Similar posts

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.

Unknown writer & Elizabeth Johnston #fundie mommyunderground.com

The Latest LGBT TV Show Is So Outrageous It Will Leave Your Head Spinning

The LGBT community has hijacked the entertainment industry and filled the airwaves with their warped agenda.

From homosexual marriage, to “transgender” couples, it’s no wonder more and more Americans are saying “no thanks” to cable TV.

But this latest show introduces a character that takes it even further.

In fact, as this show reveals there’s no telling just how far the LGBT community will go to shock America and attempt to make their way of life “mainstream.”

Instead of introducing a transsexual, or another homosexual couple, Showtime decided to introduce its first gender “non-binary” character.

The LGBT community deems a “non-binary” person as one who doesn’t identify with either gender.

Determined to strip away any sense of decency, Showtime pushes the envelope and introduces this bizarre character to the world.

CBN reported:

“Dillon uses singular they pronouns and her role on the show is the first gender non-binary character on American television.

The move is seen as a huge step forward for LGBTQ inclusion and representation in pop culture.

But Elizabeth Johnston, also known as the ‘Activist Mommy’, says Showtime’s decision to cast a non-binary character is all part of the LGBTQ’s plan to normalize it.

“This is an LGBT agenda that is being pushed on our nation,” Johnston said in an interview with CBN News. “Truth and science and facts matter and just because someone says that two plus one equals five that doesn’t make it true.

There’s something called facts and truth and the truth of it is we are born xy or xx or we have a biological or psychological pathology and what we’re seeing with gender dysphoria is pathological and it is not normal and we’re being asked to embrace it as normal and celebrate it.”

Elizabeth Johnston nailed it.

Just because the LGBT community refuses to “see gender”, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

People with gender dysphoria need help, mental counseling, not exposure to the world to promote their way of life, which will further confuse those who already struggle.

The biggest lie of all is the LGBT community wants to “live a quiet life in peace.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Mommy Underground previously reported, they have a record of sneaking their perverted agenda into shows that target children.

But while the LGBT community thinks they have power, they’re forgetting one thing – if people decide to boycott these shows and refuse to watch them, it will help stop the spread of their twisted agenda.

After all, networks are ultimately about ratings.

If conservatives can show network officials they will no longer pay nor subscribe to such filth, perhaps things can change.

And if not, parents must refuse to let their children watch these shows.

What are your thoughts on the new “non-binary” character?

How do you prevent your family from watching shows like these?

Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

And to stay current on the latest Mommy Underground stories, follow us on Facebook and be sure to like and share our posts!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

Candace Owens #transphobia twitter.com

BREAKING: Trump is proposing a rule allowing federally funded homeless shelters to turn away trans and gender non-conforming people — in the midst of the highest unemployment rates our country has seen in decades.

BREAKING: Trump is proposing a rule not to allow MEN into WOMEN’s homeless shelters, because MEN who self-identify as women, are not actually WOMEN, just as children who self-identify as mermaids, are not actually fish.

PROTECT VULNERABLE WOMEN FROM WOKE CULTURE.

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.

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.

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.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "First American Legally Recognized as 'Non-Binary' Reclaims Birth Sex, Disavows Trans Ideology as 'Fraud'"

First American Legally Recognized as 'Non-Binary' Reclaims Birth Sex, Disavows Trans Ideology as 'Fraud'

'Harmful Gender Ideologies Are Ruining Lives, Causing Deaths, and Contributing to the Sterilization and Mutilation of Gender-Confused Children'

(Link goes here: https://www.christiandailyreporter.com/)

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND.

Mick Williams:
We'll never see this on ABC, NBC, et al. You can bet your life savings.

Lady Checkmate:
Nah. This story doesn't fit their agenda.

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.

Ethan Huff #wingnut #transphobia #sexist naturalnews.com

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the throes of celebrating Christina Koch, who’s become the latest woman astronaut to spend the longest time in space. But what’s the point of celebrating her achievement now that a biological man who thinks he’s a “woman” can just sweep on in and claim the new record?

Koch reportedly spent 289 days in space during a recent extraterrestrial excursion, and is expected to spend a total of 328 days in orbit by the time she treks back to Earth. But, again, what is NASA going to do once a “transgender” astronaut comes along to steal the top prize for longest time spent in space by a “female?”

We’re already seeing this kind of thing in women’s sports, as fake females smash records while leaving real females in the dust. Where does it all end, and do actual females stand a chance at winning anything ever again in this new LGBTQ “paradise” we’re all being forced to accept?

A female high school athlete from New England recently spoke out about how she lost a regional track meet to two transgender “females” who stole the title from her due to their size and strength, both of which were reflective of their biological maleness.

“Her arms were much more defined than the average girl’s and same with her legs, but she had long hair, long braided hair, and I didn’t think much of it, and then I watched the race and I saw that this girl was blowing away the competitors, and I thought, ‘Hey, this isn’t right, this usually doesn’t happen,'” this athlete, Selina Soule, is quoted as saying.

For all she knows, Koch could soon encounter the same thing if some transgender astronaut comes along and decides, “I’m going to steal the record for the longest time spent in space by a woman” – and there’s nothing Koch will be able to do about it because any objection on her part will be seen as exemplifying “transphobia.”

Transgenders ruin everything, don’t they?
Koch is quoted as saying that she hopes someone out there will surpass her record as soon as possible “because that means that we’re continuing to push the boundaries.” But our guess is that she doesn’t hope a biological man dressed up as a woman will be the one to “push the boundaries” – though we could be wrong on that.

We haven’t actually spoken to Koch about any of this, but chances are the concept isn’t even on her radar. Heck, most rational Americans probably still aren’t conceiving of the fact that all of these new-wave transgenders are “pushing the boundaries” every day to see just how much perversion they can get away with in the name of “progress.”

Keep an eye on this because there’s certain to be at least one gender-confused man claiming to be a “woman” who, at some point, will attempt to become the first fake female to spend the longest amount of time in space, eclipsing Koch’s accomplishment faster than you can shout out the word “tolerance.”

“I’m waiting for the headline about the longest LGBTQ spacewalk or longest non-binary POC (people of color) rover deployment,” joked one Breitbart News commenter in response to this story.

“I’m curious when the first transgender black male will give birth (with sperm from a Muslim transgender Asian female) to a non-binary gender fluid interracial child who is accepting of all races, religions and creeds,” joked another. “In space

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!

Emma Knyckare #sexist irishtimes.com

Women-only music festival found guilty of discrimination

The Statement festival in Sweden found in breach of gender discrimination law

A Swedish event billed as “the world’s first major music festival for women, non-binary and transgender only” has been found in breach by Sweden’s discrimination ombudsman.

The inaugural Statement festival was held in Gothenburg in August following a successful crowdfunding campaign that raised 533,120SEK (€51,520). The ombudsman opened an investigation into the festival in July.

A new ruling said that although festival organisers did not enforce the “man-free” rule, since “no differentiation based on sex was made between visitors at entry”, the statements the company issued prior to the event “discouraged a certain group from attending the event”, breaching a law banning gender discrimination.

The ombudsman found that nobody suffered damage from the festival’s restrictions and no penalties will be imposed.

The organisers of Statement responded on Facebook: “It’s sad that what 5,000 women, non-binaries and transgender experienced as a life-changing festival made a few cis men lose it completely. The success of the Statement festival shows that is exactly what we need and the DO’s verdict doesn’t change this fact. Otherwise, we have no comments. We are busy changing the world.”

The ombusdman’s press officer, Class Lundstedt said: “It is important to point out what an infringement is. These [infringements relate to] statements made before the festival, that they wrote on their website. Still, we haven’t been able to prove that someone would have been discriminated against in connection with the implementation or that someone would have been rejected.”

“Clearly, we believe that sexual abuse, especially at festivals, is a serious problem. So we are looking forward to trying to correct this,” said Lundstedt. “However, it shouldn’t happen in a way that violates the law, which their statements in the media and their website [did].”

Statement festival was founded by comedian Emma Knyckare after a series of sexual assaults at Swedish music festivals, including four rapes and 23 sexual assaults at the 2017 edition of the country’s biggest music festival, Bråvalla, which led to the event’s cancellation in 2018.

Organisers described Statement as “a safe space for the people who want to attend a festival without feeling scared for their personal safety”, and said it would remain a protected space “until ALL men learn how to behave themselves”. – Guardian

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad #racist racebaitr.com

We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.

Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.

Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.

But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.

There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”

The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.

There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.

Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.

Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.

The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”1)

Indeed, when we’ve seen white people try to do whiteness well, try to operate their spheres of power and influence well, we’ve also seen the martyrdom of Black women murdered by police to bring white people to reckon with their sins. We’ve seen white men starting campaigns professing the beauty of Black women, only to soon after realize it came hand in hand with the violent claiming of and sense of entitlement to Blackness and Black bodies.

This is all to say, importantly, that whiteness cannot be done well, cannot be done without violence or without being in opposition to Blackness and Black freedom. But the extent of this lies far beyond ashy campaigns and disturbing open letters begging other white people to atone for their sins using the blood of Black women. We must critically engage the possibility that whiteness is only violent to Blackness, is only and can only ever be antithetical to Black liberation.

That we conceptualize whiteness as having a positive operation in the fight for Black liberation is perhaps the single greatest success of the normative functions of a colonialist State. That is to say, we have been successfully hoodwinked to believe that which harms us most vitally might also be able to save us.

“Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, ‘race,’ is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values,” writes Teresa J. Guess in The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, “thus… the concept ‘race’ is based on socially constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions.” What this means is that race is designed as a hierarchal structure, and whiteness is constructed for no other purpose than to occupy the space of racial superiority. Therefore, to exist and act as white is to reinforce the dominance of whiteness.

Indeed, there would be no white race, no “race” as we know it, if whiteness weren’t positioned in violent dominion. That is the only thing it can do. Whiteness cannot operate in any way that does not first perpetuate white supremacy.

This, of course, is not to say that white people have not been the conduits for necessary Black liberation work. White people surely played integral roles in the freedom rides, abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement. But those roles were meticulously crafted by the toils, lives, death and suffering of Black people. The energy forced through those conduits was painstakingly produced by Black folks. To credit it as anything else is to fall prey to the same tempting veil of racism that motivates us to seek the impossible from our white allies. White people playing a role in liberation work are always merely actors, and the work done with them always done entirely in spite of their whiteness, not because of it.

All ways of addressing Black liberation for which white people are praised is always work Black people—Black poor and working class women, trans, non-binary, disabled and queer people especially—have already done and been doing and have made possible for white people to know.

