Similar posts

xoài phạm #moonbat everydayfeminism.com

3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism

The scenario is always the same: I say we should abolish prisons, police, and the American settler state — someone tells me I’m irrational. I say we need decolonization of the land — someone tells me I’m not being realistic.

Whenever I hear this, I stop and think about the world we’d live in if previous European colonizers were berated with the same rhetoric about rationalism as we abolitionists are today.

Would it have been enough to stop them in their tracks?

What if someone had told them that the creation of the American nation-state of settler-colonizers who displace and murder the Indigenous inhabitants — and the development of the white supremacist, anti-Black, capitalist, cisheteropatriarchy — was a project too hefty to accomplish?

What if those imperialism-driven Europeans, all passionate and roused about Manifest Destiny, were encouraged to stop and reconsider whether their violent plans were rational?

We might possibly have a world that isn’t filled to the brim with oppression.

There may not have been the centuries-long (and still ongoing) ravaging of every continent and the development of anti-Black chattel slavery.

We many never have had the tentacles of the white supremacist patriarchy spanning the entire globe, regulating gender along a binary and fostering rape culture.

We may never have had carceral forms of justice that render certain people disposable.

And the Earth’s lands, skies, and water definitely wouldn’t be irrevocably devastated.

But it makes sense why many of those who are committed to social justice subscribe to the same language of rationalism as their oppressors. Marginalized folks are taught from infancy that they need to behave in a respectable manner to be treated with decency. We face so much violence, to the point where the violence becomes the norm and our resistance is what feels extreme.

We’re painted as aggressors even when we are consistently the victims. The media treats Black victims worse than white killers. People see trans and gender non-conforming people in bathrooms as threats rather than as targets of abuse.

When we are told repeatedly that everything we do is an attack, we internalize the idea that we need to quiet ourselves, to take up less space. And so we begin to limit ourselves to tactics of resistance that are easy to digest — and we create those limits under the guise of being rational.

Not only is this urge to be rational holding us back, it unintentionally validates the logic of white supremacy as natural and positions the desire to fight oppression as excessive and outrageous.

For those of us who are trying to burn the colonial project to the ground and build a new world, we have to stop placing limits on ourselves in a world that is already at our throats.

Abolitionists, those who are invested in abolishing police, prisons, the settler colonial nation-state, cannot afford to be held back by what is deemed rational. In fact, rationalism has no place in abolitionism.

This is not to say that there are many roles to be filled among those who resist, none of which should be placed in a hierarchy of value. People come from different places of knowledge, ability, and history which makes each person equipped to participate (if they so choose) based on their unique position in society.

But when those who are the loudest, the most disruptive — the ones who want to destroy America and all of the oppression it has brought into the world — are being silenced even by others in social justice groups, that is unacceptable.

Pushing the boundaries of how we can shape our resistance beyond what’s rational is urgent and necessary.

And here are three reasons why.

1. Being Rational Has No Inherent Value

When I talk about abolition, whether that be of prisons, immigrant detainment centers, the police, or the government, I am instantly derailed by strangers and even friends. They tell me that it isn’t rational.

They say this as if everyone seeks to be rational, as if prisons, themselves — which have grown more than 400 percent since 1970 and which has predominantly impacted communities of color, especially Black and Indigenous communities — are rational. As if being rational has indisputable value.

At first, I took their reactions to heart. I thought maybe being rational really is necessary if I wanted to achieve my goals of eradicating oppression.

If I’m not rational, then I must not be thinking correctly, which makes me incompetent and unqualified to even have political opinions.

Or so I thought.

The truth is, this constant emphasis on rationalism is a load of toxic garbage (and this is me being gentle with my words). It reeks of the rancid odor that develops when we squeeze our vast imaginations into tiny boxes labeled “pragmatic,” “rational,” and “reasonable.” Being rational can often mean being willing to accept some aspects of oppression and watering down my politics.

In fact, by American standards, my very existence is irrational. For many, I simply do not exist as a queer, Vietnamese femme who is neither a man or a woman. Living in my body, wading through my truths, is not a rational act. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Based on my experiences as a marginalized person, being rational just means going easy on my oppressors.

The narrow bit of room that rationalism gave me wasn’t enough for me to envision new possibilities for my gender, to escape the confines of impending manhood. It wasn’t enough for me to understand my personhood as infinitely more complicated than the models of personhood fed to me by white cis people.

From my vantage point, rationalism — or whatever you want to name it — did more harm than good.

Some of us place so much value on being rational that we’re unable to recognize that when someone tells you to be rational, they may just be telling you that their ideas weigh more than yours.

The rhetoric of rationalism can be used as a seemingly benign disguise for social control.

2. Rationalism Is a Tool Made to Hurt Us

In the context of anti-oppression work, limiting ourselves to rational thinking means that we’re choosing to use the tools that make sense to our oppressors, which are usually tools made to hurt us.

Rationalism means we’re working within the framework of a system that was built to harm us in the first place.

And that, for me, is completely irrational — and it’s violent and oppressive to expect that of anyone who suffers from the exploitation and abuse of this system.

But to take it a step further, rationalism is subjective.

For those who are most impacted by the prison industrial complex — Black and Indigenous folks, trans and gender non-conforming folks, people with disabilities, those who are undocumented, and those who sit at the intersection of multiple identities, among others — abolitionist politics are entirely rational.

When your life and the well-being of your family, chosen and otherwise, is under attack by the prison system, for instance, abolition is common sense. Investing in prisons only makes sense for corporations, for governments, for oppressors whose power is fueled by the abuse and deaths of marginalized people.

In a world truly committed to justice, nothing would be more rational than abolitionism.

Yet, social justice liberals who spew negative rhetoric about rationalism tend to be against abolition, instead preferring reformist politics over anything deemed too “radical.” Why are we trying to be steady and gentle with systems of oppression while the systems get to inflict violence among large masses of people?

When we limit ourselves in our dreams and our goals, the oppressor has less work to do.

When we restrict ourselves in the name of being rational, we create barriers for ourselves — we place the world we want to live in farther from reach.

Since what’s rational is subjective, it is thus indefinable. The only reason why rationalism is believed to have inherent value is because it echoes the oppressor’s way of thinking.

When oppressors have the power to decide what’s rational, they get to commit irrational acts and claim them as rational justifications for oppression.

Take colonialism as an example: Colonizers enjoy claiming that those they’ve colonized are less civilized, despite the fact that colonized peoples often come from older and more complex civilizations than those of the colonizer.

And non-binary people are told their whole identities are irrational, even though non-binary people have existed much longer than the American settler state.

When the state gets to decide what’s normal enough to be rational, they get to decide who becomes the reviled Other – the groups that are subjected to targeted abuse.

Moving beyond the logical confines of our oppressors is necessary for us to envision a world free from the systems that kill us.

3. We Are Enough Without Rationalism

As Assata Shakur has said, “No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them.”

We should be constantly interrogating why being rational has been presumed to hold inherent value, and we should be asking ourselves where we got that idea in the first place. The institutions that taught us what we know should be placed under suspicion.

For many of us, schools are where many people are conditioned to become either complicit or complacent to systems of oppression. In fact, one could argue that institutions of education are not to make the people more empowered, but to stomp out their autonomy and make them more likely to invest in their downfall.

And before school, we are socialized into being obedient through the ways that oppression influences the way we raise children and build interpersonal relationships.

This is exactly why people believe that police and prisons equal safety, when that is not the case.

People have been conditioned to believe that prisons will keep their communities safe, when carceral state is the very thing hurting them. And more police does not mean more safety, especially when the police get to murder people with impunity. What does it mean when we feel an inclination to trust the institutions that are killing us?

The extent to which we’ve been led to love and trust our oppressors is so deep that we’re entrusting ourselves to our murderers.

The longer we postpone abolition based on “logical” arguments, the longer we’re denied basic autonomy. It’s a fallacy to believe that we’ll be given a more opportune time to abolish prisons and decolonize, because the role of the state is to never provide that opportunity.

When we frame abolition and decolonization as “long-term” goals, we operate under the belief that these goals can only happen in the distant future. We need to instead reframe abolition and decolonization as urgent, immediate goals.

If we look back at history, we would recognize that there are tons of examples of movements that may have been deemed irrational but ended up succeeding, the Montgomery Bus Boycott being one of them.

Many people know the Rosa Parks from learning about the boycott but don’t recognize how radical is was for around 42,000 Black Americans to boycott the public transit system for over a year.

Their goal was to ensure that Black people had the same treatment under the public transit system as whites and they never compromised their goals, even as transportation was denied to them over the course of a year. Without transportation, Black lives were completely disrupted. They had to either walk (for those who had that physical ability), or they had to find other forms of transportation.

As a result, they found a new way of operating — they relied on one another.

Black taxi drivers lowered their prices dramatically, Black people with cars began supplying rides to those without cars, and churches bought cars and station wagons to help those who didn’t have access to a vehicle. They organized carpools and collectively established on pickup and dropoff locations.

That was how Black community members developed their own autonomous, sustained transportation system for thousands upon thousands of people that didn’t involve the American settler colonial government.

How rational do you think that was?

They of course encountered backlash and horrific violence throughout the boycott. Leaders were arrested and laws were created to justify their imprisonment. Homes, churches, and cars were riddled with bombs and bullets from snipers even after the boycott ended.

It’s important to recognize that there are people who face so much violence in their lives that they simply don’t want to subject themselves to the violence that comes along with protesting oppression. It’s important to understand that some people are so marginalized and have so much trauma that they may not have the capacity or desire to engage in ways that may trigger unwanted memories and emotions.

And the conditions of those of us who are farthest in the margins are another reason why these abolitionist goals are so necessary.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott didn’t intend to abolish the nation-state, but it had goals that were unheard of and it created its own system of transportation that allowed Black people to take care of each other without the state. The boycott is a model of possibilities. And there are many others.

There are possibilities that we haven’t dreamed of yet because we are too invested in resisting in a rational way.

Sure, there are ways to hold space for both the smaller policy changes and the large-scale structural changes. But when we choose to tell ourselves that destroying a violent system is too big of a task for right now, we willingly give up both our time and our power.

Every minute under the carceral, colonial project is inconceivable violence. We too often place abolition as something only possible in a far-off future, which means we’re allowing the right-now to be stolen.

The only logical time for abolition and decolonization is now.

Rather than spending time and energy worrying about whether our movements are rational, can we direct that time and energy towards recognizing our brilliance?

***

When we invest in ourselves, in our own power, we have no need for the oppressor and their rational politics. We can be strategic without holding ourselves back. We already have the tools we need in us to win.

We are already lovers, healers, artists, creators, and so much more.

We have the power to think far beyond the education we’ve been given, beyond the carceral state, beyond the gender binary, beyond capitalist relationships, beyond the colonial project.

We are dreaming up ourselves, each other, and the world we want to live in. We can’t let rationalism steal our dreams.

And we have to trust and love ourselves enough to make those dreams a reality.

Tony Miano #fundie crossencountersmin.com

Target Bathrooms: An Overview

On April 19, 2016, Target announced to the world that their customer and employee restrooms were no longer distinguished by the chromosomal make-up of the users. No longer would Target restrooms be specifically assigned to either XY people or XX people (male or female). From now on, anyone who “self-identified” as LGBTQ (or any other letter in the alphabet soup of depravity) could use whichever bathroom they choose. Any man who, for even just the moment of restroom use, self-identifies as a woman (an XY who wants to pretend to be an XX) can walk unabated into the women’s restroom. Any woman who, for even just the moment of restroom use, self-identifies as a man (an XX who wants to pretend to by an XY) can walk unabated into the men’s restroom.

This is the depraved, God-hating world in which we live (Romans 1:18-32).

On April 20, 2016, I decided to conduct a little experiment at my local Target store. I walked in, purchased a KitKat bar, approached the cashier, and asked her this question: “If I self-identify as a Target employee, can I receive the employee discount on my purchase?” This began a chain reaction of confusion and absurdity as I then spoke to an assistant manager and the store manager. When I explained to the managers that I thought I should be allowed to self-identify as a store employee since I could now walk into the women’s restroom so long as I self-identified as a woman, the light bulbs went on in their head. They understood why I came to their store and the point I was trying to make.

You can watch the video, here. With well-over 33,000 views (granted, those are not Taylor Swift numbers) over the last five days, the video has caused a little stir and solicited a lot of reaction. Almost 300 comments have been posted. I’ve also deleted that many comments due to inappropriate content. “Likes” to “Dislikes” are running about 6-1 positive. The video has been shared by others thousands of times. For me and my little YouTube channel, this is what “going viral” looks like.

Tanith Lloyd #sexist medium.com

An open letter to my friend who thinks transwomen are women

I recently sent you an article by a lesbian who has been documenting homophobia within trans activism. You, my otherwise compassionate, patient and warm friend, replied with “sorry, not interested”. You told me that you didn’t want to read an article which referred to transwomen as ‘male’. You said that transwomen suffer from an “accident at birth” — transwomen are women born in the wrong body.

Seeing my principled friend (with a first-class undergraduate and a masters degree) actively adopt such a bizarre, anti-materialist and anti-scientific position really worries me. How can ‘you’ be ‘born into’ a body? You are a body. The ‘born in the wrong body’ idea goes beyond poststructuralist ideas about gender onto quasi-religious terrain. How can anyone have an innate, pre-experience knowledge of what it means to be the other sex? What does that even entail? Being male or female refers to your reproductive sex. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing for gendered souls.

Still, you talk about ‘gender identity’ —an innate sense of whether someone is male or female. Where is the evidence for this? How do we measure it? What does it mean? Even if we were to accept that a part of your brain could get ‘mixed up’ into an ‘incorrectly’ sexed body, why would ‘gender identity’ override all other physical indicators of whether you are male or female? Why would your subjective sense of self ever be privileged over objective physicality in this way? Transgender is not a medical diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, characterised by dissatisfaction with your sexed body and/or assigned gender role. The science behind what causes gender dysphoria is inconclusive, but it is likely caused by different biopsychosocial factors which are unique to each trans person. Gender dysphoria has not been proven to have one ‘cause’ (an ‘accident at birth’ leading to being ‘born in the wrong body’) — there is no normative standard of ‘feeling like a woman’ or ‘feeling like a man’.

Despite this, children who ‘identify’ as the other sex are being given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. The systematic medicalisation of gender non-conforming children should be an unthinkable practice. Little girls are too young to understand that wanting short hair, having crushes on other girls and enjoying football doesn’t make you a boy trapped in a girls body. Studies suggest that 80% of gender dysphoric children desist and grow up to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. One reason why older lesbians are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they recognise that they could easily have been ‘transed’ had they been children today. One reason why mothers are so outspoken (“TERFs”) is because they know children and their fickleness well.

We are meant to simultaneously believe that gender identity is fixed at around four years old (thus justifying medical intervention in children) but also that trans people don’t all struggle with a lifelong dissatisfaction with their ‘gender’ (thus widening the ‘trans umbrella’ for ‘inclusivity’). How are we to explain ‘genderfluid’, ‘non-binary’ or ‘agender’ identities? If gender has the potential to be fluid, or to change over time, or to not exist, what justification do we have in making permanent changes to a child’s body? Feminists see this practice as being based in gender essentialism?—?a concept you otherwise recognise and reject. What do you make of Jazz Jennings’ book, ‘I am Jazz’, which opens with “for as long as I can remember, my favourite colour has been pink”? She goes on to argue that “I have a girl brain, but a boy body. This is called transgender”. This book is being read in schools in an effort to educate children about what being trans means.

Jazz’ case is interesting, and certainly complexifies issues around sex and gender?—?to what extent can Jazz be considered ‘a man’ if she has never been allowed to go through male puberty? How could it be reasonable to expect Jazz to use male spaces? These are conversations we need to have. But Jazz is a very rare case. ‘Transgender’ is an umbrella term coined in the 1990s to unite a variety of gender non-conforming experiences. What was once ‘transsexual’ is now ‘transgender’. What was once ‘transvestite’ is also ‘transgender’. Both Jazz Jennings and Eddie Izzard have the same claim to the term ‘woman’, because ‘woman’ has been extended to mean ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ (which I guess excludes me, then). Where do you draw the line? Being ‘trans’ is no longer characterised by the material state of having surgically changed your body, but is now characterised by an immaterial, subjective sense of self. Is Danielle Muscato a woman? How about Stonewall activist, Alex Drummond? Again, where do you draw the line? Is it based on ‘passing’? Do women have to look a certain way? What about Jess Bradley, NUS trans spokesperson, who has been suspended from their position for allegedly flashing ‘her’ erect penis in public? Is this a female crime? Are we as a society prepared to accept that it is now possible for a woman to flash her erect penis in public? To extend this further: are we to now accept the possibility of a woman raping another woman with her penis? If nothing else, this is a huge assault on female solidarity and trust. This may be a crude comparison, and I apologise, but consider other animals: would surgically transplanting the feathers of a male peacock onto a female peacock make the latter male? Of course not. Would castrating and shaving the mane of a male lion make him female? Of course not. So why do we accept that surgery has the power to change sex in human beings?

Having said this, we are told by organisations like Stonewall that trans people who do not undergo surgical interventions are still, in all senses, the other sex. This is absurd. What definition of ‘female’ includes the only sex she is not? The female mammal is characterised by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa). No female mammal can fertilize female gametes. No father is a woman. No man is a woman. A woman is an adult human female. Definitions are, necessarily, exclusionary.

Still, in efforts to be more ‘inclusive’, organisations like Bloody Good Period and Cancer Research are reducing women to their biological functions with terms like “menstruators” and “everyone with a cervix”, respectively. Using such passive terms is explicit dehumanisation: other female animals have cervixes and can menstruate. Perhaps the most Orwellian act of ‘inclusivity’ comes from Healthline, who refer to vaginas as “front holes” in sex-education material. This is clearly offensive and ridiculous. You know this. Yet any woman who protests the erasure of ‘woman’ as a meaningful category is smeared as a ‘TERF’. Women who claim ‘women don’t have penises’ are being investigated by the police for hate crime. This is a laughably grotesque form of sexist injustice. As a leftist, surely you can’t defend this.

These new ideas about gender disproportionately affect women who have their own specific spaces, shortlists and movements. These were created not only to promote solidarity and to address historical disadvantages, but also to safeguard against male violence. The absurd climax of gender activism is that male sex offenders are now being housed in female prisons because they ‘identify’ as women. It seems obvious to me not to lock sex offenders in a space with powerless women, but, again, arguing this position gets you smeared with the slur ‘TERF’ (a term I wish you’d stop using). This may be an uncomfortable truth, but around half of UK trans prisoners are incarcerated for sexual crimes (including rape and paedophilia). This is not to argue that all transwomen are sexually violent, merely to point out that this is over double the 19% figure for sexual violence across the prison population as a whole. Why is this? These are questions we need to be free to ask, alongside many other questions: why are gender identity clinics seeing such dramatic increases in teenage girls with mental health issues and autism? Yet events organised by women to discuss these issues are being systematically shut down. Do you defend this assault on women’s democratic right to free speech and assembly?

I know you have many trans friends, some I know and am also very fond of. I understand that you have seen them struggle and that you naturally want to defend them. As with any feminist position, I am not attacking any individual male or denying their struggles. I am trying to objectively point to facts. Someone told me that in taking a gender-critical position, I am viewing trans people as “either mentally ill or immoral” and that this is cruel and unfair. I sympathise with their point, but this isn’t my position. This reminded me of CS Lewis’ argument that Jesus was either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. Like CS Lewis, this activist excluded another possibility: simply being mistaken, which is where I sit. I worry that a lot of young trans people have misread their gender dysphoria as signalling that they are literally the other sex. But “Trans Women Are Women” was meant to be compassion, not truth.

CÉCILIA LÉPINE #sexist feministcurrent.com

Cultures that have ‘third genders’ don’t prove transgenderism is either ubiquitous or progressive

When homophobic cultures are embracing transgenderism, we need to question its so-called “progressiveness.”

Last year, Pakistan started issuing passports with a third gender category marked by an “X”. In March, the country took things a step further and passed legislation allowing people to change their sex on legal documents, based on self-identification. Now, people can officially self-identify as male, female, or neither on government-issued ID documents, meaning an individual born male can now be issued a female passport. Al Jazeera reports:

“The law guarantees citizens the right to express their gender as they wish, and to a gender identity that is defined as ‘a person’s innermost and individual sense of self as male, female or a blend of both, or neither; that can correspond or not to the sex assigned at birth.'”

The law has been celebrated by many as a progressive victory. Amnesty International’s Pakistan researcher Rabia Mehmood told Al Jazeera that the implementation of the bill “is crucial to ensure [trans-identified people] can live their lives with dignity and respect.” While this might indeed seem like a step forward to some, an important detail brings up questions: despite Pakistan’s apparent embrace of trans-identified people, homosexuality remains criminalized in the country. What liberals and progressives who support this kind of legislation have failed to ask themselves is why transgender politics are being embraced by conservative and regressive regimes like those in Pakistan and Iran.

Trans activists claim that transgenderism has existed throughout history. To prove that “gender identity” is not a modern invention, they point to non-Western societies where, historically, more than two genders have been culturally accepted. This claim is rarely subjected to critical analysis. A feminist analysis is ignored in favour of a superficial analysis of race and colonialism that goes as follows: if a third gender exists in non-Western, non-white societies, the “sex binary” must be a colonialist Western concept that has been imposed on all of us.

But while a third gender really does exist in some societies, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these non-Western views of sex and gender roles are anti-sexist, nor does it mean the application of this idea to Western societies is automatically progressive.

If you compare India’s transgender population to Pakistan’s, you’ll notice an interesting similarity: an overwhelming majority are males. Hijra, as they are called in India, are men or boys pressured to become women on misogynistic grounds: these males love hanging out with women, help women with domestic work, have features that are considered “feminine,” or are suspected of being homosexual. They are often castrated and aren’t allowed to marry or own property. While they may be called upon to bless newborns and celebrate marriages, society generally shuns them and they are rejected by their ashamed families. Seen as accursed, they are given a ritual, religious purpose to counterbalance their ungodly condition. They often become dancers and prostitutes and, like in Pakistan, have to seek the guardianship of a guru (who essentially functions as their pimp) in order to avoid homelessness.

One Pakistani man named Zara tells The Guardian:

“I was born with a very small male organ. Inside, my feelings are female… I want to live like a woman, cook and do domestic work.”

The implication is that a small penis and a preference for “woman’s work” mean that Zara is not sufficiently masculine, and therefore not male.

A homosexual male born as Iman but calling himself Marie featured in a BBC documentary, Iran’s sex change solution, consulted several psychotherapists, some of whom “worked underground.” One suggested pills (of an unspecified nature), another electric shock treatment. Eventually, one doctor told Iman that he could “change [his] gender” and said he needed to start hormone therapy. After a while, another doctor encouraged him to take a step further and undergo surgery. “The doctor told me that with the surgery he could change the two per cent male features but he said he could not change the 98 per cent female features to be male,” Iman says. It is very probable that the surgery included removal of his genitals. As a boy, Iman was bullied for having soft features and was frequently told he looked “like a girl.” After being pressured to start hormones to emphasize his “feminine” features, Iman noticed that he started to grow breasts and that his body hair was thinning. There is little doubt as to what the doctor referred to when he mentioned his remaining “two per cent male features”… Iman says he felt “damaged,” physically. “What I saw was frightening and abnormal,” he adds.

Iran doesn’t traditionally have any concept of a third gender, but the arguments towards the acceptance of transgenderism are the same as in India or Pakistan: when men don’t conform to gender roles related to masculinity and heterosexuality, they are told they are not men at all. In countries like India or Pakistan, religious beliefs about the “balance” between male and female play a role in how women and men are treated. There are many stories about “hermaphrodites” or tales about eunuchs. Men who fail to conform are told they have a female soul and hold a special spiritual position. But in Iran, the religious explanation is non-existent: instead, men like Iman are told that they need medical treatment.

Those who claim transgenderism is universal will also bring up Indigenous societies to show that “male” and “female” are simply rigid inventions of Western, colonial culture, offering “third genders” and “two spirit” people as proof of this. “Native cultures” are glamourized as gender-fluid utopias that European, Christian, colonial conquest destroyed, imposing a rigid two-gender system instead. It is true that as part of the Christianization and colonization process, missionaries profoundly changed the social dynamics between men and women. Children were uprooted from their cultural and social spheres and sent to residential schools, where they were taught Victorian values and morality regarding men and women’s place in North American societies. Indigenous people were subjected to different social codes than those they’d grown up with. Their appearance, for instance, was refashioned: boys couldn’t have long hair because it was considered feminine — they had to wear suits, while girls needed to keep their hair tied at all times and wear dresses. But it would be false to presume that Indigenous societies — which are not at all homogenous — regarded gender (in its contemporary definition) as an instrument for self-expression. This assumes all of these cultures accepted the liberal notion of individual choice and freedom popularized in the aftermath of the American Revolution. But modern notions of individualism, self-expression, and self-realization were were not likely present in pre-colonial Indigenous societies.

The Navajo, for example, have a traditional third gender class called “nadleeh.” While, today, the term is applied to both trans-identified males and females, it originally referred exclusively to males. According to an essay by Wesley Thomas in the book, Two-Spirit People, “Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality,” men who showed proclivities for traditionally female activities such as weaving, cooking, and raising children, became nadleeh.

Thomas writes, “From the Navajo view, until the turn of the century, males who demonstrated characteristics of the opposite gender were known to fulfill their roles as nadleeh.” He argues that the Navajo recognized “gender diversity” pre-colonization:

“Multiple genders were part of the norm in the Navajo culture before the 1890s. From the 1890s until the 1930s dramatic changes took place in the lives of Navajos because of exposure to, and constant pressures from, Western culture — not the least of which was the imposition of Christianity…

… Due to the influence of Western culture and Christianity, which attempt to eradicate gender diversity, the pressure still exists.”

However, he also points out that gender roles still existed in Navajo society:

“The traditional social gender system, although based initially on biological sex, divides people into categories based on several criteria: sex-linked occupation, behaviors, and roles. ‘Sex-linked occupation’ refers to expected work specializations associated with being female or male. ‘Sex-linked behaviors’ include body language, speech style and voice pitch, clothing and other adornment, and those aspects of ceremonial activities that are sex-linked (e.g., women wear shawls in dancing and men do not; men use gourd rattles during dances and women do not). Women’s sex-linked activities include those associated with childrearing, cooking and serving meals, making pottery and baskets, and doing or overseeing other work associated with everyday aspects of the domestic sphere. For men, getting wood, preparing cooking fires, building homes, hunting, planting and harvesting various vegetables, and doing or overseeing work associated with the ceremonial aspects of everyday life are appropriate. A nadleeh mixes various aspects of the behaviors, activities, and occupations of both females and males.”

Traditionally, the Navajo believed that the power of creation belonged to women. It is safe to say that they never believed that nadleeh — “feminine males” — were actually women, because they didn’t have the ability to bear children. They were regarded as feminine on the basis of social occupations but were not called women — azdaa — in the Navajo language. Society was organized on the principle of collective work divided by men and women on account of their physiological differences — women’s activities, for example, were based on their reproductive capacity and status as life-givers.

In this case, the concept of nadleeh cannot be understood as “gender identity” or gender/sex dysphoria, as it was related to social occupations and behaviors connected to sex. While the Navajo are one of the most documented Indigenous cultures, many others are not so well-documented and it therefore seems inappropriate to impose modern notions of “gender diversity,” “gender identity,” or, generally, our own concepts of gender, as we understand it today, in Western cultures.

It also is misguided to assume that non-Western, non-white “third genders” necessarily shatter the gender binary. The existence of other “gender” castes shouldn’t be assumed to challenge the “sex/gender binary” — they need to be examined within their own cultural and political contexts, from a feminist perspective.

The fact that those placed in this “third” gender category are usually males raises another red flag. It suggests that, while men can be downgraded to the status of females, women cannot rise up to the status of men. Being associated with femininity is such a disgrace that men are socially emasculated and physically mutilated. This is pure misogyny. The media remain blind to the evidence, claiming to be puzzled that these supposedly “progressive” gender identity politics are being adopted by otherwise conservative societies that are hostile and violent to women and gay people.

In The Guardian, Memphis Barker writes:

“One reason for the growing acceptance of the trans community springs from an unlikely source — Pakistan’s mullahs. The Council of Islamic Ideology, a government body that has deemed nine-year-old girls old enough to marry and approves the right of men to ‘lightly’ beat their wives, has offered some support to trans rights.”

Of course, in reality, this “support” is only for misogyny.

So blinded by our own Western views on transgender politics — certain we are on “the right side of history” — we can’t see how these ideas could be harmful. Our critical minds have been paralyzed, and fear of backlash has caused us to avoid asking questions. Despite what so many would like to believe, transgender ideology, no matter how and where it is promoted, has put women and gay people in danger all around the world.

Issy Dickinson #transphobia #sexist sexisreal.com

It is well known that abusers, groom everyone around them, not just their victims. This country and it’s people are being groomed to accept pseudoscience that people can change sex if they want to and that men who fetishize women are the most oppressed. Stonewall UK has been groomed by Trans Rights Activists and so have LGBTQ organizations and Pride. They have been groomed by Trans Identified Males, who identify as “lesbians” and whose greatest desire is to have sex with real lesbians, dismissing lesbians’ boundaries, in order to validate themselves.

Lesbians, in turn have been groomed, especially the really young ones, to believe that trans women are really women and that their penises, are in fact “ladydicks”, or “clits on a stick”, as they have been marketing them. These men are sexual abusers. Trans Rights Activists have groomed the country, organizations, politicians and the media, into believing that one can change sex and that a child can be “born in the wrong body”.

They have introduced paedo-culture into mainstream LGBTQ culture with the likes of drag-kids, who have been highly sexualized by and for adult men- men who identify as women. Abusers are active at Pride events, actively encouraging children to be hateful towards older lesbians, who won’t be coerced or harassed into having sex with Trans Identified Males (TIMs). They have groomed these children and young people to push away their own safeguarding protections and despise them. Women are the natural protectors of children,

Pedophiles now calling themselves, Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) ate emerging from the shadows, where they have been lurking for decades to attach themselves to LGBTQ events and organizations, to have unchallenged access to children. We are ALL being groomed to accept these things and then wonder why there has been a huge leap in the number of teenage girls seeking gender reassignment and binding their breasts to prevent unwanted male attention. They are seeking a way out of their female, sexual oppression and lesbianism

Homophobic parents are encouraging their gender non-conforming children into sexual transition, to hide their probable homosexuality or lesbianism. They are grooming their children to “trans the gay away”, rather than have the embarrassment of a butch lesbian daughter, or an effeminate gay-boy. Most female detransitioners are lesbians! And report that they were always lesbians, but couldn’t cope with their sexuality, or their families homophobia. This upsurge of grooming the public, but in particular women, lesbians and gender non-conforming children, emanates from Queer Theory that underpins Transgender ideologies, pedophile acceptance and the male abusers it attracts.

We have all been groomed and desensitized to this abuse of children, lesbians and women. Queer Theory is ultimately a Men’s Sexual Rights movement that promotes increasingly violent, obscure and illegal sex. It is men and men who identify as women, who gain the most.-the domination of women and children. However, Trans Identified Males would have you believe that they are the most oppressed demographic in this county. In the main they are white, middle-class males, who have been raised with huge privileges overall groups in society and whose sense of entitlement is very evident. Truth is, that they are “identifying” into women’s and lesbians’ oppression. It is a case of the oppressors, claiming and appropriating oppression.

various TERFs #fundie independent.co.uk

FEMINISTS JOIN MEN-ONLY SWIM IN PROTEST OF PROPOSED LAW TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO SELF-IDENTIFY AS MALE OR FEMALE

Female activists took a group of male swimmers by surprise on Friday evening when they attended a men-only swim session wearing just swimming trunks and pink swimming caps.

Amy Desir, 30, was one of the two women to gain access to the South London pool session as part of a protest against proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would enable men and women to choose their own gender.

Both women explained their attendance to staff at Dulwich Leisure Centre by saying they “identified as male” and subsequently had the right to be there.

They also used the male changing rooms before going into the session and were later asked by an elderly man if they realised this was a male-only session.

Their actions form part of a nationwide campaign formed on Mumsnet called #ManFriday which encourages women to “self-identify” as men every Friday in protest of the proposed amendments to gender laws that would enable people to self-identify as men or women.

“The aim of the group is to raise awareness among men of the misogynistic and homophobic pro-self-ID policies that are allowing men to appropriate women’s spaces, services and positions,” Desir told The Independent.

“Most men either aren’t aware of the issue or don’t think it has anything to do with them.”

There are currently 91 women taking part in #ManFriday, revealed the mother-of-two, all of whom self-ID as men every Friday to access men-only spaces.

“We don’t change anything about our appearance, or pretend to be in the process of transitioning, just state that we are men.”

Desir and her fellow campaigners are concerned that the proposed legislation would enable predatory men to abuse women in single sex spaces by self-identifying as female.

“We want to challenge the idea that sex and gender are interchangeable and for organisations to use the lawful exemptions in the Equality Act to protect the rights, safety, dignity and privacy of women,” Desir added.

“We also want women’s organisations to be consulted on proposed changes to the law.”

Desir has launched an online petition calling for these concerns to be considered; it currently has more than 5,700 signatures.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #homophobia #fundie #wingnut naturalnews.com

Is it okay to call biological men who “self-identify” as “females” things like “gender confused” or “gender dysphoric?” How about people who decided to become “trans” and later reverted back to their original biological gender – should they even be acknowledged as existing? Not according to the Trans Journalists Association (TJA), which recently released a new style guide that pushes journalists to stop publishing “offensive” content that mentally ill transgenders say is “transphobic.”

According to the TJA, phrases like “biological gender” and “opposite sex” need to go because they supposedly exclude transgenders from the equation. Referring to one’s “biological sex” is also off-limits because transgenders want the world to think of them as actually being the opposite sex, even though their biological identities prove otherwise.

It is no longer permissible to write “man” or “woman,” either, because many transgenders do not consider such words to be “inclusive.” And instead of differentiating between “biological males” “trans males,” or “biological females” and “trans females,” the LGBTQ mafia instead wants journalists to write things like “people with ovaries” and “people with prostates.”

“The media bears a great responsibility when it comes to ensuring accurate and sensitive coverage of trans communities,” the new style guide states, adding that professional journalists have a responsibility “to begin to improve trans coverage” by using words that transgenders find acceptable.

“When you write the word women, are you including trans women?” the guide further asks. “Does it apply to non-binary people and trans men? Most reporting about health according to gender overlooks trans people and incorrectly equates anatomy to gender.”

Try as they might to redefine human biology, the trans cult is wrong in suggesting that “people with ovaries” can be anything other than women. The same goes for “people with prostates,” who are always men. If you are born a woman, then you have female reproductive organs. And if you are born a man, then you have male reproductive organs.

Sorry, LGBTQs, but that is an undeniable fact, no matter how much you try to bully the writing community into kowtowing to your delusions. There are only two genders: male and female. And there is no such thing as a transgender, which is just a mentally ill person with gender dysphoria who refuses to accept biological reality.

These statements alone are enough to get us banned from every major social media platform and search engine, but they represent the truth that the trans cult is unwilling to accept. In other words, this publication will not now, nor ever, take this new style guide seriously.

John Crawford #fundie christianforums.com

Evolutionist Discrimination in Public Education.

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

[links]

As far as the U.S. legal system is concerned, there does not seem to be any legally protected class of persons called Homo sapiens or any ancestral category of persons named Homo erectus from whom Homo sapiens are believed by neo-Darwinists to have descended.

Since it may reasonably be considered to be a violation of their civil rights to have their human ancestors related to, or called, anything other than what the U.S. Government recognizes as legally protected classes of persons, I respectfully submit that teachers and students in U.S. public school systems who publically volunteer to self-identify and self-classify themselves as members of any of the legally recognized and protected classes of persons established by law, may not be involuntarily labeled and classified as Homo sapiens in public schools without their written consent or the written consent of their parents or legal guardians.

Otherwise, if state governments continue to mandate and impose evolutionary neo-Darwinist beliefs and teachings about the human ancestry of the five legitimate racial catagories in which students and teachers have voluntarily chosen to identify and classify themselves as, then public school students and teachers have every right to sue the state for civil rights violations and a redress of racial and ancestral grievances.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #wingnut naturalnews.com

Just as the Health Ranger predicted, Big Tech is now declaring war on gays to satisfy trans

Today’s LGBQs are finding themselves at odds with the Ts, as the Ts are increasingly demanding that the LGBQs submit to their ever-evolving sexual demands or else be deemed “bigots.” And just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long predicted, Big Tech is siding with the Ts in shutting down the free speech rights of the LGBQs because the Ts find their viewpoints “offensive.”

All acronyms aside, here’s the rub: Mentally deranged transgenders are angry that homosexuals aren’t sexually attracted to their mutilated trans bodies, so these transgenders are exploiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter to silence all homosexuals. As it turns out, homosexuals prefer others of the same biological sex, and aren’t interested in transgender freaks who merely “self-identify” as some other gender.

A homosexual male, for instance, is attracted to other biological males, not a transgender “male” who was born with a vagina, but later had it surgically altered to become a fake penis. The same goes for homosexual females, who prefer actual females and not mentally ill dudes who took cross-sex hormones and underwent a litany of gender-bender surgeries to become “women.”

For daring to espouse biological reality, homosexuals have found themselves as the new sworn enemies of the trans mafia, which recently petitioned Facebook to shut down a homosexual men’s group known as “The Boxer Ceiling” for this exact reason. This group, which is no longer visible on the social media platform, had described its mission as exposing “the abuse of gay men and lesbians by proponents of Gender Identity Ideology.”

Members of The Boxer Ceiling say that they have been “relentlessly targeted and harassed by Gender Dogmatists (both trans and non-trans), who fundamentally disagreed with our basic premise that everyone deserves sexual autonomy.” And after creating their group, these members were targeted even more by the trans mafia, and were eventually forced off the Facebook platform entirely.

When Breitbart News attempted to reach out to Facebook for a statement, the Mark Zuckerberg empire did not respond. Attempts to locate the page for The Boxer Ceiling group on Facebook are also pulling up a message stating: “This content isn’t available right now.”

For more related news about social media censorship of politically incorrect speech, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Dear victim society: What goes around comes around
A group of lesbian feminists encountered similar opposition from the trans mafia during a recent event it held at the Toronto Public Library.

Trans freaks threw a big hissy fit outside the facility after learning that a panel organized by Radical Feminists Unite-Toronto was taking place inside, and included a woman by the name of Meghan Murphy, founder of Feminist Current, who, like the members of The Boxer Ceiling, believes that biology trumps mental illness.

Not even 10 years ago, this type of trans insanity wasn’t even on society’s radar. But today, not only is the trans mafia demanding absolute acceptance and embrace of its perversion, but it’s also normalizing tyranny against all opposition with the help of Silicon Valley.

Watching the LGBTQP mafia at large – the P stands for pedophilia, by the way – eat its own is humorous, to say the least. We all saw it coming, at least those of us who’ve been paying attention to the movement’s rapid decline into total depravity.

“Now they’ve learned that when you are lower on the victim pyramid, you must cede your rights to those above you,” wrote one Breitbart News commenter about the plight of today’s homosexuals.

“Clearly trans resides higher on the pyramid than simply gay. One would assume that someone like a cis-male female-identifying non-binary pansexual Muslim refugee from Syria with chronic PTSD would be at the top of the pyramid.”

Graham Linehan #transphobia #sexist dailymail.co.uk

Today I am one of the most loathed figures on the internet. My speaking events have been cancelled. I have been sued. The police have visited my home and former friends have turned their backs on me.

