Tag: biology

Posted on in americanpolitics, beliefs, billionaires, children'srights, cults, exchristian, feminism, genderideology, influencers, philosophy, podcast, politics, progressiveleft, progressives, radicalfeminism, religion, socialjustice, therapyharm, trump

Tier by Tier: How the Left Radicalizes Its Own

A conversation with Karlyn Borysenko on why understanding the Left’s internal factions matters now more than ever.

Welcome back to Taste Test Thursday—my bonus series (or maybe just another excuse to drop a second episode mid-week 😉)

Prelude to Collapse: The War Within

Anti-ICE riots, open declarations of war, and the revolution you’re not supposed to notice….

Thanks for reading Taste of Truth! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Before we dive into today’s main topic, I have to share something with yall.

Here’s the tea you might have missed: Simone Biles, once the queen of female athleticism, just decided to throw female athletes under the bus. She went scorched-earth on Riley Gaines—a woman who had the nerve to say basic biology matters in sports.

Simone’s stance? Basically, “Step aside, ladies. Men who say they’re women get to play too. Deal with it.”

Yeah, that crushed a lot of dreams. Every young girl who looked up to Simone for grit and talent got served a big, ugly dose of woke betrayal instead.

But wait, the drama didn’t stop there. The comment sections exploded with some of the wildest, most ridiculous takes you’ll ever see:

People claimed things like:

  • “Trans women are actually weaker than cis women,” ignoring every major study, physiology, and real-world athletic results.
  • “You’re just obsessed with genitals,” as if biological reality is some kind of personal fetish.
  • “Stop bullying! Simone Biles was just being inclusive,” even though Simone personally attacked another female athlete and told her to “pick on someone your own size”—which was clearly a jab at men, flipping the narrative.
  • “Only one trans woman has ever medaled in the Olympics, and it was in a team sport,” using tiny sample sizes as “proof” while ignoring decades of male athletic advantage and the ongoing displacement of female athletes.
  • Claims that acknowledging biology is “bigotry” or “hate,” which is a classic deflection to avoid actual debate.

What’s striking is how none of this is about facts or fairness—it’s about protecting an ideology at all costs. That’s the Bulldozer at work: steamrolling science, reason, and women’s rights in the name of feelings and group loyalty.

This isn’t just about sports. It’s a microcosm of a larger, coordinated push to erase distinctions and rewrite reality. The same movement that’s burning flags, tearing down institutions, and pushing radical social change also demands that we deny biology and silence dissent.

If you think this sounds wild, it’s because it is.

And it’s happening everywhere.

In cities like Los Angeles, Austin, and New York, something is boiling over—but you won’t see it clearly if you rely on mainstream media. Violent riots outside ICE offices. Masked agitators throwing bricks and firebombs. American flags burned in the street while chants echo: No borders, no nations, no more deportations.

It’s not just civil unrest—it’s ideological warfare.

The Revolutionary Communists of America recently made it explicit. On their official channels, they didn’t just critique policy—they declared war on the United States. Not metaphorically. Not rhetorically. Literally.

For the radical left, capitalism isn’t just an economic system; it’s the system—the root of all oppression. The force that creates every hierarchy, every disparity, every injustice.

When they say systemic racism, they don’t mean individual prejudice or even discriminatory laws-they mean the entire capitalist structure that, in their view, was built to privilege some and exploit others.

And still, mainstream outlets call it “activism.”

These aren’t fringe events. They’re pressure points in a much larger movement: one that uses radical ideology to attack the very concept of law, order, and national identity. Immigration is just the entry wound. The deeper goal is to dissolve the nation-state, abolish prisons, defund police, and destabilize every Western institution—starting with the family, borders, and biological reality itself.

They want the system to burn.

They just want you to feel guilty for noticing.

This isn’t liberalism. It’s not even progressivism. It’s an ideological virus that blends Marxist collapse fantasies with postmodern identity theory—what some have rightly begun to call Queer Marxism. And it’s spreading, not through military coups or overt revolution, but through activist groups, academic institutions, union politics, and nonprofit networks.

