Article on the funding behind transgender lobbying organisations

[TerfyTheCuntingTerf]

Not sure what the reputation of the source is like, but I found this article very interesting. If in doubt, follow the money...

thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

From the article:

These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million. From 2003-2013, reported funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.

$424 million is a lot of money. Is it enough to change laws, uproot language and force new speech on the public, to censor, to create an atmosphere of threat for those who do not comply with gender identity ideology?

[cinematique]

This is really interesting. Would like to know what their end game is.
Here is one of the billionaire transgender funders:

[OldmanOfTheWeb]

Just saw that on Twitter. I would like a bit more sourcing on some of the statements but I have been wondering who was funding this movement. It's a little too sudden and spread out to feel truly grass-roots to me.

Particularly interested in Soros funding as he is a proven backer of a number of de-stabilizing organisations and groups.

[TerfyTheCuntingTerf]

Just saw that on Twitter. I would like a bit more sourcing on some of the statements but I have been wondering who was funding this movement. It's a little too sudden and spread out to feel truly grass-roots to me.

I've been hearing mutterings for a while. It feels paranoid to think the big pharmaceutical companies are involved, but logically? They'd have a huge financial stakehold in this.

[TerfyTheCuntingTerf]

And it definitely raises some questions in my mind about the push towards medicalising children, given how the desistance rate drops once they're on that path.

[Ouchbirthhurted]

There certainly seems to be lots of money. I'm not sure what the motives are though - they may be well meaning. It has certainly created a huge balance with women's rights though. And there is a very odd sense of threat of violence and fear of speaking up focused on biological women trying to speak up about how it effects them.

[Melamin]

It's a little too sudden and spread out to feel truly grass-roots to me

It has been too expertly targeted for a grass roots movement too. The way diversity education, institutional change, nhs etc has taken place to accommodate self-id before a law has even come up into parliament is very worrying.

[Melamin]

Also, the public PR that has taken place over the last few years must have cost a bob or two.

[TerfyTheCuntingTerf]

BTW, @oldmanoftheweb, if it's not weird, could you pm me your Twitter handle? I would very much like to follow you. Aaaaand that's definitely come out weird.

[Ouchbirthhurted]

Huge balance should have been huge imbalance. Doh!

[Krilla]

I've name changed a few times, but I've been saying for a while on mn that big pharma is behind the trans agenda.

And it isn't so much an agenda as an all out assault to try and drive a huge cultural, political and social upheaval through in Western societies. I've never seen anything civil or medical rights based that has had such an impact in such a short time. It's extraordinary. You just don't go from a barely known issue to institutional infiltration in a few years.

There's something else that I've read in slightly more radical arenas. It seems tin foil at first but the longer this goes on, the more I really wonder ... and that is that one of the motives for the trans agenda is population control by the back door (interesting pun there, as I've heard a similar argument about the normalisation of anal sex).

I know, it sounds out there, but just think for a minute. Transing children and young adults through puberty blockers and cross hormones fundamentally sterilises them. You are making them infertile and passing it off as an "identity choice" where the patient won't realise the repercussions of infertility until a fair way down the line.

[Ereshkigal]

Someone posted an excellent doc from Soros' open foundation on a recent thread about schools. I'll dig it out.

[Ereshkigal]

The doc isn't excellent! But it illustrated the social engineering going on.

[TheGoalIsToStayOutOfTheHole]

It feels paranoid to think the big pharmaceutical companies are involved, but logically? They'd have a huge financial stakehold in this.

I've name changed a few times, but I've been saying for a while on mn that big pharma is behind the trans agenda.

I have in the past thought people were just being paranoid and tinfoil hat like about this, but it does make sense. Same as I thought that people were being silly thinking Lily Madigan was a tory plant, but thats starting to make a lot of sense too.

And it definitely raises some questions in my mind about the push towards medicalising children, given how the desistance rate drops once they're on that path.

Yes, this part has always puzzled me. I did think for a while that pushing for puberty blockers and such was a..paedophile thing. To create 'legal children' basically. But even that comes across very conspiracy theory

Its all really really odd. Its came from nowhere and is advancing at an alarming rate.

[Elendon]

I think what it does is tick boxes.

It's not an awful lot of money as it's spread throughout years, especially when you consider how much pharmaceutical companies make, especially the CEOs and the shareholders.

There is a huge difference between a million and a billion.

[SweetGrapes]

Yy to the "paedophile thing" thegoal . Gives me the creeps.

The article is so depressing. We don't have access to that kind of money to counter it. never have and probably never will

[Elendon]

Its all really really odd. Its came from nowhere and is advancing at an alarming rate.