Yet I’m the man who wrote the much-loved Father Ted! Why is it that I’ve become so suddenly unpopular? The thought crime for which I have been tried and found guilty is that I believe biological reality exists.

I believe women are females. I believe everyone should be able to present themselves as they wish but that women’s hard-won rights must not be compromised for the benefit of men suffering body dysphoria – which is to say men who feel they are stuck in the wrong body.

Most of all, I believe that gender ideology, in its currently fashionable form, is dangerous, incoherent nonsense.

I believe trans people –those unfortunate enough to suffer body dysphoria – are having their condition exploited and trivialised by abusive, controlling and authoritarian trans rights activists. And I think women and children are suffering because of it.

Worst of all, I say so, loudly. This makes me Public Enemy No 1.

I make my arguments forcefully because I’m concerned, sometimes with humour because I’m a comedy writer and often while cursing, because I’m Irish. It’s the humour they hate most. It’s kryptonite to these activists.

I’m 51 and I’ve never seen anything like the authoritarianism on display, the desperate desire to shut down the conversation. No genuine civil-rights movement advances in secret but this one has as one of its mantras ‘NO DEBATE’.

So, while we are in a world where male sexual offenders in bad wigs assault female prisoners, where rape crisis centres are defunded because they won’t admit men and where a bloke in a full beard tells schoolchildren that he’s a lesbian, we’re informed with venomous aggression that we may not talk about any of it.

No debate? Oh, there’s going to be a debate all right.

The popular opinion among my detractors is that I’m cherry-picking negative stories to mask a hatred of trans people. In fact, I first came to this debate because I saw women being bullied, losing their jobs and suffering the most intense online harassment I’d ever seen, and I wanted to stand beside them.

Also, as a writer, I couldn’t watch as one of the most important words in the English language, the word ‘woman’, was being changed against the will of those whom it defined.

Suddenly, everywhere you looked, women were being erased, insulted or endangered. Amnesty referring to pregnant women as ‘pregnant people’. Productions of The Vagina Monologues closing because they excluded ‘women who don’t have vaginas’. Women’s toilets disappearing from public life – even though they were introduced to ensure that women could have a public life.

Worst of all, I saw the lack of compassion or empathy for the vulnerable women who are often at the sharp end of the new Gender Theocracy.

The four women attacked in prison by a male sex offender in 2018 (who everyone had to call ‘Karen’ or they were committing a hate crime) are four women too many.

Women in prison often have a history of abuse at the hands of men. Whatever they’ve done, they are entitled to safety from the type of men who helped put them there.

Rational people – and that includes rational trans people – are dismayed by those who have now taken over trans activism.

Body dysphoria is no longer seen as central or even necessary for those who decide to adopt a so-called trans identity.

To see just how elastic and meaningless the word ‘trans’ has become, one only has to look at the definition adopted by the Stonewall lobby group: ‘Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.’

Neutrois, I discovered, literally just means ‘androgynous’. So androgynous people are trans. That’ll be news to Bake Off presenter Noel Fielding.

Under Stonewall’s definition, everyone is trans, and no one is. A cross-dresser such as banker Philip Bunce, who adopts the female persona ‘Pippa’ for only a few days every week, nevertheless receives the honour of being named by the Financial Times as one of its top 100 women in business.

This was seen as progress, a step forward for women. In fact, it is an insult to women and to those suffering from body dysphoria.

In order to maintain the fantasy that our sex is unconnected to our bodies, the truth must be bent and beaten in the fire of academic language. That is why trans activists talk about sex being ‘assigned at birth’ – an abuse of language, if ever I heard one.

Is the sex of a newborn ‘assigned’ by a capricious midwife? Of course not. Rather it is observed and recorded as a matter of fact.

‘Assigned’ is one of the more successful hijackings of English achieved by gender ideologues, yet you will hear it parroted across many organisations from the NHS to the BBC – the sort of institution where you really would expect people to know better.

Before I knew how toxic trans rights activism was, I wrote an episode of my Channel 4 sitcom The IT Crowd with a trans character. The response was more venomous than I was used to, but as bad as it was, at least I was allowed to write it. That was in 2013.

In 2020, such an episode would never air. And that is because the first generation who didn’t go out to play have grown up to become clones of Mary Whitehouse. The new puritans.

I am not new to outrage. There was fury on the part of some when we first released Father Ted but the executives we had were made of strong stuff and ignored the attacks. The same goes for The IT Crowd, Brass Eye, Black Books, and I guess a few comedies I haven’t worked on.

I’m worried we’re entering an era of pre-chewed, prissy art that offends no one. But it’s not comedy writers who are the victims of all this: it is women who are the real casualties.

Gender ideology is a disaster for women. They are expected to make room for men in their changing rooms and their safe spaces.

They are being robbed of the language to describe their reality by unintelligible academic ‘gender experts’, by teenagers encouraging each other online, by parents who are profoundly mistaken, and by well-meaning people who, confused by the ever-changing terminology, still believe they are defending what used to be called transsexuals.

All these forces working together are, whether they know it or not, providing a smokescreen for fetishists, conmen and misogynists to pursue their own agenda.

In years to come, we will look back at this scandal, at the ruined bodies, the confused crime statistics, the weakening of safeguarding and the rollback of women’s rights and wonder how it was left to go on for so long.

C.K. Egbert #fundie feministcurrent.com

DEFENDING THE "TERF": GENDER AS POLITICAL

Recently, feminists have been critiqued for attempting to make women-only spaces. Inclusion of “minority genders,” including transgender women, into what have been traditionally all-female colleges is now protected under Title IX and hailed as a progressive development. Restricting space to people who have been born women and continue to experience the world as women is considered discriminatory at best and biologically determinist at worst.

People often fail to recognize that “woman” is not a personal identity but a political identity based upon a shared experience of oppression. The purpose of certain women-only spaces is not about excluding those with or without a particular genitalia (we didn’t decide that having vaginas and uteruses made one subordinate; men did) or excluding those with a particular gender identity. This isn’t about how strongly one identifies as a woman, whether one might subsequently be seen and treated as a woman, or whether one is marginalized and disadvantaged by gender hierarchy (for example, gay men are marginalized by patriarchy even though they are men). It is about controlling for the experience of male privilege. In my white-to-Latina example [at the top of the linked post], it would be legitimate to exclude me from certain spaces or even definitions of “Latina” not because I believe in biological determinism but because I understand the power of socialization. This doesn’t mean I identify less with being Latina than others who were “born that way,” or that I may not subsequently experience racial subordination. It means I recognize that what I am is not determined solely by what I want to be, and the fact that I’ve experienced white privilege is not and never has been up to me.

Of course there is an important dis-analogy between race and gender in my white-to-Latina story: transgendered women cannot experience all forms of subordination that women as women face. Most female-born women are capable of becoming pregnant at some point in their lives. For those who cannot, infertility is often considered a “problem” that needs to be “fixed.” Transgendered women do not experience disadvantage by virtue of their reproductive role (they don’t need abortions, for instance), and neither are they considered somehow “defective” by virtue of not being able to fulfill a particular reproductive role (although they might be considered pathological, etc. by virtue of not identifying with their imposed gender).

I’m not denying that transgendered people are subject to social, emotional, and physical violence at absurdly high rates, and that this violence is a product of sexism. I’m also not denying that transgender people feel deeply alienated from their imposed gender identity. Many of us are, because gender, and the accompanying deformation of our bodies — from pornographied genitalia to what is considered beautiful — is a profound and perverse imposition of identity. It does not reflect our individuality or even some positive notion of social relatedness. It is a function of a deeply pathological and violent social structure.

But this seems to be where some recent developments in “feminist” theory and activism have diverged from their feminist roots. The feminist struggle against heterosexism and gender conformity was not because any self-professed sexual orientation, identity, or gender should be considered equally valid: it was because the disadvantage and violence non-gender conforming and non-heterosexual people experience are the result of patriarchy in which men and the masculine are socially constructed as (sexually) dominant and women and the feminine are socially constructed as the (sexually) subordinate. Feminism does not seek to marginalize or exclude the experience of people not born as women, but to situate these within a systemic and systematic understanding of the functions, mechanisms, and structure of sexual subordination.

Imagining and advocating for a post-racial world is easier for us than advocating for a post-gender world. Perhaps because gender has been with us longer, it cuts deeper, it invades our most intimate relationships and experiences. Unlike with racial subordination, there is no “remainder”: ethnicity (identification with a particular cultural or linguistic tradition) can exist without race (the social construction of an identity based upon one’s racial subordination or privilege), but there is no gender without sexual subordination.

J.K. Rowling #transphobia jkrowling.com

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Burns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

Miguel #fundie theantifeminist.com

Ephebophilia (or ‘hebephilia’) is a word commonly bandied about online by individuals wishing to differentiate between men (like themselves), who are attracted towards underage teenagers, and ‘paedophiles’ who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Of course, the media, and the legal system, makes no such distinction. However, many who would champion the right of men to have sexual relations with girls currently under the age of consent feel strongly that if this distinction was more widely known and accepted then it could facilitate a more reasonable public discussion on the age of consent and the laws and punishments relating to sex with teens. Paedophiles are evil perverts and beyond the pale, but ephebophiles? Well, they are not so very different from the average red-blooded man – they just like their women a little bit younger. Yes, they are suffering from a clinical disorder, as paedophiles are, but it’s not so harmful and they are a lot closer to the normal spectrum than subhuman paedos.

So is ephebophilia a real thing? Does the concept serve any useful purpose in the context of the feminist war upon male sexuality and age of consent issues in particular? And am I just as much as a hebo as some of my former readers who have championed the label in the past, such as ‘Human Stupidity‘?

As regulars will know, I’ve made a point of strongly disavowing the very idea of ephebophilia. There are two good reasons for this.

Firstly, my experience of ‘ephebophiles’ both here and elsewhere online. Self-identified ephebophiles tend to be universally 1/ clearly autistic 2/ tactically clueless 3/ prone to paedocrisy and even 4/ Left-Wing and pro-feminist (obviously some exceptions, such as HS) and certainly ‘anti-misogynistic’.

To put it bluntly, based upon my experience, such people are worse than useless in the fight against the Sexual Trade Union. I’d rather go into battle against an Isis horde with only a dozen disabled, pacifist, transgenders alongside me than these creepy ‘ephebophiles’. Hell, I’d rather take on a handful of Russian Ultras with a thousand English football hooligans to back me up. That’s how pathetic these aspie hebos are when it comes to the street fight we are all in.

Secondly, I see no strategic advantage whatsoever in embracing the label of ephebophilia. ‘Hebos’ are so clueless that they really do believe, in their aspie naivety, that the same hysteric mobs who burn down the homes of pediatricians will take kindly to a group defining themselves by a slightly different Ancient Greek term meaning ‘ perverted love of underage girls with hair and perky breasts’.

Of course, this isn’t quite fair. Ephebophilia means ‘love of youth’ (form the Greek word for youth – ‘hebe’). And the attraction to young post-pubescent girls is indeed normal. The point is, to paedohysterics, a word doesn’t change a thing. David Futrelle, child snuff porn apologist and paedocrite that he is, is right to mock the idea that it could ‘win over’ feminists or the paedo hating population at large. In fact, it could make things very much worse. I have spoken here before of the fact that shows like ‘To Catch a Predator’, and ‘anti-paedophile’ vigilantes such as Stinson Hunter, nearly always target men who are trying to have sex with girls only a little under the age of consent. They never try to entrap real perverts and child molestors.

The reason why we have this insane moral panic over ‘paedophiles’ is not because perverts who molest 5 year old children are hated. It’s because society hates and fears even more the normal men who break age of consent laws by having sex with nubile young teens. Paedocritical men are shouting at the bulge in their pants at the thought of climbing into bed with a sexy 14 year old, and all the legal consequences that would follow for them, and paedohysteric woman (and feminists) are shouting at the millions of men who would not even hide the bulge in their pants and openly pursue teenage girls if it wasn’t for the law, the shaming, and the feminist induced hysteria over ‘paedophilia’.

It is true to an extent that establishing the concept of ephebophilia in mainstream discourse would help to clarify what real paedophilia is and isn’t. Real paedophilia is a psychological perversion involving the sexual preference for pre-pubescent children (in today’s USA, that means girls under the age of 10 or so). But at the same time, I see absolutely no advantage in replacing one clinically defined pathology with another. Anti-feminism is the fight against the feminist suppression and pathologizing of normal male heterosexuality. It is normal for men to be sexually attracted to females who have started puberty and who have the maximum number of fertile years ahead of them.

Ephebophile activists believe they can identify themselves as a group and fight for and eventually win their sexual rights, just as gays (supposedly) did. No they can’t. However, MEN can perhaps reclaim their sexual rights against feminists. Only normal, heterosexual MEN can win in the fight against the war on male sexuality.

With all this said, however, I wouldn’t be honest not to add my own personal experiences over the last couple of years, and describe how they have perhaps enabled me to look at the ‘ephebophile question’ in a new and more nuanced light. For some time I’d largely given up on dating. I was getting older, I was still introverted and awkward around the opposite sex, and in any case, as ‘the Anti-Feminist’ I saw all women as rapists, every one of them limiting male sexuality in order to futher their own selfish sexual ends. Walking down the street and smiling at a pretty jailbait as an act of defiance was the limit of female involvement in my world.

For over two years now I’ve been spending the majority of my time in Eastern Europe. As most readers accept here, Slavic women are much more feminine and better looking than their Anglo counterparts, with Russians at the very apex of the female beauty pyramid. Furthermore, they age rather differently too. Yes, of course any normal man would be attracted to even an average Russian 15 year old girl, but the ‘Manosphere Myth’ that I’ve criticised here in the past regarding peak fertility and women reaching their maximum attractiveness at 21-25 isn’t so implausible when you constantly see such stunningly beautiful long legged slim women in their early twenties all around you.

In Eastern Europe I don’t get the achingly painful sense of regret at seeing a pretty 14 year old girl and thinking that by the time she is legal, she will already be losing her youthful charm and beauty. The fact is, in the UK, and even in countries such as France and Germany, the majority of girls are burnt out, bitter, overweight slags by the time they reach 18. Because of diet, lifestyle, and genetics, even pretty 14 year olds do start to lose it by the time they are off to university. In Eastern Europe, puberty arrives a little later, lasts longer, and everywhere you turn there are 20 year old women who are ravishingly beautiful, have perfect skin, possess the long slim legs of ballerinas, and who wear elegant fashions with a graceful air.

Furthermore, I’ve fallen in love with at least a couple of such specimans. One of them is now 26. I have seen photos of her when she was a teenager and the curious thing is she didn’t look anything special even at 17. By 21 she was modelling, and even now as she approaches her 30’s, I get jealous looks constantly when I am with her, even in a city where HB8s are the norm. Even the likes of Krauser PUA would give me a nod of respect if he saw me with her. Look closely and she has crow feet developing around her eyes. Her skin is no longer perfect. But if I could re-wind time I would not wish her any younger than 21. And it’s not down to make-up either. I have seen her without, and she is still beautiful, and more beautiful than she was when she was a schoolgirl.

Another of my girlfriends is 20, and very pretty. She still looks like a teen, and even behaves like one in many ways, though thankfully more in a cute than insufferable manner. Although beautiful, I do not recieve so many jealous looks when I am with her as when I am with the woman who is a good deal older. This girl, I only met recently. I have seen photos of her when she was 18, and she looked almost perfect. I would have liked to have known her then, and I would still not object to a girlfriend such as her who is 16 or 17. However, in Eastern Europe the age of consent is not such a weighty issue given the mass of beautiful females aged above even 18. And this is probably why paedohysteria is primarily an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

So in the light of my experiences, how would I finally appraise ‘ephebophila’? As to whether it is a real thing, I am both more and less inclined to say yes. Despite my disavowal of the term here in the past, I somewhat suspected that I might be ‘a little different’ to the average man. Not just in being honest about attraction to young teenagers, but perhaps more strongly attracted than most. Although partly right, I think I had simply fallen into the same mistake that I’d rightly accused self-identified ‘ephebophiles‘ of making. The honesty to accept that teens are attractive can lead you to identify yourself, even subconsciously, as ‘somebody who is attracted to teenage girls’ and different to other men, and to somewhat ignore the charms of slightly older females. And this is compounded by the disgraceful state of femininity in the Anglo-Saxon world, a world in which the only feminine and loveable girls left are indeed mostly under 18.

If ephebophilia exists, therefore, it is not a clinical disorder, such as real paedophilia is, but rather a situation in a man’s life brought about by feminism and the state of women in the Western world.

And as a badge, it’s still tactically clueless and aspie.

My experiences of falling in love have also altered somewhat my views on ‘normal male sexuality’ in the sense that I now give more value to the merits of sex within a loving relationship. Of course, I am not now claiming that the female monogamous system is ‘right’ for men. I am currently in love with two beautiful women, and I think I have emotional room left for a couple more as well, hehe. All I’m saying is I no longer mock the notion of love, and that sex with love is, after all, something that every man should be able to experience as part of a happy life. I also look at porn less, and so I have to admit, I am closer to Eivind Berge’s view that real relationships are better than fapping. However, I still feel that he doesn’t understand the dangers of giving the slightest credence to feminist arguments against porn. And also, not many men can have girlfriends as good looking as his, and not many men approaching 50, as I am, can walk down the street with a beautiful 20 year old, or a HB9 26 year old, as I can. Porn never stopped me having relationships. Rather, it was a life-saving substitute in fallow times. It also helped to keep the flame of desire alive as I sank into middle-age.

And that thought leads nicely onto a final word regarding my contribution to men’s rights activism and the lack of updates on this blog. Yes, I am in some ways happier and more content than before, and therefore no longer feel the need or have the desire to carry the stress and time commitment of regularly posting articles here. It’s also true that I certainly no longer feel any personal pain at current age of consent laws. I would certainly be satisfied forever more at having relationships with beautiful Slavic girls aged 16 above, or even 18 above. But this certainly isn’t the reason for my lack of involvement in men’s rights. I still maintain that the ‘age of consent’, or more correctly, all the many issues that revolve around it, as part of the wider assault upon male sexuality by feminists, is the leading men’s rights issue. But perhaps I am less inclined to maintain this site, just when I am finding some happiness and sexual satisfaction, to cater to disloyal self-identified ephebophile readers such as the likes of Jon or Human-Stupidity, themselves prone to paedocrisy whenever it suits them.

Big Yikes #sexist #psycho incels.co

RE: [LifeFuel] You made your bed, now sleep in it bitch.

I have zero sympathies for RadFems. In the past, I was temporarily thinking that Radfems are maybe the reasonable feminists as they obviously have biology and material reality on their side. But if you read these anti-trans feminist subs it becomes clear that there are simply two types of Radfems: a) homophobic old hetero women who hate gender non-conforming men (and i.e. all non-Chad men who are not Chad enough to be considered "masculine" and too blackpilled to be buy into male disposability BS about how men have to sacrifice themselves for women etc. They are women like that 4'11 bitch in OP's post who - tehehe - just happen to have a 6'3'' BF), and b) lesbian women who hate all men so much that not even cutting one's dick off can satisfy the wrath of these misandrists.

I just hope there will be a civil war between SJW, anti-SJW and RadFems ... and that there will be as many casualties as possible on all three sides.

Mark Latham #fundie pinknews.co.uk

Australian politician Mark Latham pledges to gut transgender rights

Australian One Nation politician Mark Latham has unveiled a series of new anti-transgender policy pledges.

Latham was once the leader of Australia’s centre-left Labor Party, but is now a member of the nationalist One Nation party, which he leads in New South Wales.
?
Ahead of state elections in March, Latham has focused on transgender children, pledging to support a ban on them transitioning at school without permission from a doctor.

Mark Latham attacks ‘attention-seeking’ transgender children

In a January 20 policy announcement, Latham claimed: “One of the problems with gender fluidity in schools is that students can participate in it simply by ‘identifying’ as transgender.

“This leaves the system open to abuse, with some students milking transgender identification for special treatment or attention-seeking reasons.”

The politician added: “This problem is increasingly common in NSW high schools, urged on by Left-wing political activists.

“Schools made a big mistake when they stopped being places of learning and ventured into the world of mental health assessment and radical gender theory.”

He continued: “One Nation supports teachers who want a stable, productive learning environment in their school, avoiding the Mad Hatter situation and the powerlessness of staff.”

“Any student wanting to change their gender should have to present specialist medical advice and support to the school.

“This takes the matter out of the hands of students and gives teachers the State Government support they need to deal effectively with disingenuous and disruptive behaviour concerning gender.

“It also addresses the real mental health issue: bringing confusion and harm to young people by telling them gender is ‘socially constructed’ and ‘fluid’.”
One Nation’s Mark Latham wants to gut gender recognition laws

Latham also vowed to gut laws that allow transgender people to gain legal recognition in their chosen gender, and end easy legal recognition on all government forms.

Mirroring the policy stance taken by US President Donald Trump, he said: “In reality, with very few exceptions, people are born either male or female. To move away from this biological truth later in life is a serious matter requiring specialist medical evidence. It should not happen because of Leftist ideology, individual whims or novelty factors.

“One Nation does not believe that gender changes should be self-identified on NSW Government forms, permits and licences, such as those processed by Service NSW: agencies including Roads and Maritime Services, Department of Fair Trading and Births Deaths and Marriages.”

He added: “One Nation supports the introduction of a government rule across-the-board prohibiting individual self-identification.”

The politician claims he would allow some limited forms of gender recognition, provided trans people could provide “specialist medical evidence.”

As the current system of gender recognition requires medical evidence, it is unclear what exactly Latham is proposing.

NSW Labor politician Graham Perrett told the Mail: “He has nothing constructive to say about about Australian society.

“This is simply a shock tactic to extract more votes. I’m one of the parliamentary convenors for LGBTI and we take matters like these very seriously.”

Latham was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage during the country’s 2017 postal vote on the issue, claiming he was worried the law would allow transgender people to get married to people of the opposite sex.

The politician was sacked as a Sky News pundit in 2017 after he refused to apologise for describing a school child as “gay” on-air.

Once a fringe party, One Nation has seen a national growth in support in recent years.

The party’s national leader Pauline Hanson claimed in 2017 that same-sex marriage could lead to people marrying children.

Sp8der #transphobia reddit.com

I have not seen convincing evidence that parenting can alter gender identity. That is, I've never seen evidence that parenting can induce big-D Dysphoria (as opposed to gender-atypical behavior) in a neurologically-typical child.

Conversely, real-world attempts to raise kids as the opposite of their natal gender have consistently failed (e.g., David Reimer, who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision but transitioned back after puberty).

I just want to pose these two against each other for a bit.

What's the probability that the recent impassioned rise in ideologically-motivated "gender neutral parenting", which as far as I can tell simply manifests as an attempt to push opposite-gender toys, behaviours and so on onto the child, produces the feeling of unease that later gets the child referred to the gender clinic by going against their actual gender identity?

Because gender neutral parenting seems like a colossal clusterfuck to me, in that:

A; I believe that many of the people who do it are doing it for woke points and not because it's in the interests of the child, and many of them have a "desired outcome" of having a gender non-conforming child.

B; In conjunction with the above, "failure" (as in not being adequately gender neutral and pushing the child into their same gender role) and "success but not getting the result you want" (being adequately gender neutral but a male child choosing to be male anyway, as they will 99%+ of the time) look exactly the same and are pretty indistinguishable, leading parents who actively desire a GNC child to assume they've failed and push opposite-gender things on the child harder and harder.

Basically if anywhere south of 99% of "gender neutral parented" children end up not being GNC it's a pretty clear indication that there's some room for pushing from parents there... and from there, given the political climate, I'm not uncomfortable saying that those signs can be (mis-)interpreted as needing to start funneling the child down the trans pipeline.

The thing around future-gay children getting shoved down that pipeline is pretty alarming too, since if I was born today I'd probably be one of them.

I absolutely used to reject any notion of being a man. I hated when anyone would call me "young man" or similar. I had long hair and painted my nails. I even literally said "I don't want to be a man" a lot.

But all this was just my faulty definition of what a "man" is. To me, back then, "man" meant unshaven, beer gut having, lager-swilling, football-watching, stained white vest-wearing, eating crisps on the sofa in your underwear and scratching your arse. Homer Simpson, Onslow, Jim Royle. To someone who idolised David Bowie and his style, this was offensively repulsive and I was determined to never be a "man".

But, of course, David Bowie was a man. So are lots of stylish and outrageously fashionable and even somewhat feminine people. The problem was with me all along, and when I learned to let go of that definition and accept that I get to define what being a man is, I felt a lot better.

And so, to circle back, when I see Extremely Online trans advocates like the egg_irl lot shouting that any stereotypically female behaviour or preferences are proof positive that you need to be shoved down the trans pipeline with nary a second thought, I get angry because that could've been me. Those types of trans crusaders reinforce every gender stereotype they claim to want to break down. They decide to transition and immediately plump for, say, the girliest clothes, names, mannerisms, and everything else. Which just leads back to more kids developing faulty definitions like I did and going through the same thing, only now with a chorus crowd of people wanting to change their gender for them.

At the same time the Absolute Gender Neutrality At Any Cost brigade also annoy me, because certain traits DO cluster in certain populations. But they're not EXCLUSIVE to them, nor are they mandatory to be part of those populations. I don't understand why it's not okay to acknowledge "a high percentage of men will X, Y, Z" while also saying "but it's fine if you don't, there's no wrong way to be a man, this is just an observed trend".

That kind of meandered a lot but there's not many spaces where I can express this kind of thing and not get shouted down to oblivion -- which is also part of the problem.

sideeyestanley #fundie reddit.com

I'm 19. I was born female, but I've lived as a transman for 4 years. I took testosterone for 2. I went cold turkey on T last week.
I'm detransitioning because I'm sick of this community. I'm sick of the kind of activism that's done in its name. I'm sick of people who want to beat up old ladies in London, completely unprovoked, because she has a different opinion than them.
It started when I saw all this bullshit on tumblr-- went cold turkey on that fucking site too. Transwomen saying shit like "anything a trans man can do, trans women can do better". Calling transmen "shrimp dick", "fish taco". Transwomen saying that women deserve to be murdered, raped, burned at the stake, because they're TERFs.
I saw this all before I transitioned. It's called male violence, aggression, entitlement. If I have to say through my teeth "transwomen are women" one more time, I'll fucking explode.
I know. I know that not all transwomen are horrible. I know there are incredible transwomen out there. But I can't pretend that they weren't born male, that I wasn't born female, and that we weren't socialized accordingly.
I'm disgusted and frightened by how cultlike this community has become. I lost friends for saying I was detransitioning. I'm going to lose more. No one wants you to say "I'm comfortable being gender non-conforming and NOT transitioning". I was a tomboy all my life. In high school, my transman friend told me I should transition. I did, because I was a fucking idiot, and I hated myself, and I hated being a girl.
I'm sick of being such a sexist fuck. A non binary ex friend of mine always called men with long hair "they/them". They sure as fuck didn't do that for guys with short hair. My sister, talking about our cousin's new baby, was all "she's such a rowdy baby. She'll probably turn out trans."
Why are we medicating people who don't conform? Why are we giving children the choice to make a life-altering medical decision based on sexism, when they can't even get a tattoo? Why are we telling girls who don't want to get caught in the trap of femininity, "oh, well, you must actually be a boy."
FUCK that.
I'm detransitioning. I'm sorry for every and any part I played in trans activism. I was complacent listening to people talk about punching women who disagreed with them. I believed such sexist fucking things. I let other people, the med complex, and stupid little problems like pronouns control my life. There are bigger issues in the world than bathrooms. I'm sorry I spent so much time, money, and emotional effort caring about something that meant less than shit.

1920s #racist groups.msn.com

"They (Blacks) contribute to our through the roof crime rate, abortion rate, illiterate rate, drop out rate, teen pregnancy rate, homeless rate, drug addict rate, and prison rate....much more than Jews could ever even try to do.

Jews have to go way out of their way to get put in prison. Black folks go outside, shoot somebody for a crack rock, and get locked up for 25 years.

They don't know what it's like to be white in America."

(The rest of the thread swings from Racist to Anti_Semitic and back again)

various TERFs #fundie reddit.com

(tealsandwich)
Feminine FTMs wanting to be gay men makes no sense. Please explain. And is rapid onset gender dysphoria valid?

How can someone who has lived comfortably under societal guidelines for their sex suddenly decide, “I’m the opposite!”? A girl with all female friends who has an incredibly female socialization, and “fits in” solidly into the median of what society embraces as woman has no understanding of manhood. The best she can do is create an internalized framework of what a man amounts to. This framework is based on external observation. Media portrayal, popular culture, male family members and friends (if any). There’s no acknowledgement or conscious perception that this internalized framework is a product of environmental agents. With rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), the desire to change genders is based on a vision that is a caricature of the opposite sex’s experience and essence.

Conversely, a girl who from an early age has played exclusively with boys, displayed masculine mannerisms and deviates from the median societal expectation of femininity is a legitimate claimant, if that’s her inclination. The interesting thing is that many women who understand men’s experience and “know” what it’s like to feel like a man have no desire to be men.

Isn’t it strange then that the girl who has no experience with men or any understanding beyond caricature wants to be a boy? Meanwhile the woman who knows men IRL and understands their experience is happy with being a woman?

(This is the same for TiM/MTF individuals)

My question is, why?

(11strangecharm)
I've met a number of feminine FTMs, and they are usually straight (sometimes bi) women who fetishize gay men. They then complain about how "phallocentric" gay men are (I shit you not). Partly they may be seeking to be able to have a relationship with a man without that undercurrent (or more) of misogyny to contend with, too. They usually assume I identify as a man on sight because of my hair and how I dress. (Yep, that's real progressive for straight women to assume the lesbian must want to be a man. Shit like that in the QT community contributed to alienating me from being proud as a gender non-conforming woman as I was raised to take pride in my nonconformity to hating my physical body and sexed organs and getting a referral to an endocrinologist I fortunately never could get to.)

(notfairwayfrank)
I think it has a lot to do with how things that get girls judged as dumb and superficial are seen as making boys cool and special. Imagine trying to be David Bowie, but female. It's a real drag. Young women trying to figure it all out can fall into this trap because actual self-acceptance receives so little support.

(meupandaa)
I'm pretty sure feminine ''gay'' trans''men'' would stop suffering from ''dysphoria'' if they stopped consuming yaoi porn

(x__why)
Most FTMs I know have been victims of horrible sexual abuse. I think there’s an element of rejecting traits associated with pain and abuse. I think there’s also not fitting in with societal expectations (enjoying STEM, sports, etc) and not living in an environment affirming of those preferences.

I think the way you’ve framed the issue makes it hard to be relatable. I think most TiMs and FiMs have dysphoria making it emotionally difficult to come to terms with physical realities.

For all the things I do not like about TRAs and the toxicity of the movement, I do think these are people who deserve some empathy for going through tough things.

Stroke_Your_Own_Ego #sexist feministcurrent.com

This says a lot right there.

Women are oppressed because we are systematically exploited, abused, and denied the right to own our own bodies. Trans women are oppressed because laws, people, and media don't always validate their self image.

When men kill trans women, they kill them for being gender-non-conforming men, the same reason they kill gay men, or otherwise "effeminate" men. Men don't kill trans people by misgendering them, they kill them the same way they kill anyone else, with horrible blind force.

It's been said many times in this comments section but I'll say it again: We're on the same side in wanting to end male violence. Stop fighting us and work with us to stop the people who are actually committing violence against trans people and women.

Mike Adams #fundie naturalnews.com

It's true. Prince is dead. The era of Purple Rain has come to a sad end with the popular music star dying at the young age of just 57. He had recently cancelled two shows due to health problems, reports TMZ, raising questions of what actually caused his death.

For those of us who grew up in the 1980s, Prince's music was a mainstay of pop culture. He was obviously an extremely talented, pioneering musician with a unique view of the world, but I lament the fact that he didn't live long enough to join the rest of the country in peeing all over the women's toilet seats at Target stores.

You see, Target has just announced the most bizarre politically correct "inclusive" policy which allows men with penises to walk right into the women's restroom and pee standing, without even raising the toilet seat. They call it a "transgender friendly" policy, but what it really means is that, as the blogosphere explains, "dudes with d##ks" can walk right into women's restrooms and pee all over the toilet seats because women's restrooms do not have urinals. (Yes, biology matters when you're eliminating urine.)

Now, any pervert, weirdo, whacko or nut job can walk into a Target store and declare, "Hey, I'm suddenly a woman!" and urinate all over the women's toilet seats. Apparently, progressive women fully approve of all this, because they want to be "inclusive" which obviously includes squatting in some dude's clammy pee puddles.

Personally, I don't care if you think you're a man or a woman, but if you have a penis, use the damn urinal in the men's restroom. But thanks to Target's P.C. insanity, I guess now the women who use the restrooms at Target can count on enjoying the inclusiveness of splatter and bad aiming skills of distracted men who are so giddy at the thought of using the women's restroom that they can't hold still.

The word "target," after all, means aim for the water, not the rim. But who cares anymore when it's all devolved into an insane society of mentally ill conformists who can no longer make any sane judgment calls on anything at all. To relate a completely absurd example, one day soon, some deranged dufus who says he self-identifies as "Greedo the Gorilla Turd-Flinger" is going to smear the walls of the women's restroom with feces, after which Target will issue a nationwide press release declaring how "inclusive" they are to accept such progressive practices, stating something like, "We embrace people who self-identify as turd-flingers to use all our restrooms to dispose of their precious feces... and even the check-out lanes, for that matter!"

Clean-up on aisle nine! Clean-up on aisle nine!

purtian lad #fundie covenant-theology.blogspot.ca

Immanuel Kant suggested that morality should be based on human dignity and reason, sort of like the "Golden Rule", but without the Golden Rule Giver. From a practical perspective, the categorical imperative fails when trying to resolve two evil choices (ie., lying to save a life). From a secular standpoint, neither human dignity nor reason can be justified, thus the categorical imperative begs too many questions. Consider the following quote from atheist Richard Dawkins:

"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."


From a secular standpoint, human dignity and human reason must be accounted for before any moral standard can be build upon them. Finally, we must ask yet again,

What obligates us to act “according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”? Like all other secular ethical theories, the categorical imperative cannot be a sound basis for ethics, since it must assume a moral standard in order to build rules by which we act.

The “Social Contract” holds that humans, by virtue of being human, are contracted to obey ethics laws which are necessary for peaceful, cooperative, social order.

Aside from the fact that what makes up a "peaceful, cooperative, social order" is subjective at best, the social contract does not justify ethical standards as much as it assumes them in advance. What obligates humans to be concerned about a peaceful, cooperative social order? Like relativism and subjectivism, the social contract reduces immorality to mere "non-conformity", thus has no objective meaning.

In dealing with the various secular theories of ethics, two questions immediately come to mind.

1.) Why so many? If the secular worldview can justify morality, I would have expected there to be a predominant theory, with maybe one of two non-conforming theories. Instead, however, what this study shows is that there is no moral standard in a secular world.

2.) All of these theories have in common the fact than none of them can account for moral obligation. Instead, they must assume their standard in order to promote their theory.

As we have shown, not only are secular moral theories logically inconsistent, they are also unjustifiable. It is one thing to invent a moral theory, as many secularists have done. It is another thing to give a rational justification for that theory, and all secular moral theories have failed in this regard. The natural, materialistic worldview simply cannot justify obligation, “IS” cannot produce “OUGHT”.

WND Staff #fundie #magick wnd.com

Thousands of witches to cast massive spell on Trump and his supporters
Instructed to call on 'demons of the infernal realms'
WND Staff By WND Staff
Published October 22, 2019 at 8:40pm

image
[Stock image of a witch with glowing eyes and veins stretching her hand out]

At one minute before the stroke of midnight on Oct. 25, thousands of self-identified witches plan to simultaneously conduct a ritual meant to "bind" President Trump "and all those who abet him."

The practice has taken place monthly since Trump's inauguration, notes Michael Snyder on his End of the American Dream blog, but with Halloween approaching and an impeachment inquiry underway, it's getting renewed media attention.

The practitioners explain that unlike a "curse" or a "hex," a "binding spell" is not meant to cause harm.

"Rather," writes Snyder, "the witches hope to prevent President Trump from doing harm to the United States by his actions, and so they actually believe that they are doing something very positive for the country."

But a closer examination "reveals some very disturbing details," he writes, as the witches are instructed to call on "demons of the infernal realms" for help in binding Trump and his allies.

With props that include an unflattering photo of Trump, a tarot card, a stub of an orange candle, a pin and a feather, the participants will call on the "heavenly hosts, demons of the infernal realms, and spirits of the ancestors" to bind Trump "so that his malignant works may fail utterly."

"Many people may laugh at such antics, but that is only because they have never had a personal encounter with the powers of darkness," writes Snyder. "We live in a world where the supernatural is commonplace, and the powers of darkness are very, very real."

He points out that the developer of the anti-Trump ritual acknowledges binding spells "are some of the oldest in the historical record, and are nearly universal in the world’s magical systems."

Vox reported as many as 13,000 witchcraft practitioners are involved in the anti-Trump movement.

The "resistance witches," comprised of internet neo-pagans, Wiccans and solo practitioners who self-identify as "hedge witches," form a collective known as the #MagicResistance.

The spell, a variant on a traditional “binding” spell found in many contemporary neo-pagan and other occult practices, involves channeling energy to limit Trump’s power, “so that he may fail utterly/that he may do no harm."

Practitioners, notes Snyder, have the option to add, "You’re fired."

From 1990 to 2008, the number of practitioners of Wicca, a form of witchcraft, increased from about 8,000 to about 340,000 in the United States. In 2014, according to a Pew survey, there were as many as 1.5 million.

