Big Pharma Is No Different From Any Other Capitalist Corporation

A left-wing perspective offers a structural critique of capitalist firms, arguing that they are focused only on profit, and not issues such as safety or the common good. In reality, however, the modern left has failed to sufficiently apply this critique to Big Pharma and their operations in creating medications – although they will sometimes acknowledge it in a haphazard way. What is not taken into account is the way that Big Pharma – in allegiance with the state – creates new medical ‘needs’ and new markets based on these needs, particularly in relation to the Covid-19 vaccinations.

The General Anti-Capitalist Viewpoint

The concern of any business is to make profit. The only way for any corporation to make profit is to effectively exploit their workers and extract excess labour from them (or to extract excess labour from other people’s workers – for example, banks). Other concerns must be subordinated to the need for profit. For example, product safety is not in itself a concern for a business. It would only become a concern to the extent that it affected profit – for example if people refused to buy a such a product, or if a government fined the company more than the profits made on the product for producing something unsafe.

In order to keep making profits, capitalist companies must create new markets. It is in the inherent nature of capitalism that it must keep expanding. The entire history of capitalism demonstrates this, as it expanded from Western Europe to the whole world. This is also why the capitalist world was locked in a death struggle with the USSR: not only because the socialist USSR offered a viable alternative to capitalism but also because the USSR and its allies represented untapped markets and resources. New inventions and the creation of new ‘needs’ can also be seen in the history of capitalism. Items like automobiles and mobile phones have become ‘necessary’ to human life in the West despite not actually being necessary in the technical sense.

Big Pharma and Capitalism

This logic applies as much to Big Pharma as any other corporation. One of the most important points to make specifically regarding Big Pharma is that the main market in Western countries is the state rather than individuals or private companies, due to state run healthcare services. This is different in the US due to their health insurance system. The relationship between the state and Big Pharma means that the attempt to sell more products will be centralised rather than dispersed, as it is with consumer products (this is similar to the arms industry).

There is a certain amount of genuine health issues within a population, whether caused by genetic factors or environmental factors. These health issues create demands for medications and other products sold by Big Pharma. While on the surface, the idea of a health issue is objective, in reality there is an element of subjectivity. This allows for the creation of new medications to treat these issues. If one wants to get more cynical, we can consider the idea of iatrogenic conditions, i.e. those that are created by medical treatment. This can create a market for more medical interventions to correct these iatrogenic conditions.  

The construction of the deadly disease ‘Covid-19’ has multiple uses, as I have discussed in previous articles. It is without doubt that this narrative massively benefits Big Pharma. Capitalist companies have ‘developed’ Covid-19 vaccines as quickly as possible in order to cash in on the market of selling these vaccines to the state for mass distribution. The Covid-19 narrative also promotes the idea that every single person in the country needs the vaccine which creates a massive market.

However, the Covid 19 narrative is more than just opportunistic. One function of the construction of this narrative – along with the pushing of transhumanist totalitarianism – is the transfer of wealth upward from ordinary people to capitalists. As has been known since the days of the early bourgeois economists such as David Ricardo, the rate of profit declines over time under a capitalist system. As capitalism has existed for centuries at this point this tendency has become significantly advanced. The recovery from the 2008 crisis was weak.

The ‘pandemic’ narrative was used to justify lockdowns, which have been an absolute disaster for the working class in terms of lost income. Importantly, lockdowns have helped to destroy small businesses, which has increased wealth centralisation. Under capitalism, capital becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer companies, banks, etc. as more successful firms drive weaker competition out of business. Lockdowns accelerate this process in several ways: closing small firms’ premises so forcing people to buy online, channeling purchases through a small number of businesses; causing small businesses to go bust so their assets can be bought on the cheap; and encouraging small businesses to take loans to ‘weather the pandemic’ which will mean their assets will be appropriated by banks.

The Covid-19 vaccinations then are just one part of transference of wealth into the pockets of a few large firms created by this narrative. Some might question this argument by saying that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was not developed for profit. However, as explained by Whitney Webb, AstraZeneca plans to make their profit further down the line through boosters given to people who received the original AstraZeneca jab. Their hope for profit was based on getting a wider spread of the vaccine due to the initial lack of profit, then doubling up on profit later – just another means to the same end.

Isn’t This Obvious?

