The Evolution to Transhumanism

How to lose our humanity in just a few easy steps!

The Virgin by Gustav Klimt 1913 is thought to be about the awakening of the female body. May be no longer needed?

In my previous post, I discussed how men pretending to be women (and how women pretending to be men) have expanded their traditional dominant influence in the public sphere into the insistence of taking over the private sphere as well. By claiming a womanhood persona, even in areas such as birth and breastfeeding where they are staking a claim to so-called inclusion in biological impossibilities, women are being forced to self censor not just their language, but to engage in potentially dangerous and harmful practices such as allowing men to “breastfeed” their babies and sharing their previously sex segregated areas with people with intact male genitalia.  According to many concerned with the rights of transgender people, transwomen pose no threat to women, but this ignores and deliberately overlooks the fact that the real threat to women is men and that’s what transwomen are. Men in fact, are the whole reason that separate services and facilities were set up for women to keep us safe and to give us a fair shot at equity with men.

Start with the language

The only way to utilize gender free/neutral language when discussing sex is to use completely dehumanizing language. Only by separating the body from the self, can you achieve the state of pretending that bodies don’t matter or that they are a so-called social construction.

Despite the pretense, women and men are not treated the same. The Lancet has never had a cover story featuring “bodies with penises”, but was taken by surprise at the backlash over its cover reading in part “bodies with vaginas”. “People who menstruate”, “individuals with a cervix” or information about elective caesareans during the COVID-19 pandemic addressed to “pregnant people” totally eliminates the humanity of women and denies the reality of women’s lived experiences that only women can share.

Changing health forms to meet the expectations of a philosophy based on lies and deliberate deceptions is enraging to those of us who agree that language is power and refuse to be reduced to a term that is actually more exclusionary than “mother” (which is the most inclusive term defining adult females who have birthed babies).

Men, on the other hand, get to keep the language that is generally understood to apply to them alone. Prostate cancer screening is unapologetically aimed at men, not at “prostate havers”.

It is not being “inclusive” or “kind” to the tiny proportion of the population who identify as transgender to change global health messaging to the point that it becomes indecipherable. It excludes those who don’t know their bodies well, have low literacy or poor English skills or any sort of communication barriers  or those yet to become familiar with current jargon surrounding the transgender inclusive issue, or indeed live in countries where gay or transgender activities are so condemned and hidden that few are aware that they exist. One survey found that only one in ten respondents could accurately identify the major features of the female reproductive system. If you don’t even realize that you have a cervix, you are not going to know that it’s important to have it regularly screened for cancer.

This case where a biological woman living as a man presented to ED with severe abdominal pain who went on to deliver a still born baby is presented as a failure of transgender healthcare. But I see it as an example of the end point of the woke agenda. Because the staff caring for this person knew “he” was trans and yet treated “him” according to “his” identity, not “his” biology, which meant that the baby died.

Some men skip the pretending stage and just state that they are better women than any naturally born woman ever could be. This man and this one have clearly retained one facet of males: their oversized egos, along with a complete lack of modesty, which have convinced them that any woman would be jealous of their newly acquired breasts, shapely legs and “girl penis” (sic).

Removing women from reproduction

The Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud coined the term “penis envy” in 1908. This concept has been rightly discarded for many reasons, but as a later psychoanalyst Karen Horney posited, perhaps “womb envy” does exist, “suggesting that male envy of pregnancy, nursing, and motherhood—of women’s primary role in creating and sustaining life—led men to claim their superiority in other fields.”

Generalizing that men want to run the whole world their way is not a new idea, but some of the ways they strive to accomplish this are really disturbing. Erasing women and decoupling us from our reproductive capacity is seen by some as a method of breaking the patriarchal hold on society, but I disagree.

It is actually the way to take away the one superpower held by women; that we hold in our hearts and our bodies the foundational relationship of all human societies, the mother/baby dyad.

Men following the money

It is not an accident that all the leading figures in the transhumanist movement are men. Some of them are pretend “women” and many of the leading modern transhumanists are insanely wealthy.

