Jeff Younger - A Father’s Fight: Navigating the Transgender Debate in Custody Battles

Shownotes and Transcript

Join us for an emotionally charged and revealing episode on Hearts of Oak, where we delve into the life of Jeff Younger, a man whose personal battle has become a public spectacle at the heart of the transgender debate. From his roots in Silicon Valley to a contentious family court saga in Texas, Younger shares his journey through advocacy, legal battles, and his unwavering fight for his child's future. This episode not only explores his fight against child gender transition but also touches on the systemic issues within family law, the political divide within America, and how his faith has guided him through chaos. Tune in for an episode that promises to challenge your views on family, identity, and the essence of parental rights.

Jeff Younger, a Texan, has been embroiled in a high-profile legal fight to prevent his son, James, from undergoing transgender medical treatments advocated by his ex-wife, Anne Georgulas. After a move to California, known for its transgender sanctuary laws, Younger faced new challenges when the case was sealed from the public by Judge Michelle Kazadi, sparking outrage over transparency and rights. Despite losing a political bid in Texas, Younger's case continues to draw national attention, highlighting the clash over transgender issues, parental rights, and medical ethics in the U.S.

Connect with Jeff...
𝕏                        x.com/JeffYoungerShow  @JeffYoungerShow
SUBSTACK        jeffyounger.substack.com

Interview recorded  27.9.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏                         x.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on 𝕏 x.com/TheBoschFawstin

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

Thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest, and that is Jeff Younger from across the pond.

Jeff, thank you so much for joining us today.

Pleasure to be here, Peter.

Great to have you. And any recommendation from Sam Sorbo is always worth having.

She's the best.

Call out to Sam Sorbo and thank you for making the connection.

I wasn't aware of the work you've done, Jeff, and delving into the fantastic work you've done in campaigning against the trans push, especially, and we'll get on to that.

But people can follow you at Jeff Younger Show on Twitter or X and, of course, jeffyounger.substack.com. Make sure and check that out.

And if you like Jeff by the edge, you may even want to become a paid subscriber.

So, I will leave that to you to make that judgment.

Now, maybe your background, Jeff, before we get on to the topic.

You're there over in Texas.

What's your background?

Well, I have what I would call a typical Silicon Valley sort of career trajectory.

You know, it's funny when you ask an American, tell me your background, we always start with our work.

It's one of the big differences between us and Europeans.

But I think my friends in the UK do the same thing.

It must be an Anglo thing.

I went into the Marine Corps when I was a young man. When I came out of the Marine Corps, I knew how to program because I had done programming in the Marine Corps.

And I began to work with mathematicians in the oil industry doing optimization systems for oil refineries.

And pipeline networks and things like that.

And I got highly involved in operations research, and that led me into applied mathematics, which I did for years until I was 35.

I was living in Hong Kong when I was 35.

My father had two heart attacks, and I had to return to the United States.

And I came to Dallas, Texas to take care of him to the end of his life.

I got a letter from the Marine Corps when I was in Dallas saying that I was going to lose all my educational benefits because they expire.

So, I went to school at the University of Dallas where I began studying linguistics and philosophy.

Linguistics took me into the study of mathematical logic and back into mathematics.

And from there, I had a kind of spiritual journey.

I went from being an atheist to being an Orthodox Christian.

And that was an important part of a shift in my worldview.

And I married in 2010 and had two children about a little bit before my son was two years old.

My then wife began to try to transition one of my twin boys to a girl.

And that set up a huge controversy in the state of Texas.

Eventually I was able to, it took me six years and hundreds of thousands of my own dollars of my own money.

I was finally able to get a law passed in Texas banning these barbaric procedures on children.

But my ex-wife has the courts backing her and the big donor class in America backing her. She was able to move my child to California.

And I'm now in a court in California where I will go to trial on the 28th.

If I lose that trial, my son will be castrated in November.

Wow.

It's a huge issue and one that no parent expects.

And we've had a number of people on talking about the trans agenda.

And, of course, we have had the Tavistock Clinic and the UK and the Netherlands have been the world leaders in some crazy way of pushing this.

But tell me, this happens and then you go public.

What were the first steps?

Obviously, you try and reason with someone.

You try and reason with your wife and try and work this out. And then there became a point, I guess, where you realized, actually reason wasn't getting you anywhere.