Yes, I would consider the points raised about Big Pharma profiteering to be rather obvious. However, it seems that the Left needs a reminder of the realities of Big Pharma, and that they do not care about individuals’ health, only profit.

This is because many on the Left have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Official Covid Narrative, advocating any and all forms of capitalist ‘health’ authoritarianism so long as the government justifies it as ‘protecting us from a deadly virus’. Furthermore, the left has mocked anyone who questioned this narrative as a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

This puts the left in awkward position in terms of the profit motive behind the vaccines. The left has really pushed the idea of endless lockdowns, to the extent that it is difficult to see what would satisfy them (welding us in our homes, maybe?) This puts them in a position of having to support the vaccine because they are going to look ridiculous if they advocate for 50-year lockdowns until there is no more Covid (though of course, that doesn’t stop some of them – see the ‘Zero Covid’ fanatics).

People who question the vaccine, according to the left, are thus put in a bucket of being ‘Conspiracy theorists’, despite the obvious point that there is a certain motivation behind these vaccines that the left would have to admit: profit.

The left resolves this by unconsciously/cynically (take your pick) recognising the fact that profit is important for Big Pharma but only in terms of denying people the vaccine if they do not have the money to pay for it. The narrative involves criticism of Big Pharma in the sense that they have patented these vaccines and will not let generic versions of the vaccines be marketed because of their profit margins. The idea that the vaccine itself could be contaminated by profit motives is not considered.

Conclusion

The Covid-19 Narrative has created a windfall for Big Pharma, which is minimised by the left because they have fallen for the Covid Narrative. Although this minimisation is required given the support for the Covid narrative, it also warrants further explanation.

The Modern Left is Out of Touch With Reality: Part 3 – Universal Basic Income

As argued in the first two parts of this series, the modern left has lost touch with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it consists of those who agree with many left-wing economic policies and share the critique of imperialism with the traditional socialist left, but who have a heavy focus on identity politics. Examples would be outlets such as The Canary and Novara Media. For a more detailed explanation, see the first article in these series.

The first two parts of this article addressed two ways in which the modern left has lost touch with material reality. The first of these, the left-wing support for lockdowns, shows their detachment from the reality of working-class job losses, income losses, and mental well being. The second of these, their support for transgender ideology, shows their detachment from the material reality of biological sex.

The third part in this series will address the issue of Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

What is UBI?

First, we need a definition of Universal Basic Income. Investopedia defines the term as such:

Universal basic income (UBI) is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money on a regular basis. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.

UBI is a popular position among many people on the left, including many who could not be considered part of the modern left. In the US, the idea has gained more traction due to the Democratic primary challenger Andrew Yang running as a largely one-issue candidate focusing on UBI.

While there are right-wing cases for UBI, made by individuals such as Milton Friedman, I will not take these into consideration in this article. Nor will I attempt to use the fact that some right wingers support UBI as prima facie discrediting the idea.

The Left Case For UBI

An article published in Novara Media by Andrew Dolan brings up 7 reasons as to why he supports UBI. In short, his reasons are: 1) that wages are too low, 2) full employment is not possible, 3) that it is unconditional, 4) makes working less necessary, 5) It is becoming a mainstream idea, 6) it provides and opportunity to move beyond capitalism, 7) potential to create a unified movement.

At first glance, these seem to offer some good reasons to support UBI. The fact that UBI supplements wages, for example, seems like a good way to reduce poverty, as does the fact that it is paid to everybody, including the unemployed. The fact that it takes the emphasis from paid work could also appear as a positive benefit as it could reconfigure life to be more focused on other aspects of the human condition such as family.

So where is the snag in the argument?

The Biosecurity Context

There are many people who object to UBI on economic grounds, such as that the policy would lead to high levels of inflation, or that it would lead to large levels of government debt. Another objection is that the taxes used to pay for the policy would end up being taken from the poor, particularly if it is funded via VAT (which was a suggestion made by Andrew Yang). However, these kinds of arguments do not concern me, and are not the reason for my objections to UBI. Even if all of these arguments could convincingly be debunked, I would still oppose UBI.

This is because of the capitalist biosecurity state context in which the UBI policy would exist.

We cannot abstract UBI from this context, which is the major flaw in the left case for UBI. So what is a biosecurity state context and why is it problematic for the case for UBI?

