# CHAPEL PERILOUS okay, look. I can't keep up the authorial voice for this shit. I think I'm too enraged and just, fucking, stunned to even maintain coherency. what you will read in this narrative I've been slaving away at for months (and I really mean it, I've been hurling myself at this thing for more than 12 hours on some days trying to make some sense) is a painstaking effort at complete and total *fairness*. I have gone to utterly absurd lengths to ensure that anything I state is truthful to the best of my knowledge, and entirely transparent about where that might be lacking. I've been so obsessively meticulous about this I've not even got to writing a section I intended on just how much this is hobbling my efforts, the exponential increase in time and effort it takes to just select what's even worth addressing compared to what's expended in churning out these endless lies and hateful slander. Even more agonising has been trying to toe the line of paranoiac insanity. Often, presenting certain things that are plainly how they are has been the hardest thing to pitch right, because they're just so mind-bendingly baroque it feels impossible to convince anyone I'm not even slightly misrepresenting or embellishing them. If anything I've been *downplaying* a lot of things to make them sound less fantastical. Time and time again I've made a cynical joke or prediction, synthesised an extreme possibility from the facts, connected an increasingly absurd sequence of events into a disturbing conclusion, and kept it to myself because I don't want to make people think - make *me* think - I've finally taken that one step too far out of rationality and gone Actually Schizophrenic. Until I turn out to have been *entirely fucking correct*, and lose yet more time trying not to lose my mind over *that*. I play with it heavily in my writing, partly because I've never considered myself *a writer* and can only imitate the authors who've entertained and captured me the most. I'm not much of a fiction reader either, nor of poetry at all until recent years, so it took me some time to discover that Walt Whitman and James Joyce had been sounding crazy decades before LSD was synthesised to give us Hunter S. Thompson - God, I ache to know what he would say of our times were he here to see he was, as ever, *painfully* right about fucking everything. Too many of the writers I've loved have killed themselves. It's probably kinder to let their spirits rest ignorant of their vindication. I do find it soothing though, writing this way. I find it incredibly hard translating my thoughts into words, trying to conjure some kind of linearity to them, so when I do get the ink to flow, I can almost forget what I was trying to express in the first place. But, seriously, I've been very fucking careful with this whole thing in almost every sense so as to not over-indulge on the "ironic" schizoid mode and let the sleep deprivation potentiate it into real madness. I can have a *little* magical thinking, as a treat. and it really has been a treat, I've enjoyed my controlled break of investigative journomania so much I think it's actually what's been keeping me sane - it's been a bit of a laugh-or-cry year. Both, most days in fact. I don't know *what* to do with this, though. I'm definitely not mad (yet) because I was a long way off even considering something this grandiose, it's too tinfoil-hat cheesy to be compelling satire, let alone a serious suggestion. This was *not* on my bingo card. I got up today (two days ago). Listened to the headlines, retched internally at seeing that photo of the Andrew formerly known as Prince again in my mind. Put the kettle on, see what low hanging fruit is on offer today to file away in my vault for Later™. I am actually, finally, really, final-FINAL(2)\_final.doc going to "publish" this to a wider audience today, the home stretch had revealed itself and I'd coursed through a few thousand words in the last couple of days towards a semi-complete structure that I can fucking put down for a moment. And ​  ​I ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ re ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ad ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​  ​ ​t ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​  ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​h ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​  ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​  ​ ​ ​ ​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​ ​t ## JK Rowling is in the Epstein files, *sort of*. This wasn't really a bombshell drop. Her showing up at all though... well, that was enough to make some serious waves. It's so dwarfed by other, dirtier figures it would be a bit unfair to make a fuss over the total lack of mention of it in any major news outlet (the next person I talk about does, naturally), but it is a little wearying that she can't sneeze without her photo appearing above a headline, until it's something I'd welcome seeing it attached to. Regardless, it felt like a massive vindication for a lot of us who've been in a perpetual state of readiness to throttle the next person who disputes her bad intentions for some years to see that title on a post. ### what's actually there I was about to consider this page done, but went back for one last fact check, and decided that someone may as well get this right. - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Variety** • [JK Rowling Denies Inviting Epstein to Harry Potter & The Cursed Child](https://variety.com/2026/theater/global/jk-rowling-denies-inviting-epstein-to-harry-potter-opening-1236651650/) *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://variety.com/2026/theater/global/jk-rowling-denies-inviting-epstein-to-harry-potter-opening-1236651650/)* - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Twitter** • [J.K. Rowling on X: "This is beyond silly. Neither I, nor anybody on my team, ever met, communicated with or invited Jeffrey Epstein to anything."](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2018395362495438925) Well, this is all rather economical with the truth, I imagine it's the last we'll hear of it out of Rowling though. It would be easy enough to present the following item and call it a day, but much like everything else that slithers out of her mouth, it's a provocative vaguery. She probably already has an 11-tweet draft typed up on the technical correctness/unfalsifiability of it, so she can sniff about being called a liar. Not today, Joanne. I am, if anything, *too* generous with the truth. - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**justice.gov** • [Loading PDF…](https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00292680.pdf) *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00292680.pdf)* This is the **only** direct mention of Rowling in the files. It's a VIP invitation to the Broadway opening of the Harry Potter stage production in 2018. > [!info] fun fact > In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent reported that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter. Federal officials identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused. Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was convicted of only these two crimes as part of a controversial plea deal agreed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Alexander Acosta, and he served almost 13 months in custody but with extensive work release. It also invites the bearer and guest to join her and the producers for a "supper" (how whimsical!) during the intermission (and no skipping out on the dinner - it sounds a bit like she intended to lock everyone in). My God. I wonder what they talked about... > [!extract] itinerary > Part 1: 13:30 - 16:00 > Supper: 16:30 - 18:30 @ Cipriani's, 42nd St. in the "dining room from Hogwart school's English massive dining room" > Part 2: 19:00 - 21:30 > Party: 22:00 @ Cipriani's Hold your horses. The invitation isn't addressed *to* anyone, and the RSVP contact is redacted. BUT, it is non-transferable. It was for a specific person, it just doesn't say who. They must have had a guest list. ##### who ordered the ticket? Peggy Siegal - big-time entertainment publicist who advertises new releases to the media industry. Her success mainly consists in her hosting skills - putting on lavish film screening parties with carefully-curated attendees. > According to Siegal, she keeps a list of 30,000 contacts divided by nationality, including filmmakers, artists, writers, and finance professionals. She was a personal friend and close associate of Epstein's. That didn't come out until his arrest in 2019, after this invitation. But it's not like it was a secret before then, the New York Times piece reporting their connection killed her career because now the *public* knew. And she had to know the sort of shit Epstein was up to. > In 2011 Siegal organized an event at Epstein's mansion whose guests included notable people such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, George Stephanopoulos, Katie Couric, and Chelsea Handler. Siegal organised the afterparty for this event, and was likely involved in the rest of it given her status - it's referred to as "Peggy's Harry Potter party" at times. She wasn't in charge of the guest list for the main event though, and Epstein wasn't on it originally. She personally requested tickets from Colin Callender, the show's producer, as a last-minute addition. Initially vague about who her friend is, when asked for a name to put on the guest list it's openly acknowledged as being for Jeffrey Epstein (that being the subject title of one email chain). ###### who requested the ticket? Jeffrey Epstein, for himself and two guests. His assistant made the arrangements, he seemed quite set on going to the dinner and was pestering about it. ##### who sent the ticket? Rhys Kimmit (Callender's assistant) via Lila Walker (Peggy Siegal's assistant), and an exhausting chain of support of additional assistants, drivers, and housekeepers. #### is JK Rowling a filthy liar, worst person in the world ever and a mega-nonce? let's take a look at how the facts stack up to the claims. ###### Did Rowling invite Jeffrey Epstein to anything? It says so right there on the invite. However, it wasn't of her own volition, and she wasn't involved in the decision. Depends what you mean by "invite". I would say he obtained an invitation, but was not *invited* in the sense of being an intended guest. He more or less invited himself (and two other people). ###### Did anyone on Rowling's team communicate with, or invite Jeffrey Epstein to anything? Depends on what you mean by "team". I think it's fair to count personal assistants as relatively direct interaction with people this rich, but it might be a stretch to consider Callender part of her "team", and he wasn't aware himself that it was Epstein when he promised to fit him in. ###### Did anyone on Rowling's team communicate with Jeffrey Epstein? No. It takes seven layers of re: fur these people to say fucking anything to each other. Honestly, it's hard to call any of his utterances "communicating" anyway. ###### Did Rowling communicate with Jeffrey Epstein? A-*ha!* They had dinner together, didn't they? Not even! Take *that*, gender cultists! He never actually attended the dinner, or the party. ##### is Alex Ritman a hack? Or is he just lying? > [!news] Alex Ritman • 4th February 2026 > In any case, the DoJ files also confirm that Epstein was stopped from attending the “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” opening. While he was sent the correct tickets, in an email to Siegal the following morning he claimed he “could’t get in” as his name was not on the guest list. “No biggy but thought you should know,” he added. ![[the disappointment of Jeffrey Epstein#^jehp-01]] ![[the disappointment of Jeffrey Epstein#^jehp-02]] The entire issue is that he got the WRONG tickets. Somehow, a request for two tickets (granting a ticket holder +1) for three people to attend the dinner was interpreted as one ticket for two people to attend the dinner and the afterparty. It's true that he wasn't on the guest list, they bungled that too. But his complaint wasn't that he was turned away so much as he couldn't bring in an extra guest, without a ticket or any of them being on the list, when he was already a supernumerary attendee. I guess you can't really pull the "don't you know who I am??" when you rely on keeping a relatively low profile. It is kind of funny imagining it. Even *this* guy can get bounced and stuck outside the club calling his friends who are having too good of a time without him to pick up. *No biggy*. That article did make it sound more like he was denied entry on purpose, rather than just due to sheer incompetence though. But, whatever. Epstein had to sit through five hours of masturbatory wizarding wonder and didn't even get to schmooze, and even if Rowling had personally extended the invitation, that by itself would be far from the worst thing she's done. Maybe Epstein just loved Harry Potter, it's about his pace. ### How Lolita inspired Harry Potter Still, we're all waiting for this Chekhov's gun to go off some day: > [!quote] JK Rowling in *The Sunday Herald* • 21 May 2000 > > > There are two books whose final lines make me cry without fail, irrespective of how many times I read them, and one is Lolita. There is so much I could say about this book. > > There just isn't enough time to discuss how a plot that could have been the most worthless pornography becomes, in Nabakov's hands, a great and tragic love story, and I could exhaust my reservoir of superlatives trying to describe the quality of the writing. > [!quote]- *Lolita* • Vladimir Nabokov > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the majority of sex offenders that hanker for some throbbing, sweet-moaning, physical but not necessarily coital, relation with a girl-child, are innocuous, inadequate, passive, timid strangers who merely ask the community to allow them to pursue their practically harmless, so-called aberrant