You did not 'know' that you were 'cis' at age 11 lol- you learned the term 'cis' as an adult and then retroactively applied it to yourself- it's not the same thing

This 'knowledge' (which is akin to the knowledge that your arm possesses 'armness') was *socially produced* through your introduction to the discourse of 'gender identity', through your introduction to a conceptual distinction founded upon 'identifying with one's assigned sex'
Ironically, the fact that you've never felt a dissonance between yourself and your 'assigned sex' becomes evidence for the legitimacy of the distinction in the first place i.e. you assume that because *you* experience a unity of 'gender' and 'sex', this implies that others don't
By teaching young children that they *can* experience a dissonance between their 'inner selves' and their 'assigned sex', you actually invite them to 'consider what this would be like'- and this objectless rumination then becomes the 'evidence' for the necessity of transition
Since there are no actual tangible standards by which a person can verify that their gender 'matches' their assigned sex (literally none whatsoever), in the absence of such standards, the mind's process of enquiring into itself *becomes* the standard
A given vocabulary *extends* and *produce* new modes of self-understanding, new modes of conceptualisation- they don't 'unlock' knowledge already present
When the mind is given as a task an unsolvable enquiry (unsolvable because the resolution it seeks is a pure phantom of categorisation), it actually *creates* a feeling of disatisfaction, a sense that 'something is wrong'- because 'if there's no problem, why am I searching one?'
The assumption is then that this 'feeling of something being wrong' is a deeply felt part of the self that has been 'unearthed' by the act of enquiry- when it is actually something produced as a *positive effect* of that enquiry! (not 'positive' in the sense of 'good', obviously)

More from All

1. Mini Thread on Conflicts of Interest involving the authors of the Nature Toilet Paper:
https://t.co/VUYbsKGncx
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew Rambaut
Ian Lipkin
Edward C. Holmes
Robert F. Garry

2. Thanks to @newboxer007 for forwarding the link to the research by an Australian in Taiwan (not on

3. K.Andersen didn't mention "competing interests"
Only Garry listed Zalgen Labs, which we will look at later.
In acknowledgements, Michael Farzan, Wellcome Trust, NIH, ERC & ARC are mentioned.
Author affiliations listed as usual.
Note the 328 Citations!
https://t.co/nmOeohM89Q


4. Kristian Andersen (1)
Andersen worked with USAMRIID & Fort Detrick scientists on research, with Robert Garry, Jens Kuhn & Sina Bavari among


5. Kristian Andersen (2)
Works at Scripps Research Institute, which WAS in serious financial trouble, haemorrhaging 20 million $ a year.
But just when the first virus cases were emerging, they received great news.
They issued a press release dated November 27, 2019:

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.