We call it the Bulldozer.

Because it doesn’t just push for justice.

It erases categories, flattens distinctions, and leaves nothing but rubble behind.

🧭 Where This Started For Me

How the modern Left radicalizes through language, identity, and psychological control

Once upon a time, I considered myself a proud progressive. I believed in equality, compassion, and social justice—values I still hold. But over the years, I began to notice a shift: the language of empathy was being used to silence people. The banner of inclusion began to look more like a gatekeeping badge. The people preaching tolerance were often the least tolerant of dissent.

I entered the movement through the doorway of compassion. But I didn’t understand, at the time, that it led to a staircase. A funnel. Tier by tier, the path narrowed—not toward a better world, but toward radicalism. And once inside, the pressure to conform only grew stronger.

Today, much of what passes as “progressive” isn’t about progress at all. It’s about compliance. It’s about scripts. It’s about moral absolutism enforced by social shaming. What began as genuine concern for the marginalized has metastasized into an ideological machine—one that feeds on sincerity, weaponizes pain, and punishes nuance.

That’s why I’m excited to share this conversation with

Karlyn Borysenko, a voice that’s become indispensable in making sense of what’s really happening on the modern Left.

Karlyn is a bold, unapologetic critic of collectivist ideology. An organizational psychologist turned independent journalist, she brings sharp wit and deep psychological insight to her investigations. She’s not just analyzing theory from the outside—she’s been inside the radical inner circles. Through her work on Decode the Left, Karlyn infiltrates socialist and communist meetings, documents activist materials, and translates their coded language into something the average American can understand.

Her work has helped many—including me—see what’s been hiding in plain sight.

In our 30-minute interview, we discuss:

  • Her recent article: Democrats Are Not the Same as Communists. Know the Difference
  • What May Day organizing reveals about the Left’s summer strategy
  • How her infamous “Spy Streams” expose internal tactics and contradictions
  • Her book A Brief History of Racism, and why history matters more than ever now

But before we jump into that conversation, I want to lay a foundation. This post is both a companion and a continuation—an exploration of how well-meaning people get pulled into radical ideologies, how activism gets hijacked, and why naming this process matters.

The Bait: Branding with Virtue

Progressive branding thrives on moral urgency. It co-opts legitimate concerns—racism, sexism, homophobia—and repurposes them as litmus tests. Agree with our solutions or you’re the problem.

I began to question this during the rise of Black Lives Matter. But when I asked reasonable questions about BLM’s funding, its leadership, or its goals, I was told that even asking was racist. It wasn’t enough to be “not racist.” You had to be “anti-racist” in a very specific, approved way.

This wasn’t justice—it was dogma.

The Switch: From Inclusion to Compliance

At the same time, in the wellness and spiritual communities I trusted, I saw the language of healing twist into something coercive. Phrases like “decolonize your practice” and “center marginalized voices” began as invitations—but morphed into rules.

There was no room to push back. Questioning the narrative meant you were part of the problem. Even trauma healing became politicized. The very spaces meant for introspection and healing became echo chambers.

Instead of curiosity, we got shame. Instead of conversation, we got scripts.

The Funnel: Tier by Tier Toward Radicalism

Karlyn Borysenko’s framework Mapping the Modern Left helped make sense of something I had felt but couldn’t articulate: a tiered escalation of ideology.

From empathy to entropy: How ideological movements erase meaning and dissolve reality

The modern Left doesn’t just want change—it wants a revolution.

It isn’t about lifting up the marginalized. It’s about obliterating the boundaries that hold society together—gender, family, biology, even objective truth. In this worldview, distinction itself is oppression.

Gender is violence.
Borders are fascism.
The family is a cage.
Biology is a lie.
Truth is power, and power must be redistributed.

Language becomes fluid. Categories dissolve. Womanhood becomes a costume. Masculinity becomes pathology. Childhood becomes political property. “Liberation” now means detaching people from anything stable or inherited—be it tradition, biology, or even their own identity.