Commodification of the body is necessary for transhumanism to succeed and this starts with the many mutilating surgeries that are part and parcel of the “trans” lifestyle. It needs to be said that most of the mutilation occurs in women, who even as girls are expected to remove the obvious sign of female sexual maturity, breasts. Men are somehow allowed to keep their distinct genitalia and in fact will flaunt their penis as it bulges out of female attire.

One too many bulges for a lady? - Mike Gibson photo

Or maybe he forgot to put on underwear before going to read books to children.

Breaking down reproduction to its constituent parts and commodifying these removes women from the need to be involved with baby making and (at least in the minds of some) opens the door to male gestation and going further, removing humans altogether. Please note that the developmental needs of babies are nowhere to be seen in any of these calculations. They are the very products that are being created and sold to meet the wants of adults who can afford to buy them. There is no acknowledgment that babies are actually distinct and unique human beings, with their own human rights and agency.

You don’t need a gender, but you do need sex

Amidst the proliferation of rainbow flags, banners, and all manner of paraphernalia so beloved by the trans brigade (because performers require lots of props), the other image that appears to be meaningful in sustaining their delusional state are gender symbols.

An essential aide to gender ideology

Of course when discussing reproduction, gender is not really relevant because what is needed is an understanding of sex, which is all that matters. So the only two symbols you need are the first two male and female; all the rest may be important to some individuals, but this fact can’t be overridden if your aim is to create a new human being.

Becoming a sperm donor (only biological men have this option) is normally so easy that jokes are made about this. I mean for most guys being supplied with a ‘girlie mag’, a specimen container and some privacy is all the preparation needed and appears to be a not unpleasant use of time.

But those pesky eggs are not so easy to come by. A ‘lad mag’ and a cup are not going to cut it here. Egg donation is time consuming, requiring many clinic visits, injections and procedures, some discomfort and pain and surgical risks. Doctors and fertility clinics are not so upfront about the long term risks that egg donors (AKA women) may face and much of this is because no one is really doing any research on these complications. Who wants to kill the proverbial golden egg by finding out that the women giving these up face consequences that can cause them harm? Much easier to say, “we don’t know, but hey, looks OK to me”. And women are being actively pursued to give up their eggs despite the lack of knowledge around the consequences they may face without the support of the medical fraternity who removed their eggs.

Want to make a baby?

Sperm - check

Egg - check

What’s next? Well the traditional view would be that once combined (either in a lab or the old fashioned way, DIY) and implanted in a woman’s uterus, you just wait about 40 weeks and hey, presto - a new human pops out and a mother is born. But isn’t that just so yesterday? And transphobic to boot? What about all those other genders who want to create a family?

Well, if you don’t have a handy uterus (or if you do, but it would be too inconvenient to use it), but you do have a fat wallet, you can hire a “gestational carrier” (once again, AKA a woman) to incubate the product of your egg/sperm combo. A good contract will guarantee you a quality result because hey, you ain’t payin’ for no junk here.

If ever there was a situation where it was crystal clear whose interests are being served, it is surrogacy.

As the study of adopted children clearly demonstrates, taking a baby away from his/her mother (even when this is the best choice for a woman who relinquishes her baby) and giving them to someone else is fraught with problems. Babies know their mothers when they are born, and they also know when their mother is not there. The stress this causes is profound and can have a lasting effect that reverberates forever.

This is not to say that all adoptions don’t work for babies. Adoption is the best answer we have to the problem of mothers unable to care for their babies themselves. Human babies are so dependent on the nurturing care of adults for so many years that adoption will always have a place in human reproduction. Adoption is making the best of a less than ideal situation.

Surrogacy, on the other hand, is the deliberate creation of a new human being for the purposes of satisfying the wants of adults to be parents. It is the deliberate creation of trauma in the life of a baby that can also be compounded by a lack of honesty on the part of parents.

In other areas of reproductive technology, children are not always told about their true genetic origins, especially in circumstances where it may not be obvious that help to achieve a pregnancy was needed. For example, those babies created via sperm donors may have problems around their own identities due to the secrecy around their unknown parentage.

But many children conceived and gestated with ‘outside’ help know that they feel different or have a sense of being set apart from others in their families and this affects their development.