Alfred Winter #fundie fashthenation.com

There’s something of an adage within dissident right-wing circles that should be known by everyone who claims to be red-pilled on the Chosenites and their goy golems: “When everyone in the media and government, Left and Right, unites around a controversial issue or policy decision, it’s probably bullshit.”
Right on cue, just as public opinion on the Kovington Katholic Kids vs. Magic Native American Elder story had begun to clearly turn against its original coverage, another nonsensical hoax came rushing in to bolster the mainstream anti-white narrative.
Empire star Jussie Smollett, a 35-year old half-black, half-Jewish homosexual who is beloved within liberal circles owing to his LGBT advocacy and outspoken critiques of President Trump, was allegedly attacked by two white men in the wee hours of January 29th in Chicago. From Vogue:
“Smollett was in the Streeterville neighborhood of Chicago…when he was attacked by two people who were yelling racial and homophobic slurs, and who Smollett said shouted the phrase ‘MAGA country.’ At some point, according to police, they also poured an unknown substance on him, believed to be bleach, and forced a rope around his neck…Smollett was reportedly on the phone with his manager when the attack occurred. ‘I heard that clearly. I heard the scuffle and I heard the racial slur,’ the manager told Variety.”
Following the supposed attack, Smollett and his family released an official statement on Instagram, describing their beloved Jussie as:
“…the victim of a violent and unprovoked attack. We want to be clear, this was a racial and homophobic hate crime…We want people to understand these targeted hate crimes are happening to our sisters, brothers and our gender non-conforming siblings, many who reside within the intersection of multiple identities, on a monthly, weekly, and sometimes even daily basis all across our country. Oftentimes ending fatally, these are inhumane acts of domestic terrorism and they should be treated as such…We, as a family, will continue to work for love, equity and justice until it reigns supreme in our nation and all over the world.”
The supposed hate crime has since had dozens of Chicago police officers and national FBI agents allocated to its investigation. Considering that more than 20 people, mostly black, are murdered in Chicago every weekend, this seems like a misallocation of resources at best. Blue-check journalists and several Democratic presidential candidates rushed to condemn the supposed “hate crime,” which was described as such in published articles by dozens of media outlets, led first and foremost by the ADL and TMZ. Even President Trump weighed in as a result of backlash fears over the alleged “This is MAGA country” comment of the attackers. In response to questions on January 31st, Trump said of the event, “I can tell you that it’s horrible. It doesn’t get worse.”
In nearly identical fashion to the Covington debacle, even borderline wrong-think media outlets like American Thinker have refused to confront the implicit anti-white nature of the Smollett hoax. The site merely notes in its coverage that, “Much like in ‘The Truth About The Lincoln Memorial Incident,’ accurate reporting can come only with time, but that didn’t stop media figureheads from lambasting all Trump-supporters, again.”
The extreme bias and visceral hatred on display in mainstream coverage of such stories does not simply stem from journalists being too gung-ho to move forward with a story before having all of the evidence, however. It’s laughable to claim that said journalists are actually motivated by a search for the truth, while occasionally falling prey to over-zealousness in very human fashion. What actually happened is that the media fell all over themselves in their condemnation because the suspects were believed to be white men. Their description as Trump supporters who shouted “MAGA country” is an obvious proxy for whiteness, which could only have been made clearer by the addition of the infamous red hats. Perhaps that would have been a little too on the nose, however. As with the Covington case, the explicit racial nature of the Smollett hoax is a blood libel against the white race, designed to reinforce the notion that all whites, especially men, are subject to sudden bouts of identity-motivated violence at any moment. If whites are subject to such outbursts on a daily basis, as these people claim, then it is entirely morally justifiable for the State and entire GloboHomo apparatus to subdue us.
Judging from the fallout over this story in the past few days, though, the Left may have slightly overplayed its hand with the rapid succession of both the Covington and Jussie Smollett hoaxes. It was reported Thursday that Smollett had refused to turn over his phone records to police, and liberal outrage coverage over this story has now been largely relegated to hilarious black outlets like The Root and HotNewHitHop. But make no mistake, our enemies are merely biding their time until their next anti-white attack. Judging by the breakneck pace of 2019 so far, look for it to occur sometime this week.

MEGHAN MURPHY #sexist feministcurrent.com

Trans activism is excusing & advocating violence against women, and it’s time to speak up

Threats of violence against women branded as “TERFs” are increasing — will liberals and progressives speak out before it’s too late?

In January, a woman was photographed holding a sign at the Vancouver Women’s March that included the words, “Trans ideology is misogyny.” This might be viewed as a hyperbolic message for those who consider themselves good, liberal people and who care about a group they have been informed are in extreme danger, and particularly marginalized. And perhaps, if you were unfamiliar with the way women and feminists are addressed by trans activists, you might wonder what statements like this are rooted in. A few years ago, I might have questioned this as well, thinking, “well that’s a bit much, isn’t it.” But as trans activism has gained ground and as I myself — as well as many other women — have begun questioning and speaking out about the aims, ideology, and policies supported in the name of “trans rights,” it has become impossible to deny what is being supported through trans activism: violence against women.

Last week, photographs of an exhibit currently on display at the San Fransisco Public Library emerged online, depicting bloody shirts with the words, “I punch TERFs,” alongside baseball bats and axes, painted pink and blue to reference the gender ideology being touted, some covered in barbed wire, in order to amplify the grotesqueness of the threatened beating. The exhibit was set up by “Scout Tran,” a trans-identified male and founding member of the Degenderettes, a group that now has chapters throughout the United States. The group attends queer and feminist events, including the Dyke March, the Pride parade, and the Women’s March, carrying these weapons, which they claim as defensible activism, but is undeniably a visible threat and incitement to violence against women.

The threats attached to slogans like “I punch TERFs” are not theoretical. Earlier this month, a trans-identified male who goes by the name “Tara Wolf” was convicted of assault after beating 60-year-old Maria MacLauchlan, who had gathered with other women in Hyde Park to attend a meeting discussing gender identity ideology and legislation. Wolf had posted on Facebook about his desire to attend this gathering in order to “fuck up some TERFs.” In what other circumstance would anyone — self-identified progressives, in particular — defend viable threats of violence against women? Sadly, lots.

Liberals and the left have broadly defended violence against women as “art” or “sex,” though perhaps in a less overt way than they have outright threats of violence to feminists who wish to question or discuss the notion of gender identity. Pornography, for example, is one area where violence and abuse is consistently defended on account of it being “sex,” “fantasy,” or “free speech.” The ability of men and their allies to avoid viewing a woman being choked, hit, or gang-raped as “real violence” because it is connected to men’s desire and masturbation is without bounds. Similarly, the notion that a man offering a women financial compensation in exchange for permission to abuse her is framed time and time again as “consent,” regardless of the impact on that woman and the broader message this practice sends to all men and women, everywhere.

What is unique about the approach we’ve seen in the trans movement is that it doesn’t attempt to disguise the incitements to violence against women with rhetoric around “consent” and “empowerment.” The claim is not that this is not “literal” violence, because women like it, or because they consented to it, or because it’s “just fantasy.” Rather the violence advocated for by trans activists is said to be justified on account of opinions, associations, language, or the sharing of articles or links determined to be “wrong” — all of which is dishonestly framed as “violence” (ironic considering where the literal threats and violence are evidenced to be coming from).

The threats of violence against women, on account of having been branded “TERFs,” are frightening not only because we must fear for our physical safety or because of the way these threats act as a silencing mechanism, but because this violence is not being condemned, by and large, by most. Being forced to defend ourselves, alone, with few resources, media platforms, or influential public allies, due to the blacklisting that has occurred en masse in relation to this debate, is challenging, because our voices, interests, and well-being have already been dismissed as we are the baddies who deserve to die.

And indeed, this is where the connection between liberals’ and the left’s treatment of pornography, prostitution, and trans activism coalesce. The way that “TERF” has served to dehumanize women (Bad Women — women who speak unsayable truths and ask questions one is not meant to ask) in order to justify the gruesome violence they are threatened with operates in the same way women are dehumanized in pornography in order to pretend as though they aren’t truly being hurt or abused and, of course, in the same way women were branded witches in order to claim their torture was deserved, on account of their being wicked and dangerous.

Disagreement is not violence. This should not have to be said, yet apparently we must. Violence is violence. And when a group of people are actively advocating for and defending violence against another group of people — particularly an oppressed group of people, like women — there is no defense. At this point, those who accommodate this movement, as it is currently operating, are culpable of something very dangerous indeed.

While the San Fransisco Public Library removed the bloody shirt, they did not remove the exhibit entirely, nor do we know why anyone imagined such a display would be appropriate in the first place. One wonders if they would display bloody shirts with the words, “Kill bitches” or “I beat Muslims” next to a display of baseball bats and axes.

Will liberals and progressives stand up before this gets worse? I fear not.

Glenfilthie #fundie bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com

As an old fart I bailed out of SF back at the turn of the century. I saw the genre being subverted by queers, by feminists and socialists and it was being perverted into propaganda for those groups. There is nothing you can do, Brad (never mind Vox Day) – to redeem the Hugos. To me that thing is a red flag for bad fiction. I don’t care if your chorfs or whatever they are – are defeated. I wouldn’t know a sad puppy from a rabid one and could care less. All I want is for some sane author to write an ENTERTAINING story, and from there…to shut up and take my money. I don’t care which one of the 150 genders you self-identify with, I don’t care what you think of that black baboon in the Whitehouse, I don’t care what you think of me – my sole interest in any work of fiction is entertainment – and SF is not delivering. This social justice BS is spreading to other genres now too. Fact is – any more of this puppy/chorf/Hugo crap just looks like so much gimmick marketing. I am not going to by a book written by a moron like Vox Day any more than I will buy dreck penned by Martin or Scalzi. At the end of the day their work is shite and not worth my money much less my time.

I did read a fun little ripper called Chaplain’s War awhile back. Yeah, it had its flaws and wasn’t perfect but IT WAS FUN. The guy that wrote it was just a guy wanting to tell a story and not a social crusader or a sexually disturbed ideologue out to change the world. I can tell you right now I will buy another one or two of his books when time permits me to read them. As for you, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Scalzi – and your lickspittles in the publishing industry: Fuck you. Anybody that plays dirty once will do it again if the opportunity permits, and frankly, I have better things to do than compromising with literary poseurs who have ripped me off by promising me a story and delivering turd polished political tripe instead.

various commenters #fundie independent.co.uk

Comments RE: Feminists join men-only swim in protest of proposed law to enable people to self-identify as male or female

(annabella77)
The trans movement rides on the back of the gay rights movement, appearing to be progressive whilst actually being totally regressive - it is misogynistic and homophobic to say that if you have feminine traits then you must be a woman, and vice Verda

(minagiller)
It is especially funny to watch the row in the Labour Party about this as ex-men invade women's only short lists.

(Monica Vieira)
Yes, it's so funny isn't it. I hope women see how much fun men are having with all of this. This will radicalize a lot of feminists and in the end women will have the last laugh.

(Johart)
So you're a misandrist. At least admit it rather than hiding behind feminism. Got dumped did you?

(Happytravelling)
Sunday Politics was a joy. Watching Labour representatives try to pretend when Milne and Corbyn tried to pretend Russia were not to blame for the attack in Salisbury they were really saying Russia was to blame.

Then, that women's short lists could contain those who self identified but was a problem. Then one of the panelists gave the helpful suggestion that one solution would be to get rid of the women's own list and choose based on merit.

(Monica Vieira)
If the choice was based on merit, males wouldn't be the majority of representatives, dear.

"one of the panelists gave the helpful suggestion that one solution would be to get rid of the women's own list"

Yes, the end goal of all of this is to destroy everything that women have fought for, like women's shortlists that only exist because of the historical discrimination against women in politics (and society in general).

Good luck with that.

(George__costansa)
we are getting to the point of the circle where feminists are realizing they are different to men. and need different treatment and protection... eventually theyll be demanding to stay at home doing embroidery. ... not that i am saying that would be better.... but they will never be satisfied.

(minagiller)
Feminism and identity politics are disappearing up their own ridiculous rear ends.

Hilarious to observe.

(SJW_Skeptic)
Love the way this is all men’s fault. The feminist lobby has pushed for “transgender” rights past the point of logic and to the point of absurdity. Now the predictable results are happening they don’t like the results. Lucky it isn’t getting gender equality in conscription laws just prior to a major war where the government wants cannon fodder.

(roughgouge)
Have these Self identification nutters ever heard of Perverts?

(busterahmed)
Those that believe in science understand that, apart from cases of genital ambiguity, a very rare condition, most cases of 'trans' are just wish-fulfillment.

(mark anthony)
I totally agree with them but I was not under the impression that it was men driving the law forward . It is transsexuals who want to claim what they see as their rightful pace in society who are demanding a law change and in this day of political correctness who is to deny them

(mynamewhocares)
Strange that they view the law from a purely female point. is that not sexist?

(Monica Vieira)
Men only see things from a male point. Are you complaining about equality? :)

Men are having fun watching women's sports being destroyed by males who claim to be women and females on testosterone who claim to be men but are not allowed to play against men (yes, this is happening too).

Men don't care about anything unless it affects them. What I really want is to see feminists doing stunts that actually harm men.

So if you think that women standing up for themselves is sexist, GREAT. Get used to it.

SuicideChick #fundie reddit.com

Is it just me or

does it seem like less attractive women are more like to identify as queer or non-gender conforming? I have unattractive female friends that have mysteriously come out of the closet as queer/agender but spent their formative years pre-rejected from any form of attention from men and now they identify as proudly queer. But I just don’t see for all of them for some reason

Idk maybe i’m just prejudiced

Not a coincidence. It's common for people to try and switch sides once they reach a certain level of desperation. I've read some reddit stories of guys getting blow jobs from gay men just so they could get some action, of which they subsequently did not enjoy.

I feel like for some people it can also be a defense mechanism thing. Like someone unattractive marketing themselves as asexual, it's like "you can't reject me because I'm not interested in you anyway."

Obviously there are legitimate queer and asexual people but I wouldn't be surprised if some people were touting those labels for their own ulterior motives.

greenpeaceholy #fundie npr.org

Muslims have the highest population on Eath and the highest fertility rate. They also have the haighest welfare recipient percentages and the highest unemployment rate percentages in UE, UK and USA. They don't assimilate into societies but impose their Sharia Law onto infidels. They occasionally turned terrorists and killed innocent people.
So, I don't blame Brits for wanting Brexit.
A petition to undo 4 million
A counter petition 4+ million
Just like the Brexit vote results, majority wins.
It's called democracy.

Wulf Ingessunu #conspiracy inglinga.blogspot.co.uk

[Wulf Ingessunu responds to a blog post suggesting that he is mentally ill]

The problem is that today's psychiatry, psychoanalysis or psychotherapy is based upon Sigmund Freud rather than upon Carl Gustav Jung, the latter having a far better understanding of the Germanic Psyche - i.e. the Germanic Gods. Thus, any form of 'diagnosis' through psychiatry, psychoanalysis or any other 'psycho' that 'Maggie' would like to quote in regard to these likely causes comes through in a form that is not suited to the knowledge of the Germanic Psyche. I am not suggesting that 'Maggie' is not an expert in her field but that expertise may not be right in regard to the Germanic Psyche.

It is a fact that today's 'mental illnesses' are held in check through drugs, and that no-one seems to be able to cure them, or rarely are they cured, should we say. This is because there is so little understanding of what is termed 'mental illness'. To the person whose whole existence is based upon the idea that there is only a material world there can be no understanding of any other worlds or dimensions. So anything that is beyond the material world and the materialistic society is either ridiculed or written off as being 'insane'. If those in charge of looking after the 'mentally insane' actually understood what causes it then they may find a cure one day. We on the so-called 'Far-Right' are always accused of being 'a loner' or having 'childhood problems' that make us believe what we do. All this is a very clever trick to make our views look 'insane' and thus stop people from listening to our point of view.

It would seem that my post about the 'hallucination' ended up (somehow) on another blog called 'FSTDT' which is yet another one of the same ilk as 'Radical Britain' and those who run it seem to have nothing positive to offer either, merely negative attacks upon anyone who opposes the view of the Old Order.

[...]

Then we go on to accuse me of having 'Obsessive Compulsive Disorder' (OCD in Newspeak), the symptoms of which are listed (we are told) in 'Fundamentals - A guide for Parents, Teachers and Carers on Mental Health and Self Esteem' by Lynn Crilly and Natasha Devon. Now, this is an eye-opener for anyone who takes notice of what we have been saying for years, and also proves beyond doubt that these people are what is termed 'Cultural Marxists' who cleverly promote Marxist Communism through destroying all genius amongst our Folk, and by attacking those who do not conform to the material economic society.

[...]

The suggestion that I made was not based so much upon 'magic' as such, but when you spin the water around it collects air, and since air is the medium for the Life-Force then it collects Life-Force. (Quantum Science or Aryan Science recognises this in terms of what scientists call Zero-Point Energy; Materialistic Science cannot do so because only the material world is recognised).

I would suggest that anyone reading this goes through these 'OCD symptoms' carefully since this is the clever way that the maintainers of the Old Order destroy all vestiges of anything good and right through having gained positions of some power within the Old Order. Such is the case here where this book/booklet/pamphlet is aimed at 'parents, teachers and carers' - all of these sections of society being in a position to manipulate the young and vulnerable and to recognise 'symptoms' of non-conformity or heresy (which I believe was an 'excessive' part of the Christian attacks upon Heathens in the past, which we seem to be in the process of reviving at the end of the Dark Age). So when anyone comes up with 'symptoms' of any of the above-mentioned things, usually concerning 'religion' or 'morals' then they can be dealt with - through the use of mind-altering drugs that put them back on the 'right track' (so to speak). Is this why there are so many young people on drugs for some form of 'mental illness' in our time? Anyway, everyone is happy - especially the massive Global Drug Companies who supply the drugs for the legalised drug-dealers to hand out.

Mike Adams #quack #wingnut #transphobia naturalnews.com

Why Americans are the most delusional of all
Americans are especially delusional in all this, as they think America will somehow be able to stop the virus when 103 other countries couldn’t. Yet they hold this belief at the same time that America has tested almost no one for the virus, as I originally warned over two weeks ago on NaturalNews.com — a story that has now been repeated across the mainstream media two weeks later. As we explain in this new story, The Atlantic finally reported what we reported two weeks ago about the catastrophic lack of testing for the coronavirus in the USA. (Drudge linked to The Atlantic, but he never links to Natural News even when we’re first and more accurate.)

Thus, the belief of delusional Americans that the virus won’t spread in America is precariously lashed to a rickety sinking raft that’s taking on water and is named, “Almost Nobody is Being Tested in America.” Somehow, delusional Americans think the virus can be stopped without any real testing for the virus.

This belief is, of course, utterly insane. Those who hold such a belief are mentally ill (or incredibly stupid). They are perhaps even more mentally ill than the transgenderism pushers who think a biological man can transform into a biological woman by wishing. If that’s true, then why not just imagine the coronavirus isn’t real, too? Or pretend that viral replication in your lungs is no longer something with which you self-identify? Or why not just invoke trans-species magical thinking and declare yourself to be a zebra, then declare that zebras are immune to the coronavirus?

In denying the coronavirus, in other words, Rush Limbaugh is acting out the same sort of lunacy as the transgenderism pushers on the radical Left. Rush is pretending the virus isn’t a problem because he wishes it so.

Richard Lyon #sexist richardlyon.net

How to recognise a misogynist dystopia

Women claiming they live in a dystopia get the direction wrong

We might speculate on how we might recognise a misogynist dystopia in real life.

Perhaps:

womens’ suicide rate multiples of mens’, while society fixates on the self-reported unhappiness of men;
women experiencing significantly shorter lifespans in all decades, while men receive three quarters of all gender-specific medical research funding;
womens’ homelessness an order of magnitude higher than mens’, while charities run by men provide shelters women are denied access to;
girls, taught by men, falling further and further behind boys at school and university, and earning less than them in their twenties, while the education system (run by men) fixates on the problems experienced by boys in education;
women given longer prison sentences than men for similar crimes, and denied rehabilitation programs reserved for men;
women defendants’ careers destroyed by being named in sexual misconduct trials brought by men afforded anonymity and simply believed, denied the right to introduce evidence proving that the man has lied, and forced to pay legal expenses even if proven innocent;
paedophile men, perhaps leaders of social movements calculated to manufacture moral panic by claiming that all women are sexually predatory, are exused the crime of raping underage girls on the common understanding (amongst men) that girls enjoy it and are likely to grow up to be rapists themselves.

Of course, in Western society, precisely the opposite it true and, to that extent, we live in a misandrist dystopia.

Five Anonymous Moms #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

In Their Own Words: Parents of Kids Who Think They Are Trans Speak Out

Parents like us must remain anonymous to maintain our children’s privacy, and because we face legal repercussions if our names are revealed. Parents who do not support their child’s gender identity risk being reported to Child Protective Services and losing custody of their children.

When a child says he is transgender, we are expected nowadays to accept and celebrate this announcement.
But there are many parents who are not celebrating. They are suffering in silence. They know their children were not born in the wrong bodies and that hormones and surgeries are not the answers to their discomfort and confusion.
Their stories are heartbreaking. Here they are, in their own words.
~ ~ ~
I was shocked when my thirteen-year-old daughter told me she was really my transgender son. She had no masculine interests and hated all sports. But as a smart, quirky teen on the autism spectrum, she had a long history of not fitting in with girls.
Where did she get the idea she was transgender? From a school presentation—at a school where over 5 percent of the student body called themselves trans or nonbinary, and where several students were already on hormones, and one had a mastectomy at the age of sixteen. In my daughter’s world—in real life and online—transgender identities are common, and hormones and surgeries are no big deal.
I took her to a gender clinician seeking expert guidance. Instead, he accepted her new identity and told me I must refer to my daughter with masculine pronouns, call her by a masculine name, and buy her a binder to flatten her breasts. He recommended no therapy, and there was no consideration of the social factors that obviously affected her thinking. I was directed to put her on puberty blocking drugs. I was falsely assured that these drugs were well-studied, and that they were a perfectly safe way for her to “explore gender.” I was told that if I did not comply, she would be at higher risk of suicide.
I have nowhere to go for proper help. Therapists are actively trained and socially pressured not to question these increasingly common identities. In Washington, DC, and many states with so-called conversion therapy bans, questioning a child’s belief that she is of the opposite sex is against the law.
I have been living this nightmare for over four years. And despite my best efforts, my daughter plans to medically transition when she turns eighteen later this year.
Parents like me must remain anonymous to maintain our children’s privacy, and because we face legal repercussions if our names are revealed. Parents who do not support their child’s gender identity risk being reported to Child Protective Services and losing custody of their children. In New Jersey, the Department of Education officially encourages schools to report such parents.
Meanwhile, the media glamorize and celebrate trans-identified children while ignoring stories like mine. I have written to well over 100 journalists, begging them to write about what is happening to kids. I wrote to my representative and senators, but have been ignored by their staff. My online posts about my daughter’s story have been deleted and I have been permanently banned in an online forum. As a lifelong Democrat, I am outraged by my former party and find it ironic that only conservative news outlets have reported my story without bias or censorship.
We parents are ignored and vilified, while our children are suffering in the name of inclusivity and acceptance. I hope that some open-minded Democratic lawmakers will wake up to the fact that they are complicit in harming vulnerable kids. I hope that they ask themselves this question: Why are physicians medicalizing children in the name of an unproven, malleable gender identity? And why are lawmakers enshrining “gender identity” into state and federal laws?
~ ~ ~
My daughter, at age fourteen, spontaneously decided that she is actually a male. After suffering multiple traumatic events in her life and spending a large amount of time on the internet, she announced that she was “trans.” Her personality changed almost overnight, and she went from being a sweet, loving girl to a foul-mouthed, hateful “pansexual male.” At first, I thought she was just going through a phase. But the more I tried to reason with her, the more she dug her heels in. Around this time, she was diagnosed with ADHD, depression, and anxiety. But mental health professionals seemed mainly interested in helping her process her new identity as a male and convincing me to accept the notion that my daughter is actually my son.
At age sixteen, my daughter ran away and reported to the Department of Child Services that she felt unsafe living with me because I refused to refer to her using male pronouns or her chosen male name. Although the Department investigated and found she was well cared for, they forced me to meet with a trans-identified person to “educate” me on these issues. Soon after, without my knowledge, a pediatric endocrinologist taught my daughter—a minor—to inject herself with testosterone. My daughter then ran away to Oregon where state law allowed her—at the age of seventeen, without my knowledge or consent—to change her name and legal gender in court, and to undergo a double mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy.
My once beautiful daughter is now nineteen years old, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, and planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a surgical procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis).
The level of heartbreak and rage I am experiencing, as a mother, is indescribable. Why does Oregon law allow children to make life-altering medical decisions? As a society, we are rightly outraged about “female circumcision.” Why are doctors, who took an oath to first do no harm, allowed to sterilize and surgically mutilate mentally ill, delusional children?
~ ~ ~
In August of 2017, our seventh grade daughter came home from sleepaway camp believing she was a boy. She had a new vocabulary and a strong desire to change her name and pronouns. We never anticipated that we needed to ask the camp if she was going to be in a cabin with girls who were socially transitioning to live as boys.
We suspect that our daughter assumed that since my wife and I are lesbians, and liberal in our politics, we would support this new identity. We may be lesbians, but we are not confused about biology. She tried to convince us with a very scripted explanation that she had always “felt” like a boy. But we had never once seen or heard from her any evidence of this “feeling.” We listened to her, gave her the space to talk about her feelings, and tried hard not to convey to her that we were utterly horrified by this revelation.
As we began to try to find information to make sense of this, we found evidence of a social contagion all over the internet. YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and Reddit supplied a how-to guide and handbook on transitioning, complete with trans stars like Jazz Jennings and Riley J. Dennis, many with thousands of followers.
We are in no way out of the woods. Some parents dealing with this issue view us as lucky because she is so young, giving us and her more time to work through her discomfort. Maybe we will be, but we are facing this ever-growing storm of a social contagion without any help from the mainstream media or the negligent FDA, not to mention the pathetic capitulation of our physicians and mental health professionals.
~ ~ ~
My daughter spent her childhood happily engaging in what one would call typical, girly activities, with no gender-stereotyping encouragement from us at all. Everything changed after she went to college.
The environment of her new city and university celebrated transgender identities. She began speaking to us by phone of being “non-binary,” which I naïvely took to mean something like bisexual. Anxiety and depression then overwhelmed her. She dropped out and moved back to our home town, where she resumed psychiatric care for preexisting mental-health conditions.
Her appearance, always feminine, changed dramatically. A shaved head, boys’ clothes, and obvious unhappiness were now her camouflage from the world. She went from non-binary to claiming that she was really a boy.
She parroted online advice: “I always knew something was wrong but didn’t have words for it until I started watching videos on Tumblr and YouTube. When I was little, I was afraid to tell you that I didn’t feel right.”
This narrative matched nothing about her past—but I was still naïve. Because her psychiatrist did not consider her to be transgender, I assumed she would be unable to get a referral for the testosterone she was determined to start.
I was wrong. In only one visit, and with just a little bit of blood work, Planned Parenthood will cheerfully enable young women and men to pursue their “authentic” selves through cross-sex hormones. All that’s needed is a few bucks and signing a form that the risks have been disclosed and understood.
That is the route my daughter took at the tender age of twenty, bypassing her psychiatrist altogether.
My husband wrote to Planned Parenthood, explaining her mental-health history and providing her doctor’s name and telephone number. Planned Parenthood’s lawyer wrote back curtly that they presume anyone over eighteen is capable of giving informed consent.
No matter what anyone thinks of Planned Parenthood’s other services, the fact that they will instantly prescribe powerful hormones with many unknown long-term effects—especially to people with underlying mental-health issues—should shock one’s conscience. People need to know that this is Planned Parenthood’s new line of business.
~ ~ ~
At the age of seventeen, after immersion on Tumblr and after two of her oldest and closest friends in high school declared themselves transgender, our daughter told us that she is “really a guy.” Her therapist diagnosed her as high-functioning on the autism spectrum. The therapist was also quite clear that we would “lose all control over the medicalization” once our daughter turned eighteen.
As a federal employee, I could not find health insurance that does not cover hormones for self-declared gender dysphoria.
My daughter is now twenty, has been on testosterone for a year, and has made an appointment for a consult about a double mastectomy—all this, even though she can’t legally buy an alcoholic drink. I can’t get any answers from doctors in response to my questions and concerns about the risks of these “treatments.” I get no answers from mental health professionals about what makes this treatment appropriate . . . or what makes my daughter different from those young women who are “no longer trans” and have de-transitioned, sometimes after being on hormones for years. Having to watch these adults enable my daughter to do this with no medical science to back it up is a scenario that I never dreamed any parent would have to face, at least not in the United States. But this is our reality now—a reality that the mainstream media won’t touch.

Rod Fleming #sexist rodfleming.com


Emily Wells

I like your article and I was thinking “Wow. Finally a cis guy who gets it.” And then you went on your own little transphobic rage.

Blanchard simply goes from strength to strength, despite the efforts of delusional blokes in skirts like you, ‘Emily’.

I don’t give a fuck if you ‘respect’ my views or not: you are a man with a serious mental disorder who thinks he is a woman. I’ve as much interest in the local fruitcake who thinks he’s Napoleon ‘respecting’ me. Frankly, it might be more entertaining than the relentless grind of autogynephilic men like you, wallowing in self delusion, self-loathing and self-absorption.

Autogynephilic men like you need help, but not for one minute do I think that ‘transition’ will do so. You are a transvestite, please deal with it. Get your woman suit on and crack one off to the mirror.

Since gender is the outward expression of sexuality, these individuals naturally feel most comfortable as women, and those who do not transition, that is, gender-conforming homosexuals, suffer varying degrees of Gender Dysphoria. This is because Homosexual Gender Dysphoria is caused by a mismatch between sexuality and gender. (Non-homosexual Gender dysphoria in males, what you have, ‘Emily’, is the product of a narcissistic paraphilia called, wait for it, Autogynephilia.) You bear NO RELATIONSHIP to HSTS, so stop pretending you do.

It’s always so nice to hear from a bitter, self-loathing, transvestite autogynephile like you ‘Emily’; it reminds me of whom and what I am campaigning for — True Transsexuals, not brickies in tights. Have fun being a transvestite, but do not pretend to be transsexual or a woman. You cannot be these things. You’re a straight bloke in a frock with a severe mental disorder.

Various Commenters #racist amren.com

RE: Trump is ‘A Civil-rights Leader’ Because of Low African-American Unemployment, Fox News Guest Claims

(ky_native)

However, the president’s record on civil rights has repeatedly come under criticism from activists and campaigners.

In November, the FBI reported that violent hate crimes and threats in the US had reached their highest levels in 16 years, partly due to a surge in attacks on Hispanic people in 2018.

Activists and civil rights researchers have said Mr Trump’s hardline anti-immigration policies and controversial verbal attacks on Latino immigrants carried some responsibility for the rise.

Hate crimes on Hispanics by WHOM? There are none! How did the hate crime occur? Did an English speaker ask a Hispanic person at the register to speak English? The fact that more blacks are working is a miracle because work is like Kryptonite to negroes. Also, I am a Trump supporter, but I am advising him not to count on the negroes for votes! The negro vote belongs to their master the democrat party who wants to keep them on THEIR plantation.

(Cheri Rodriguez)

Wake up! Plenty of hate crimes on Hispanics. The Norteños hate the Sureños. The Mexican Mafia hates the Norteños. The Fresno Bulldogs hate the Mexican Mafia...

(HT)

I know the analogy of welfare to the plantation but to me blacks aren't on a plantation with the Democrat welfare system. It's more like they are on a permanent vacation resort living just like they want. Democrats have us on the slave plantation.

Blacks choosing wrong detrimental policies: This is because of misinformation spread by media ethics codes, police gag orders and lying politicians.
Any decent law abiding working Black would wish to keep Hispanics out of the country and to put Black thugs in prison. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep gangs and felons loose in your black neighborhood. Whites don't defend white robbers and rapists either.

No my friend. That is just who blacks are. They vote Democrat because they know Democrats allow them to do exactly what they want to do, namely nothing.

This conservative narrative that blacks are going to abandon the Democrats for Trump is as insane as the one when they claimed Mexican immigrants would all vote GOP based on their religion and family values.

(Polar Girl)

Yup, low unemployment rates for blacks and the hoarde of documented darkies is exactly why people voted for Trump. That and more wars for Israel.

This comment was deleted.

The way he is acting now, he may not wait for reelection. Since he thinks selling non-white unemployment rates pre-election is advantageous, I would not be surprised to see this delusion extend to war with Iran. That can more easily be hyped up in false jingoism of American flags minus the hidden Star if David superimposed over it and all the faux tough guy talk than non-whites love me for reducing the percentage of government responsibility for workers to an official all-time low.

(Honest_Bob)

Trump can try as hard as he wants but the blacks/browns don't crave equal opportunity, just equal outcomes.

Nicole Russel #transphobia thefederalist.com

The U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case on gender identity and sex Tuesday, in oral arguments for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. James Shupe offered his perspective in an amicus brief for that case.
The following is an interview between me and Shupe, who made waves for being the first “legally non-binary person” in the United States. Shupe achieved clarity through therapy, and returned to life as his birth sex even though the LGBT community shunned him. He’s begun to share his story and speak out against the dangers of transgender medicine.

In 2016, an Oregon circuit court ruled Shupe could change his gender to nonbinary, the first legal ruling of his kind. LGBT activists lauded it as a landmark decision that now plagues Shupe.
Here’s a closer look at his experience living as the opposite sex, regretting it, returning to live as his birth sex, and becoming a vocal opponent of transgender medicine altogether. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
For readers who may be unaware of your journey, describe why you decided to become the “first legally non-binary person” in the United States?
I experienced a major mental health crisis at age 49. I began researching psychiatric issues on the internet. It didn’t take very long for me to stumble upon gender identity disorder, transgenderism, and transsexualism.
At first, I was skeptical that I could actually be a female based on this newly discovered thing called “gender identity,” something I’d never heard of before because I’d always understood myself to be a male. But numerous medical and media articles describing mental health issues disappearing after undergoing a gender transition quickly convinced me that I was a woman and that transition would fix me. I also discovered the Department of Veterans Affairs had a newly launched transgender medical care program [that] erased all of my doubts completely.

At the time, I was especially vulnerable to being duped into believing that I was actually a female trapped in a male body despite not feeling like one for two reasons. 1) I had fragile mental health and was desperate for a cure. 2) During my military career, I’d often cross-dressed for sexual pleasure and had an attraction for men while dressed as a woman, a problem I’d acted out on during several occasions.
So this newly discovered information about being a female because of gender identity based on “feeling like a woman” was a much more palatable explanation for what I had previously understood my behavior to be per military regulations: transvestism.
So, armed with this new information and false beliefs about myself, I immediately began identifying as a transgender woman, mimicking the role of a stereotypical female, and taking female hormones. I also planned to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery to have my penis cosmetically reshaped into a vagina. I was born in 1963, so I’m older than the theory of gender identity, a term first used for transsexuals in 1966 when John Hopkins opened their gender clinic.
Unfortunately, all of this turned out to be delusional thinking. By the end of the charade, I’d come to the realization that my sex change was a failure and a hoax and by then I was just as desperate to escape being legally classified as female as I was previously was to solve my mental health problems.

After a good-faith period of participation in the grand gender experiment, I came to believe the whole thing was smoke and mirrors, complete quackery. By then I knew I wasn’t a female and like others before me, I had similarly discovered by trial and error that changing your sex is impossible. You could say that becoming non-binary gave me the means to save face and as a byproduct, I became famous for doing so.
What does it mean to become non-binary?
Like everything else with gender, non-binary is a made-up term. It’s a “catch-all” terminology for all of the transgender identities that fall outside of male and female. It can mean anything from you think of yourself as transmasculine or transfeminine, or neither male or female, or even a combination of the two.
How long did it take before you realized your quest to become non-binary was actually a result of trauma?
It wasn’t until late 2018 and early 2019 after two psychiatric hospitalizations that I was able to face up to the truth about myself and my sexual behaviors. Once I was willing to do that, I became familiarized with what Dr. Ray Blanchard had correctly theorized about men like me decades ago: that I am sexually attracted and aroused by the idea of myself as a female.
Dr. Blanchard claims there are two types of transgender women: homosexuals attracted to men, and men who are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as females. The latter is the most prominent population group in western countries, and sadly that’s the motivation for all of these middle-aged men such as myself who begin to believe they are women after what’s essentially a sexual fetish has been undiagnosed, gone untreated, or been misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and has then escalated and developed into an alter ego female personality.

First, my sexual behaviors were a coping mechanism for my very painful mental health issues that were rooted in the trauma of my childhood sexual abuse as well as violence I’d experienced and witnessed. Second, I was also now feeding what had become an escalating sexual addiction that was being fueled by pornography and yet another sexual paraphilia I’d developed: masochism. Experts in these fields of expertise state that sexual paraphilias are often comorbid and I agree.
Who bears the blame for your transition? You? Your doctors?
I’ve gotten feedback that insinuates that I got exactly what I asked for from my medical providers during my two gender transitions. But the truth is my doctors and mental health professionals bear significant blame, because the work of Blanchard and others on autogynephilia was published all the way back in the 1980s, yet most psychologists and psychiatrists either know nothing about it or intentionally chose ignorance. It’s framed as an unpopular diagnosis.
When I confronted my caregivers at the VA that had rubber-stamped me with gender dysphoria instead of a sexual paraphilia and asked to be reevaluated, their response was to fire me as a patient and then claim that they had no experience treating sexual paraphilias. However, the VA has already done studies explaining why people like me are acting out sexually but the folks treating me didn’t put two and two together. Instead, they fed and enabled the delusion that I was a woman, making them the most culpable.
Describe when and how you realized you needed to “de-transition.”
Becoming non-binary was like redoing the whole gender experiment all over again with different parameters and then getting the same outcome. I didn’t stop taking hormones and by then I had an even bigger mess to walk back because I was no longer a relatively obscure transgender woman. I now had international fame associated with the landmark court decision to cope with, making reclaiming my birth sex much more difficult.
But admitting and accepting the truth about myself gave me the strength to reclaim my male birth sex. And after I did, I began treatment for my correct diagnosis: a transvestic disorder with autogynephilia.
What does “de-transitioning” feel like? Is there a feeling of loss? Anger? Relief? Is it harder than transitioning?
There was no sense of loss and it’s certainly easier than transitioning because you’re not fighting against your biological reality, societal pushback, and forcing others to indulge your delusion.
I do have plenty of anger about having been medically experimented on by people with advanced degrees who should have known better, leaving me feeling duped about having fallen for the quack theory that I have a gender identity. I now realize that I don’t.
I was falsely led by mental health practitioners to believe that my feelings decided my sex, but that’s neither scientific, measurable, nor enduring because my feelings can and have changed. I’ve come to realize and accept that the only thing capable of reliably grounding me to reality is my male chromosomes and reproductive system.
All of this legal fiction and outright fraud has indeed left me very bitter and angry. I want the people who have caused me physical and mental harm held accountable for their actions and roles in the medical experimentation that was perpetrated against me.
Do you believe most people who have decided they are transgender would have been better off remaining their biological sex?
Yes, I believe everyone would be better off being recognized solely as their biological sex. The medical procedures being touted as “gender transitions,” if they work at all, are in fact nothing more than cosmetic changes to people’s bodies. I’m proof of that.
But here’s the biggest thing: even if you could somehow argue the medical treatments are legitimate hormonal and surgical procedures, lying to the patient about being another sex based on the pseudoscience of gender identity and forcing everyone else to play along is nothing short of medical malpractice and legal fiction.
How did you decide to go from a non-binary person who has de-transitioned to somewhat of a public critic? Is your personal story well received?
First and foremost I had to do so because people were continuing to use my court decision to put more and more non-binary sex markers on state driver’s licenses, and they were also continuing to write about my court case in academic and legal journals. And this was occurring against a backdrop of readily available information on the internet, my Wikipedia page, and on my personal website explaining that I had reclaimed my birth sex. Some of these folks were intentionally casting me in a false light to advance gender ideology.
What are your expectations for the case SCOTUS is about to hear, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as it relates to your personal journey? Should gender identity be protected under the law like sex?
I think the justices will rule in favor of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes and protect religious freedom because the male plaintiff, who claims to be a female is, in my opinion, the exact same thing as I am: A cross-dressing man that is sexually aroused by the image of himself as a woman. I sincerely believe that he and I both suffer from a transvestic disorder and with what Dr. Blanchard refers to as autogynephilia.
While I believe that autogynephilia is a mental health problem worthy of treatment and compassion, based on my experience I think it’s unworthy of public or employment accommodation, even if it has progressed to gender dysphoria.
Like myself, because the man in the case who now identifies as a woman’s transvestic disorder has apparently gone untreated for probably decades, and because quack theories about gender have been allowed to proliferate and infiltrate society and law, his sexual identity problem has apparently gotten so out of control that he now believes he’s a female. That’s unfortunate, but he’s not a woman and neither was I. So I feel the Supreme Court needs to set the nation straight about that in order to protect females and religious freedom.
We need to quit wasting so much time and resources and return to a clear-cut definition of biological sex because a lot of children are now being harmed by gender ideology too. As to whether gender should be protected under the law? The answer is no, because it’s based on nothing more than personal feelings, perceptions, stereotypes, and pseudoscience.

momonkey #fundie city-data.com

To me a feminist, as the term is used today, is simply a woman who doesn`t understand herself or her nature and fails to find joy in life because she is trying to be something she is not, something she cannot be, and, if she understood herself, wouldn`t want to be.

