Is a Secret Trans Lobby Putting Everyone on Hormones?

Where trans-exclusionary feminism came from

TERF refers to trans-exclusionary radical feminism: a movement that excludes transfeminine people, and trans women in particular, from the category of women and opposes their presence in women’s spaces.

As early as the 1979 book “The Transsexual Empire”, Janice Raymond portrayed trans women as men infiltrating women’s communities and appropriating women’s experiences. Today, many supporters of this position describe themselves as “gender-critical”. Except that what they criticise is not gender, but people’s existence.

In the 1970s, trans woman Sandy Stone worked as a sound engineer in the feminist collective Olivia Records. Her colleagues knew she was transgender and supported her. Angry letters arrived from outside, however, accusing the collective of “collaborating with patriarchy”. Raymond also attacked Stone in her work.

In 1977, Olivia Records publicly responded: “Sandy Stone is a person, not a problem.” While some women made music together, others searched for an agent of patriarchy among them. The suspect was doing sound engineering. The gender-critical Gestapo was operating at full capacity.

Sandy responded through publication. In 1987, she wrote “The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto”, analysing Raymond’s accusations and calling on trans people to tell their own stories in their own voices.

How “feminists” allied with patriarchy

Disputes over who was allowed to belong to the women’s movement continued over subsequent decades. In the 2010s, opposition to trans inclusion became a point of cooperation between some feminist activists and conservative organisations. By 2017, this alliance was visible on a Heritage Foundation stage.

In February 2017, the conservative Heritage Foundation hosted a discussion on sex and gender identity. Participants included an activist from Women’s Liberation Front, WoLF, and a representative of Family Policy Alliance.

Researchers describe WoLF’s cooperation with these organisations against trans-inclusive policies. Its conservative partners also opposed abortion and same-sex marriage. Shared opposition to trans rights proved sufficient grounds for cooperation.

The “pharmaceutical conspiracy” story

In a 2018 article, writer Jennifer Bilek listed wealthy donors, corporations and universities connected with support for LGBTQ people. From these connections, she constructed a story about transgender identities being introduced for money and social engineering. Supposedly, being transgender results from propaganda by evil “capitalists” and “neopatriarchy” — with which TERFs happily cooperate, by the way.

But is being transgender really the result of propaganda? We discussed whether gender can be “imposed” on someone in previous publications. Supporters of this theory nevertheless insist that trans people generate enormous excess profits for pharmaceutical companies. Shall we test that claim?

What hormone sales actually show

According to Grand View Research, the US retail hormone therapy market was worth $11.63 billion in 2024. More than 21.15 per cent concerned care during menopause and andropause. The market also includes thyroid hormones, treatment for growth hormone deficiency, infertility and other indications.

Leuprorelin is one of the drugs used to suppress puberty. It reduces the production of sex hormones by affecting hormonal signals. Medicines containing it are also used for prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. These uses are clearly stated in official prescribing information.

A drug’s total sales therefore do not show how much trans people specifically spend on it. Each use has its own indications, risks and evidence base. Attributing the entire hormone market to trans people would be an extreme simplification and distortion of reality.

The same company valued the US market for gender-affirming surgery at $2.1 billion in 2022. This is an estimate of the market for surgical services: medical teams, operating theatres and other components of care. Calling the entire sum pharmaceutical-company profit confuses different categories. Profit is calculated after expenses.

Commercial interests exist in medicine. But the existence of a paid service does not prove that its consumers were “created” to generate profit.

A shared imagined enemy

Why do some trans-exclusionary feminists and religious conservatives find common ground at all? Researchers trace how the rhetoric of “gender ideology”, widespread in right-wing Christian anti-feminist campaigns, entered gender-critical circles.

This vague term brings together different targets: trans rights, sex education, abortion and same-sex relationships. Participants can disagree with one another while opposing a shared imagined enemy.

To prove that pharmaceutical companies “create trans people”, it is not enough to put together foundation donations, hormone sales and surgery costs. Evidence of that specific mechanism would be required, and no such mechanism exists.

Cooperation between particular trans-exclusionary activists and conservative organisations, meanwhile, is visible in a public event programme. The “trans conspiracy” needed a board covered in red string, and a stiff drink. The alliance with the right only requires opening the organisers’ website.

Sources

• Emancipation NGO’s original Instagram carousel.
• Heritage Foundation: Biology Isn’t Bigotry.
• Grand View Research: US hormone therapy market.
• Lupron: prescribing information.
• Grand View Research: US gender-affirming surgery market.
• Research on anti-gender rhetoric.

With support from

Published with support from TGEU — Trans Europe and Central Asia.