And all of this is done under a banner of inclusion.
This ideological bulldozer doesn’t advertise itself as destruction.
It wears a rainbow sticker and smiles.

But that rainbow is no longer just a symbol of tolerance. It’s become the uniform of a new moral order—one that does not believe in reforming society, but in erasing and rebuilding it from ideological rubble.

To understand how this happens, you need to understand the spectrum of the modern Left—and how it collapses into itself under the weight of its own ideology.

❝ Not all leftists are created equal. ❞
But they’re treated that way—by media, by educators, by corporations, and even by confused voters.

From Tier 1 (corporate Democrats) to Tier 5 (open revolutionary socialists), there is a clear progression:

  • The slogans get more radical.
  • The policies become less about reform and more about control.
  • The language of empathy becomes the weapon of erasure.

By the time you hit Tier 5, “equity” no longer means fairness—it means forced sameness.
“Liberation” no longer means freedom—it means obedience to the ideology.
“Compassion” no longer means understanding—it means submission to the narrative.

This is why it matters to draw clear distinctions between liberals, progressives, socialists, and revolutionaries.
Because the Bulldozer’s first move is to blur all those lines—until every rainbow flag, every DEI committee, every social justice curriculum becomes a Trojan Horse.

The Trojan Horse

Democratic Socialists and the slow march through institutions

Democratic Socialists don’t throw bricks—they shake hands, campaign politely, and quote Bernie Sanders. They reject the optics of violent revolution, but their endgame is the same: the death of capitalism, the toppling of “oppressive systems,” and the remaking of society through collective control.

Instead of storming the gates, they infiltrate. School boards, city councils, union leadership—they operate like ideological missionaries, cloaked in the language of reform. They speak of “economic justice,” “solidarity,” and “participatory democracy.” But behind the rebranded slogans is the same old Marxist blueprint: dismantle private property, weaken law enforcement, and centralize economic power under collectivist principles.

Strategy: Cultural subversion. Institutional capture.
Goal: Dismantle capitalism through political power and social engineering.
How They Show Up: Labor organizing, tenant unions, co-op movements, policy think tanks.

Example

A DSA-backed city council member campaigns on tenant rights and rent control. Once elected, they introduce proposals to defund the police, establish “people’s budgets,” and replace merit-based hiring with DEI quotas. All under the banner of “equity.”

Major Players

  • Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) – boasting over 90,000 members and growing influence in state legislatures.
  • Working Families Party – a political organization that cloaks socialism in populist rhetoric.
  • Jacobin Magazine – the glossy PR firm of soft socialism.
  • People’s Policy Project – crafting white papers that sanitize radical redistribution schemes.

These groups are the useful professionals. The respectable radicals. They are the bridge between normie liberals and revolutionary anarchists. And they often don’t even realize they’re playing that role.

The True Believers

When revolution is the only answer

Then there are the purists—the radicals who reject democratic socialism as too soft, too compromised. These are the revolutionaries who don’t want reform. They want collapse.

To them, every institution—from the police to the family to the very idea of gender—is a pillar of oppression. And those pillars must be burned to the ground.

Violence is not a last resort. It’s a moral imperative. They call it “direct action.” They organize online, use encrypted channels, and treat molotov cocktails like communion.

Strategy: Agitate. Destabilize. Destroy. Rebuild from ideological ashes.
Goal: Overthrow capitalism and traditional Western structures entirely.
How They Show Up: Riots, black bloc formations, propaganda zines, “mutual aid” front groups.

Example

The George Floyd riots were framed as peaceful protests, but cities burned, federal courthouses were firebombed, and police precincts were taken over.

This wasn’t protest. It was trial-run revolution.

