Follow up about the Disruption of Speech at Catholic U

I hope each and every one of you reading this had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

This post is a follow up from my last post to let you know about my most recent Federalist article which I co-authored with Robert Oscar Lopez.   You can read a full account of our experience by clicking here.  (Just so you know:  in case the photo and headline strike you as a tad radioactive, we did not pick them!)  The Federalist piece goes into some detail about our speaking engagement at Catholic University being disrupted by protesters.  You can see them chanting in the clip below, as the room cleared out:

Here’s a brief synopsis of what Bobby and I had discussed:

Bobby spoke about the new Children’s Rights Movement.  It is building awareness of child trafficking, particularly through abuses by the growing industry of artificial reproductive technologies and exploitative and lucrative adoption industries.  Unfortunately, those lobbies are increasingly selling services that result in and depend upon the deliberate separation of children from their biological parents.  Social scientists have used various statistics to claim that it doesn’t matter for children if you separate them from their biological parents.  But it does matter to children, and it matters deeply. We know from millennia of history and literature and experience that children suffer a primal wound from such separation, even when their caretakers provide good homes.  They develop coping mechanisms, to be sure. But that doesn’t make it right.

So speaking up for the right of a child to know their origins is something those lobbies, as well as the LGBT lobby, wish to suppress. I followed Bobby’s talk with a presentation about how to speak out in a culture of fear.  “Political Correctness” is a euphemism for the silencing tactics of power elites who are pushing power-consolidating agendas.  It works by isolating and marginalizing anybody who might get in the way of those agendas, through smears and threats and psychological manipulation. I think it’s critical that each and every one of us build awareness of those tactics — as well as an understanding of our own human weaknesses — so that we can keep ourselves and our minds free.  Free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. If we don’t push back, we will lose it.  The protesters will lose their freedom as well, though, sadly, they don’t realize that.

Two major ironies here.  First, that Catholic University was under attack for being, well, Catholic.  Second, the protesters gave a live demonstration of my presentation.

On Sex Change Regret, Part III: Dr. Money vs. Dr. McHugh

You may have come here from Drudge Report today, which linked to my Federalist article Trouble in Transtopia.  So this seems like a good time to post again.  This time, a few words about physicians.

John Money (1921-2006) is perhaps the doctor most responsible for promoting the idea of surgical sex changes.  He was widely known as a pioneering sexologist, and was responsible for founding of the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins University.  Below is a documentary of Money’s most famous case today, the tragedy of David Reimer.

Money was so passionate about his gender identity theory, that he jumped at the chance to put it into practice on a baby.  David Reimer (born Bruce, 1965-2002) was an identical twin whose penis was destroyed by a botched circumcision.  Money convinced David’s parents to raise him as a girl.  It didn’t work and the story is thoroughly tragic.  Biology trumped the social experiment, as biology always does in the end.  Dr. Money had kept pushing for surgery to construct a vagina, but David (“Brenda”) resisted, and his parents decided to stop seeing Dr. Money.  They soon after told him he was a boy.  At that point, by the time he was 14, David then dropped all of the charades Money foisted upon him.  But before he was 40, he committed suicide.  You can read David’s story in John Colapinto’s 2001 book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who was Raised as a Girl.

There are physicians who are skeptical of such blind passion for gender reassignment surgery, though you wouldn’t know it as you watch the transgender project go into media hyperdrive these days.  One of the skeptics is Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist responsible for shutting down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979.

McHugh wrote about his experiences at Johns Hopkins in a 2004 First Things article entitled “Sexual Surgery,” and then recently reiterated his arguments in an op-ed this past summer in the Wall Street Journal. If you’re interested in this topic, it’s worth checking those links.  Here’s an excerpt:

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

In Britain, Az Hakeem was almost as concerned as McHugh, writing in a 2007 article entitled “Trans-sexuality: A Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes,” that transgenderism was a “delusional disorder.”  Having come under extraordinary pressure from trans advocates, Hakeem has pretty much recanted that view since then. Nevertheless, he apparently still runs a psychotherapy program in a clinic that allows those who are pondering surgery to speak in a group setting with post-operative patients who express regret about their decisions.  In this way, he hopes to make sure that anyone considering surgery has a chance to talk it through as much as possible before making irreversible life-altering decisions to refashion or remove healthy body parts. In reading Hakeem’s website, particularly the FAQs, it’s clear that he is hyper-sensitive to the concerns of transgender activists who have in the past called him “transphobic.”

