The Psychological War on Women

Women’s rights and the restoration of consent

Billed as a women’s growth and development group, members of DOS (which the women later learned stood for “dominant over submissive”) took on what they understood to be metaphorical roles of “masters” and “slaves.” Members, almost all of whom were led to believe that the group had no male involvement, practiced and endured various forms of subjugation, believing it would empower them to become “masters” of their own lives.

One member, Sarah Edmondson, was told the women would all share a dime-size tattoo representing the four elements. She and four other naked women participated in a secret ritual during which they knelt and recited, “master please brand me, it would be an honor” before being held down on a table by the other women and permanently marked with a cauterizing pen just above the bikini line.

Months afterward, Edmondson realized that the design seared into her skin represented not the four elements, but the initials of now-convicted NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere (AKA “Vanguard”). Having discovered that the group was secretly directed by Raniere, she went to the police. They told her she had no recourse. She had “consented,” they said.

Branded as a Sisterhood

In order to learn about DOS, women were required to first provide “collateral” (as it was called); something that would be humiliating if released. Women provided false and degrading testimonials about themselves or members of their families, nude videos, and nude or sexually explicit photos. This was just to learn about the group.

Those who chose to join submitted additional “collateral” and took a vow to never leave DOS. The implied threat of publicizing the humiliating material—plus the periodic requirement to submit more—kept them “accountable.”

In other words, they were trapped.

Approximately 150 women participated in DOS. Though most were unaware of Raniere’s involvement, some, at his covert direction, were instructed by their “masters” to have sex with him. Those women did so voluntarily, just as they had voluntarily provided humiliating material and submitted to being branded.

Eventually, a jury determined that much of what Raniere’s legal team argued was done “voluntarily” failed to meet the criteria for consent. From a legal standpoint, consent is absent when compliance, even if voluntary, is premised on deception, undertaken out of fear or under duress, or when resistance is of no use.

In 2019, Raniere was convicted of racketeering, human trafficking, sex offenses, forced labor, and fraud. He is currently serving a 120-year sentence.

A Cult of Another Kind

In 2021 in Pennsylvania, 38 women in their late teens to early twenties were part of another kind of cult. They were instructed to undress alongside a 22-year-old, 6’4,” sometimes nude male. Some of the women found ways around it, but the rest “voluntarily” performed this ritual 18 times a week for more than 30 weeks.

And they weren’t alone. More than 300 other young women were subjected to the same expectation with the same male—less frequently, but on multiple occasions.

It was an open secret. Across the country, several people in positions of authority who could have made it stop, instead made it difficult for the women to avoid it, implying there would be consequences if the young women spoke out. The women were given the message that distress about undressing in front of this particular male meant there was something wrong with them.

How could this happen in the United States in 2021?

Although that male body was not categorically different from any other male body, it belonged to a male University of Pennsylvania swimmer who identifies as a woman. For an entire season of collegiate swimming, the subjective experience of the male-bodied Lia Thomas was prioritized over the subjective experiences of hundreds of female athletes who were denied privacy, dignity, respect, and their right to fair competition.

Though male, Thomas won Ivy League swimming championships and an NCAA Division I title in the female category, and was even nominated by the University of Pennsylvania—over and above all female athletes in every sport—for the NCAA Woman of the Year award.

According to former University of Pennsylvania team member Paula Scanlan, the consent of Penn’s female swimmers was never sought, and concerned women were told that having Thomas on their team was “a non-negotiable.” Someone from the LGBTQ center met with the female swimmers to ensure they understood Penn’s conception of “inclusivity.” Those who expressed concerns or distress, according to Scanlan, were offered counseling.

Under duress and out of fear, the women “voluntarily” accepted their male teammate, including the requirement to undress together. Given the open showers in the locker room, some swimmers dealt with their discomfort by showering with their suits on or at home. But others adopted the thinking of the administration and regularly showered with their male teammate. According to Scanlan, administrators told the female swimmers that if they spoke out in opposition, they would “regret it.” Required to comply or lose their ability to compete, resistance was of no use.

Testing and Training for Abuse

Psychologist Dina McMillan, who has interviewed more than 700 abusive men and over 5000 victims of abuse, finds that victims often adopt their abusers’ justifications for their treatment, many coming to believe that if their intuition tells them something is wrong, it means there is something wrong with them.

In her program, Unmasking the Abuser, McMillan describes the “testing and training” tactics with which abusers manipulate their victims into complying with their demands. To begin the process, abusers “do things that make their targets uncomfortable” to see how their potential victims respond. Those who comply are then trained. Abusers, she says, take advantage of cultural norms for women, including respecting authority, considering others before themselves, and making compromises to take care of other people’s feelings even when it's not in their own interests.

This kind of manipulation is not limited to cults nor to women’s sports. It shows up in laws that have been used to deprive women of the very protections such laws were written to ensure. In some states, for example, the redefinition of certain key words and concepts has meant that by law, even males with standard male levels of testosterone and intact male genitalia have been permitted access to spaces for nude women. Championed, unbelievably, by the same people who not too long ago championed “consent culture,” these laws have meant that males, as long as they self-identify as “women,” have been legally permitted to expose their genitalia to women.

Progressive Politics Vs. Progress

Were it not for these males claiming the identity of “woman,” invading single-sex spaces and exposing their genitals would be a violation of the law, not protected by it. Instead, refusing to allow such males in what are meant to be single-sex spaces for women, even if such males are attracted to women, can amount to unlawful discrimination on the basis of (wait for it) sexual orientation.

Under the Biden Administration’s directive of April of 2024, the definition of “sex” for the purposes of Title IX would have been similarly changed. While it did not include a final provision on transgender participation in sports, if this had not been halted by federal courts and then reversed by the Trump Administration, it could have resulted in male-inclusive policies in women’s private spaces and competitions wherever Title IX applies.

This would have enshrined in law the inability for female students to refuse to compete against male athletes in women’s sports, share single-sex spaces with male students, or undress in front of male bodies. But on February 5, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”) directing all federal agencies to interpret Title IX’s definition of “sex” as… well, sex.

A Return to Women’s Rights

What athletes compete against, and what we all see when clothes come off, are bodies, not identities. Certainly, compassion is the appropriate response to people who find their sex distressing. Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity regardless of their feelings about their sex or beliefs about their gender. But if girls and women (females) aren’t allowed to say no to sharing single-sex competitions and spaces with males; if women aren’t permitted to say no to including them in places like dressing rooms, locker rooms, and showers, then the concept of “consent” is meaningless.

In April, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the University of Pennsylvania had violated Title IX by permitting Lia Thomas to compete on the women’s swim team during the 2021–22 season.

According to a July 1, 2025 OCR Resolution Agreement, Penn has agreed to comply with Title IX as Title IX was originally envisioned and as the Trump administration requires. This includes: properly defining “male” and “female” as binary biological categories rather than fluid gender identities; providing single-sex locker rooms and other facilities; stripping male athlete Lia Thomas of all Penn swimming records and titles acquired in the female category; belatedly restoring those records and titles to the female athletes who rightfully won them; and formally apologizing to the female swimmers who lost the opportunity to compete fairly—and were required to undress in front of a male swimmer more than 540 times.

It should not need to be said, but apparently it does: When women cannot say no to including males in their competitions and private spaces, it isn’t progress. It’s the triumph of power over personhood—and the end of consent.