Major Players

  • Revolutionary Communists of America – unflinching in their anti-Americanism and pro-collapse rhetoric.
  • Haymarket Books – publishing far-left literature on race, labor, and abolition.
  • Antifa – not a formal group, but a loosely affiliated movement of anarchists who believe violence is speech.
  • CrimethInc. – anarchist media collective advocating sabotage and social revolt.
  • It’s Going Down – a digital hub for anarchist propaganda and riot coordination.
  • Tempest Collective / Firebrand Collective / Pinko Magazine – pushing Marxist, intersectional, and abolitionist agendas under the radar.

These aren’t outliers. They set the moral tone for the entire activist ecosystem. Even mainstream liberals are afraid to publicly denounce them. Why? Because the language of revolution—phrases like “abolish the police” or “disrupt the nuclear family”—has already trickled downstream into the DEI statements of schools, nonprofits, and corporate HR departments.

Death by Distortion

What connects these factions—whether polite socialists or masked anarchists—is not just a hatred of capitalism, but a rejection of distinction itself.

They believe:

  • Truth is power
  • Gender is fiction
  • Biology is oppression
  • Order is violence

In their world, there is no such thing as “woman”—only a fluctuating identity to be claimed or discarded. There is no moral hierarchy—only power struggles between oppressors and the oppressed. There is no reality—only narrative.

And this matters, not just in theory, but in your everyday life:

  • Children are told they were “assigned” a gender.
  • Women’s sports and scholarships are being erased.
  • Therapists fear losing their licenses for affirming biology.
  • Teachers hide “gender transitions” from parents.
  • Pride parades feature kink, nudity, and communist banners.

This is what happens when Queer Theory and Marxist revolution combine: identity becomes a tool, the body becomes political, and all stable truths are dismantled in the name of liberation.

But what’s left after the bulldozer passes through?

Just rubble. Confusion.

A Chilling Parallel: Psychiatry, Eugenics, and Modern Control

We’ve been here before.

In the early 20th century, American psychiatry and genetics embraced eugenics. Under the banner of science and progress, they sterilized alcoholics, the disabled, the poor, and the “unfit.” The roots of Nazi atrocities were inspired, in part, by American policies.

What began as “science” became ideology. And then became tyranny.

Today, we see a similar pattern. Radical identity politics now overrides biological facts. Science is cherry-picked. Individual concerns are dismissed as bigotry. Dissent becomes dangerous.

A Political Religion

The modern Democratic Party doesn’t act like a political party—it functions like a religion.

Belief is required. Doubt is punished. Apostates are shunned.

Masculinity is vilified. Womanhood is politicized. Kids are taught that biology is bigotry. Therapists are scared to speak. Teachers walk on eggshells.

This isn’t about progress. It’s about power.

Real-World Consequences

  • Women’s sports are being erased.
  • Speech is being policed.
  • Gay conservatives are told they don’t count.
  • Pride Month has become a political litmus test.

Even Pride itself has been hijacked—from a movement for freedom into a vehicle for ideological conformity. As journalist Brad Polumbo put it: it’s not enough to be gay anymore—you must also be leftist.

Why I Speak Out

Some people assume I’ve “become conservative.” And maybe I have—at least compared to where I started. But to me, it’s not about labels. It’s about clarity. About being honest.

I still care about compassion, justice, and fairness. But I care about truth too. And truth doesn’t require threats.

I speak out because I’ve seen what ideological manipulation does to good people. I’ve seen friends shrink themselves, walking on eggshells, terrified to be seen as bigots.

I was there once. But I’m not anymore.

🎙️ Now, My Conversation with Karlyn Borysenko

This conversation is an eye-opener—especially if you’re just beginning to question what’s really going on behind the messaging.

Let’s get into it.

SOURCES

A Brief History of Racism – Kindle edition by Borysenko, Karlyn. Politics & Social Sciences

Karlyn Borysenko – YouTube

Democrats Are Not The Same As Communists. Know The Difference.