Since the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association both seem to work in lockstep with the transgender lobby today, they will likely continue to place increasing pressure to silence and discredit any psychiatrist who questions surgical sex, as does Paul McHugh.  If they have their way, you’ll likely see the story of David Reimer get suppressed and then see social experimenter John Money get resurrected as some kind of a hero.  In the meantime, more psychiatrists like Az Hakeem will be nudged and pressured to get with the trans program.


My article “Trouble in Transtopia” is on the Drudge Report today

So, if my Federalist article is linked on Drudge, I suppose I ought to blog about it, right? This is just a short post to note that.  You can click on my article here:  “Trouble in Transtopia: Murmurs of Sex Change Regret.  I hope you’ll read it.

It’s fantastic to see the subject of sex change regret getting exposure on a high traffic site like Drudge.  A sense of confusion about one’s body is no doubt a horrid thing for anyone to have to go through.  But how much worse it must be if you went ahead with irreversible elective surgery like that and then lived to regret it?  And some regret it immediately after surgery.  It must be absolutely devastating, no matter the begging and the consent that may have preceded it all.

And though we’ve been led to believe that it’s “rare,” it’s such a horrid thing that people should be allowed to discuss it, no matter how rare.  But I suspect it is not as rare as we’ve been led to believe.  Because as far as the transgender lobby is concerned, such things are not supposed to be discussed in public.  And since the trans-agenda is protected through most media outlets, through Hollywood, and through academia, there are precious few places to find opposing views. In fact, other points of view tend to be squashed on internet forums too, as I discuss in my article.  So there are plenty of roadblocks to knowing what’s really out there.  I suspect there’s much festering beneath the surface.

Until next time . . .

On Sex Change Regret: Part II

Consider the case of Matthew Attonley in the clip below.  There was a lot of media hype in Britain about his “transition to female” but now he wants the National Health Service there to reverse it.  You can also click here for a link to the story in a British paper.

I don’t think “gender identity dysphoria” is being effectively treated at all.  (Did I hear that right from this confused young man when he recalls how he felt the need to “get [his] boobs”?) No, surgery and hormones don’t “treat” this condition. The condition is being cultivated.  The media and Hollywood are cultivating it and seem blithely unconcerned about any of the underlying psychological reasons for it.  Individuals who are being hyped as examples — increasingly children — are being used as guinea pigs in a social experiment in which we are all, in fact, subjects.

Let’s think this through.  Transgender law requires that we all accept the false premise that our sex was “assigned” to us at birth.  Not identified, but “assigned.” In other words, your biological maleness or femaleness is not real.  According to this scheme, your physical sex is simply in your head.   When what’s in your head doesn’t “match” your genitalia, that’s called gender identity dysphoria.  When it “matches,” well there’s a fairly new and highly weaponized word for that:  “cisgender” which simply means you accept your body as is and don’t perseverate about your biological sex. In the trans scheme of things being “cisgender” means you are “privileged.”  Hence, the laws about everybody’s sexual identity (through the catchphrase “assigned at birth”) must be changed for the sake of “equality.”

If this is written into law across the board — and it already has been in many states and municipalities — we will eventually have no choice but to discard our sex as a legal distinction of who we are. Each and every one of us.  The implications are vast for legal recognition of motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, families, and, in fact, all human relationships.

The gender dysphoria craze illustrates the depths of dysfunction that our society has fallen into.

To begin with, it’s a grand fallacy to try to get the world to go along with an internal perception of who you think you are when that perception conflicts so directly with physical reality.  But the main fault lies with a tiny elite who are intent on enforcing the notion that human biology is meaningless, and that sex differences ought to be erased.  The snake oil of gender identity is the vehicle by which our biological differences are written out of law.  In that way mothers and fathers are written out of law, as is the family.  This does great violence to children.