Even John Brown, the white abolitionist who was executed in 1859 after leading an insurrection against pro-slavery forces, furthered the legacy of the likes of Nat Turner and other Black folks who fought and died for their own freedom before him. We must be sure in recognizing that dying for freedom did not begin with Brown, was not his legacy to create. Though perhaps in death, in a significant sacrifice of self, he and those like him have shed light on what it could mean to give up whiteness for good. When whiteness is so seeped into your being, might giving it up necessitate a threat to one’s safety and existence?

And where do white people exist in safety? In settler colonial societies, positions of power are designated and protected for whiteness. Perhaps the only action white folks can take—barring physical disappearance—in the struggle for Black liberation, for them to successfully put an end to their own whiteness, is the absolute absolving of their places and power. Their literal disappearance from the State and its institutions. It is worth exploring what this would mean for the the persistence of capitalism and the State. Is demanding the destruction of whiteness from the State to demand the destruction of the State, which was created by and has only ever known itself in service to (and in tandem with) whiteness? Which, each together, have only ever worked to maintain capitalism, anti-Blackness, and the disappearance of Indigenous people?

As John Stanfield writes in Theoretical and Ideological Barriers to the Study of Race-Making, “Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed” (Stanfield 1985:161-162). This is how capitalism, anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism are intrinsically tied. None can exist in any way that is good for Black people. The presence of each is specifically predicated on Black subjugation.

After whiteness is obliterated, at that point, what the people who now identify as white should do is a giant theoretical exercise: what comes after whiteness? How does someone become not white? That is the legitimate and critical work of many. But our focus is always on Black folks figuring out new and better ways to get free—independent of white people and capitalism and the entirety of western empires. We are confident that our dreamings of freedom can crumble whiteness, capitalism and empire without giving deep consideration to the question of “what do we do with it”. We’re only interested in the work of building past it.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad are Black, queer, non-binary dreamers who, in some reality not yet here, are married, gendered or ungendered without colonial restriction, and free.

The Rev. William H. Grimes #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Sermon 16: Transgenderism Debunked Part II
By The Rev. William H. Grimes
1 Corinthians 11:14–15 says "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 says "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
I decided to bring this topic back up because certain liberals on sites such as Irrationalwiki decided to go ahead and try to refute hard biological realities with feelings. For you men out there: do you know what it feels like to be a woman? Women, do you know what it feels like to be a man? I'm not talking about hermaphrodites here, because that is a medical condition someone is born with just like babies can be born with heart defects or anything else. Transgenderism is purely psychological, and does not involve anything hermaphroditic.
The average lifespan in the United States is 77, while the average transgendered person lives to the ripe old age of 35. "Transitioning" as they call it today is incredibly hard on the body, and solves absolutely nothing. Gender dysphoria is a disease of the mind, not of the body. What about transabled and transracial? Where are their special rights? Are we gonna start prescribing amputations of perfectly functional arms and legs next? What about bleaching your skin like Michael Jackson and getting plastic surgery like he did as well? Liberals are too dumb to see where their suspension of logic and reason is heading! IT IS HEADED TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS NATION IDENTIFYING AS TRANS-WHATEVER OR NON-BINARY OR AGENDER OR WHATEVEROTHERGENDERITIS THEY WANT TO CALL IT! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Men must use the men's bathroom and women the women's rooms! We cannot favor mental illness over the safety of our women and children! Liberals have lobbied all the psychological institutions to where the only prescribed treatment for the real mental illness of gender dysphoria is so-called "transitioning!" IF YOU PRESCRIBE THIS TO CHILDREN, YOU ARE COMMITTING CHILD ABUSE! WELL GLORY!!!!!!!
WE CANNOT KEEP ON IN THIS SINFUL PATH! WE CANNOT ENABLE SIN AND MENTAL ILLNESS, LEST WESTERN CIVILIZATION FALL AND THE WORLD COMES UNDER GLOBAL CALIPHATE! TRANSWHATEVERS CANNOT LET THE GREAT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES ERODE TO NOTHING BUT UNIVERSALISM AND MORAL RELATIVISM AND SECULAR HUMANISM! WE ARE LETTING THESE MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM GENDER DYSPHORIA GO INTO EARLY GRAVES WITH CROSS-SEX HORMONES! USE XANAX, ZOLOFT, PIMOZIDE, THORAZINE, BUT NO HORMONES!!!!!!!! WE NEED TO HELP THE MENTALLY ILL GET TO RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD NOW! Next week, I'll discuss Romanism Debunked! God's people said AMEN!

various TERFs #sexist#homophobia reddit.com

[Note: Comments in the thread “Actually, no, I won't date or waste my energy on 'Trans Men' or 'Non Binaries'.” by ToughTelephone]

(scienceisarealthing)

Where? Your sentiment is hardly new. It gets posted here daily. What you say is true, but I don’t see anyone here supporting TIFs unquestioningly. I see people pointing out that young GNC lesbian women are victims of transactivism and patriarchy, but that’s not the same thing.
Radical feminism is about tearing out the roots of oppression, and the root is patriarchy, not female victims of the system. Fuck Aunts and handmaidens, but they are the symptom, not the disease. This isn’t letting them off the hook, it’s just not playing the patriarchy’s game for it by never looking beyond the puppets to the dudes pulling the strings.

OP is right, unfortunately I don't have specific links but I have seen often on this sub where women here are berated for not being sympathetic to misogynistic TIF’s or considering them our “sisters”. It's not tearing down female victims of the system to not sympathize with women who actively harm other women.

The vast majority of women have some level of misogyny just from living under patriarchy. I wish all women could wake up from it and question those beliefs. I am sympathetic to confused women who are told to transition without being given other option for healing. The system is broken, thanks to the idiot activists and those in the medical industry wanting to profit. I’m sympathetic to people who suffer from all kinds of illness.

I’m not sympathetic to people who think they are better than other women because they are men now.

I have not seen someone being berated for not accepting a TIF. what kinds of threads does it come up?

I agree we should have sympathy for gnc women who are socially pressured into transitioning or felt they had no other option. I've seen threads (sorry don't have specific links) where women were told they were infighting, tearing apart the sisterhood, or being manipulated by the patriarchy, (and other things along those lines) for not supporting sexist, maladjusted TIF's.

To me, it seems like guilting women into performing emotional labor for misogynists with personality disorders, and I think it's a symptom of female socialization to have endless sympathy towards people who hate us and even want us dead. I think we can all agree we want feminism to benefit all women, even the horrible ones, but there's a limit to the amount of patience & attention women should give to manipulative, harmful people.

(georgiaokeefesgrotto)
Not from me. I've seen the Tifs and their idea of women as 'junk and udders'. I welcome them back into womanhood if they smarten up but many are cruder than truckers in a rest room on a long haul. Eff them.

(1984stardusta)
“The only reason everybody is talking about transgenders is because white men want to do it.”

Chappelle received lots of criticism for rhis joke, and more, for pointing that Mexicans or blacks wouldn't get the same treatment, genderism is a white problem.

I see no problem in people dressing up or behaving like the opposite sex, this is far from new, but I can't accept a bunch of privileged white men endorsing violence against women they will rebrand as TERFs and advocate for punching into silence. Normally women who identify as men won't do the same, so it is easier to talk with women.

But I can't start a conversation with anyone who will acuse me of feeling hate against a whole group, this is a coward accusation, without burden of proof, deeply ingrained in privilege of narrative and self entitlement from whom is so spoiled by their lack of real problems that they need to turn any dissenting voice into an imaginary enemy, they need to destroy competition, they need to be the leader of oppression Olympics even if it means to demean women.

So, being a person of color is a hard life, adding to the equation the false accusation that black women are killing white men when we don't say they are women whenever they feel like to be called so is unbearable.

Right? As a woman I’m tired of being silenced for saying anything about the trans community that isn’t “these people are the best people in the world”. This has a horrible effect on my mental health and view of self. Why are these bizarre new groups that everyone wants to talk about protected to the point that it’s hate speech to criticize or even question anything about them or what they say and do?

About transcommunity?

I can't say anything about myself.

When I say I am a biological woman I am offensive to who is not a woman and wants not only self identify as such, but also take leadership, precedence and dominance over my objective reality. On the same vein I should not use words as menstruation, breastfeeding and vagina but I need to accept meekly to be called a menstruator, and listen about chest feeding and fronthole.

I need to teach my kids to hide what they know about human biology, because I was taught it was replaced by wishful thinking.

I need to teach them to hide their knowledge, and shrink their passion about this subject to fit obscurantism.

And I need to pretend that black women and black men are subjected to more likelihood of being murdered then white men, even when they wear dresses.

I

(SCREECHES_AT_HERSELF)
I couldn't agree more. In my experience, trans men & female nonbinaries are commonly emotionally abusive, narcissistic, and hold some really gross beliefs. Some FTMs even go as far as to become stereotypical "women have it easy, it's men who suffer!" MRAs.

People like that are not worthy of my energy. They might be biologically female but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.

As for dating... I'm not attracted to male secondary sex characteristics (even if they're artificial) so no, I'm not interested in trans men. Plus the whole misogyny and "your personality dictates your sex" things are huge dealbreakers anyway.

Begone with this stupid belief that us women should have unwavering compassion for everyone, especially people who view us as lesser. No, I won't support trans men. No, being nonbinary is no better. No, I'm not going to get on my knees and kiss the toes of that "gender critical TIM" that people all think is such a gift to feminism.

(greynose_algebra)
I transitioned several years before I discovered radical feminism and became gender critical. I don't know if you would rather not hear what I have to say, but for what it's worth, I think your points are valid and I get where you're coming from.

No one is obligated to include trans people in their dating pool. No one is obligated to support/lift up/perform emotional labor for anyone at all.

No one should have to waste their time or energy on emotional vampires, no matter what their sex or gender-feelz.

You're not a bad feminist.

(Enjolraic)
It would depend on their beliefs on gender. I'm Internet friends with a TIF and she believes that biological sex is real and she's against calling women TERFs or advocating for violence against us. Basically she's a gender critical trans person. But she's a Marxist, and ideologically sound Marxists are hard to come by these days. Most TIFs seem to believe in tumblr politics, hate radfems and expect gay men to date them just because they cut their hair. Even if I was physically attracted to one, I would want nothing to do with someone with a completely different world view to mine.

I'd never want anything to do with NBs. It's one thing to have dysphoria about your sexual characteristics or be transed because of homophobia, but the entire notion of 'non-binary' is based purely on sexist stereotypes.

