Novel Phenotypes
Just how deep in transgenderism was Jeffrey Epstein?
On Saturday, I reported on a conversation between renowned evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers—a man described as “one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Western thought” by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker—and the late Jeffrey Epstein. The subject: the sexual benefits of turning kids trans. The earlier the better. It’s as bad as it sounds. Probably worse, actually.
The conversation, which took place in 2018, was one of many thousands revealed in the latest batch of Epstein disclosures from the Department of Justice, some three million items in all.
It’s going to take a long time to filter and analyse these materials—emails, photographs, videos, witness statements, and more—and the task won’t be helped by the cumbersome, clumsy interface provided to do so.
But already, these documents give us a better sense of who and what Jeffrey Epstein was, and who and what he was in to. The material ranges from the mundane and banal—even the amusing, like when Epstein was dispensing dating advice (“still no pussy? be brave”) or referring to Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman as “fatty from linkedin”—to the sinister and, frankly, terrifying.
At this stage, it’s much quicker to provide a negative list of Epstein’s entanglements—who he didn’t know and where his tentacles didn’t reach—than the other way round. Scientists, politicians, models, captains of industry, podcasters, musicians and film stars; the sale of the UK’s gold reserves, the appearance of microtransactions in online gaming, high diplomacy, 4Chan and the Alt Right, experimental science and the limits of consciousness… the benefits of raw eggs…
And transgenderism.
I said “conversation” at the start of the piece, but the evidence is actually just a single email from Trivers to Epstein. We encounter the two men in media res—in the middle of things, like the beginning of a good short story—and so we have to infer what they might have been talking about in earlier and later emails, and probably in person too.
We know that Epstein and Trivers spoke at length. There’s plenty more correspondence in the Epstein files that we can also look at.
Trivers received at least $40,000 in research funding from Epstein. When Epstein fell from grace, Trivers spoke out in defence of his patron and presumably his friend, saying of his sexual assaults against underaged girls, “by the time they’re 14 or 15 they’re grown women so I don’t see the acts as so heinous.” According to Reuters, “Trivers said Epstein is a person of integrity who should be given credit for serving time in prison and for settling civil lawsuits brought by women who said they were abused.”
Trivers maintained his friendship with Epstein until his death, it seems.
The email begins with Trivers opining on the possibility of creating “novel phenotypes”—literally, new kinds of humans—through hormonal therapy and surgery. (I’ll keep the spelling and punctuation as they were; for one thing, they give a sense of the ease with which these two men talked about such matters.)
“it is very simple will compare male to female with female to male with greater molecular control over development we are increasingly capable of producing novel phenotypes more feminine men, by blocking testosterone receptors (or castration) and, at the same time, increasing estrogen production the one bocks male features, the second encourages female features.”
Trivers then speaks about why more men transition from male to female, and not female to male, and why the results are so much more “attractive” in the first instance—at least if, as a man, your “fantasy is to suck a man’s cock.”
Trivers doesn’t describe his own proclivities, but I think we can take a pretty good guess.
Trivers: “more masculine women-heavy testosterone dosage–incredible external effects, heavily bearded men, you would never guess they had a female bone in their body
“first kind-male →> female is 4 times more frequent than female – male
“the first is attractive——he is a woman with a cock, so that if your fantasy is to suck a man’s dick, otherwise you are completely heterosexual, it would be much nicer if the rest of the organism is female, then you get the best of both worlds”
Trivers continues to opine about the attractiveness of transsexual women, and how easily they make money as prostitutes.
“so many transsexual women are very attractive and easily make money which in turn they assert promotes their prostitution since they have to pay hefty fees for injections every week, but they are sexually happy.—once you have reached manhood even castration does not prevent the sensation of organism
“contrast the poor female to male versions, they are unhappy and lonely-they are men with mum-pums, the worst of both worlds
“if you like smelly masculine men, you want that hard cock that comes with the show —you do not want one of nature’s more complex and variable structures, the pum-pum-that is an acquired tasted—-and not with a man
“there are 100’s of female Trans videos and websites, i have never seen a male one”
So far so gross. A “smelly masculine man” with a “pum-pum” doesn’t float my boat, that’s for sure.
But as someone who’s been around the internet for a while, I can tell you we’re not worlds away from some of the “edgy” things that were said in the early “manosphere” three or five or seven years prior. Redpill gurus were talking openly about the blandishments of ladyboys; although they weren’t talking about creating them in a lab to specification. They were just talking about getting drunk and maybe fucking one on holiday in South East Asia—when they weren’t pimping out their girlfriends to Matt from Tinder as a means of “cultivating erotic energy from a surprising source.”
And, let’s be honest, men have theorised and joked about chicks with dicks for a long time. I remember how funny we all found “Miss Mann” in the first Scary Movie, c.2000, and before that Anna-Nicole Smith and her umbrella-handle schlong in Naked Gun: 33 and 1/3.
But Trivers goes further than that. He saves the worst for last. He concludes by noting that earlier interventions to alter biological sex are now taking place—remember this was 2018—and that although he personally would be “frightened” to be involved, others might not be. Given everything that Trivers has just said, the implication is that it could obviously be a good thing.
“BTW we are now pushing the intervention earlier–so you notice your 3-year old son has trans tendencies, so now you intervene with hormones i would be frightened to do that-but who knows?”
Who knows?
Like I said, there don’t appear to be any other messages from this conversation, before or after, so we have to work with other materials to fill in the blanks.
Was this just speculation—a couple of dudes getting spicy behind closed doors—or was it something very different?
Other emails from the new disclosures are revealing.
