New Video and ESSAY: the Gettr CAISgate Ouroboros

First, I have a new video up:

https://odysee.com/@Exulansic:d/Institutional-Capture-is-Real-CHOC:3?r=31krigbmMEgvZfrTxuRtEmDrKSdFTsDn

In this, I respond to a doctor at Children’s Hospital of Orange County (I needed a break from Boston’s Children’s Hell) who gaslights parents about why their 12 year old didn’t come out as a toddler. Spoiler alert: it’s the fault of the parents for not reading the gender tea leaves correctly.

Second is an essay that is in relation to the unfolding events of CAISgate.

An ouroboros is an image formed when a snake attempts to eat its own tail. It represents infinity and futility.

In this case, it is the circle of censorship.

On Gettr over the last several days, Claire Graham, aka, @mrkhvoice, who has been going after me and my livelihood for the thoughtcrime of having a public opinion while just a bit too female, has now extended her McCarthyist campaign of economic terror to two people who have been two of my most vocal critics on this topic, for months. They are presumed to have no DSD, and therefore they have both been subjected to demands that they be silent on the basis of @mrkhvoice’s perception of their disability status.

One of them, @xist_tsix, is apparently a PhD biologist! She is part of the podcast, Gender Critical Thinking which sprung up in response to my position on CAIS. She had announced a plan to discuss sexual development and disorders of sexual development in her podcast, as part of an educational presentation. She agrees with @mrkhvoice and disagrees with me regarding whether male women exist sometimes. She appears to be making the same argument Julia Serano made in Whipping Girl, regarding transgender-identifying people on cross-sex hormones.

As a rough summary, Serano argued that the cellular response to estrogen makes a person on estrogen in some sort of “female-mode” and thus, they ought to be considered biological females. This book inspired a trans man I knew to angrily criticize HIV drug research that was “trans-exclusive” because it only accepted males (including transgender identifying males). She believed she was a male now because she was on testosterone because that’s what Julia Serano the biologist had argued. In her eyes, she now had a “male phenotype.” Is this sounding familiar? I may not agree with @xist_tsix’s conclusions. I may recognize she is falling victim to the informal logical fallacy of composition in attempting to “round up” to woman. And I strongly suspect she’s underestimating my understanding of the concept of epigenetics. That aside, now I want to see what she has to say, just to spite @mrkhvoice.

LET. WOMEN. SPEAK. FREELY.

Instead, @mrkhvoice has determined that @xist_tsix has simply too much female anatomy to be permitted to have a public opinion on the topic of DSDs, much less attempt to educate others using her incredible depth of knowledge and experience. Now she’s even forbidden to seek employment, despite the fact that @xist_tsix states she has a relevant doctorate that @mrkhvoice lacks. So @mrkhvoice does not care about obstructing research that could help people with DSDs, via attempting to blackball politically incorrect academics. @mrkhvoice stated that if she got word that @xist_tsix had attempted to apply for a research position that she was qualified for, if it pertained to DSDs, @mrkhvoice would attempt to sabotage it in the belief that if a person wants to work in the field but does not have a DSD, it must be due to some sort of fetish. That is the implication. I wonder when she’s going to go after male gynecologists.

These suggestions that we women are motivated by a sexual fetish in wanting to discuss the biology of sex is similar to the accusations made against myself and Karen Davis. It is the suggestion that if women are talking about our bodies, it is because we are hypersexualized in some way. It is relegating us to the sex class, the second sex, the people who exist for male sexual gratification and then sould otherwise not bring it up becasue it’s gross. There is even research that shows that if a woman drops an object in front of peers, whether that object is a menstrual product or a non-menstrual product can significantly impact ratings of her competence. Period stigma is incredibly harmful to women, and telling us that we cannot talk about disorders of sexual development means we cannot talk about what is normal and not normal.

This individual is on the “Our Team” page at Genspect so I imagine that Genspect’s press weasel, Angus Fox, supports her attempts at coercively controlling the public speech of women, given that he also attempted to have Karen Davis’ channel removed via asking the PITT parent mailing list to mass-report her extremely important channel. These are standard gender Jesuit tactics. Don’t be fooled by the GCheep’s clothing.

And the most horrific part is that the misogynistic bullying succeeded. @xist_tsix has stated now that she will not be discussing the subject on her podcast in deference to @mrkhvoice’s stunted emotional need to feel that she is in control of the narrative. The modern Library of Alexandria will have one fewer sexual development audiovisual textbook written by a professional expert biologist for others to study.