(Lemortjoyeux)
Some of them are just predatory as TIMs, usually the GAI BOIZ type who are basically straight women who wanted more oppression points or were so obessed by yaoi they decided to live out this fantasy. They get angry when only other TIFs date them because gay men don't take that bullshit. Local horrible TIF in my city is also a YouTuber spewing lies and distracting from others arguments because she doesn't have any argument other than "not accepting my gender identity hurts my feelings". God I hate her and she's one of the main reasons I don't associate with the local gay community.

(thewilloftheuniverse)
The only Transman i personally know was a friend from high school, who is a second generation Desi. I was especially struck at the fact that the male name she took was "Todd," exchanging her Indian female name for a white male name.

At the time it only made me confused and sad for her. Now it makes me angry too.

(Burnbookburner)
I know a Todd TIF... do you think they realize any grown man named Todd is a huge red flag?

(CatLadyActually)
How so? Is it like Chad?

Ntokozo Qwabe #racist politicsweb.co.za

LOL wow unable to stop smiling because something so black, wonderful & LIT just happened! And of course, the catalyst was a radical non-binary trans black activist - Wandile Dlamini - from the Rhodes Must Fall movement. Because trans activists have BEEN the ultimate blessers of this decolonial struggle!

To cut the long story short, we are out at Obz Cafe with the said activist, and the time for the bill comes. Our waitress is a white woman. I ask the said activist what the going rate for tips/gratuity is in these shores. They look at me very reluctantly and they say 'give me the slip, I'll sort that out'. I give them the slip.

They take a pen & slip in a note where the gratuity/tip amount is supposed to be entered. The note reads in bold: "WE WILL GIVE TIP WHEN YOU RETURN THE LAND". The waitress comes to us with a card machine for the bill to be sorted out. She sees the note & starts shaking. She leaves us & bursts into typical white tears (like why are you crying when all we've done is make a kind request? lol!). Anyways, so this white woman goes to her colleagues who are furious. She exits to cry at the back & a white male colleague of hers reluctantly comes out to address us & to annoy us more with his own white tears telling us that he finds our act "racist".

We then start breaking it down for this white man & ask him why they are catching feelings when we haven't even started (like the part where we take up arms hasn't even come & yall are already out here drowning us in your white tears? Really white people? Wow.). We start drawing him to the political nature of the act & why we couldn't be bothered that they decided to catch feelings from the note. We tell him it's great that business as usual has stopped & the pressing issue of land is now on the agenda in that space - seeing the cowntry was celebrating 'Freedom Day' yesterday. We then chase him back to do his job. And continue with our conversation before exiting the café.

Moral of the story: the time has come when no white person will be absolved. We are tired of "not all white people" and all other bullshit. We are here, and we want the stolen land back. No white person will be out here living their best life while we are out here being a landless and dispossessed black mass. NO white person shall rest. It is irrelevant whether you personally have land/wealth or you don't. Go to your fellow white people & mobilise for them to give us the land back. That will be the starting point of all our interactions from now. We will agitate all our spaces with the big question: WHERE IS THE LAND?

Thank you to all the non binary, trans & all other black bodies who have been at the helm of this decolonial moment in the settler colony known as South Afrika. NOTHING will ever be the same again. Alibuye Izwe Lethu!

?#?IzweLethuNgoku

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.

Liptusg #sexist reddit.com

"We have nothing against virgins. Also, only a terrible person could end up a virgin."

"We don't hate virgins, some of my best beta orbiters friends are virgins! We just hate those pathetic misogynistic incels who are entitled and blame their problems on whamenz! Work on ur shitty personality"

"The reason I can get face-fucked by 10 Chads on Tinder in a rape-play session is due to my impeccable 'social skills', my vagina's functionality as a moral compass, and the fact that all it takes to get a partner is some basic human decency and hygiene! If you're unable to get a partner, that's because you are fundamentally inferior to me both psychologically and morally in every way possible, otherwise you'd have no problem finding someone"

Normie logic. At every opportunity, they claim to have nothing against the 'normal', PC, left-wing yet non-volcel virgins who do not identify as incels, how much more admirable they are than incels, and so forth, positing that incels are uniquely depraved for the crime of standing up to gynocentric gaslighting. As soon as they are confronted with the fact they are committing a chronological fallacy ( You can't develop "sour grapes" attitudes without experiencing shunning, ostracism and discrimination in the first place ), or whenever circle-jerking themselves about how laughable and absurd the situation of sexually excluded men is, they always inform you that even if you do not HATE WHAMENZ or participate in wrongthinking, and yet still fail to garner even the tiniest shred of sexual attention from women, then clearly the only possible factor you should be considering is that you are an unimpressive, unaccomplished, worthless shitty person who should assign all blame to his own undefined failings ( Women's attraction being the chief authority on these matters ) or else risk the wrath of the matriarchy for even daring to entertain notions like evolutionary biology, hypergamy, macro socioeconomics of sexuality, Sexual selection, published psychological research, and other problematic ideas.

Now, putting the mountain of braindead NPC bullshit and endless documentation ( Including according to women's description of their ex-sexual partners and rants on social media ) about women's incredibly machiavellian and perverse mating criteria which we all know and love, the Mean Girls and their male enablers have clearly backed themselves into the corner of shameful cognitive dissonance with their mindless antiques, given that their mindset extends to all of the supposed token, submissive virgins they profess to have nothing against.

If all you need to get laid or have a girlfriend is some of that muh basic human decency, social etiquette, showers and 'not whining', then what those women and men are saying is that every single male virgin they know of in their life who does want sexual or romantic intimacy must be an indecent, socially retarded, filthy, pathetic, value-less whiny piece of trash. What other reason could there be for them to get rejected for so long? Truly, any 'non-incel' virgin would be lucky to have such fine folk as his friends and family.

But hey, it's cool! Just because I think that the virgins I fraternize with are the scum of the earth and pitiful losers who are worse human beings than any man who's ever stuck his dick in a girl's hole doesn't mean I'm hateful or prejudiced against them! It's uhhh, not the same, you understand. To their credit though, it must be said that some of those 'ex-permavirgin' preacher types do follow up on their own premise - by attributing their past virginity to their own worthlessness and deficiencies as woman-approved humans, which may indeed be a valid observation in their case given how philosophically stunted they are, yet one which unfortunately they project on everyone else and insist on blind adherence to - you're either a self-flagellating virgin, or a world-blaming loser.

For this reason, you find women and normies stammering all over themselves in various subreddits during times of social expediency ( Most of the time though in AskWomen and the like, they'll just launch into a full tirade about how inferior and defective the poster must be, and how good it will be for him to accept that ) to mask the logical extension of their mindsets whenever some virgin man comes prostrating himself before them, prefacing his thread with countless apologies, before expressing his sorrow over not achieving their sexual transcendence. At which point, several damage control first responders might awkwardly come out with the following:

"Teehee, I'm sure there's a right person somewhere, it took me 10 years of College sex partying before I finally met the husband of my dreams! We are alike!"

"Uhhh, errr, durr, emm, w-w-what do you even need to think about sex and relationships for? Just focus on uh.. other things and just..wait...nervous glances

Poster: But I want to know exactly why is that -

"Shut up you piece of shit! You don't want to sound like an entitled whiny incel, do you? Just go participate in more hobby groups and patiently keep your head down until you're magically in a relationship. And don't ever ask any questions about women's decisions ever again."

Of course, none of the answers that any virgin will be getting are going to rationally explain why is it that for the majority of someone's life, no woman ever finds him to be 'her type', nor eager and welcoming to his advances as much as she will be to any crass 'creepy PM' from a Chad on Tinder, for as long as women and normies refuse to recognize the Halo Effect, Gender Dimorphic sexual selection, Dark Triad psychology and overall, the indisputable historical and scientific truth that the correlation between being a Just person, wisdom, and other profound concepts to sex appeal is completely null, and that only a weak correlation exists even for being an interesting conversationlist or 'muh confidence' in comparison to appearance, dominance and power.

And so their only choice is either deflect, deflect, deflect, or own up to the fact that they hold each and every single involuntary virgin they ever met in their life in contempt, as an inferior person and non-decent human being who must be patronized about their flawed and despicable existence as the reason of failing to gain traction with women's base instincts. ( But remember, they love diversity and hate othering of deviant and non-binary social groups ).

You can't have it both ways, friend-o's. You either accept the facts of sexual dynamics throughout human evolution and their amoral, reactionary nature, or you admit just how much toxicity, smug self-superiority and disdain you harbor toward every single virgin on the planet who is not abstinent by choice. Feel free to PM me with justifications too if you want, would love to hear it.

Witch Doctor #racist chimpout.org

It has become very apparent that with the elimination of one of the driving forces that generated traffic in the past (specifically, having a muslim-loving nigger in the White House), comes a lesser infuriation centered on the nigger. Instead, most of those who believe as we do are now focusing their rage more on the new "Antifa/Resistance Movements", and others who enable the typical felonious nigger.

Because of this, and the illogical and subhuman-like behaviors of these "Snowflakes and Millennials", we've decided to allow a looser interpretation of the human bashing rules, to include these scum bag nigger-loving progressive losers. Additionally, bashing "Fake News" organizations, and those who promote "Fake News" are now fair game too.

Do not report or link fake news, but bash those who do. In most cases, those who are looking for a place to voice their discontent with these "sub-nigger Humans" are most likely on the same page as we are with niggers. Please do not take this editing of the rules to provide a blanket approval for all human bashing. Those specifically noted above as off-limits REMAIN off-limits. No gay or Jew bashing. Focus. Always FOCUS.

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

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.

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

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.)

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.

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

The Trump administration #fundie theguardian.com

Trump administration trying to define transgender out of existence – report

The Trump administration is attempting to strip transgender people of official recognition by creating a narrow definition of gender as being only male or female and unchangeable once determined at birth, the New York Times reported.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has undertaken an effort across several departments to establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex, the Times said, citing a government memo.

That definition would be as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals a person is born with, the Times reported.

Such an interpretation would reverse the expansion of transgender rights that took place under President Barack Obama.

It would also set back aspirations for tolerance and equality among the estimated 0.7% of the population that identifies as transgender. Most transgender people live with a profound sense that the gender assigned to them at birth was wrong and transition to the opposite sex. Others live a non-binary or gender-fluid life.

A HHS spokeswoman declined to comment on what she called “allegedly leaked documents” but cited a ruling by a conservative US district judge as a guide to transgender policy.

