Pandemic of the Mutilated

Why the pushback against 'trans athletes' in women's sport is only the beginning

In the weeks following the big splash that was transgender swimmer Lia Thomas’ (formerly William) sham 500-yard freestyle national college title victory in the US, the discussion surrounding the integrity of women’s sport more widely is, quite rightly, finally receiving the support and attention it deserves.

More recently, in Great Britain, a whiff of the trans-activist lobby’s overwhelming political influence beginning to face more of an outspoken cultural backlash came via the news that another trans athlete, Emily Bridges (formerly Zach), a cyclist with prospects of competing at this past weekend’s British National Omnium Championship, had been banned from competing by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) — the Swiss-based world governing body for sports cycling — citing the very pertinent information that ‘she’ was in fact still registered (and racing) as a ‘he’ as currently as last month.

Progress of a kind, perhaps, especially when one considers the past successes of the Canadian cyclist, Rachel McKinnon, who won consecutive titles at the UCI’s very own Women’s Masters Track World Championship in 2018 and 2019.

Rachel, who was born Rhys, and now dons the name ‘Veronica Ivy’, decided to celebrate ‘her’ victory in that typically feminine and gracious way by calling any objectors to it, “losers”, because, of course, anyone who dared point out the significant biological sex differences between men and women in sport are, to misogynistic bullies like him (as highlighted here), just plain and simple ‘bigots’.

Alas, as all-in members of the ‘social justice’ industry have certainly made clear by now, it is far easier, cheaper and impactful to stymie vital cultural conversations with the odd smear campaign than anything else.

But as the long-overdue fight back in support of women’s rights to free and fair competition rages on like innate male testosterone tends to do so, and as growing numbers of yet-to-live young are marketed more ‘gender identities’ than they are Disney films, is now also the time to address and forewarn of the devastating damage that comes with nudging future generations towards ‘gender dysphoria’ acceptance?

Though the exact numbers are consistently difficult to source, in the UK, ‘tentative’ estimates from a 2018 ‘Government Equalities Office’ report on ‘Transgender People in the UK’ puts the population at approximately 200,000-500,000; although this only accounts, on average, for 0.5 per cent of the entire population, in recent years a stark increase in childhood referrals to the country’s now-notorious ‘Gender Identity Development Service’ — GIDS for short — at the Tavistock Clinic in North London, has begun to bring to light the desperate need for a nationwide debate regarding the moral, ethical, medical and cultural questions surrounding the ‘trans’, and sinisterly-deemed ‘trans kids’, phenomenon.

Including a referral rise of more than 1,000 per cent in male children and 4,400 per cent in female children from 2009-2019, such a discovery led to Theresa May’s then-‘Equalities Minister’, Penny Mordaunt, to launch an investigation into why there had been such a sharp spike of kids (as young as three) and teenagers passing through the clinic’s doors; to date, no such results have ever been published.

Yet despite on-and-off state-sanctioned lockdowns during two-years worth of a no-longer-useful-to-hype Covid ‘pandemic’, as of May 2021, in England alone, GIDS still managed to see 2,242 child patients, just 323 short of its highest annual tally of 2,565 preceding the arrival of the Wuhan Flu. As the aforementioned data suggests, in 2010, the number was a mere 134.

Similarly, in the United States, the number of children being ‘affirmed’ — a loose medical term used to acknowledge a person’s ‘gender identity’ without much scientific scrutiny — has skyrocketed; previous calculations put the country’s total transgender population at approximately 1.4 million, with 0.7 per cent — or 150,000 — of the total youth population identifying as transgender.

Whilst much has been written about the explosion of such trends, including more ‘access’ to transgender health services and more surgeons available (particularly in America) ready to perform gender ‘reassignment’ or ‘affirmation’ surgery, some studies have revealed that there appears to be a firm correlation between trans individuals who have also been diagnosed with autism.

At the University of Cambridge’s Autism Research Centre, findings in mid-2020 led to the conclusion that transgender and ‘gender-diverse’ adults are three to six times more likely to be diagnosed as autistic compared to the general population. Furthermore, they were also ‘more than twice as likely’ to have received multiple diagnoses of specified mental health conditions, including schizophrenia, and particularly depression.