Well, what I discovered was massive institutional corruption in the court systems and in the legislature of Texas and all the way up to the governor of Texas.

What I fundamentally find, let me just describe it simply.

It took me almost a decade to figure this out.

So the Republican Party, which is largely thought of as the conservative party in America, has a kind of civil war that's going on inside of it.

The Republican Party donor class are Northeastern liberals.

They're New York, you know, in Texas, we would call them Yankees.

And we would say it exactly in that tone.

So, they're Northeastern Yankees who fund the entire Republican Party.

And they're far left liberals.

They're liberals and they're far left.

They're woke.

And then you have the voting base of the Republican Party, which is, well, in the UK would be probably considered far right.

I mean, you know, center right, you know, center right in the United States is basically a Democrat here.

So, you have a far right elector, you know, a voting base and a far left donor class.

And so there's a war that goes on between them.

And what happened is the case of my son in Texas family courts, kind of like in a rugby match.

You have the offsides rules in rugby, unlike American football, so that all the action funnels towards the guy with the ball because of the offsides rule.

Since I was one of the first cases in America, the donor class zeroed in on my case to make legal precedent, and the conservative electorate zeroed in on my case as one that had to be won. And in the case of my son, the liberal donor class clearly has won.

So when, what date was this and was, why was your case high profile?

Was this something fairly new?

I mean, what kind of dates were these?

So it's 2010.

You know, in 2012, when my son was two, she began to transition him to a girl.

My ex-wife is a pediatrician, a physician, and she used her connections with, you know, psychologists and to push me out of my own home.

I lived a mile from my children.

And the difference between me and some of these other cases is really just simply this. In family court, and I think it's true in the UK as well, parents are put under gag orders, so they can't speak about their case.

Well, I live in the state of Texas, and the state of Texas has better protections for free speech than even America's First Amendment.

So, I was put under an incredibly unconstitutional gag order, which actually makes this very podcast illegal in the state of Texas.

It bans me from speaking on political topics for life.

So, I'm not allowed to speak about transgenderism, cisgender, gender dysphoria, any of this stuff.

And I'm banned permanently from all social media.

I'm not allowed to write newspaper articles.

I'm not allowed to do interviews.

It's completely unconstitutional.

So I'm just the kind of guy that I decided in my life as a young man that I'm never going to follow illegal mandates from the government.

So, I was willing to speak out where I think other parents were not willing to do so.

Also, uh, I had connections with the Texas government and was able to lobby for laws, which a lot of people don't have the time or the money to do.

I've talked to, I mean, there are a whole load of areas I want to unpack here and understand.

I think your story is a warning to many individuals and many parents.

But the family court system, certainly in the UK, you're right, it is a closed box.

There's very little access to what happens.

And I've talked to many who have custody issues and they go through the family courts.

And it is the most horrendous experience that I've ever heard of.

Is it the same in the States where it's a closed system and there's very little understanding of what happens behind those closed doors?

Yes, and it's amazing that the electorate doesn't know more about family court.

It is the it is really the nexus for the reason that we don't have family formation anymore.

It's family courts and the laws that that they interpret and govern marriage under.

So yeah, they're closed in my case they've taken the unprecedented step of actually sealing my case which there is no constitutional precedent for.

But they they are terrified of the facts.

If the general public knew what happened in family courts in the UK and the United States, there really would be since, because it is a system predicated on the abuse of children.

It is the institutional abuse of children. It is also, in many ways, the enslavement of fathers.

For example, one of the issues in my case is I'm required to pay medical child support.

So if my child has a medical procedure, I have to pay for half of it.

Well, I'm an Orthodox Christian.

I can't pay for any amount of money towards the castration of my son.

I can't do that.

So, my future lies in a Texas prison.

I will be going to prison eventually for non-payment of child support.

Okay, I want to pick up on on the spiritual side on you as a Christian, but first of all the political side, again this is an issue in the UK that the conservatives are so afraid of and they don't want to get engaged.

And of course you've got a massive trans lobby and full-on LGBT lobby and so which is well funded and forces the agenda and the media you slot into assisting that side.

But what is the situation then politically?

Whenever you begun to engage with lawmakers, what was the response that you had?

So, the first legislative session that I attended, they threw me out of the legislature.

They were scared of the issue and literally had me thrown out of the legislature, which is illegal in Texas.

The second session, I went armed.