Her LATEST book! Debunking The Communist Manifesto: An Unapologetic Takedown of Marxist Nonsense – Kindle edition by Borysenko, Karlyn, Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrich, Moore, Samuel. Politics & Social Sciences

BREAKING: Communist Group Declares War On America

I’m gay, but I’ll pass on Pride Month – Washington Examiner

Decode The Left with Karlyn Borysenko

What Intersectionality Means and Why Racism Means Private Property To The Left

Posted on in AI, americanpolitics, beautystandards, beliefs, bigpharma, billionaires, biology, bodyimage, challenges, children'srights, civilrights, coercivecontrol, cults, deconstruction, genderideology, health, historicalfigures, history, hormones, industrialinfluence, influencers, manipulation, medicalconsequences, mental health, mentalhealth, mentalhealthindustry, misinformation, nuance, pharmaceuticalcompanies, physiology, podcast, politics, progressives, pseudoscience, scams, self-help, selfcompassion, socialjustice, socialmedia, socialmediainfluence, technology, transhumanism, trump, wellness

From ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’: The Ideological Capture of Biology and the War on Reality

Welcome back to Taste of Truth Tuesdays. Today, we’re diving into a topic I’ve wanted to explore for a while now. Earlier this month, I came across a writer on Substack who posted something that really struck me. In his piece, he used dehumanizing language ‘assigned female at birth’. While his intention may have been to be inclusive, I found it to be exclusive and downright misogynistic.

It reminded me of back in 2021, I had a few people reach out to me on Instagram, pointing out that we had shifted from using the term ‘women’ to ‘AFAB’—’assigned female at birth.’ My gut reaction was intense—what the hell is going on here? It also reminds me of when I was living in Portland, I was constantly stressed, seeking external validation, and lacked the courage to speak up against gender ideology around 2013-2015. Little did I know, it would eventually take over the world.

Now, we’re going to dive into the consequences of transgenderism and its impact on children. And here’s the thing: I’m no longer afraid of being canceled or ridiculed. Honestly, I’ve already lost all my friends. But at this point, I’ve come to appreciate who I am, and standing for truth in today’s world has never been more important. It’s worth every consequence.

How We Got Here—The Origins of Gender Ideology

To understand how we went from recognizing biological sex as reality to debating whether we can even say the word “women” in medical journals, we have to look at where gender ideology came from.

This whole mess started with psychologist John Money in the 1950s. He was one of the first people to separate “gender” from “sex,” arguing that gender was a social construct, independent of biology. Expanding on John Money’s experiments is crucial because they expose the disturbing origins of gender ideology. Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was instrumental in pushing the idea that gender identity is entirely socially constructed, separate from biological sex. However, his most infamous experiment—the case of David Reimer—reveals the dark and unethical foundation of this belief system.

David Reimer was born male, alongside his identical twin brother, Brian. After a botched circumcision, Money convinced his parents to raise David as a girl, “Brenda,” after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments. Money believed this would prove that gender identity was purely a matter of socialization. However, David never truly identified as female. He struggled with severe psychological distress, eventually rejecting the imposed identity in his teenage years and transitioning back to male. His twin brother Brian also suffered severe emotional distress, and both tragically died by suicide in their 30s—a devastating consequence of Money’s reckless experiment.

The nature vs. nurture debate is at the heart of this issue. Money’s work attempted to prove that nurture—socialization and upbringing—could completely override biological sex. Yet, the failure of the Reimer case demonstrated the opposite: biology plays an undeniable role in identity and development. Attempts to force individuals into gender identities that contradict their biology often lead to severe psychological distress.

While John Money championed the idea that gender was purely a social construct, his ideological opponent, Dr. Milton Diamond, spent decades proving otherwise. Diamond, a biologist and sexologist, conducted extensive research showing that biological sex has an innate influence on identity. He exposed the flaws in Money’s work, particularly the David Reimer case, and argued that forcing an identity contrary to one’s biology leads to immense suffering. Diamond’s work underscored the importance of acknowledging biological sex while still allowing for individual gender expression—a stance completely at odds with today’s gender ideology, which seeks to erase biological realities altogether.

