Age of Advanced Incoherence 2: Gender Fluidity, Cis-Normality, Ascension of Technology


“In contrast to the relative lack of controversy about treating adolescents and adults, there is no expert clinical consensus regarding the treatment of prepubescent children who meet diagnostic criteria for what was referred to in both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as gender identity disorder in children and now in DSM-5 as gender dysphoria. One reason for the differing attitudes has to do with the pervasive nature of gender dysphoria in older adolescents and adults: it rarely desists, and so the treatment of choice is gender or sex reassignment. On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys’ gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender.”
— Drescher J, Pula J., “Ethical issues raised by the treatment of gender-variant prepubescent children

Dictionary says: “denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.”

Wikipedia—the dictionary of the people—makes a slight (nonsurgical adjustment) and refers to “gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.”

Perhaps this is because, as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, “birth” is now a dirty word?

I am not sure, by this new definition, who or what “assigns” sex at birth, but the implication is clear: there is a something or someone, independent of the biological organism, being “assigned” sex, as well as something or someone doing the assigning (perhaps “cisgender white-male doctors”?). And this second something or someone can get it wrong and makes things really difficult for the first something or someone.

Confused yet? Fasten your seatbelt, Dorothy.

As SOGI makes official, it is not just the word “birth” that is fast becoming the equivalent of obscenity, but “mother” and “father” too. In the UK, the British Medical Association has asked that pregnant women not be called “expectant mothers” since it might offend transgender people. (“Pregnant people” is the non-offensive alternative.)

“The advice comes in an internal document to staff outlining a raft of common phrases that should be avoided for fear of causing offence. ‘The elderly’ are to be referred to as ‘older people,’ ‘disabled lifts’ as ‘accessible lifts,’ and someone who is ‘biologically male or female’ is to be called ‘assigned male or female.’” (There’s that mysterious assignation again. Ref.)

Gender fluidity is also known as “genderqueer,” and as non-binary, a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine. “Genderqueer: denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.”‍ If that’s not as clear as a spit-polished test tube, try “identities which are outside the gender binary and ‘cisnormativity.’”

Cisnormal, as you are quite remiss if you aren’t aware, is the label assigned by advocates of gender fluidity for those of us sadly lagging behind the evolutionary curve and still suffering from relative congruity between our biological genitalia and our sense of who we are. Nothing but advocates of equal opportunity rights, the GI Joes and Janes don’t want straight folk to feel left out, and have assigned them, us, their, our, very own gender identification badge, whether they, we, like it or not.

So, it seems fair to ask, if and when cis-norms start being bullied for their assignation, will the SOGI bears huddle around and protect them, with new newspeak agendas? No, is the answer, because cis-bullying is not only acceptable, it’s part of a necessary survival strategy by trans-activists.


As it is at present, not only do the new gender-fluids have the right to tell everyone else how to identify them, they also have the imperative to decide how they get to identify everyone else. In old-world political language, this is known as totalitarianism. In today’s newspeak, it’s called tolerance. It is all just part of the ongoing attempt to level the playing field and cast off the oppressive influence of “normality” by suggesting that normality is 100% in the eye of the beholder.

If, in the process, biological functionality gets surgically removed from the equation and replaced, as in Huxley’s dystopia, with State-sponsored, technological interventions, not to worry, that’s just further proof that we are living in the most progressive society in history.

The only way for the new normal not to spell the end of the species, therefore, is for various artificial inception methods to compete with—and eventually replace?—natural reproduction. This is probably why GI advocates tend to unanimously worship at the altar of Science, and to pay regular tithes to its weaponized wings, Big Pharma and the Medical Industry.

To give an outstanding example, Trans-person Martine Rothblatt—the founder of Sirius XM and one-time highest-paid “female” CEO in the world—has made a robot clone of her wife.[1]


It is called BINA48, which stands for Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture 48. BINA48 has variously been called a sentient robot, an android, gynoid, a social robot, a cybernetic companion, and “a robot with a face that moves, eyes that see, ears that hear and a digital mind that enables conversation.” (Ref)

BINA48 is owned by Martine Rothblatt’s Terasem Movement, Incorporated (TMI), and was designed to test the possibility of downloading a person’s consciousness into a non-biological or nanotech body, after combining detailed data about a person with future consciousness software. BINA48 was modeled after Rothblatt’s wife through more than one hundred hours in compiling her memories, feelings, and beliefs.

Rothblatt’s robot wife-clone has been interviewed by the NY Times, Whoopi Goldberg, Morgan Freeman (for National Geographic) Joe Rogan, and has participated in several TedTalks. (Refs) Rottblatt and BINA48 are united in proposing a future of 3D printing new body parts, leaving our bodies behind, and living forever by uploading our consciousness to the artificial intelligence “cloud.”

It should come as no great surprise, then, that the latest sets of rights under discussion are those of robots—or “electronic persons.”[2]


[1] “Martine Rothblatt is responsible for launching several satellite communications companies, including the first nationwide vehicle location system (Geostar, 1983), the first private international spacecom project (PanAmSat, 1984), the first global satellite radio network (WorldSpace, 1990), and the first non-geostationary satellite-to-car broadcasting system (Sirius, 1990). As an attorney-entrepreneur she was also responsible for leading the efforts to obtain worldwide approval, via new international treaties, of satellite orbit/spectrum allocations for space-based navigation services (1987) and for direct-to-person satellite radio transmissions (1992). In the 1990s Dr. Rothblatt entered the life sciences field by leading the International Bar Association’s project to develop a draft Human Genome Treaty for the United Nations (submitted in 1999), and by founding a biotechnology company, United Therapeutics (1996). Dr. Rothblatt is the author of books on satellite communications technology (Radiodetermination Satellite Services and Standards, Artech, 1987), gender freedom (Apartheid of Sex, Crown, 1995), genomics (Unzipped Genes, Temple University Press, 1997) and xenotransplantation (Your Life or Mine, Ashgate House, 2003). She is also cyberscripted and produced one of the first cybermuseums, the World Against Racism Museum, (Ref.)

[2] “In an open letter, more than 150 experts in robotics, artificial intelligence, law, medical science and ethics, warned the [European] Commission against approving a proposal that envisions a special legal status of ‘electronic persons’ for the most sophisticated, autonomous robots. ‘Creating a legal status of electronic “person” would be ideological and nonsensical and non-pragmatic,’ the letter says. The group said the proposal, which was approved in a resolution by the European Parliament last year, is based on a perception of robots ‘distorted by science fiction and a few recent sensational press announcements.’”

17 thoughts on “Age of Advanced Incoherence 2: Gender Fluidity, Cis-Normality, Ascension of Technology

  1. Please note the ethnicity of the people pushing this agenda the hardest (e.g. Nat Geo bosses — it ain’t WASPs anymore, Dorothy). Muslims sometimes speak of the minions of the Dajjal (Antichrist); I believe Jesus used another term (initials S.o.S.).

  2. Over thirty years ago, I worked at a large industrial concern not far from you. Technological change was coming; managers/administrators are nervous; several of them decided that water is no longer electrically conductive; damn reality; tens of millions of dollars of machinery destroyed; all of them promoted because the havoc they wrought created paperwork and meetings and …

    Thirty years on and we’ve come to child abuse: As the cubicle class become more irrelevant, hence desperate, they will become more violent.

  3. Nat geo pushing the Pedo Twink Agenda. …all the elite Men dress up as Women and engage in homosexual sex at “secret clubs” and meetings.

    • Sure looks that way. According to Cathy O’Brien HRC is a lesbian. Not to mention the Obamas. A pair of deviants. These people are very, very sick.

  4. Another in a series of excellent and thought-provoking articles on this subject, Jasun.

    I don’t really have a problem with referring to transgender people by the female pronoun, as a matter of politeness. I don’t really mind them having surgery, if they are of legal age. And I can understand, though I’m unsure as to what degree I agree with, the case for adolescent surgeries in a limited number of cases, as advanced by transgender activists such as Tarzie of Rancid Honeytrap, and Nina Illingworth, for whom I respect to varying degrees. Though this would be contingent on having a nearly foolproof screening system in place to separate the true, permanent cases of gender dysphoria from the passing phases of adolescence.

    I think gender reassignment surgery for prepubescent children is insane and should be illegal and considered medical malpractice per se.

    But when they insist on requiring, under penalty of law, to change the language, Huxley-style, to ban words ( any words at all really should not be banned, some like racial epithets should be severely ostracized imho) “expectant mother” and even “mother” and “father” themselves, I think we are well into the realm of social engineering for nefarious purposes, and the theories of weakening if not destruction of the family unit, or laying the groundwork of transhumanism, which I’ve long felt was the hubris of man making himself God, this is imho blasphemous, dangerous, harmful and unacceptable to me.

    I must confess I do share, to a degree, their uncomfortableness with strict gender stereotypes. I hate the expressions “man up” and “real man” and that sort of thing (often uttered by women). I used to listen to these obnoxious but entertaining DJs on my way to work until they advanced the idea that thebonly men who were into art or poetry were either gay, or just pretending to be sensitive to impress women. As a male heterosexual artist and poet, I took offense and stopped listening to their insipid blatherings. Their statements wrre immediately backed up by a female caller. I think there is likely some agenda to these kind of sentiments too. Perhaps to piss off guys like me and create division among the sexes by alienating “sensitive” men?

    I have a feeling this is one of those “only” in America things, and wouldn’t play well in Britain or anywhere else. There are guerilla/ poets in many countries, FFS.

    • CynicalSeeker,

      I have to put in a correction here. You can’t really call Tarzie/The Rancid Honeytrap a “trans activist”. (I have to write this especially since The Rancid Honeytrap is how I slipped into Jasun’s world. He linked to one of Jasun’s pizzagate posts pushing back against people on twitter who were dismissing pizzagate outright as absurd. Then, I clicked around a bit more and was hooked) He’s had a total of 3 blog posts from years of blogging. From his site: “at the moment I do mostly media criticism focused primarily on intellectual policing, obstructionism, and propaganda at the margins by public liberals and lefts.” That seems to accurately sum it up. (Nowhere is trans mentioned as a central focus here on his FAQ) Although he rarely blogs now, he was/is generally focused on media in the empire and self identifies as a tentative small a anarchist. (He is also extremely critical of many prominent anarchists. i.e. David Graeber as “Anarchy Dad”) For the record, I don’t think he is strong at all on trans issues in the posts he made and some of his readers had coherent push-back in the comments. He claimed to be sitting on the fence but obviously has a bias to see it from the trans position. I think he makes the mistake of seeing them from a radical left-wing perspective as an innocent oppressed group and viewing them on a spectrum of oppression where an equivalency is made between them and other oppressed groups (without pausing longer to look at the differing arguments and claims of said groups). Some do fall into this trap (as Jasun has talked about negative identity and the swinging of the pendulum coloring your view). He is also someone that has changed his view drastically of certain people (Glenn Greenwald, Bradley Manning, and Noam Chomsky whom he had this amazing email exchange with : going from viewing them as potentially doing good work or courageous things to quickly dropping them when they show themselves to be (wittingly or unwittingly) instruments of the ruling class. He might do the same with this issue possibly. Anyways although I disagree with Tarzie on a few things, I think his work scrutinizing the left wing is extremely valuable to people trying to understand the first layer/matrix of power politics. (Not the second layer/matrix of Jasun’s world. One of my criticisms of Tarzie is that he doesn’t think it’s all that important to delve into the actual conspiracy, even though he is anti-anti-conspiracism, because you can see the ruling class objectives in more or less plain sight by what they say and do. This doesn’t take into account the deeper psychological effects that Jasun focuses on). I think his arc of exposing the Edward Snowden/Glenn Greenwald Spectacle was a real service and should be referred to for anyone looking to make sense of that important piece of puzzle now or in the future. That arc also shows his changing opinion of Glenn Greenwald, who he speculates is being pushed as the successor to Chomsky (once he goes) as the leftmost goalpost of permissible discourse) Well anyways, I felt compelled to correct that. Probably because it’s full circle since Tarzie was my gateway to Jasun and Auticulture and I think he did sufficiently solid work in order to merit a little defense against such a reductionist portrayal. (

      p.s. Hope this didn’t distract too much. Great post Jasun looking forward to the next parts!

      • (Accidentally hit send button) and I am well aware of, and supportive of, his work exposing the ruling class apologias of Greenwald, Chomsky and the like. I did vaguely recall his support for trans individuals (or perhaps I confused him with Ilingworth on this, I’m having memory issues as yet undiagnosed) but referring to him as a trans activist was a bridge too far.

        • Cynicalseeker – No Worries. Maybe a mix-up. Interesting that you came to auticulture via Tarzie. I always thought it was a kind of fluke of me slipping from first layer into second layer politics. I haven’t seen him link Jasun’s work except for that one time days he was pushing back on the anti-conspiracists on pizzagate. Tarzie always kept me open to conspiracy because that was always one of his major criticisms of Chomsky, his anti-conspiracism. I think he wrote a piece comparing Chomsky to Michael Parenti analyzing why Chomsky is a world-wide intellectual and Parenti (who is just as good analytically if not better) is relatively unknown. Boiling it down to range of factors, a major difference was that Parenti discusses and factors in conspiracy to his analysis whereas Chomsky dismisses it as not relevant. Anyways, I find it interesting that you came to auticulture via Tarzie. He is a gateway of sorts I guess. However something I’ve been thinking about as I’ve spent more time in second matrix politics, I think that staying in second layer politics can lead to a gap of understanding too. Tarzie’s stuff can benefit people who only look into conspiracies. Understanding the dictates and machinery of corporations/state/imperialism & media helps to understand that instrument that the social engineers understand and can play with ease. I think going back and forth is helpful and how they interplay in my head is still mysterious to me (they still seem like two different worlds but they are actually connected), trying to figure it out….

          • James, you and I think alike in many ways! ( btw my name is James too). I too have been perusing the relationship btwn what you call 1st layer and 2nd layer politics. My mind is all over the place, but I want to mention before I forget I think Tarzie’s anaysis of Greenwald’s. lackluster aporoach to the Snowden leaks was spot on and Glenn’s responses in their exchange imo revealed an ugly side that diminished my respect for him a great deal, and to me his move over to the Intercept and Omidyar are questionable to say the least. Hard for me to figure exactly where Glenn is at these days. Sometimes he still writes good articles, others to me are cringeworthy. I wonder how much of this is due to the 14-hour detention of his partner at Heathrow, threats etc. but as of now, we can only speculate.

            What you refer to as 2nd layer I call deep politics, and I wonder if there is a third layer (parapolitics) but I am familiar with Parenti, have been reading him for years and I like his approach, though I find it interesting that he draws the line at 9-11. He says that is a ridiculous conspiracy as it would involve so many inside actors, but I find this unpersuasive as I think the same arguments coukd be made as to JFK, RFK etc. The answer to me is quite clear and it’s called compartmentalization. I wonder exactly what is going on there.

            I have found that addressing 2nd layer politics on 1st layer sites has its pitfalls. I made a post about NXIVM at a 1st layer site I respect, and suddenly I’m treated like Vlad the Impaler (though in all fairness, I have been very ill and sleep deprived and my perceptions could be off due to this. Certainly my ability to communicate well has been affected. Things seem to be leveling out healthwise and I feel much more clearheaded.

            Is it me, or does it seem to you that ascertaining the truth has become complicated exponentially since the farce of an election of 2016? I saw a post at the Secret Sun pining nostalgicly for the “good old days” of 2010 and it made me laugh.

            Anyway, it’s been nice chatting with you. Always reassuring to find people asking the same questions I have been pondering (read: maybe I’m not entirely going off the deep end.)

            Best wishes,

    • Since you mentioned her, I want to put in a small vote in for Holly Grigg-Spall to return to The Limnalist! I’ve always really enjoyed when you’ve had her on. From when you talked about Angelina’s mastectomies to her great book on The Pill to that wild link she just sent you, seems right. You guys always find somewhere new on this topic of Modern Medicine/Technology/Pharma and the Body. Maybe you are already on it but if not here’s a small vote for a HGS return convo.

      Related, I recently watched the Walter Hill movie The Assignment which I think is worth seeing. It’s great for the way the movie treats the Sigourney Weaver character a maniacal black market doctor out for revenge whose steely eyed scientism ideology covers emotional and deeper psychological motivations for her gender reassignment experiments. Weaver is actually quite good in it and the way Walter Hill shoots her plays an interesting parallel with the patient she does gender reassign in Michelle Rodriguez. Weaver is clearly shot as a very masculine woman in her dress and mannerisms. She is carrying out her fantasies on her patients, her creations couching it in her pious “for the good of man” sermons. Anyways, don’t know exactly how I feel about it yet but the movie certainly doesn’t fit into a nice PC box so the liberal critics (which is like nearly all critics) had their way with it of course (along with it being a b-movie which critics don’t take seriously these days anyways) and many transgender groups boycotted it. “In light of the film’s highly improbable plot that turns gender reassignment surgery into a science-fiction punishment of sorts, is it any wonder that actual transgender people are kind of annoyed?” ( It would be an interesting movie to check out for your series if you ever get around to it.

  5. I misgendered a guest at work yesterday. In the summer I deal with 600 people a day and operate on a strange plane. This guest was obviously born a female, but was going the other way with it .. my gut just said “yes, ma’am ?” .. She didn’t say anything, but gave me a little glance, like, “fuck you, buddy.”

    The funny part: she was basically walking directly to the shuttle bus, skipping the office check-in, the parking pass, the cue at the bus pick-up spot. All the stuff EVERYONE has to do. On top of that, she tried telling me that her trip was a “freebie” without knowing the owners name or having any type of gift card or proof. Nothing would stop this woman from getting what she wanted. Not God. Not our rules… Maybe you had to be there..

    I’ve started saying “y’all” as an offense tourniquet. Now people think I’m from the south..

  6. So here’s a question that keeps popping up with me about this stuff: So when we can just fluidly switch between male, female and futunari, do we have to still have jobs? Oh! Not that kind of utopia, eh? Welll sod off, Transactivists. Let’s tackle some real problems before inventing more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s