In short, feminism, as the traditional use of the word would bring us to understand feminism, is everything it claims it is not.

At its root, it is both matriarchy and patriarchy treating women as second-class citizens through non-traditional expressions of very traditional gender role restrictions and expectations.

The mode of implementation is different, but the aim is the same.

Instead of female circumcision as practiced by African mothers and grandmothers to ensure their daughters and granddaughters land Mr. Right, American feminists use abortion to keep women unattached and available for Mr. Right with uncompromised vaginas, firm breasts and abs free of stretch marks.

Traditional **** shaming, used in the past by not-so-hot women to dry up the sex market with the intent of driving un-laid men their way, used to take the form of malicious gossip and rumor mongering concerning the sexual exploits of prettier women.

Today it takes the form of ever clearer and ever more awkward and uncomfortable verbal consent to each and every level of intimacy paired with an implied threat of rape charges in the absence of this specific spoken permission leading to a sexual buzz-kill that couldn`t be any more penis shriveling if your parents were in the room.

The ages-old you break it, you buy it rule still applies to men, but there is no need for shotgun weddings today since the courts simply throw men who never wanted children in what is effectively men`s only debtor`s prison if they fail to pay what is demanded.

Bottom line: feminists treat women as children incapable of managing their own affairs while men are held to a very high standard of accountability.

Traditional feminism is both matriarchy and patriarchy on steroids, cross-dressed as progressive intellectualism and self-identified as somehow genuine.

For Women Scotland #sexist theguardian.com

Scottish feminist group says transgender laws risk women's rights

For Women Scotland says government is ‘sleepwalking’ towards erosion of rights

The Scottish government risks sleepwalking towards a significant erosion of women’s rights, according to a group of feminist activists and academics that held its first public meeting in Edinburgh on Thursday evening to discuss proposed changes to transgender legislation.

The group, For Women Scotland, claims that it has support from MSPs across the political spectrum who share their concern that the SNP government is failing to consider adequately the implications for the rights of women and girls of proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004, such as allowing individuals to change their legal sex by means of self-declaration.

When the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, originally pledged to radically reform gender recognition law for trans people in 2016, she said that the move would be as important in her next parliamentary term as equal marriage was to the last. But the proposals were not included in last autumn’s programme for government, which has been taken as an indication of the concern within the SNP.

The intersectional feminist activists Sisters Uncut Edinburgh organised a protest against the meeting, stating: “While For Women Scot do a sterling job of making transphobia look respectable, their actions and statements do real damage to Scotland’s trans and non-binary community.”

Among the 40-strong protest, Red, a charity worker, said: “Groups like this are selling a very weighted narrative, and obscuring the facts. For example, they say that changes to the GRA will allow trans women into women’s spaces, when actually they were allowed before. They are trying to make it seem an immediate and sudden threat.”

Another protester, Cathy, said: “As a trans woman, I feel this whole event is designed to make transphobia appear respectable, and it’s very disingenuous. If a debate is what these people want, then there needs to be mutual respect.”

Speaking to a largely female audience of about 150 within the meeting venue, Susan Smith, of For Women Scotland, said: “We are concerned that the Scottish government is sleepwalking towards a significant erosion of women’s rights, both in terms of proposals to reform the GRA to allow self-identification and the failure to prevent other organisations running ahead of the law and adopting policies which are in breach of the Equality Act.

“We’re not here to quibble about toilets and we’re not here to create trouble for those who have battled crippling gender dysphoria. We welcome extra provisions for other vulnerable groups that don’t involve dismantling existing rights. If we cannot see sex, then we cannot see sexism, we cannot define sexuality, and it is the most vulnerable women who will suffer from this.”

Thursday’s meeting marked the most public expression in Scotland of increasingly vocal concerns around transgender issues.

The meeting also discussed concerns about guidelines for schools, contained in a document, Supporting Transgender Young People, and written in partnership with LGBT Youth Scotland and Scottish Trans Alliance, which say that schoolchildren should be able to compete in the sports events and use changing rooms and toilets for the gender they identify with.

Another feminist campaign group, Women and Girls in Scotland, published their own children’s rights impact analysis earlier this week. It argues that the guidelines undermine 10 articles of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child.

On Tuesday, a group of 25 academics, activists and former MSPs signed an open letter calling on Sturgeon to commit to carrying out a full equality impact assessment of the proposed reforms to the GRA. It noted: “Many individuals responding to the consultation raised concerns about how the proposals could affect the practical operation of the single-sex protections under the Equality Act 2010.”

Last month, the Guardian reported on concerns amongst data experts that proposed changes to the question about sex, to be asked in Scotland’s next census, risk undermining the reliability of the survey and set a difficult precedent for equalities protection.

Star Parker creators.com

I happened to listen the other day to then-Sen. John F. Kennedy's opening remarks in his debate with then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential election cycle.

Kennedy, the Democratic Party candidate, recalled that Abraham Lincoln, in the 1860 presidential election cycle, said the great question facing the nation was whether it could exist "half-slave and half-free."

In the 1960 election, said Kennedy, the issue was "whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free."

How things change. The Democrats' candidate in 1960 headlined freedom as the issue defining his campaign. Now, 60 years later, Democrats are moving down the road to nominating a socialist, pushing freedom as an American ideal out of the picture.

It is astounding that many Democrats are ready to cast aside the core value that has defined our nation, for which so many have fought and died.

One major part of the story is our youth.

Support for the two parties is divided by age.

In 2016, a majority of those under age 44 voted for Hillary Clinton. Fifty-five percent of those ages 18-29 voted for her, compared with 37% for Donald Trump. Trump received the majority of those 45 years and above.

It is our youth that is enamored with socialism and the socialist candidate.

In a recent Pew Research Center poll, 40% of Democrats ages 18-29 expressed preference for Sen. Bernie Sanders to be their party's candidate, compared with 25% of those 30-49, 13% of those 50-64 and 10% of those 65 and over.

In a Gallup poll, 51% of those ages 18-f39 expressed a positive view of capitalism and 49% a positive view of socialism. Among those 40-54, 61% were positive about capitalism compared with 39% for socialism. And those 55 and over, 68% were positive about capitalism compared with 32% for socialism.

What's driving these young Democrats to the far left?

Niall Ferguson of Stanford University's Hoover Institution and consultant Eyck Freymann suggest, in an article in The Atlantic, "The Coming Generation War," that the capitalist America that worked for earlier generations is not working for these youth.

"They face stagnant real wages" and carry a large burden of student debt, they say.


It's a generation "to whom little has been given, and of whom much is expected," they continue.

I think it is just the opposite. It is a generation to whom much has been given and from whom little is expected.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, America's youth still faced a military draft. In 1960, 72% of Americans over 18 were married, compared with 50% today.

According to Pew, 78% of those ages 18-29 say it is acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, even if they don't intend to get married.

Over the decade 2009-2019, there was a drop of 16% among those ages 23-39 who identify as Christian and an increase of 13% of those self-identifying as religiously unaffiliated.


And that age group doesn't vote. Since 1980, the percentage of eligible voters in their 20s who voted in presidential elections has averaged between 40% and 50%, compared with 65% to 75% of those over 45, Ferguson and Freymann report.

We have a generation of American youth today who have grown up in a culture of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, with little sense of responsibility to God and country.

Freedom is about personal responsibility, and these youth do not seem to be interested. They appear, rather, to be very open to the idea of turning their lives over to be run by a 78-year-old socialist.

Such values among our youth do not bode well for our future.

Meanwhile, the best near-term solution is keeping the nation under Republican control.


Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and author of the new book "Necessary Noise: How Donald Trump Inflames the Culture War and Why This is Good News for America," available now at starparker.com

Linda Harvey #fundie #homophobia #transphobia #wingnut missionamerica.com

Top 5 Excuses When Radicals Corrupt Children
Progressives are busy smashing the innocence and dreams of our youth, but they aren’t doing it without thought. They have their reasons.
They are ultimately ungodly and foolish reasons revealing base instincts, flawed values, the direct influence of the demonic realm, or all of the above.

What are the explanations? Here’s a list of their most frequent excuses.

1. It’s for the “safety” of kids. A key goal of the “LGBT” crowd is to put traditional moral standards on defense, so one tactic is to co-opt bullying prevention programs. Many current lessons imbed a deceptive idea in otherwise positive messages— be kind, don’t be a bully, and to avoid this abhorrent label, be an ally and supporter of “LGBTQ” behaviors and identities. The pro-homosexual National Education Association, the nation’s largest union, has pushed and funded this duplicitous idea for over a decade, even quoting the invalid, online GLSEN “School Climate Survey.”

Propagandists often pair acceptable messages with extremely questionable ones. Today, they use children as human shields for “LGBT” agenda goals.

So what does “support” for these newly-created homosexual and gender confused kids look like? A school must allow no warnings about these behaviors or objections which make these students feel “unsafe.” A violation of the First Amendment? Medically and morally inaccurate? It doesn’t matter as long as the “gay” lobby can get parents to fall for this.


So students in the “gay straight alliance” club at West Linn High School in Oregon recently walked out of school to protest the Chick-Fil-A food truck serving school football games. An official at the school said they were considering the students’ position as with all “potential safety concerns.”

Chick-Fil-A is unsafe? No, here’s what’s unsafe—being prevented from hearing the truth that God has marvelously designed sex for one man and one woman in holy matrimony.

Children are starving for the nourishment of moral reality.

2. It’s part of being “inclusive” for “all” kids. In case you were not aware, messages about sexual responsibility and healthy behavior “excludes” those students who are already sexually active, and “LGBTQ” kids, who need to learn about anal and oral sex. So all students, therefore, are forced under “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) to hear that anal, oral and vaginal sex are normal for teens and can be managed safely with condoms and contraceptives. And this instruction needs to begin in middle school.

So the Austin, TX school system recently passed a controversial sex ed program that allegedly includes “abstinence.” Here’s what one pro-family activist there told me: “Yes, anal and oral sex with graphic descriptions of both are included in a sixth grade classroom activity in which eleven-year-olds are given 20 cards of various activities and made to discuss which ones are abstinence. Not only does the lesson explain anal and oral sex, it counts as material that is about abstinence required by law in Texas.”

California parents are just waking up to the horrific legislation passed several years ago – California’s “Healthy Youth Act”—mandating deliberate corruption of the state’s kids with X-rated subjects and pro-”LGBT” messages.

Praise God, some parents are responding, “Over my dead body.” There are a few lovely victories, like the school board in Battleground Schools (WA) turning down the obscene “FLASH” CSE program.

After the legalization of same sex marriage, homosexual activists went full steam to demand through many avenues (including the NEA) that school lessons must include respect for “LGBTQ” behaviors. “Respect” means normalizing early sex, graphic details of sex acts and lessons with same sex role-playing scenarios.


3. Children asked for it. Another excuse given for shoving pro-abortion and “LGBT” misinformation at kids is that “kids want this.” Yes, so whatever behavior kids have been taught to demand, in some schools they get. The child empowerment movement pushes the bolder kids in front of school boards. Some are already hardened activists screaming that their rights are being infringed, on their way to a college affiliation with Antifa.

Sexual corruption, let’s not forget, breeds more boundary-smashing and other psychological instabilities.

Cathy Ruse described the climate in the Fairfax (VA) schools as including cuddling polyamorous groups of kids in the halls —“thruples” and “quadruples” (rhymes with couples). And at the same school there are now “furries,” students who believe they are animals and self-identify as cats, foxes, etc.


4. The radicals think there’s nothing wrong and it’s all positive. The hard reality is that some people think there’s nothing inappropriate about kids being sexual.

One drag queen admitted in an interview recently that the goal was indeed to “groom the next generation.” Grooming is the term describing pedophile actions softening a child’s resistance to adult sexual contact.

A drag queen in the Seattle area performed an explicit strip act for kids. Another in Minneapolis was filmed “flashing himself” with partial nudity. Another invited little kids to lie on top of him after the reading time. Several of these deviant males have past convictions of child molestation and involvement in prostitution.

A PTA president at a school in Harlem performed an erotic “drag” routine to an auditorium full of elementary students several years ago.

5. Homosexual expression or gender “transition” will prevent suicide. Playing the suicide card is a frequent part of the game here, where parents are told, “If you don’t affirm your daughter in her new identity as a male, she will kill herself. Do you want a live son or a dead daughter?” So against your common sense, your faith, and everything you knew about your child prior to the current corruption overload, you are persuaded by an “affirming” counselor that mutilating her healthy body is the best course of action.

But here’s where mythology collides with truth. No one is born in the “wrong sex body” and suicide risks remain high, according to research, even after taking hormones and undergoing mutilating surgery.

An entire new activist group is now forming – “de-transitioners”—young adults now outraged over the deformed bodies and limited futures that have been handed to them. They will never conceive children. They are disfigured, often sexually dysfunctional. And the future holds the very real prospect of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis at young ages. All because of a deviant and unsupported agenda everyone thinks is “inclusive.”

It’s actually the opposite. When your ideology excludes the truth, everything else is a high-stakes gamble.

Sometimes I think I’m living in a fun house with crazy mirrors where very little is what it seems. But that’s why we must keep turning to the Lord and standing with Him in the power of the Holy Spirit.

And speaking out. Pastors, please address this from the pulpit. We are to be salt and light.

Jesus is the frame of all wisdom and sets us free, and He will direct our paths.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

For some reason, the deliberately-injected moral and mental cancer known as 'liberalism', aka 'progressivism' has always seemed to metastasize faster in the Nordic countries, particularly Scandinavian ones. This phenomenon is also observable among the American descendants of Scandinavian immigrants in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

The hypothesis of this reporter is that the innate, perhaps even genetic, altruism and human compassion of Nordic folk renders them more vulnerable to manipulation of both the heart and mind. Though the reason for advanced Scandinavian libtardism may not be concrete; one thing is for certain - Sweden is the insanest of the European insane asylums.

There is so much wrong with the politically correct descendants of the Viking 'bad boys' of antiquity -- highest divorce rates in the world, highest suicide rates in Europe, crushing taxation which forces 90% of new mothers back into the work force, a below replacement level birth rate, perhaps the most liberal open-borders policy in Europe, laws against "hate speech", rampant homosexuality and genderless-ness, anti-White self hate, virtually state-imposed Atheism, a female Defense Minister, TV shows and commercials that can be described as soft-core pornography, and, worst of all, snobby ruling class "elites" so absorbed in their smug self-righteousness that they make people like Lizzie Borden Warren seem cool and relaxed.

Now don't misunderstand. We are certain that there are still many masculine men and feminine ladies in Sweden. But the fact that the modern ranks of the true Vikings are steadily shrinking, particularly among the younger generation, is something that several of our Scandinavian readers have confirmed for us.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Trump's election was intended by the elite

Donald Trump's election was intended to happen by the shadow elite. The "problematic" people in the U S are more "pliable" under Trump. If Trump leads the nation to do this or that, people who otherwise despise government will rally behind him, where they probably would have fought Hillary if she proposed the exact same action.

The elites raised up Hitler for the same reason they are presenting Trump to us now; decades ago, they put Hitler forward when they needed to stir up Germany's downtrodden people to go to war. Hitler rose as a popular anti-establishment candidate. He railed against the Jewish bankers, and promised he would "make Germany great again" by rebuilding Germany's economy after the financial devastation of the first world war. But the same shadow elite was behind Hitler the whole time, because Hitler was useful for inciting WW2, which the elite desired. The elite were also behind the communist revolutions in Russia, and the French Revolution and even the American Revolution of 1776. In fact, "populist uprisings" are the elite's very special speciality.... Trump's election is the same "people's rebellion" script played out by the illuminati on the modern American people. To what purpose this time, you might ask?

Well, what is Trump especially good at, besides giving speeches? Business. In particular, he is very experienced in advantageously managing messy bankruptcies of huge mega-corporations..... And did you know that many people claim that the United States of America is actually a corporation? (it's true, look it up). And did you know the United States is very, very bankrupt? (bet you knew that one already) The Donald has already floated the idea of defaulting on the US debt. He has not said a word about routing the bankers or doing anything to the Fed. He is considering Jamie Dimon (the CEO of JP Morgan Chase) for Treasury Secretary, along with a few Goldman Sachs alumni. He is backpedaling on repealing Obamacare. He is planning to ramp up spending in such a way that the velocity of money will greatly increase, which is the formula for hyperinflation (soaring cost of living). At the same time, he is going to cut all federal funding to sanctuary cities, leaving millions of homeless people suddenly hungry and without shelter. He also hopes to blanket-legalize concelaed carry of handguns for every American across the nation. This is a formula for a bloody civil war.

Trump has been installed to manage the default of the United States of America and the ensuing international bankruptcy proceedings. He has also been installed to manage the controlled demolition of the US economy through hyperinflation (see Zimbabwe or Venezuela for examples of the process). And finally, he has been installed to incite an American civil war through strategic legislating and control of the press, with support from controlled opposition groups such as BLM. Trump will manage all this, with the support of millions of trusting and desperate people across the nation. And the elite can escape cleanly -- they will blame the breakdown and chaos on Trump, on racism, on nationalist ideologies, and on the deplorables who tried to vote the globalists out of office.

Cora Segal and Nicole Sullivan #conspiracy campusreform.org

A “Fat Justice and Feminism” seminar sponsored by Swarthmore College blamed Ronald Reagan for the suffering of fat people and accused the Body mass index (BMI) of having “direct links to a white supremacist.”

The workshop, taught by feminist activist Cora Segal and self-identified “angry, man-hating lesbian,” Nicole Sullivan, took place Thursday and sought to “address the ongoing exploitation and oppression of fat people.”

“There is no scientific consensus whatsoever that fat people need to exercise more, or that fat is unhealthy. There is no evidence that [being] fat causes diabetes. Medical professionals are informed of this so-called knowledge by lobbying groups.” Tweet This

The Swarthmore Independent reports that Segal and Sullivan took aim at a variety of subjects including President Ronald Reagan, who they claimed “f*cked everything up” for fat people—though the Independent drily reports that “[n]o specific evidence about Reagan’s perverse policies or animosity toward obese people was offered.”

Segal and Sullivan also argued in favor of “communism and socialism as viable alternatives to capitalism and exploitation” and against oppressive healthy eating and exercise programs. The two reportedly went so far as to claim that “every physician is bought off by lobbyists and the diet industry.”

“There is no scientific consensus whatsoever that fat people need to exercise more, or that fat is unhealthy. There is no evidence that [being] fat causes diabetes. Medical professionals are informed of this so-called knowledge by lobbying groups,” the pair argued.

Paige Willey, an attendee to the conference, told Campus Reform "the whole event had a negative tone to it."

"Their whole argument was based in hatred. Very unproductive."

The activists also purportedly argued that the BMI features “direct links to a white supremacist” and is therefore useless because it was created by a “white, male, French astronomer,” Adolphe Quetelet.

The event was funded by the Women's Resource Center, History Department, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Interpretation Theory, and the Worth Health Center.

Ben Carson #transphobia thehill.com

Ben Carson's remarks during San Francisco visit spark backlash

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson sparked backlash after he reportedly said "big, hairy men" were trying to enter homeless shelters for women during a meeting at the agency's San Fransisco office.

Three people at the meeting told The Washington Post that they interpreted his remark to refer to transgender women. Two agency staff members told the newspaper that he also complained that society did not know the difference between men and women anymore.

The staff members told the Post that the comment upset many people present at the Tuesday HUD meeting and at least one woman left in protest.

A government official also told the newspaper that Carson has made fun of transgender people during meetings in Washington.

"His overall tone is dismissive and joking about these people," the official said. "It's disrespectful of the people we are trying to serve."

“The Secretary does not use derogatory language to refer to transgendered individuals. Any reporting to the contrary is false," a senior HUD official told the Post in a statement after being asked about Carson's reported remarks.

The official, who was not in the meetings, told the newspaper that Carson was talking about men pretending to be women to get into battered women’s shelters rather than referring to transgender women as “big, hairy men.”

The Hill has reached out to HUD for comment.

One staffer who took notes during the meeting told The Post that Carson said "Transgender people should get the same rights as everyone else, but they don’t get to change things for everybody else.”

He reportedly followed the comment by saying that shelter operators and women's groups informed him that homeless women would be traumatized if “big, hairy men” enter shelters identifying themselves as women. He also reportedly said that single-sex shelters should be able to turn away transgender people.

“That was the first time any of us heard him use such derogatory language,” one staff member told the newspaper.“He’s more tactful when he’s talking before Congress, whereas this sounded like a slur to me.”

National Center for Transgender Equality spokeswoman Gillian Branstetter was quoted condemning Carson's comment in the Post.

“It’s gravely insulting to have the specter of violence from cis gender men used to restrict the rights of transgender people who are ordinarily the victims of that violence,” she said. “It’s a mythical notion that policies that are inclusive of transgender people somehow pose a threat."

"It’s frankly despicable that such a harmful notion would be used by someone charged with facilitating programs meant to help people in need, many of whom are transgender,” Branstetter added.

Following the Post's report, Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.) released a statement calling for Carson's resignation.

“Secretary Carson's remarks are revolting. These comments only affirm that his recent efforts to erase the Equal Access Rule are rooted in ignorance, not sound policy. By allowing shelters to discriminate against transgender Americans, the Secretary is putting lives in danger," she said.

The remarks were also met with criticism online.

Carson has previously sparked controversy over remarks used to refer to transgender people. He told The Hill in 2016 that being being transgender “doesn’t make any sense.” According to the Post, he has also said transgender people are "abnormal" and shouldn't be in the military.

William #fundie usa.forzanuova.info

Interestingly – and this is a matter of interest in all gender-related discourse – the term used throughout this debacle is ‘identify’, demonstrating that even the chief dissemination agents of this perversion of science acknowledge that it’s nothing more than one thing pretending to be another.

However, the effects that flagrant liberal propaganda such as this could have a very real and serious consequences for the minds of an entire generation. To teach such impressionable minds that they need no longer be bound by the laws of science and nature, is to sow the seeds of psychosis  in all of society.

After all, it is no mystery that over around 50% of self-identifying transsexuals commit suicide. These are very sick people, and to present this behind the facade of normality will do untold damage to Swedish children.

A more prudent approach could be to teach children the reality of psychology, so that they can grow up with a will to understand and help others recover, rather than growing up only for themselves to become patients.

AdamanteusAtrox #sexist reddit.com

If you actually believe this, then you're not paying attention. The current party line of trans activists is that transwomen are biologically female and were indeed born biologically female, and transmen are biologically male and were born biologically male. They have not only erased the definition of "woman," but they have now erased the definition of "female." This has multiple immediate consequences: We can't talk about female genital mutilation because any genitals can be female. MRAs love this because they can swoop in to any article about FGM so much easier to cry about circumcision and do their "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN???"

We can't talk about female reproductive health because that can refer to any reproductive organs. Prostate cancer can be a female reproductive health issue. We can't talk about female infanticide or female-selective abortion because we don't know how those babies or fetuses would have identified -- maybe they were really male? We can't talk about girls being denied education because some of those girls might be boys.

We can't talk about shared female experiences like menstruation because there are none -- males menstruate and females don't menstruate. We can't talk about the poisonous way that females are socialized into the inferior sex caste because some of those females are really males and some of what people think are males are actually females, so there is actually no such thing as female socialization. By extension, there is also no such thing as male socialization, because some of those males are actually females and some of what people think are females are actually males. There can be no female-specific spaces, sports teams, colleges, scholarships, clubs, music groups, work places, jails, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, or rape crisis shelters, because people who appear to be female may identify as male and so be actually biologically male, and those who appear to be male may identify as female and so be actually biologically female.

This fantasy land of magical thinking has made it fully impossible for women to discuss anything related to female oppression. It has made it impossible for women to have anything for ourselves. Your activists come in and trounce on every. fucking. conversation. we try to have and language police, tone police, demand to be centered, and demand that we change actual reality to fit their desires. This is pure male entitlement and it's utter bullshit. We are saying no, and people socialized as male can't handle it when women tell them no. That's why /r/terfisaslur is filled with transwomen threatening women with death, rape, mutilation, assault, and even cannibalism.

And it's not "bad experiences with certain people." It's pretty much all trans activists who behave this way. Trans people outside the activist community are often normal, nice people and many of us call them friends, myself included. But your activists are toxic, poisonous narcissists. They are violent misogynists who are going to eventually tank your whole movement with their increasingly unreasonable, unstable, and ridiculous behavior.

Some TERFs #transphobia reddit.com

Re: Transbiancel complains that there's NO reason why he should be a "social pariah" in the lesbian meetups he's been attending for a year and a half

image

(S_FirestoneTires)

GCS Dr. Kathy Rumer

he he was talking about how the idea of being female has always been VERY arousing to him

You know what I'm pleasantly surprised about? This is one of the few cases where someone with that profile doesn't tell people "if you don't want to suck my girldick, you're transphobic" (also, you privileged cis scum, if you want to suck Feminine Benis, that's bad and horrible because it's "dehumanizing").

Ray Blanchard found that there are GAMP straight men who like breasts and a penis, but those men want a female-looking partner, not a brutish manly AGP 40-year-old. More to the point, the AGPs had way too much prenatal T to have sexual interest in said men. For example:

Riley Dennis: "if you don't want to date someone because they have a penis, you're transphobic!"

Men in the YouTube comments: "we'll date you, Riley!"

Riley Dennis: "ewww, I don't like men!"

I have a masculine face

Everyone knows that having a craggy male skull is sure to bring all the lesbians to the yard!

I'm smart, funny, and easy to talk to

My dear delusional Red, if those qualities controlled attraction, oppressed sexual minorities wouldn't even exist. Closeted gays and lesbians could just force themselves to be straight by finding an opposite-sex spouse who is "smart, funny and easy to talk to." Freddy Mercury tried that with Mary Austin.

People are mostly friendly, kind and engage socially

It's almost like people can't control what they are and aren't sexually attracted to, and it doesn't mean they're "bigots" or hate you.

>People are mostly friendly, kind and engage socially when I approach them

>I'm a social pariah, bawwwwww!

>I have a masculine face, why don't lesbians want to get any of that?

Full galaxy-brain definition of social pariah.

(Ergative_Absolutive)

Lesbian meetups serve a few major functions:

For lesbians to hang out with women who get it, in a space where they can be honest about who they are. Straight women, even liberal ones, can be weird about friendships with lesbians. And social circles that are dominated by straight women tend to expand to include husbands or boyfriends (which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not the same as having an all-women space) and tend to involve a fair amount of talking about relationships with men.

For lesbians to meet potential sexual/romantic partners.

Did I mention meeting potential partners? Because that one's important.

Female homosexuals aren't going to see a heterosexual male, gender identity notwithstanding, as someone who shares their life experiences in the same way as a fellow lesbian. Nor are they going to see a heterosexual male as a potential girlfriend. OP is showing up to the Taco Lovers' Tacomania All-Taco Taco Fest with a platter of beef sausage.

The reality is that the woman-seeking-woman sections of all dating apps are full of MtF people and straight couples looking for a unicorn. The ideal solution would be better filters on these apps, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon and it's totally beyond your control.

If I were you, I'd be upfront and lowkey. For example:

I'm a trans woman looking for a summer fling, but very open to something more serious with the right woman. On weekdays, I'm a defense lawyer; on weekends, I'm a hiker, biker, kayaker, and amateur pastry chef (emphasis on the amateur).

Basically, avoid anti-TERF screeds and other gender politicking, don't try to bury the fact that you're trans in the small print, and don't go on about how you're a super lesby lesbian seeking a super lesby lesbian relationship with a fellow lesbian. Yes, a lot of the women using whatever app you're on will still roll their eyes and swipe left, but them's the breaks, for you and for them.

ETA: I also agree with u/FruitTreesRule's advice to you.

(FruitTreesRule)

Lesbian spaces are meant for lesbians, so don't go there.

You can try catch-all dating apps/sites and indicate you are trans. Don't initiate to women who specify they are lesbian on their profiles since many lesbians are being coerced into "giving a chance" if they don't want to be labeled transphobic. Don't put a woman in that position.

Or you can just be social and engage in friend groups and see if you meet someone the old fashioned way, but again, don't try to initiate with lesbians. Seriously, it's equivalent to a "cis" man assuming he can hit on a lesbian. It's invasive and insulting and entitled.

Perhaps there is female out there who is open to gender non conforming men, who are hormones, who have breasts and a penis. But, honestly, not many women are into that.

That is your problem, not women's.

I suggest seeking out another trans male if you are open to that.

(ilovemylesbiangf)

Probably shouldn't go to lesbian meetups if this "woman wannabe" is only interested in sleeping with them. Lesbians tend to sleep with other women.

(HorsesCantPlayHockey)

"Transdar"= knows what a man in a dress looks like.

(CallaAETHIOPICA)

Let’s see, I know why lesbians aren’t interested. It’s because you’re male!!

sp8der #transphobia reddit.com

Having a penis means you are a man. There is no such thing as a female penis.

Question, how do you define those who have XX chromosomes but have a penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome#:~:text=XX%20male%20syndrome%2C%20also%20known,that%20can%20vary%20among%20cases.
Are they a man or are they a

Per the name of the page you're linking, the answer would seem to be male.

Regardless, extreme edge cases don't and shouldn't define broad rules. Over-specificity will render otherwise useful concepts useless through inflation.

"Cats have four legs" is a true species-level statement even given the existence of mutated or amputee cats.

There's also a tendency to fall into the univariate fallacy when discussing this. That because one magic vector that neatly cleaves the groups cannot be found, the groups themselves are invalid. This is patently false, traits can be clustered.

If an object matches 5/6 characteristics of Item A and 1/6 of Item B, which is it more likely to be? Which of the two boxes do you put it in when sorting?

Ok what about a woman who through surgery to attach a penis. Is this person a man or a woman?

More difficult. It depends on the rest of the cluster of traits, doesn't it? While that's a strong indicator in one direction, whether it's enough to balance out the rest has to be taken as an individual case.

I agree, there should be some flex in what determines who is a man and who is a woman, you seem to be against this.

Some flex maybe, not 100% flex. But my point was more that categories are rarely ever neat but they must be coherent, at the very least. Simply identifying as X is not enough to become X. And defining X as "ABC", without regard to exceptions, is more broadly useful to people everyday than strictly defining X as "ABC, except when D, but also ACE, unless F, or ABD in which case look at GH in conjuction with AB to determine if C."

I agree yet you seem so focussed on saying that this rule doesn't apply to trans people.

I suppose the corollary is that, as I said above, I don't consider all traits to have equal "weight" when determining what category to put someone in.

So having a penis might be 100 "weight" towards considering someone a man. Having XY chromosomes might be 50 "weight". Having a beard might be 5 or 10.

Identifying as a male registers as a 1, if anything.

This is all just numbers pulled from my arse, I've never sat down and quantified how much I consider each trait to be indicative. It's just my attempt to illustrate why someone who spends a lot of time money and effort on passing is an easier "sell" for me than someone like Yaniv, who does not, and why I do not consider the two equivalent.

But even then, anyone who manages to "cross categories" will still have an asterisk next to their designation, as you used as an example above, an "XX male" or "trans male" and I don't think that's inherently unfair. You can be male, subcategory trans, and that can be relevant information sometimes. Especially in medicine, or dating, or, as in the original example, other "intimate" or delicate/vulnerable situations.

I think it's important that trans people just make their peace with that, because a little compromise will go a long way to reconciliation, as opposed to attempting to "inflict" themselves on the unwilling put of a sense of moral indignation.


You personally think that the presence of a penis is more of an indicator than the xx or xy chromosome, I could find other people that disagree and say it is the other way around.

But again... "XX male". it's not Female Penis Syndrome.

Rather than imposing views why not let said people decide for themselves?

Because we don't let people self-identify as doctors, or as engineers. We take umbrage when someone who is noticeably not decides to call themselves clever or beautiful or talented. People's self identification means very little to us in quite a lot of ways.

So what someone identifies themselves as normally has little bearing on how others identify them, and this is right and proper. We are allowed to disagree.

I don't think this is an excuse to deny said person which sex/gender they are.

The argument they make is that if I don't want to date/sleep with them because they have a vagina, and that viscerally repulses me, that I don't "really" see them as a man.

Which, I mean, is right, but how do you reconcile that?


I mean I think both sides could be polite, no-one has to date or sleep with anyone they don't like.

I'm pretty sure that would get you excoriated by most trans activists. (Maybe not trans people, but activists.)

Wizardcel #moonbat incels.co

[LifeFuel] Foid defends transagers. This is the first step toward recognition tbh.

As everyone here knows, I have recently come out as a transager incel. That's right! I am now 16 years old. The only problem is that I'm not legally allowed to change my age :( :cryfeels:

Right now, incels and transagers are the most discriminated minorities on the planet! this means we have a lot of work to do. I believe full recognition and acceptance of transage and incel folk is possible. After all, we are only people. We're not harming anyone when we identify ourselves to be a certain age.

I have been doing a lot of research in the last few days about this topic. There are many people who have come out, but we are not yet in great numbers to fight a legal battle. That's why I ask anyone here who identifies as incel/transage to come out. Do not be afraid, do not fear the judgement of ignorant people; they do not have love in their hearts.

Anyway, I have found this very interesting article and I want to share it with the community: Trans-aged individuals are just as entitled to anti-discrimination protection as transgender individuals. (Submitter’s note: link is non-functional)

"The Obama administration has championed special protected classes of citizens, but the government is still ignoring one deeply oppressed group: the trans-aged." :feelsgah:

"Trans-aged individuals are just as entitled to anti-discrimination protection as transgender individuals. "


"Think of the 12-year-old who self-identifies as 19, but is stuck in a middle-school classroom. "
>>>>>> Lifefuel tbh

A new day is on the horizon, boyos. Better days shall come. We'll ride this storm together, and when we have left inceldom, we'll look back at this dark period of our lives and smile.

Jan LaRue #fundie americanthinker.com

Thomas Jefferson, call your office. Five lawyers on the Supreme Court have issues with your handiwork.

A revised version of the Declaration is the inevitable outcome of their opinions in the same-sex "marriage" cases hammered down on Wednesday in Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

For those who think those rulings are merely about an insignificant "social issue," think again. In the words of the Prophet Isaiah:


"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far off. For truth has stumbled in the public square, and honesty cannot enter. Truth is missing, and whoever turns from evil is plundered."

For starters, Mr. Jefferson, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," even when it comes to marriage created by our "Creator" is so 1776.

You and your 55 cosignors of the Declaration didn't get this line right either:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So five wise guys and gals, not to be confused with Solomon, tweaked it, finding their inspiration in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Their revised standard version reads:


"We hold these delusions to be pretty darn clear that all people are whatever the heck they self-identify as, regardless of biology or DNA, endowed by their Supreme Judges with life, except, of course, for the unborn; liberty, meaning "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," as long as it doesn't offend the moral judgment of the Supreme Judges whose moral judgments trump those of their Subjects."

Justice Anthony ("Swinging") Kennedy wrote the incoherent majority opinion in Windsor, throwing out Section 3 of DOMA. That section defines the term "marriage" as one man and one woman "for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits."

[...]

Thus, gay-enhancing states get to decide who gets federal benefits. If you can't connect the states' liberty dots to federal benefits, you obviously attended the wrong law school.

A supermajority of a bipartisan Congress enacted DOMA, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. According to Kennedy, they were blinded by a desire to "demean," "harm," "injure," and "degrade" "same-sex couples" who were "married" somewhere.

It was a banner day for Kennedy and his chutzpah cabal. Where did Congress get the idea that it can decide who gets federal benefits?

[...]

Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Windsor unmistakably sounds the death knell for the right of self-rule enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution:


"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

Scott Lively #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Anti-gay activist Scott Lively closed out 2015 by publishing a couple of open letters to his fellow anti-gay activists begging for money and urging them to join him in pushing to the passage of Russian-style anti-gay laws in America and elsewhere.

Lively bragged that he is being targeted by gay activists because his Abiding Truth Ministries is "one of the most feared and hated pro-family organizations in the world ... because we know more about the history, strategies and tactics of their movement than just about anyone on our side." The downside of being so "feared" is that he is now facing a lawsuit stemming from his anti-gay activism in Uganda, which is why Lively was begging for donations:

My friends, SMUG v Lively is truly a David v Goliath battle. I’m running a one-man office on a shoestring budget of less than $120,000 per year, provided almost entirely by donations of $50 and $100 from average people. Our donor base is small, mostly elderly, and very difficult to expand due to the success of the anti-Lively propaganda. While Liberty Counsel has been funding our legal defense, this lawsuit has nevertheless caused us major financial hardship and seriously threatens our future.

Frankly, I question whether ATM will survive the decade without greater support from the individuals scattered across the society who recognize the danger of the LGBT agenda and are willing to stand with us financially against it. That can only happen if the people who already support us encourage their like-minded friends and allies to donate to us.

In a separate "letter to the international pro-family movement," Lively declared that "the Leaders and Activists of the LGBT movement are malicious deceivers and evil-doers, deliberately subverting civilized society and viciously attacking all opponents to advance their selfish and self-destructive interests" and called for anti-gay activists to focus on preventing the passage of antidiscrimination ordinances that protect sexual orientation in places where they don't already exist and repealing them where they do.

Lively went on to recommend that his fellow anti-gay activists likewise work to pass Russian-style laws banning gay "propaganda" in America and around the world:

We need to build international pro-family solidarity on a foundation of genuine moral authority, meaning it must rest on the premise that homosexuality itself is personally and socially harmful, and not pretend that our only social and political interests are the "welfare of children" or the "definition of marriage." That pretense is a product of the same diseased pro-family "leadership" that marched the American pro-family movement from one disastrous defeat to the next for the past three decades, and it is now being exported to the rest of the world by the same men.

The beauty of the Russian law is it cuts right to the heart of the real problem of LGBT advocacy: the recruitment of children. What I mean by recruitment of children is not primarily the sexual exploitation of young people by adult homosexuals, though that represents a dark current within the larger “gay” culture, especially among the men. What I mean is the normalization of homosexual conduct and culture to children and youths, leading them to engage in homosexual experimentation among themselves and subsequently self-identify as "gay." An entire generation of American, British and Canadian children has been enslaved to this corrupt culture and ideology through the very propaganda that Russia has now banned.

While numerous countries of the African continent have chosen a much stricter approach, seeking to deter all homosexual conduct through harsh criminal sanctions, the Russian law balances the privacy rights of adult homosexuals (who choose to live discretely outside the mainstream of society) with the need of the nation to protect its children from the ravages of sexual perversion. It deters the LGBT lobby from attempting to mainstream the "gay" lifestyle, while granting the individual members of its community the "right to be left alone" that was the original stated goal of their movement in its early years, before it adopted the militant fascist tactics it is known for today.

Dr. Trayce Hansen #fundie onenewsnow.com

Young adults who were raised by openly homosexual parents were more likely to engage in homosexuality and to later self-identify as bisexual or homosexual -- and it's quite a stark difference," Hansen shares. She notes that 24 percent of children raised by homosexuals or lesbians had experiences with the same gender, while zero percent raised by heterosexuals leaned in that direction.

.jerry #sexist answers.yahoo.com

Because these Western feminists cannot break free from their allegiance to the radical Neo-Leftist ideology. Today's feminists are cultural M@rxists in the clothing of "women's advocates". And they are fully invested in that extremist leftist social change agenda. This is the only way that we can explain how todays feminists can justify defending immigrant rapist MEN against the best interests of European White WOMEN. Just think about that for a minute!