Intersex conditions are often misused as a justification for erasing sex-based distinctions. While intersex individuals exist, they make up a small fraction of the population and do not negate the binary nature of human sexual reproduction. Most intersex conditions result in variations of male or female biology, not a third sex. Using intersex as a reason to eliminate sex-based language ultimately harms both intersex and non-intersex individuals by denying the reality of biological differences.

Beyond David Reimer’s case, Money’s broader work was filled with moral controversies. His therapy sessions with young children were highly controversial and ethically disturbing by today’s standards. He conducted what he called “sexual rehearsal therapy,” which involved encouraging children to engage in sexual activities with their parents or siblings as a form of treatment for various psychological issues.

These sessions were intended to help children overcome sexual anxieties or developmental disorders, but they often crossed serious ethical boundaries and caused significant harm to the children involved. The lack of informed consent, the inappropriate nature of the activities, and the potential for long-term psychological damage have led to widespread criticism of Money’s methods.

Despite this, Money’s ideas laid the foundation for modern gender ideology. His theories, though discredited by cases like David Reimer’s, were absorbed into academia and later expanded upon by activists. The result? A cultural shift where subjective identity is prioritized over biological reality, and dissent is often met with backlash.

Understanding the origins of gender ideology is crucial because it reveals the shaky foundation upon which these ideas were built. Science, ethics, and real-world consequences all point to the same conclusion: biology matters, and attempts to erase it come at a significant human cost.

His theories were later expanded by Judith Butler in the ‘90s, who pushed the idea that gender is performative and entirely detached from biology. This philosophy has now morphed into the idea that sex itself is a “social construct.”

The Trans Flag’s Creator: A Window into Gender Ideology’s Evolution

Monica Helms, born Robert Hogge, designed the trans🏳️‍⚧️ pride flag in 1999.

Genevieve Gluck wrote in Reduxx Magizine:

According to researcher Dr. Sarah Goode, CEO of StopSO (Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending), pedophiles who organize online have developed their own culture, language, and symbols. One common symbol used in pedophile forums incorporates the colors baby blue, pink and white. In her lecture, ‘Hidden Knowledge: What We Ought to Know About Pedophiles,’ Dr. Goode shows a slide of the image, and says, “The pink half represents ‘girl lovers’ and the blue half represents ‘boy lovers.’”

The color code system appears to predate the initial design of the transgender flag and can be traced back to at least as early as 1997, according to online pro-pedophile forums.

Areas in Europe that advertise child trafficking to pedophile sex tourists have used the color code: “blue curtains mean a boy child prostitute and pink curtains a girl.”

It is unclear whether Helms was aware of this correlation at the time, but when discussing the symbolism behind the trans flag in an interview in 2017, Helms stated that blue represented young boys and pink represented young girls.

Whatever the case may be, his personal history and writings reveal disturbing patterns that echo the unsettling dynamics of gender ideology we’ve seen in figures like Dr. John Money. Helms, who now identifies as a woman, has long been involved in controversial and fetishistic behaviors, even writing “forced feminization” and erotic short stories. His writings include disturbing themes, such as the sexualization of minors, notably in a short story where a man marries a young girl who ages slowly, reflecting a disturbing fantasy that came to him in a dream.

In his memoir, More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes his “bigender” identity, as an “enlightened” being who floats between multiple identities, switching from male to female, sometimes simultaneously, or in an instant. He recalls times of experimentation, especially as an adult, where he would wear clothing inappropriate for his age and faced consequences for doing so at work.

Adding a deeply unsettling layer to the conversation, Helms, who was 70 at the time in 2022, made headlines by claiming to have changed his age to 25. Given the logic behind these transformations, this age shift sparked a viral conversation, with some commenters pointing out that his partner, Darlene Darlington Wagner, would now be “just 16 years old.” This raises questions about how fluid identity could extend beyond gender and into age.