In Texas in 2016, ruling on a challenge to one aspect of the Affordable Care Act, judge Reed O’Connor found there was no protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

A leading transgender advocate called the government’s reported action a “super aggressive, dismissive, dangerous move”.

“They are saying we don’t exist,” said Mara Keisling, director of the National Center for Transgender Rights.

The Obama administration enacted regulations and followed court rulings that protected transgender people from discrimination, upsetting religious conservatives.

The Trump administration has sought to ban transgender people from military service and rescinded guidance to public schools recommending that transgender students be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

A draft of the Trump administration memo says gender should be determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable”, the memo says, according to the Times.

Medical science seeking to explain what makes people transgender is in its infancy. Psychiatrists no longer consider being transgender a disorder and several US courts have found the Obama interpretation of protecting transgender people against discrimination to be sound.

But the Trump administration has chosen to abide by the ruling of O’Connor, the Times said.

“The court order remains in full force and effect today and HHS is abiding by it as we continue to review the issue,” Roger Severino, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement.

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.

Lady Checkmate #fundie #sexist disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Signs of Demon Possession?: Non-binary gender-neutral pronouns"

My heart broke as I read that the enemy has manipulated the lost into addressing confused people that struggle with sexual immorality, individually (single person) as "they" (plural). The unclean demon-possessed man in the tombs in Gadarenes was identified in the plural form because he was possessed by a legion of demons. Why would a normal rationale person address a single person in plural form? Demon possession...

Thank God that He (God) heals broken hearts and that His word is true. The GOOD NEWS is that Jesus Christ delivered the demon-possessed man and so there is hope in Jesus Christ for those who are caught up in sexual immorality (homosexuality, those who demand to be addressed as something/someone else other than what they are, etc.):
Mark 5:1-20 (KJV)

5 And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
16 And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
17 And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.
18 And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.
20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified.Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND.

image

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.

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.

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.

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?

Shad Daley #fundie youtube.com

At the Impeach Trump March in Chicago 7/2/17. A group of protesters applaud a speech comprised almost entirely of Adolf Hitler quotes given by Shad Daley. This was 20 seconds after saying they need to fight fascism. After the speech, the organizing member of refusefascism.org was desperate to get Shad more involved. Another wonderful example of how the left doesn't understand their own hypocrisy and ignorance.


Speech Transcript:
Ladies, Gentleman, and non-binary members of this congregation:
I would like to thank everyone for coming out today to support the constitutional rule of law, I stand here today, a veteran of these United States armed forces, and a proud 21st century patriot. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about this oppressive regime, and the repressive regime that constitutes capitalism as a whole.

We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with it's unfair salaries, rights it's unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual... The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. This American Nation will always retain its right to control the owners of property... A policy of laissez faire in this sphere is not only cruelty to the individual guiltless victims but also to the nation as a whole.

For there is one thing we must never forget... the majority can never replace the man.

Life is like a mirror, if you frown at it, it frowns back, if you smile it returns the greeting.

Donald Trump seems to think that if you tell a big enough lie, and tell it frequently enough, that it will be believed. It’s not the truth that matters, but victory.

The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.


Trollolol

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Jethreezy #racist reddit.com

For reaons still unbeknownest to me, my original comment regarding social progressives in the other thread triggered you.

Asian people and Asian nations should of course cut out the hate and cooperate more, especially when it comes to goals that are clearly mutually beneficial, such as economic development and overthrowing the vestiges of western imperialism from their collective cultures. If massive multiculturalism and ethnic diversity MUST be forced upon all nations of Asia, would I personally rather the source of said diversity come from other Asian nations over non-Asian nations? Absolutely, without a shred of doubt! But because there are still some non-trivial cultural gaps, not to mention some bad history between various nations, I'm under no illusion that massive immigration and ethnic diversity even within Asian nations themselves will be the next greatest thing since sliced bread. Just as I wouldn't want millions of Koreans flooding into China, I would never wish for millions of Chinese flooding into Korea. And of course the same applies to all nations in Asia. Small scaled immigration to and from are and should of course be encouraged (especially if the outcomes are mutually beneficial for all parties involved), as that allows for successful assimilation into the host nation much more feasible and thus likely.

But okay, I'm still not quite sure if that addressed the source of your contention. Since even now, I still don't know exactly what it was that you were disagreeing with. Why did you maintain the pretense that I was attacking the need for technological and economical progress even after I explicitly made it clear that it was only social progressivism, specifically societal-level ethnic diversity via mass immigration, that I was against? That was quite intellectually dishonest IMO. And instead of engaging me in debate and clarifying your position, your responses degenerated into baseless ad hominems and low-effort comebacks like "Stop trying to act like an intellectual. Nationalists cannot be." FYI, if having a non-binary view of the world, which cannot yet be said of you with remarks like the one above, is enough to make you think I was attempting to be an "intellectual", then that says more about your naivety than whatever it was you were trying to accuse me of.

Now judging by your various responses in the last thread and your original post here, your main complaint seems to be that some of us espouse views that are more commonly associated with the alt-right. Okay sure, that's definitely something we can discuss. The precise political affiliation of our sub has been a frequent topic of debate since its inception over a year ago. But relatively recently, it is my understanding that we've finally come to a consensus on the matter: we don't unconditionally support any western political ideologies, rather we support whatever policy that is good for us, Asians. As such, said policies could potentially come from the left, who call out overt racial discrimination/violence against Asians; the right, who are more in favor of abandoning the current affirmative action system that's artificially capping the enrollment of Asian American students into top universities; BLM, who brings the issue that is white supremacy to the forefront of western societies, and makes sure even the most insular whitey knows of their discontent for such a system; and even gasp the alt-right, who are IMO (and many others it would seem) correct in their assessment that ethnic homogeneity for a nation is a source of strength, because this has been repeatedly demonstrated empirically time and time again throughout history up to the present day. To me, this is quite obvious from a mathematical POV as well: if you consider any given society as a dynamic physical system (which it is), the more ethnically homogeneous or equivalently the less diverse it is, then the less degrees of freedom there are in the system, therefore a lower probability for errors, which in the real world simply means less differences for its citizens to fight over.
As long as you refrain from low-effort accusatory innuendos and baseless ad hominems, then I'm all for open dialogue.

.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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Higgscel & Various TERFs #sexist #transphobia incels.co

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

Over.

I feel like the fight is over. Women have lost.

This morning I learned USA Swimming decided to follow IOC transgender policies for their junior divisions, Scottish government declaring men with penises in women's private areas are no different than women with different bodies like those who had mastectomy, and saw multiple threads of universities low-key changing all single-sex bathrooms into gender neutral bathrooms.

When Trump won the White House, the TV adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was at its height of popularity. A girl friend of mine in Scotland was telling me that our western democratic societies can turn like this overnight. I didn't really agree with her at the time. Trump in the White House was alarming, but I also thought it was liberal fearmongering to think our entire social structure can be torn away and all of women's rights being taken away just like that. Surely this couldn't happen, right? Our systems are well-entrenched and women would rise up and raise hell if something like this ever happen.

3 years later and here we are. The only crazy thing is that it's not the radical conservative right that is bringing forth this dystopian world for women. It's the Woke Left--the very people who fearmongered women about how bad Trump and the Republicans would be for women. What a fking bait and switch! Here we are, I'm watching, flabbergasted, how women's rights are being taken away overnight just like that. Yes indeed, they can just do it. (For the record, this is not a pro-Trump post. But I can't hold it back anymore how utterly beyond shock I am that this vengeance against women is coming from the left. I'm at the point where I feel like the conservative right is actually benign, that's how shell-shocked I am.)

And not only are women not rising up and raising hell. Tons of them--all of them on Wokes--are now fking Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia, crucifying other women for mortal offenses like "misgendering" and gaslighting other women to strip them of their basic instinct to believe their guts when they're feeling vulnerable.

I feel so oppressed and helpless right now. It doesn't matter how loud we all scream to be heard. The powers that be really can just overnight take it all away. This is not a drill.

And they'll continue to oppress us, while scaring us with the same old rhetorics about how our right to choice will be taken away to threaten us to fold to their side. As long as we are blinded to keep our eyes only on the fight against the conservative right to think that's the only threat to us, women won't see what they're doing. Women won't see what's coming. And the younger generations of women will simply be groomed and conditioned to the New World Order.

I literally feel sick. I want off this train.

ETA: changed "single bathroom" to "single-sex bathrooms." And thanks for the silver.

And over.

Men wanting to be seen as cute young girls is infuriating

Signed, a 4"11 woman, hovering around 90lbs, who will never walk into a room and be respected. I'm in my mid-twenties, multiple times a day I get told I look like a child. I'm fetishized constantly, get dirty looks and disgusting comments whenever I'm out with my child, can't go to work without being asked if I'm old enough to serve alcohol. When I ask not to be called cute, or picked up and prodded, I'm told it's a fucking compliment. It's very depressing feeling like I won't be seen as a woman until I'm middle-aged.

At first, I really tried to understand the trans community. I don't feel comfortable in my body either, and in my head I'm 6 feet tall and built like a tank, but seeing grown ass men "child play" is the most disgusting and offensive thing I've ever had the displeasure of discovering.

And over again.

Painting your face and/or nails doesn't change your gender! Makeup is not a gender!

This won't be my most eloquent post here but I'm at my wits' end.

Sorry, I just feel like screaming right now. I work in a job where I could be fired for expressing even the slightest hint that I might be gender critical and it's non-binary day or some other nonsense. I keep seeing all these posters with bearded dudes in neon eyeshadow or young women with short hair and glitter and I just want to scream! Makeup! Isn't! A! Gender!

Where will this regressive nonsense end? I already had to back away from a friendship with a dude who came out as a they/them and immediately started spouting off on how cis women are oppressing him because he sometimes gets questioned by his parents about wearing eyeliner and someone hesitated before holding the door to the women's toilet open for him. A grown man!

I honestly think the nonbinary bullshit is more harmful and regressive than the trans stuff. I could sympathise with trans medicalists to a degree. This just reeks of "not like the other girls" and "I need some oppression points."

I work with people in poverty. I work with people with learning disorders and disabilities who've had their utilities cut off. I help recovering addicts go about getting enough food to live. I see young mums who were forced away from abortions by restrictive communities now struggling with actual starvation and violence at home. I help abused women find a shelter for their pets so their partners can't murder the animal when she tries to escape.

I see actual oppression every damn day. I've been on the breadline. I'm disabled. I know oppression.

You painting your nails and getting "Sir"-ed at the local grocery store isn't oppression. Grow up!