behavior, their little hot wet private acts of sexual deviation without the police and society cracking down upon them. It's not wrong to enjoy Lolita or think it's well-written, it is. Calling it a *tragic love story* is like enjoying Nietzsche for his racial commentary. Yeah yeah, it was a long time ago. She's not exactly grown any smarter or kinder though, has she? And it's always with that creased little smirk. This is all *beyond silly*. Of course trans people are obsessed with tearing her down because they're *confused*. If they'd just *listen* to what they're *told*. They need to *calm down* and stop being ==hysterical==. If they stopped acting like *stupid little children* and used their words we'd step off their neck. So many of these "gender critical" demons have always lit up all my trauma responses, the way they talk, who they talk at and about, what they obsess over, how they don't even bend but completely invert the truth, what they say by not saying, it makes my skin crawl and my muscles tense to run away. I am genuinely more scared of encountering this psychological horror trying to take a piss in the ladies' than the physical ones I know full well could await me in the men's. After the last few days I feel fucking unclean on the inside of my skull that I ever wasted the cognitive effort of checking those feelings and exercising reason and compassion towards them, knowing that I will continue to, because I'm barely done with them and there are more every week. I can no more become the kind of miserable reactionaries they are then I can stop being trans. But as for Rowling being in the files? Barely, really - from what we have available. That tin-foil hat is permanently fixed to my head now. The next shockwave was: ## Jess Ting New York plastic surgeon who turned his career to pioneering affirming surgeries for transgender patients, had a sustained professional relationship with Epstein and performed cosmetic surgery and minor treatments on some of “his girls”. He requested, and received, $50,000 of funding from Epstein towards his research into breast cancer in 2013. In 2016, he wrote to give his thanks, and report of his appointment as director of Mt. Sinai's new Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery. He asks if Epstein would contribute to a planned documentary about the service (*Born to Be*, 2019), but there doesn't appear to be anything confirming whether or not that was granted. I wasn't aware of this guy beforehand,[^3] I'm putting this together in real time. But I knew enough to groan as soon as I saw what his job was. I think I'm even more disappointed to learn that this has come as a real shock to a lot of those familiar with him - he was well-regarded, at any rate. I'm reading through comments from people midway through multi-stage surgeries with him right now, or who have had procedures performed by him in the past, some citing an impersonal attitude but equally others reporting good and affirming experiences. His documentary following patients at the bespoke new clinic was lauded as a sensitive and humanising work. I'm devastated for the people trying to navigate how intensely personal and complicated this must be for them - even if you were informed of this by private communication, it would be a lot to process. But this has just been blasted across the internet (while *something* of national significance is going on in the US, I'm sure), and this surgeon has become a monolithic transphobia-stuffed piñata that terves are going to be beating the shit out of for *years*. So, before I dare to look in on the feeding frenzy (I have Mumsnet open in another tab), let's get a few things out the way: - Nobody's circling the wagons around this guy. People don't care if he's the best or only surgeon for what they want, how affirming he is, or how much he's done for them or trans people as a whole, they just feel sick that they ever trusted him. Most people due to see him said they'd already asked to be transferred to someone else, even if it means delaying for years. He's not an "ally". - He's just one doctor.[^4] Everyone is aware that some doctors are sickos (and surgeons perhaps worst of all). Trans people are more acutely aware of this than most, as we're routinely objectified, dehumanised, humiliated, fetishised, mistreated, and violated in various ways during medical interactions and in medical literature. It's still a measurable loss to the community to (really, actually) cancel him, specialist surgeons of this calibre seem barely more numerous than acid manufacturers - a handful of people providing the entire world with life-changing results. But there are other surgeons, and moreover, he's the only one that has been found in the files as far as I'm aware. There isn't a single other person dug up so far who's known to be any sort of friend or advocate for trans people. Lot of fucking transphobes though. - There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the procedures he did for patients referred by Epstein were on transgender people, or involved any surgeries relevant to that; that is, Jeffrey Epstein was not running a child-transing operation à la Pizzagate/Wayfair.[^5] They were standard beautifying surgeries cis women find affirming (or are expected to), and a miscellanea of very minor things that did not necessitate his involvement. That's the part which makes me wrinkle my nose. His surgical skills and outcomes are by all accounts highly regarded, but doctors also have an ethical and safeguarding duty - and that shit is shady as hell. - gender-affirming surgeries aren't performed on children, just in case that needed clearing up. - Epstein appears to take some interest in the general topic here and there, but I also found such other items of interest as a lengthy google groups chain of academics arguing about whether Deepak Chopra can adequately define an ontology, so I'm not sure how invested he was in many of his inbox items. Or how seriously he ever followed through on his visionary transhumanist plans - this is some amphetamine-fuelled brainstorming if I ever saw it: > [!email] Jeffrey Epstein > Joi Ito • Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:12:57 > I would tell gates if i were you , that one science is the most exciting . forget transgender its transcience. > you can tell him that you and I have no interest in donor advised funds. too complicated. but cutting edge. brain stimulation, plant and human interaction. mathematics that can deal with millions of inputs. biology, vs few inputs physics needs to be developed. I told him he would have FUN at the theory level, instead of being under melindas thumb ( fat thumb) - The money he received, ostensibly, was put to use for genuine scientific advancement in *something* to do with breast cancer. There are many degrees of legitimacy that could hold but it really doesn't matter and I'm too tired for that diversion. It didn't fund anything trans-related, and whatever it did produce benefited everyone, cis women most of all - anyone with breast