As gender ideology increasingly became intertwined with political movements, it found its way into the mainstream, especially within the Democratic Party. Initially, intellectual discussions around gender began with French philosophers whose ideas about the body, power, and identity influenced later iterations of gender theory. But these complex theories have since been stripped of their nuance and rebranded into a political dogma that now dominates much of the left-leaning discourse.

The Democratic Party, which once championed civil rights and social justice, now finds itself navigating a fine line between advocating for freedom and accommodating forces that seek to change the very definition of identity itself. But at what cost? The more corporate interests and industries gain traction in shaping these ideologies, the more the left’s original values of anti-corporate resistance become a distant memory.

Which brings us to today’s nightmare.

From Fringe Theory to Political Dogma—How Gender Ideology Took Over the Democratic Party

How did academic theorizing become an institutionalized belief system within mainstream politics, particularly in the Democratic Party? This transformation happened through several key developments:

  1. The Rise of Queer Theory in Academia – Universities became breeding grounds for gender ideology throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Gender studies departments, influenced by postmodernist philosophy, framed gender as entirely fluid, rejecting biological sex distinctions. As students trained in these theories graduated and took positions in media, education, and activism, they carried these ideas into broader society.
  2. Institutional Capture and Activism – Activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began pushing gender ideology into corporate policies, legal frameworks, and public schools. Their influence, combined with the rapid spread of social media, helped mainstream these concepts far beyond the academic world.
  3. Legal and Policy Shifts – Under the Obama administration, gender ideology gained political traction, particularly through Title IX reinterpretations that mandated schools to accommodate self-declared gender identities. This was further expanded under the Biden administration, with policies requiring federally funded institutions to adopt gender-affirming policies in sports, healthcare, and education. Let’s talk about the hilarious double standards around the billionaires funding the LGBT movement. We’ve all seen the left melting down over the influence of billionaires—except, of course, when those billionaires are funding agendas they support. An article from First Things calls out some of the big names behind the LGBT movement, and guess what? It’s showcases this massive contradiction.
  4. Big Tech and Media Reinforcement – Social media platforms, major news outlets, and entertainment industries began actively promoting gender ideology while censoring dissenting views. This created a cultural environment where questioning gender ideology was framed as hateful or bigoted, further entrenching it within left-wing politics.
  5. The Redefinition of Civil Rights – Transgender identity was increasingly framed as the next major civil rights frontier, equating sex-based protections with racial and disability rights. This shifted the Democratic Party’s platform to fully embrace gender ideology, making skepticism or critique politically unacceptable within mainstream liberal discourse.

The Shift from ‘Women’ to ‘AFAB’—Erasing Women for Ideology

So why has the term “women” been replaced with “AFAB” (Assigned Female At Birth)? The justification is that saying “women” is “exclusionary” to trans-identified females. But in reality, it’s deeply misogynistic.

Jennifer Bilek, in her Dispatches from the 11th Hour essays, has done incredible work exposing how gender ideology isn’t some organic civil rights movement—it’s a well-funded social engineering project backed by billionaires and biotech companies. She points out that this linguistic shift isn’t just about “inclusion.” It’s about destabilizing categories of sex for the benefit of corporate and medical industries.

When you erase the words “women” or “woman,” you erase women’s ability to advocate for their needs. You make it harder to talk about female-specific health issues. And you make it easier for policies to prioritize ideology over science.

The Medical and Scientific Consequences of Erasing Sex

This isn’t just an abstract cultural issue. It has real, dangerous consequences for medicine and science.

Historically, women have been excluded from medical research—for decades, studies were conducted almost exclusively on male subjects, and the results were assumed to apply to women. The problem? Women are not small men. We have different hormonal cycles, different metabolic rates, and different responses to medications.

Here are just a few examples of how ignoring biological sex in medicine harms women:

  • Heart disease: Women’s symptoms are different from men’s, and because most research was done on men, women are more likely to be misdiagnosed.
  • ACL injuries: Women are at a significantly higher risk due to differences in hip structure and ligament laxity, yet training protocols are still modeled on male athletes.
  • Medication dosages: Women metabolize drugs differently, but dosages are often tested on male bodies, leading to overdoses or ineffective treatments for women.