Interestingly, the study references a previous paper from the US — the largest of its kind — where gender dysphoria in a dataset of 300,000 children was found in ‘four times’ the amount of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) than those without.

Regardless of such traits, and mounting spoken and visual testimony from ‘detransitioners’ — ex-transgender patients who received surgery and now wish to revert back to or live life as their biological sex — the ethical questions surrounding early treatment and the future repercussions of decisions leading to irreversible hormonal or surgical damage, remain.

Worryingly, the start of such a process can begin very early on; one case, in New South Wales, Australia, stoked righteous criticism when it was revealed that a four-year-old toddler would ‘transition their gender’ (live life as the opposite sex) before their very first day of preschool.

Age, in an age of transgenderism, it seems, really is nothing but a number, in spite of varied journalistic data that suggests children would, given time, eventually ‘grow out of’ any initial feeling of gender dysphoria, thus highlighting how unnecessary any lasting physiological or psychological harm could actually be through early diagnosis and/or treatment.

Nevertheless, following the initial stages of ‘affirmation’, where medical professionals working in the field are often pressured to accept the declarations of trans patients whatever their age to help prevent stigma, offence, or future harm (as explained in great detail by a former Tavistock psychotherapist here), later processes such as hormone therapy, in which a patient maybe given controversial (and sometimes dangerous) doses of ‘puberty blockers’ to ‘pause’ the stages of puberty, itself, may well take place.

In most instances, patients over the age of 16 will later move onto taking ‘cross-sex hormones’ (oestrogen or testosterone), the effects of which, including breast development and a deepening of the voice, respectively, are almost certainly permanent. According to now-updated NHS guidelines, these hormones may also cause temporary or everlasting infertility.

Throughout this process, although self-harm, like attempted suicide, does continue to be prevalent within the trans community at most stages of ‘transitioning’, one very thorough Swedish study that tracked ‘sex-reassigned’ patients over the course of 30 years also concluded:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

As many ‘detransitioners’ would attest, surgery, it is clear, is not always the key to happiness. Nor is it easy to reverse.

Not for the faint of heart, in America, the consequences can be horrific. Enter: Nullification.

Thankfully unavailable to UK patients (for now), this growing racket for the multi-millionaire plastic surgeon class, lends itself to the very peculiar (and unbalanced) needs of the so-called ‘non-binary’ patient, ‘enabling’ them, in the words of Align Surgical, a trans-only cosmetic surgery practice in San Francisco, California (where else?), to “enjoy a relatively smooth genital area”.

Also known as a ‘Eunuch procedure’, this process effectively allows the patient to ‘Barbie doll’ their entire body, removing every reproductive organ, breasts, and nipples, to ‘help’ the person realise their ideally flat ‘gender non-conforming’ aesthetic. For ‘men’, specifically, plans are made to ‘shorten’ and ‘reroute’ the urethra to allow them to spend a penny in the bathroom sat down, much like a woman. Ranging from $20,000-30,000, however, these are no mere pennies being spent.

As eye-watering as it might be to learn that such ‘health’ procedures do, indeed, exist, it is, I believe, paramount to be aware of them if only to help us realise, much like the current Covid obsession with mass childhood inoculation, the impending regret we, as a society, will later have to confront by allowing our youngest and most vulnerable to offer themselves up to irredeemable medical mutilation.

This will surely be the end result if we do not speak more honestly and openly about this ever-growing societal shift that has taken place under the far-left and oft-celebrated banners of [trans] ‘inclusivity’ and ‘diversity’; banners which, apparently, President Joe Biden dementedly demands to promote, not only as normal, but preferred.

Whilst there’s no doubt it is, of course, incumbent on us to retain ideals of respect and tolerance wherever possible, in the trans-activist lobby’s current aggressive and unforgiving form, we must not forget what’s at stake, here:

Not just the rights of biological women to be called women, to own their own language and history, to be recognised as the only people on god’s great earth that can induce the sheer beauty of motherhood, and to be allowed their own spaces and sports like the rest of us, but for the rights of children to live and grow without succumbing to the force-fed fallacies and fantasies of the malevolently infantilised adults around them.

We owe them that at least, don’t we?