So in Texas, you can carry guns in the Texas legislature.

They were not able to throw me out.

They weren't able to risk it.

So, one of the advantages of having a Second Amendment is that the government fears you as much as you fear the government.

So the second session, a huge full court press from the Texas House especially came into play and they tanked the bill.

They didn't consider it in committee.

It didn't make it out.

And a tremendous amount of money was spent on that.

At that time, a big demonization campaign began against me in the media.

The third session, we made it through committee.

And the reason we made it through committee.

I'm just going to tell you is I gave donations to key people.

I mean, that's how the world works. And we got it through committee.

The other thing I did is I went public and embarrassed a number of public officials.

And I name names.

I don't have a problem naming people's names.

We don't have the libel laws that you have there.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel in America.

And I name names if it's true. And I have a legislative record.

I will name names and I'll take it everywhere.

I also created a huge movement in the rural parts of Texas.

The basic idea was.

If I can get, these are small counties where if I can just move 300 votes, I can switch a, you know, a House seat in the Texas legislature.

And I organized those people.

They actually had to put in a new phone trunk into the Texas Capitol because they kept shutting down their phones.

At one point, the Speaker of the House was recording over 300 lobbyists a day on my bill.

But that's what it took to finally get it passed in the fourth session.

So it took me that long to get this done.

And what is the origin of this resistance?

You would think, my goodness, these are conservative Christian Republicans in the House.

What's going on?

And what it amounts to is the liberal donor class in the Northeast, these New York liberals, particularly Paul Singer, just doesn't want these transgender bills passed.

People don't realize the transgender movement in the United States was started and founded by Republicans, not by Democrats.

It was founded by the Republican donor class.

The human rights campaign, you know, the yellow equal sign, it's the most powerful LGBT lobby group in the world.

That guy is the largest donor to the Republican Party.

And he controls much of the media.

He has what I would call an actual propaganda network in the media, in America at least.

And so that's what I was actually fighting.

And eventually I realized once I got to California, there was an email in my, I have a federal case as well as a state case.

There was an email that was sent to me where they, they accidentally put some of the lawyers names in the CC field instead of the BCC field.

And it was links to lawyers in a number of Paul Singer funded foundations.

So, what I've actually been fighting is a a coalition of well-funded foundations that have been run by large republican donors and that's why republicans are loath to pass these bills and it's why conservatives in the UK are loath to pass these bills their donors are fundamentally left-wing.

I mean, people would think Texas, red state, all good.

And I know it's very different when you break it down to the local level, and I get that.

But that's the prevailing understanding.

But what you're saying is, initially, you could not find Republican legislatures who were ideologically aligned to the issue that you raised.

Impossible.

Even today, I can't.

So, for example, the bill that I authored and I was pushing actually classified these procedures on children as felony child sexual abuse, which in the state of Texas could get you, would get you life in prison and under laws that are being proposed now would get you the death penalty.

So, that would completely prevent parents from taking their children outside of the state to get these procedures done.

Because, you know, you can't take your child to Thailand and abuse them and then come back to Texas.

If you do that, Texas is going to put you in jail for the rest of your life.

It's just that simple.

But they, the Republicans pulled those three sentences that classified it as felony child sexual abuse out of the bill specifically to introduce a loophole.

And so this is basically how it works in the Republican party.

And I'm pretty sure this is how it works in the UK.

You have a liberal donor class.

You have a fairly right-wing electorate.

How does an electorate official split this difference?

What they do is they pass bills that seem conservative.

In Texas, they seem conservative.

They pass the transgender bill, but they put loopholes in it. In this case, you can take your kid to Colorado and castrate your kid and bring him back to Texas.

So, then they can go to the electorate and say, you see how conservative I am?

I've passed this conservative bill.

Vote for me again.

And they can go to their donors and say, do you see those awesome loopholes I left?

You can give me millions of dollars.

That's how the game is played by so-called conservatives in our so-called democratic systems.

Explain to me the federal state response to this.

Because obviously we've seen Roe versus Wade being put back to the state level by the Supreme Court.

Yes.

Because there's nothing in the Constitution that gives you the right to take the life of a child.

So, what about the trans issue that's been rolled out?

Whose responsibility, is there a clash between the federal level and the state level?

There actually isn't.

So, I finally got one of our members of our legislature to request a formal legal opinion from the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.

Ken Paxton is the most successful attorney general in United States history.

He's won more lawsuits against the federal government and has restricted the federal government's encroachment on state rights more than anybody else in American history.

He's an amazing person.

And he's an incredibly humble person when you meet him.

You understand exactly why he's so successful.

This opinion, it took him six months to write it.

It's the longest opinion that's ever been issued from the Texas attorney general.

And what it shows is that in both federal law and Texas state law, it has always been illegal to do this to children.

And the reason is under the United States Constitution, there is a fundamental liberty interest.

That means there's a that is the highest level of protection of rights in our law.

There is a fundamental liberty interest in procreation.

You cannot take a child's ability to procreate any more than you can take a child's ability to speak.

To see, to hear, or to eat.

So it is a fundamental right of children to procreate.

If they become adults, they can make decisions.

It could be construed as legal, but it is never legal to sterilize children in the United States or in Texas.

They went so far as to even go back.

We trace our history in Texas through Spain rather than through England.

We fought three wars of independence here.

So, they went back through Spanish juridical law.

I mean I don't it doesn't matter which side you go to you know Anglo common law or you go through Spanish juridical law.

All the way back to the earliest days it's always been illegal to sterilize children.

So the fact that it's being done is a massive human rights scam.

That I can't believe that Americans at Stokemore.

Is one of the issues that no one's ever thought that actually this would become an issue?

Because I can't imagine 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, people sitting, we must pass legislation to protect children from this evil.

It wasn't on anyone's radar. Is that part of the problem?

Yeah, I mean, who could have contemplated that it would have become, that we would have so-called medical experts saying that we can remove the testicles, healthy testicles from young children.

I mean, this is just crazy stuff, right?

This is the stuff that, you know, you read of in the most gruesome, like child murder type stuff. There was no social consensus for this.

So, that's one of the things that I really learned in this, well, if you call it a journey.

It's, you know, it's been more like a war, is that our opponents, on the left, the secular left.

And they're not necessarily far left.

This is a secular left thing.

They have mastered the art of entryism.

Your audience can Google that.

They can subvert any democratically run social process.

And one of the things that they've perfected is how to manufacture scientific facts.

The transgender issue is one of the best illustrations of that.

It started with open source journals where like-minded people got together and they began to look around for marginalized groups.

They chose cross-dressers, probably the smallest and most insignificant marginalized group you can imagine.

They picked cross-dressers.

And then what they do is they began to develop fake scholarship in their open source journal. And what they do is they construct new meta theories in their own discipline.

In this case psychology and they they develop a fairly sizable little open source journal then they eventually convert it to a normal journal in el sevier one of the big publishers, and then all of a sudden they can claim that they have tons of peer-reviewed research to back up their points of view.

Then they go into courts as expert witnesses and they make law in courts.

Because as you know, under the English common law system that we both inhabit, judges make law through precedent.

Through the interpretation of law, it becomes binding on other courts.

And they know this.

So, they go into the family courts, and they use this fake expertise from these fake journals, and they create law from that.

So, they've really perfected.

It's a little bit more complicated than that, but it's a six-step process. and they've perfected the manufacturing of scientific facts.

It makes perfect sense.

If you think about it, science is a social process, and the left has perfected hacking social processes.

Now, you talk about your wife moving to California.

There may be some of the audience who aren't aware why and the reasons why that would be.

Do you want to just open that up and explain a little bit which shows the huge disparity and clash between different states?

Yeah.

What you're seeing here is part of American federalism, where we actually have states, we don't have provinces.

This was understood in the original design of our government to be a bulwark of liberty, because the idea was that you would have people with such different geographical interests that none of them could come together to create a faction to take over the government.

That was the idea.

We're going to see just how wrong that design has turned out to be here.

So California passed a bill.

I call it the transgender kidnapping bill.

They call it the transgender rights bill, child transgender rights bill.

What it amounts to is any child that enters the borders of California; if they are from a state that has outlawed transgender procedures, California will never return that child to that other state.

So, that is the basis on which I went up to the Texas Supreme Court.

To prevent my ex-wife from moving my children to California and my argument was very simple.

It's illegal in Texas.

It's a felony in Texas to perform these procedures, in California it's a right to perform this procedure.

Children can actually consent to these procedures at 12 years old in California.

Okay, without their parents consent. So I argued at the Texas Supreme Court that That this would essentially remove the protections of Texas law for my child and put him into a state that will never return him to the jurisdiction of Texas should the court orders be violated.

The Supreme Court of Texas, under the influence of the big donor class, absurdly claimed that my son was under no more danger in California, where this is an affirmative right of being chemically castrated, than he would be in Texas, where it's totally illegal.

It's a completely ridiculous ruling.

The justice's name that authored the ruling is Justice Blacklock, and the co-author was Justice Young.

And these are the leftist morons that we're basically ruled by.

So, we have a clash in America of values.

Now, what's different between California and Texas is this.

California is perfectly willing to pass a transgender sanctuary law for kids, right?

Texas is completely unwilling to become a sanctuary for children fleeing states where they castrate children.

I have tried to push for a law here in Texas to become a sanctuary state for any parent that can bring their that brings their child within the borders of Texas.

We will never repatriate that child to a state that castrates kids.

Texas will not pass that law because of the liberal donor class in the Republican Party.

So, if a law was passed like that, you would go from the United States to states at war, because if the Texas passed that, then really they would have a duty to go and rescue a child who was going to experience that.

This would turn the whole concept of the United States on its head, wouldn't it?

Well, you know, I'm a Texan, so my concept of what american governance is is very different than the mainstream concept in America.

Let me describe the mainstream concept and then I'll describe what I think is the correct way which is of course always the lone star state way.

In the mainstream american way of thinking the federal government has supremacy over the states, and federal law is always supreme over the states.

So, what would happen is the case would go into a federal court.

Under the full faith and credit doctrine, they would order Texas to return the child, because you have to follow the court order.

You have to honor the court orders of other states, right?

However, under the Texas point of view, there can be no lawful order from the federal government to violate the human rights of any citizen of the United States, in fact, of any person in the United States.

So in Texas, we believe in something called nullification.

The federal government can tell us what to do all they want, but we don't have to do it.

And our question to the federal government is very simple.

How many divisions do you have?

And you don't have enough divisions to make us do it.

And the federal government knows this. So because of that, the federal government has put probably the largest deep state presence in Texas.

The largest fusion center in the world is in San Antonio, Texas.

It's the largest intelligence fusion center.

They control, the federal deep state controls elections all the way down to the county level here.

They put money into them and make sure that they don't get people elected that want to nullify these federal laws.

But there's a huge movement to nullify federal laws in Texas again and to revive the spirit of that.

Polls show that over 80% of Texans would support seceding from, from the United States.

And that's no joke.

The federal government takes that very seriously because Texas is completely independent. You may not know this, but Texas is on its own power grid.

We are not on the American national power grid.

We have our own power grid.

We have our, we have our own army.

We have the Texas has its own air force, its own army. It even has its own coast guard. So we actually could go independent, and they well know that.

So, yeah, there is ultimately going to be a reckoning in the United States.

You know, Europe has typically solved problems like this through expulsion, if you look at its history.

You look at the warring periods, you know, in the 17th century.

America has typically solved its problems by partition.

And that's one of the reasons we have states, not provinces.

So, I think ultimately the peaceful way forward for America on these social issues is going to be something like this.

We're going to have to return to radical federalism.

Where in Texas, we're just going to have to accept that they're going to castrate children in California.

And California is going to have to accept that if you do that in Texas, we're going to give you a lethal injection and execute you.

With the, well after the Roe versus Wade, and then with this extreme, crazy individual called Gavin Newsom in California.

I wonder where it goes because if we get President Trump back in the White House and I've been to three different Trump rallies and and always one of the largest cheers has been for the simple phrase that we will not let men into women's bathrooms and that's a big cheer, but that's simply that issue is such a tiny, tiny part.

That's maybe easier to discuss because what you're discussing is so much deeper and darker.

It's darker.

It's difficult to go at.

But where kind of is it moving? Because I've seen a lot of campaigners being much, much more vocal. And I've got to know Billboard Chris, and he was in London recently, children cannot consent to puberty blockers.

And that phrase is regarded as extremist.

But where do you kind of see this going with more and more campaigners individuals, maybe you've been one of the first or beginning to highlight this.

The message really does have to get through and this has to be an election issue.

Yeah, it definitely is it at the state level.

The reason the bathroom issue resonates, it's not that it's not just the bathroom issue.

It's an emblem of a larger problem in which our elites, our leftist elites, that inhabit the agencies of the united states federal government, similar to to your tab of stock have intentionally undermined traditional social norms and have altered the relationship of parents to their children. I mean think about that.

You, you know, you sire children and nothing is more important to you than your posterity.

And the federal government is using the school system and psychologists and all these things to modify your relationship with your children.

So it's really emblematic of that thing.

And what I, what I think is really happening with Trump.

Look, America has been controlled by financial oligarchs for a long time.

I mean, you can go back into the early part of the 20th century.

I would argue back to the Gilded Age in the late 1800s.

America is completely controlled by plutocrats.

So that's not unsurprising.

I think everybody would probably see a way to find something to agree with there.

What I think has happened is on the west coast of the United States, surprisingly in California, in Silicon Valley, a new plutocratic class has arisen.

And this class doesn't have left-wing ambitions.

It's much more what in America we'd call libertarian ambitions.

And it foresees an economy that isn't run by a federal reserve, but by peer-to-peer blockchains, and where there's private banking and things like this.

So these new elites are, have realized that they can't achieve any of their commercial vision under the social systems that the left has created for them.

And so you see guys like Mark Andreessen, who's a lifelong Democrat is now supporting Trump.

Peter Thiel is supporting Trump.

Elon Musk is supporting Trump.

And so I think one way to interpret what's happening in America is you have a new class of oligarchs who are rising up to take their place and argue for their interests against the existing oligarchy class.

So, if I had to sum it up simply, it would be Silicon Valley oligarchs versus Wall Street oligarchs.

The Wall Street oligarchs have typically been aligned with America's deep state.

And we know that election intelligence services in both of our countries interfere in domestic elections all the time.

Well, the problem is the West Coast elites in Silicon Valley have quite wisely embedded themselves into the deep state.

So Peter Thiel, for example, runs Palantir. And the deep state needs that software for their terrorist and human targeting systems.

And I think this was done intentionally by the West Coast elites in order to make themselves indispensable to the state, so they can't be brushed aside.

And now that they've gained that power, they're going to begin to exercise it.

And I think that's why you saw Trump make a big move to Bitcoin.

He used to talk, talk it down all the time.

And now he doesn't because he's siding with those West Coast oligarchs.

What's happening in America, I think, is essentially you have a war between two social and economic visions among the plutocratic elite.

Can I ask you about, you've obviously, through no choice of your own, been thrown into this dark world of the transgender industry and lobbyists.

Where have you seen the catalyst for this? Because there are only a few that will be absolutely ideologically aligned to think actually this is normal to do to children.

The vast majority won't.

But sadly, just as during COVID, many people do follow blindly to orders and nudging.

But is this also an industry that's beginning to build up, that there is money in this?

Where kind of have you seen the main catalyst for something which is really madness?

Well, one of the ways you can see that this was planned, that the open source journals I talked about earlier were created around 2008.

You see the Obama administration long before anybody even knew what this stuff was.

And even before gender it used to be called gender identity disorder and they reclassified it in the dsm-5 which is our diagnostic manual for psychology as gender dysphoria.

A dysphoria is when you have a perfectly natural human variation but because of your culture you it causes you psychological difficulty, so it's not a disorder.

The Obama administration, before that even happened, forced insurance companies in America to fund transgender surgery, even before it was classified as gender dysphoria.

And this created the opportunity for the financial elites in New York, the Wall Street elites that run these insurance companies, to basically financialize this medical procedure.

In America, all medicine is financialized and securitized even.

In America, if you refuse to take a drug that a doctor prescribes, the doctor will very often fire you as a patient.

They will not treat you, because the insurance companies set specific statistical requirements for how many people have to take this drug given this condition.

And the reason is it's securitized.

The insurance company is making financial bets with the drug company.

So, everything here is a security, a financial security.

So, whenever a child walks into a gender clinic in the United States, they become about a four and a half million lifetime income stream to that gender clinic.

Because once they go on cross-sex hormones, they can't get off of it.

Lupron, the drug that is mainly used to castrate these children, is the most expensive drug sold in the United States.

And the reason is very simple.

The demand for it has skyrocketed.

It's only made in one place in the world.

So, they're making enormous profits.

So, what they've done is essentially, and this won't be surprised to my friends in the UK who have been even remotely politically aware for the last 20 years, they have essentially commoditized human misery.

And then they, once it's made a commodity, they securitize it and they make millions of dollars off it.

Which I've seen even in diabetes drugs, looking at Ozempic, I think the diabetes industry, health industry is worth over 300 billion.

And I only read that this morning, it blew my mind.

But can I ask you, we've seen, I think, six European countries begin to push back on the puberty blockers.

And the issue is zero long-term studies.

And of course, these clinics have been operating on zero data.

There doesn't seem to be the pushback in the States despite there being no data and then how is any medical procedure carried out if there is no data to back it up.

Is that still the case in the US that this has been pushed forward and the wakening up in terms of puberty blockers with no data that hasn't happened yet in the US?

It hasn't happened, it's not going to happen.

There there's a couple of reasons for it, first of all these uses of for example the drug Lupron for puberty blocking these uses are considered experimental uses.

You're not, no physician in America is allowed to prescribe an experimental use of a drug to a child, because experimental uses require informed consent.

That's the first thing.

The FDA issued a letter giving special privileges for the use of these puberty blocking drugs for kids, so that they can use experimental uses on children.

My representatives at the federal level sent a letter to the FDA asking them why they changed their own ethical guidelines for this one use of a drug.

And the FDA wrote a letter back saying that they were going to refuse to respond.

So, one of the problems we have in the United States, and I think it's because, honestly, because we copied the UK in the early part of the 20th century, Wilson and FDR wanted an English-style civil service.

And we have agencies that run the government.

And what I've discovered the hard way with my son, fighting for my son, is that elected officials are not in control of the government.

The government is completely run by unelected bureaucrats who are largely captured by the industries that they regulate.

So in other words, the government is essentially controlled by the Wall Street plutocrats.

And so what you have here is a situation where a big propaganda campaign was initiated by the Paul Singer wing of the plutocracy to make transgender children a kind of liberal shibboleth.

A proposition that defines you as a liberal.

And liberals are uniquely vulnerable in America to this kind of propaganda.

Leftists, the characteristic of the leftist is basically this.

They take their opinions not based on facts or reasoning.

They take their opinions based on what they think other people will think of them if they have that opinion.

And it's what Paul Gerard you know when he diagnoses the results of envy and what he calls mimesis where people copy the desires of other people.

Leftists are uniquely vulnerable to this it's a psychological disposition in the leftist mind and it's exploited heavily in the United States.

So, it's gone so far at this point that California for example has made these transgender procedures enshrined as a right.

Let me say that again, enshrined as a right in their state.

It's been made a formal public policy of the state by the legislature, meaning no court can ever overturn it.

So, it's not going away anytime soon in the United States, no matter what the facts show.

And you're right, there have never been facts that show that these procedures are effective.

In my 2019 trial, where I won 50-50 custody and no child support.

And a check on all medical procedures, and the Texas judges got together and then systematically stripped me of all parental rights instead of giving me 50-50, I brought in a guy named Dr. Levine, who ran the first gender clinic in the 1970s at Johns Hopkins University.

And what he testified to is they shut their own clinic down after four years, because all their data showed they were harming patients.

They knew that this stuff was not only not efficacious, they knew that it was harmful back in the seventies.

This was done as a specifically for social purposes.

This is, this movement is not being run for the benefit of children or some kind of human right.

It's being run because it destroys the traditional family and our traditional notions of sexuality.

No, 100%.

Has the response from media changed?

Have you seen a change in terms of media outlets being willing to engage this or not really?

Not really.

There's a blackout on my case in mainstream media.

It's really showed me the importance of independent media like yourself.

You have the ability, it's kind of like small theaters.

I like live theater.

A small theater can take risks that big theaters just can't take, and you'll get the best and most interesting theater at the small theater houses.

It's similar with independent media.

You can say what you want, you'll be holding to no one, and you can address any issue the way you like.

That is unfortunately not the case in the mainstream media, even mainstream conservative media.

So remember, the big donors are liberal, and they fund Fox News.

They fund all these people.

So there's a blackout on my case, and there always will be.

Can we finish on, you mentioned you're a Christian, and can you let us know kind of how that has affected you?

Because I think if an individual goes through this, and if they have no belief in God actually with them through the process, it could be very difficult, not just on this issue, but any issue.

How has your faith been important to you, essential to you in this fight?

Well, look, I think that, and I spent most of my life as an atheist, so I'm a convert to Christianity.

So for me, this has been a conscious thing.

And I think in some sense, it's easier for converts to talk about it because for us, it was a conscious process that we were not born into it.

When did you become a Christian?

How long ago?

2004.

Okay.

Yeah.

And it creates a way that you can articulate things, maybe, that people who are born into a Christian culture don't understand.

And I also think converts value this because they once didn't have it, and they know what life was.

But I think this is very simple.

Human suffering has no meaning without God.

There is no meaning to human suffering.

You know, if I had to describe it so that secular liberals in the UK could grasp this, I would say imagine a trial, a criminal trial, and let's say Mr Smith is accused of shooting Mr Jones and the prosecutor puts Mr Smith on the stand he's in the dock and he asks him why did you shoot Mr Jones.

And Mr Smith says something like this: well, you know it all It all started with pig farmers up in the north of England.

And I had bangers and mash, and I had a breakfast.

And this, through a long, complicated chemical process, resulted in my brain producing certain kinds of amino acids, which led to electrical connections in my brain, which ultimately culminated in a twitch of my right finger, which again initiated a complex chain of chemical reactions, which led to a piece of metal being expelled from a tube.

Which then entered Mr. Jones's body and interrupted his life processes.

Like that is not what we mean when we say, why did you shoot Mr. Jones?

But that is the secular answer.

That you're just a bundle of chemicals and, you know, vibrating molecules, and that's the only answer you can give.

What we want to know is your motive.

Your end.

Your purpose.

And ends and purposes are dependent on a transcendent God.

There really aren't, without a God, all you're left with is our artificial causes.

And you can't ask questions about human motives, right?

So similarly with human suffering, if I didn't have a belief in God, if I wasn't a Christian, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have been able to endure this peacefully.

I remember sitting in a deposition and a carefully crafted series of questions were being used that were actually developed.

I later learned were developed by a psychologist to cause me to act out violently in the deposition.

This is the kind of stuff that's been deployed against me.

And I'm sitting there calmly reciting the Jesus prayer.

And I was able to suffer it simply because I know that there's a transcendent purpose beyond this suffering.

My future is probably in a prison because, as I told you, I'm not going to use any of my resources to fund these medical procedures on my children.

Well, in the United States, medical expenses are considered child support.

And if you don't pay child support, they'll put you in prison.

In Texas, it's a state jail felony.

So my future is in prison, because I'm not going to use any of my resources to hurt my son.

How could someone endure suffering like that or look forward, even look forward to witnessing that they will stand against injustice like that without a belief in a transcendent purpose?

Religion is not some optional thing.

I actually think it further that the propaganda.

That has so destroyed Western countries, this leftist propaganda, is only made possible, because of a lack of a transcendent worldview.

When you strip people of a morality, it turns out that morality, a moral system, is necessary for understanding the physical world.

It's because, it's very simple, you can't understand human motives without reference to a transcendent purpose.

Now they try to use evolution as a transcendent purpose, right?

But that's, that's a purpose which recognizes all sorts of evil things that we all know are wrong.

So, it doesn't work as a transcendent purpose.

And the, the stripping away of the traditional religious cultures in Europe and America have become the basis for the destruction of everything we see.

And the reason I can, I will be able to endure sitting in a prison so that I don't have to harm my son is, because I have prayer.

I can fast. I can still do good works even in prison.

And in the future, I have a future beyond this life that is more important than the one I'm living now.

Jeff, I really do appreciate you sharing your story.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you that the West have rejected any concept of truth. And truth is a person.

His name is Jesus. And when you reject truth, absolute truth, you reject Christ and into that vacuum comes anything and everything.

And that's why we've seen the collapse of societies all across the West.

Jeff, thank you so much.

I'd encourage people to go and sign up.

There was a little quote from one of your sections on your sub stack, and it was, Don't stand on the train tracks of history yelling, stop at the rushing locomotive and modernity.

Hijack the damn thing and take over, subscribe.

and I'll leave that with our viewers that I know them they will have been really interested in your story.

And I know the people will want to go and look at your Substack, Jeff younger.substack.com.

Make sure and click on it follow, Jeff if you aren't already doing.

So, and do you consider subscribing?

So Jeff, thank you for giving me your time today.

Thank you.

Peter has been wonderful talking to you.