosamente Podemos incluye en sus textos institucionales dos elementos peculiares, al margen de los malabares lingüísticos que hay que hacer para evitar los pronombres sexistas. Los pronombres femeninos permiten que se pueda referir a las hembras de nuestra especie y, sin embargo, están siendo borrados. Además, estos textos dan a entender:

1. Que es mejor hablar de las mujeres, en lugar de la mujer. No obstante, no somos sólo un grupo de individuos, sino una clase con el derecho de una consideración específica por tener el sexo de mujer, la razón de una opresión histórico y, de paso, la misma base de nuestra explotación desde nuestro nacimiento dentro del capitalismo, que necesita la labor no remunerada o infra-remunerada de la mujer -tanto nuestra producción como nuestra reproducción-, además de la de futuras generaciones (mediante el endeudamiento y el desgaste medioambiental).
2. Que hay que aceptar gustosamente dentro del Partido las mujeres no especialmente guapas. En su Protocolo de Comunicación Feminista aparece esta sensata exhortación de "huir de la sexualización de la que las mujeres aparecen siempre jóvenes, delgadas, primorosamente arregladas." Lo cual choca con el exceso de "feminidad" que ostentan las mujeres-trans, con sus pelucas lustrosas, su maquillaje excesivo, sus ropa específicamente femenina. O, incluso con los tacones altos de la propia Ministra en la tele.

El uso del lenguaje es, por supuesto, importante; y eliminar el sexismo de nuestro discurso es clave para cambiar los prejuicios. Pero la eliminación de los pronombres y sustantivos ya asignados a un sexo determinado pone en riesgo poder hablar y pensar con sensatez. En el Reino Unido el Servicio Nacional de Salud ahora se refiere a las mujeres como "personas con útero" para alguna prueba médica. No en el caso de la prueba del próstata, que sí que va dirigida a los hombres. 

Este titular, sobre un hombre que ha dado a luz tras recibido esperma de una mujer, parece casi increíble, hasta que nos demos cuenta de que lo que ha pasado en que un hombre (llamado "mujer") ha tenido un bebé con una mujer (llamada "hombre") y que lo único destacable de la noticia es la confusión creada en la sociedad y entre las personas; además del término equivocado 'female', que es un término biológico que no  puede nunca referirse a un donante de esperma:

Más grotesco es la cantidad de mujeres-trans identificándose como lesbianas, acosando a lesbianas con su "pene-de-chica" en espacios para lesbianas, y acusando a las mujeres de transfobia por su rechazo natural hacia ellos.

El Movimiento Trans se presenta como un colectivo de personas débiles, infra-representadas, como tradicionalmente ha sido el colectivo de lesbianas. Pero no es cierto. No paran de recordarnos que hay mucha violencia perpetrada contra ell@s. Nada en comparación con la que se perpetúa contra las mujeres, pero han conseguido eclipsar a las mujeres en este debate. No deberíamos olvidar que hay más asesinatos cometidos por l@s trans que contra l@s trans. Es posible que estos datos dentro de muy poco no sean analizables, en cuanto una mujer-trans asuma la identidad de "mujer", sin más. 

Es un hecho que admitir a hombres en deportes competitivos de mujeres obra en gran detrimento de las mujeres, permitiendo a algunos hombres mediocres en su propia categoría, ganarles a las mujeres con facilidad. Sólo hay que comparar los récords mundiales de las categorías masculinas y femeninas. Admitir a los hombres condenados por crímenes violentos a cárceles de mujeres es asimismo claramente un error.

Estos dos ejemplos, además, demuestran que las medidas contempladas en la Ley no son simétricas. Las mujeres trans-identificadas no suponen un batacazo para los hombres en el deporte, y los hombres-trans difícilmente van a querer ingresar en la cárcel para hombres. 

La criminalidad de las mujeres-trans es similar a la de los hombres (¡porque SON hombres!)

Las mujeres-trans son algo menos propensos de cometer un crimen (tienen el 0,8 de probabilidad) que los hombres. Pero tienen 18 veces más probabilidades de cometerlo que las mujeres. (No obstante los hombres-trans son mucho más violentos que las mujeres, lo cual puede entenderse como un efecto de tomar testosterona.)