These women will complain about trannies. And no, not cherry picking, these posts are all "top" in their subreddit, in the last week.
Despite probably the same women who pushed for these tranny degeneracy and sexual openness, thanks to their PC nature.
Women invading male spaces? Empowering. Men in skirts invading your bathroom? In my opinion, "Deserving". Get ready for the 2020 Olympics ladies, men in skirts are after your world records.

Anywhoo, doesn't it feel good that both enemies are starting to have a go at one another? Get fucked both of you.

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.

Steven R. #fundie #wingnut #homophobia #transphobia simplychristian.fandom.com

Sermon 15: Voting the Bible

By Bro. Steven R.

“Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.”-Deuteronomy 1:13

In Canada, they just had an election where they essentially re-elected wacky socialist and racist Justin Trudeau. Trudeau did lose some seats to the “conservative” party but just like most Republicans most Canadian “conservatives” are pro-abortion and pro-sodomite “marriage.”

Canada’s got this weird sodomite predator named Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv. Yaniv is an effeminate sodomite who wanted a local business to have a female employee wax his testicles. Closet sodomite Trudeau supports this nonsense. Even effeminate sodomite Blair White got in a spat with Yaniv over this. Yaniv is even more ridiculous than Charles Clymer who decides to call himself “Charlotte” and wear gaudy makeup like Ronald McDonald to earn “woke” points with leftists.

Here in the US, we have an election coming up in 2020 and the Republicans have a sick and demented incumbent president guilty of adultery, child abuse deceit, collusion with a hostile power, cocaine and Adderall and Sudafed abuse, as well as supporting sodomy and pornography and gambling as well as cannabis. The Democratic Party will nominate someone even more liberal who will promote socialized medicine, “non-binary” IDs, tuition free college, a stipend for doing nothing but sitting on your rear end, as well as promoting polygamy and bestiality.

Look, finding a biblically right candidate will be difficult, but it’s possible. There are still a few good Republicans who aren’t sellouts to the liberal RINO agenda promoted by Wicked Donny out there, who actually value life and religious liberty. We don’t need compromises like Ted Cruz or Gregg Abbott (a papist) in Texas. Sure they’re not insane looks like Gavin “free healthcare and orgies for illegal aliens” Newsom, but no compromise isn’t acceptable. The Constitution Party is full of solid biblically sound conservatives. Look at some independent candidates in your area as well! Live your faith and exercise your right to vote even if things seem bleak right now! We can save ourselves from liberal moral decadence, but we need a a revival!

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.

Revbo™ #transphobia godlikeproductions.com

“If very few people are willing to date trans people, what does this mean for their health and well-being? If trans and non-binary people lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support, this could explain some of the existing health disparities within trans communities.”

According to your study, 12.5% of the population is just fine dating a crazy mutilated freak, doc. Considering the crazy mutilated freaks are less than a tenth of one per cent of the population, I'd say their dating options are well beyond anything they could possibly have ever hoped for, and they have assholes like you, who insist that the rest of us are "transphobic," whatever that means, to thank that the number is that high and most likely climbing as you indoctrinate a new generation of children, barely out of the womb, in to your degeneracy.

Bahar Mustafa #racist independent.co.uk

The diversity officer for Goldsmiths University in London is caught up in a racism row that now has students signing a petition for her to be removed from her job.

Bahar Mustafa, the student union’s welfare and diversity officer, received a backlash after she posted a Facebook message about an event which requested that men and white people did not attend a BME Women and non-binary event.

After defending her position in a video, students began the petition asking for her to be removed from the position, while a public change.org petition calling for the same action has received around 1,500 votes.

"There have been charges made against me that I am racist and sexist to white men…" Mustafa said in the video.

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

"We will not be silenced; we are militant. The world is not ready for minorities to challenge the status quo, but resistance to our resistance is futile,” she added.

The union petition reads: "The current welfare and diversity officer has used hate speech based on race and gender," the union petition.

"For example, the consistent use of hashtags such as #killallwhitemen and #misandry, and publicly calling someone 'white trash' under the official GSU Welfare and Diversity Officer Twitter account."

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.

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

The Catholic Church in America, in the 1960s and 1970s, welcomed homosexuals into their ranks, and, enamored by then current psychological theories about the origins of the sin, thought that to comfort and hide the offender was the most charitable policy. Consequently, once the homosexual lobby made entry into the Church and rose in the ranks, over the next decades they diligently sought out and welcomed each other to join seminaries and holy vocations, covered up each others crimes and abominations, and so on. Hence there was a plethora of homosexual activity with young men, some of them underage under the authority of gays in the priesthood and other positions of authority.

The resulting scandal humiliated the Church and continued to be flung in the face of the priesthood and laity as a curse to this day. (It is ironic to note that the proportion of such scandals is far less than found among schoolteachers.) Why homosexual diddling with young and fair-faced boys is a horror and a scandal in the Church, but welcomed and cheered in society at large, and considered a constitutional right it is bigotry to oppose, I leave for someone more able to unwind the labyrinthine convulsions of modern non-binary logic than I to explain.

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.

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.

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.

The Rev. William H. Grimes #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Sermon 22: God is Not the Author of Confusion

By The Rev. William H. Grimes

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

So, with all of this mass media these days, we have a problem. Boys who identify themselves as girls are able to ogle at the girls in the girls' shower in high school. Imagine how the movie "Porky's" would've went if this modern wicked sinful gender ideology was around back then. McDonald's is pumping kids full of growth hormones and this is why there's all of this rampant adolescent perversion! Victoria's Secret outlets are all around this nation, and these barely clothed women are there for kids to see! Yet we wonder why these kids these days don't know what's going on!

If it wasn't for adults meddling into the kids' affairs, they would know with absolute certainty whether they are a boy or a girl. It's quite, simple really! They would know that two mommies and two daddies doesn't make sense because it is unnatural! It is as universal as gravity! You throw a ball, and the ball hits the ground! Real, natural science!

Liberals like to claim that they are true believers in science! Yet they believe in pseudoscientific nonsense like Darwinism, Transgenderism, Veganism, Vegetarianism, Homosexuality, Moral Relativism, and Abortion! THESE ARE ALL STRAIGHT FROM THE PIT OF HELL FROM THE WICKED SATAN! SAY AMEN IN THE HOUSE OF THE LIVING GOD! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MEN ARE WOMEN, WOMEN ARE MEN, LITTLE BILLY HAS TWO DADDIES, LITTLE CLARISSA HAS TWO MOMMIES, DYKES ARE "NON-BINARY," TAYLOR SWIFT IS A GOOD ROLE MODEL, SOCIALISM LEADS TO PROSPERITY, BERNIE SANDERS IS A GOOD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, GRABBING WOMEN'S GENITALS IS PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR, COURTSHIP IS RAPE, FEMINAZISM LEADS TO A HEALTHY BIRTH RATE, MEN WEARING MAKEEUP AND LIP GLOSS AND EYE LINER IS MASCULINE, MCDONALD'S IS FOOD, EPISCOPALIANS ARE CHRISTIANS, DRINKING ALCOHOL AND URINATING OUTSIDE IS ADULT BEHAVIOR, VIDEO GAMES LEAD TO INTELLIGENCE, COLLEGE IS A GOOD INVESTMENT, CREDIT CARDS ARE A SMART FINANCIAL TOOL, ET CETERA ET CETERA ET CETERA! WE ARE ALL CONFUSED AS ALL GET OUT AND WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE HOLY WORD OF GOD TO GET OUT HEADS OUT OF OUR COLLECTIVE POSTERIORS! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET YOUR NOSES OUT OF FIFTY SHADES OF WHATEVER AND BACK INTO THE WORD OF GOD! THIS IS ALL! God's people said AMEN

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”.

Unnamed Black Lives Matter Preschool Teacher Activist #racist theblaze.com

A self-proclaimed preschool teacher grabbed a megaphone and reportedly told a crowd during a protest against Republican President Donald Trump that “we need to start killing people” and “we need to start killing the White House.”

Wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt, the teacher unleashed the F-bomb-laced rant against whites, the White House, presidents, capitalism and police reportedly in Seattle on Saturday night.

“F*** white supremacy, f*** the U.S. empire, f*** your imperialist ass lives. That s**t gotta go,” the teacher said, before adding that white people need to give reparations to “black and indigenous people right now.”

“White people, give your f***ing money, your f***ing house, your f***ing property, we need it f***ing all!” the teacher continued, adding, “Pay the f*** up. Pay the f*** up. It ain’t just your f***ing time, it’s your f***ing money, and now your f***ing life is devoted to social change.”

That was just the warm-up.

“And we need to start killing people,” the teacher soon added. “First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your f***ing White House, your f***ing presidents, they must go! F** the White House!”

The rapt crowd let loose cheers as another protester said: “Burn it!”

Before slamming the crowd for being “fixated” on an over-and-done election, the teacher actually criticized former President Barack Obama, noting he “deported so many f***ing people” and soon added that “capitalism is … f***ing racism.”

The teacher also urged the crowd to “throw that f***ing cop car in the garbage. That s**t has got to go. That s**t has got to go. F*** all that s**t.”

And for the finale, the teacher said “f*** your respectability. F*** you side-eyeing motherf***ers, ’cause I know … in the back of your f***ing head y’all got s***t to dismantle, whether it’s your motherf***ing patriarchy, your motherf***ing anti-blackness, anti-queerness … not recognizing black and brown trans, queer, women and femmes and non-binary people have motherf***ing led the f***ing way. So kiss their motherf***ing feet and give them your f***ing money and walk the f*** away after.”

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.

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.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Womanlet transitions to male and becomes a 4'11 hypermanlet, now is depressed that no woman wants to date her JFL

image

(Flipcel)
OH NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHAHA she literally had everything in the world. Now she's just a fucking manlet not even 1/10 fems will accept. But hey, height don't matter right IT? It's probably because she's a misogynist that's why she's an inkcyl JFL Christ why didn't 'he' just lesbianmax in the first place.

(Ononox)
Lol when women transition to men they probably imagine they will be these bad boy Chads strong, masculine and hot. Turns out they just become ugly bald manlets with weak frames for the most part. It must be brutal though.

(Kalsbsk76)
They experience the blackpill first hand. Fantastic. I bet she transitioned back to female after swallowing the blackpill, easy life again.

(JucheforWhitePeople)
To top things off, they'll also have feminists (including MtF trannies) telling them that they have male privilege.