And, in the meantime, it does great violence to those who bought the snake oil, used it, and then woke up to find themselves physically and psychologically mutilated.  As did Alan Finch. 

Alan Finch  decided to transition from male to female during his 20’s, a resident of Australia.  At 36, Finch told the Guardian newspaper in a 2004 interview:

“transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists . . . You fundamentally can’t change sex . . . the surgery doesn’t alter you genetically.  It’s genital mutilation.  My ‘vagina’ was just the bag of my scrotum.  It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo.  What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused.  It’s like phantom limb syndrome.  It’s all been a terrible misadventure.   I’ve never been a woman, just Alan . . . the analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it’s a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.”

Alan went on to sue the Australian gender identity clinic, at Melbourne’s Monash Medical Center, for misdiagnosis.  The reaction from the transgender community was fast and furious and abusive, particularly in the discussion forum.

Next time, I’ll provide a couple of links on what some physicians have to say.

On Sex Change Regret: Part I

Walt Heyer, blogger at He lived as woman for many years and de-transitioned back to living as a man.

When people change their bodies they tend to do so in the hopes of changing their relationships with others. Think about it.  In a real sense, elective surgery is not so much about self-perception as it is about our expectations of others who do the perceiving.   Body modification is usually based in a wish to be perceived a certain way, in a certain light.  And, guess what?  It generally doesn’t work out as we might expect. Social affirmation is not going to be unanimous. Simply looking in the mirror can be a major wake up for some as well.

Consider just plain old elective cosmetic surgeries. There’s loads of regret for that.   A recent poll revealed that a full two-thirds of Britons who had cosmetic surgery regretted it.  People in that situation — as well as untold numbers who want their tattoos removed — have plenty of places to go on the internet to look for remedies and support.

But what about people who regret sex change surgery?   In those tragic cases, there are precious few places to go for help.  It’s a politically incorrect topic, one that transgender activists do not want discussed publicly.  They police and suppress much of the conversation on sex change regret, and you can read a comprehensive discussion of that in Sheila Jeffreys’ 2014 book Gender Hurts.

Reddit censorship of people who wish to discuss de-transitioning is discussed on this blog called Third Way Trans.  So you might view my post today as a modest compendium of links from around the internet for those interested in this topic. (I’ll have more to follow.)

Walt Heyer, pictured above, has a particularly compassionate outreach to regretters online, which is possibly why he is a target of scorn by transgender activists.   Heyer had sex reassignment surgery decades ago, and lived as a woman for many years.  He came to regret it so much that he now offers a blog called and as outreach to others who are struggling and in need of support.  He has authored three relevant books:  Paper Genders, Gender, Lies and Suicide, and Trading my Sorrows.

On youtube you can find some videos — examples here, here, and maybe the last five minutes here —  of young and old who go public to talk about their decision to de-transition.  An interesting thread through these examples is all are extremely apologetic and tentative in “coming out” as de-transitioners — as though they have to justify and explain their decision or their feelings in ways that don’t set off the fury of transgender activists.   Interspersed with those videos are “education” videos, put up by transgender activists who offer their line, which is the claim that regret is rare.

You can read about some prominent cases of regret at this link (which ironically was put up by a transgender advocate.)  Those cases include the tennis star Rene Richards and the sportswriter Mike Penner.  Rene Richards is quoted as saying “If there was a drug that I could have taken that would have reduced the pressure, I would have been better off staying the way I was – a totally intact person.”  Mike Penner, a sportswriter for the Los Angeles Times spent a year living as a woman and then completely de-transitioned back.  A year later he ended his own life.  Another famous case was Charles Kane (born Sam Hashimi), the millionaire property developer in Britain who changed his mind after living as designer “Samantha Kane.”

Perhaps one of the most heart-wrenching stories of a female-to male transgender is that of Nancy Verhelst in Belgium, who felt the surgery turned her more into a “monster” than a man.  She was so distraught that she opted to have Belgian doctors put her to death.  And because of lax euthanasia laws there, they did just that.