Doesn't the definition of feminism mention WOMEN'S advocacy? And isn't it already well known that cultural M@rxists are the ones that were pushing all the rest of that social change stuff (racial division, gay / lgbt agenda, denigration of the nuclear family, multiculturalism and "diversity", denigration of Christianity, denigration of heteronormativity (straight sexual preference), and gender division) before feminism was absorbed into the cultural M@rxist agenda?

The answer is yes, of course. Now since rampant immigration by outside cultures into the Western White societies is the currently prioritized aim of today's CM revolutionaries as funded by George Soros and other globalist agenda corporate elite masters, then feminists will tow the line and advocate for these rapist MEN at the expense of Western WOMEN.

And there -should- go this so-called "women's advocacy" idea about feminism, flushed down the drain for any self-identified feminist today. But they won't listen to logic. Instead they will follow ideological propaganda pushed by feminists, until their safe, functioning society demands that they cover their faces and bodies and submit to the will of Allah and all men under Sharia law.

Doug Mainwaring #fundie lifesitenews.com

In A Heartbeat, declared by millions to be “the cutest thing I’ve ever seen,” is a short animated video about a young boy's middle school ‘crush’ on another boy, currently melting a few million hearts around the world each day.

Posted on Monday, the four-minute video quickly went viral. By Tuesday afternoon, it had garnered 3.7 million ‘views.’ By late afternoon Wednesday, the number of views had doubled to 7.4 million. By Thursday morning, it was headed toward 11 million views.

On the one hand, it’s popularity is no surprise. It’s a totally engaging, masterfully crafted little film, bound to receive many film festival awards. And because there’s no dialogue, it offers global appeal and reach.

Yahoo’s movie reviewer cheered it, saying, “Hopefully, given the response the short film has gotten, major studios will take notice of the fact that LGBTQ stories should be told, and that no matter your sexual identity, people can relate to those first flushes of love.”

The LGBT Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and others are showering it with praise.

Don’t be fooled!

While many inside and outside the gay world may find it heart-warming, resonating with their own inner-awkward-middle-school-boy, there’s a problem with it. A big problem.

In a Heartbeat is getting a whole lot of attention but will do a disservice to those it aims to help. It will further undermine strong, healthy — extraordinarily necessary — male adolescent relationships. Once boys and adolescents are herded toward gayness in order to deal with the very common experience of social anxiety, directed to question their sexual orientation, their sexuality risks becoming ‘re-wired.’ And once 're-wired' in that way, it's hard to undo. I should know. I was one of them.

The big problem:

An official description of the movie tells us, “A closeted boy runs the risk of being outed by his own heart after it pops out of his chest to chase down the boy of his dreams.”

The problem is this: The red-haired boy who is pictured is not a "closeted boy." The animators may think they are portraying such a boy, but they are actually telling a completely different story.

They show us a boy who demonstrates an extremely high level of social anxiety. When we first see him, he appears scared to death. He’s nervous. He’s panting. He experiences heart palpitations. He jumps behind a tree to hide from the second, dark-haired boy, and by so doing demonstrates his debilitating discomfort and inability to relate to his male classmate.

And who is the kid he’s running from, but clearly attracted to? He’s a boy who displays any easy self-confidence — the type that all socially awkward boys envy and would like to be like. He appears unflappable, problem free, in complete control. He’s so cool he can even spin an apple on one finger while walking and reading on the way to school. The fact that the red-haired boy hides behind a tree to avoid him reveals just how unnerving his feeling of not being accepted by his male peers troubles him.

Let’s be clear: Shy boys at that age aren’t searching for romance with their same-sex peers. They want just one thing and they want it desperately: acceptance. At that age, acceptance is more valuable than gold.

‘In a Heartbeat’ is a dangerous distortion.

The red-haired boy is not romantically attracted to the second boy, although that’s what the movie’s creators want you to think. He’s attracted to a boy who is his opposite, self-confident and trouble-free.

The movie’s creators misinterpret their own character: He’s not ‘closeted’ and he’s not "outed" by his own heart.’ He simply experiences a very high degree of social anxiety.

And the answer for this young man is not ‘romance’ with another boy. The answer is acceptance — to develop and persevere in friendship, and in that to find acceptance. Romance between males is a mirage, always proving to be elusive.

The movie promotes escaping social anxiety disorder by “coming out” and being “gay.” But this is an escape from the disorder, not a means of healing it in order to become whole and healthy as a person.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, an expert on marital and child healing, told LifeSiteNews that the movie is “psychologically harmful to youth — not helpful to kids experiencing social anxiety disorder.”

Yet it is precisely those kids the movie is aimed at, and they are the ones put at risk by the narrative it promotes.

According to Dr. Fitzgibbons’ ChildHealing.com website, “Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is the most prevalent of all anxiety disorders. A 2011 study of 10,000 American adolescents revealed that anxiety disorders were the most common disorder in youth, occurring in approximately one-third of adolescents.”

“SAD is a marked and persistent fear in social situations characterized by pervasive social inhibition, timidity, lack of confidence and fear. It has an early age of onset, by age 11 years in about 50 percent and by age 20 years in about 80 percent of individuals.”

Most important, “Research has shown that youth suicide risk decreases by delaying self-identifying as a homosexual. One study demonstrated that suicide risk among youth with same-sex attractions decreases 20 percent each year they delay labeling themselves as gay.”

Homosexuality: A thoroughly unsatisfying dead end for young males

Quentin Crisp, in his novel The Naked Civil Servant, identified the conundrum facing gay men: “If the Great Dark Man met me, he would not love me. If he did love me, he could not be my Great Dark Man.” In other words, Crisp is saying: “If I found the man of my dreams” — as the boy in the ‘Heartbeat’ video seems to — “no matter how attractive, masculine and virile; if he were interested in me either sexually or romantically or both, he could no longer be the man of my dreams because he would no longer be 100 percent ‘straight.’ There would be a huge chink in his armor, and he would disappoint me.” One senses the snickering of Satan somewhere in the wings behind the hopeless, discouragement-fraught dreams of many gay men. No wonder so many become depressed. This is also why same-sex marriage will evaporate over time.

Michael Glatze, now a Christian pastor and subject of the movie, I Am Michael, was a practicing homosexual and gay activist until he experienced conversion to Jesus Christ. In 2013, he married his wife. In an open letter to Ricky Martin after Martin came out, Glatze wrote, “Homosexuality is a cage in which you are trapped in an endless cycle of constantly wanting more — sexually — that you can never actually receive, constantly full of emptiness, trying to justify your twisted actions by politics and ‘feel good’ language.”

He also told his own former “lover": “God loves you more than any dude will ever love you. ... Don’t put your faith in some man, some flesh. That’s what we do when we’re stuck in the gay identity, when we’re stuck in that cave. We go from guy to guy, looking for someone to love us and make us feel OK, but God is so much better than all the other masters out there.”

The world today, influenced heavily by the LGBT community and an undiscerning media, undermines close relationships between adolescent males, causing them to question their romantic and sexual orientation. This is precisely what this video sets out to do and is why it is so dangerous.

Can’t a kid just really like another kid without it being interpreted as either romantic or sexual? ALL boys want close friendships with other boys. It’s a basic human need.

Peter Sprigg #fundie #homophobia mediamatters.org

Extreme anti-LBGTQ group Family Research Council regularly traffics in extreme language, but it recently published a post by Peter Sprigg about LGBTQ Pride Month, which was particularly vile even by its own standards. In the blog, Sprigg said gay men should not be proud because HIV is "a direct result of that sexual behavior" and that mental illness in the LGBTQ community is evidence its members are not "natural."

Sprigg, a senior fellow at FRC, has called for homosexuality to be criminalized and has said, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.” Sprigg has pushed his anti-LGBTQ views internationally at the global summit of World Congress of Families (WCF), where he “argued that transgender identity is unscientific,” according to Right Wing Watch. The WCF is an international coalition of anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ groups led by former National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, and it promotes extreme right-wing policies around the world under the guise of protecting the “natural family.”

Domestically, Sprigg has given public comment at a committee meeting urging the Food and Drug Administration’s to uphold its policy banning men who have sex with men from donating blood, advocated to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee against nondiscrimination protections for transgender people, and testified before state legislatures in Vermont, Hawaii, and New Hampshire against protections for LBGTQ youth from conversion therapy. Moreover, Sprigg’s boss, FRC President Tony Perkins, was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to be a commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Sprigg also writes articles spreading anti-LGBTQ misinformation across several right-wing platforms, including The Daily Signal, Washington Examiner, and The Christian Post. Right-wing and evangelical media, in turn, quote Sprigg as an expert on conversion therapy and the health needs of transgender people even though he is not a medical professional.

In an article posted on June 11, Sprigg railed against the LGBTQ community under the deceitfully reasoned headline “Should Christians Recognize ‘LGBT Pride?’” Anti-LGBTQ organizations often try to pit religious rights against LGBTQ equality in a fallacious “God vs. Gay” dichotomy, though the majority of religious groups think homosexuality “should be accepted,” according to Pew Research. Here are some of the worst anti-LGBTQ comments that Sprigg pushed in the FRC blog post:

"The high rates of mental illness that accompany such feelings is strong evidence against the idea that homosexual and transgender feelings are ‘natural.’”

"Men who have sex with men, in particular, have high rates of HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases as a direct result of that sexual behavior—so is it something to be ‘proud’ of?”

"To accept ‘LGBT Pride’ is to accept the assertion that these feelings are a normal and natural variant of human sexuality.”

"Some individuals who identify as transgender ask surgeons to mutilate or remove otherwise healthy body parts—often with serious long-term consequences—in order to make their bodies resemble more closely their desired sex. Is this something to be proud of?”

"To endorse ‘LGBT Pride’ is to endorse all three—to affirm that LGBT feelings are normal and natural (which is untrue), that LGBT behaviors are harmless or even admirable (also untrue), and that their LGBT ‘identity’ is innate (untrue as well).”

"Homosexual activists and their allies in the states have even been invading the privacy of the relationship between mental health providers and their clients, by passing laws to prohibit sexual orientation change efforts, or SOCE (which critics refer to as ‘conversion therapy’) with minors.”

"The former tennis star and self-identified lesbian Martina Navratilova said, ‘Catholic clergy has been a lot more dangerous to kids than LGBT’ (apparently without irony, since there is reason to believe that most of the Catholic priests who have molested children are themselves homosexual).”

Robin Hanson #sexist overcomingbias.com

I’ve long puzzled over the fact that most of the concern I hear expressed on inequality is about the smallest of (at least) seven kinds: income inequality between the families of a nation at a time (IIBFNAT). Expressed concern has greatly increased over the last half decade. While most people don’t actually know that much about their income ranking, many seem to be trying hard to inform those who rank low of their low status. Their purpose seems to be to induce envy, to induce political action to increase redistribution. They hope to induce these people to identify more with this low income status, and to organize politically around this shared identity.

Many concerned about IIBFNAT are also eager to remind everyone of and to celebrate historical examples of violent revolution aimed at redistribution (e.g., Les Misérables). The purpose here seems to be to encourage support for redistribution by reminding everyone of the possibility of violent revolution. They remind the poor that they could consider revolting, and remind everyone else that a revolt might happen. This strengthens an implicit threat of violence should redistribution be insufficient.

Now consider this recent news:

Shortly before the [recent Toronoto van] attack, a post appeared on the suspect’s Facebook profile, hailing the commencement of the “Incel Rebellion”. …There is a reluctance to ascribe to the “incel” movement anything so lofty as an “ideology” or credit it with any developed, connected thinking, partly because it is so bizarre in conception. … Standing for “involuntarily celibate”,… it [has] mutate[d] into a Reddit muster point for violent misogyny. …

It is quite distinctive in its hate figures: Stacys (attractive women); Chads (attractive men); and Normies (people who aren’t incels, i.e. can find partners but aren’t necessarily attractive). Basically, incels cannot get laid and they violently loathe anyone who can. Some of the fault, in their eyes, is with attractive men who have sex with too many women. …

Incels obsess over their own unattractiveness – dividing the world into alphas and betas, with betas just your average, frustrated idiot dude, and omegas, as the incels often call themselves, the lowest of the low, scorned by everyone – they then use that self-acceptance as an insulation.

Basically, their virginity is a discrimination or apartheid issue, and only a state-distributed girlfriend programme, outlawing multiple partners, can rectify this grand injustice. … Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer, uploaded a video to YouTube about his “retribution” against attractive women who wouldn’t sleep with him (and the attractive men they would sleep with) before killing six people in 2014. (more)

One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express concern about income and sex inequality. Among our cultural elites, the first concern is high status, and the later concern low status. For example, the article above seems not at all sympathetic to sex inequality concerns.

Added 27Apr: Though the news article I cite focuses on male complaints, my comments here are about sex inequality in general, applied to both men and women. Not that I see anything particular wrong with focusing on men sometimes. Let me also clarify that personally I’m not very attracted to non-insurance-based redistribution policies of any sort, though I do like to study what causes others to be so attracted.

Added 10p: 27Apr: A tweet on this post induced a lot of discussion on twitter, much of which accuses me of advocating enslaving and raping women. Apparently many people can’t imagine any other way to reduce or moderate sex inequality. (“Redistribute” literally means “change the distribution.”) In the post I mentioned cash compensation; more cash can make people more attractive and better able to afford legalized prostitution. Others have mentioned promoting monogamy and discouraging promiscuity. Surely there are dozens of other possibilities; sex choices are influenced by a great many factors and each such factor offers a possible lever for influencing sex inequality. Rape and slavery are far from the only possible levers!

Many people are also under the impression that we redistribute income mainly because recipients would die without such redistribution. In rich nations this can account for only a tiny fraction of redistribution. Others say it is obvious that redistribution is only appropriate for commodities, and sex isn’t a commodity. But we take from the rich even when their wealth is in the form of far-from-commodity unique art works, buildings, etc.

Also, it should be obvious that “sex” here refers to a complex package that is desired, which in individual cases may or may not be satisfied by sexbots or prostitutes. But whatever it is the package that people want, we can and should ask how we might get more of it to them.

Finally, many people seem to be reacting primarily to some impression they’ve gained that self-identified “incels” are mostly stupid rude obnoxious arrogant clueless smelly people. I don’t know if that’s true and I don’t care; I’m focused on the issue that they help raise, not their personal or moral worth.

Ann Barnhardt #conspiracy barnhardt.biz

Back to my old job of STATING THE BLOODY OBVIOUS: Barack Obama personally and the entire Obama regime is in an EXPLICIT ALLIANCE with the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama personally is a product of the MB and has connections from his university days, Chicago and his putative Kenyan relatives – Malik Obama (putative half brother) is a high-ranking MB player in Africa. Further, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand-man and possible lesbian concubine Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner) is the daughter of two of the MB’s highest-ranking members. The MB has massively, massively infiltrated the United States, the FEDGOV bureaucracy, the intelligence agencies, most particularly the FBI, and the Congress and Executive branches of the post-American regime. Further, nothing will be said about the Christian genocide in Egypt (well over 80 Coptic churches and monasteries burned in the last three weeks) because these people in Washington are evil, evil people and HATE Christianity and the Church. They WANT Christianity and Christians to be exterminated. They relish in the death of the Copts in Egypt. [And the slaughter of Christians in Syria, and the near-total elimination of Chaldean Christians in Iraq, and the non-response to the genocide of Christians in Nigeria, including the non-response to the kidnapping of the 230 Christian schoolgirls by Boko Haram on April 15th.] They relish in the genocide and are preparing to carry out the same thing in the former United States eventually, in an axis with Sodomites, musloids and militant Marxists – and many of the Sodomites and Marxists will SELF-IDENTIFY AS “CHRISTIANS”. You mark my words. This war is going to be so unlike anything ever before seen, because the lines of battle are going to be almost impossible to conventionally demarcate. Every population center will be its own discrete theater, and the players, with the exception of gang-bangers, will be almost impossible to visually sort. And yes, there will absolutely be white, middle-class suburban people among the enemy. Been to the airport lately? TSA much?

Mat Staver #fundie covenantjourney.org

In his journal, John wondered where the elderly were on the island. He only saw young people of short stature. Since the Sentinelese are so isolated, we do not know the answer to John’s question. Maybe their life expectancy is so short there are no elderly. Maybe the elderly are kept in isolation. Maybe the tribe kills them when they are no longer productive. Maybe the Sentinelese who killed John and who have opposed outsiders (even humanitarian relief following an earthquake and tsunami) are similar to rogue gangs we have in parts of the U.S. How can we assume that the people who appear on the beach with bows and arrows and spears represent the entire tribe?

With such lack of information about the Sentinelese, how can we assume the entire tribe want no contact with the outside world? How can we assume the island is free of domestic, child, or elder abuse? How can we assume that there are no people on the island who long to leave and explore a new life but who are forced to stay? We have no way of knowing, and therefore we cannot flatly assume that isolation is the best course of action for these people.

Without proper medical treatment, a young child who falls from a tree and suffers a severe broken leg or arm will likely live a difficult, if not short life, even by the Sentinelese life expectancy. Minor sicknesses in developed countries can be treated by proper medicine. But, minor sicknesses for the Sentinelese can be fatal. How can we assume the Sentinelese would rather watch their children die than have modern medicine save them? Few people would volunteer to give up all medical treatments in exchange for isolation. Who are we to deny the Sentinelese the choice of their future? George Washington died a painful death from a throat infection that could have been treated with modern medicine. How many Sentinelese die painful deaths because they lack modern medicine? Who are we to say they are better off left alone?

Despite their isolation, the Sentinelese no doubt get cut, sometimes severely. Even minor cuts without proper medical care can become infected. A broken jaw, tooth, or toothache can cause excruciating pain. These, and a host of other medical conditions and physical injuries, can result in prolonged disability or painful death. Are the Sentinelese better off left to suffer what otherwise could be an easy cure or treatment by modern medical standards? If you think so, then on what basis can you make that decision? Certainly it is not because of the known wishes of the Sentinelese people. We must not be so arrogant or so cold to make these life and death decisions for them. The children born on North Sentinel have no choice in their destiny. How can we assume they do not want better if they knew an entirely different future awaits just beyond the horizon?

If the Sentinelese are doing so well without contact to the outside world, then why is it estimated that as few as 50 people inhabit the island? The only way to have so few people without migration of the tribe leaving the island is due to a very short life expectancy. Life expectancy is shortened by lack of clean water, lack of good nutrition, and lack of proper medical care. What if the Sentinelese kill other tribe members? We know they do kill other human beings. What prevents them from killing each other? We simply do not know the answers to these questions, and it is problematic to assume we do and then make decisions about the Sentinelese that affect their well-being.

To the objection of whether Christianity is harmful, I neither have the space, nor is it my purpose in this short space, to thoroughly address this question. The weight of history, however, supports the conclusion that Christianity has greatly benefited society. At the time of Jesus, women in all cultures were treated with distain. Women were often separated from men. In the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, women were often considered unclean because of their menstrual cycles. The Roman author, naturalist, and naval and army commander, Pliny the Elder, penned writings that today woul

...

One objection by some people is that John should have had a long-term plan and used better judgment. It is astounding that anyone who does not know John or the particular facts could jump to such a conclusion. From what we do know, John did have a long-term plan that began ten years ago while he was still in high school. He trained for years to be a missionary. He went on multiple mission trips. Before this year, he went to India in 2015 and 2016, including to the Andaman Islands. He received extensive missionary training in 2017, according to All Nations. He was a trained EMT and knew how to survive in hostile climates and conditions. He carried with him an extensive medical kit that, among other things, included a hemostat to pinch arteries, a chest seal in case of a puncture, and dental forceps to remove arrows. He remained in isolation for 11 days prior to visiting North Sentinel, so that he would not be exposed to sickness.

Another objection raised by some self-identified Christians is that John was operating in his own will, not the will of God. The audacity of someone to make such a judgment without knowing John is astounding. Some will point to the fact that John was shot by an arrow on Thursday, November 15. The Bible he held over his chest stopped the arrow from penetrating his body. This warning, some say, should have been enough to make John retreat.

Salvator Anthony Luiso, Patheos #fundie patheos.com

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Thank you for this article, which was difficult for you to write. I respectfully disagree with the notion that "the one without a true conception of God cannot genuinely love". I would say that no one, other than God, can love perfectly, and that the better one's conception of God, the better one can love--although not necessarily the better one will love. Although I agree that "God is the One Scripture declares is love", I do not agree that "love is God". That said, I much appreciate your willingness to criticize Rachel Held Evans and her teachings so soon after her death, and to warn about them. Despite the fact that she died only a few days ago, I do not believe it is improper to criticize her and her teachings now. To the contrary: With so much undue respect and praise flooding out for her, the time calls for standing for the truth amid the flood. Whatever her intentions, however good they may have been, Evans was a dangerous, deceitful, and destructive author. However good her personality, character, and skills may have been, they do nothing to mitigate this fact. The fact that her writings were so highly regarded, admired, loved, and influential during her life should have been troubling to anyone who was familiar with them and who regarded and loved the Scriptures as God's word. One should be saddened by her death, and yet still abhor the dangerous falsehoods about God, sin, sexuality, and salvation which she spread. One should be sympathetic toward her family, friends, and followers, and yet deplore the popularity and pernicious influence of those falsehood. One should be sympathetic, too, toward those who are and will be deceived by them. I'm surprised and dismayed by the number of positive assessments of her that have been published in the so-called "Evangelical" section of Patheos since she was put into a medically-induced coma last month--although I know that one need not be an evangelical to have a blog there. I'm not surprised, but dismayed, to see that Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today, ended his apology for the publication of John Stonestreet's tribute by referring to Evans as "this dynamic sister in Christ". These are signs of the confusion and carelessness about sound doctrine among self-identified evangelicals in America.

Sarah Flood: If Evans was deceitful (and that would assume you know her motives and that they were bad; one may be unintentionally mistaken, but deceit is intentional), how exactly could she have "good character"? Do you have evidence of this deceit or are you just assuming she actually thought differently than what she said and lied to people intentionally? I didn't agree with Evans on everything (for different reasons than you), but she never struck me as anything but honest. Honestly mistaken, perhaps, but honest.

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Among Merriam-Webster's definitions of the word "deceive", this is the first: "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid". I believe an honestly mistaken person can unintentionally deceive others. Regardless as to whether Evans was honestly mistaken, or dishonest, I believe she deceived others through her writings. I do not need to know her motives to believe this: I can simply know that she promoted falsehoods which misled her readers

Josh Hammer #fundie #homophobia dailywire.com

HAMMER: Remember Those Who Told Us Gay Marriage Would Not Lead To Polyamory? They Were Wrong.

“Slippery slope theory is a form of logical fallacy.” – Knaves and fools
The concerted social push is now unequivocally on to normalize non-monogamous, polyamorous relationships.

Just yesterday, CBS News ran a rather disturbing story entitled, “Not Just ‘One Big Orgy’: Fighting The Stigma Of Consensual Non-Monogamy.”

The article, we are informed, is timed to coincide with CBS News’ premiering this weekend an original glowing documentary entitled, “Speaking Frankly: Non-Monogamy.” The article not-so-subtly attempts to guilt-trip the reader to care more about the purported woes of polyamorous couples people: “It is illegal in all 50 states to be married to more than one person — which is known as polygamy, not polyamory,” the reader is told. “Polyamorous people who try different kinds of arrangements — such as a married couple with steady outside partners — run into their own legal problems.”

The timing of the CBS News and concomitant documentary overlaps rather naturally with the lascivious new sex scandal involving Congresswoman Katie Hill, Democrat of California. As The Daily Wire has reported, Hill is now under congressional investigation over allegations she engaged in a “throuple” sexual relationship with her estranged husband and an erstwhile female campaign staffer, in addition to a separate affair with a congressional staffer. But it is also worth nothing that as far back as 2012, “Polyamory: Married & Dating” became a relatively popular reality TV series. Vice, furthermore, wrote a laudatory piece in 2017 on polyamory entitled, “Polyamorists Are Secretive, Stigmatized, And Highly Satisfied.”

Well.

I am only 30 years old, and even I am old enough to remember how leftists and social libertarians alike repeatedly assured us social conservatives that the popular legalization — and, subsequently, imposed constitutionalization via risible black-robed fiat — of same-sex nuptials would lead to neither a normalization of non-monogamous relationships nor a push for polygamous “marriage” itself. Never mind that social conservatives, led by the veritable “What Is Marriage?”-authoring triumvirate of Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, quite persuasively pointed out that the only reason human civilization ever came around to the number “two” as rightfully constituting a marriage is because it takes precisely two individuals — one biological male and one biological female — to create human offspring. Never mind that social conservatives quite persuasively pointed out that once you remove biologically based sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage, the removal of that underlying number “two” would also logically follow. Never mind that social conservatives, led by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, persuasively argued that slippery slope social theory is not a “logical fallacy” — it is demonstrably borne out by real, tangible civilizational results over the span of at least the past half-century.

We are now here. The push for de-stigmatized polyamory — and, to be sure, the push quite soon for legalized polygamous “marriage” — is already unfolding right before our eyes. Purportedly “objective” CBS News, after all, is now publishing non-opinion section journalistic content that tries to shame monogamous readers into sympathizing with the legal “plight” of the polyamorous.

Those who reliably informed social conservatives that the de-coupling of sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage would not lead to such an obvious eventual social trend ought to now be held accountable for their merely shoddy prognoses, if they are to be given the benefit of the doubt — or their intellectual disingenuousness, if they are not to be given the benefit of the doubt. That would include Andrew Sullivan as far back as 1996 and any number of prominent pundits in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision year of 2015 — including Jonathan Rauch, William Saletan, and Cathy Young. Each and every one of these pundits and social theorists ought to be challenged and asked why he or she did not possess the logic- and common sense-based prescience to foresee what was so obvious to some of us.

In the interim, those of us who still proudly self-identify as social conservatives ought to dig in our heels. We have a new pernicious civilizational trend to fight, and it is happening right now.

curvesincolor #racist curvesincolor.tumblr.com

["you know white people kill "white jews" for being jewish, right?"]

I know Nazi’s killed “White Jews” because of their shady business transactions and deals that left Germany bankrupt. I know poor and common white people kill “White Jews” because of White Jewish people like Bernie Madoff.

I’ve NEVER heard of a Jewish person being hated or killed because they practice Judaism. The disdain always stems from some form of shady financial corruption in which is always orchestrated and operated by a self-identifying “White Jew”.

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Feminism

image

Over a hundred years ago a bunch of rich women were upset that they could not move up in official positions of power in work or politics. So they got men to give them the vote and affirmative action for political office. Through legislation women made it even easier for themselves than men to climb traditionally male dominance hierarchies! Only problem is that they aren't sexually attracted to men who are lower in dominance hierarchies of status and money than they are. So as women gained dominance in traditional male hierarchies, they complained a bunch about there being 'no good men'[1] aka the dwindling amount of men wealthier or more powerful than them to give them tingles. As less men gave them tingles more incels were created and more men were sent their own way. And as women gained more dominance in society they complained more about beta males, and "rape" etc...
?
They even created campaigns against these increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not sexually attracted to like the:

Anti Catcalling Movement: aka 'Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public'

Anti Manspreading Movement: aka 'Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk'

Metoo movement: aka 'Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists'[2]

image

Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands

A matriarchal world where women make more money than men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of feminist MRAs in the 60s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless. Early 20th century anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax' quote still remains true, "Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband."[3]

Even in a country where feminism is intitutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, "the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket"[4]

As Eggman puts it, "Talk to any US woman and they'll tell you about men offering and actually buying them all sorts of things, when was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?"[5]

A 100% Completed Feminist World Be Better for Incels Than Partial Feminism... Theory

So far we see that feminism literally creates incels, but there may be a silver lining in a 100% feminist universe compared to a partial feminist universe, in that feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that it's not hard to become a chad or to get a woman to agree to be asked out. Since no men ask women out in the 100% feminist universe once men are so beta.

The Eradication of Feminism is Best for Incels... Theory

Because feminism has created more incels, many if not most self-identified incels are trad-con, patriarchal, and don't subscribe to the previous theory and think matriarchies won't be sexually generous. They should argue for a generous patriarchy with strictly socially enforced monogamy as not all patriarchies are alike. In most if not all modern patriachal countries, polygyny arises and men hoard women, causing inceldom as well. And in patriarchal muslim countries, the hoarding of women in harems, inflates the bride-price so high that there exists a vast underclass of singe men who are susceptible to the promise of either real life brides or virgin brides in the afterlife through terrorist organization like al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is for this reason that people joke about incels and muslims terrorists on incel boards. Some incels also believe that the only kind of pro-natalism that can be achieved to wipe out inceldom would be through a racial supremacist movement, which partly explains why people like Richard Spencer pander to incels.

Ross Douthat #sexist nytimes.com

The Redistribution of Sex

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …

… which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

thegoldencowboy #fundie reddit.com

[The user has self-identified as a Jew and is now getting into an argument with real Jews]

I'm the fucking Messiah asshole. Tell me, what was the sin of the golden calf? Why do you think I call myself "the golden cowboy?" I'm in every single one of you, just like that gold was in every one of the Jews present after drinking the water. I'm a cowboy that can wrestle with God for the Jewish people. I can trace myself to King David and I can tell you what tribe your from. I'm also Elijah. Elijah is the Messiah jackass.
You don't know what you don't know. And what you know is what you've been taught at your Yeshiva. Now its time to humble yourself. The only people who should have the arrogance of you are the soldiers in the IDF.
I saw a little guy like you at the synagogue. An 18 year old Jew kid in America with a smirk on his face. He shouldn't be so proud unless he's serving in the military in Israel.

Laurie Higgins #fundie illinoisfamily.org

This week Illinoisans were greeted with the news that the new CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Ron Huberman, self-identifies as homosexual. Mayor Richard Daley's choice as head of the third largest school district in the nation, one that serves more than 400,000 students, has revealed both his ignorance about and involvement with sexual perversion.

This is exactly what students who already suffer from significant disadvantages don't need: a leader, and therefore role model, who affirms sexual deviance and who in his personal life volitionally engages in immoral conduct.

What a terrible example he sets, particularly for young men. I'm sure that Huberman possesses many admirable traits, but his sexual conduct is not one of them. There are no perfect people, and therefore there can be no perfect leaders, but possessing flaws and affirming immorality are two entirely different things.

BoyWiki #pedo boywiki.org

[From the latest version of the article "Pedophilia" as of 02:46, 4 February 2019]

Pedophilia (or paedophilia, originally Greek παιδοφιλια; "love of boys") is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. While the exact definition varies by context, it commonly refers to the medical definition defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. The correct term for an attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia.

Those who meet the criteria set above are classed as pedophiles. Common usage do not follow the strict medical definitions of an adult or teen who is attracted to prepubescent children, but often refers to any adult who is attracted to, or has sexual contact with, any person under the age of consent, or the age of majority (16-18 in most western countries).

In many societies and cultures, the term pedophile is highly stigmatized and represents an image of an evil, callous monster. This spurs many self-identified pedophiles to adopt names such as boylover, minor-attracted adult, girllover, and childlover, among others, to assist in differentiating themselves and their values from this Invented stereotype.

Some believe that pedophiles have made great contributions to past societies, and that their influence is often ignored or their attraction to children is greatly played down. (See Pedophilic genius.) Others disagree with this idea, and claim that alleged historical pedophiles actually preferred the company of persons who were in their late teens or early 20s: that is, they were hebephiles.

For information on child-love, see:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051101165116/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childlove_movement

Pedophilia's essence does not reside in exploitation, assault or harm to others, and some pedophiles look also for the child’s friendship and love. Pedophilia means, in Greek, love of boys

StopStopForumSpam #fundie arstechnica.com

In an article about the Google walkouts. Relevant bolded.

mob rule

It's ironic. We must not see this as a negative, Sousa. This is a positive. The left, just as they were gaining power, got impatient and validated the tactics the new minority, the right, shall require. We have been blessed by their foolishness. Who has the greatest ability to maintain social structures apart from work and official systems, the right or the left? In America, the right overwhelmingly has maintained religious facilities. Who has the greatest ability to maintain social norms, and bring shame to bear on non-conforming members? In America, again, it is the right which has the tireless volunteers.

There is a new app, which you may not be aware of, so I want to encourage you to use it. It is called VoteWithMe. It's motto is "flip the house". But you can use it to find likely Republicans in your contacts list and then, hear me out, give them a phone. Don't text them. Ineffective. And let me tell you, you can also look up other people who are not in your list. It's very easy and obvious how to do it.

And there is a secret weapon which doesn't exist, according to the left. There is the power of prayer. I do not know if you are devout, but if you are, spend at minimum 15 minutes in prayer, on your knees, daily, concerning this matter. SCOTUS shall be our thin red line, as the flood of blue destroys every last ethical principle remaining. The first to go is honesty, I will warn you about this! If you discover someone is a Democrat, be suspicious! As O'Keefe has revealed, breaking rules is common for that sort of person. You can look them up in this app, and find out who is a dishonest person (Democrat). Today, Democrats are a little bit inclined to be honest. This shall change, I can assure you. But already, telling the truth has slid. It's much less important now. It's more important to achieve "more important" goals. God help you if the Democrat decides to lie to you, for whatever the Democrat has decided is "more important" than truth!

Chris Schene #fundie patheos.com

Chris Schene: Progressive churches, such as the Episcopal and Methodist, are nothing more than friends of common culture and all its perversions,
They are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His church.
Progressive "Christian" churches are more dangerous than Satanism to people: Satanism is obviously not Christian but the progressive and emerging churches present their Pagan idolatry as Christianity and the unchurched would not know any better.
Hey, many of these Churches are great social clubs and places where fellow Pagans get together, enjoy each others' company, enjoy good food and make great friends. Most members are just not followers of Jesus.

Theodore A. Jones: Since there are only a few that find the gate to become a Christian, according to Jesus, actually encountering a Christian is slim.

Chris Schene: I my local company office of 175 or so people, only 5 self-identify as Christian----roughly 3%. They have "gay pride" celebrations from time to time, which I excuse myself from. I was somewhat encouraged that only a few people attended and the attendance was so bad, they had to reschedule it 3 times.
In the churches I have attended, they would defrock a pastor or leader for so much as attending a gay pride celebration or wedding.
If a propagandist lie, such as "gays are born that way", over a period of time those with no moral framework will start to repeat it and believe it In the same way they say they are born that way, a very lustful man could offer that same reason for "sleeping around" with many women.
It's nonsense: The behavior is a choice and inappropriate for a Christian: repent, ask for forgiveness and stop.
And so I know what the classical response will be "What about greed, divorce, etc". Sins of the spirit (Greed, lust, pride, covetousness, ...) are really hard to identify and know for a certainty and often even unknown by the person guilty of them. Sins of behavior are the only things that were even punished in the OT or disciplined in the NT because they are obvious: you know if you are committing adultery or having sex with member of the opposite sex you are not married to. In most cases we know if a divorce is unscriptural, and some churches will expel a member for such sin.

Henry Makow, PhD #conspiracy #racist #sexist #wingnut #psycho #homophobia #transphobia henrymakow.com

Occult Attack - Ten Examples of this Occult War on Civilization

The list below is not meant to be detailed or exhaustive but to provide a list to see the virus hoax in context.

1. Immigration & Migration - To re-engineer humanity as servants, the Protocols state, "we will destroy every collective force but our own." (16-4) The four legs of human identity (collective force) are race, religion, nation, and family. Migration undermines two of these directly, race and nation, and the other two indirectly. They are a form of gerrymandering to ensure people of European descent become a minority and are disenfranchised.

2. Vaccinations, Chemtrails, Fluoride and Soy. They are inoculating us with diseases, making us comatose and feminizing males. In general, a satanic cult such as Western society has become, controls and exploits its members by corrupting and making them sick. Western society is obsessed with sickness which is a bigger industry than war.

3. Control of information and discourse - Media and higher education now are mind control instruments. Political correctness & censorship punish thought crimes.- Non-Conformity leads to loss of employment.
Gaslighting - political widgets can say anything and be taken seriously. As with 9-11 plane disappearing into Pentagon, the goal is to make us question reality.

4. False flag terror is used to confiscate guns (Christchurch) and to justify war (9-11) or civil strife (Notre Dame) Mass surveillance using CCTV, Internet, and smart devices.

5. Satanism, occultism, violence and sexual depravity in the entertainment industry. Major stars are all Satan worshippers.
Their success isn't based on talent alone. They have sold their souls to the devil. Increasingly our culture and entertainment reflect that of a satanic cult.

6. Agenda 21; "Climate Change" -- comprehensive UN Plan to limit economic development & control the world.

7. The Demonrat Party: Making removing Trump their first priority and lying.
Buying votes by promising the moon for free. The media constantly gaslighting us re. 9-11, JFK assassination, Syrian gas attacks, and numerous mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Parkland.) The Communist Manifesto calls for state control of communication (#6) - which we effectively have when we realize that media corporations are all controlled by the central bankers.

8. Attack on marriage and family by erasing traditional heterosexual values using pornography, sexual liberation, gender dysphoria, homosexuality and transgenderism. Sexual "liberation" is pure Satanism because it dehumanizes and makes sex an end in itself.

Disregarding female rights by allowing trannies in their bathrooms. Canada issues apology to gays and new "equality" coin. Some say transgenderism is the worship of "the Beast" before his return. This is all presented in terms of tolerance and progress; in fact, the aim is to undermine and shred the social fabric.

9. Income inequality. The "one percent" In France, Chile, Iraq, and Lebanon, people are in the streets because they can't make ends meet.

10. Attack on white men and the promotion of miscegenation. Undermining all races but especially people of European descent. This is an ad from the Saturday paper seeking a Journeyman Electrician starting at $71K. They give preferences to anything that isn't a white male: They "encourage candidates to indicate on their application if they are a woman, Aboriginal person, a person with a disability, or member of a visible minority." Whatever happened to hiring on the basis of merit and not discriminating against anyone?

In conclusion, the only way out of this morass is to nationalize central banks and disavow debt created out of nothing.

Or for the Masonic Jewish leaders to have a change of heart, and become the benefactors of humanity instead of its deranged cruel jailers.

Quintus Sertorius #racist #wingnut #conspiracy renegadetribune.com

Our public discourse has been reduced to empty, blatantly false slogans repeated by an intentionally ill-educated populace. We are forced to stomach the nauseating lie of “equality” and relentlessly scolded by jews that we Whites are no different from goblinoid Mestizos or homo erectus throwbacks who cannot even fathom the requirements of a civilized society (and through their genetically determined dysfunction, cause civilized societies to cease functioning). At the same time, our thoroughly Judaized society requires us to engage in doublethink and recognize that, despite all the supposed “equality,” the jews are “chosen” and especially intelligent. We are forced to have “acceptance” for depravity and deviancy, for alien invaders who repeatedly and willfully violate our laws and sovereignty, but not for White solidarity or healthy White communities. We are told to “Make America Great Again” by fighting wars in the Middle East and paying tens of billions of dollars each year for the aggrandizement of Israel, while doing less than nothing to stop the endless hordes of bowel-movement brown sub-humanity from inundating our once-White country. And perhaps the tritest slogan of all, which has become the oath of office for all Weimerican government officials who serve only jewish interests, “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

The truth of the matter is that diversity is the most devastating weapon in the jewish arsenal being brought to bear against us in the Hebraic genocide of Whites. Diversity is so great a strength for the jews that by merely speaking out against it, you can face economic destitution, civil (and sometimes criminal) litigation and sanctions, ostracism, the denial of basic services, and violence that is tacitly approved by the state.

We are supposed to celebrate as our once-safe White countries are overrun by violent savages from the worst corners of the world. Where there were once prosperous, homogeneous White societies forged into communities across generations, there are now deracinated mobs and incompatible, alienated strangers kept in unnatural proximity by the threat of state-sponsored force. The two-faced jews promoting this diversity disaster expect us to keep our eyes fixed obediently on the talmudvision, watching anthropological curiosities play children’s games and nightmare creatures rapping about their penises. We are not supposed to notice that the rapidly accelerating eradication of White homelands is causing civilization to disappear along with the race that created it.

This disappearance of civilization happens quickly, and is already plain for all to see in the most diverse areas of the America. There are clearly observable consequences of the jew-instigated diversity that hammer home the frightening demographic statistics describing Whites as a minority in most American schools, and the fact that Whites are a vanishingly small minority in places like California (roughly estimated to be less than 20%, once census data is controlled for the Middle Easterners, Hispanics, and mongrels who “self-identify” as White).

For those who are unware, California’s San Francisco Bay Area is often touted as an example of how diversity supposedly leads to affluence. In reality, it is an example of a dysfunctional diversity dystopia. The largest racial group is Mestizo, followed by Asians, and, in a distant third place, Whites. There is no sense of community – it is a collection of bipedal carrion scavengers, frantically trying to gorge on the leftover, quickly diminishing wealth from the remnants of a once-functional society. There are the unimaginably rich, the horrifically poor, and with each passing day fewer and fewer people between these two extremes. There is no true wealth creation – instead dishonest plutocrats get richer by finding ways to sell out and devalue the standard of living of everyone else. Owning a home here long ago ceased to mean a house. It now means owning nothing but the “air space” inside a condominium that most people would recognize as a hotel room. The roads are crumbling, every public space is covered in trash and graffiti, and government offices are staffed uniformly by obese, surly browns dullards of indeterminate origin with respiratory problems. The schools are either practice prisons filled with violent Mestizos, or Asian ant farms – both are tragicomically equipped with poorly-functioning, ineffective “high tech” learning gimmicks, and battalions of English-as-a-second-language teachers and special education aides. Everyone is concerned about teaching children computer programming, mostly because every attempt at teaching them how to read and write has been an abject failure.

Alek Minassian #sexist thehill.com

Toronto rampage suspect referenced extremist male 'incel' movement

The suspect in Monday's Toronto van attack referenced an extremist "men's rights" movement and praised a 22-year-old mass shooter in a Facebook post made before the attack.

The post from Alek Minassian, 22, has since been deleted. Minassian has been charged with 10 counts in the van attack, which killed 10 people and injured 15 others.

“Private (Recruit) Minassian Infantry 00010, wishing to speak to Sgt 4chan please,” Minassian wrote. “C23249161. The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”

Minassian's message praises Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old who killed six people in a California rampage in 2014 and left behind a manifesto detailing his anger toward women. Rodger's social alienation and violence have made him a hero in certain extremist, misogynist sections of the internet.

Minassian's reference to an "incel rebellion" refers to the internet's self-described movement of the "involuntarily celibate" — men who are angry, often at women, because they've failed to find sexual partners.

Minassian's post mentions 4Chan, an anonymous online message and image board popular with members of the far-right. Minassian also references "Chads and Stacys" — an internet meme referring to stereotypically "popular" men and women who are reviled by self-identified incels.

Incel forums, including one on 4Chan, often feature hate speech about women. Reddit shuttered its own incel forum in 2017 over concerns about its extremist content.

"I can confirm on background that the post screenshotted in this tweet was real and has been removed from Facebook along with Minassian’s account," a Facebook representative told The Hill.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the attack "senseless" in a statement Tuesday.

“On behalf of all Canadians I offered my deepest, heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of all those who were killed and we wish a full recovery to the injured and stand with the families and friends of the victims,” he said.
Mr Trudeau ruled out terrorism, however, adding on Tuesday that the incident “hasn’t changed the overall threat level in Canada,” though it occurred as cabinet ministers from the G7 countries were meeting in Toronto.

Archie Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

(Note: This post is from 2015, following the Charleston Church shooting)

Recent Events in Pro-Criminal Gun Control Efforts
Charleston, South Carolina: A single, young white man is presumed to kill nine people in local church prayer meeting. According to reports, the shooter is a white supremacist and wanted to start a ‘race war’. That’s the official narrative, but omits mention of the South Carolina law which prohibits a lawful concealed weapons citizen from carrying in a church or religious facility without express permission of the authority body of the organization.

In other words, the victims were forbidden by law having the means to defend themselves. This is another great win for the pro-criminal faction, pretending to be proponents of ‘common sense’. Forbid victims to be armed and violence ceases. Brilliant.

Of course this is a ‘hate crime’. A white man killed some black people. This ignores two factors at least: One is the murder victims were all (presumably) Christians; my Christian brothers and sisters. No mention has been made of that aspect, only that the victims were black. Two is the rioting, looting and vandalism in Ferguson, Baltimore and so on are ignored as ‘hate crimes’. The rather blatant hatred of white people is not important.

I heard an interview on National Public (Leftist) Radio, interviewing a gentleman introduced as a ranking member of the NAACP and a pastor – sorry, I don’t remember the details. In the interview, the individual spoke – ranted, perhaps – how the Federal Government (didn’t mention South Carolina) HAD TO take the responsibility for protecting the congregants in churches from violence. He made clear it is not the church’s (congregation or denomination) responsibility to defend themselves, but the Government’s responsibility. He was asked about the church accepting some responsibility and providing local defense – which is legal. He became incensed, raised his voice and declared words to the effect of ‘There will be no guns in our churches!’

Obviously, this gentleman is completely unaware of U. S. Supreme Court decisions finding that police departments (which includes Federal Law Enforcement agencies) are NOT liable for criminal action on the part of an individual against other individuals. In other words, there is NO Constitution ‘right’ to be safe against criminal danger, or any danger.

This gentleman also refuses the concept citizens need to look after themselves. He refuses the idea of personal responsibility for individuals. I find this most puzzling for a man who self-identifies as a Christian pastor. One of the elemental Christian tenets is all people are responsible for their own actions. Just as the murderer is responsible for his vile actions, the victims are responsible for their own protection and defense.

Further, this gentleman seems to be also unaware of the distinction between Christianity and Pacifism. Nothing in the Bible, either Old or New Testament encourages a passive attitude in life.

There are times when a Christian must submit to lawful authority. There are times when a Christian is physically helpless and cannot forcibly resist. However, Christians are not ordered, directed or expected to willingly be killed at the pleasure of someone else.

Don’t take my word for this. Look for yourself.

Luke 22:35vv records Jesus’ instructions and warnings to the disciples regarding their future, after He was ascended to Heaven. Jesus contrasts this with the prior occasion He dispatched the Twelve in Matthew 10: 1 – 15. Jesus advises His followers to take money, extra clothing as practical, a sword (weapon). His intent is they should be ready for any occasion. While on the earlier episode, He watched over them directly, in the future they would be physically exposed to violent opposition.

Also, look at the passages in Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, and Luke 19:45-46. Jesus physically expelled – the wording varies from ‘cast out’ to ‘drive out’ in various translations – the money changers and ‘sellers’ who were operating within the sacred boundaries of the Temple. Anyone who confuses this with Pacifism is deeply inept.

Revelation 19, starting with verse 11 describes the return of Jesus. It begins with a battle in which Jesus leads the Armies of Heaven. There are those who dismiss this passage as metaphorical, but it’s a pretty gruesome metaphor.

Teaching Pacifism as a tenet of Christianity is contrary to Bible teaching and therefore heretical.

The NAACP speaker is obviously more concerned with making political gains from this tragedy than with preventing more murders. In fact, he is working for more murders so he can use the resulting propaganda. Which is standard practice for the Left.

Then our current President weighs in on the matter. He opines this is a terrible thing – with which I agree, which is odd – and then launches off on a renewed ‘gun control’ plea. He ignores the fact the ‘gun control’ preventing firearms in churches ASSISTED the hideous event rather than prevented or even hindered what transpired.

This is leftist logic: If the millions of American citizens who now own firearms and cause no problems are stripped of their weapons and Constitutional rights, criminals will be powerless. If that is even remotely true, then the mass murder in the African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston, South Carolina NEVER HAPPENED. It couldn’t, as no firearms were allowed into the church.

Interesting is the President’s response to the riots, looting and vandalism in Baltimore in the recent past. The President didn’t push for more gun control then. In fact, the whole problem was and is being addressed by the Department of Justice (Attorney General’s Office) by investigating the Baltimore Police Department rather than the rioters.

It’s been a fine week for the totalitarian left. Lots of propaganda and horror and fear and sadness; just what the Leftists desire most in life. Fear allows control.

And this has been said before, but bears repeating. Anti-Gun is Pro-Criminal.

Fundie of the year results 2019 #announcement

The votes for fundie of the year are in! Here are some of the folks who made this show impossible:

Religious Fundie: Lady Checkmate (11/17)

She’s no longer a public figure, but she will always live on in our hearts and memories for her for her extreme censorship, troll paranoia and homophobia.

Go forth and conquer, fellow sockpuppets of Peewee.

Wingnut: Rabbis For Hitler (8/17), Monarchieliga (8⁄17)

This one was a draw between these two.

I’ll just let the phrase “Rabbis for Hitler” stand on its own. I have nothing to add to it.

As for the monarchist movement? I’ll just link to the anti-reactionary FAQ if you want to see it debunked. Or, if you prefer, I’ll just declare myself king and order the monarchy to be torn down, like the end of Magic Knight Rayearth. That show managed to be though-provoking and fun at the same time in a way that TV rarely manages.

Moonbat: EmmaRoseheart (7/17)

Alternatively, she could earn the “Hitler Ate Sugar” award for concluding that verisimilitude, being a root characteristic of fascism, is therefore fascist. A classic “there is no world outside of literary criticism” moonbat.

CT: Jacob Wohl (6/17), Deep State Exposed (6⁄17)

Two anti-feminist houses, both alike in insanity, come to another draw. Wohl pulls a bizarre concept where teh femenists somehow hate locked briefcases for their manliness, while Deep State Exposed takes “transvestigation” to it’s illogical conclusion and decides that the First Ladies of the United States were all trans.

Racist: Cuyen (9/17)

But incels are just a support group. Nothing problematic at all about sex tourism, and using your white privilege and money to extort sex. No, sirree, bob, nothing but a support group.

Ableist: Judith Newman (11/17)

You know how most bigots lighten up when it gets between them and their family, and you sometimes make fun of them for being hypocrites? I’d rather Judith Newman was a hypocrite.

Grifter: Sandra Porta (8/17)

wut

Mary Sue: Caamib (7/16)

Nobody takes you seriously, caamib. That’s probably a bad thing, considering the chance that you might shoot up a school or something, but your beliefs are so far outside of the norm that other self-identified incels aren’t sexist enough for you. In spite of others’ doxxing you and digging up newspaper articles about you, there’s a part of me that refuses to believe that you’re for real.

Funniest Quote: DJS (Pillowfucker) (10/17)

I voted for the “seven elements of a crime” one, but the masturbation guru one is pretty funny, too. Davey also comes across as not-for-real, but at least he has the excuse that he was born into Christianity, rather than coming to it on his own like an incel must have.

Nightmare Fuel: Rev. Ronald E. Williams and Patti Williams (9/17)

This is actually a third-party article based on a boarding school that has been in FSTDT’s Top 100 for over a decade. And it thoroughly deserves being reposted. This isn’t just evil, it’s kind of dumb, proving that anyone who does it is so twisted that they not only don’t act charitably towards infants, they don’t even act in their own best interests any more. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you, Mr. and Mrs. Williams?! And why aren’t you in jail?

Magnetic Crank: Sherry Shriner (8/18), Victor Justice (8⁄18)

One more draw. Sherry Shiner combines “New Age” quackery with Christianity, both, by name. She seems to think that the New Ages are right about everything, while simultaneously thinking they’re in league with the Devil. The post is borderline keyword-stuffing with its talk of DNA strands, androgyny, lizards, and gold.

Victor Justice, at least, seems to at least follow recognizable tropes of wingnuttery, and everything seems to follow from there. He just wants to discredit the environmentalists, and will do anything else necessary to pull it off.

Board: Daily Stormer (9/16)

Andrew Anglin desperately wants to be The Joker. Maybe he can follow Heath Ledger’s example?

Movement: QAnon (8/17)

A warmed-over version of old Satanism hate, combined with political conspiracy theories, and turned into a dumb meme. Truly, it is representative of the pinnacle of the decade.

Submitter: Bastethotep (9/17)

My friend, and fellow moderator. You have been around here longer than I have, and every sign shows no sign of stopping any time soon. You are truly a constant in this ever-changing world. Thanks.

Comment: Skidie(1) (6/17)

Dang, you can be harsh. But what’s better, unlike several commenters and most fundie OPs, you’re also completely fair. I just hope your optimistic view of the future really does come to pass.

Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz #fundie breakingisraelnews.com

Biblical Numerology Hints at Obama’s Destructive Role in the Messianic Process

Judaism holds that a name is a powerful aspect of a person’s identity. Gematria, a method of Hebrew numerology, is commonly used as a method to understand how one fits into the divine plan. A glimpse into what numerologists have said about US President Barack Obama may reveal some uncomfortable truths, or simply confirm what we already suspect.

Gematria is the practice of assigning each Hebrew letter a numerical value. Rabbis teach that calculations of the Gematria of Hebrew names and words reveal hidden layers of meaning by linking together words and phrases of similar or identical numbers.

Torah scholars Joel Gallis and Dr. Robert Wolf, who taught the Bible for almost two decades, are experts in making connections through numerology. They wrote extensively about Obama in their blog, Redemption 5768, during Obama’s first term, and many of their conclusions are still quoted by Jewish thinkers today.

Gallis and Wolf noted that Obama was destined for leadership since the Gematria of his full name, Barack Hussein Obama (??? ?????? ??????), is 501, equal to the Gematria of the word ??? (head, or leader). The type of leader he will be is revealed through another calculation: Obama’s first term was as the 44th president of the United States, and the 44th word in the Torah is ????? (and to the darkness).

Though he self-identifies as a Christian, his mother’s religion, their numerology of Obama’s name connects him to Islam, the religion of his adoptive and biological fathers. The Gematria of his full name is equal to the Gematria of the word ???????????????? (Ishmaelites), who are considered by most Biblical commentaries to represent Arabs and the world of Islam. The Gematria of Barack Obama, without his middle name (??? ??????), is 357, the same value as ????? (Koran), the holy book of the Ishmaelites.

Gallis and Wolf also found hints at Obama’s place in the Messianic process. At Mount Sinai, Moses prophesied about what would happen to Israel at the End of Days.

"For I know that after my death ye will in any wise deal corruptly, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the end of days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him through the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 31:29)"

Moses predicted that evil would befall Israel as a result of their own actions (??????? ?????????). The Gematria of ??????? ????????? is 501, equal to Barack Hussein Obama, who was elected two times by over 70 percent of the Jews in America, despite his decidedly anti-Israel policies.

In the verse, Moses uses the word ???????? (and it will happen). The only other time this form of the word is used in the entire Torah is when an angel tells Hagar that she is with child and that she should call her son Ishmael (Genesis 16:11). The angel reveals the future of Ishmael:

"And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren. (Genesis 16:12)"

Despite calling for peace, Obama has fulfilled the prophecy concerning Ishmael’s influence in the world and his destructive role in Moses’ prediction of the end of days. Last month, Obama claimed at a speech in Germany that we are living in the “most peaceful era” in history. However, a recent study by Mida, a liberal Israeli current affairs and opinion online magazine, showed that 80 percent more people were killed in wars around the globe under Obama than under Bush.

The Gematria of Obama’s full name is also equal to the Gematria of the phrase ?? ???? ??? ??? (who by water and who by fire). This is the first method of divine retribution listed in the liturgy recited on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Gallis and Wolf claim this is related to Obama’s hubris as exhibited in Obamacare, his healthcare program. The president now decides who will receive healthcare, who will live and who will die.

Interestingly, the Torah teachers note that the Gematria of Obama’s name actually indicates that he is indeed very close to being the messiah – with one significant difference.

“The Gematria of Barack Obama ??? ?????? is 357, just one short of the 358 of Mashiach (Hebrew for messiah). But the ONE that is missing is Hashem, the Master of the Universe who is ONE. Without God on his side, he is nothing but a false messiah.”

President Obama has been in office for almost seven and a half years. While next year’s candidates campaign for votes, it is important to understand what happened under the last president in order to determine what is needed from a future leader. Gematria is a unique tool for presenting possible interpretations of modern events from a Biblical perspective.

polymuser #sexist freerepublic.com

Maybe all men should all start wearing dresses to work, maybe do skin darkening as well. Self-identify as a minority woman. Don’t be flamboyant; just business casual, low heels. Do become more womanly emotional in your work life, and join the girl’s gossip groups.

Make it clear that ANY questions, comments, looks or negative job change regarding zer status will result in at least a formal HR complaint. Become an untouchable. Use the women’s room for that morning dump.

That would throw the workplace into silent paralysis. No one could say anything. Women would be caught in their own game. The cross dressing men would gain great privilege, as women enjoy, against pretty much any complaint against them.

Turnabout tests fairness.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

anti-christophobia #fundie anti-christophobia.tumblr.com

I (@right-hand-path) am actually an Alumni of Liberty University, and I would say about 90% of my experiences with them have been good. I’ve also got a degree from a secular university with a reasonably “conservative” reputation, but I would probably say that only about 60% to 70% of my experiences there would have been “good” by comparison with LU. I can’t imagine the horrors of attending a secular university where “Social Justice” is the law of the land. So don’t let the negative perceptions of LU stop you from attending there if that is where you would like to go.

I specifically chose to go to LU because of it’s reputation. If secular society hates something that much, then you KNOW it must be good! (See John 15:18 and Matthew 10:22)

That said, pretty much all Christian universities are getting some hate these days, even from some self-identified “Christians” themselves. On my side blog (@anotherpointlessargument), I recently debated a “Christian” who insists that persecution doesn’t exist and Christians are actually “horrible people” that aren’t “Christ-like” enough for her personal taste. She then cited anecdotal evidence for this claim, her status as a student at a Baptist university, before refusing to talk to me any further.

It is sad that so many Christians are blind to the existence of persecution and the shift in worldviews of the majority of American citizens to an exclusively secular perspective that treats Christians as “bigots” who need to be silenced. However, this is the great thing about Liberty University, because they are one of the few educational institutions which directly confronts these problems and makes significant efforts to educate all their students about it.

If GOVT 200 isn’t required for your degree plan (it is required for most, to the best of my knowledge), I would strongly encourage you to take it as an elective. [I]Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500[/I] by Glenn R. Martin is probably one of the most informative books I’ve ever read, and that class honestly contained more information than some of the graduate level classes I’ve taken at LU.

Paul Bury #fundie #conspiracy familyfriendlygaming.com

Family Friendly Gaming, the industry leader in covering the family friendly video games is continuing our cool new series. This is the Light Side of gaming. The Dark Side of gaming has been around for some time now. To be fair and balanced we should also touch upon the good, wonderful, and awesome things happening in the video game industry. There have been stories in the past on the positive things. I do not recall given them a label for Family Friendly Gaming to rally behind. That is what this series will be and attempt to do. I say attempt because we are far from perfect. I am far from perfect. Let us keep going on this series.

We have very limited financial resources here at Family Friendly Gaming. We can only do this part time because there is not enough money coming in to allow us to do this full time. We acknowledge these limitations. We look for opportunities whenever we can to focus on Christian video game developers. The few believers out there making wonderful video games that honor God deserve all of the attention they can be given. The rebelling against God full time gaming media outlets ignore Christian video games most of the time. When they do focus on them it is to attack, mock, troll, belittle, and destroy them. What kind of fruit is that? Who is their father that acts that way?

As much as we struggle with getting good news out for the super majority of Americans who self-identify as Christian we know Christian video game developers have it harder. The deck is stacked against them when most of the radicalized far left liberal gaming media is actively doing all they can to stop them. Most churches do not get involved in helping out Christian video game developers. Family Friendly Gaming is one of the few places that is friendly to Christian video game developers. We are one of the few places spending our money to help them make money.

I pray for our industry, and Christian video game developers specifically. I want more Christian video games. We still have fun with The Bible Game. We still get all kinds of comments and views on our LarryBoy and the Bad Apple videos. We receive emails thanking us for covering Christian video games. We know there is support out there for Christian video games. We know people are interested in these games and companies.

I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.


God bless,
Paul Bury
Emperor
Family Friendly Gaming

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Misconception 1: I have an inferiority complex

I’ve gotten this hurled at me so many times that it’s time to address this once and for all. I do not have an inferiority complex with regards to whites. I am their equal, morally and intellectually. I firmly reject racism because I sincerely believe in the equality of all men. This is a composite belief that is comprised of several fundamental beliefs, chief amoung which is the existence of God (The Abrahamic God, ie the only true God). We are all equal in His eyes. Genuine racists believe that certain groups are inherently superior or inferior depending on the group’s contribution to civilization over time. I do not share this belief. I believe all people are inherently equal in worth regardless of how much or how little their respective groups have contributed to the pool of human knowledge. This is my personal belief .

Having said this, I don’t believe that all cultures are equal. God created man, but not culture. Culture is man-made and synthetic works vary in quality. Just because we are all equal doesn’t mean that racially diverse groups can live together in some sort of leftist utopia. Racially diverse societies will only endure within the cultural hegemony of one dominant group. Certain cultural values are so alien to others such that forcing diverse groups who practice these cultures to reside in close proximity constitutes an act of cruelty. Respecting borders is about respecting culture. The act of erecting a border sends a clear message to one’s neighbours that they are free to practice their way of life in their corner of the world, free from persecution and judgement, just as one is entitled to the same prerogatives within one’s own borders.

Misconception 2: Whites are inherently special

I never said that whites were somehow special on account of their genetics or nature. I’ve always stated that Western culture is unique and ought to be preserved. The only way this can be done is to ensure that they remain a majority in their own nations. If you wish for America and Canada to continue being great, then it is logical to ensure that the people who created these nations continue running them. Why is this view so outlandish? If China is to remain Chinese, then shouldn’t the Chinese be the majority there? So why can’t whites be a majority in the US and Canada?

Misconception 3: Non-whites are incapable of altruism

"All groups are capable of both hospitality and savagery if the conditions are right. I think Dota is really overgeneralizing. There are many parts of the third world where one will be treated with the utmost hospitality and some will will give you the shirt off their back."

I never said that non-whites were completely devoid of altruistic instincts. I have seen individual acts of kindness in South and South East Asia, and even the Middle East. The point I was trying to make is that Western society is humane. The compassion one encounters in the West is collectively organized. You won’t see things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens in non western countries. You’ll never see an Indian or Chinese equivalent of the YMCA and other organizations that exist solely to improve quality of life. This is insaniyat on a scale that is unimaginable in the non-western world.

The second point I wish to make is that while while many non-westerners are kind and hospitable to tourists, how hospitable would they be if those tourists remained and became citizens? I’ve read numerous accounts by Black tourists who have spoken glowingly about Korean courtesy. How courteous would these Koreans be if blacks were 20% of their population? How would they react when Blacks made a move on their women?

Bay Area Guy is essentially correct when he says that kindness to tourists comes easily since they are merely passing through. The US and Canada allow non-whites to settle in their nations and even grant them access to their highest institutions. Yet despite these gestures, they get nothing but grievance mongering and endless whining from minorities.

Misconception 4: White values will survive white extinction

"Also many non-whites born and raised in America have the same sort of outlook on hospitality and civility that whites do."

What Tulio writes is true, but he underestimates the power of tribalism on non-whites and I don’t blame him. Liberalism provides a most effective cover for tribalism as the Jews have demonstrated and as non-whites have themselves discovered. It allows them to cloak their group interests under universalist terms like “egalitarianism” and “tolerance” knowing fully well the effect that moral universalism has on whites. The true test of a group’s liberalism lies in how they behave not when they are a minority, but when they are a majority. So while the Jew and Indian eloquently argue for tolerance and inclusion in North America, they seldom practice those virtues in India and Israel where they are in charge.

Tulio also fails to realize that democracy and and tribalism are incompatible on the most fundamental level. That tribal interests reduce democracy to nothing but vote bank politics. It is completely ludicrous to think that Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Blacks, and Hispanics will somehow see beyond their racial identities and embrace each other as fellow Americans. Hell, every university in North America has a plethora of ethnic and religious associations that that reflect the demographic composition of their student body.

Would Indians, who so fiercely resist affirmative action favouring Dalits back home, somehow show blacks more compassion? Would Hispanics overlook racial identity when fiercely competing with blacks for blue collar jobs? A racially diverse America where groups compete fiercely for scarce resources (thanks to a declining economy) will not produce a very humane society. This has been said before but it needs to be said again: A first world nation cannot be sustained by a third world population.

Dota #racist occidentinvicta.com

"All groups are capable of both hospitality and savagery if the conditions are right. I think Dota is really overgeneralizing. There are many parts of the third world where one will be treated with the utmost hospitality and some will will give you the shirt off their back."

I never said that non-whites were completely devoid of altruistic instincts. I have seen individual acts of kindness in South and South East Asia, and even the Middle East. The point I was trying to make is that Western society is humane. The compassion one encounters in the West is collectively organized. You won’t see things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens in non western countries. You’ll never see an Indian or Chinese equivalent of the YMCA and other organizations that exist solely to improve quality of life. This is insaniyat on a scale that is unimaginable in the non-western world.

The second point I wish to make is that while while many non-westerners are kind and hospitable to tourists, how hospitable would they be if those tourists remained and became citizens? I’ve read numerous accounts by Black tourists who have spoken glowingly about Korean courtesy. How courteous would these Koreans be if blacks were 20% of their population? How would they react when Blacks made a move on their women?

Bay Area Guy is essentially correct when he says that kindness to tourists comes easily since they are merely passing through. The US and Canada allow non-whites to settle in their nations and even grant them access to their highest institutions. Yet despite these gestures, they get nothing but grievance mongering and endless whining from minorities.

Julian Vigo #sexist feministcurrent.com

In an effort to move to a greener existence, I recently switched to an ecological toothbrush. As I have been living uniquely from solar panels for almost two years, I was forced to ditch my electric toothbrush. In choosing an ecological toothbrush, I studied materials, as well as the advantages of recycled plastic brushes versus those with replaceable heads. In the end, I had to eliminate every single option aside from the single one I chose. Yes, I had to exclude that which did not meet my personal standards and convenience.

I think a lot about exclusion these days. The #MeToo campaign which emerged in reaction to the sexually aggressive acts of Harvey Weinstein is clearly a female-centered campaign. But recently I’ve seen arguments that #MeToo should be extended to include males. While being “inclusive” of everyone might seem like a nice idea, the reality is that there are perfectly rational reasons for exclusivity in many situations. Our shared experiences with certain humans help us form bonds where and when we need them. These bonds can often make life bearable for those experiencing particularly painful moments in their lives. Commonalities help to create community. The truth is that all communities are exclusive, in one way or another, of individuals who don’t share certain experiences or requisites. While some might be tempted to argue exclusion equates to segregation, such arguments are very much apples and oranges, particularly in the context of women’s rights.

There are several key differences which should be underscored, when discussing “exclusion” in the women’s liberation movement, beginning with the myth that feminism must focus on males. Thanks to liberal feminists like Emma Watson, among others, many women have been made to believe that arguing for the inclusion of males in the women’s movement is a worthwhile cause. But any group in protest of its oppression by another group is within its rights to demand that the oppressor not be included in its organizing. For instance, when labour unions secured the legal right to represent employees in 1935, employers were excluded from the class of employees because it was understood that employers (as well as managers and supervisors) held power over workers. In terms of economic class, it seems that most people are on the same page when understanding which group holds power over another.

Similarly, civil rights advocacy began with the premise that there is social inequality between people of colour and white people, making a necessary distinction between who is being oppressed under white supremacy. Robbing a person of the right to distinguish the oppressor class means that she is barred from speaking about and identifying her oppression.

Nobody expected the Black Panthers to consider the marginalization of KKK members from their organization for good reason. Similarly, no such claim of exclusion was made about the Million Man March in Washington D.C. in 1995, when approximately 400,000 African American men converged en masse in the nation’s capital to engage in teach-ins, worship services, and community organizing. While there was a discussion over the fact that women were excluded, there was also recognition that black men had the right to gather without women to discuss their issues, and this action was largely supported by African American women. Two years later, the Million Woman March was held in D.C. to focus on issues specific to women.

This sort of exclusion is not based in hatred or a desire to do harm. Exclusion is how we decide, like me and my ecological toothbrush choices, what meets our needs. Exclusion is not necessarily about owning a card to an elite club — it is about setting a particular direction for an individual, group, activity, community, and so forth. All social groups exclude in some way. While I am a big believer in reaching over the aisle to dialogue with those responsible for our subordination, I also recognize the need of any group to make decisions within its group before reaching across that aisle.

(..)

Does the fact of breast cancer support groups for women mean that males cannot get breast cancer? Of course not. And there are breast cancer support groups for males. Why? Because males and females experience breast cancer differently. Commonalities between same-sexed bodies are part of the social intimacy that both males and females alike cherish across cultures. Be it in the hammam or the steam room, the hospital ward, or the changing room at the gym, there is intimacy between people of the same sex that provides a space of security and dignity. Females especially value these spaces because the public sphere is not safe for women. Being in a female-only changing room can offer women a needed reprieve from the daily sexualization of their bodies, and from unwanted male attention and judgment.

The issue of “exclusion” has become a touchpoint for the left in recent years. Most notably, we have seen exclusion being derided as bigotry in trans activist circles where women who say they would not feel comfortable with a male in their change rooms, their women’s shelters, or in a women’s prison are labelled transphobic. Yet both these examples come from real life paradigms. In 2007, Vancouver Rape Relief Society won a case against Kimberly Nixon, a trans-identified male who had attempted to join the training group for peer counsellors at the women’s shelter.

Nixon was asked to leave the group account of having been born male, and because the shelter operated on the basis that women could best counsel other women, having had the specific experience of growing up female under patriarchy. The B.C. Court of Appeals’ decided that Vancouver Rape Relief had the right to determine its own membership, as any oppressed group of people has the right to “discriminate” when organizing in their own interests, as a class. Currently pending in Texas is the case of three female inmates who are suing Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, claiming that, “They are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates.” The truth is that, for most women, sex does matter. What is more remarkable is that males who claim to have an internal “female identity” have zero compassion for or comprehension of the reality women face in a male supremacist world, and would prefer women put aside their own material reality, comfort, and safety in order to validate men’s feelings.

Choosing a female gynecologist or desiring a female-only space for changing is not meant to incriminate all males as, to paraphrase George W. Bush, “evil doers.” Rather, a woman might choose a female gynecologist both because she feels a woman would better understand her body, but also because she feels safer in that vulnerable state with someone statistically unlikely to assault them. Women’s desire to change in a locker room without male-bodied persons would likely be based on something similar, as well as a desire to maintain healthy boundaries that too often go unrespected. In excluding males from female spaces, women are demanding that society accept the healthy boundaries of women, even if, in certain scenarios, males might wish to be on the other side of the line.

Last week, Bustle ran a story arguing that “some members of LGBTQ community feel that the [#MeToo] campaign focuses too strongly on the gender binary and seems to erase nonbinary or genderqueer people from the conversation.” But what this statement really conveys is that males feel excluded from a conversation lead by women speaking out about male violence. While I would not deny that males experience violence, it is overwhelmingly violence inflicted by other males. What makes #MeToo important is that violence against women and girls is coded into the structural social hierarchy. When women contribute their #MeToo stories, they are doing so as females who have, from childhood, been groomed as objects that exist for male use.

It cannot be overstated that females suffer disproportionate levels of sex-based discrimination and violence, including sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape, and trafficking. Women are quite aware that they are discriminated against and physically abused because of their sex, regardless of how they may feel, internally, about the gender roles imposed on them. It is entirely insignificant, for example, how the over 200 women who James Toback sexually harassed identified. To demand that #MeToo include non-binary people is to miss the point of the feminist movement: feminism has from its inception been explicitly about breaking the hierarchy and stereotypes reinforced through gender which demanded women not leave the house, not vote, and not work. It is not the “binary” that is the problem so much as it is gender itself, under patriarchy. Men who rape women don’t care whether their victims feel “binary” or not.

What Bustle would like is for women to use a language that is seemingly more neutral, less politically objectionable, and more inclusive… of males. Otherwise there would be no uproar with focusing specifically on women’s voices and experiences in this campaign. Males insisting on being “included” in women’s social protest against sexism is just more of the same sexism — women are being instructed to shut up about their oppression by males unless they include males. Beyond that, under patriarchy, women are always under pressure to be sexually available to men. This new language of “inclusion” that frames “exclusion” as inherently harmful has led to males who identify as transgender to insist that women include them not only in their groups and politics, but in their beds. That this is explicitly sexist is made clear through the fact that I have yet to see any male who identifies as trans pressure heterosexual men into sleeping with him.

A narrative that insists on coercing or goading women into including their oppressor is anything but progressive. Likewise, insisting that the language of gender neutrality is what matters in a conversation about sexual violence is far from revolutionary. Taking up the five-cent terms like “non-binary” and “queer” will have no impact on the facts of sex-based oppression for females. The challenge we face as a society is not to carpet bomb women’s movements with accusations of “exclusivity” and “bigotry” when women recognize that males and females are different and have different needs. Creating linguistic games might seem avant-garde to undergraduates, but the reality is that gender is what prescribes the behavioral cues engrained in females throughout their lives. Gender is what is hammered into females as a class, rendering them subjects of a discourse they have no power to respond to. The notion that gender can ever be neutral is patently absurd since gender is not the solution. It is the problem.

Changing language to be “be more inclusive” is counter-revolutionary and pretending that such language does anything other prevent women from effectively organizing towards their own liberation is delusory. The language of gender inclusivity does nothing to dismantle the social and political inequalities that females face. It does, however, create a lovely illusion (especially for men who want to seem progressive in their attempts to thwart our movement): that saying “genderqueer” makes one a “feminist.”

Incel Wiki #quack incels.wiki

Psychiatry
imageimageimageimage

Psychiatry is an instrument of social-control for deviants who aren't in regular jail. In other words, "Society's Sewer". If you deviate from society in any meaningful way and you do not live on your own, expect to meet a psychiatrist at some point in your life.

Metastudies (or studies of studies) have proven antidepressants, for example, to not be clinically significant in the treatment of depression beyond placebo,[1][2] but their actual effects have been proven to be quite harmful in the long and sometimes short-term.

Meeting a psychiatrist

Not all psychiatrists are horrible people. However, if you ever hint that you have suicidal or homicidal ideation, they have legal authority to lock you up temporarily, or, "temporarily" (and you don't want that, trust us). In fact, they also need no real evidence. Courts in psychiatric in cases are heavily biased towards parents and doctors. It is therefore helpful to record your psychiatric sessions (legally) if you must attend them. And better yet, not attend them at all.

If you are 18 and over and in good health, and you think you may be forced to see a psychiatrist because people want you on drugs... MOVE. MOVE NOW. Get out of your house now with food and clothing and take an uber to a friend's house or a homeless tent setup (not a homeless shelter, those places now employ psychiatry). You may need to leave a note on social media posting that it was a voluntary decision of yours and you are not a missing person. Your former caretakers now have no legal authority to force psychiatry on you, even if they want to lie to do so.

Even being homeless is better than the decades of mental torture that psychiatric drugs can inflict on you.

Psychiatry and incels

Most incels, when trying to describe their psychic pain about social situations, they will usually be labled as either schizophrenic or socially anxious, depending on how much time the psychiatrist wants to spend evaluating their situation. Given the treatment almost never involves improving in the area of romantic relationships, and harmful drugs are instead prescribed (which often make dating harder), your life starts spiriling downward. Psychiatrists sometimes prescribe SSRIs to incels as anaphrodisiacs, even though SSRIs cause anorgasmia, not reduced libido.

Psychiatrists will rarely acknowledge inceldom as it's own problem which causes illness. However, this is not the main reason to avoid psychiatrists. "Involuntary singeldom", or, "incel", is not a cult (any more than determinism is) and we don't have members. Psychiatry is harmful to *everyone*.

But my friend got better?

The placebo effect is extremely powerful. Sham surgeries have in some cases beaten real surgeries in double-blind trials. Mental and physical states are profoundly influenced by the placebo effect, especially those characterized by a lack of hope. You or your friend may have noticed though that the *actual* clinically meaningful effects of psychotropic drugs (what are usually labeled "side effects") are profound and often extremely damaging. Best to just take sugar pill, as those have been proven to work via placebo, *even if you know it's a placebo*.
Antidepressants fail to meet clinical significance beyond placebo in treating depression

In metastudies of the effectiveness of antidepressants, according to the NICE criteria of clinical significance (more than 4+ points on the HAM-D depression rating scale, or HRDS), there is not one metastudy that shows that antidepressants are clinically significant in treating depression beyond placebo.

The latest meta-analysis of anti-depressants, here [1], shows that when compiling the results of many different studies, antidepressants did not produce more than an equivalent of a 4 point improvement on the HRDS, meaning the antidepressants were not clinically meaningful in treating depression beyond placebo.

A look at Irving Kirsches dataset reveals only clinical significance at the tail end of the very severely depressed (about 10% of patients). Which only yields a 4.28 HRDS decrease. Fournier et. al 2010 also only found about 10% of patients pass the NICE criteria for a clinically significant response to antidepressants [2]. Just half an hour of treadmill walking for 10 consecutive days is sufficient to produce a clinically relevant and statistically significant reduction in depression (reduction of 6.5 points from baseline on HRDS).[3]. The exercise part aside, the point is that meta-analyses do not show a clinically significant response to antidepressants with the exception of maybe the top 10% most severely depressed patients. And for them, exercise would even work better.

"Monoamine hypothesis"

The description of the cause of abnormal brain states in psychiatry are based on a pseudoscientific, "monoamine hypothesis", which isn't even considered reputable in top universities anymore. The brain is like a computer, and electrical patterns in your brain's circuitry determine mood. But neurotransmitter pathways are only a very small part of that story, and do not even begin to explain the complexity of our brain circuitry. Synapses are merely the spaces between the circuitry. Trying to figure out how to alter complex electrical activity in the brain (feelings) in a productive manner with neurotransmitter pathways is like trying to figure out the patterns of pipes in your city by yelling into your sink.

[lots of anti-psychiatry video clips]

[Lists of anti-psychiatry organisations and crackpots]

NAMI

NAMI is the most well-known mental patient patient "advocacy" group in the United States. In reality NAMI is a front-group for drug companies, receiving inordinate amounts of their funding from psychotropic drug companies. The group advocates forced drugging and involuntary commitment. A prominent psychiatrist who was a member of the American Psychiatric Association once resigned from the APA citing the group, "being in bed", with NAMI, and being critical of NAMI's support of forced drugging[3]. NAMI was initially funded by the royalities of a book by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, the nation's lead advocate of forced psychiatric drugging.

[lots of anti-psychiatry video clips]

Andy Kessler #fundie thinkprogress.org

(Not new, but notable)

According to a hedge fund manager writing in the Wall Street Journal, homelessness isn’t caused by deep-seated inequities in society, but rather by people like his teenage son who volunteer at homeless shelters.

Andy Kessler, who founded the billion-dollar Palo Alto investment firm Velocity Capital Management, penned an op-ed Monday in which he mocked young people for volunteering, arguing that they were delusional for thinking their efforts would make a difference. Instead, Kessler contended, they should try to make as much money as possible and trust that economic growth will help the world more than volunteering.