(justforlulzandkeks)
HAHAHAHAH

i absolutely adore the irony in woke leftists eating and contradicting themselves, it's legit hilarious to watch

(ICQME)
Looks will get you dates and personality will help keep them. Trans-men usually act too passive and submissive when dating or they put on a hyper masc front which just comes off as being an insecure jerk. Trans men lack the masculine energy most women want even if they look decently masculine enough to play the role. IT'S OVER FOR TRANSMASC'CELS

What's funny is the incel site incelistan(lgbt incels) is dominated by FTM trannys.

Not surprised. They don't realize the extent of female privledge until it's too late. Women often believe the life of men is ease and privledge in both dating and professional worlds simply because they're men. Some females do realize their privledge and will never admit it which is why most afab 'trans' will do the non-binary/gender fluid/they-them thing.

(imadethistoshitpostt)
Transmen have to be incel's greatest allies.

I can't even imagine going from occasionally having guys ask you out to invisible man mode, zero interest no matter how hard you try for the rest of your life.

(justforlulzandkeks)

It's no wonder 99% of trannies are male to female, because they realized women live life on tutorial mode.

lmao, 99% of trannies are autistic males that will never pass as a female, so much for their tutorial mode

(EATravelGuy)
The fact is the majority, if I am not mistaken over 80%, of transgenders are male to female. It's a hyperbole but we could say society knows how screwed it is to be a male and consequently fewer are opting to become one.

Also most female to male transitions still look noticeably female (short hair doesn't turn you into a dude) and most women aren't lesbians.

(flamethrowup)
Wow, even a former woman has to admit the blackpill when forced to experience it firsthand. Reminds me of that woman who transitioned to a black man and found himself suddenly being harassed by cops—both this and OP are such obviously bad ideas that there's no rational justification for them. It's almost hilarious they thought doing this would make them happier.

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.

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.

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.

Steven R. #fundie simplychristian.referata.com

Sermon 1:Episcopagans and Gender
By Bro. Steven R.
"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 10:33
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."-Matthew 6:9-13
Welcome to my new site! Let's talk about what the Episcopagans did during their general convention.
Apparently God doesn't have a gender anymore, despite God being quite clearly described using masculine terms in the Inspired KJV! Even in the Episcopagans own liberal NRSV God isn't an effeminate sissy! They want to turn Our Father into Our Parent or Guardian! They also want to make up more pronouns! Instead of Himself, they use Godself! How retarded are they?! Did these bishops ride the short bus to the general convention coming up with such malarkey?! Wicked!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is coming from the same geniuses who decided that it's appropriate for 6'4 men in drag to use the same bathroom as little Susie and her granny! How ridiculous! Apparently they're going to remove masculine gender terms from their prayer books! What's next, gender neutral Bibles?! Wait, I shouldn't give them any more idiotic ideas! Did Jesus have a pseudo vagina made from male genital mutilation like Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning and Michael Soetoro and Daniel Roem?! Was ze "non-binary" or something else totally made up in liberal candy land?!
I really am lost for words! How do these morons have the nerve and gall to even call themselves Christians when they deny even that Jesus was a MAN?! Maybe they need to have an intellectually honest moment and join the pagans in the Unitarian Universalist group!

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.

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.

Wil Adams #sexist youtube.com

I don't understand why you don't seem to see that Hollywood is no longer making films for men. They are making them for beta males and women. Their research has shown them that women are now the largest demographic, and producers Kathleen Kennedy and JJ Abrams, and Josh Wedon along with James Cameron have all bought into the STEM idea--you know, the one that says if men are removed as obstacles more women will become engineers and microbiologists et al? The problem is that is a myth, as we now see, but Hollywood is a bit behind the curve. They are taking franchises that they know men want to see, and using that to lure in the men, and then destroying the classic Hero's Journey by just GIVING all the power and control to women--ala Rey. Fear not, because this is failing, and that is why you are starting to see tweaks to the story, and before long you will see films like: Star Wars: Queen of Naboo. There will be dialogue like this: Queen, "Mata, I don't want you to go, Naboo needs you.' Looking look into the eyes. "I need you." Mata: "Your Highness, I must go, if Naboo is to be safe, if you are to live, I must go.: Looks away. "I want to take you now, to hold you, and kiss you deeply." Looks back. "But I can't." "Why, Mata, please, tell me why leaving is necessary." Moves up behind, and the arms encircle Mata. "You know I only want to keep you because I love you." Yep, we are looking at the non-binary Star Wars: The Harlequin Romance.

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.

Steven R. #fundie simplychristian.referata.com

Sermon 2: Butch Hartman and the Gospel
By Bro. Steven R.
Proverbs 12:22: "Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight."
OAXIS Entertainment is an upcoming streaming service created by former Nickelodeon content creator Butch Hartman, famous for creating such television shows as The Fairly Oddparents and Danny Phantom. Hartman claims that his new channel will have the Gospel of Christ in it, much like it's been woven into these Nickelodeon programs.

If that's the case, then there's going to be a gospel that isn't the true Jesus Christ found in the Bible! How is promiscuity and violence and sorcery and necromancy and magic and other such treacherous wickedness Christlike?! WICKED AND CORRUPT IS WHAT THIS IS! WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT OUT THERE TO CORRUPT THE MINDS OF KIDS AND GET THEM OUT OF CHURCH AND SUNDAY SCHOOL! CAN I GET AN AMEN?!
What exactly is this charlatan selling? His Kickstarter is full of vague promises for godly and family friendly programming. I've seen his past works, and they're no good! If Butch has truly turned over a new leaf and gotten saved through the blood of the Lamb, show some fruits and tell us your plans to spread the Gospel! Nickelodeon and Disney and Cartoon Network are part of the LGBT Lobby these days! Gay couples kissing, rainbow flags, and a "non-binary" character on one of these shows! They're winning the culture war because we're letting Episcopagans and Evangopagan Lutherans and Unitarians Considering Christ and United Sodomitist Church and these other wicked apostate churches sell LGBT Lobby talking points and call it Christianity! These "churches" will NEVER talk about Leviticus 20:10 or 1 Corinthians 6:9!!!!
We have a REAL need for godly and family friendly programming, but unless he shows intentions otherwise, Butch and OAXIS is NOT what Christians who actually follow the Bible and go to an IFB church like Christ commanded are looking for!!!!

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.

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).”

Sarah Stites #fundie mrc.org

[On article "Ultra-Lib Lizz Winstead ‘Will Not Cower’ to CMP’s ‘Thuggish Fetus Pornographers’"]

Cosmo loves to highlight women like The Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead: sex-obsessed, profane, offensive and unabashedly pro-abortion.

In an article published July 30, the women’s magazine lauded Winstead for potentially sacrificing her career in order to be a “USO of reproductive rights, visiting clinics and boosting the morale of the ‘troops.’” After all, her “vocal advocacy for reproductive rights can make it more difficult to get mainstream work.” Yes, you read that correctly.

Winstead—who grew up in a conservative, Catholic family—has been an avid abortion advocate ever since she had her own teenage pregnancy terminated. But just last year, she created an organization called Lady Parts Justice in order to support abortion workers throughout the U.S. Her “mobile justice unit” travels to many states, replete with food, microphones, cameras and even a singing plush pink uterus puppet named Eunice. I didn’t make that up.

It gets worse. After its creation in 2014, “the group faced immediate backlash from activists who argued that the organization's name and barrage of uterus jokes was transphobic and non-intersectional, or even simply too crass to play well in more conservative states.” Yep, you read that right, too.

In a Slate article, concerned transgender activist Parker Molloy responded that “Lady Parts” was an inappropriate moniker for the group. “Not all women are the owners of a uterus, and not all owners of a uterus are women,” Molloy corrected. “A person should not be defined by what reproductive organs they have or don’t have.” Gosh, being as progressive as she is, how did Winstead ever get away with that transphobic, bigoted, non-intersectional move? She might as well have named the group “Cis-Parts Justice!”

“As for being ‘crass,’ she has no problem with that reputation,” the Cosmo article read. Then, quoting Winstead: “I'm not afraid to say things crassly and in a 'f*ck you' manner, because sometimes this just needs to be said. Sometimes you just need to say, 'This f*cking sucks and it's f*cking outrageous and it's got to stop.” What a gem. Take out those f-bombs, and I wish she’d say that to Planned Parenthood.

But that won’t happen. Throughout the recent scandal, Winstead has tweeted repeatedly #IStandWithAbortionCareProviders.

Moreover, she has continued to inject her crassness into tweets attacking the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, the date CMP released the third Planned Parenthood video, Winstead tweeted: “I simply will not cower to these thuggish fetus pornographers.”

Other tweets called CMP an “illegal and immoral outfit” and its videos “amateur propaganda.”

And yes, this is the kind of woman that Cosmo likes to highlight.

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.

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.

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.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: FTM blackpill

(balkancel)
I'm a mentalcel so I do sympathize with her. Or him.

Imagine having this realization, that you just lost all your privilege and your life is going to become irreversible hell as an ugly manlet. Her fault and her choice fully. Yet I can't not feel bad.

The most ironic/saddest thing is, if the blackpill wasn't so controversial with brainlet normies and she was familiar with it, this could've been prevented.

Basically picture being a Chad since birth and one day waking up as yourself, your present incel self. Fucking brutal.

(Coldheartedincel)
This is why there are way more MTF trannies than FTM ones. Most foids would never want to experience the hardships of a man while many men want to experience the much easier life of a woman.

(moneysubber)
Exactly. Assuming all humans have the capacity to tolerate a certain level of hardship why do people think the vast majority transitions are male to female?

It's because many men cannot tolerate the natural level of hardship thrust upon them whereas women can. Why? Because they are by default on easy mode

(kaisercel)

wtf is fun about larping as a man? Took t shots too, dry bagina here we come

FtM trannies genuinely think that men are extremely privileged, so they transition thinking that they'll 'become privileged', but in reality, all they become is depressed.

They're too stupid to realise that they have it easy, not us

Oh absolutely, they're the aristocracy complaining that the peasants have too much grain.

(Mgtow_troaway)
FTM rates are the actual trans rates in the population, that's roughly how many MTF there should be. The reason there's so many more MTF is because a bunch of non-dysphoric incels are tryna see if they can switch life to tutorial mode

If tech ever advances to make gendermorphing flawless, there'll be like 8 guys left, each with their own harem nation

(JFLmaxx)
Last sentence is supreme unintentional blackpill truth.

How many nanoseconds before a woman manipulated the truth to benefit women and trannies and continue to gaslight men with blame?

