Transgenderism the start of transhumanism? Very interesting article linked.

[Creepingivy]

https://humanize.today/2023/04/is-transgenderism-the-first-wave-of-transhumanism/

This link was made several years ago by women like Mary Harrington
and Jennifer bilek and her expose of Blackrock etc.
The billionaires pushing transhumanism are pushing tra.

What is their end game? It's very obvious especially from last night at the Olympic opening night that the powers that be is really trying to normalise transvestites & make males effeminate.
Is the end game to have a genderless world? There is so much more to this.

I dont know their 'end' game, maybe they dont either, but they say its to defeat death.
What I think underpins it is the usual cliche that is always relevant, they didnt get enough/or too much nurturing so they turned to inanimate objects/machines for their reliability, and demanded the rest of us do too.
Its always about Mum and controlling women, one way or another.

Its not a new trope wether in art or life, from Pygmalion to 'Her'.

There was something about Martine Rothblatt and trans humanism in a recent documentary. It's quite long but the relevant section is at the beginning if you don't want to watch it all. it all sounds a bit conspiracy theory and unlikely but the people involved are seriously rich and influential.

https://x.com/wrongbodies/status/1811125941541687316

The influence of Blackrock is felt in every corporation institution and government in America and by extension, the west. They are the worlds largest asset manager.
https://prospect.org/economy/blackrock-rules-world/
https://time.com/6979607/blackrock/
https://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072

What is their end game?

Men giving birth? Perhaps poorer women could be persuaded to sell their uterus to wealthy and powerful men? A mate remarked the other day that we're living in a world of real-life Bond villains. He's not wrong.

This has been around for some time. Have a look for yesterday’s Women’s Declaration International Feminist Question Time on YouTube, with the wonderful Jennifer Bilek in conversation with Jan Williams about this subject.

What do you mean by "making males effeminate" and why would this be a bad thing?

I personally think that there are two sides to transhumanism.

1. An injured or disabled person is helped by technology (eg cyber arm to replace a missing arm, a 'bridge' over a damaged spinal cord, gene editing for genetic issues and so on).
2. Making a new market where perfectly healthy, uninjured humans with no congenital or genatic issues are augmented in various ways.

Most people are comfortable with 1, but 2 is were the issue is. If Apple hasn't realised, "making males effeminate" is option number 2. You are taking a physically functional male body and augmenting it. It is definitely an area that needs careful ethical consideration. I have wondered if the issue is that option 1 doesn't make enough money.

You can be bloody sure that poor / disabled/ 'normal looking' women won't be welcomed into transhumanism.

Rich silicon Valley autistic men on the other hand... they'll let a few model-type females in or better yet build hyper-realistic sex workers who can't refuse.

So you think that option 1 could be used as cover when the real goal is option 2.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were people out there who just want 1 to move the overton window enough so that 2 can happen.

Yes, this. They could "get the conversation started". 🙄

That's why you need to put down really clear boundaries/draw lines on what is acceptable before the technology gets there. e.g. the use of mitochondrial DNA from a third gamete (second egg) to prevent horrific genetic disorders in children is a compassionate and for me acceptable use of technology. But there needs to be (there are in the UK) limits on using three gametes because, eg, three people want a genetic link to their child. Or theoretically its possible to use the same technique to produce a baby wothout sperm - if you put two eggs together without removing the nucleus from one they act as if they have been fertilised by each other. SCientists found that out by accident but it would be unethical to try to produce a baby from it. Fortunately, there are few female tech billionaires out there with dreams of making science fiction stories about female only societies a reality (even though those sort of stories are intriguing). Unfortunately, there are lots of male tech billionaires with dreams of making even more mad science fiction stories a reality. And they don't seem to have the self awareness or internal control mechanisms to stop themselves. So we really need legislation.

I guess all technologies have their upsides and downsides. Ethical boundaries are definitely the key. Trouble is if we’re not doing it you can guarantee someone in the world will be.

There is a definite push to reduce womens role in society....males presenting as women can be so much better/sexier & they have a penis! There is a concerted effort to remove the traditional family, where a Mother would always be present, and encourage males who although cannot attract a mate, can pay for a surrogate to enable them to have a baby, and access to a child. when you think it through it's terrifying for the children who are being bought by males, with no safeguarding whatsoever.

The fewer looney tech billionaires out there, the better, AFAIC, whether they're men or women.

It's been a link around for years now as PPs say, but always good to see this is getting to be talked about in the mainstream and not solely by women shouting 'will someone please listen'.

He's missed trans age. Which is another very obvious one. I hope someone points it out to him.

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

One of the distinctive things about 'tech' (which has come to mean information+comms tech, though of course even a biro or a teaspoon is technology, they don't grow on trees) is the way it has created markets for its inventions. Look at all the things we don't actually need, especially all the shiny new versions of things we already had that worked perfectly, that we didn't ask for and don't need... Somehow [discuss in 250,000 words or less😉] the big tech companies have convinced millions of us that we absolutely have to have the Latest Big Thing.

The 'smart house' for example - this idea started out as a way for technology to assist disabled people to live independently in their own homes - switching lights on and off, opening and closing window blinks, seeing who is at the door etc etc. 'Adaptive technology'. Very useful, very worthy, and not much money to be made from it, as there aren't enough disabled people out there, and they don't have much money.

Now able-bodied people who can move around their homes with no mobility issues, can open and close curtains, raise and lower blinds with no difficulty whatsoever now have 'adaptive technology' in their homes, now called 'the smart house', marketed as convenient, and the Latest Big Thing.

So I think RainWithSunnySpells hit the nail on the head by suggesting that it's about
Making a new market where perfectly healthy, uninjured humans with no congenital or genetic issues are augmented in various ways.

https://singjupost.com/a-i-mars-and-immortality-are-we-dreaming-big-enough-peter-thiel-transcript/

I caught some of this interview and I think the recent movements in ideology are not just about male and female it’s about the nature of humanity and part of the step to transhumanism. When I was watching this I was wondering are we getting prepared for something else…..

If I’m going down a rabbit hole I apologise, but I found this disturbing. The interview is widely available online but reading the transcript is helpful.