To illustrate his argument, Kessler points to his 16-year-old son, who has been volunteering at a homeless shelter. Though his son wants to do good, Kessler writes that it’s volunteers like him who are keeping homeless people on the streets “because someone is feeding, clothing and, in effect, bathing them.” The answer, instead, is old-fashioned trickle-down economics:

My 16-year-old son volunteers with an organization that feeds the homeless and fills kits with personal-hygiene supplies for them. It’s a worthwhile project, and I tell him so?—?but he doesn’t like it when our conversation on the way to his minimum-wage job turns to why these homeless folks aren’t also working. Perhaps, I suggest, because someone is feeding, clothing and, in effect, bathing them? […]

Given the massive wealth created in the U.S. economy over the past 30-plus years, it’s understandable that the mantra of the guilty generation is sustainability and recycling. But obsessing over carbon footprints and LEED certifications and free-range strawberries and charging for plastic bags will not help the world nearly as much as good old-fashioned economic growth. Gen-G will wise up to the reality that the way to improve lives is to get to work. If Woodstockers figured this out, so will they?—?as soon as they get over their guilt.

It’s highly unlikely that Kessler, an extraordinarily wealthy man who managed a hedge fund for years, has ever known what it’s like to go hungry or sleep on the streets, where random acts of violence are all too com

project_mayhem_ #sexist reddit.com

MGTOW Fairy Tale: The Lost Fisherman

An old man lived in a small cottage by the sea with his wife. He was a fisher, and he was tall and thin, but surprisingly strong, and his skin was darkened and leathery from age and labor. He had white hair and a white beard. His wife was a squat, fat, ugly woman with straw colored hair. She rarely spoke, even to her husband the fisher. They had no children, since their son had died in the King's service.

Every day the fisherman went out to fish and took his catch to market. His wife stayed home and mended nets and tools for him. It was a dull existence for the fisherman, and he often prayed to God to throw him from his boat and let him drown.

One day while the fisherman was out as sea, a storm came upon him, the like of which he had never seen. "Surely" thought the fisherman, "my prayers are answered, and I will soon be drowned." But he was not thrown overboard. The wind and the waves carried the little fishing boat far out into the ocean, and the storm raged on. When finally, the skies cleared the fisherman was hopelessly lost. Having little water, and no definite idea where he was, the fisherman lay down in his boat and waited for the slow and miserable death he was sure would come.

For two days he drifted, lying back in his boat, and around sundown on the second day, he was roused by the impact of the boat against land. As he lay there, he heard the sound of beautiful music. It seemed to him that there was a woman singing a strange, foreign song. He finally climbed out of the boat and onto the shore of a little island, and set off to find the source of the singing. When at last he found the singing woman, it seemed to him in his delirium that the bottom half of her body was as a fish's tail, and that she were a mermaid. And when he tried to speak to her, no sound came out of his parched throat. He swooned before her and fell to the ground unconscious.

The fisherman woke to see the loveliest woman he had ever seen looking down on him. Her skin was smooth and perfect, her hair long and lustrous, her waist thin, her bosom firm, and her tail that of a fish. And the mermaid spoke to him, saying "lost traveler, is there any way I can help you?"

And the man thought that he should ask if she could help him to find his way home, but he did not truly wish to go home. He said, "I had hoped to die, but now I am here, and I am curious. What place is that, and what creature are you? What can you offer to help a lost man from far away?"

And the mermaid explained that she was one of the daughters of the god of the sea, and that she could not return him to his home, but that she could swim down to her father and make a wish on his behalf, and she listened to his story of his dreary life and his sorrow over the loss of his son. And the mermaid went into the ocean, and did not return all night.

When the sun rose the next day, the man felt a strange sensation flowing through his body and he looked down and watched as his skin smoothed out and his dark tan lightened, and when he looked at his reflection in the water, he saw his hair and his beard change before his eyes from white to black, and he was a young man again. And the mermaid rose from the water, and walked onto the beach and was no longer a mermaid, but a woman. And she went to the man and told him that her wish was to give him a new chance at life on the island, and the man was filled with joy.

That night they lay together, and when they awoke the next day, the former mermaid was great with child, and she gave birth, for the mermaid life cycle is different, and within the week, the child looked to be a boy of about five years, and he resembled the man's dead son so strongly that the man could not hold back his joy. And after the first week, the boy aged as a normal human boy. The man build a little house for his new family on the beach, and he worked tirelessly every day. He had to go into the interior of the island to carry fruits and fresh water down to the house, and he went out on his boat and caught fish. And the former mermaid woman stayed in the home and watched over the boy. The fisherman had never been so happy in his life, and he forgot that he had ever come from another land.

The seasons changed, and changed again, and one day the fisher returned home late and found a stranger lying on the shore near his home. He carried the man's unconscious body into the house, and the former mermaid woman nursed him back to health. The stranger was the young Duke Chadwick Cockswain of the land of Poonitopia. He was a powerfully built man, and not easily rattled. He thanked the fisherman for his hospitality and promptly built himself a shelter on the far end of the island, accepting no further help, and thereafter keeping to himself.

For the fisher and his family, things returned to normal, or so it seemed. The fisher couldn't put his finger on it, but it seemed to him that the mermaid woman was less affectionate towards him. Whereas before, she had always been content to stay in the house almost all the time, and watch after the boy, she began insisting that the fisherman was not doing enough around the house. She would demand that the fisherman take the boy with her so that she could focus on mending clothes and tools, but when the fisher and his son would return in the evening, no work would have been done.

Finally, one day the fisher came home and the woman and the boy were gone. He set out to look for them, and came across them at Duke Chadwick's house. And the mermaid woman told the fisher, "I'm sorry, but I'm with Chadwick, now." And the fisher was dismayed, and demanded, "How can you do this to me? To our son?"

"You shouldn't be surprised" the mermaid woman said, "our relationship has been over for a long time, now."

"What are you talking about? I thought you were happy. You made the wish for our life together. How can you throw that away? What does Chadwick have that I don't?"

"It's not about him. I've just felt trapped. You don't listen to me. I still love you, I'm just not in love with you blah, blah, blah"

And the fisher protested, but to no avail. And he took his son by the hand and turned to go home, but the mermaid stopped him, saying "where do you think you're going with my son?"

And they could not agree on who should keep the boy, and finally the mermaid woman summoned her father, the God of the sea, and he convened a hearing to determine the boy's fate.

The fisher and the mermaid woman argued their cases, and the sea God contemplated. And he judged that the mother should have the child, and that the father should deliver to Chadwick's house an amount of food, fresh water, and clothing sufficient for the care of the child, under pain of death.

And the fisher was forced to toil for nothing, alone on his side of the island, and he wept every day, for having lost his son twice. And the time past that the boy reached manhood, but he did not come to see his father, having been told lies that he was a bad man and had abused the mermaid woman. One day the mermaid woman came to the fisher to tell him that their son had died in an accident. But the fisher had no tears left to shed. Years of solitude passed and the mermaid woman returned again, and said, "Hey"

And the fisher was suspicious, and said "what?"

And the mermaid woman said, "I miss you."

And the fisher invited her in, but he was not fooled. And he listened to her talk, and he said little. He learned that she had left Duke Chadwick, because she had caught him fucking one of the wood nymphs that live in the interior of the island. Much as he hated her, he allowed her to stay on his side of the island again, and in exchange, she mended his clothes and tools when needed, and cooked his meals for him. And they grew old, and the mermaid woman became squat, fat, and ugly, and the fisher became thin and leathery and gray haired.

And one day the fisher went out to fish and was caught in a storm like he had only seen once before. It carried him away and he became lost. After days of drifting his boat made landfall, and he got out and heard music. He followed the sound of a woman's singing and came across a she-centaur. The she-centaur said that she was the daughter of the God of the mountain, and that she could make a wish to make him happy.

And the fisher said, "fuck that noise" and he got back in his boat and cast out to sea. No one knows if he ever made landfall again or if he drowned.

N19864 & HeForeverBleeds #transphobia reddit.com

Re: Suicidal MtF trans whom his liberal mother diagnosed him with gender dysphoria when he was a child. He is now suicidal as an adult female and realises his mother, parents and Professionals are the cause of this. He wants a normal life as a male, but that was stolen from him. This is a fathers issue.

image

(N19864)

i feel like i was robbed of life and that people who did this to me should be in jail. it scares me reading how they are teaching these things to preschoolers, telling them it's normal and how parents can make such drastic decisions for kids who have no idea what's going on as it was in my case. even if you are older there is still a high chance you have no idea what you're getting yourself into. too many people make decisions based on their feelings.

nobody should go through this.

Another Commenter

There is a lot more to this but I do not want to have a direct link to the post. People who regret transitioning sometimes get a lot of hate from the movement. This poor soul was brainwashed since he was a child by his mother, and like every child, he sought his parents approval. He has tried suicide but failed but still sees it as the only way to stop the pain. He is still set on ending his life.

Transgender youth have the highest rate of attempted suicide. Keep this movement away from children. It's child abuse.

Parental forcing, shaming, conditioning young children with hormone therapy, etc. is serious sexual abuse. Only totally irresponsible, reckless people those without any moral and humane compass will do that, should be put in jail or mental asylum.

They have the backing of the state and judicial system. The whole thing is evil. Young children do not have any idea what gender is, they just want to be accepted and will conform to whatever the parent decides. That's their nature. They are full of trust.

Children are not gender dysphoric. They will be shaped however the parents wants them to be.

If a child is told all the time from a young age that he was born in the wrong body


You're fucking with me, right? Who the hell tells a child that kind of stuff? I thought the worst thing that can happen to kids is get low grades, or being the uncool kid and/ or getting bullied by classmates or getting bruised during the PE classes. This gender-fuckery is ridiculous!

Where have you been? What country are you from? An Eastern European Country?

Boy toddler in Spain "identifies" as a girl

Infamous Canadian Desmond is Amazing Abused

Article about Photo 10 year old did with a Naked Drag Queen (Canada)


This has been going on for over a decade I think, but it has exploded in the last few years. For young kids its mainly (Liberal/lesbian) Mothers that seem to be pushing this agenda. You know, "Look at me, I have a special baby". For teens, its the internet, peers and "professional" (trend) diagnosis.

My sister's ex girlfriend tried to do this to her boys. Absolutely sick people

Are they fine? I hope the children are no longer with the "mother".

Seriously this is pure evil. The doctors, therapist and anyone involved in this is evil.

(HeForeverBleeds)

I have some past experience with dysphoria (along with a lot of other psychological issues due to previous abuse), but it is something that can be ameliorated. It's sad for me to see other children with parents who feed it instead of working to treat it

Walt Heyer, a detransitioned transwoman, described it as people "manufacturing transgender children". He felt gender dysphoria partly due to childhood abuse, partly due to his grandmother praising and affirming him when he presented as a girl, and ignoring him when he presented as a boy

That's a dangerous and growingly common thing these days, where parents of "transkids" will praise and give the child attention, only so long he's in this role. Not to mention that affirming and social transitioning in itself (even before hormones and surgery) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy for impressionable children

When a young child (and it's not uncommon for transchildren to be as young as 5 and 6 when mothers begin social transition; look at the YouTube channel called "them") says he feels like a girl or feels unhappy in his body, instead of examining any potential causes for the dysphoria or unhappiness, they'll immediately jump to telling him "yes, you're fundamentally flawed, you'll only be happy when you change your identity"

It's like affirming that an anorexic is fat

Can you please wait until the little fucker is 18 before you give him a gender change?

Likely by that time, he wouldn't have wanted to. The majority of dysphoric children don't become dysphoric adults. But "gender affirmation" and social transitioning can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to impressionable children

If a child is told all the time from a young age that he was born in the wrong body, that he'll only be happy as a girl, etc. a lot of times he'll start to internalize this message. That's why it doesn't seem that even social transitioning or hormones should be the first response for young children who don't even know themselves yet

Various commenters #racist #sexist #fundie amren.com

Re: Guess Which Race Has the Highest Rate of Sex Trafficking

(Question Diversity)

So who are the traffickers? Is the stereotype of the black pimp based in reality?

This Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report gives the breakdown:

Percent of all trafficker suspects by race

Blacks 43.7
Hispanics 29.2
Asians 13.2
Whites 12.8
Other 1.2

I’ll assume many of the “others” are American Indians. Of course, we need to adjust for group size. Since whites have the lowest rate, we’ll make them the comparison group. The list below shows how many times a member of a given group is more likely to be a pimp than a white person:

Blacks 16.8
Hispanics 8.1
Asians 16.5
Others 6.0

Compared to whites, blacks are 16.8 times more likely to be pimps. That’s a huge difference, but the difference is actually larger for Asians. (I treated “Other” as Native Americans, but that is probably an inflated number since the category will include non-Natives).

Asians usually have the lowest crime rates (by far) but not here.

Quite a few years ago, in a land far far away (from where I am now), I inadvertently and nonchalantly started up a "how's the weather" conversation with a Bureau of Federal Prisons agent-guard, who was part of the team who had transported a Federal inmate doing time in the Greenville, Illinois Federal prison to the clinic in St. Louis where I happened to be that day for my own doctor's appointment, as the inmate also had a doctor's appointment there. Black, of course. In for sex trafficking Mann Act sort of stuff, as he said.

He told me, in not so many words, and more dog whistling than anything, that the really big problem with these sex trafficking and prostitution rings are from black gangs from big black cities going to the Upper Midwest luring Scandinavian ethnic type white teenage girls with dope, and then hooking them in and taking them back to their big black ghetto cities and forcing them to be come prostitutes.

(Peter Hunt)

akistan is a nation that's located in South Asia. Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, and ALL other Asian groups contribute to the ruining of Canada and other Western countries.

I actually thought it would be Hispanics.

I had Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Thais in mind with Han Chinese as leaders of the pack.

Ask any honest and completely aware thinker who lives in China or Taiwan or Japan or South Korea about all categories if crime. Murders might be the only one in which Whites lead any one of the aforelisted East Asian nations. Substance abuse is rife! Meth, alcohol, Nicotine, and pharmaceuticals (easy-peasy to score in the Republic of Korea, China and Taiwan) are abused by way more folks than in the States, and those 3 countries respective guys don't admit anywhere near the true extent of how much if their respective oops are addicts.

(JTK)

Sex trafficking, almost exclusively, appears in dangerous neighborhoods, which are populated by Blacks or immigrants from different cultures.
Observations and personal experience quickly can confirm statistics like this. In the 1980s, I lived in Brooklyn for a few years, where I was robbed five times, twice with a gun pointed at me. Somebody vandalized my car every few months. At nights one could see a lot of girls on the streets offering sex for money. Now I live far away from NYC. Nothing happened to me or my property ever since. I can walk my dog safely, even on Saturday nighs. My car is usually unlocked unless I am away for multiple days.

Sounds like you resided in Rodney Dangerfield's neighborhood. He said that when he first moved there he stepped outside and asked a cop "How long does it take to get to the subway from here." The cop replied "I don't know. No one has ever made it."

After I graduated, I moved out of there as soon as I could. They offered me a much higher salary in NYC. I didn't take it. In retrospective, I believe, this was the best decision I ever made.

(Big Al)

We can tsk-tsk all we want, but there's been a study done on US pimps. And you know how much some of them make a WEEK? $30,000! Take that, Walmart middle manager! That's how huge the market is. And not only that, pimping is one of the safest career crime choices, as they're much less likely to be caught and arrested than drug dealers, and much more likely to reach arrangements with crooked cops so long as they keep it discrete and informal.

I once took a training course in Canada. The speaker, Timea Nagy, told a heartbreaking story of being trafficked in Canada by way of Hungary. She never said so, but I believe her traffickers were Hungarian Gypsies. Later in one of the trainings, we were told to look out for older black men with younger white girls. That was generally the trafficking pattern. One of the organizations the police were going after was called "North Preston's Finest". They even have their own wikipedia page. The Canadians can thank the underground railroad for those wonderful additions to diversity.

Because the drinking age in Canada is 18, a lot of young women go clubbing across in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Lots of these young adult females were getting slipped roofies. We were told off the record that the police couldn't say so, but it was almost all East Asians (Pakistanis) doping the victims.

Once upon a time, we used to put some blame on prostitutes along with their pimps. Now we find every excuse in the book for a woman who chooses this career path. We don't call it prostitution anymore; we call it "trafficking". That's because we refuse to look at it straight and recognize for what it is: a lot of women are whores, and most of those get in there WILLINGLY. Whether from country to country, or within the one country. The whole roofie thing is the exception rather than the rule. It's plain old prostitution. Just read the details of those stories about those minor English girls. There were no roofies. They were in for the gifts, for the excitement, for the male attention, and the easy cash.

Part of the reason that prostitutes stay in the game is the feeling of shame and humiliation for having been duped. They get threatened with having their lives exposed to family and loved ones. Of course, there's often beatings, too. They often feel like it's their fault. In turn, the pimps often prey on the vulnerable, ie the young, the homeless, the mentally challenged etc...

Really, there's no way they could go to the police just so that their parents don't hear about it? Sounds like a stretch to me. This isn't the Congo jungle. If someone is really forcing you to do something, call 911. And they'll come and take him away. It's not that hard.

By the way, that's also the bull feminists bring up to explain women who stay with supposedly abusive husbands and so on. They could never bring themselves to admit that there's a part of willingness from the woman in question, so they make up a lot of implausible scenarios about how they can't leave.

So what's your solution, that we just let sex trafficking take place and look the other way?

First of all, it's prostitution. And second, of course not! I'm for jailing the whole of them, PROSTITUTES INCLUDED. Let them rot in jail. I'm also for a ban of the entire sex trades (prostitution too, don't fool yourselves) in whatever form they take: porn, stripping, cam shows, the whole of them. I don't even like cheerleaders. But punish the whores too! I'm sick of this "compassionate" culture where no one ever takes responsibility for anything. For the vast majority of the time, they get in there willingly. Everybody who's ever gotten close to those trades knows it.

Fooling aside, if you want to campaign for such restrictive laws on people's lives, please stick to your city or state governments.

Don't worry, I'm a federalist. And these should be state and local matters. And even if I wanted to, last year, the people of some Nevada counties had a referendum on whether to keep their brothels open, and something like 80 percent voted "Yes." So I have no hope for these people. I just don't want to live around them. So I'm well aware it's hard to enforce on 330 million anyway. But yes, I'd welcome such restrictions in the city or state I live in, and the SCOTUS better mind its damn business with its farce of putting pornography under the First Amendment.

Watch the people in your state flee to greener pastures en masse once you start enforcing your puritanical morals and suck the juice out of life as a result.

Many would flee, but many of the likeminded would flock in their stead. That's the whole point.

Stella Morabito #fundie thefederalist.com

Walt Heyer knows firsthand what it’s like to undergo sex change surgery and then regret it. After living as a woman for nearly a decade, he decided to accept his biological sex and de-transition back to male. By then, Walt had received intensive cognitive therapy that helped him recognize early childhood trauma he had experienced.
The trauma resulted in a mental condition known as dissociative identity disorder (DID). In the clarity of that realization, his gender dysphoria simply vanished. His life as a “woman” all amounted to an attempt to escape reality. Sadly, too few people consider the possibility that gender dysphoria can manifest as a byproduct or symptom of other mental conditions, and most certainly of DID. (More on that below.)

Walt suffered huge waves of regret as a result of following through with his urge to be a woman. He had eagerly taken the bait of politicized medical practitioners, who hurried him along in the transition. He not only regretted what he had done to his body, he also grieved over the estrangement from his wife and children caused by his drastic change in identity.

There was collateral damage to other personal relationships as well. He also regretted the lost decade of his life in which he lived in the persona of a woman.

Heyer’s New Book Shines Light on Trans Life Survivors
Heyer has written several books on transgender regret, but his sixth and newest book, “Trans Life Survivors,” is not his personal story. It’s a compilation of the stories of many others caught up in today’s “transmania.” They specifically sought out Walt to get some much-needed support. They’ve shared their lonely, surreal experiences falling down the trans rabbit hole, hoping to escape as he did.

Walt’s correspondents describe a wide range of frustrating and confusing experiences. Some are nudged into transgenderism by social pressures and emotional manipulation. Many are hastily sent into surgery without adequate counseling (or any counseling at all), or are misdiagnosed. Some of those regret their decision very shortly after having irreversible surgery.

Many concerns about childhood traumas are ignored by therapists who are politically motivated to push as many patients as possible into sex change. They also fear intense ostracism and vicious backlash from the trans community if they “come out” as a potential de-transitioner.

Walt wrote “Trans Life Survivors,” he says, because he wants others “to catch a glimpse of the raw emotions and experiences of people who are harmed by the grand – and dangerous – experiment of cross-sex hormones and surgical affirming procedures.”

Helping Others Escape the Trans Rabbit Hole
For many years, Heyer’s website was virtually the only place for a trans regretter to get some relief from the social and political pressures crashing down. Many of his readers express a joyful sense of liberation in knowing that they are not all alone.

Much of their isolation is caused by our society’s slavish obedience to political correctness, which dictates that there is “no such thing” as transgender regret. Even worse, the transgender lobby is making it very difficult for such people to get the counseling they desperately want and need.

They’ve set up roadblocks in the form of new laws that virtually ban standard cognitive therapy for people who diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria, particularly those who are undecided about their path or actually regret it after the fact. Any legitimate form of talk therapy—therapy that allows for real Q-and-A that doesn’t necessarily result in affirmation of gender dysphoria—has been smeared with the label “conversion therapy.”
Regretters are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They are not unlike recruits in a dangerous cult who sense that something is amiss, but feel trapped in a Hotel California (or even a Jonestown).

So “Trans Life Survivors” is a godsend for people struggling with trans regret, no matter what stage of transition or de-transition they are in. The book highlights 30 stories gleaned from among the many hundreds Heyer has received from his readers. Many more transgender people have contacted Walt over the years. Walt has been trying valiantly to keep up with the increasing volume of contacts.

His readers are grateful to find a place they can get real and rare information about how changing their identity might affect them down the road—or, increasingly, how they can de-transition once they realize how unhappy the process has made them.

Just Imagine How Regretting a Sex Change Would Feel

Can you imagine what it must be like to tell a therapist of your experience being abused as a child, which you offer as a possible explanation for your dysphoria, only to have the psychiatrist totally ignore that aspect of your past and instead push you to sex-change procedures as the only way to overcome your angst?
Imagine that you then defer to and trust the professional’s expertise, and you accept the treatment. Then, can you imagine, after going through all of that—the hormones, the mutilating surgeries, etc.—you realize it just didn’t work? You end up asking yourself: What did I do? Why did I go ahead with this? Then the trans lobby tells you it’s all your fault, you should have known better, and you’re not really trans anyway, so shut up.

That’s Billy’s story. But his story has a good ending that inspires regretters who have lost hope. Billy de-transitioned, fell in love, and ended up marrying a woman with children. This echoes Walt’s own life experience after de-transitioning. He too fell in love and married an amazing woman. They live a very joyful, rich, and fulfilling spiritual life together as Christians.

Such happy endings and strong relationships might seem unlikely to those who think they’ve hit rock bottom. But those results are real, and they are a source of much hope to those who yearn to de-transition, but who feel “abandoned, ostracized, outcast, and alone,” like Kevin, who reported that his sex-change was the biggest mistake of his life. Only God knows how many regretters Walt has steered away from suicide and towards renewed life.

Hard-to-Find Resources
In “Trans Life Survivors,” you’ll also read about “Blair,” who holds a Guinness World Record for most gender-reassignment surgeries: 167 surgeries to make him feel more like a woman. Needless to say, it didn’t work out. But we can easily suspect in his case the existence of surgical predators who take advantage of vulnerable people. Many others, like Michael, recognize that it’s all “a sick money-making industry.”

Others who have communicated with Walt include parents whose children are being pressured into gender transition by public school officials, social media, and pop culture. “Trans Life Survivors” also includes chapters on the medical realities of sex change as well as the politicization of medicine and psychiatry that locks people into a transgender identity.

The book ends with a useful listing of further resources for those who seek to find a way out. Such resources are very hard to come by, so the book is truly a public service.

Suppressed Support For Those De-Transitioning
After the novelty of the transition wears off—and it very often does—the regretter is stuck in a never-never land of keeping up facades and pretenses. Many report that the constant charade is emotionally draining and casts a pall over life. But if they express a desire to change back, their friends in the trans community often become angry and reject and isolate them.

Walt cites numerous studies confirming that most cases of gender dysphoria co-exist with other mental conditions.
Being shunned by one’s own community is painful. Eric wrote: “I’m trying to come out as a regretter, and I’m finding the community backlash to be difficult and the lack of medical support to be troubling.”

Walt knows that feeling very well. The transgender lobby has come out hard against him when he has spoken publicly about his personal experiences. In addition to smearing him with various epithets such as “religious nut” or “transphobic,” the lobby has worked hard to de-platform him.

Media Matters went into panic mode and ran a smear article when Walt gave a persuasive interview to CNN’s Carol Costello after Olympian Bruce Jenner’s 2015 transition. (Walt’s instincts tell him that Jenner regrets his decision, but is hopelessly stuck in the cultish trap of the limelight. I believe he’s right about that.)
Eric reported an unsettling lack of medical support. Walt cites numerous studies confirming that most cases of gender dysphoria co-exist with other mental conditions, such as DID, bipolar disorder, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. If those other conditions were first treated through cognitive therapy, there’s no telling how much that would alleviate gender dysphoria without any need for invasive surgeries and hormonal treatments.
But this seems to be a well-guarded secret by political and media activists with a stake in promoting identity politics in general, and gender ideology in particular. Why? Probably because it could solve their problems, and their problems are the bread-and-butter of identity politics.

Free Speech Is More Important than Ever
The pressure can be even worse when dealing with the government agencies that supposedly respect the right to choosing one’s sex. Walt spent about 30 years—making eight to ten attempts—before he finally got a judge in California to reinstate the word “male” on his birth certificate. Despite all that, the transgender lobby insists Walt was never really transgender in the first place! Yet, strangely, they accept his diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder.

Would they allow people with gender dysphoria to seek out therapies that actually explore its psychological source?

The key question is this: Would Walt’s accusers allow others the same therapy, allowing them clarity to sort out whether their gender dysphoria is a part of a co-existing condition? After all, when claiming that Walt was “never transgender” they often point out and accept his diagnosis of DID. The Media Matters story cited above did just that.

So would they allow people with gender dysphoria to seek out therapies that actually explore its psychological source? And then allow their condition to be treated so their gender dysphoria might actually vanish without facades and surgeries?

Obviously not, since this goes against the trans activists’ claim that there’s such a thing as a woman’s brain trapped in a man’s body, and vice versa. Real cognitive therapy threatens to collapse that house of cards.
The ban on so-called conversion therapy is really a ban on all talk therapy that doesn’t affirm self-diagnosed gender dysphoria. Any therapist who so much as questions a patient’s yearning to be the other sex risks losing his or her license, or worse.

If the patient has nagging questions, therapists cannot even entertain those questions without putting license and job at risk, since the interpretation of what constitutes “conversion therapy” is so loose. It’s all up to trans activists and their legislative machinery. Psychotherapists are increasingly aware that they are now legally required to play along with each and every self-diagnosed case of gender dysphoria presented to them, or face legal consequences.

De-Transitioners Are Simply on a Journey Home
When one speaks of “going home” in the poetic sense, it has nothing to do with abuses or dysfunction that one might have experienced, leading to gender dysphoria. Being “home” simply means having a sense of being in the right place, living out your God-given purpose in your God-given body. It means being comfortable in your own skin so you can enjoy the view outward instead of constant navel-gazing.

When you don’t have that joy, or if you’ve lost it along the way, a different sort of dysphoria sets in. It can go by the name homesickness.

At some point in our maturity, we realize that joy and adventure don’t have to be in some alien place. When you go looking for your heart’s desire, to paraphrase Dorothy in the “Wizard of Oz,” there is much to discover right in your own backyard.

In fact, there is probably even more excitement in discovering the true reality of who you are than in pursuing shiny objects, trying to pretend to be someone else, and then trying to force everybody around you to cater to that persona. How exhausting.

The Joy Outweighs the Sorrow
As scary as de-transitioning might seem, once the possibility of it is validated by someone like Heyer, who’s been there and done that, there is a great joy in it, no matter the physical disfigurement or the years wasted.
At some point, like Dorothy, you realize that there really is no place like home.

Trent explained this when he wrote that he was very much looking forward to having his breast implants removed and getting men’s clothes back into his wardrobe: “It’s really been so exciting going back to who I really am!” He also noted: “Hidden deep underneath the make-up and female clothing was the little boy carrying the hurts from traumatic childhood events and he was making himself known. Being a female turned out to be only a cover up, not healing.”

Such attempted cover-ups are analogous to reaching for a mirage. In this case we might say it’s a rainbow-like mirage. Regretters are not unlike Dorothy—and all of us—who sang wistfully searching for a place “over the rainbow” where our troubles melt away. But the rainbow always recedes as you try to reach it. And it’s ephemeral, disappearing with varying conditions.

At some point, like Dorothy, you realize that there really is no place like home. You can finally see the magic, the warmth, in the seemingly mundane. But regretters first need to escape the isolation and the loneliness foisted on them by a culture that rejects their condition.

As Walt notes, they need support to make this trek, as did he: “Regretters going back need people around them to lend strength for the journey – people willing to listen with love, speak healing words, provide emotional, legal and financial assistance and cheer them on to their homecoming.”

“Trans Life Survivors” serves as a road map to make that journey back home.

William H. Peterson #fundie mises.org

Capitalism: The Greatest Charity

When a politician talks of "reform," grab your wallet. As in "welfare reform," for example. For as any hardened inside-the-Beltway observer of dark Washington ways can tell you, "welfare reform" is typically a spin for tightening the screws on the taxpayer and easing welfare access.

To be sure, a welfare-to-work program launched in 1996 led to the national welfare caseload being cut in half as of 2000, thanks in part to an economic boom in those years. Now the Bush White House would fund the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program for fiscal year 2003 at $16.5 billion, using $300 million of those funds to promote marriage. Noble end, wrong means.

But such funds mainly address only the cash relief side of welfare while a host of other welfare programs go on, as in providing the poor today with "affordable housing." The bloated Welfare State remains, especially in its larger terms of giant programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Noteworthy, then, is last March 8, when the US Labor Department reported that the February unemployment rate had edged down, and when the White House and Congress publicly agreed on a $51-billion Keynesian-based "stimulus" plan with a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits. But note that this extension pressures unemployment to edge up, reminding us that Uncle Sam rarely lets his right hand know what his left hand is doing.

Too, note how the once free-trade-talking-and-campaigning Bush team caved in on the issue of steel "dumping," arguing that steel is needed for national security, supposedly a very big consideration since 9/11. And so the White House wound up boosting tariffs on most steel products by 30 percent. The boost harms steel consumers such as buyers of cars and fridges and even the Defense Department, which will have to pay more for tanks and destroyers. But, hey, that's but collateral damage, as the White House baldly seeks such steel states as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio in the GOP column in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Similarly, Mr. Bush brazenly told an audience of cattle ranchers that beef is a national security issue, as he and Congress plan to boost the annual "baseline" direct (apart from indirect) farm subsidies of $20 billion by another $25 billion over five years. So the farm states are also fair political game, even if the family food budget across the nation in turn gets to suffer collateral damage.

And speaking of the states, bear in mind that a lot of welfare programs come in the back door through federal grants-in-aid to state and localities at the rate of $300 billion a year. They usually require matching funds to participate in legal mischief by the federal and recipient governments.

What a way to run a railroad.

That scant backdrop on raw politics brings me to a remarkable 1956 essay, "The Greatest Economic Charity," by F.A. Harper, a contributor to the book, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises. In it, Harper, who joined the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946 and founded his own think tank—the Institute for Humane Studies—in l963, quoted Moses Maimonides, 1135–1204, a Talmudic thinker of Spain, as follows: The noblest charity is to preclude a man from accepting charity, and the best alms are to show and enable a man to dispense with alms.

True economic charity, held Harper, has three iron requisites, each of which should be viewed in the light of so-called "welfare reform":

1. The charity needs a transfer of ownership from one individual to another of something having economic value. The donor must have clear title to the gift; it cannot be stolen goods or public goods. Private ownership, not public ownership, is needed at both sides of a charitable transfer or gift.

2. The transfer has to be voluntary with both parties. If it is forced from the giver or givers, it amounts to theft. If it is forced on the receiver or receivers, it is not charity but state interventionism, or what Frédéric Bastiat called "legal plunder," a blatant case of vote-buying and third-party payments using other people's money. (America's "free" public schools and Medicare qualify as cases in point.)

3. True charity requires anonymity. Harper conceded that this goal is tough to reach—as you gather from the various family names gracing the buildings on practically every private campus—but he still worried that devices other than anonymity "usually fail to prevent the creation of a personal obligation."

To Harper, such an obligation was a key no-no. He clung to Maim-onides's understanding of the noblest charity: That whatever cuts self-reliance and individual independence is ignoble and counterproductive. If the act is goaded by vainglory, by an ego trip, it is simply not charity, argued Harper. He cited the Biblical call that one who gives alms should not sound his trumpet before him "as do the hypocrites."

You can see where Harper was heading: to total welfare privatization, and more. He saw Ludwig von Mises as a charitable person more so than being an economist of world renown, for he gave mankind "his inspiring mind and spirit." Harper referred to the Mises spirit of freedom and free enterprise in contrast to the spirit of "dependency, insecurity, and slavery" as fostered, for example, by the policies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the French Revolution or of Karl Marx in the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Said Harper of Mises's gift of his "inspiring mind and spirit" to mankind: "In my opinion, there can be no greater charity than this, for it endures beyond any material form of benevolence."

Harper was most concerned that state "charity" nowadays spells enslavement in one degree or another, that alms-giving or welfarism is "pernicious" (his word), that it embodies residual obligations which, in one way or another, become suspended in uncertainty forever. Worship of the state tends to follow, entrenching or deifying the welfare state at the ballot box by citizens unmindful of the zero-sum fact that government has nothing to give other than what it first takes away.

Welfarism's loss of self-reliance, of individual rights, is critical as well as immoral. Harper quoted St. Thomas Aquinas: "There is no security for us so long as we depend on the will of another man." He quoted Greek philosopher Plutarch: "The real destroyer of the liberties of any people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and largesses." So Harper maintained that self-reliance thus gets short shrift in welfare schemes from Rome's "bread and circuses" to Washington's "affordable housing" and "Social Security."

At this point, Harper made an amazing leap in logic and persuasion as to just what makes up our "greatest economic charity." He conceded that some won't buy into his use here of the term "charity," insisting on its earlier usage as an individual approach of brotherly love and compassion if ignoring its more modern usage as including alms-giving and, worse, welfarism or oxymoronic "public charity."

Nonetheless, Harper argued that those three critical criteria for true charity, including voluntarism, an-onymity, and a transfer of privately- owned things having economic worth, are best met in that Misesian system of freedom and free enterprise.

So Harper pointed out that a large part of the high level of prosperity enjoyed broadly in America arises from the widespread use of capitalism and, in particular, capital: i.e., in the growth and use of tools both in terms of plant, equipment, and high-tech, and of human skills and talents such as those in computer programming and truck driving or in medicine, engineering, and the arts.

The upshot of all this capital creation is America's outstanding output per worker compared to the rest of the world—output or productivity making possible America's high living standards, the highest of any major industrial nation in the world, thanks to enormous capital accumulation resulting in the highest wages and salaries, overall, in the industrial world.

What a joke on Marx. He christened capitalism with its telling name and unintended well-being for its sovereign consumers, while his system of communism empowered coercive government to rob consumers of goods, denying them both political and economic choice, while generously providing them with plenty of gulags for dissidents.

Now, asked Harper, who created this outpouring of highly productive capital tools? He answered his own question by simply alluding to legions of "invisible hand" savers and investors—those inadvertent charity providers with their delightful unplanned consequences of a freer and more prosperous society.

Even more remarkable in the Harper analysis is that, based on US government national income data, the return to capital owners is but about 15 percent in terms of dividends, interest, rents, and royalties together with their equivalents in owner-operated businesses, while the return to capital users is around 85 percent, including wages and salaries to employees and their equivalent to those self-employed.

Well, assuming the accuracy of those figures, how come the saver-investor gets less than one-sixth of what his saving and investing made possible? In response, Harper simply noted that the division is peacefully solved by the market, by private ownership and free exchange, by the "selfish owners," as those who save and invest are so often tarred, and who "are really the greatest charity-givers of all."

Harper admitted that a man who saves and invests is hardly without a personal incentive to do so, but he maintained that such a man is still mightily giving, serving his fellow man in building up the national stockpile of tools and thereby raising living standards for all.

What compounds the tragedy of the modern welfare state then is the widespread mirage of a free lunch, of a common failure to see how the growing burden of rising taxes drags down the outlook for savings and profitable investment. This drag, if unrelieved, would in time snuff out the drive to save and invest—killing off this vastly unknown and unappreciated bounty and charity arising from capital creation, from more and better tools. As F.A. Harper—in addressing, when you think about it, both the West and the Third World—concluded his profound essay:

"The greatest economic charity is that which enables persons to become independent of alms and therefore most self-reliant and secure under freedom. Only when that happens—when persons advance from the brink of starvation—is time released for devotion to things of the mind and spirit, which comprise the supremely great charity."

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

From comics, movies, anime, gaming, and now the more recent kids shows, feminists will use any kind of tactic to promote their evil. Stories like Rapunzel or The Sleeping Beauty have been a part of our childhood, teaching us about gender roles and the importance of them. Now they have been changed in various ways to suit modern women, giving them unrealistic expectations of what they can be. Here are nine characters that show how they have infiltrated entertainment.

Steven Universe

The show deals with an entire species that is genderless but has feminine traits (female human forms), Steven is a male protagonist that is not masculine in a lot of ways. Rather than being the strong fighter type, he acts through femininity despite being male. He cries for help from women rather than helping himself. The show contains trans, queer and homosexual characters which is typical for a show like this. They have women of different sizes and has quite a dark story line for a show aimed for children. Cartoon Network is now giving a way for brainwashing, glorifying obese women and unhealthy diets.

They even place the emphasis on disguised leftist concepts like:

Tolerance – Praising of everything non-white, non-male and non-heterosexual
Minority – non-whites, non-male and degenerates
Inclusiveness – Accepting everything non-white and degenerate
Emancipation – Disregarding rules made by conservative males

But despite all these teachings, SJWs bullied a Steven Universe artist to attempt suicide because she drew Rose (an obese female character) too thin. Hypocritical? Yes. It certainly has one of the most cancerous fanbases, consisting of bronies and white knights.

Wonder Woman

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

– William Moulton Marston, in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar.

Comics publisher Max Gaines asked him to create a new superhero for their comics, to fill the void he felt existed with something new. The creator knew that he wanted his hero to embrace love over violence, and to value peace over war. He assumed that women value love and peace. He valued independent, educated, and unconventional women.

Wonder Woman remains a feminist icon 75 years after her creation, because she symbolizes the idea of female domination. According to NY Post, Wonder Woman was not ‘feminist’ enough for Social Justice Warriors, because SJWs and feminists are never happy with anything in society until white men are silenced. Most wonder woman comics were terrible, but the media keeps pushing it on readers that they HAVE to give in.

BatGirl

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is allegedly a woke male feminist ally. He’s a mangina allegedly known for directing “strong female characters”. His characters are unrealistic as women simply can never be tough. He cares about fake women’s issues like the pay gap and the alleged success of lady Ghostbusters. Joss is directing Batgirl, the story about a super heroine who is basically Batman but a woman. Currently he’s facing back-lash on Twitter, but in smaller amounts due to more and more people accepting these kind of reboots.