tissue can get breast cancer (even men, and at a greater rate, trans women), but since cis women have a relative monopoly on breast tissue, they're accordingly most affected by cancer of it. For that reason they're also the most frequent recipients of mastectomies and reconstructive surgeries ("boob jobs" - sometimes for purely cosmetic reasons too). Worth bearing in mind when you see "feminists" describing the outcomes of these as revolting mutilations when performed on what they deem to be the wrong kind of person. - The email where he thanks Epstein for the donation is where he also excitedly informs of the new trans healthcare centre, so I expect that to get maliciously conflated. Epstein doesn't seem to give a shit about that. So far I haven't seen any reply on that dug up, so it's unclear if any of Epstein's money went towards the documentary, or what he thought about Dr Ting's work in trans healthcare. - Epstein was a funder of Mt. Sinai more generally, and Ting had been approaching him about funding prior to taking on any relation to transgender health. - I think that Ting genuinely does care a lot about his work there, from what I've seen, and this is why he was gushing about it. Primarily, he was eager to shake a few more pennies off a billionaire. This is how Epstein's had ties with a lot of academics and researchers, and is why science and medicine is so turbofucked, especially in America's economic environment - the only progress that can happen is that which attracts sufficient funding, the only treatment provided is that which can be paid for, an internally reflected Darwinian selection driven from the top down by the whims of paedophile billionaires and dictators. Ooh. The Mt. Sinai CTMS faculty page has gone down. What am I getting ahead of with this? Well, I expect I'll find all the following lies and misrepresentations, and likely more that I'm just not deliriously hateful enough to invent: - Epstein funded trans research/healthcare - Epstein was part of the Trans Lobby Machine - Jews did trans (more Stormfront than Mumsnet et al, tomato tomato. another bingo square.) - Epstein had an in-house surgeon to do trans surgeries on kids - this proves the surgeon was a paedo - this proves the surgeon only did trans healthcare for perverted reasons - this proves all doctors only do trans healthcare for perverted reasons - this proves that healthcare for trans people is perverted - this proves trans people are perverted - this proves trans people are paedos You know what? I don't think I need to expose myself to Mumsnet right now. I've probably covered most of it there. IF I were remotely interested in defending Jess Ting, I'd make it something to do with there being enough plausible deniability that he was simply as negligently ignorant of any untowards behaviour of Epstein's as he claims and it all just looks really, really bad. That still requires him to have turned a willingly blind eye to a ton of suspicious stuff, quite possibly performed surgical procedures on trafficked women, and not asked a lot of questions he knew he should have. And IF that truly were the extent of his involvement, or even if it wasn't really, it does all go off like a hand grenade slipped into his pocket - I bet he thought he'd made it out clean by now. It's almost like it was engineered to look as bad as possible. Yes, I've still got the tin foil on. It's not a novel tactic; the CIA had employed a similar blackmail-farming method in a programme under MKUltra (cheekily titled ***Operation Midnight Climax***), albeit with a much smaller budget. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that these people were almost clumsily euphemistic in their communications at best, perhaps out of sheer hubris, but it sure makes anyone talking to them look incredibly fucking dodgy. If anything, having ever communicated with Epstein became even more of a threat when he was no longer calling the shots It was probably just coincidence to be honest, Epstein was unbelievably busy with this shit, it's staggering. In the grand scheme of things, Jess Ting is a pretty minor find, but it's the big fat Easter egg the sex freaks have been prophesying. But then... here's the part that made me lose my shit: it's not all that far-fetched to suggest that **Jeffrey Epstein was personally invested in coordinating the moral panic over trans people** that's been on a meteoric rise since his death. (Fucking hell, it's going fractal, there's an Infowars article coming up in my results now. Ironically, the author misgenders Ting throughout.) What initially inspired that fucking cursed hypothesis, though, was a choice pick from one of Epstein's regular correspondents: ## Robert Trivers an evolutionary[^1] biologist last relevant in the 70s, friend, defender, and funding recipient of Epstein. In particular, Epstein put $40,000 towards a study about the knees of Jamaican sprinters. Jamaica and its people were apparently an obsession of Trivers', and I really mean an *obsession*, a student of his says he would frequently digress into the subject during classes regardless of its relevance. This is the thing with *evolutionary \_\_\_\_*, much like utilitarianism (another pet doctrine billionaires abuse), if you must insist on doing it, it's a delicate thing to pull off without quickly sliding into head-measuring eugenicist essentialism. It always ends up at incest or bestiality at some point(s) too. Rather makes you think some people might get into it *because* of all that. For what it's worth, while his fixation with Jamaica seems almost undoubtedly problematic to some degree, he was actually in the Black Panthers for a while after becoming close friends with its chairman - who eventually excommunicated him "for his own good", *whatever that might mean*. Oh yeah, and he's also considered a significant figure in establishing the field of sociobiology, which means he's partly responsible for inflicting Jordan Peterson on us all. God, fuck this guy. I didn't expect to be vindicated on my personal distate for materialists when I set out on this thing, but it feels related that Daniel Dennett was implicated in the files too. That one *did* sting me, but then again I only really engaged with his philosophical work quite narrowly, and before I'd developed my picky taste in philosophers. Anyway, what's he doing here? #### biological man > [!multicol] >> [!blank] >> Wowee. I was vaguely familiar with some of this guy's theories, he's kind of a big fucking deal I guess. I didn't know what an absolute scum-sucking piece of shit he was, and he gets worse with every single thing I find. And that's *after* I read this email from the files - one of many, because they were ==<span class="emoji">💛</span> **besties** <span class="emoji">💛</span>==, but of particular relevance to my chain-smoking my way through 3,000 words of a migraine at 6 in the morning. > >> [!blank|odd] >>![[2024 Robert Trivers Epstein.jpg|]] First, so you're responsibly informed of how atrocious this man really is: > 