Ultimately, it comes down to misogyny untempered by empathy - the non-internalized kind - due to the fact that this individual lacks significant portions of female anatomy. She is simply incapable of having a direct experience of what women go through in relation to menstruation, birth, unintended pregnancy, vaginal rape, and so on. That is not to say she is less of a woman for lacking that anatomy. Only females can have MRKH syndrome. An adult female human with MRKH is a woman. But the reality is that many experiences common to most women and many medical concerns that are specific to female anatomy and physiology, are simply not applicable to her due to how she developed. Therefore she cannot actually directly relate to what it is like to menstruate or become pregnant unexpectedly or give birth, and all the issues that can arise in relation to that, and the need for highly specialized medical care from competent and informed providers - care which is often difficult to access and stigmatized! It’s not her concern so it does not exist. And therefore she sees no possible medical consequences for women and girls to forbid us from studying the topic, which involves talking about it, on the basis of normalcy and femaleness.

It’s not the concern of men, either. So therefore, it must be trivial and very, very different from the lived experience of a person with atypical sexual development and medical concerns/fetishization related to that. Except it’s not all that different, when you’re sitting in a prison cell painfully lactating for 7 hours because the guards don’t care that you have a newborn, or your fetus died inside of you and the morality police have limited your access to late-term abortion so you have to walk around and feel it sloshing about for a week, or you were sold into the rape industry at 14 because you were born a normal female, or you have to stay home from school because you are menstruating, or no one told you about sexually transmitted infections because female sexual topics were considered shameful and dirty, and so that knowledge was suppressed, and so a treatable infection became scarring, chronic pain, and infertility.

And because we live in a misogynistic and patriarchal society, she has absorbed a lot of attitudes that belittle women’s very specific sex-related medical needs and concerns. She thinks that because we are typical and functional, we do not need highly specialized medical care - or else she thinks women have all the gynecological and psychological care we could want at a quality that is adequate - and therefore the situation is one of no problem (privilege) versus problem (lack of privilege).

In reality, we both have very specific sexual development-related medical needs and social concerns, which are widely misunderstood and marginalized. She ignores that women’s medical needs have been ignored or thwarted - including our need to not be impregnated before we have finished growing, so the birthing process does not leave us incontinent - which has resulted in dead and maimed women and girls around the world. She ignores that harassing women’s health educators and withholding information on sexual health by stigmatizing the sharing of information about female biology and sex development between females harms women and girls. No. It is more important that us basic women, with our bloody cervixes, be silenced, than that women be allowed to teach and learn about our sex needs without fear of stigma, abuse, and loss of livelihood.

When she makes graphic accusations regarding child rape, and projects them onto Karen Davis, it is because these experiences are only accessible via imagination for people who lack that anatomy. It is a fantasy for her and she is not aware of the fact that it is not a fantasy for women who lived through it. So she is cavalier and dismissive of women’s lived experience of sexual predation in that part of our body. She ignores the difficulties we face in attempting to get specialist medical care for our very unique medical needs that relate to our sexual development across the lifespan - needs which are marginalized and ignored within medicine due to the fact that we are normal females.

This is why I objected to the term “endosex,” by the way. Any attempt to equate female and male development as if they belong to the same category will inevitably lead to devaluation of femaleness, in a patriarchal, misogynistic society, and this will translate to physical harm to women and girls. It will inevitably encourage people to reflexively assume women do not have specific needs for highly specialized medical care. We are and will forever be our own independent medical category as distinct from men as cats are from dogs. She may not be able to relate to many significant female troubles, but she does know that if we talk out of turn, threatening our livelihoods might work to bring us back in line. No thanks!

Has this experienced stopped @xist_tsix from calling for me to be silent? No.

In fact, her fantasies are just as bizarre and involve the delusional belief that I am seeking to “transition” some kids. Me, of all people. Some have gone so far as to suggest that I support packers and mastectomies - but only for kids with DSDs. It is unhinged, at this point. I actually am not disconcerted by the reality that there are boys that look like girls naturally, and so I have no need to make these male humans look like the majority of male humans. I still support her right to express such silly fears, though, and hope she can learn to separate her own anxiety from the anxiety trigger, which in this case, would be my content. It seems to be clouding her objectivity.

To conclude, the notion that doctors have some special authority to declare some males to be girls and women, in spite of their maleness, is how we got into this mess. That theory, born of medical misogyny and paternalism, comes with the corollary notion that we as women ought to just be required to accept the “male women” doctors so-designate. We are not allowed to know that they are males or to demand female-only spaces that are actually exclusive to females. This has put men in women’s prisons because doctors declared them to be male women. I demand a reality-based definition that is not a circular definition of “anyone who looks like a woman is a woman.” Your legal sex must be based on your biological sex, a natural circumstance, not a fiction created by a government. There are no male women because women are adult female humans.