We live in societies where the state already has a large amount of control over people’s lives. While the 1940s creation of a welfare state could be said to have had some benefits for working class people, such as improving access to healthcare, it also acted as a control mechanism over the working class, particularly in terms of unemployment benefits.

The working class under capitalism have had the choice of the ‘friendly societies’ that were common in the nineteenth century or state provision of unemployment benefits. Friendly societies were organisations set up by workers as a kind of insurance policy that they paid into and would receive stipends from if they were made unemployed or injured at work. This was a form of self-organisation, but often proved inadequate when capitalist crises happened. On the other hand, workers accessing state-based solutions have been subjected to the long-standing idea of the ‘deserving’ vs. the ‘undeserving’ poor.

The amount of state control over the lives of ordinary people has increased over time and is reaching the stage where alleged Western ‘democracies’ are teetering on full-blown authoritarianism. In the UK, this can be seen in the increase in mass surveillance, and the increasing control over free speech, including the persecution of Julian Assange and coordination between state and social media platforms to remove dissenting opinions. A significant step towards this was the 9/11 event, sold to the public as being caused by ‘terrorists that are trying to destroy our way of life’. This meant that the government was able to pass a range of ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation, aimed at the public. Similar trends exist in the US and some other ‘Western democracies’.

The measures imposed over the past year – allegedly in response to the virus Sars-Cov-2 – are the next stage in this growing authoritarianism. The first step was the ‘lockdowns’, forcing people to ‘stay at home’ and banning them from social interaction. Following on from this policy came the forced masks, used to maintain the image of fear while no-one was dying in July and August. Then came more lockdowns, and now the government is making their play for permanent tyranny – the vaccine passport.

The government is currently attempting to soft pedal the passport by suggesting the idea that it will be temporary, or that it will not be needed for certain businesses, such as ‘non-essential’ shops and pubs. However, once the passport is introduced, it will be impossible to get rid of it without a massive effort, and it will become slowly more draconian over time. Such a mechanism may begin only with international travel, theatres and sports, but will expand to shops and every other possible organisation.

This is the context we need to understand when looking at the reality of UBI as a policy. While fighting for UBI may seem like a good response to lockdowns due to the destruction of jobs caused by this policy, in reality UBI will strengthen this control matrix.

One of the desires of the elite is to create universal digital IDs for the entirety of humanity. There is a campaign group set up to advocate for this called ID2020. This group is associated with Microsoft and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance and thus has ties to Bill Gates. While the ID2020 website tries to portray its strategy of giving every human being on earth a digital identity as empowering people through the promotion of more choice and control, in reality such a system would lead to more elite control over humanity. The ID2020 website links to another site called the Good Health Pass Collaborative, designed to promote the vaccine passport.

The aim of any UBI that is introduced – and the government could use the mechanism of furlough to do so – would be to tie it into this digital identity matrix. UBI would then be used as a control mechanism. It would be ‘universal’ in the sense that anyone could have access to it, but it would require compliance – for example, having all the latest vaccines that Big Pharma demand, or not resisting or opposing the government in any way.

Critics of this argument may object that what I am criticising is not UBI, since that would be without preconditions. However, this argument shows that what would happen in practise when this policy is implemented by a capitalist state. In order to combat this argument, it would need to be demonstrate that this would not be how such a stipend would work in practise.

Conclusion

Universal Basic Income is a distraction for the left, and if any similar policy was implemented by a capitalist state, it would merely enhance the control mechanisms of such a state. The left should forget about demanding this policy and instead focus upon organising to end the draconian ‘Covid measures’ and other signs of an emerging biosecurity state.

The Modern Left Has Lost Touch With Reality: Part 2 – Transgender Ideology

In the first part of this series, I discussed the pro-lockdown stance of the modern left and how that indicated a break with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it is those that claim to be independent from the mainstream media, advocate for left wing policies on the economy and criticise US/UK foreign policy but have a large proportion of their focus on identity politics. For an expanded definition, see the original article.

The second part of this series will discuss the modern left’s belief in transgender ideology, and how that indicates that their break with reality came earlier than the Covid Narrative.

What is Transgender Ideology?

People who support transgender ideology will claim that there is no such thing as transgender ideology (or alternatively, Gender Identity Ideology).