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. On Epstein's crimes: > [!quote] Robert Trivers • 2015 > By the time they're 14 or 15, they're like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don't see these acts as so heinous. They grow up so fast these days. And who cares if grown women get trafficked, raped and tortured? It's not *as* bad. > [!email] Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:11:37 > the basic problem is simple—i am going against a strong national trend—well-known man after well-known man is being brought low for > alleged his misbehaviour toward women—in some case well-deserved prison time (Cosby and perhaps Weinstein) in many other cases, > simply being run out of institutions—exactly my fate > > furthermore in he say/she say confrontations the evidence has shifted—in University settings at least—from beyond a reasonable doubt' to a > 'preponderance of evidence' to 'more positive than negative' > > the loss is huge, on the order of a half million to a million dollars, meant to keep me alive (they were going to offer a five-year contract) > while i let my 'inheritance' be spent on children and grandchildren while also growing > > i have no choice but to work It seems he was kept busy enough. He was suspended from his Rutgers position initially for refusing to teach a class on "human aggression", by the way, saying he knew nothing about it - not sure if this was intended as some kind of postmodern critical pedagogy technique or he just couldn't be bothered. He certainly has an informal grasp of it at least, having gone on to be fired after returning to campus and getting into an aggressive confrontation with a female colleague - not the first instance of such behaviour. After having delved maybe a bit too deep on him, I feel it's worth noting that this guy is *bugfuck nuts*. He could give John McAfee a run for his money (I wonder if they ever met). Even Epstein gently explains to him in one of these email chains he's not giving him drugs because it's "bad for him". Glad to see they're taking harm reduction seriously. > [!email] Oct 11, 2018 5:34 PM > i attach latest version of Honour Killings—key is to look at are the PHOTOS—the women are almost without fail beautiful (that's one of his specialist topics which he delivers lectures on.) #### the unfair sex For fuck's sake. The email this is from put an entirely new, directly relevant item in my vault. I was actually intending to look for more examples like this article. It's undoubtedly related to one of the most dismal entries on the timeline. > finally here is a joke for you—we are both, i believe, politically—and not sexually—polymorphic perverse so there should be no problem with this character > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blindfold-sex-men-trick-dating-app-ana-duarte-xavier-straight-a8571076.html > > all best (what does he even fucking *mean?*) I was saving this development for a rainy day, really I just didn't want to get around to it to be honest. I put this on my bingo card when I first made it, and almost removed it because it felt too... alarmist? too far? Imagine my horror when I crossed it off because I found that *it had already happened a year ago*. > [!info] > > - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**cps.gov.uk** • [Prosecutors publish updated ‘deception as to sex’ guidance | The Crown Prosecution Service](https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/prosecutors-publish-updated-deception-sex-guidance) *Fri 13 Dec 2024 12:00* *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/prosecutors-publish-updated-deception-sex-guidance)* > > More of that famous clarity. The guidance itself is fuzzy, to say the least. But yes, they did produce new guidance for the sole provision of a sex offence charge for failing to proactively disclose your "sex at birth". The bounds of this are almost entirely untested still. Generally what trans people fear in romantic and sexual encounters (beyond rejection or harassment) is physical or sexual violence, and deciding when to disclose that you're trans has a lot of interplay with the perceived level of risk. Now you have to worry about an intermediate threat too: not likely to flip out and hurt you physically, but might be such a pouty bitch if you don't put out they go to the police... > A grim bingo square: an attempt to use this law to prosecute a trans woman for her own sexual assault. at first I was wondering how they'd managed to make it about trans people, because the case I'd had lurking ominously in my memory was of a cis woman deceiving a partner into believing she was a man to obtain their consent for sex, in a similar manner to this article's subject. This was an obvious, wilful deception, I unhesitatingly call this rape. But it's quite a leap from that, to effectively make *passing too well* legally the same kind of deception. I had myself another little sip of the bottomless well of exasperation this topic is when I spent far too long straightening my memory out on this one. There hadn't even been a bona fide case *of a transgender person* being tried for rape by deception before this guidance was concocted. As far as I can tell at a brief flick through, the string of cases in which someone vitiated another's consent by misrepresenting their gender, it was usually quite plainly just that: the gender presentation *was* the method of deception, its entire purpose was to deceive, and the person took additional steps to prevent the other from finding out. The guidance was literally just concocted to make trans people statutory rapists if they don't out themselves at the earliest opportunity - and what if someone lies and says they *didn't* know your `biological sex` accurately, because internalised homophobia got the better of them and they started to feel funny about it later on? What if they did know you're trans, and said they were cool with it, then decided they weren't when people bullied them about it afterwards? What if you tell them and they don't believe you? What if you don't realise they've assumed incorrectly until after the deed is done? What if they initiate the contact spontaneously but you're into it, and they're not when they realise you're trans - did you just assault them? Why is it your responsibility to assume they wouldn't consent if you don't tell them, not theirs to ask you if they do care? - *or* - why do I potentially have to give a legal disclaimer **every time I have any sexual contact with a person** and a cis person **never** has to? How the fuck is it fair to be branded a sex criminal because somebody *else* is that upset by their own phobic response? Maybe I just don't get it because I'm bisexual. But then again, I've had enough encounters with insecure bisexual men who were all too comfortable dictating my gender identity to suit their own level of homohysteria at any given time, to the point that I'd already sworn off that flavour of disappointing lay long before they could have me done for sex crimes if they were really petty. A worthy plaintiff came