(texanapocalypse33)
I knew an ftm a few years ago. 6 months after surgery and successfully passing, s/he got their first false rape accusation. If he wasn't rich, he'd be the only vagina in a male prison right now and you can guess how that would've turned out. Last I heard he went back to being adrogynous female appearing so as to avoid being treated like a man by strangers

(Concerned-father2)
My sister in law transitioned to a top lesbian (as opposed to bottom). One year later, she was blackpilled as F. Made a meme about how women were all the same on tinder, posted a couple of tweets about how basic women were and basically came off as a redpilled/blackpilled misogynist bastard. Got severely depressed and told me she felt like killing herself from time to time, that life as a man is hell compared to a woman.

(UnjustLiving)
ROPE OR COPE BRAH, i swear more of these degenerates who call us scum and such should go through test. therapy and see how living as a man is like playing the game on hardmode, not only do we have to provide for ourselves but we have to be sustainable, we have to persevere through any fucking object, and while being hated by society, being sub 5 male is truly one of the hardest things in life with the exception of living in a 3rd world country but as far as 1st world goes it's being a male.

(jonarbuckleup)
No wonder so many guys want to become girls in hope of being treated like human beings for once.

Throwaway017092 #transphobia reddit.com

I am tired of every sub glorifying trans people. It is a treatment to help a serious mental disorder, and a poor one at that. I have full support for most of the LGBT community, but I am struggling to justify the praise being trans gets. They are people, and being trans is wrong anyway.

Many trans people regret it after a while realising it’s a phase, and many only do this in the first place due to abuse, which is being hidden by ridiculous support for trans people. Becoming trans is not fixing your dysphoria, same as handing a suicidal person a rope because it’s “what they want” doesn’t fix the problem.

I would not label my self as transphobic (if we go with phobic in this case meaning hatred for). I see them as people, but I still question them. It is wrong. Think about it for a second. Chopping your penis off for a semi-functioning fake vagina. That is not normal. I understand why people do this, but this is not the way to fix not feeling comfortable in your body.

Sorry if this is incoherent, repetitive, or lacking correct terminology. I am just tired of glorifying something that isn’t safe or normal.

Racheli Reckles #fundie breslev.co.il

Recently I read an interesting article titled, America Has Shifted to the Left and the Culture War is Over. It made a great point of showing how conservatism is dying away and quickly being replaced by the younger, more progressive and liberal-minded generations. What is the problem with this? Well, if you're a traditionalist at heart, meaning you still treasure old-fashioned morals such as getting married and raising a family with wholesome values, then you're in the ever-shrinking minority. If you want your children to be raised with a strong sense of respect and what's right and wrong, you're in the minority. If you think that kids need a mom and a dad that are married and live in the same house in order to be raised properly, you're in the minority.

[...]

Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana. This one particularly upsets me- what's left of the "say no to drugs" speech we're supposed to give our kids? It wasn't difficult for a kid to get his hands on marijuana if he wanted to, but now we're telling him, "Here you go, son, take a hit before you cram for that calculus exam tomorrow." Seriously. And furthermore, how is a kid supposed to understand the difference between pot and cocaine? If they're both drugs, what makes one okay and the other off-limits? I strongly believe that marijuana is the gateway to heavier drug use- if a kid is going to experiment with this drug, what's going to stop him from trying ecstasy or acid? It's completely messed up!

[...]

Usually the Jewish people are protected from such catastrophe [Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Irene]. But this time it seems like the Jewish people were particularly targeted for destruction- communities with high Jewish populations were devastated by the storm. The question is- why?

Rabbi [Zecharia] Wallerstein makes the connection between the legalization of gay marriage and the Frankenstorm. One year ago, exactly a week before Hurricane Irene hit New York, gay marriage was legalized. This year, exactly one week before Hurricane Sandy, there was a motion to overturn gay marriage, and it was denied. The problem is not only that it was legalized- the problem was that not one Jew demonstrated against it. No Rabbis, no congregations made any demonstrations. Not one Jew took a stand to defend his Torah, the value system given to us by Hashem Himself, and said, "I don't support gay marriage." People are terrified of being ostracized, of not having public approval. They're afraid they might get fired or lose a few friends. But are they terrified of what Hashem thinks of them? Do they care that they're accepting the values of a depraved, spiritually (and materially) corrupt nation over their own Judaism? Do they even identify as Jews anymore? Where in the Torah does it say that gay marriage is okay?

[...]

The problem [...] is not about being gay. If you want to be gay, that's your choice, and you will have to deal with the spiritual consequences one day. The problem is that now, gay marriage is viewed as equal to marriage between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is now viewed as sanctity, a holy act between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This is disgusting in Hashem's eyes. How dare people raise sodomy to the same level and holiness as marital relations.

[...]

I'm screaming, because it hurts. It hurts me to see what assimilation has done to our people. It hurts me to see how we have traded in our holiness, our royalty, for cheap thrills. It hurts me to see how most Jews don't want to come back home, to Your beloved Israel- the land You set aside as their inheritance. It hurts to see how they would prefer to live among the goyim and continue to adopt their culture and lifestyle instead of living how You want us to live. It hurts me to no end that sweet, innocent children will be taught that a man marrying a man is the same as a man marrying a woman. It's like giving them a choice that they should never get. But do You know what hurts me the most, Hashem? That I have to witness the next generation of Jews not even be given a chance to live by Your Torah. Most Jews don't live in homes that put their religion first. They go to pseudo-Jewish schools and once they're home, the Judaism is forgotten about. And those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones go to public schools and never, ever get a taste of what it means to be Jewish for their entire lives.

Hashem, it hurts. It really, really hurts.

Parents, take an objective look at the environment your kids are growing up in. Where do you see your kids 5, 10, 15 years from now? What is the likelihood that your children will continue to be Jewish? What is the likelihood that your daughters won't tell you they're pregnant when they're 16? What spiritual glue is going to keep your kids and their spouses together when the going gets tough?

Sen. Elbert Guillory #fundie huffingtonpost.com

A Louisiana state senator recently offered a puzzling rationale for why schools in the state should be allowed to teach creationism.

Last month, Louisiana lawmakers considered a measure to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act, a 2008 law that critics have characterized as a way of giving teachers latitude to introduce creationism and other unscientific theories into state classrooms.

In an April 22 hearing, state Sen. Elbert Guillory (R) made it clear that he would vote against the measure, SB 74. In footage uploaded to YouTube last week, he can be seen using a bizarre tactic to support his argument -- namely, citing a nonexistent version of history where scientific truth reigned supreme and dissent invited brutal consequences.

“There was a time, sir, when scientists thought that the world was flat. And if you get to the end of it, you’d fall off," Guillory said. "There was another time when scientists thought that the sun revolved around the world. And they always thought to ensure that anyone who disagreed with their science was a heretic. People were burned for not believing that the world was flat. People were really badly treated."

...

SB 74 did indeed eventually fail, likely preserving the LSEA for at least another year.

Guillory has attracted criticism in the past for strange defenses of what should and shouldn't be taught in science class. A few years back, he appeared to express concern that repealing the LSEA would mean that the teachings of a witch doctor he had met -- a man who “wore no shoes, was semi-clothed, [and] used a lot of bones that he threw around” -- would be off-limits.

Efforts to repeal the LSEA have failed five years in a row, with no legislation even making it out of the state Senate Committee on Education, despite support from 78 Nobel laureates. In light of that, Kopplin told The Huffington Post that he's no longer fazed by comments like Guillory's.

"In 2013, Senator Guillory insisted on keeping creationism in science class because of an experience he had with a witch doctor," Kopplin wrote in an email to HuffPost on Monday. "It's no surprise that he has a strong disrespect for historical fact either."

Brandon #conspiracy zioncrimefactory.com

image
This is what awaits us in the Jewish New World Order, beware!

The Jew World Order Unmasked

THE RULE OF the Talmudic Jew in modern times is nearly one of an absolute monarch of a country. The Jews, through their complete domination of world finance and banking — through their malignant monopoly of the mass media of America, Britain, France, Canada and other Western powers — through their influential and vast network of subversive “lobby groups” — through their dominion over the courts and law profession in general — not to mention their pernicious presence inside the highest levels of government of the most powerful countries — have thus taken full control of the entire planet, as was foretold in ancient Jewish religious texts.

Jewish power is supremely epitomized by the fact that criticism of Christianity, Islam, or any other major religion or ethnic group is fully permissible in our societies, but criticism of Jews and Judaism, on the other hand, is taboo, off-limits as well as socially and politically dangerous. As the saying goes, if you want to know where the power lies ask whom you cannot criticize.

It’s quite interesting to note that the researchers of the “New World Order” who endeavor to deflect attention away from the Jews — such as Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, Alan Watt, Mark Dice, etc — are not silenced or suppressed, but in fact promoted by the Jewish controlled press. These purported critics of the New World Order and Illuminati who employ vague terms like “elites”/”globalists”/”the establishment”/”the military industrial complex”, and who regularly invoke a confusing deluge of elusive entities and kosher poltergeists (everything from Satanists, Occultists, Freemasons, Jesuits, Nazis, Fascists, Knights Templar, WASPs, British Royalists, Reptilians, Space Aliens, etc) are free to promote their theories and ideas on radio, television, the internet and in books, uninhibited. Their radio shows are not being cancelled, their books are not being taken off the shelves or blocked from publication, their videos are not being censored or expunged from video sharing websites, their websites and blogs are not being shut down on a whim, they are not being fined or thrown in prison for “hate speech.” On the contrary, we can find these kosher clowns being highlighted on mainstream Jewish propaganda television networks, like the History Channel, and making appearances on MSM talk shows, like The View. Critics of Jewish power, Zionism and the Jewish criminal network couldn’t even dream of achieving that level of notoriety. I wonder why?

Freemasons are often talked about by these people, but what they deliberately conceal from their audiences is the fact that the masons are subordinate and beholden to the Jews, which is admitted in the masons’ own books. On page 249 of “Duncan’s Ritual and Monitor” it states that Masonry is subservient to Judaism, noting that a recipient of the Royal Arch Degree pledges himself “For the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jewish nation in particular.” The undeniable fact that Freemasonry itself is based on the rites and rituals of the Jewish religion and the mysticism of the Jewish Cabala, is also purposefully glossed over by these deceivers.

Anonymous Coward #fundie godlikeproductions.com

The Real Reason the Flat Earth Truth Receives Vehement Hate

Without their spherical Earth indoctrination, their beloved theory of evolution is torn to shreds.

The powers that be hate the truth so much because the truth of course sets us all free from their control over our thoughts and beliefs.

One must wonder why the Flat Earth is so viciously attacked; possibly the most ridiculed truth there is.

Before throwing your regurgitated childish insults at me, please consider the following and tell me then how the Earth is a globe.

