The Gender Industry - Part 1

Industries prefer their products and services to be scaleable, one size fits all solutions for higher profits. A solution to a problem the pharmaceutical and medical industry looked to re-address was gender dysphoria in youth; which is a persistent unease a youth may have with society’s gender norms related to their sex. The gender industry looked to find a more profitable, ideally scalable alternative to the current solution of watchful waiting, which looked to reconcile youth with their sex. From a business perspective this is not a highly profitable solution:

• Treatment was usually one on one. It is not scalable.

• It financially benefits a small number of trained psychologists only.

• It is private there is no contact marketing; no specific campaigns that combine marketing and sales to connect with specific prospects, the target market i.e., the youth. But also, high-value prospects like CEOs, C-level executives and top decision-makers of corporate and government to promote the product brand.

• No opportunity for viral marketing; the use of social networks to promote a product mainly on various social media platforms; TikTok, YouTube, FaceBook, Tumblr etc.

• Unfortunately, cured patients exit the market, so there is no recurrent revenue; no fees charged at regular intervals for products or services.

The new solution gender-affirming care, however, redefines the problem that youth are in fact in the ‘wrong body’ and therefore require a product line of drugs and surgery to modify the youth’s body to the appearance of the opposite sex (or these days non-binary). This with viral and contact marketing opens up a hugely scalable business.

The gender industry product lines include chemical castration & late stage endometriosis drugs used off-label as ‘puberty blockers’, cross-sex hormones, surgical procedures like castration and double mastectomies for changing the appearance of an individual not only to that of the opposite sex but lately also to conform to the idea of a third gender (non-binary) in the removal of all primary and secondary sex characteristics.

Once youth are on the medical pathway the recurrent revenue stream is in the hormones and drugs over a transgender's lifetime to maintain themselves. Plus, for exploratory surgeries gone wrong; reparatory surgeries.

In business, once you have a major platform, ancillary markets spring up around the new market. In the early stages of social transition for children 5 years and up, a market in specialist clothing opened up, little packers; fake male genitalia to put into little girls' pants, or tuckers for boys to squish their genitalia flat, chest binders for girls and of course makeup and ‘non-gendered’ clothing. This type of industry needs to get around the fact that there are usually laws against advertising directly to children because youth and children can be easily influenced. So, it necessitates bringing in specific laws to do away with safeguarding for example in Australia education policy brought in the concept of ‘mature minors,’ where parental oversight is taken out of the equation for children to ‘transition’ with or without a parent's permission. It has been estimated in Australia that each consumer going for full transition is worth 50-250K over their lifetime and that does not include reparative surgery for the high probability of experimental surgery gone wrong.

Contact marketing, viral marketing around identity branding and framing is a big part of selling this kind of product. Growing the market relies on contact marketing, which is driven by Trans Gender Diverse Youth Advocacy groups, for example, Minus18. (An organisation co-founded by a paedophile Colin Roland Billing. It's comparable to Mermaids in its goals.) The government provides grants with marketing videos, large events; galas, shows, dances etc. targeting the under-19 age bracket, evangelizing the cause and promoting recruitment. Wear-It-Purple days or IDAHOBIT days, engage corporations from C level down to staff push the trans 'authentic self' marketing narrative. Success is measured in user acquisition; how many people attend or participate, how many new people come on board and what percentage become consumers.

The diversity and inclusion audits of ACON, Pride In Sport and Pride in Diversity - all require an organisation to market trans-supporting narratives internally and externally. (i.e., 11 out of 18 sections of the Pride in Sports audit for small community sports require community organisers to call corporations, promote transgender diverse narrative at half-time etc. Australia's Workplace Equality Index (AWEI) audit requires corporates to use suppliers and 3rd parties to also adhere to 'inclusion and diversity,' essentially, it’s a multi-level marketing scheme.

School Advocacy programs promoting gender identity ideology Internet advertising via Instagram and YouTube influencers cover the viral marketing aspect. Direct internet marketing to youth bypassing advertising laws, Trans Gender Diverse sponsors like Netflix, and public media outlets like ABC and SBS signed up to ACON’s Australia Workplace Equality Index creates a narrative that trans children need to be their 'authentic selves' to engage sympathy and support for the frame if you don’t let them transition, they will suicide.

Although we have heard that the huge increase in the transgender movement is a grassroots movement, social contagion, human rights movement or a typical generational youth rebellion, at the heart of this movement is simply business.

"Our whole family is under seige"

