The Fundamental Misogyny of Transhumanism

Introduction

Transhumanist ideology has been growing in prominence over the past several years, as global elites (such as Klaus Schwab), businessmen (such as Elon Musk) and those who promote synthetic sex identities (such as Martine Rothblatt), publicly defend such a view. This ideology is the exultation of the anti-human and the unhuman over the human and nature. Transhumanism is at its root a misogynistic ideology that seeks to purge the female, associated with nature in male typologies of the world, from existence.

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism can be defined as an ideology that seeks to overcome humanity through augmentation: genetic engineering and a melding with technology. This is pushed by a wide spectrum of players within the elite. Klaus Schwab, the leader of the World Economic Forum, has openly said that he desires “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” Elon Musk, a businessman who is admired even by some in the alternative media, founded ‘Neuralink’ to create human-brain interfaces. Martine Rothblatt, a man who pretends to be a woman, on the other hand, promotes synthetic sex identities and the creation of ‘billions of sexes’ as a method of overcoming human biology.

The concept is pushed by more than crank billionaires but also by governments. It is well known that the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is interested in genetic engineering. The mRNA ‘vaccines’ were another way for governments to advance this agenda, as it has meant that the category of vaccination has been redefined to include genetic engineering products that force the human body to produce the unnatural spike protein. Furthermore, the US government just announced a Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation Executive Order:

For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities. We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.

White House

A Misogynist Driver of Transhumanism: Synthetic Sex Identities

In the transhumanist ideology/pathology, man conquers nature so extensively that he is able to subvert/overcome even his own nature. So how does transhumanism link to misogyny? At first, the link doesn’t seem obvious, as couldn’t woman adopt transhumanism just as much as men could? In fact, there are some female thinkers who have advocated aspects of transhumanism.

However, when we look under the hood of transhumanism, we see that it is in fact a deeply misogynist ideology. I will start by briefly outlining the fact that the concept of synthetic sex identities is being used to drive transhumanism, by psychopathic ideologists such as Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt is a pharmaceutical CEO and cultist, who started his own religion, the Terasem movement, to push transhumanism. As detailed by Jennifer Bilek, Rothblatt is one of the key ideologists driving forward these two concepts. In his book From Transgender to Transhuman, Rothblatt claims that “choosing one’s gender is merely an important subset of choosing one’s form.The man even made a ‘robot’ of his wife, Bina48, the ultimate representation of Andrea Dworkin’s ‘Men Possessing Women‘.

This ideology – that biological sex is something to be muddied and ultimately transcended – is misogynistic because it seeks to destroy the category of woman. While it seeks to destroy sex categories altogether, there is much more emphasis on the driver of destroying the word woman and making it into a meaningless term that anyone can opt into or out of. For example, the mantra ‘trans women are women’ is repeated much more often than ‘trans men are men’. The inclusion of males in, for example, female sport, is driven much more intently than its opposite. This destruction of the concept of womanhood is then used to drive transhumanism.

Womb Envy and the War on Mother Nature

Death as part of what makes the regenerative process of life possible seems to have escaped these predominantly male transhumanists. They seem inordinately focused on colonizing the reproductive capacities of females for their own purposes, helping to institutionalize the reduction of our half of humanity to period havers, menstruators, chestfeedersbodies with vaginas, and non-men in an effort to dehumanize women toward this colonization process.

Jennifer Bilek

It is a basic fact of biological reality that only females can gestate life and give birth. This, of course, despite the attempts to muddy the waters, applies as much to human beings as all other species that reproduce sexually. This fact makes males inherently reliant on females to reproduce and create life. This fact has driven patriarchal regimes to control women, in order to exert power over their reproductive capacity and to ensure the preservation of their male lineage. Misogynist men seek to assert this control to this day, although the mechanisms of this control are more diffuse than when human beings were living under the Divine Right of Kings.