Transgender ideologists believe that each human being has an innate gender identity. This can either match the biological sex of the person (‘cis’) or not match the biological sex of the person (‘trans’). This gender identity does not have to be male or female; the most popular alternative to male or female identities is ‘non-binary’ meaning not identifying as either male or female. This identity is considered to override biological sex, so if a man ‘identifies as’ a woman, he is a woman, if a woman identifies as non binary then she is non binary.

This ideology seeks to change the way that society is constructed, to change the point of reference from sex to gender identity. So female toilets should be those for a female gender identity and not for the female biological sex. This applies to all other things segregated by sex – they should become segregated by identity (or not segregated at all). Pronouns are also another key part of this ideology. Rather than pronouns simply being used to shorten communication and to avoid contorted sentences, they are used as a form of validation of the individual’s gender identity. It is common nowadays in ‘queer’ spaces to state the pronouns ‘you use’ (i.e. that other people use about you) while introducing yourself to the group. She/her if you identify as a woman, they/them if you identify as non-binary etc. Some use multiple pronouns like she/they or ‘neopronouns’ (new words) like zie/zim.

The Left and Transgender Ideology

The modern left is heavily invested in supporting and defending this ideology and protecting it from criticism. Many of the individuals that I identified in my previous post, such as Kerry Ann Mendoza, Ash Sarkar, and Owen Jones, put a lot of energy into defending gender identity ideology. Here’s a few examples of how that applies in practise.

Sarkar and Jones, in particular, have criticised the High Court ruling in Bell/A. vs. Tavistock. This legal case was brought by Keira Bell, a detransitioned woman, and Mrs. A., the mother of a teenager with rapid onset gender dysphoria. It regarded the issue of whether children can consent to puberty blockers – drugs that prevent natural puberty which are the first step towards medical transition. The High Court declared that children under 16 were very unlikely to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers.

Both Jones and Sarkar support the notion of the ‘trans child’. Of course, this follows from the notion of an ‘innate gender identity’ which children are capable of ‘just knowing’ by magic whether they are a boy or a girl (I would suggest that anyone who believes this try interacting with some children.) They believe that saying that children cannot consent to puberty blockers is discrimination against the ‘trans child’.

This isn’t the only position that these left wing activists take that is completely out of touch with reality. They also consider the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be ‘transphobic’ because it requires a waiting time of two years before ‘gender’ can be changed and the presentation of medical evidence of gender dysphoria. Instead, they want this system to be operated on the principle of ‘self-ID’ – anyone can change their ‘gender’ at any time for any reason.

This article criticising Liz Truss for rejecting reforms along these lines from the Canary is a good example. One sentence of this article – talking about the fact that the GRA does not mention ‘non binary’ identities – is particularly revealing:

“Right now, non-binary individuals have nowhere to turn to legitimise their gender.”

The idea that the state and government legislation exists to legitimise an individual’s belief about themselves is of course, absurd and extremely narcissistic. The article does not answer the question as to why the state should consider ‘gender’ to be a valid category at all to include in law, other than that people’s feelings will be hurt if it is not.

Meanwhile, women’s concerns about men in their spaces are dismissed as transphobic. Women are perceived as the oppressors of those poor trans-identified males because we don’t consider them women and don’t want their male bodies in our spaces. This of course is a complete inversion of reality, where patriarchy oppresses women through male violence and the threat of such.

Transgender ideology has become a key plank of the modern left, and one which brooks no dissent, similar to the Covid narrative. The publications that are part of this milieu would refuse to publish any woman talking about the harms of this ideology (even publishing an article by her on a completely different topic) because in their view she is a ‘transphobe’ and a ‘terf’. The mantras are – ‘No Debate’ and ‘Trans Women are Women’. Anything other than full belief is transphobia.

What’s wrong with Gender Identity Ideology?

What’s the problem? Someone might ask. After all, isn’t this just about being kind to people who are suffering from mental distress? Isn’t this just about alleviating an individual’s dysphoria by being polite and kind? Well, no.

It should go without saying that criticising an ideology is not the same thing as expressing hatred towards a person. If one criticises Christianity or Islam, because they disagree with those religions, that is not the same as hating individuals that profess belief in those faiths. Whereas say, abuse towards someone for wearing a religious symbol would be an example of hatred towards the person believing in that religion. It should go without saying, except for the fact that transgender ideologists frame any disagreement with the concept of ‘gender identity’ as personal hatred and denial of their existence. They often abuse women for criticising their beliefs as ‘terfs’ and ‘transphobic’. So what are the problems with this belief? I am going to outline the fact that gender identity ideology is both misogynistic and homophobic.