I am a left-wing, secondary teacher of visual arts in an NSW HIghschool. I fully support the new marriage rights of LGB people, and my children have always known they are safe in their sexuality in our home. My son is convinced he needs to be castrated. He is 17 and I believe he has ROGD. He has only had girlfriends, and this year his girlfriend who identifies as non-binary dumped him without any warning, and he disassociated and then tried to take his life that night. Since then he has been with CAMHS every week, and I - his mother - have been treated with contempt, blamed, examined, questioned, been under suspicion by the psychologist and psychiatrist. At first we affirmed his request for gender neutral pronouns. It just didn’t sit right. I listened to the ‘Gender - A Wider Lens’ podcast, and the advice there made sense to me and our situation. So I researched. A lot. At one appointment the psychiatrist asked “you seem to be quite invested in researching all of this. Why do you think that is?”. I would attend the meetings at CAMHS and always feel completely attacked. My husband would also notice this, and it was only ever directed at me, the mother. I felt like I was being ‘killed off’. Like a Disney story where it’s not a great story if the mother is alive, and if she is alive then she’s the villain. We clearly communicated with CAMHS that our son was going through complex trauma related to the death of his grandmother when puberty began, and the bad behaviour of his uncle and grandfather - nasty drunks. We tried to protect him from their verbal abuse, but when he witnessed it I cut them off. This was also another loss. When I talk about this with our son, he can’t remember any of it, and says his grandmother dying wasn’t traumatic at all (not true - I was there!). We begged the psychologist at CAMHS to explore a psychological therapy where this trauma was investigated and explored so that my son could understand the source of his trauma, and how his self-diagnosis is on the wrong track. The psych just said “I understand that is YOUR understanding of things”. Totally dismissed. Then he referred him to the Maple Leaf House in Newcastle - the gender clinic. Against our specific request not to do this. We are on our own, unsupported by our mental health system and policies. Our son couldn’t get through school and finish the HSC. The school he was at HSPA - also pushed him towards this. The culture there is like a cult. No child leaves the school ok. It’s widely known in our region. (How did I let him go there? He’s extremely talented as a musician and wanted to be at the specialist arts school- I didn’t know what it would be like until after). Believe me - I blame myself every day. I’m his mum, the buck stops with me. I am invested in his lifelong health and happiness. I love him more than anyone - despite what he is being convinced of that me not using his chosen pronouns is a form of violence. That I’m toxic. We never raised a hand with our kids - we believed in conscious parenting, I have given up my career to be home with the kids through primary school. We have a loving, joyous home. Covid, social media, internet, YouTube, school, the girlfriend - it was a perfect storm. We are in the eye of the hurricane - nurturing the relationship and keeping him close. Our whole family is under siege / hijacked by the terror of future harm to his body, or further suicide attempts. His sisters are traumatised by this. I am a mess. My husband went on leave for the whole year to care for him. We are isolated and alone. We can’t find a single non-affirming psychologist who will work with our son to investigate his true trauma and self. That’s why I’m so committed to researching this. I’m happy to be contacted, and give further information. But my son can’t know - we are very careful to keep him with us - there are many glitter mums waiting in the wings to take him from me.

Ethics and Public Policy Center files for protecting kids from irreversible transitioning treatments

The following link: https://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/EPPC-Amicus-Brief_Eknes-Tucker-v.-Alabama.pdf is a copy of the Amicus Curiae (friend-of-court) brief recently filed by the Washington DC based Ethics and Public Policy Center in support of an Alabama law protecting children from harmful and irreversible transitioning treatments (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries). It contains a great deal of useful information and references.

The brief, submitted by EPPC Fellows Rachel N. Morrison and Mary Rice Hasson, asks the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Alabama’s law. The brief explains that there is no medical consensus regarding an authoritative standard of care for gender dysphoria or transitioning treatments and that such treatments can lead to serious harm, especially for children.

A summary of their argument is below:

Since the first gender clinic for minors opened in the U.S. in 2007, the number of minors seeking and receiving medical transitioning treatments (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries) has skyrocketed. This unprecedented surge in transitioning treatments for minors carries a high cost. These treatments are unproven, life-altering, and can lead to significant and irreversible harms, including sterilization, loss of sexual function, and serious mental health problems. Despite the poor evidence base underlying these treatments and the lack of medical consensus supporting them, gender clinicians continue to provide transitioning treatments to minors and medical associations continue to endorse them.

Alabama’s legislature was rightly concerned about the reported harms to vulnerable children and acted constitutionally to weigh the risks and benefits of transitioning treatments for minors. It determined that the state’s compelling interests in protecting Alabama’s children required it to prohibit these experimental medical interventions. Alabama’s legislature constitutionally sought to protect Alabama’s minors from lifelong medical harm when, after assessing the risks and benefits of transitioning treatments, evaluating medical evidence, weighing expert opinion, and considering witness testimony, it prohibited the transitioning treatments for minors.

Instead of deferring to the Alabama legislature’s evidenced-based findings that transitioning treatments pose an unacceptable risk of harm to minors, the district court deferred to eminence-based medicine, stating multiple times that “at least twenty-two major medical associations in the United States endorse transitioning medications as well-established, evidence-based treatments for gender dysphoria in minors.” The court’s conclusion that Parent Plaintiffs had a “fundamental right to treat their children with transitioning medications” gave undue weight to World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines endorsed by “major medical associations.”

But endorsements neither create a standard of care nor imply a fundamental right to access controversial medical treatments. Contrary to the district court’s assumption, WPATH guidelines are not the standard of care. There is no national or international medical consensus regarding an authoritative standard of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria or the use of transitioning treatments. This lack of medical consensus has been recognized by the federal government, is reflected in state action, and continues to generate controversy in the medical profession.

Under the district court’s preliminary injunction, children in Alabama will continue to have access to and suffer from the harmful, irreversible, and sterilizing transitioning treatments. The Court should reverse.