Transgenderism: Salesmanship and buyer's remorse

Several victims of "gender-affirming" medical procedures express remorse over their decision and unhappiness and anger over how they were conned into these irreversible changes.

https://substack.com/@madfem/note/c-282636452?r=3fzt75

In that video one detransitioner speaks in incredibly sad terms about what she experienced (1m20s):

<blockquote>"I really feel like some people in the trans community and the transmedicalists and the doctors really really target the most vulnerable of us.

I have Borderline Personality Disorder and I know for a fact this is the reason for my transition.

It's a very difficult mental illness, and one of the core features is not having any sense of self or identity - and my doctors knew this.

I wasn't happy as a girl - so that meant I was a boy and I was trans.

[Breaks into sobs] So I just took the cure that was handed to me.

I was told that I was being given a cure and I wouldn't want to kill myself any more.

IT WASN'T TRUE.

There are so many mental health disorders that make you hate your body.

The solution isn't to change your body but to fix your brain.

I just don't want anyone else to ever feel that way. 

[Breaks into sobs] I lost my voice, I lost my chest, I don't know if I am ever going to be able to have kids."

</blockquote>

So very, very sad, the permanent, irreversible harm that has been done to those young people.

Once a woman's breasts have been sliced off, they are gone for good. Can't change that.

Mutilation is not care

Currently it is common to hear that the mutilation of body parts simply because someone believes they were "born in the wrong body" is "care".

What a horrible abuse of terminology!

No, they weren't "born in the wrong body."

What a nutty statement!

Rather, they have a severe mental illness.

We should not "affirm" severe mental illness.

Let me emphasize a key distinction.

Some women, for example, suffer from breast cancer.

To ensure that that cancer does not spread, they indeed need mastectomy.

Here the purpose is to prevent the spread of cancer.

That is a totally different justification from breast removal to "affirm an identity."

Cancer is a physically observerable condition.

"Gender dysphoria" is the result of a mental condition.

People who think they were "born in the wrong body" should be given no more credibility than those who think they are Napoleon Bonaparte or Jesus Christ.

============

To hear how much harm powerful hormones can do to young people, listen to this horrifying five-minute video:

https://substack.com/@madfem/note/c-282636452?r=3fzt75 ,

where one young woman says tearfully "I lost my chest." That is what doctors have done.

American politicians and nuclear war

Consider the escalations that have already occurred, and those that are now explicitly threatened by Russian and Ukrainian leaders:

"Putin officials threaten to escalate attacks after Moscow oil refinery blown up in Kyiv drone strike" | The Independent 

"Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned of “massive coordinated strikes on a regular basis” in response to the [Ukrainian] strikes, which hit [Moscow’s] oil refinery for the second time this week."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-live-putin-trump-zelensky-g7-news-b2998092.html

Now let's see what Ukraine has said:

"Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that “if Ukraine burns, your Moscow will burn” (12:44) as he ramped up his rhetoric after overnight drone strikes on the Russian capital (9:55, 11:41, 15:00)."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jun/18/ukraine-russia-moscow-strikes-nato-defence-ministers-hegseth-rutte-latest-news-updates 

Hello?

You don't need a Ph.D. in international relations or a codeword clearance to see that the possibility of this escalating yet further is, to put it mildly, too great for comfort.

Suppose Russia does launch devastating strikes on Kiev, and Zelensky follows through with his threat of devastating strikes on Moscow (does he have that capability? I don't know, but he says he does).

So then how will Russia respond?

They certainly have the capability to drop a nuke on Kiev.

And then what?

Both France and England have nuclear weapons. Would they use them?

Would Ukraine's supporters in the U.S. demand that America responds in kind? I'm sure we would hear that talk from some.

In my view, it would have been far better if 

1. America hadn't propped up Ukraine to the extent it has, 

which would have led to 

2. Ukraine being forced to accept the terms for peace that Russia has been offering for years. 

But oh no, in the minds of the decision makers that was something which had to be avoided.

The huge problem is that Ukraine's supporters in the West have allowed such escalation scenarios to become all too plausible.

With their comparisons of Putin with Hitler, Russia with Nazi Germany, and the 2020s with the 1930s.