Misogyny

Gender identity ideology is misogynistic.

How can one ‘identify’ as a woman? Women (and in general, non-gender identity believers) would say that female is a biological sex which is defined by the body type designed to produce eggs (large gametes). Women generally develop certain primary and secondary sex characteristics (womb, vagina, breasts) etc. That said because female is the type of body that is designed to develop large gametes, women who have certain disorders with regards to hormones or differences of sex development are still female, despite some transgender ideology claims that sex is a spectrum.

It’s clear that males cannot identify as having female biology, because that does not make any sense. Males by definition cannot have female biology (and vice versa). So, if a male identifies as female, what is he identifying with? Males who claim they are female claim to have some sort of inner female essence. What this amounts to in reality, however, is that they consider this female essence to be feminine stereotypes. Obviously, reducing women to feminine stereotypes is misogynistic.

The sexism is also very notable in the discussion around ‘trans kids’. ‘Affirmative’ parents – those who accept their child is the opposite sex – generally make comments about how their male child always liked dresses and dolls or their female child always liked trucks and climbing trees. The implication of this logic being that if a boy likes dresses he must really be a girl inside. This is regressive and encourages medicalisation of children who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Gender identity ideology implies that women can identify out of their own oppression, as if ‘gender identity’ is the cause of women’s oppression, then women could escape this by identifying as men. This is obviously wrong, as women and girls cannot avoid FGM, forced marriage, rape, domestic violence and prostitution simply by identifying as male. Gender ideology also believes that men who identify as women are more oppressed than women because of their ‘identity’, and because of the fact that women refuse to ‘respect’ this identity. This ignores the male violence that women face, and also equates the oppression of trans identified homosexual males in prostitution in South America – a form of homophobic male violence – with the alleged oppression of middle class white trans-identified males in the West.

This ideology also reduces women’s safety, by allowing men who identify as women into spaces designed for women such as female toilets and changing rooms. It reduces the ability of women to be able to say no to men in these spaces for fear of being accused of transphobia. It also leads to dangerous situations where males are placed in female prisons and attack women.

Homophobia

Gender identity ideology is homophobic.

A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women and a gay man is a man attracted to other men. These terms are defined on the basis of biological sex. Gender identity ideology redefines these terms by stating that ‘woman’ is anyone who says they are a woman and ‘man’ is anyone who says they are a man. It follows that lesbians must include trans women in their dating pool and gay men must include trans men in their dating pool. This is imposing compulsory heterosexuality on gays and lesbians, which is homophobic.

Lesbians and gay men are subjected to abuse if they define their orientation as same sex attraction. There are endless amounts of twitter comments that state that if a lesbian refuses to sleep with trans women she is a ‘terf’, a ‘transphobe’ and that she is ‘denying that a trans women is a real woman’. There is even a term used by trans activists for this, the ‘cotton ceiling’, in other words framing lesbian sexuality as a barrier to be overcome by trans women. The same applies to gay men in reverse.

Trans ideology is also homophobic because it encourages children to ‘transition’. Gender dysphoria in children is more likely than not to resolve or decrease if a child is allowed to go through puberty and the number of these children that grow up LGB is higher than statistical average. There are also cases – revealed by whistleblowers at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK – that many parents who do not want a gay child will seek their child’s transition as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality.

Where did Transgender Ideology Come From?

How did the absurd idea that men are actually women if they say so become so popular? After all, it is a laughable idea, or would be, if it wasn’t being used as a basis to undermine women’s rights and give harmful drugs to children.

Transgender ideology would not have been able to have become so dominant in society without a large amount of money behind it. Unlike Civil Rights and Gay Rights, transgender ideology has completely captured society in a small period of time without any real input from the broader society and without any attempts by activists to build public support for their position. The powerful men behind this ideology have captured institutions from the top down.

Stonewall, for example, used to be an organisation for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. It was designed to combat discrimination and to abolish homophobic laws such as Section 28. In 2015, Stonewall added the T to the previous Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual activism that it had been doing. Stonewall started pushing for extreme claims such as that biological sex does not matter and that same sex attraction is actually same gender attraction. The amount of funding that Stonewall has increased since they started promoting transgender ideology.

