top of page

Sex reassignment industry hopes to turn more girls into 'boys'

As he estimates that they will account for 75% of the market".

Interview with Kajsa Ekis Ekman about her new book on the existence of sex

"The sex-change industry is hoping to turn more girls into "boys", as it estimates that they will account for 75% of the market.


The Swedish writer outlines the reasons for the irresistible momentum this lobby has gained in a short space of time to become hegemonic and universal. "We are witnessing a patriarchal reaction that, by fraudulently using feminist language, favours economic interests, promotes the return of compulsory heterosexuality and old gender roles, and is preparing to roll back hard-won gains in equality for women."

A strategy which, as Kajsa Ekis Ekman explains, disguises itself as something it is not in order to perpetuate the same old misogyny. "The stated aim of transgenderism is laudable: to achieve the full inclusion of transgender people. More and more idealistic people are supporting it". However, what lies behind this ideology is nothing more than the erasure of women and a money-making industry. "The value of the specialist gender reassignment healthcare market was US$316 million in 2019 and will grow at an annual rate of 25.1% until 2026."

As the author never tires of repeating, this is not about human rights but about a market. "For clinics and the pharmaceutical industry, a new group of patients has emerged, which already represents almost 1% of the young population of the United States. It's an ideal group: they come on their own, demand the drug and, once they start taking it, depend on it for life. Puberty blockers alone cost $775 a month, which means that if you take them for five years, that's $27,000. Operations cost 300,000 dollars and if you add hormones, hair removal, jaw, Adam's apple or breast operations, you come to around 500,000 euros. A loyal clientele is every company's dream, but here we have a group of patients who have to continue consuming for the rest of their lives," she complains.

How to manipulate without appearing to manipulate

In her book, now translated into English and Spanish, Sobre la Existencia del Sexo, the journalist reveals the strategy that allows the transgender commercial machine to continue to grow and how it involves convincing governments to bear the costs. "Countries where poor citizens can't afford to change their sex are bad investments. So what we need to do is spread the increase in gender dysphoria so that governments pay the bills. In this way, every person dissatisfied with their body is a success for the pharmaceutical industry."

The modus operandi for further increasing business is none other than exploiting human rights as an argument. "Using this proclamation means accusing all opponents by stigmatising them for violating human rights. The UN declaration is being used in such a way that the right to health can be interpreted as the right to sexual reassignment treatment; that the right to privacy can be interpreted as the right to decide one's own sex; and that the interests of the child can be interpreted as the right to decide on interventions on his or her body", adds the author.

Furthermore, Kajsa Ekis Ekman explains that the legal changes aimed at achieving this objective "must not be presented as the result of the interests of pharmaceutical companies or clinics, but as the right of young people not to be ashamed of who they are". In other words, this is not about a child's right to safe, evidence-based healthcare, but about their right to a sex change without their mother's or father's consent. In other words, by removing the parents' right to object. Everyone knows that requiring the consent of the family or legal guardian can be an obstacle and a problem for the child.

Ekman also describes how everything is wrapped up in the neo-language of "The Pied Piper of Hamelin": "We need to talk less about surgery because people get scared when they hear the word. Instead of surgery, we need to talk about 'the right to be yourself', public debate in the media is avoided at all costs, or political pressure is brought to bear to get transgender bills passed as quickly as possible." In Sweden, she explains, "the time allowed for tabling amendments to the new law only covered the two summer months; there was no time for debate and the focus was less on operations than on reducing the suffering of a vulnerable group. The interests of the market were not examined at all. What might appear to be the cynical commercial activity of sterilising young people for profit becomes an act to save lives, promote tolerance and break gender patterns. Commercialisation becomes an act of solidarity. Capitalists create clinics with one hand and pass the bill on to taxpayers with the other, all the while claiming they are just trying to help people be themselves."

The journalist also cites interest groups such as Mermaids in the UK and Chrysallis in Spain, and the granting of millions in government subsidies in the name of tolerance and respect. "They have taken an aggressive line on minors' right to medical intervention, arguing that in other countries children are considered old enough to go to war. In other words, the fact that children are being mutilated in Sudan is being used as a criterion to determine what should be done in peacetime. In 2019, the Chrysallis organisation succeeded in getting the Spanish Constitutional Court to approve the fact that parents can have their children's sex changed, even if one of them objects. It now wants to go further by removing the requirement for the child to consult a doctor. Sweden even wants to abolish the age limit. In short, gender roles are becoming law and companies have a free hand.

When personality takes precedence over everything else, what happens to women's human rights?

Who would have imagined that feminism, which began in the 19th century by claiming the impossible, would find itself between a rock and a hard place, forced to state the obvious: women exist! And yet, today in 2022, this is the most controversial thing that can be said. So much so that J.K. Rowling herself was almost censured for it. Today, the new gender theory asserts that there is no sex, or at least that this criterion is not important: the only thing that counts is gender identity, and everyone chooses their own or is born with it. At first sight, this theory may seem liberating: at last we are free of the yoke of the body, at last we can be who we really are!