forwards to be the test case in 2025, and the trans woman who consensually sucked his dick a couple of times before coming out to him now gets lumped in with violent rapists who may or may not be trying to abuse gender recognition rights to manipulate the conditions of their incarceration. Her defence had to argue in court that *my client is such an absolute brickhon that any reasonable man could tell, m'lud*. Ha ha. funny fucking joke. But I guess he was just sharing it. Being a massive prick like that isn't anything special... ##### special emissary Bob isn't special, no. He's ==unique==. > [!email] Jeffrey Epstein > Robert Trivers • Sat, 06 Feb 2016 16:35:29 > you are unique .. i want to see you piece on transgender in the bio world. this is for you. not me Epstein was already known to write his own press releases to maintain his air of mystery, and there are plenty of them in the files. I had no idea how directly he was manipulating the headlines and news topics though. I'm not *surprised* really, none of this has felt organic. But the feeling of having evidence of it in my hands, finding emails Epstein personally sent and received discussing his planting of things I already have in my archives... I can't describe it. It's not like finding a secret, more a confirmation. As one Reddit commenter put it, "schizophrenics could only dream of such validation ". > [!email] Robert Trivers > Jeffrey Epstein • Sun, 08 May 2016 22:17:41 > the title of my talk October 25 in London, audience —500, 35 pounds paid attendance each > > "An Evening on Evolutionary Biology: An overview covering Feminism, > Transgender, Homosexuality and Honor Killings." > > $3000 for me (i will already be in London paid for by Imperial College) > and an almost certain corporate $3000 add on > > just as you outlined-this will create an immediate intemet wave > especially in the UK with coverage in all the major newspapers and so on > > anyway i will concentrate on it, to the exclusion of individual pieces at > the moment > > all best > [!email] Robert Trivers • Sun, 08 May 2016 23:36:17 > > i would have left out feminazi , but... > > Oh trust me, i will put "feminists" exactly where they belong > it should be a good opening act nb: I doubt this will change any minds. The terves are collaborating fairly openly with homophobic anti-abortion religious groups at this point. Then it begins to sink in more: it's not just any old rich cunt calling the shots, not a Baroness nor a washed up children's author, not even a shadowy media or finance overlord... it's Jeffrey fucking Epstein. It's all been on purpose, manufactured, directed, by this **motherfucker**, the world's most prolific sex trafficker, the bottomlessly coffered rapist connecting every piece of shit on the globe through his systematic abuse machine. > [!multicol|no-wrap] >> [!email] Stephen Hanson > Jeffrey Epstein • Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:00 PM >> NYT mag >> Men of Wellesley -- >> Can women's colleges survive the transgender movement >> >> You spoke about it only 6 + mos ago. Now the cover story. Dam !! > >> [!email] ? > Jeffrey Epstein • Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:50 AM >> 63 gender identifications... >> Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Are Quietly Becoming The New Thing At Colleges >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/gender-neutral-bathrooms-colleges_n=S597362.html > [!email] Jeffrey Epstein > Robert Trivers • Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:30:11 > I thought that you might want to focus on transgender biology . people would be interestsesd and i would fund. I am a true beileiver in your talents. my understanding and of course it could be incorrect. was that honor killing work was detrimental for you. as was the knee hip ratio in sprinters etc.. little public interest where the genetics of exceptional and transgender would be helpful. Holy fucking shit. #### Subject: Trans Okay, here's that email that made my fucking brain melt. I have to preface this with a warning that this is some weapons-grade transphobia. Not a whole lot really *gets* to me and gives me the deep ick these days, it's usually the abuse of rhetoric that really pisses me off more than the talking points, which become tired well before they come up with the next ever so clever bit of nonsense to proliferate. But this, this disgusted me in a way nothing has maybe in years. I don't think Trivers was very well when he penned this. He's open about having bipolar disorder, and my digging on him painted an archetypal picture of the rolling chaos a brilliant but barely-managed manic-depressive mind operates in. He's also a total sesh gremlin, and Epstein's patronising comments on policing his drug use imply previous arguments on the matter. I've known plenty of irresponsibly high bipolar people though, and they've never come out with shit like this - you have to be cooked to start with. This is your brain on evolutionary biology I guess. > [!email] Robert Trivers > Jeffrey Epstein • Mon, 17 Dec 2018 04:52:10 > > it is very simple—i 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 > %%> [!note] > > "it is very simple", he says, then starts talking about "molecular control". it's hormones. you get them in your body and that's the extent of the control really. It is actually very simple though, so he's managing so far.%% > > more masculine women—heavy testosterone dosage—incredible external effects, heavily bearded men, you would never guess they had a female bone in their body >%% > [!note] > > actually not far off here either, as an extremely broad generalisation - everyone is different. but as a general rule, testosterone therapy is the more straightforwardly effective.%% > > first kind—male -> female is 4 times more frequent than female -> male >%% > [!note] > > I think these are outdated ratios, but maybe this was before the ROGD panic. When it comes to astroterfing though, they just tend to pick whichever suits the crisis at hand%% > > 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 > %%> [!note] > > so here is where I'm going to introduce you to the term `chaser`, if you're not aware of it. Finding trans people attractive is simple good taste. Finding an objectified version of a trans person that you superimpose onto a real person attractive is fucked up. A `chaser` is someone who pursues sex with trans people purely because they're trans. Similar vibe to a straight man who's sole concern is getting his dick wet - there are no women to him really, just holes. You can usually tell right away someone is a`chaser` because they're more turned on by telling you how they're *imagining* your body than by interacting with it, and very turned off or even frustrated or angry when it's different from what they demanded. > > Besides this paragraph just being off-puttingly horny, he straight up says it himself: this is a fantasy. > > It's also so thick with implications this is going to need a list. > > - *the first is attractive* - establishing the measure of value right off the bat. > > > > - *he is a woman with a cock* - jesus christ. depressingly, merely referring to a trans woman as a woman sets him ahead of TERF rhetoric, but he still seems to think pronouns are stored in the balls. The politically correct way would be "she is a woman with a cock", thank you. this is setting aside that not all trans women do, and that describing a person by their genitals is about as objectifying as it gets. > > - *if your fantasy is to suck a man's dick* - there's that classic chaser flavour. remember he's explaining trans people here. Not as people though, as fetish objects, means to an end. and, if you want to suck a *man's* dick, you're probably going to be let down here. > > - *otherwise you are completely heterosexual* - fellas, is it gay to suck a hot woman's cock? > > - *the rest of the organism* - I take it back, he somehow managed to get even more dehumanising. we get it, bob, you're a biologist. > > - *the best of both worlds* - never describe a trans woman this way, just... don't.