In 2016, the NIH finally mandated that women be included in medical research, a huge step forward. But now, under gender ideology, we’re reversing that progress by saying we can’t acknowledge sex at all.

If we replace “women’s health” with “AFAB health,” how do we effectively study and treat female-specific conditions like PCOS, endometriosis, or pregnancy-related complications?

We don’t. Because that’s the point.

The Connection Between Transgenderism and Transhumanism

As the journalist, Stella Morabito, has written:

“Transgenderism is a vehicle for state power and censorship.”

It is tyranny dressed up in the clothes of what has become the carcass of the progressive left and it seeks absolute power and control over humanity and nature.

This is where things get dark.

Jennifer Bilek and other researchers have pointed out how gender ideology is just one arm of a larger movement: transhumanism—the belief that humanity should merge with technology, that our bodies are “obsolete,” and that we should ultimately move beyond biology altogether.

Think about what the transgender movement pushes:

  • The idea that our bodies are wrong and need to be medically altered
  • A reliance on synthetic hormones for life
  • The normalization of body modification to fit identity over reality

Now zoom out: Who benefits from this ideology? Pharmaceutical companies. The same billionaires pushing trans activism are also deeply invested in AI, biotech, and synthetic biology.

Oligarchs on both the political right like Peter Thiel and on the left like Jeff Bezos. JD Vance is the co-founder of Narya Capital and invested in Amplied Bio which has announced a strategic partnership RNAV8 to support MRNA therapeutic developers. Even MAHA’s hero RFK Jr has invested in Crispr technology. Financially disclosers released in Jan 2025 reveal he holds invested in Crispr therapeutics which specialists in gene editing technologies, as well as Dragon Fly Therapeutics which focuses on immunotherapies. So, despite his history of expressing concerns against gene-editing therapy. He did state he would divest from these companies if confirmed secretary of HHS. So, Mr. Secretary, we are keeping eyes on you. 👀

I haven’t even mentioned of Elon Musk with NeuraLink and who knows what else that guy has planned. I am a big fan of DODGE and the exposure of the corruption, YET I definitely keep a skeptical eye on him as well.

The goal is not just to let people “live as their authentic selves.” The goal is to dissolve sex-based reality entirely, making people dependent on medical interventions for life. This isn’t liberation—it’s medical enslavement.

Brave New World Revisited: The Synthetic Creation of Culture

Earlier this year I read Huxley’s Brave New World, and it didn’t read as fiction, it read as he had a crystal ball into the future. In his dystopia, human reproduction was industrialized, the family unit was obsolete, and people were engineered for compliance under the guise of “progress.” Sound familiar? The push for synthetic reproduction, the erasure of sex-based identity, and the growing narrative that biology itself is a problem all mirror Huxley’s warning.

Jennifer Bilek exposes how transhumanism is the real endgame. The same corporate interests promoting gender ideology are also pioneering artificial wombs, genetically modified embryos, and bioengineered organ harvesting. This is a world where human beings are no longer conceived but manufactured. Where the natural, biological family is replaced by state-sanctioned, lab-grown “life.”

Huxley warned us about a future where people would love their servitude—where the loss of freedom would be reframed as liberation. That future is unfolding now. The question is: Are we resisting dehumanization, or are we embracing it under a new name?

The Erasure of Women Illustration by Greg Groesch

Fighting Back Against the Erasure of Women

So what do we do?

  1. Refuse to comply with ideological language. Women are women—not AFABs.
  2. Call out the erasure of sex in medicine and policy. We must advocate for sex-based language in healthcare.
  3. Expose the billionaires funding this movement. This is not grassroots activism—it’s top-down social engineering.

The fight to protect reality isn’t just about ideology. It’s about protecting women, safeguarding science, and ensuring future generations don’t grow up in a world where “female” is a forbidden word.

Sources: