Finally, the UK Supreme Court made a unanimous landmark ruling with some common sense. Transgender women are NOT legally women. The high court ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender. The Telegraph reported that Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”. The court delivered an 88-page ruling that explicitly stated that the “concept of sex is binary” under the Equality Act 2010.
I was told confidentially that this whole transgender push was to try to convert young people so they would never have children, and this was the real goal to reduce the population. It makes no political sense to champion the rights of 0.5% of the population and demand the 99.5% of the population must change pronouns, stop calling your mother a “mother” because it offends some of the 0.5%. No politicians would normally champion such a far-flung group and risk their career for such a tiny portion if there was NOT some ulterior motive.
The percentage of the Western population identifying as transgender is estimated to be approximately 0.5% to 1%, based on recent surveys and studies.
United States: The Williams Institute reports that around 0.5% of individuals aged 13+ identify as transgender (~1.6 million people). Youth (13–17) show slightly higher rates (0.7%).
United Kingdom: A 2020 government survey estimated 0.5% of the population.
Canada: The 2021 census found 0.33% of those aged 15+ identified as transgender or non-binary (non-binary inclusive).
Netherlands: A 2020 study indicated 0.6% of adults.
Australia: Surveys suggest 0.6–1.2%, though data is less definitive.
This is an approximation. In summary, while estimates vary, 0.5–1% is a commonly cited range for transgender individuals in Western countries, with potential increases as societal acceptance grows. This has been the goal of those who argue that reducing the population some believe is behind Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Then, there has been a major effort to tell the youth that having children is bad, and we need to reduce the birth rates to save the planet. These advocates have ZERO understanding of the implications that are significant for future population structures and economic stability. This issue alone undermines pension funds. Yes, birth rates have been declining in the West and Japan, driven by this brainwashing narrative, but also the rise in taxation that has reduced the economic prospects for the youth, so they also believe that they cannot afford children. Here’s a structured overview of a major crisis that is starting to show its teeth:
Japan
Trends:
Japan’s total fertility rate (TFR) has been below replacement level (2.1) since the 1970s. In 2023, it hit a record low of 1.26.
The population is rapidly aging, with over 28% aged 65+ as of 2023.
Causes:
Long working hours, high cost of living, and limited work-life balance.
Traditional gender roles and corporate culture that hinder women’s career progression post-childbirth.
Declining marriage rates and delayed family formation.
Government Responses:
Subsidies for childcare, parental leave policies, and cash incentives for births, but with minimal impact.
Western Countries
Europe:
TFR Averages: EU-wide TFR is 1.5 (2023). Southern Europe (Italy, Spain: 1.3) and Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland: ~1.4) are lower, while France (1.8) and Sweden (1.7) fare better.
Causes: High childcare costs, career prioritization, urbanization, and delayed parenthood.
Policies: Generous parental leave (e.g., Sweden) and subsidized childcare (e.g., France) help, but don’t restore replacement levels.
United States:
TFR dropped to 1.64 in 2020 (CDC data), down from 2.0 in 2007.
Causes: Rising costs of education/childcare, shifting priorities toward career/individual freedom, and reduced teen pregnancies.
Other Western Nations:
Canada and Australia: TFRs 1.5–1.6, similar to the U.S.
Common Drivers Across Regions
Economic Factors: High costs of housing, education, and childcare deter larger families.
Social Shifts: Greater gender equality, women’s education/workforce participation, and delayed marriage/childbearing.
Cultural Changes: Preference for smaller families, individualism, and urban lifestyles.
Policy Gaps: Inadequate support for working parents despite some progressive measures.
Consequences
Aging Populations: Strain on pensions, healthcare, and labor markets.
Economic Stagnation: Shrinking workforces and reduced consumer demand.
Immigration Reliance: The US and Europe wrongly opened their borders, believing that this would offset declines with immigration (e.g., U.S., Germany), while Japan resists this, worsening its demographic crisis.
COVID-19 Vaccines Reduced Fertility
The West and Japan face sustained fertility declines, with Japan experiencing the most acute challenges. While policy interventions mitigate some effects, the reversal of trends remains elusive, necessitating adaptive strategies for aging societies. Swissmedic did report, “Several countries have observed changes in birth rate that have a correlation in time with the pandemic and the vaccination roll-out.” Of course, every study rejects this, but that too would be expected when funding comes from pharmaceutical companies, and governments will NEVER admit a mistake. Thus, we lack the data to show a direct link, but we also have no idea if there are long-term implications from these new computer-created vaccines.