You can’t separate a mother and baby with no consequences

The maternal fetal axis exists outside of our wants and desires. Every baby born is influenced by the woman they grew in, even if it wasn’t her egg that was fertilized. You cannot mitigate the influence of the “gestational carrier” on “your” purchased baby.

Every system of the baby is dependent on the mother that they develop in. Here is just one example:

Frontiers | Near to One's Heart: The Intimate Relationship Between the Placenta and Fetal Heart (frontiersin.org)

Can’t find a live woman? 

Not content with using live women who can be difficult, this bright spark has come up with an idea to use women who won’t give the “commissioning parents” any backtalk or trouble. “Whole Body Gestational Donation” (WBGD) uses women in a persistent vegetative state (or those who are brain dead) as incubators for the fetuses of those unable or unwilling to carry their own baby. I mean, come on, just because you are permanently comatose or brain dead, it doesn’t mean your uterus needs to sit there all empty when it could be put to productive use.

The author makes a case for using men as “foetal containers” too, lest this be seen as just one more job that only women can do. Apparently you can hook up a placenta on a liver, but probably only once because of the damage this causes. So male gestators would only be able to be used once, unlike females who apparently could be reused multiple times without harm to them (since they are already essentially dead).

The implications for babies gestated this way has once again, not been anything worth considering it would seem, but would require a rather major reworking of the “where did I come from” story.

To be told “you don’t need a mother” is a lie and a violation of a child’s human rights. This family may have unlimited cash, but actually you can’t buy everything of value.

Pod babies or how to make Huxley jealous

A German molecular biologist has come up with a particularly nifty way of erasing women from their reproductive role: the artificial womb. He claims that very soon he will be pumping out 30,000 lab grown babies a year from his specialized EctoLife facilities. Considering the current climate crisis (caused mainly by too many of us), I guess he figures that adding that many new humans that otherwise probably would not have been born is offset by his statement that his baby factories operate solely on renewable energy sources. He doesn’t comment on the carbon footprint of those babies as they go through their lifespan.

Of course his line is that this will spare women the inconvenience of pregnancy and the harms that can ensue from bringing new life into the world. What he doesn’t say is that it will also remove the pesky influences that mothers have on their babies and how they shape the development of their children before they are even born.

Replacing the enormous input of women into their babies lives before birth with …… may have consequences he hasn’t considered. Amazingly, you can’t have the same input using a smartphone as you can with your entire being.

What’s for lunch?

OK so you brought your pod baby home and are getting to know each other, which is an enormous task as you have skipped the usual introductory period of around 40 weeks so are meeting as total strangers.

You also have not had a body prepped to receive a baby so are not lactating (which is the normal mammalian species specific production of milk that meets the evolutionary needs of that animal). Human babies have very specific dietary needs that are met perfectly by their own mother’s milk. Modified cows’ milk formulas are a tribute to the adaptability of humans to less than ideal diets and are not a physiological best first choice for feeding babies.

Having invested heavily in your ‘perfect’ offspring’s fetal stage, what’s the best food that money can buy? Enter Biomilq which is touted as “cell-cultured human milk”. Which is a phrase as oxymoronic as “almost exactly” and “living dead”.  

The cells of mammary epithelial tissue are harvested from the breast tissue of living women, presumably those without cancer. One can only surmise at any links between the many elective mastectomies of the healthy breasts of young women opting out of the sexualized, societal gaze that constitutes modern womanhood today and the supply of this tissue to the many new companies who are working to separate women from their bodies, while at the same time making profits for their investors.

One of the many virtues of breastfeeding is the uniqueness of a mother’s milk, which is always tailored to her own baby and changes with every feed, every day that her baby is breastfeeding, for as many years as the breastfeeding relationship lasts.

No lab can replicate what every mother can do.

Erasing women hurts every human

It is but a very short path from separating women from their biology to the elimination of the very relationships that shape our species into what we are. We are our biology and our physiology and no amount of wealth can substitute for the foundational relationship that is the mother/baby dyad. This is not only true for what can be seen to be beneficial, but its absence confirms the importance of this. Men cannot be women however much they feel they ‘really’ are and women claiming to be men, but still having babies are proving that biology can’t be erased.