%% > > 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-purn—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 > > 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 ? eugh. I started to pick it apart but it's so dense with rank gooner brainrot I'd be here forever deconstructing this pornographic slop. There are some parts that manage to be alarming even among all the rest of it though. - First of all, trans people aren't fetish objects, tools to explore your sexual curiosities, genitals attached to "the rest of the organism", or "the best/worst of both worlds" (for the love of christ, never describe a trans person that way). They're whole people, and their bodies are however they are; if you're expecting a fantasy collage of a man's parts attached to a woman or vice versa, you're likely going to be disappointed, and they'll be offended - or just fed up. - It speaks volumes that he seems to consider sex work a defining property of trans women. That whole paragraph is especially vomit-inducing. He's rounded up his explanation of trans women to the sum total of having a penis, to satisfy insecure bicurious men and exoticise themselves as a sexual product, which is all they require as individuals. - You're not Jamaican, bob, it's still fucking cringe to sprinkle patois in even if you more or less live there. In another email, he complains of the racism he regularly receives from local youths, convinced that they're more eager to bully him because he's white. That may well be the case, but I suspect there are other factors in play... - Depressingly, merely by describing a trans woman as a woman puts him ahead of TERF rhetoric. He still seems to think pronouns are stored in the balls though. - The misogyny throughout the whole thing is fucking blinding. Trans women are both hypersexual bimbos, and superior for their (assumed) possession of a penis; trans men have none of the fetishised attributes, and retain the alien feature that kills heterosexual cis men's erections faster than anyone's - and are thus worthless. He can't even bring himself to say the word. *Vagina*.[^7] - In fairness, I cannot get a read on his sexual orientation; the homoeroticism is off the scale, but then straight men are often so avoidant of women and their *vaginas* that they end up wrapping back around. - I'm also kind of fascinated by how he does seem to regard trans women as women and trans men as men, and it doesn't slow down his slobbering one bit. - There's something almost comical about the point on representation in porn all by itself as if for emphasis. and it's not inaccurate, I suppose it does even support his analysis - trans women *are* fetishised in porn at a massively overrepresented rate. but it's literally just, "I watched a lot of porn, and see! trans people are just like they are in porn. source: all the porn I watch." I wonder if him and glinner are friends. - **The last paragraph.** It's a complete fabrication. A sudden, bizarre conspiratorial turn. I really hate this, and hate that it's here. After the panting, paraphilic tone of the rest of it, he has to go bring children into it. I don't know if it's nonsequitur or an allusion to something and don't care to speculate. But, no, nobody's giving 3 year olds hormones. It's... wild. Absolutely vile. *This* is the sort of shit that's been festering behind the wall of manufactured hate. I've come across disturbingly regular instances where a mask has slipped and betrayed some sickening behaviour, enough to build a convincing enough case that there is something *wrong* with a lot of transphobes, but this is insane. I didn't think much about how this would be received by anyone else, I was preoccupied with trying to take it in myself. I was going to just put it here and go LOOK!! because it should surely speak for itself, but I delayed myself further commenting on it because, genuinely beyond my expectations, *it got worse*. - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**infowars.com** • [Novel Phenotypes: Just How Deep in Transgenderism Was Jeffrey Epstein—and Why?](https://www.infowars.com/posts/novel-phenotypes-just-how-deep-in-transgenderism-was-jeffrey-epstein-and-why) %% - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Twitter** • [Alex Jones on X: "Emails Show Jeffrey Epstein Plotted the Transgender Revolution With Renowned Harvard Scientist Epstein wasn’t just trafficking girls, he was in talks about pushing radical gender ideology. Emails show they were pitching him on “trans children” and how to normalize it. https://t.co/bC2VPpgeWN"](https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/2018077628335366650#m) - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Twitter** • [Sólionath on X: "The real culture war Epstein story, that none of these leftists are going to talk about or address, is that Epstein was actively talking to homosexual groomers who were pushing transgenderism and trying to push the idea of “trans children.” https://t.co/5VhG7BVrrg"](https://x.com/Anarseldain/status/2017869097774862483) - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Twitter** • [Gays Against Groomers on X: "SHOCKING: Jeffrey Epstein spoke to a Harvard scientist about the s*xual benefits of turning children trans, and spoke of doing so as young as 3 years old. https://t.co/98skrkrmm5"](https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/2018407779216568385?s=46) %% > [!multicol] >  > >  > >  > >  > >  > >  It's being used as *a representation of "gender ideology"*. The possibility didn't even enter my mind. People are using *this* as evidence that Epstein, Trivers, all the machinations and media manipulation, are in allyship with the trans agenda, that trans people are somehow to fucking blame for this. They either know it's a disgusting lie, or saw this and actually thought: *I knew it! this is how transgenders really are!