Regret won’t be going away.  Those who change their minds tend to do so quietly.  But despite the recent media fawning over the transgender agenda, there have been rogue headlines of regret, especially in Britain.  A British man who regrets his surgery very recently claimed that there has not been enough psychiatric counseling of patients and he is now pressing the National Health Service to reverse his surgery.  Britain’s youngest patient – much touted in the press for his courage in changing to a female – has also spoken out.   Bradley Cooper begged his family for years, then finally got the go ahead to switch at age 17.  But after a year of living as a woman he found the whole thing “overwhelming” and cancelled the surgery.  Another story appeared on Huffington Post here.

Scattered throughout the web are blogs such as or with posts such as “I’m a Post-O p MtF who is Back in Therapy to Reverse this Mess and Obtain a Phalloplasty.”  Some of the most critical of sex change surgery are those run by radical feminists who see transgenderism basically as a patriarchal scheme, dominated by men who claim to be female but are hyper-aggressive and hyper-masculine in spirit.  Those sites include the hard-hitting but light-hearted and The Dirt from Dirt.  Then there’s the resource page on trans-regretters on the British Coalition for Women’s Equality.  Radical feminist Julie Bindel writes about it here.  Also check: I’m Not Transgender Anymore and M2F2M.  The latter includes a long list of blogs on the topic.

Even a few voices who are firmly within the transgender community have expressed concern about the hostile reaction of the community to the growing number of regretters in recent years.  These include an Australian transgender activist who wrote in March 2014 a report: “Coming Trend within the Trans Community, including Doubts and Regrets:”  which describes it as a growing problem for the community and admits that most who de-transition do so “in stealth.

But I suspect we are going to see more regretters coming out of the closet in the future.  This is not an iceberg that can be drowned.

Bookcase: Gender Hurts, by Sheila Jeffreys


Sheila Jeffreys, author of Gender Hurts

I recently delved into Sheila Jeffrey’s’s book Gender Hurts:  A Feminist Perspective on Transgenderism.  Jeffreys is a professor at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne in Australia. She identifies as a radical feminist.  I certainly don’t.

However, as I mentioned in my last post and in my August 27 Federalist piece here, her perspective overlaps with mine when it comes to the phenomenon of “gender identity.”  She sees the current obsession with gender identity as harmful.  So do I.  She views the transitioning of children as a human rights violation.  So do I.  She recognizes that sex change surgery is a form of genital mutilation.  So do I.  

She also recognizes that transgender law threatens to dismantle women-only spaces that are critical to helping women feel and be safe.  It hurts people within families who must completely discard their close relationships with their spouse, children, siblings or parents in order to accommodate a fantasy that often requires they walk on eggshells.  And Jeffreys is dead right that any discussion of the above is being silenced through bullying techniques of an hyper-activist transgender lobby that insists the entire world get with their program, no questions asked. And indeed this lobby is actually dominated by “trans-women” who are primarily heterosexual males “identifying” as lesbians. 

I am grateful to Jeffreys for publishing Gender Hurts at such a critical time, as we work to untangle this strange web of deception in the culture. She presents many crucial facts about transgenderism, including the regret felt by survivors, those who go back to identifying with their birth sex.  In discussing the psychological basis of “gender dysphoria” she refers to the work of Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who shut down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins University and the British psychiatrist Az Hakeem who has worked hard to make sure that patients are fully informed before they consent to any kind of treatment.

I part ways with Jeffreys on her radical feminist/lesbian perspective that basically identifies male misogyny as the root of all oppression of women.  (She objects to gender identity because she believes it reinforces harmful stereotypes rather than diminishing them.  I see her point there, but it’s not the whole point.)