This idea was able to capture many large institutions in the UK through the mechanism of the ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions’ scheme. This scheme involves organisations paying Stonewall money to have a label placed on their website that shows that they are affiliated with Stonewall. This is then used to push their ideology and silence dissent, as has been seen with the case of Allison Bailey, a barrister who disagrees with gender identity ideology.

It is far more than just Stonewall, of course. Stonewall is merely a footsoldier in this war, the main drivers of this ideology are certain billionaires invested in pharmaceutical companies, and those who seek to change humanity through the mechanism of transhumanism. Big Pharma has an incentive to promote transgender hormones and surgeries as these make a large amount of money as opposite sex imitation requires a lifelong hormone regimen. Trans-identified male Martine Rothblatt has been the most vocal in promoting the intersection between transgenderism and transhumanism. The idea of transgenderism, in the words of Jennifer Bilek, is the “normalisation of disembodiment”, which opens up a path to lead to transhumanism as transhumanism is based on rejecting human embodiment and seeking to upload human beings to the cloud and other similar projects.

So How did the Left Become Duped by this Big Pharma based Ideology?

This ideology is another case – similarly to the Official Covid Narrative – where a detachment from material reality has led to the left supporting something destructive and dangerous, that benefits the billionaires that they claim to oppose. In the case of transgender ideology it also leads to the left promoting ideas that it claims to be opposed to such as misogyny and homophobia.

Both the Covid Narrative and Transgender ideology are able to manipulate the idea of compassion. The left considers itself to be compassionate and caring, so the idea that they could possibly be a ‘bigot’ for criticising transgender ideology is extremely upsetting to them. In fact, many on the left spend a lot of energy on calling other people bigots. When a large part of your identity is wrapped up in not seeming to be bigoted, and you are automatically the ‘kind’ one because you are on the left, the idea of being called phobic is a possible psychological harm to you.

Misogyny also likely plays a role, because trans activism inherently privileges the opinions of men over women. Learned misogyny makes people turning to the left more likely to take men’s claims that they are women seriously. There has been a significant history of misoogyny on the left, and one of the reasons that women created their own movements was because of the lack of support for women’s rights within broader movements. Thus I don’t think implicit misogyny can be ruled out as an influence on the left – as although the left has adopted more women’s rights positions over time, it cannot be expected that they would be immune to misogyny. Misogyny also means that they dismiss women’s counterarguments to transgender ideology as being bigoted and hateful.

The detachment from the reality of biological sex means they fail to see how the ideology harms women. Their detachment from material reality in terms of class and economics means that they fail to examine the massive amounts of money behind this agenda, and fail to see that the more people ‘being their true self’ by taking hormones and having surgery, the more money for Big Pharma.

The left also fails to understand the concept of autogynephilia. If you understand this concept, the behaviour of trans-identified males makes perfect sense. Combine this with big pharma based ‘activism’ for the acceptance of this fetish and the mixture is truly toxic, but the left fails to understand this.

Many trans-identified males, and former trans identified males, have admitted that autogynephilia is or was their motivation to ‘transition’ from male to female. Autogynephilia can be defined as a fetish in which a man is sexually aroused by the idea of thinking of himself as a woman. This fetish can involve being aroused by female clothing, female biology (such as breastfeeding or pregnancy) etc.

The concept of autogynephilia explains male trans activist behaviour exceedingly well. It explains the obsession with entering female spaces (as this involves being validated as a ‘real woman’ and not a man claiming to be a woman and this is a crucial part of the fetish), why they desire to sleep with lesbians, etc. It also explains the anger they show if they do not get their fetish validated – the anger of male entitlement.  When men get sexually rejected by women, they often get angry.

People find it hard to believe that there could be men out there that are so sexually obsessed and motivated by their fetish that they could go to the extremes of transitioning. However, there are many cases of men murdering women because of sexual rejection. The idea that there is a subset of men that would take hormones and have surgery for their fetish is really not so extreme.

Conclusion

Transgender Ideology is another sign of the left’s detachment from material reality. In particular, the material reality of biological sex, which is undermined and in some cases outright denied by transgender activists. But also the reality of the fact that this ideology is promoted by Big Pharma as a means to create profit, and has nothing to do with ‘being your true self.’