Overwatch

This game is tainted by women who blame their problems on men. Basically, every character in Overwatch has different victory pose animations that a player can unlock and choose from. And for the time-traveling character Tracer (one of the female characters in the game), her victory pose gives players a wonderful view of her buttocks, clad in skin-tight leggings. Obviously, if men are enjoying something there must be feminist intervention, so Blizzard changed her appearance and stated:

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

Women expose themselves to men in conventions, and when they are assaulted they complain that “men should respect women,” even when their own clothes were designed to attract men. But when a character in a video game wears skimpy clothing, there is an outright backlash against it. Overwatch is even taking strides to be LGBT inclusive. This marks the end of straight white man in entertainment.

Wandering Son

Wandering Son follows two fifth graders who do not identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. Shuichi Nitori identifies as a girl, and Yoshino Takatsuki identifies as a boy. This series marks the end of an era, modern anime has come to suit feminist tastes. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Splash

The 80s film, starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, is set for a reboot with Channing Tatum starring as the “merman”. The original Splash was about a man, Allen Bauer (Hanks), who falls in love with the mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who rescued him when he was a boy. Their relationship is hampered somewhat by the fact that the mermaid (who later names herself Madison) has to return to the sea after just a few short days, and also by the deranged scientist determined to prove that merpeople are real by throwing water at her.

Since the announcement, many feminists have been celebrating the gender swap on social media – particularly Tatum’s casting as a merman as some kind of feminist victory… but why? Because of the casting of a white, straight male in a role that was originally held by a woman. Hollywood’s content has become more man-hating than ever before. Seeing men in feminine roles is a way of brainwashing men to be submissive and less masculine.

Gender swapping is fast becoming a fail-safe way for Hollywood to shut up anyone who kicks off about equality without actually having to write anything new: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Ghostbusters. All these films have either been made or are in the works and all of them have some kind of “feminist twist”. I’ve seen these gender bends in anime too, although no one seems to notice because anime gender bending is normalized.

Undertale

Your character is non-ambiguous (genderless) and non-white, which one could assume it is Asian or Mexican. They never refer to you as “him” or “her”. Despite having a small amount of characters, it managed to include homosexual relationships and a transgender robot. There are more homosexual couples than their opposite counterparts, and both the prominent female characters break out of gender roles. Undyne being the best fighter in the underground, another unrealistic feminist expectation that women can be better than men.

Do you see where “progressiveness” in gaming is really heading? Because the game pushes “progressive propaganda”. One of the major themes of the game that people have been gloating about is the notion that gay relationships are wonderful and perfect, straight relationships are doomed, diversity is strength, promoting inter-species romantic relationships, and it’s primarily because of this thematic content that the game gets praised. That is why Tumblr is spamming the votes, and the media is circle-jerking over the game. Nearing the end of the game I dawned upon the similarities of this game and Steven Universe. There’s nothing particularly special about the game except for discreetly lecturing you about homosexuality and political correctness.

Sailor Moon

It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality (lesbian propaganda). The series also makes a point of looking down on femininity, by showing how the less feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.
Though, I somewhat find it astonishing that the creator of the site anime feminist doesn’t care about “fanservice”, which is short softcore porn scenes, it occured to me because they know about the female supremacy in anime.

Life Is Strange

The creators of the game met with resistance to make the protagonist female. It’s a story about a girl named Max who learns that she can time travel. Life is Strange are some of the few games that are telling women’s untold stories in ways that make it seem as if women have it harder.

It’s simply a game made to exaggerate and show how cruel men can be to women (almost every man in the game is either a loser or a woman beating trash). It attempts to lecture you and say things like “these men need to be in check” whenever it finds the chance to. This game was published by SQUARE ENIX who also published Tomb Raider. Why is it that those people who push equality so much then decide to make a game where it’s about the girl, never around the male?

Conclusion

Modern entertainment is becoming more about social justice than hardware, software, story, gameplay, or animation, while we get to endure feminists complain about everything they don’t like, ruining entertainments we were once able to enjoy.

Some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Man-hating feminist cafe Handsome Her, which charges men 17% more than women because “Muh wage gap”, is closing. Another case of get woke, go broke.

(el_smurfo)

Reading through those reviews is an experience unto itself. I encourage people to read them.

Whole lot of trans women testing out the waters of tolerance and finding it lacking. I guess once you start a business based on SJW principle, there is no middle ground...

(ViolentJenniferLopez)

Shit I thought maybe it was like one or two reviews but they shot down at least 12 trans people who identify as Female and discriminated against queer people at a queer people party they threw. Talk about radically out of touch with society.

The left has no limit to their moral extremism, i.e. "I'm more progressive than you." Imagine if the right wing were evolving into Amish separatists. That's the equivalent of what the left is actually doing.

(Shnook82)
Everything I read on the review page and the Facebook page tells me these people thought virtue signalling would somehow keep them afloat. Insulting / discriminating against half your customer base? Nah, it's for a good cause! Lesbian / gay / trans events that alienate 95% of the customer base? Nah, it's for a good cause! Serving crap food and coffee because its environmentally and animal friendly? All good, it's for the cause! "Pay if you feel like it" days for small marginal businesses... great idea! I'm sure you can sustain a business with multiple employees on the backs of seven lesbian couples and a handful of militant Feminists who only pay for bad coffee when they feel like it.

Wait, turns out you can't. Who knew?

(n0x29a)
easy.

> Identify as "she"

> get discount.

Nope. If you look through the reviews for it on TripAdvisor, a lot of negative reviews are from Trans people complaining about discrimination. Seems like the restaurant also felt it had the final say as to who is a woman or not.

Aaaaa so now gender is based on feelings instead of the opinion of the customers aye?

EDIT: After reading the reviews, wow. Nobody is safe. Every person is hated on, from trans to queers (specially men but that's obvious their main goal). This place is falling down the shit hole sooner than I would expected.

(Pascals_blazer)

Hahahaha I wonder how this would have played

There's a bike sales/repair shop in Alberta I'm aware of that has a once a week "gender empowerment" day. You can only get in if you are female or identify as trans.

Cue one online review where a guy was denied. He pointed out the huge, 250 lbs bearded biker dude that was inside. "Oh, he's transitioning"

Hmmm.

Side note, I heard they were looking for more patrons -they were in danger of closing.

(0mnica)

Just read the reviews. That didn't work.

"Really bad service.

I identify as a woman but they made me pay more because i 'look like a man'. Absolutely disgusting behaviour. Sexism against anyone is bad. .."

It's only sexist, because "she" didn't get accepted as a women, if "she" was accepted by the store as a women, I doubt the reviewer would cry sexism.

(Fraser761)
Glad they failed. Misandrists. Check out the reviews: Sexist Cafe Trip Advisor

Holy shit some of those reviews. Did you see the one from DanielG3163?

I asked for a coffee and the waitress, while serving it, muttered the words "f****ing latino macho"

So (assuming that's true) they're racist too!?!?

Yes. He said they were racist and misandrist. Cows. Glad they failed.

(fogoticus)
Go ahead. Read some reviews of this local.

It's # DISGUSTING. It's the perfect place for your average man hating tumblr girl. I'm fathomed that the waiters there got a green light to mostly talk to the woman and treat her as the table leader(because apparently a man who also orders food and drinks for the lady is a sexist thing today? Lol Hashtag Snowflake Era is Upon us). Moreover, apparently when men try to talk they either get fully ignored or are told to let the lady talk which is just incredibly sexist.

I was dumbfounded when I read that not only do you get treated like a second or third class citizen, the waiters are also fully allowed to throw sexist remarks or just plain bad insults towards men with a condescending tone. Holy shit.

Who on planet earth decided "I hate men so much, I'll open a cafe and implement such a sever level of segregation and misandry, men will probably avoid the street, not only the bar. Yeah, it will sell like hotcakes!"?

MOST reviews are saying the same thing: Sexist, Misandryst, Hateful, Men get treated extremely poorly while women get treated like godesses. The only "good,recommending it" reviews are from extremely sexist feminists that think this is normal or families who got treated well BECAUSE they brought a child to the table and at least the waiters had the decency to hold their sexist remarks in front of them.

It's funny seeing that a lot of reviews are from women stating just how stupid this is.

I'm glad the business went down the drain. With the risk of sounding defiant, I hope somebody wrote a list with all the employees there and added them to a blacklist of potential employees somewhere. If I owned a restaurant/cafe in AU, I'd be willing to pay 4 digits for the list of names with personal details to just outright ban them from entering the locale or ever have a chance of working under me. It's fucking despicable for crying out loud. Jesus... to think that in 2019 you have to ask for politeness and kindness.

Pancake Loach #fundie pancakeloach.wordpress.com

Feminists are literally the worst people in America – especially if you judge them by standard “social justice” metrics.

Let’s do the link roundup first:

Insty: “[Feminists are] horrible, damaged people who want to address their own problems by making other people suffer.”

Which is in reference to this Extremely Long Slate Star Codex piece, called “Untitled“. Caution: explicit reference to feminist hypocrisy, power-mongering, and general ugly hatefulness abound, complete with actual facts showing that the feminists are liars and they know it.

But you know, besides all the usual hypocrisy and naked power-grabbing going on by the feminists referenced in the above piece, all I could think about was that a man had come forward, saying that feminism nearly caused him to commit suicide, and DID cause him to beg his therapist to approve his castration, and all the feminists had was yet more social disapproval, scorn, and hate for him. (Kudos for the therapist saying no, the problem is not your heterosexuality.)

By the way, young males have the highest rates of suicide of any broad demographic in the country.

FEMINISTS. ARE. KILLING. PEOPLE.

And not just the millions of murdered babies. Do you think that Scott Aaronson is the only young male who heard loud and clear feminism’s message that male = worthless monster? That heterosexual desire is to be despised and rejected? (Not even Christian ministries to “pray the gay away” are as vitriolic about homosexual desire as feminists are about male heterosexual desire.) If anti-homosexual attitudes are even partially culpable for the suicides of homosexuals, then how much more culpable must feminists be when they teach vulnerable young men who are socially awkward but otherwise perfectly nice to hate themselves so much they want to DIE?

Feminists are monsters. Anyone who is not a monster and identifies as feminist is identifying AS A MONSTER. They need to be corrected, because all the non-monstrous people identifying as feminist are providing cover for and enabling the damaged, sociopathic bullies who form the core of feminism. As Vox Day says, “Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.”

Next in the roundup: a response by a female nerd, saying a lot of things I’d like to say, like “fuck you, feminists” – and pointing out how feminists also like to bully other women.

However, there’s no way for logic and reason to get through to a feminist. They are raging beasts, roaming about looking for people to devour (and if you are not any of the above, you should get out before you become one; the ideology is designed to lead you gently along the path to Hell, step by gradual step). So instead, let’s see some advice for nerds in another Insty roundup. These links – and the links in the links – are incredibly useful advice for more than just bullied nerds, so make sure to spawn those additional tabs! (Some of those links in the chain were idea-fodder for yesterday’s post, and I’ve only just got around to reading more of them myself, so go thou and also read.)

But here’s the problem: the shunning part only works for the Shy Male Nerd after he has grown up and gotten a job and moved out of the house. Which means that for his entire childhood and his most vulnerable adolescent years, he’s going to be immersed in a toxic sea of feminism, because feminism is the dominant ideology of mainstream America. What if his mother is a feminist, like the one described in the Rant of the Female Nerd, above? Kind of hard to shun your mother when you’re entirely dependent on her (and she’s probably already driven your father away or “henpecked” – the cute name for domestic abuse when a woman does it – him into a doormat).

This is where I go back to the introduction and tie in the “feminists are the worst people in the America by social justice metrics” point. Feminism is the ideology of institutional power in 2015 America. Feminists control education, from female-dominated primary schools all the way through higher education; cross feminist dogma and you’ll get in deep trouble, as Lawrence Summers found out. The head of UVA used the excuse of a false rape accusation in order to punish UVA’s fraternities for something that never happened. Kangaroo courts convened by universities routinely and blithely ruin male students’ lives – when men are already a minority in higher education. The government gives special benefits to women and convenes special task forces and institutes special social services for them – the courts even give female criminals lighter sentences. The media constantly trumpets the female-centric tenets and attitude of feminism (when they’re not fanning racial tensions) and derides anyone who dares to disagree.

Social justice warriors like to define racism as “racial prejudice plus power.” Those of us who aren’t ideologues looking to excuse the despicable behavior of protected in-groups laugh at the “plus power” part, but when you look at modern society, it is WOMEN WHO HAVE THE POWER, and particularly feminist women and their male allies (who may be amoral creeps out to use feminism for their own ends). Ordinary, non-feminist successful women get absolutely demonized for not toeing the feminist line whenever they dare to attract public attention, and any non-feminist male (as well as insufficiently servile feminist males) can count on truckloads of vitriol. Meanwhile, feminists defended the most powerful man in the world as he betrayed his wife, his daughter, his intern, and who knows how many other women in his past.

But this litany is just to point out that even by their own SocJus metric, feminists are the oppressors in today’s America. Their bigoted, sexist ideology wields power through the federal government, social welfare policies, the court system, all levels of institutional education, and corporate policy when it comes to employment or even use of social media, due to the combination of feminist regulation from the government side and fear of social media mobs on the public relations side.

Scott Alexander compares feminist bigotry to anti-Semitism in “Untitled” – if you don’t have time to read now, just skim down for the pictures of men with beards. It’s uncanny how close those images align, isn’t it? But I don’t think of feminism as patterning after anti-Semitism quite yet – especially since the beard thing is merely one small facet of masculinity that feminism attacks. I think feminists are actually more like Jim Crow Lite. After all, they’re using some of the same arguments as the KKK – and they stand for government-mandated privileges for women, and penalties for men. They haven’t actually gotten around to putting their “kill all men” or “reduce men to 10% of the population for breeding purposes” yet the way the anti-Semitic Nazis backed up their prejudices with violence, but they’ve definitely got the “institutionalized discrimination by government and society” part down pat. Thus, Jim Crow Lite.

It’s true that there are, in fact, worse ideologies running loose in the broader world today. Communism, its fraternal twin socialism, and their adopted brother Islam, for example. But I’m not convinced that feminism isn’t their little sister, just waiting until she’s all grown up and firmly grasps the levers of power before she starts outright murdering the targets of her hatred. And as far as America goes? Feminism is definitely doing the most damage.

(And now, for a tangentally related palate cleanser after peering too closely into the abyss – a modest proposal from Dalrock.)

Alienigena #fundie feministcurrent.com

My response would be that women are not a sexual minority we are half the population of the planet (if nature is let to take its course) and femicide (e.g. sex selective abortion, differential treatment and female infanticide) is not part of the equation. So why should we be on the side of sexual minorities when their goals are not the same as ours. They want to use our numbers to legitimate their cause and co-opt our movements to pursue their own, very particular agendas.

The fight of trans-identified males is not our fight. The rights of biological females (lesbian, bisexual, trans-identified females (biological females)) is our fight. Women are not a marginal group in society. I have often felt like the odd person out given my lack of interest in conforming to the notion that women should centre their lives around men. Thing is, you can be heterosexual but not like the behaviour or entitlements of men and not want to spend your life pandering to them. You have a right to reject the company of men, doesn't make you an outlier. But people are intent on making you feel like a weirdo for finding the way society is organized pretty toxic.

rainbows99 #sexist reddit.com

What is so disturbing is that even saying that trans people need their own shelters or that it could trigger women fleeing domestic violence to have dudes around seems to be a no-no. Trans women are women end of story!! I'm also concerned about abusive men disguising themselves as trans to find the shelters.

Women who work and help out at shelters usually are among the most knowledgable on just how horrible abusive men can be towards women and how far they can go to gain control, so I find this surprising and disturbing, this seeming naiveté and lack of concern. I wonder if there currently are any Western countries not buying this stuff.

nooropia #sexist reddit.com

1. Biological women will become second class citizens all over again. While TiMs can get their greedy hands on either self sustainability through robbing women's college grants and STEM education, or by marrying off to rich men who are attracted to male-to-pornofied-women, biological women will no longer have anymore ways or means to become financially/economically independent. We'd have to marry men again in order to survive, just like in the olden days. And since extreme right MRA fucks are fapping over creating their own virtual girlfriend and sex bots, they will hold it over our heads for the rest of our lives. "If you don't do exactly as I say, Brenda, I'm leaving you for my bot. At least she does what I say without contradicting me. AND she stays 18 years old forever.. can you say the same?" Which will lead to a regressive era of heightened domestic violence rates, date rapes, and general violence against women, and they'll hold the other sex options against us. They kinda used to do this with prostitutes back then. Now, you have to compete against TiMs, virtual porn, and sex robots.

2. Going further about TiMs taking over women colleges and grants/scholarships, this also means that other non-STEM jobs that used to be flooded with women (ie. Education, nursing, store managers, etc) will also be taken over. Porn and lingerie companies will push 'ugly natal' women out for the pornofied TiMs and robots. Which is not so bad, but that only means that now after all other moderately well paid career paths are taken, that means the only vector we'll have left is the service one. Remember the 1920's? While rich women had husbands to care for them, poorer women had to work as maids, nannies, personal cooks, and housekeeping jobs in order to survive. After all, transwomen only want the glamour of being women, and not the actual reality of being a woman: Having to clean up after others, changing diapers, actually taking care of children, etc.

3. Gay men and lesbian women will no longer have safe dating or sex spaces anymore. We'd have to go underground like we used to do. That or buckle under compulsory heterosexuality and marry the opposite sex.. and yes, trans counts as the opposite sex because otherwise you'll be a transphobic bigot. Hearts, not parts! What this may also mean is that, while gay marriage will still be allowed, a new law may be passed in order to protect the vulnerable, suicidal trans community: Same sex attraction will not be protected by law anymore, it will be changed to same gender attraction. So what this means is that a lesbian can marry a woman, but the other woman HAS to be transgendered since actual homosexuality is now seen as bigotry, a sickness, something to be put away to spare feelings. Marriages between two natal men or women will have their marriage licenses revoked. "It's better that way than to hurt the feelings of the trans community." they'll tell us.

4. Speaking of homosexuality, I echo the conversion camp thing, only it won't be done in churches. (It will still be done privately in churches, mind you.) It'll be done by the government to dismantle the cotton ceiling and for gay men to overcome their vagina repulsion/disinterest, and lesbians to overcome their penis repulsion/disinterest. Hearts, not parts! With advanced science, we'll be able to tell which embryos will grow up to become a homosexual adult. Can't have that with vulnerable trans people out there who wants to be loved for who they are and what's not in their pants. Abort all gay babies. Keep the straights, because even though many might not be interested in TiMs and TiFs, they're the ones with the real social power, so the TRAs will keep them around.

5. More and more children and adolescents will commit suicide due to their mutilated and hormonized bodies triggering their psyches. They can't adhere to strict gender roles? Time to kill ourselves.

6. Don't worry ladies; even though the more popular mainstream pornographic vectors will be swarmed with TiMs and robots, we'll still be sexually enslaved due to our depleted options. We'll become the "bottom of the barrel" options for men, who are used to the so called perfect bodies of robots and male-to-pornos. If you think sex trafficking stories are bad now, honey, you got a big storm comin'.

Quacks and antivaxxers #fundie sciencebasedmedicine.org

Kennedy, Fisher and Bigtree: a triple dose of anti-vaccine injected into upcoming chiropractic conference
Even as the flu rages, chiropractors will be stoking their anti-vaccination ideology at a March conference with speeches from anti-vaxx Illuminati Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Barbara Loe Fisher and Del Bigtree.

Even as the flu season, with its consequent hospitalizations and deaths, rages on, chiropractors are outdoing themselves in promoting anti-vaccine ideology at this year’s “Freedom for Family Wellness 2018 Summit Washington, D.C.” (but actually in Reston, VA), scheduled for March. While in previous years so-called “chiropractic pediatrics” conferences have invited anti-vaccine hucksters like the disgraced and defrocked former British physician Andrew Wakefield and Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine [Mis]Information Center, this year will feature not only Fisher, but also “Ranting Robert” F. Kennedy, Jr., fresh from his disappointment in not being named head of a proposed, but never realized, vaccine safety commission by fellow anti-vaxxer, President Trump, and Del Bigtree, producer of the widely discredited “documentary,” VAXXED. Attendees will get 24 hours of chiropractic continuing education credit in 37 states (so far), as well as D.C. and British Columbia.

The Summit is hosted by the International Chiropractic Pediatrics Association (ICPA), which promotes straight subluxation-based chiropractic treatment for pregnant women, infants and children. Well, actually, for anyone with a pulse, but that’s who they concentrate on. Its 2014 conference headliners were Fisher and Wakefield.

“Chiropractic pediatrics”

Before we get to the upcoming conference, let’s review the field of “chiropractic pediatrics,” its affinity for pseudoscience and hostility to vaccination. The ICPA is just one of three chiropractic pediatric groups, all of which support anti-vaccination ideology and promote chiropractic diagnosis and treatment of infants and children for both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions, including:

otitis media, asthma, allergies, infantile colic, . . . enuresis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, myasthenia gravis, ADHD, and Tourette syndrome. For the most part, treatment for all of these conditions is based upon detection and correction of vertebral subluxations, . . . [even though] there is no scientific basis for the contention of chiropractors that subluxation correction will restore or maintain health or that such subluxations even exist.

In addition, pediatric chiropractors promote “wellness care” for children, advising that children should visit a chiropractor 6 to 12 times a year to be checked for phantom subluxations.

Another pediatric chiropractic group, the International Chiropractic Association’s (ICA) Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, featured Wakefield at its 2016 conference, as well as a showing of VAXXED. In 2017, the ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics conference participants were shown portions of the film Vaccines Revealed, essentially a parade of well-known and thoroughly debunked anti-vaccinationists, in some cases being interviewed by other anti-vaccinationists, produced by someone whose past work has promoted anti-vaccination views, who also spoke at the conference.

Chiropractic education in pediatrics consists of one 22-hour pre-clinical course in “pediatric topics” and chiropractors can graduate without ever having seen an actual pediatric patient in clinical training, which chiropractors themselves admit is inadequate. The ICA’s post-graduate courses (they don’t do residencies) which allow one to call oneself a “Diplomate” in chiropractic pediatrics, consist of less than 400 hours of classroom training in a series of weekend courses, sometimes in airport hotel conference rooms, with no hospital training and no contact with diseased or injured children. The ICA’s recommended books on vaccination contain plenty of anti-vaccination propaganda.

The third chiropractic pediatrics group, the American Chiropractic Association’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics promotes “the acceptance and advancement of pediatric chiropractic care.” Although it does not have its own training program, four out of five Council Board members are ICA “diplomates” in pediatric chiropractic, one Board member describing the program as a “3-year post-graduate course of study,” conveniently leaving out the part about the weekend courses and lack of clinical training.

The ICPA offers its own certification (200 hours) and diplomate programs (an additional 200 hours), under the auspices of the Academy of Chiropractic Pediatric Practice and is “endorsed and certified” by an organization called the Academy of Chiropractic Family Practice. Like the ICA, the ICPA teaches its courses in hotel conference rooms.

The ICPA also sponsors a certification in the Webster Technique, which is based on the biologically implausible and unproven notion that a chiropractic “adjustment” will “reduce the effects of sacral subluxation/SI joint dysfunction” facilitating “neuro-biomechanical function of the pelvis,” supposedly leading to an easier birth, even to the point of turning a breech baby (all the while denying that this is what they are claiming).

Chiropractic anti-vaccination ideology is not limited to chiropractic pediatrics. It is long-standing, firmly entrenched in chiropractic philosophy, and well-documented in the medical literature.

Anti-vaccination attitudes still abound within the chiropractic profession. Despite a growing body of evidence about the safety and efficacy of vaccination, many chiropractors do not believe in vaccination, will not recommend it to their patients, and place emphasis on risk rather than benefit.

One study found a correlation between seeing a chiropractor or a naturopath and lack of flu vaccination in pediatric patients. Another study found that children who saw chiropractors were significantly less likely to receive each of three CDC-recommended vaccinations. Yet another found that student anti-vaccination attitudes actually increased in the later years of chiropractic and naturopathic programs. Anti-vaccination attitudes among chiropractors have been documented by the mainstream media as well (also here and here).

It is thus that Kennedy, Fisher, and Bigtree find their ideal audience: a group preconditioned to uncritically accept their anti-vaccination message, impervious to science and evidence, yet perfectly positioned to spread their misinformation to patients and parents via their unlimited license to diagnose and treat any person of any age with virtually any disease or condition, thanks to state chiropractic licensing laws, aided by a closed loop, chiropractor-controlled system of education and regulation.

The “Summit”

Long-time anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who will be delivering the keynote at one evening session of the “Summit,” is no stranger to regular SBM readers. His crackpot ideas about vaccines, lies and conspiracy mongering have been the subject of numerous SBM posts. Kennedy continues to flog the debunked connection between thimerosal and brain disorders, including autism, long after thimerosal was, as a precaution, removed from pediatric vaccines and remains a trace ingredient only in some flu vaccines. Assisted by another person honored with an SBM post this very week, Mark Hyman, MD, he wrote a book promoting his discredited ideas. Our good friend Orac has extensively covered Kennedy as well. Among Kennedy’s anti-vaxx escapades:

* His article “Deadly Immunity,” an “anti-vax hit piece,” was riddled with so many errors that it was ultimately pulled from Salon’s archive.
* Calling CDC officials “criminals” because they area “poisoning kids” in an interview with fellow anti-vaccine crank Boyd Haley.
* Saying he’d like to see pediatric infectious disease physician and co-inventor of a childhood vaccine that saves thousands of lives, Paul Offit, MD, behind bars.
* Analogizing the CDC whistleblower manufactroversy to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment on black men, an analogy he dredged up again in describing a California bill (which has since become law) tightening vaccine exemption requirements, all the while cozying up to the racist and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam.

Well, you get the idea. But in case you don’t, Laura Helmeth nicely summarized Kennedy in Slate:

The short version of the vaccine conspiracy theory (if you are stuck on the phone with RFK Jr., you will be subjected to the long version) is that a vaccine preservative called thimerosal causes autism when injected into children. Government epidemiologists and other scientists, conspiring with the vaccine industry, have covered up data and lied about vaccine ingredients to hide this fact. Journalists are dupes of this powerful cabal that is intentionally poisoning children.

You’ve met Barbara Loe Fisher here on SBM too. In the heyday of the media’s penchant for reporting “both sides” of the vaccination manufactroversy, Fisher was the go-to gal for reliable fear-mongering about vaccines. She was, after all, a founder of the NVIC (a sponsor of the “Summit”), a source of vaccine “information” that claims to be neither for nor against vaccination, only for “safe” vaccinations and informed consent. Fisher’s talk is titled “Your Right to be Informed, Your Freedom to Choose.” By continuously moving the goalposts, the NVIC ensures that vaccination is never safe and that there is always a fresh supply of misinformation with which to scare parents from choosing vaccination for their child by exercising their (not the child’s) freedom to exempt the child from school vaccination requirements by claiming their (again, not the child’s) religious or philosophical opposition.

Fisher remains unrepentant after being excoriated by investigative journalist Seth Mnookin in his excellent book The Panic Virus (2011). Here’s how Mnookin described Fisher’s talk at a 2009 Autism One conference:

Barbara Loe Fisher, the grande dame of the American anti-vaccine movement, explained how vaccines are a “de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice” and said that doctors who administer vaccines are the moral equivalent of “the doctors at Nuremberg.” (That parallel, she said, had been pointed out to her by Andrew Wakefield . . .)

Finally, Del Bigtree will speak on “Finding our Freedom,” freedom apparently being a code word at the “Freedom for Family Wellness 2018 Summit” for “refusing vaccination based on bad science and debunked conspiracies.” Bigtree was recruited by Andrew Wakefield to make the “documentary” VAXXED, a film version of the anti-vaccination movement’s talking points, delivered by an all-star team of dedicated anti-vaccinationists. He then shamelessly fed on the African-American community’s understandable mistrust of medicine to promote it. Fortunately, the movie seems to have impressed no one outside of the anti-vaxx echo chamber. It was widely panned as propaganda, “fraudulent,” presenting facts out of context, “closer to a horror film than a documentary,” “paranoid,” and a “desperate attempt to hoodwink the public for no greater purpose than making money.”

As if that weren’t enough propaganda, Andrea Marconi, a chiropractor and the NVIC’s Director of Professional Resources, and Theresa Wrangham, the NVIC’s Executive Director, are giving a talk on “Efffective Vaccine Informed Consent Advocacy.” Marconi’s NVIC bio makes it clear that pediatric chiropractors are expected to be advocates for vaccine refusal:

she has the honor of working with the Chiropractic profession as well as other groups to educate and support doctors who are speaking with their patients and communities about protecting the legal right to exercise religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions to go to school, be employed and otherwise participate in society.

And chiropractors are stepping up to the plate, as a recent CBC investigation revealed, discouraging vaccination as well as other evidence-based care.

Apparently, one of the “other groups” chiropractors are working with are midwives, with whom they are promoting “collaboration” as the ideal pregnancy-perinatal team. While the science-based training of Certified Nurse Midwives might make them resistant to chiropractic pediatrics and its attendant anti-vaccination ideology, direct-entry midwives and naturopath-midwives, who lack medical training and come equipped with their own anti-vaccination proclivities, will be a softer target.

So, besides “wellness” through chiropractic “adjustments,” what do pediatric chiropractors recommend to ward off vaccine-preventable diseases? Another speaker provides a clue: Cilla Whatcott, a homeopath who holds a Ph.D. from the Kingdom College of Natural Health, will be giving a talk on “Real Immunity and Homeoprophylaxis.” According to Whatcott’s website:

The goal of [homeoprophylaxis] is to introduce into the human system safe, homeopathic versions of particular diseases in order to naturally stimulate the immune system. As a result, susceptibility to targeted diseases can be reduced. . . protecting your children from infectious contagious disease.

This is dangerous nonsense, as explained by SBM’s own infectious disease expert, Mark Crislip, MD. Whatcott is disciple of Issac Golden, an Australian homeopath whose ideas are rejected not only by responsible medical authorities but other homeopaths as well.

It is sadly ironic that, even as state health departments and the federal Centers for Disease Control fight the worst flu season in a decade, it is the state and federal governments who create the conditions for this perfect storm of dangerous pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory crankery that will discourage people from getting vaccinated. State licensing laws and chiropractic self-regulation (remember, 24 hours of CE credit!) along with federal Department of Education approval of chiropractic school self-accreditation, allow poorly educated and trained health care practitioners to provide substandard care to a vulnerable population

xilliontherockopera #fundie cgi.ebay.com

[Xillion attempts to sell his god given knowledge for $25,000 to be given to charity. He reveals four revelations he had:]

#1. THE PRECISE LOCATION OF HEAVEN: When we die we will become stars... Literally stars! Jesus Christ is our Earth's sun. That is why we are His... Because we come on one of His planets. When we die and become stars we, too, will be blessed by wonderful special planets which orbit us and bring us great happiness. God the Creator is also a star... The first and the greatest. Two thousand years ago Jesus said "I am the Light of the World." Jesus now wants us to understand that this means He is the Sun and that when we die, we will become stars too.

#2. THE CURE FOR CANCER: The cure for cancer is actually the knowledge of the precise CAUSE OF CANCER. We already know the cures for cancer, mainly prevention and early detection. Also chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and alternative medicine. We also are acutely aware of the roles of carcinogens, environment, heredity and diet. But what is the PRECISE AND SOLE CAUSE OF CANCER? CANCER OCCURS WHEN WE EAT OUR OWN FLESH. (Two very simple examples of eating our own flesh are biting our cuticles or biting our lips.) When a piece of our own flesh is digested, microscopic fragments of our own DNA enter the bloodstream. If a piece of this DNA enters a vulnerable cell, the nucleus of the cell identifies the 'food' as 'self' and this causes a 'circuit' to be blown in the nucleus. When (and if) that cell goes to divide, it does so in a haphazard fashion, dividing into four instead of into two and the mutation continues. There is an interesting correlation to Christianity here. Jesus told us to "take His flesh and eat it." Now he wants us to know not to eat our own flesh in any way because it is deadly.

#3. THE SOLUTION FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF WORLD PEACE: This is so simple! According to Jesus, the way to achieve world peace is this: An AMERICAN president has to set a goal for WORLD PEACE BEFORE 2021. (President Kennedy did something similar when he set a goal for the USA to land a man on the moon in the 60's.)

#4. JESUS REVEALED TO FUTURE TO ME: The future will go one of two ways: If world peace is not achieved before 2021 the world will destroy itself. If world peace is achieved before 2021, there will be no more natural disasters.

xilliontherockopera #fundie cgi.ebay.com

[from a journal of things Jesus revealed to him]

#2. THE CURE FOR CANCER: The cure for cancer is actually the knowledge of the precise CAUSE OF CANCER. We already know the cures for cancer, mainly prevention and early detection. Also chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and alternative medicine. We also are acutely aware of the roles of carcinogens, environment, heredity and diet. But what is the PRECISE AND SOLE CAUSE OF CANCER? CANCER OCCURS WHEN WE EAT OUR OWN FLESH. (Two very simple examples of eating our own flesh are biting our cuticles or biting our lips.) When a piece of our own flesh is digested, microscopic fragments of our own DNA enter the bloodstream. If a piece of this DNA enters a vulnerable cell, the nucleus of the cell identifies the 'food' as 'self' and this causes a 'circuit' to be blown in the nucleus. When (and if) that cell goes to divide, it does so in a haphazard fashion, dividing into four instead of into two and the mutation continues. There is an interesting correlation to Christianity here. Jesus told us to "take His flesh and eat it." Now he wants us to know not to eat our own flesh in any way because it is deadly.

adolf512, Restart80 & G-Flake #sexist #transphobia yourenotalone.co

(adolf512)

You are more likely to reproduce if you go trans

Some gay and bisexual women like dick and by going for a transbian they will be able to start a family with their partner.

You just need to bank your sperm before starting HrT.

If you dont transition the probability of you reproducing is almost zero.

This applies to the bottom 10% of males.

(Restart80)

Probably meant sex with guys.

I think being trans does raise your SMV with regard to bisexual females, marginally. And it likely raises it more than that with regard to bisexual males.

On average, non-trans heterosexual males are considered garbage tier. The lowest SMV of any group (on average) in 2019.

(G-Flake)

My account wasn’t able to log in through Facebook, but anyway, let’s pretend for a second that @pong_lenis is totally serious and worth arguing with. Yes trans people who want to be women should transition. This is why:
“For me, I have absolutely no regrets about transitioning and it has made me a million times happier.”

https://youtu.be/NdueL-0LS3Q?t=37

While I wouldn’t necessarily discourage anyone from transitioning, I dislike how much many people in the trans community encourage people to transition. Your quality of life is going to vary GREATLY depending on these factors:

How well you pass (ie whether it’s obvious you’re trans or not)
Where you live (San Francisco vs. Saudi Arabia…or Alabama - especially if you don’t pass)
Your financial situation (MtF is particularly expensive and you might also have problems finding a job - especially if you don’t pass)
Whether you have supportive friends or family (A disproportionate number of homeless teens are LGBT because their parents kicked them out of the house)
Your current relationship status (divorce is common enough without throwing trans into the mix…and finding a new partner will be harder if you don’t pass)
Did I mention the thing about passing being important?

Personally I kind of agree with you. MtF is really expensive and the ones who don’t pass look weird as fuck. Like imagine an NFL linebacker with a wig and lipstick (and no FFS). I mean I consider myself LGBT friendly but I wouldn’t want to date or have sex with someone who looks like that. And yeah, if they looked like that at a job interview I could totally imagine them being discriminated against. It must suck to be a non-passing trans person. But yeah, I agree that those are definitely things to consider.

Yeah. “Uncanny Valley” is what it’s sometimes called. The term was originally applied to androids who look sort of human, but not convincing enough. It’s sort of off-putting.

It’s not a justification for hate, but I think that’s a big part of what’s driving it. People then rationalize their feelings by saying it goes against the “natural order”, but I think it makes them feel uncomfortable.

Even I feel that way to a certain extent and I’ve heard other trans women say the same thing. There ARE plenty of guys into trans women enough that they don’t care, but trans women don’t wan to date those guys lol. While I understand, I don’t really feel sorry for them. I’m actually planning on doing a video about “chasers” on my channel.

Wayne Allyn Root #fundie rootforamerica.com

It’s only been 6 days and already my wish list is in place:

Trump used Executive orders to give the go-ahead to the long-stalled Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines. America is open for business again (and high-paying middle class jobs).

Trump erased all mentions on the White House web site of “climate change.” He did that within ONE HOUR of taking the oath of office. Are you kidding me? It’s almost as if conservatives like me have died and gone to heaven. But wait, it gets better…

Trump erased all Spanish language from the White House web site. It is now “English Only.” It’s like Christmas in January.

Yesterday Trump issued an Executive order starting the construction of “THE WALL.” Liberals heads must be ready to explode.

He also announced the hiring of 10,000 new border agents.

He will soon announce a temporary ban on refugees from Syria and Middle Eastern war zones.

He also announced a ban on visas from dangerous Muslim-majority countries with inadequate screening.

He also announce the end of “Sanctuary cities” and the defunding of federal funds for any city that chooses to continue breaking the law.

He also signed an Executive order demanding the Secretary of Homeland Security publish a weekly list of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.

Trump signed an Executive order freezing the hiring of non-essential federal employees. He is the first President EVER to figure out that government employees are busting the budget and bankrupting America with their obscene salaries and benefits, plus pensions that can best be described as insane. And there are far too many of them.

Trump issued an Executive order to “ease the burden of Obamacare” and as a bonus, made it clear to Congressional Republicans he wants Obamacare repealed and replaced FAST.

Trump said out loud the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” He did it in his inaugural speech- which means Trump did in his first 15 minutes as president what Obama would not do in eight years.

Trump has announced plans to dramatically lower taxes.

Trump has announced plans to cut 75% of regulations…and “maybe more.” SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT? Only a billionaire “CAN-DO” businessman aims for the moon. What a breath of fresh air.

Trump withdrew America from the TPP treaty that kills middle class American jobs. Even liberal unions applauded.

Trump announced he will renegotiate NAFTA in a matter of days.

The Trump State Department will begin an immediate review of Obama’s final hour giveaway of $220 million to the Palestinian Authority while Congress had a hold on the money.

The NY Times reports Trump is preparing Executive orders to drastically reduce funding and America’Donald Trump Is Already the Greatest Conservative President in Modern Historys involvement in the United Nations and international treaties. I’ve been waiting a lifetime for this one. It’s Christmas in January!

Trump announced he’ll begin a major investigation into voter fraud in the 2016 election. He believes millions of illegal aliens voted. It’s about time a Republican woke up- I believe he is right on the money.

So here’s my message to President Trump. Start your investigation in my home state of Nevada. I believe the so-called “Harry Reid Machine” used thousands of illegal alien voters to steal the state from Trump and the GOP. Make Nevada your “Exhibit A.”

And I’m counting on President Trump to pass National Voter ID laws so Democrats can never use voter fraud or illegal aliens to steal elections ever again.

By the way, Trump signed all these Executive orders with the bust of Winston Churchill behind him- back in the Oval Office for the first time in eight years. If image is important and symbolic, this says everything. Trump is erasing Obama as if he never existed.

Lastly, corporations across the globe have all publicly announced they are bringing jobs and billions of dollars of investment monies back to America because of President Trump- and many of those announcements came BEFORE Trump was even sworn in.

Simply amazing. Breathtaking. Head-spinning.

And all of this happened in Trump’s first 6 days. Even God rested on the 7th day. I’m betting Trump doesn’t.

Can you imagine what Trump will do starting in his second week?

There is no longer any doubt- Donald Trump is already the greatest conservative president in history.