Es un hecho que la actividad delictiva, en particular los delitos violentos, es mucho más común entre los hombres que entre las mujeres en la población general. Un estudio sueco de todas las solicitudes de reasignación de sexo en Suecia hasta 1992 encontró que el 9,7% de los solicitantes de hombre a mujer y el 6,1% de mujer a hombre habían sido procesados ​​por un delito. Sin embargo, el crimen después de la reasignación de sexo no se había estudiado previamente. Los individuos de hombre a mujer tenían un mayor riesgo de condenas penales en comparación con los controles femeninos, pero no en comparación con los controles masculinos. Esto sugiere que el procedimiento de reasignación de sexo hombre-a-mujer no aumentó ni disminuyó el riesgo de delitos penales entre hombres y mujeres. 

Por el contrario, los hombres-trans tenían un mayor riesgo de condenas penales en comparación con los controles femeninos y no diferían de los controles masculinos, lo que sugiere una mayor propensión a la delincuencia en las personas mujer-a-hombre después de su transición.

Hoy en día, más del 87% de los hombres trans-identificados NO se hace la cirugía de "abajo". Son físicamente hombres, con todo la problemática que eso puede acarrear para la mujer en determinados ámbitos. En cuanto a las mujeres trans-identificados, un 48-54% se hace la cirugía, y la cirugía es tremendamente invasiva e irreversible, extirpando pechos, útero, vagina... 

Estas cirugías son un campo de rápida expansión. De todos los procedimientos registrados por la Sociedad Estadounidense de Cirujanos Plásticos, fue una de las que más se incrementó entre 2016 y 2017, aumentando en un 155% de 2016 a 2017, con un crecimiento del 289% para los hombres-trans; con un aumento del 41% para las mujeres-trans (en esta última categoría se incluye los implantes de pechos, una cirugía en gran medida, reversible y superficial). De nuevo las mujeres son las grandes perjudicadas y muchas de ellas muy jóvenes, ya que se permite que los menores accedan a cirugías y hormonación, ambas experimentales y con unos efectos a largo plazo desconocidos o incluso previsiblemente muy perjudiciales. 

Es importante no olvidarse de que las cirugías NO resultan en órganos reales, con funcionalidad, sino en un simulacro. Las cirugías de "abajo" tienen resultados grotescos, no funcionales, y con una posibilidad real de repeticiones quirúrgicas constantes (una parte significativa de los hombres-trans operados se someten a cirugías nada menos que 16 veces).

La militancia del Movimiento Trans es un grupo organizado y muy agresivo de los mismos hombres ricos y blancos de siempre, con el privilegio de siempre, algunos transexuales (en gran medida los que se llamaban en otros tiempos travestis) y otros muchos ni siquiera. Son hombres disfrazados de personas vulnerables, con una obsesión de meter mano a los realmente vulnerables de la sociedad (los niños y las mujeres), hasta el punto de hacer palpable la amenaza de quitar la patria potestad a los padres y madres de sus hijos, anulando su posibilidad de proteger a éstos del abuso de cirugías y medicamentos dañinos a unas edades en las que es imposible que entiendan las repercusiones a largo plazo de dichas mutilaciones. Encaja en el pensamiento neoliberal a la perfección: con la tendencia de bajar los salarios, en este caso de los profesionales que podrían ayudar a las personas con dismorfia y otros problemas psicológicos; y con la de incrementar la lista de patologías, drogodependencia, medicalización y cirugías de por vida...

Los lobbies de los grandes intereses farmacéuticos sobornan con unos ingresos enormes a los partidos políticos de EE.UU. El Portal de Transparencia de Podemos sólo incluye información sobre los ingresos hasta el 2018, así que es imposible saber si Podemos ha recibido dinero de algunos grupos de presión. No es fácil saber cuánto dinero pagan los lobbies al gobierno o cuáles son los términos reales de nuestro gran endeudamiento actual y si tiene vinculación con la Ley Trans.

Un movimiento social de Izquierdas que no acepte que el Feminismo es para proteger a las mujeres, en parte de los hombres y sus sistemas de poder, así como para luchar por la igualdad de las mujeres frente al privilegio de los hombres, no es de Izquierdas, y desde luego no puede ser feminista. Igual que la medida que anunció Podemos el mismo 8 de marzo sobre ayudas para la conciliación que se destinarían en un 80% a las mujeres, ¿qué significado puede tener tal medida si algunos hombres podrán beneficiarse de ella, identificándose como mujeres. Y lo harán, porque el problema sistémico de las mujeres es que los hombres que deseen invadir sus espacios, o apoderarse de lo de ellas, suelen ser más agresivos, más ruidosos y una amenaza real.

Hay una palabra para la situación en la que las mujeres que hablen sobre cuerpos femeninos se considera inaceptablemente antisocial, donde se impida sistemáticamente describir las consecuencias del sexismo para las mujeres, donde los recursos para las mujeres se redistribuyan a los usuarios masculinos mientras que los recursos para los hombres se dejen en manos masculinas, y donde “hombre” y “mujer” se asocien rígidamente con la masculinidad y feminidad. Esa palabra no es “progresista”, “liberal”, “feminista” o cualquiera de los otros términos que generalmente se asocian con el activismo trans. La palabra es misoginia.

La lucha feminista no se resuelve con aplausos un día al año, o con globos morados. Tampoco con dibujitos tiernos o centrándose exclusivamente en las mujeres asistentas, limpiadoras y víctimas. La lucha es de todas y, además, se busca un mundo mejor para todos los seres, de todos, hombres y mujeres de todas las consideraciones. 

Esta lucha requiere que Podemos se sitúe de nuevo al lado de sus principios iniciales, como partido anticapitalista y -sobra añadirlo- feminista. Las mujeres somos sujetos en pleno derecho, no en competencia con intereses diversos, sino porque una política de izquierdas tiene que colocar la ideología precisamente del feminismo en el centro.

11.10.22: este artículo ha sido ligeramente modificado. Creo que 'hombre-trans' y 'mujer-trans' son términos diseñados para engañar, confundir e imponer pronombres erróneos; por tanto, he reemplazado estos términos por 'hombre trans-identificado' y 'mujer trans-identificado' en varios sitios.

More Thoughts on the Trans Law (II)

What's not to like about trans rights, right?

However, the problem is not trans rights as such, but rather that the Trans laws being approved all over the Western world are a huge step backwards for women, children and homosexuals.

And one of the most galling aspects is the de facto nonchalance about violence against women that arises if, as a woman, one questions the Trans laws. The general reaction is not conducive to debate, but rather real women are being shouted down by trans women, that is, men. Many of whom are behaving like typical narcissists, hating those who don't cooperate with their unhinged worldview. Women are being cancelled and literally threatened with real violence, and yet those same women are being accused of hate speech by their aggressors. 

The small print in the Trans laws being approved is horrific: men in women's spaces, the assumption that surgical enhancement actually makes you the other sex, irreversible treatment and surgery for children and the removal of their parents' rights to have a decisive say in their welfare in this matter, the psychological warfare being used to make perfect people feel unhappy about their bodies - these are just some of the actual terms of these laws. All of this is being cloaked as trans rights, when in fact deep psychological disorder is being left untreated and actively encouraged. 

Current trans laws push many vulnerable, unhappy people who are not very good at relationships into thinking that the problem is not our society, nor a phase they are going through, but their bodies. And those of us who want a proper debate before these laws are rubber stamped are being called ignorant, hateful, extreme and transphobic. And these terms are being specifically hurled by very unhinged, and often violent, men, frequently following their takeover of feminist forums, as men impersonating women, often in the most grotesque and sexist way possible. 

Which makes me, as a woman, feel that all of this reinforces what I've been saying all along: that we definitely need female safe spaces where men (whatever sex they say they are) are simply not allowed. And we definitely need to be able to ban violent men at women's rights events. And just because you say you are something that does not mean that you are. Can I be a 22-year-old, black hen, please? I didn't think so. Not matter how many feathers I dress in.

In this current horribly binary and simplistic worldview, if you are a man, say, and want to wear pink floaty dresses and loads of make-up, trip around in ballet shoes and carry a handbag, it must be because you are in the wrong body. How stereotypically sexist is that? So from this point of view, wearing loads of make-up and high heels is something innately female. 

Very many of these trans women (ie men), whether surgically enhanced or not, then prey upon that most vulnerable of collectives, homosexual women, ie lesbians. Who might like to end up dating a woman, but may unwittingly end up being preyed upon by an autogynephile instead. An autogynephile who pretends to be a lesbian, but is a man. Similarly, women who want to wear typically male clothes (ie comfortable clothes) and eschew make-up and feminine wiles (ie sensible women) are now being told that they are really men. So that real lesbians are being told they are in fact men in women's bodies, and should accept a sexual partner who is in fact a man pretending to be a woman. And the man who is chasing after these women, thinks he is a woman, so he must naturally be a lesbian. (You really couldn't make this up.) And all this, if it weren't already enough, is also a really horrid, misogynist trope: that lesbians just haven't met the right man yet or, in this case, the right penis-toting woman!