I’ll  go out on a limb and say just one thing about “male oppression.”  I don’t believe it comes from maleness as much as it comes from being human and looking for acceptance and status.  That’s what drives a lot of aggression, male or otherwise.  And if there’s a sorting system for dominance, it’s much more pronounced among males themselves than between males and females. Violent alpha males dictate their ill will and their terms onto all other males.  In so doing, they can then inflict their violence onto everybody else.  That’s why central planning is so lousy.  A few aggressive folks at the top, usually men and their female enablers — with few opportunities for anybody else.  If you want to see “patriarchy” in action, communism’s your man.  The Gloria Steinem wing of feminism basically acquiesces to men who behave badly and it serves the scheme of centralized power. Their basic litmus test is abortion.

In essence, I think a big part of the battle is about making sure the right men win, as well as the right women. Which means that all women of goodwill band with all men of goodwill and create a better world for all of humanity.

But I’m glad to see Sheila Jeffreys challenging the hackneyed Steinem brand of feminism and the nasty gender politics that come with it, even if I don’t accept the whole framework of Jeffreys’ logic.  Gender Hurts, published just this year, is creating a very welcome earthquake in the conversation about transgenderism.

Admiring the Resistance of Radfems Against Transgender Cultists

Last week in The Federalist I wrote at length about the conflict between radical feminists – or “radfems” — and transgender activists.   I was especially pleased to see Catholic Culture author Phil Lawler take this up in his recent article “The Rising, Dangerous Influence of ‘Transgender’ Ideology.”   I hope you’ll read both. 

I think the dissension among leftist factions here is fascinating.  The radical feminists are true purists in their beliefs, so much so that they are not at all willing to conform with the political correctness of the Transgender Project.

They stand firm even as so many in America – including the vast majority of their liberal feminist sisters – comply.  And even though this puts radical feminists in the same camp as conservatives on that particular issue, they do not waver.  They believe that the female experience cannot be impersonated or counterfeited by a male who decides to transition to female, and they are fearless in saying so.  They cede no ground,  So whether or not you agree with them on other issues, it’s gratifying to see such courage of conviction by a minority so shunned and smeared by erstwhile allies.

The trend to normalize transgenderism in our society has all the hallmarks of a cult. We’re beyond the phase of Hollywood and the media softening the ground for the transgender movement.  We are now in the phase of enforced compliance, complete with smear tactics and social punishment – labels of “bigot” or “transphobia” — for those who dare to resist. Everyone is getting with the program:  the medical community, schools, and even churches.  It’s reached the point that children are being prepared – by their parents — to have sex reassignment surgery when they turn 18.

So I’m encouraged by radical feminists who resist all of this.  And not simply because they take a stand on transgenderism that I happen to agree with.  It’s far, far more than that.  The radfems’ display exceptional resistance the pressures of the cult mindset,  impressive to behold.  And they are front lines in this war right now.  If the trans activists succeed in shutting them down, everyone else is next.  More power to the radfems in their resistance.

When Mom says she’s Dad and Dad says he’s Mom

“We have the parts so we will use them.”  That’s what Bianca Bowser told Yahoo News about his spouse Nick getting pregnant. Their two biological children, identified as sons named Kai, 3, and Pax, 1, share both Bianca and Nick’s DNA.  That’s because Bianca’s sperm fertilized Nick’s egg.  That would make Bianca the actual father and Nick the actual mother.

But wait!  That information is classified!  Or hate speech, or something.  Right?  No, this is the biological truth that Bianca and Nick as representatives of the transgender movement — and self-confessed publicity hounds for the cause — insist that we must reject. The agenda requires that the entire world reject this, which means that if it doesn’t apply to them, then it must not apply to you.

Neither Nick nor Bianca have undergone sex reassignment surgery, so  their reproductive systems are still intact, though they each must take a lot of hormones to sustain their transgender appearances.   They do plan to have surgery done, later on.  You can read the whole thing here:  “Transgender Parents Speak Out about What Makes a Family.”

I’m convinced that the transgender movement is at root a War on Language.  I doubt that the ultimate goal of the movement — so driven by raw power — has much if anything to do with equality for transgender individuals.  By forcing you to change your understanding of pronoun usage, the transgender project succeeds in undermining any common understanding of human identity, including your own identity as male or female.  I refuse to get sucked into this rabbit hole.  And I hope you agree.