I agree, especially when you consider it's at the expense of women's rights and the length of time it took for women to achieve those rights.

And yes the rest does sound conspiracy theory.

[Ouchbirthhurted]

We have the vote. We live in a democracy. More and more people can see that a law saying any man can become a woman on his say so is being proposed. Which is clearly batshit crazy.

There will always be big money following its own interests. There will always be paedophiles and others with sinister intentions that will look for loopholes they can exploit.

GRA reforms are still just proposals. There is a long way to go between now and what is decided about any legal changes and what they would specifically be.

The thing that is wrong about all of this is is that it has not been properly debated and scrutinised for various reasons. These include the political climate, fear of speaking out (jobs/violence at threat), most people not thinking GRA reform for LGBT is relevant to them, the narrative around transwomen are women and transphobia etc. I have personally never experienced anything like this before.

These need highlighted and brought back into balance more. Whatever you think of the GRA this is not a way to make decisions in a democracy. Passing a law that agrees with an ideology that wins arguments in that way is not going to lead us anywhere good

[Ouchbirthhurted]

Tell people you know, write to or talk to your MP. Go to Woman's Place meetings if you can, keep an eye on mumsnet. Speak up wherever you can to question things, try to help people see what you can see.

[terryleather]

Women's Liberation Radio News did a podcast called The Money Behind The Trans Movement which had some interesting info about the big funders.

They also discussed the population control aspect, which was something I'd never considered before. It's an interesting listen.

[smithsinarazz]

Oh, that's interesting! There was an argument about circumcision yesterday and someone pointed out it's very prevalent in the US (at one stage, I think I've read, 80% of men had had it). It got me thinking: in a private medical system, a completely unnecessary surgical procedure is gold, if you can kid people they need it. You don't even have to demonstrate a cure, since there was nothing to cure.

[Ouchbirthhurted]

Ooh thanks Terry. Will see if I can find out how to listen online.

[terryleather]

Ouch Here's the link to the podcast
wlrnmedia.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/edition-16-the-money-behind-the-trans-movement-and-impact-on-lesbians/

[OldmanOfTheWeb]

I've been hearing mutterings for a while. It feels paranoid to think the big pharmaceutical companies are involved, but logically? They'd have a huge financial stakehold in this.

I know for a fact that Pfizer were manipulating things to get prisoners on anti-depressants. I remember an email from one of the upper management talking about how she regarded prisons as this goldmine just waiting to be exploited.

The only honest big pharma exec is Martin Shkreli and they imprisoned him for it.

[PerkingFaintly]

Not sure what the reputation of the source is like

I've just looked this up, and it's a little odd.

Introducing The Federalist, A New Web Magazine For Anti-LGBT Conservatives
www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/02/introducing-the-federalist-a-new-web-magazine-f/198721

NB MediaMatters is itself political, describing itself as fact-checking conservative media, so obviously apply due salt.

But The Federalist's publisher is Ben Domenech, a right-wing blogger who used to be managing editor for health care policy at the Heartland Institute – a thinktank partly funded by the Koch brothers. The Heartland Institute is big in attempting to undermine climate science, and working with tobacco companies to deny the health impacts of smoking.

The Federalist publishes anti-homosexuality articles like this: thefederalist.com/2014/03/18/the-culture-war-hangover/

He spoke in glowing terms about how, 25 years hence, people would not blink at the sight of a gay couple playing with their child in a park, or think twice about including such a family in neighborhood social gatherings. Soon homosexuality would be so completely normalized that same-sex couples could comfortably move in any professional or social setting. They would no longer need to worry about “what people think” because it would be understood by all respectable people that homosexual and heterosexual pairing were absolutely morally equivalent.

Like most liberals, this friend obviously took some pleasure in the idea that he was riding the wave of transgressive progress. But his vision was thoroughly conventional among the center-left, and I’ve since heard it articulated many times by other hopeful liberals. Of course, I can easily sympathize with my friend’s desire to feel normal and accepted. At the same time, I remember thinking privately that this Orwellian vision was rather drastic even by post-1984 standards.

I don't think knowing this tells us anything about the factual content of the article in the OP.

But you asked about the source, and the above seems relevant given the thread is specifically about financial interests, lobbying and attitudes to science.

(As an aside, I found that anti-gay-marriage article illuminating for the reference to "left-wing transgressive progress". I've seen similar material from other right-wing writers, so this looks like an actual belief: that people supporting gay rights are doing so simply for the fun of being "transgressive" – rather than because they believe gay people should have rights.)

[PerkingFaintly]

I agree with most of Ouchbirthhurted's post at 17:43:54.