All of which is definitely backed up by Big Pharma because what could be better that someone taking hormones and other medication for the rest of their life for no good reason whatsoever? Not to mention the synthetic estrogen-related strokes and heart attacks.

And, as Orwell would have appreciated, a society is in dire straights when saying something is true means it literally becomes true. 

Repeat after me: women are NOT "validation stations" for those who have beliefs not based on material reality.

Feminism and Trans Rights (I)

Many feminists of a certain age have grave reservations about the new trans rights laws. Traditionally, we have understood that women collectively form a class, specifically an under-class, although we make up 50% of the population. And, as such, we have class interests.

In the past feminism was generally understood to be aligned with the Left, although socialist parties only paid, at best, lip-service to women's interests. The glass ceiling and the unacceptable fact that the jobs predominantly carried out by women pay less and that women also earn less in the same job were never at the top of the left-wing agenda. 

Right-wing politics and Capitalism itself favour a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest that places brute strength (economic or otherwise) above all other considerations. Our times have shown in crude terms how money purchases power (Citizens United, in the US, bought elections in general, bought judges...) and how late-stage Capitalism brings out shocking levels of inequality.

Jeff Bezos is, as I write, worth a whopping $200 billion. There is no doubt that his work, as such - paid however you like -, cannot be worth this sum. He is interesting in that he is responsible for producing almost nothing tangible. The possible exception, the Alexa and Kindle devices, are a very mixed blessing; their downside being control over what you see or read - your understanding of the world, if you like. They also bring us mass-surveillance and military AI that, together with climate change and nuclear arms, are THE threat to humankind, imminent, so immense and so hidden from us behind the noise of unimportant trivia that fills up our screens that we are individually and collectively incapable of even thinking about it.

The Left used to fight for collective, rather than individual, solutions, solidarity and compassion towards others. Now, the Left has disassociated itself from seeing women's rights as a class issue. In these neo-liberal and individualistic times, women are merely viewed as individuals with a uterus, with no need for specific consideration. In fact the very words 'man' and 'woman' are about to become meaningless. Yet, as so many studies and experiences have shown, words are important and, in a male-dominated world, excluding the word 'woman' excludes many real women from real consideration.

The trans movement is totally in line with our times, tremendously individualistic and a sort of I'm-worth-it badge for a culture that that failed to understand the difference between sex and gender, and has misunderstood form for content. We had decades of misguided women (and a few men) who paid good money to have silicon (and other poisons) pumped into their body, in some instances paid for by the NHS, which had confused true wellbeing with a sort of phycological aspiration created by propaganda and social programming. (Not talking here about beneficial cosmetic procedures due to accident and illness). A man who wears high heels is still a man.

We have a society that re-enforces mind-numbing conformity and only permits those differences that are extremely superficial. Whether Democrat or Republican, they are both pathological lying, warmongering factions of the Corporate Class. Try to explain that ETA in Spain never killed anything like as many people as the illegal invasion(s) of Iraq, in 2003 backed by the right-wing Spanish PP party, and you'll be met by hysterical shrieks of being a terrorist. A culture that confuses the symptom with the disease.

Our binary vision is essentially a reflection of our masculine, patriarchal world. The threat to the neo-liberal, ever-expanding, Capitalistic state is feminist and collective.

The trans movement is a reaction to this hyper-masculine culture, seeking a spectrum of personal experiences and modes of being - but it is the wrong one! Of course, gender should be viewed as a spectrum, and it is high-time that women ditched foot-deforming high heels, time-wasting make-up and feminine wiles. Why any man would want to go down this path is beyond me. 

It is a reflection of how artificial our culture is that in our Western society it is the female that decks itself out in fine colours in order to attract a mate, and not the other way round.

And, of course, we need safe places for all, which really means safe places for women and gender non-conforming people, from those men that are predatory or violent.

And, now we are talking about this, we need less children, because there ARE an awful lot of us, so an increase in the percent of gay people might be a good thing too for the planet.