=≠=======

 

Also, an escalation by the UK:

"Biggest ever UK drone package for Ukraine announced, including more than 120,000 drones, supplying cutting-edge battlefield technology"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-biggest-ever-drone-package-for-ukraine-to-push-back-putin

Does that make the UK party to the war?

If those UK-supplied drones start hitting critical targets in Russia, will Russia retaliate against critical UK facilities?

===========

The overall perspective is that some countries in Europe, and to some extent the United States as well, are in a de facto state of war with Russia, which has risen to the point where damaging strikes are being made on the Russian homeland. At what point will Russia decide to strike back? Have the relevant leaders seriously considered this question?

==========

For how the "Grey Lady" minimizes the concern over where this could lead, see its 2026-06-19 article 

" ‘Game Changer’? Too Soon to Tell. But Ukraine Flexed in Striking Moscow." - The New York Times https://share.google/bf3shtTOgxccCPSjr

"Mr. Zelensky [secured] a statement of “unwavering support” from the Group of 7 industrialized nations during a summit in France."

Note how that confirms that this war is indeed a war of European nations against Russia.

This exchange of strikes shows how the offensive capabilities of each side overmatch the other sides defensive capabilities. But Russia still has the ultimate card to play. No one should push them into playing it.

More from the NYT article:

"this week’s developments reinforced a growing sense of confidence in Kyiv that it would be able to force the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, to the negotiating table"

Force Putin to the negotiating table, or proke Russia into the use of nuclear weapons? That the NYT won't point out this alternative only proves how they are hiding key possibilities from its readers.

To borrow a metaphor: If you poke a bear enough, it will claw you. People should not ignore that possibility.

See

"Putin formally lowers threshold for using nuclear weapons" | PBS News 

"The new doctrine allows for a potential nuclear response by Moscow even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-formally-lowers-threshold-for-using-nuclear-weapons

=========

Daniel Ellsberg's documentary "An Ordinary Insanity":

https://youtu.be/xofgctP2hTY

===========

2026-06-26 update 

"Russian hawks urge Putin to escalate war, drop US talks as Ukraine strikes deep" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-hawks-urge-putin-escalate-war-drop-us-talks-ukraine-strikes-deep-2026-06-26/

"Calls for tougher measures are not new. Nationalist voices have long pressed for full mobilisation, ‌the destruction of Kyiv's government quarter, the assassination of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and strikes on European drone factories. Some hawks have even called on the Kremlin chief to consider using tactical nuclear weapons.

...

"Why are we not using nuclear weapons, which our forebears developed and stockpiled with the full might of the nation precisely for this purpose?" [a Russian] asked."

==========

John Mearsheimer wrote about this on 2026-06-13

https://open.substack.com/pub/mearsheimer/p/what-nuclear-taboo

Prof. Mearsheimer contends that the West has forgotten the lessons of the Cold War, specifically the risks of backing a nuclear-armed great power into a corner. He argues that Western attempts to "knock Russia out of the ranks of great powers" through sanctions and military support for Ukraine have been extremely provocative and dangerous.

Updated in this 2026-06-15 video 

https://youtu.be/7MrVcpz5a0o

The Nuclear Deterrence Argument: Karaganov argues that Russia is under pressure to restore deterrence against the West. He posits that a limited nuclear strike on European targets could force the West to back down, claiming the United States would not risk a full-scale nuclear war in response (0:07-0:42, 4:52-6:07).

Potential for Escalation: Both Mearsheimer and Karaganov agree that the escalation ladder would likely move from conventional conflict to a limited nuclear warning. Mearsheimer expresses concern that Western leaders fail to provide a clear strategic objective for a potential war with Russia, making the current trajectory dangerous.

========

John Mearsheimer spends the first 10 minutes of this July 1, 2026 interview emphasizing the risks the West is running in aiding Ukraine in striking deep into Russia:

https://youtu.be/tc1BrkihWyI

He views the risk as very, very real.

This is not just great power competition. This is direct physical attack on the Russian homeland. How long will it be before the Russians retaliate?

 

The Orwellian world of transgenderism

Notably, "gender-affirming care."

Hello? Cutting off healthy male's balls, or women's breasts, is care?

Hello, George Orwell.

This is pure Newspeak.