* A smoking gun. I don't have any words for this. Just, what the ever-loving fuck. --- Guess who wasn't implicated in the Epstein files? ## a single fucking trans person They're in there as victims though. In fact, the first victim to try and speak out against Epstein **was a trans woman**. Well, she was a trans *girl* when the crimes were committed. - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Lucy From Naarm** • [Epstein Files: Trans Teen Denied Justice - LucyFromNaarm](https://lucyfromnaarm.com/latest/trans-teen-accused-epstein-2007-settlement/) *Sat 31 Jan 2026 23:04* *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://lucyfromnaarm.com/latest/trans-teen-accused-epstein-2007-settlement/)* > In October 2007, two years before Julie K. Brown's Miami Herald investigation would blow open the Jeffrey Epstein case, and twelve years before #MeToo would teach America to say they "believe women," a young Latina woman walked into a New York courthouse with her attorney and filed a lawsuit that should have ended Jeffrey Epstein's career as a child predator. > > Her name was Ava Cordero. She was 22 years old. And she was about to learn what happens when a transgender woman of colour accuses a billionaire of rape. And here's how the New York Post broke the story: > [!multicol] >> [!blank] >> ![[2007-10-23 NYT 02.png|]] > >> [!blank] >> ![[2007-10-23 NYT 01.png|]] > > [!news]- Transgender Model Loses Libel Case Against NY Post • July 7, 2009 > - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Courthouse News Service** • [Transgender Model Loses Libel Case Against NY Post](https://www.courthousenews.com/transgender-model-loses-libel-case-against-ny-post/) *Tue 7 Jul 2009 07:42* *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://www.courthousenews.com/transgender-model-loses-libel-case-against-ny-post/)* > The New York Post did not commit libel when it reported on the alleged sexual fantasies of a transgendered model who was suing a billionaire for sexual exploitation, a New York appellate division ruled. Ava Cordero sued money manager Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that he traded sexual favors with her in exchange for helping her modeling career. The Post ran a story on the lawsuit before following with an updated story that Ava was born a male. The article referred to MySpace pages allegedly belonging to Cordero. One of those pages included a description of a sexual fantasy involving multiple men, then multiple women. Cordero sued the Post, claiming that the MySpace pages were fake, and the Post knew it. Cordero added that the Post&#8217;s publication of the sexual fantasy made the public think she was a &#8220;promiscuous slut.&#8221; The Post countered that it did not libel Cordero, because it never printed that she acted on the fantasy. The trial court denied the paper&#8217;s motion to dismiss the case, but the Manhattan-based appellate division reversed. &#8220;At bottom, plaintiff&#8217;s claim of defamation rests on the contention that the average reader would infer that someone with such a lewd fantasy also is in fact sexually promiscuous,&#8221; the judges added. &#8220;That some readers might draw that inference does not render it reasonable.&#8221; They're still at it. Turns out this shit sells so well, once Epstein set it rolling as part of his ongoing, five-figure monthly protection payment to engineer his crimes out of search engine results, it only picked up speed after his final arrest made it redundant. Now, you don't even need to actually be trans, if you've done something scandalous they'll just fucking pretend that you are for the windfall of ad revenue it brings. - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**New York Post** • [Exclusive | Minneapolis school shooter ID’d as trans woman Robin Westman — as apparent manifesto included 'kill Trump'](https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/us-news/minneapolis-catholic-school-gunman-idd-as-robin-westman-while-possible-manifesto-shows-psychotic-obsession-with-mass-shooters/) *Wed 27 Aug 2025 17:24* *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/us-news/minneapolis-catholic-school-gunman-idd-as-robin-westman-while-possible-manifesto-shows-psychotic-obsession-with-mass-shooters/)* - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**The i Paper** • [Newspapers accused of &#8216;stirring up hatred&#8217; as they remove false claims child murderer Ian Huntley was transgender](https://inews.co.uk/news/media/ian-huntley-trans-claims-newspaper-delete-transgender-stories-soham-murders-257992) *Wed 13 Feb 2019 18:48* - [N] <span class="bmark"></span>**Express.co.uk** • [Correction – ‘Call me Lian’ Soham murderer Ian Huntley gives himself FEMALE name](https://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/1234109/ian-huntley-correction) *Mon 27 Jan 2020 17:45* *[📼](https://web.archive.org/web/20250830000000/https://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/1234109/ian-huntley-correction)* We're not just a scapegoat, a convenient minority to use as a wedge. If too many people started taking trans people seriously as **people** at any point, it could have compromised Epstein's operation. If Ava Cordero had been listened to, it could have spared almost *two decades* of raped, tortured, and murdered women and girls. It's beyond me why I'm dignifying this with reason, but it doesn't even make sense - this whole diabolical scheme was to provide an industrial-scale supply of children and vulnerable women to the world's richest monsters, for them to enjoy violating *themselves*. They refer to babies as *products*. Why on earth would they waste their money grooming anyone they don't get to molest or control? The only possible interest Jeffrey Epstein and his conspirators could have had in promoting or normalising transgender people, in "creating" trans children, **is in raping them**. If you've ever believed something you read in the news that has been labelled transphobic, if you *just think* that trans people are the "real" threat to women and children, have a fucking think about that. # [^1]: I am, once again, *begging* people to recognise that being an evolutionary \_\_\_ist is cause to be *suspicious* of their takes, not credulous, especially when they're on "culture war" topics or basically anything outside of their incredibly narrow wheelhouse. Just look at Jordan Peterson, for christ's sake. I thought he was a pompous, vapid fraud from the moment I heard of him and it had little to do with his transphobia. [^2]: I don't *use* twitter (that's its biological name, I don't know what this "X" stuff is about), only check it occasionally when curiosity gets the better of me, so it could just be a normal lull, or my not understanding how the fuck twitter feeds work. [^3]: as unlikely as it seems, trans people don't have authoritative knowledge of every single trans-related thing (damned if I won't try to, though). [^4]: [[Lily-stfu-terf.png|"Dr MeNgElE wAs JuSt OnE dOcToR tOo!!"]] [^5]: I sigh and add "Wayfair 2: Island Adventure" to the bingo card [^7]: ![[7436aebdbf34838047a113f2b535535d 1.jpg|don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.]]