But from there to the idea that it is a good idea to medicate people, to artificially delay puberty, to operate on them in order to give them artificial body parts or take others out, to give them hormones for their entire life, simply because those people seem to demand it, is bad thinking, superficial and harmful. People are extremely malleable, which is why the advertising industry is worth $560 billion in the US alone. If you normalise something and propagandise it, it will be wanted. Think of back-deforming, body-poisoning breast implants, trout pouts, botox, or indeed smartphones (changed every 2 years, or every year in some countries). Anyone who has had holiday time in a rural area without phone coverage finds that in a couple of days you do not miss it at all.

The incursion of males into female competitive sports is unpleasant and unfair, but probably we would be a lot better off if all remunerative, competitive sports were to go. Just think of how every major male sport (football, cycling, even tennis for God's sake!) has been plagued by doping and corruption scandals over the last decades. The cases of violent men who have been allowed into female-only hospital wards or prisons is also indicative of the fact that most violence, and virtually all rape, is carried out by men. But, once again, the problem is deeper down: prisons are not fit for purpose and hospitals are so underfunded that privacy and security cannot be guaranteed. 

The problem of the disappearance of safe places for women points to a wider problem: ALL places should be vigorously made safe for all.

However, these non-representative instances of abuses, tiny in number, show a real aspect of the trans movement - the invasiveness of men in female areas of life. I say men because the focus of current trans laws benefits men, both trans and non-trans, not women. In this sense the trans movement is behaving exactly how men collectively have typically behaved in our society.

But to go back to the Trans Laws. The fact is that everyone should be able to be as they want to be (without harming others) and call themselves any name they want. But you cannot choose the sex with which you are conceived, and should not confuse the way you want to dress and act with your body's sex. Women and men ARE generally different, they have different hormones, and different biological responses to many situations. Ask a man to close the car window a bit and he'll close it entirely - men are far more binary, which is a good thing in many situations and a bad thing in others. In general women are biologically more careful of life than men and the vast majority of vegetarians and vegans are women for a reason. If a woman wants a female midwife, for example, there are good reasons for this. Perhaps we need a third and fourth gender for trans people, but a man in a skirt with heels, operated on or not, is still a man and should not be legally designated a woman. Desire should not be confused with fact. I may wish to be a millionaire but that does not, and should not, make me one.

The Trans movement is not addressing the underlying sickness in our society (Patriarchy), limiting itself to treating the symptom (pretending to be a woman, instead of being able to be a man and dress and be as you want - and vice versa). With its demand that children be allowed to take puberty-blocking hormones, or undergo surgery, is is serving trans-identified people very badly and children, many autistic, disgracefully. There will be a huge wave of depression from those people who regret their decisions, irreparable later on, and their bad health.

The Trans movement is additionally acting in an intolerant way, implementing what is called the cancel culture, under the guise of not allowing 'intolerance'. This is reminiscent of the political correctness that so enthralled the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. It was not what you did, but how you spoke about it, that was the problem. Women who voice doubts about trans laws and about the wisdom of society sanctioning harmful surgical interventions or "chest-feeding" for babies are simply shouted down or cancelled, in a way that is identical to how traditionally women's voices have been silenced by louder male ones.

Trans-identified people are not the problem - this should not need saying -, but our patriarchal system, by hiding the full spectrum of gender and reducing our lives to binary options within a tiny spectrum of possible life experiences, has misled people into thinking that aggressive surgery and drugs are the solution to a problem that is in fact psychological. The problem of society rejecting one's non-pathological personality is not solved by changing one's body, but by changing society. 

Feminism, instead of demanding parity of economic entitlement, parity of salaries and jobs in medium to large companies, parity in public employment and government, stays distracted with the question of equal maternity and paternity leave. Of course fathers should get paternity leave, and the opportunity to spend time with their babies and children. But much more urgent is ensuring that all women who give birth can stay with their babies until the latter are at least a year and a half; without this breastfeeding, the baby's most basic right, is almost impossible for working mothers. Feminism remains distracted with identity politics, distracted with anything but taking on the root of all these problems - the economic system.

Patriarchy, the enemy of all but the elite, and especially the enemy of women as a class and trans-identified people, has defanged the Feminist movement, and the Left is once again divided, actually excluding many women (even expelling many feminists), and offering us, yet again, individualism rather than collectivism.