However, I’m fine with name changes.  If a man named Richard decides he wishes to be called Emily, I’ll defer and call him Emily. But if Emily then decides I must change the definition of pronouns to suit his self concept, that’s where I draw the line.  Because in essence he’s asking everybody else to change their own perception of reality to suit his.    This is how cults operate.  The first thing a cult leader does is work to destabilize the recruits’ sense of self or self-concept in relation to the world.  Indeed, the transgender movement has all the earmarks of  a Cult.

What is a Human? — Part V

This is how everybody happens, whether they like it or not: the union of one male and one female. Lest we forget: every male and female and intersex person happens this way, and that would include all individuals who call themselves transgender.

To answer to the question “What is a human?” for the purpose of this blog series, we need only refer to the simple and existential question of the child:  “Where did I come from?”

A human being is a creature who is born out of the union of one male human being and one female human being.  This is true for every man, woman or child who has ever been conceived, whether male, female, or ambiguous/intersex.   Transgender persons may wish to deny this, but their own humanity is based in their origins of one male united with one female.   Whether we know our biological parents or not, they are how we came into being.  Whether it happens in a bed or a petri dish doesn’t matter.

A human being may present as the opposite sex or as a sexless being or both sexes or genders or as many as they imagine, but it doesn’t change the reality of their humanity.  Nor anybody else’s.

The transgender activists’ idea that a person may identify as male or female regardless of biological sex is nothing new.  There are  plenty of famous cases in history and literature.  The idea of androgyny — the male/female being —  is an old concept that goes back to ancient times.  

Here’s what’s new:  The attempt to force onto everybody the transgender idea of human identity, and the push to codify it as quickly as possible into law under the guise of “non-discrimination.”   The key phrase slipped into these laws is that our sex is merely “assigned” to us at birth. If we accept that premise, then we will certainly reach a point at which nobody can be legally identified as either male or female.  Eventually, we all become “other” in the eyes of the state.

How are we supposed to understand our origins in this scheme?  Answer:  It looks like we’re not intended to understand our origins.   Nor, ironically, are we supposed to chart our own destiny in this vacuum of ambiguity.  It’s a destabilizing prospect, but that’s where we’re headed with this.  The transgender movement has less to do with equal rights than it has to do with a war on language, aimed directly at destabilizing our sense of human identity.

What is a Human? — Part IV


Contemplate this:  a Slate article entitled “Don’t Let the Doctor Do this to Your Newborn.”  According to the author, obstetricians all perform a “procedure” that is very harmful: Announcing whether the baby is a boy or a girl.  Yes, that’s the “procedure.”  Pointing out the obvious.  It seems truth-telling is getting to be more of a crime with every passing day.

And you thought that your son or daughter was your son or daughter.  The Slate piece tells you “Not so fast!”  You have no right to call your newborn a son or daughter. Doing so is committing the offense of  “infant gender assignment.” It’s deemed “harmful” to the transsgender population who say all children should decide on their own, usually as pre-schoolers.  Anyway, here’s a short excerpt:

Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents’ consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It’s called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.

The article ends by stating “infant gender assignment” is like playing “Russian Roulette” with your child’s life.

You may have seen a related piece on this propaganda campaign in the story of Ryland Wittington, a girl being raised as a boy by her parents.  Ryland’s parents are pretty much acting as an arm of the LGBT lobby. Click here for the manipulative Youtube video they produced about Ryland.  Also, click here for a compelling rebuttal to it:  “I am Ryland: The Story of a Male-Identifying Little Girl Who Didn’t Transition.”

It’s unsettling to me how many folks still underestimate the reach of the transgender lobby. Its tentacles are long, and it has huge implications for growing state power.  The insanity grows with articles like that one in Slate, essentially intended to engineer how each and every one of us sees ourselves.

When a group demands that everybody — particularly the 99+ percent who do not identify as transgender — stop identifying any infant at all as either male or female, it’s time to wake up.  Transgenderism is an assault on truth.  It requires us to deny the obvious, to deny biological reality.  For everybody. And it won’t end there.