Most people accept this theory as "trans rights" without realising that it is a total redefinition of sex. All over the western world, laws are being amended to reflect this new theory, and the category of sex is being replaced by that of gender identity. A woman is now someone who calls herself a woman, and vice versa. Is this progressive? Imagine what happened a century ago, before women had the right to vote. Back then, gender identity would have been a great invention for the feminist movement. Suddenly, women would have been able to vote, divorce, inherit or open businesses by simply declaring themselves to be men! Unthinkable! The patriarchy would never have accepted such an idea. But now that we have laws that divide people up by sex and sometimes favour women (quotas, male violence, prisons, sport), do we really think it's a coincidence that the idea of gender identity came about?

Gender deconstructs biology in favour of lifestyle: is the strategy of erasing the oppression of half the population any less perverse?

This strategy would at least be fair if men were also erased, which is not the case. It is curious to note that men have had no objection to uttering the word "woman" for the 6,000 years that they have been masters of the word. The Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavadgita, the Greeks and even Proudhon defined woman as inferior to man. But for 200 years, women have been claiming their own name, and this name is beginning to have power and strength, and suddenly, lo and behold, it no longer exists! How ingenious!

The homosexual lobby has been very successful in hiding the abuse of children. When all this explodes, will those responsible for this dystopia pay the price?

I don't use the term 'queer lobby' because it's important to distinguish between queer ideology and trans ideology. Queer deconstructs everything, there are no fixed identities, everything flows, nothing is, everything is performance; trans ideology tries to establish what we are: "I'm a woman", "I'm non-binary", it's a new ontology. And that's why queer doesn't require you to change your body, it's completely innocent and free, whereas trans says that your body must be aligned with your identity. If you're female, you have to have a female body. It's much more lucrative, and since the Dutch protocol began to be applied worldwide, we see puberty being blocked between the ages of 9 and 12, then come the hormones and operations. Last year, we saw the consequences. Infertility, osteoporosis, depression... They are sterilising a generation of boys and girls simply because they don't fit into gender roles.

Just like surrogacy or prostitution, sexism cuts us up, separates the body from the psyche. Are we becoming more and more commodities and less and less human beings?

Generativism is a good word. I believe that the war against women is always finding new strategies and new forms. We've lived through two decades of hypersexualisation of women and girls, where there isn't a single part of the female body that doesn't have its own market: nails, eyelashes, skin, lips, buttocks and so on. 20 years ago, you were beautiful if you wore lipstick, today you need fillers, botox.... This leads to alienation, and many young girls react by saying "I'm not a woman"! The number of young girls who want to change sex has risen by more than 8,000% in some parts of Europe. They think that being a woman is just that: the image conveyed by the Tik Tok or Instagram networks.

What about transgender people in this equation?

The word "transsexual" has almost disappeared, and now we only talk about what the trans umbrella encompasses, which is a shame because it includes very different groups: The eleven-year-old girl who hates her body, the gay man who is looking for more success with men or who has internalised homophobia, the married man in his fifties with children who gets his kicks trying on women's knickers and the incarcerated rapist who has found a pretext to get closer to more victims. There is nothing in common between these people.

The new gender theory is full of contradictions. According to it, biological sex does not exist and sport, for example, will be divided by gender identity. But if biological sex doesn't exist, how do we know who is trans, and doesn't trans identity imply a specific relationship to biological sex? If trans women are women, why say trans? If they are women, let's get rid of the word trans right away! What's the point of being specific if there's no difference? Or is it a question of maintaining the contradiction by claiming at the same time that trans women are the most oppressed of all, but that when they rape someone, they are just any woman, according to the media, and that there is no longer any trace of trans people in the media?

Is there anything that particularly bothers you?

What annoys me the most is in sport. Women are already the second sex, we know we can't compete with men, and now we can't even compete with these 'women', we're relegated to the second rank of the second sex! In other words, the best sportswoman can no longer be number one, she will be number two, and as she receives her silver medal, next to a male winner with long hair and the name Laura, she must smile and be happy to be the loser. Because if she doesn't smile, she'll be cancelled and considered a sectarian! They're spitting in our faces, my sisters, we can't accept that! Sport should be divided by sex, not by gender or personality, because in sport it's the body that counts.

Isn't it contradictory that medicine is turning millions of people into patients by using scalpels and hormones, while psychiatrists and psychologists are prevented from diagnosing and treating the problems?

Our age is afraid of existentialism, psychoanalysis and depth. It's all slogans like "we help you be who you are". Logical when it pays off. And if they manage to convert one gay man in ten into a trans man, they've already got a client for life, who needs monthly injections until he dies to stay 'who he is', whereas the gay man doesn't need any clinics. It's conversion therapy. Turning people into clients. Mutilating healthy bodies. I've seen the estimates of the sex-change industry, which expects to convert more girls into 'boys' every year, estimating that they will soon account for 75% of the market. But only in countries where social security covers the operation, otherwise very few people will be able to pay for it themselves.

How can we make the generation of children and minors understand that feminism does not censor them, but seeks to protect them from all this?

Our greatest enemy is fear. I get so many messages, even from well-known journalists who say they agree but don't dare say anything on the subject - they don't even dare say that there are men and women! Just imagine! Well, I'm just saying that we'll see who has the last laugh. I'm a materialist and I know that it's the actual conditions of life that give rise to ideas, not the other way round. And if this new gender theory is correct, it will remain, and if it is not, it will disappear. If it is not only wrong but also harmful, it will be present in so many conflicts and bring so much pain that it will eventually provoke protests.

Traduction: Deepl



bottom of page