Now we have a new form of misogynist ideology: the idea of overcoming womanhood entirely via transhumanism. Patriarchal constructions of reality see man as associated with reason and woman as associated with nature. Transhumanist man seeks to use reason to create life, something previously only given by nature, and by this method finally defeat their reliance upon nature and thus upon woman.

This is the sort of insanity that Rothblatt envisages for his future world.

(1) A conscious analog of a person may be created by combining sufficiently detailed data about the person (a “mindfile”) using future consciousness software (“mindware”),

and

(2) that such a conscious analog can be downloaded into a biological or nanotechnological body to provide life experiences comparable to those of a typically birthed human.

Conclusion

Transhumanism considers the ideal person is one that has overcome biology. This means overcoming the biological reality that only women can create life, to allow men to be able to do so via artificial intelligence.

The Unmooring of Identity and Klaus Schwab’s Promotion of Transhumanism

Introduction

Martine Rothblatt, a transsexual-transhumanist planted the seeds to foster a legal construct of disembodiment as identity, forged out of his paraphilia of owning female biology for himself, in the 1980’s. The advancement of his ideology that seeks to deconstruct sexual dimorphism in effort to cultivate the social and legal groundwork for melding humanity to AI, is too big a leap for many people to make.  “Gender Identity” is a bridge to get you there.

Jennifer Bilek

The word ‘identity’ and the phrase ‘I identify as…’ have become buzzwords in the West due to gender identity ideology, the idea that we all have an innate gender identity. This ideology has glamourised the idea of individual identity in society. Critics of transgender ideology, particularly Jennifer Bilek, have demonstrated that gender identity is being promoted in order to normalise transhumanism. This article connects the notion of gender identity as a transhumanist trojan horse with the ideas of Klaus Schwab, one of the main players using the Covid-19 narrative as a means to push transhumanism.

What is an ‘identity’?

We can start this analysis by looking at what the word identity actually means. There are several dictionary definitions which reflect the different aspects of this word.

The Free Dictionary gives the following (relevant) definitions of the word ‘identity’:

1. a. The condition of being a certain person or thing: What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?

b. The set of characteristics by which a person or thing is definitively recognizable or known: “The identity of the nation had … been keenly contested in the period of nationalist opposition to Imperial rule” (Judith M. Brown).

c. The awareness that an individual or group has of being a distinct, persisting entity: “He felt more at home thousands of miles from Britain than he did in an English village four miles from his home … Was he losing his identity?” (Robert Fallon).

The first definition is an objective definition. In the question ‘What is the identity of the author of the manuscript?’ the answer must be a specific person(s). This question would generally be answered with something like ‘Plato is the author of the manuscript.’

The second definition can be objective or subjective. For example, when talking about an object being ‘definitively recognisable or known’ through a set of characteristics, the set of characteristics are observable objectively. If we are talking about a concept such as ‘the identity of the nation’ however, that is somewhat subjective. No doubt several different individuals could give differing answers to a question about the ‘identity of the nation’.

The third definition is even more subjective, as it involves an individual awareness or a ‘group awareness’. The individual awareness of being a ‘distinct, persisting entity’ can start with the Descartes phrase ‘I Think, Therefore I Am.’ (at least if we believe in ego!). Once we get beyond that, however, the term ‘identity’ gets more subjective. Further conceptions of ‘identity’ based on our enduring characteristics can be real, delusional, or a mixture of the two.

The Subjectification of Identity

The key plank of transgender ideology is the idea of gender identity. The idea of gender identity (in theory) is based upon our third definition of identity: having a distinct and persisting feeling of being a particular gender.

NSPCC defines Gender Identity as:

Gender identity is a way to describe how someone feels about their gender. For example, some people may identify as a boy or a girl, while others may find neither of these terms feel right for them, and identify as neither or somewhere in the middle.

In their conception, a ‘trans’ person is someone who does not ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’ and a ‘cis’ person is someone who does ‘identify with their gender assigned at birth’.

This concept means nothing. Every even hypothetically coherent defining factor of gender identity is rejected by transgender activists.

The most obvious possible definition of gender identity is the performance of masculine and feminine stereotypes. This is admitted by some transgender-identified people, for example, Blaire White in this interview with Benjamin Boyce, states explicitly that his ‘transition’ was about not fitting into a stereotypical masculine role.

This definition is also implicitly used by transgender activists. For example, the ACLU, an organisation that has morphed from defending free speech to being obsessed with transgenderism due to a particularly loopy trans-identified female, Chase Strangio, promotes ‘trans kids’. These ‘trans kids’ are defined by gender stereotypes. For example, the ACLU posted a video from the father of a ‘trans girl’ who states that his son is a girl because of his like for stereotypically feminine toys, etc. There are lots more examples of this, see this article by Lily Maynard.

However, if you were to ask a trans activist, they would deny it is about gender stereotypes. This is seen in memes such as ‘Non-Binary people don’t owe you androgyny’ – the idea that being non-binary is not about presentation but an inner essence. This article from Everyday Feminism also explicitly denies the connection between expression and identity. (Of course, gender stereotypes/expression cannot lead to an objective and unchangeable ‘gender identity’ definition since stereotypes and modes of dress are changeable).

Once this is rejected as a definition, we could fall back on the idea of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the feeling that one is in the ‘wrong body’, the desire to ‘live as the opposite sex’. Whether or not someone has gender dysphoria, however, is rejected by transgender activists and ideology as a basis for gender identity. They claim that gender dysphoria is not necessary to have a trans identity. Even if they did attempt to argue that gender dysphoria means a different gender identity, this logic would not follow, as the existence of discomfort with a sexed body does not prove that gender identity is a valid construct.

The only criteria that trans activists have for being transgender, non-binary or any other gender identity is simply to claim that gender identity. Essentially, we have a ‘distinct, persistent’ feeling that is based on absolutely nothing objective – by their own arguments. This is different from my ‘feeling’ that I am a woman because of biological fact, as this is grounded is reality.  We have identity unmoored, identity as entirely, completely abstract.

The Promotion of Transhumanism

Klaus Schwab is the leader of an organisation called the World Economic Forum. The WEF is a powerful global organisation, that has been put under a large amount of scrutiny during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic for its promotion of vaccine passports. The WEF also promotes Smart Cities – cities where every device is hooked up to a massive Internet of Things and where everything is managed and surveilled by AI. At first glance, Klaus Schwab appears to have nothing to do with the discussion regarding transgender identity.

However, Schwab is also attempting to reconstruct the word ‘identity’ to unmoor it from biological reality. There is one line from Schwab which is very interesting, that has been reposted and replayed multiple times on sites critical of the WEF:

What the the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.

Of course, this quote is advocating transhumanism, a position Schwab is passionate about.

The interesting point here is how this sentence is constructed. He does not say ‘The fourth industrial revolution will be a fusion between ourselves and technology’ which would be the most obvious expression of this idea. No, he specifically chooses the word ‘identity’, as if human beings are not actually biological beings based in the natural world but a collection of identities.

Like in the transgender construction, our bodies are merely a ‘physical identity’. In the same way as a transgender identified person takes hormones and has surgeries to change their physical identity, we will all fuse our biology with our online personas, our abstract unmoored selves that can be reinvented at will. (Online I can be a man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, anything I say I am. I am an anonymous identity, amorphous, changeable at will.)

The higher self, found through surgery and hormones in the transgender conception, is found by our ‘fusion’ in Schwab’s conception. Schwab attempts to make butchery and blasphemy benign, a mere expression of identification rather than an attack on human nature. It abstracts the concept of identity from any mooring in human nature, cut it loose, make it a name that can be placed at will. Man and woman have no meaning, neither does natural and unnatural. All is merely a matter of identification.

Conclusion

Transhumanism is a wet dream of the elite. They normalise this concept through simple tricks such as using the word ‘identity’ as an empowering term. This applies to the transgender ideologists – such as Martine Rothblatt – as well as the Official Covid Narrative promoters such as Klaus Schwab.