Polaris, the pole star, is the brightest star in the sky and always stays in the same spot. Upon google searching "Polaris star trails", it becomes clear that ALL OTHER STARS orbit around this northern pole star.

How is this possible if the Earth is hurdling through space at an inconceivably fast speed?

How is it possible that we observe the SAME STARS in the same constellations in our sky year after year after year?

Nearly every nation on Earth signed a treaty to make Antarctica off-limits to unwarranted research and expeditions. What exactly are they hiding? The fact that Anatarctica is the circular border of the Earth. Ever see The Truman Show? Yeah, this is the place where the employees of the show were so desperately trying to keep Truman away from. Sound familiar?

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Matthew 4:8

How could Satan show Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world on a globe?...

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Genesis 1:6

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?" Job 37:18

The dome above Earth is constructed of glass by God himself.

"Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens." Psalms 148:4

"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God." Revelation 15:2

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." Psalms 93:1

The Earth does not move. It is completely stationary. The big lie is that the Sun is the center of our reality, when in fact it is the Earth that is the center of all that is.

Let the anti-Christian scoffing commence. :)

Bill P #fundie unz.com

It is pretty pathetic. And total bullshit. Charlie Hebdo jokes about death in such a way to demonstrate that its staff has next to no respect for human life. Does one “celebrate life” by drawing cartoons making sport of innocent people’s death?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I’d stop short of saying the cartoonists deserved to be gunned down by Muslim fanatics, but I have infinitely more sympathy for the cops who lost their lives protecting the degenerates than for the targets themselves.

BTW, if one really wants to be brave as a cartoonist in the US, try drawing a cartoon ridiculing Martin Luther King Jr. I don’t even know whether there’s an equivalent off-limits religious figure in France. In the US, MLK is Jesus, Muhammed and all the Christian saints and Hebrew prophets put together. It’s our bona-fide state religion, and I’ve never heard a public figure ever speak of him in anything but the most reverent tones.

thewatcherfiles #conspiracy #racist thewatcherfiles.com

The History of Jewish Human Sacrifice
By
Willie Martin

At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people are know to the world as Jews. Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews "a fossil people."

In so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood). As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of example of ritual murder by the Jews are cited in official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all the European nations.

It is the official historian of the Jews, (Josef Kastein, in his History of the Jews, who gives the underlying reason for this barbaric custom. On page 173, he says, "According to the primeval Jewish view, the blood was the seat of the soul."

Thus it was not the heart which was the seat of the soul, according to the stone-age Jews, but the blood itself. They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities. Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history.

Jewish Murder Plan Against White Christians Exposed

The Murderous People: The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over, and for good reason. Anyone who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely see the Jews as "a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses," is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation which has been raised against the jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people of Satan. (John 8:44)

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing White Christian Children (and sometimes blacks to keep them under control - and if necessary they will run black children down in the streets with automobiles to show the blacks their power, and that the blacks had better mind their manners or the same will happen again and again. We all witnessed this a few years ago in New York city when the car of Rabbi Shneerson ran over a black child. And as usual the Jews bought off the blacks who were inciting the mobs against them; if they had been unsuccessful in this they would have had the blacks who dared not be controlled murdered) and at time White Christian adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleaven bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against non-Jews. This systematic murder has a special name, it is called,

Ritual Murder

The knowledge of Jewish ritual murder is thousands of years old. It is as old as the Jews themselves. Non-Jews have passed the knowledge of it from generation to generation, and it has been passed down to us thorough writings. It is known of throughout the nation. Knowledge of ritual murder can be found in even the most secluded rural villages. The grand-father told his grand children, who passed it on to his children, and his children's children, until we have inherited the knowledge today from them.

It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is loudly raised immediately, anywhere in te world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. This accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of nations, tribes, and races live on this earth, but no one ever thought to accuse them of the planned murdering of children, or to call them murderers. All nations have hurled this accusation only against the Jews.

And many great men have raised such an accusation. Martin Luther wrote in his book "Of The Jews And Their Lies:"

"They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children...The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: ? Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning..."


"He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots." (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249)

The Struggle of Der Sturmer: The only newspaper in Germany, yes, in the entire world, which often screamed the accusation of ritual murder into the Jewish face, was Der Sturmer. For more than ten yeas Der Sturmer led a gigantic battle against Judaism. Which caused Der Sturmer to be under constant attack by the Jews. Dozens of times it has been confiscated and prohibited.

Its workers, most of all its editor Julius Streicher, were dragged into court hundreds of times. They were convicted, punished and locked into prison. Der Sturmer came to know the Jew from the confession which Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft:

"One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish."

The Der Sturmer was not stopped for several years. Just in Nuremberg alone there have been fought dozens of Talmudic and ritual murder cases in the courts. (Now you know why the Nuremberg trials were held against the German Military leaders, it was retribution by the Jews on their hated enemies the Germans). Because of the Jewish protests the attention of the world was focused on these cases. Thereafter heavy convictions followed. At first no judge had the courage to expose the Jewish problem. Finally in 1932 (court case lasting from October 30th to November 4th) Der Sturmer won its first victory. The jury found the following:

1). Der Sturmer was not fighting against the Jewish religion; but against the Jewish people.
2). The Talmud and Schulchan aruch are not religious books. They have no right to be protected under the religious paragraphs.
3). The laws of the Talmud which are quoted and published in Der Sturmer are exact quotations from the Talmud.
4). The laws of the Talmud are in harsh contradiction to German morals.
5). The Jews of today are being taught from the Talmud.

With this verdict Der Sturmer brought about the first big breach in the Jewish/Roman Administration of Justice, which was given the job before the National Socialist revolution to protect Judaism and its government. The jews, of course, became greatly agitated about this. But for De Sturmer this success was an omen of the victory yet to come. Of course, Der Sturmer did not stop half way. It knew what had to be done. It was their duty, or so they believed. To frustrate the gigantic murder plot of Judaism against humanity. It was their duty! To brand this nation before the world, to uncover its crimes and to render it harmless. It was their duty! To free the world from this national pest and parasitic race. Der Sturmer would fulfill its mission. It would, for a time, light up the darkness with the truth which shall eventually rule the world. And it would always direct itself according to the following proverb: "He who knows the truth and does not speak it truly is a miserable creature."

The Laws of The Talmud: If one wishes to learn and understand why the Jews can commit such insane crimes as ritual murder, they must know the Jewish secrets. They must know the teachings of the Torah (The Talmud), and the Schulchan aruch. These laws and teachings are proof that the Jews feel themselves superior to all nations, that it has declared war on all other races, and that it is the sworn enemy of the whole of non-Jewish humanity. Even Tactius, the Roman historian who lived shortly after Christ (55-120) A.D.) wrote:

"The Jews are a race that hate the gods and mankind. Their laws are in opposition to those of all mortals. They despise what to us is holy. Their laws condone them in committing acts which horrify us." (Historian V. 3-8)

The Jew knows that when the non-Jewish world knows his laws and sees through his plans that he is lost. Therefore, by threat of death he forbids their translation and publication. A well known Jewish scholar (Dibre David) writes:

"If the Gentiles (non-Jews) knew what we are teaching against them, they would kill us."

The Jewish secret laws are based on the fundamental principle which states: Only the Jew is human. In contrast all non-Jews are animals, they are beasts in human form. Anything is permitted against them. The Jew may lie to, cheat and steal from them. He may rape and murder them. There are hundreds of passages in the Talmud which the non-jews are described as animals. Some of them are as follows:


1). "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)

2). "The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum." (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22
30)

3). "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an
animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)

4). "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." (Coschen Hamischpat 405)

5). "The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs." (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)

6). "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." (Schene
Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)

So that the Jew will never forget that he is dealing with animals, he is reminded by eating, by death, and even by sexual intercourse constantly. For The Talmud teaches:

1). "If you eat with a non-Jew, it is the same as eating with a dog." (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

2). "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant of maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell to the Jew:
?God will replace ?your loss,' just as if one of his oxen or asses had died." (Jore Dea 377, 1)

3). "Sexual intercoms between non-Jews is like intercourse between animals." (Sanhedrin 74b)

It is written in the Talmud about the murder of the non-Jew:

1). "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew." (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)

2). "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud - Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud)." (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)

3). "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)

These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were back then. This is how the Jews are taught from childhood. The results of this stands before us. It is Jewish Ritual Murder.

The Jews' Bloody History: The Jew is not only the murderer of the Christians in theory. His history proves that he practices what he preaches. The history of the Jewish people is an unbroken chain of mass murders and blood-baths. It started before Christ and has continued with Linen, Trotsky, Sinowjeff, Stalin and etc., up to today:

1). The extreme to which the Jews will go was shown in Persia where the Jew Mordecai and the Jewess Esther had 75,800 Persians murdered. They hanged the Persian King Xerxes' minister Haman along with his ten sons. They celebrated this bloody victory and to this day still celebrate it during the Feast of Purim. (Book of Esther 9:6)

After Christ in the years 115-117, on the island of Cyrene, the Jews revolted under their leader Bar Kochba. They murdered 220,000 Romans, sawed and chopped them, drank their blood, and ate their bloody raw flesh. (Dio Cassius: Roemische Jeschichte XVIII, 32)

The Jews revolted in Russia in 1917 and established bolshevism under the leadership of Trotsky, Sinojeff and other Jews, a total of 35 million Christians were shot, slayed, tortured, and starved to death. In Hungary, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Jew Bela Kuhn, a horrible massacre was prepared in which tens of thousands of Christians were murdered.

"'The Jewish Establishment": 'In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers. How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would that paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades later? There you have an epitome of what is lamely called 'media bias.' The Western supporters of Stalin haven't just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call 'the McCarthy era,' to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself. Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as 'anti-Semitism.' But there isn't even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America. It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately." (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue)

In Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Russia mass murders are even now (1997) are being carried out. The executioners are mostly Jewish men and women. In inventing new methods of torture the Jews are past masters. To let Christians die under torture give them the greatest pleasure. English reporters write that the Chinese executioners frequently would not carry out their tortures and executions; they shouldered and could not continue. Therefore, Jews and Jewesses took their place.

"The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.

"Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.

"Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: 'The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.'" (Defender Magazine, October 1933)

The history of the Jews is written in the blood of Christians.

"Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews' Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet." (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Judah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: 'It was a Jew who said, 'Wars are the Jews' harvest'; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.' The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180)

The history of the Jews is written with Christian blood. Their history proves that the Jew is extremely cruel and at the same time a coward. The Jew is not a born soldier; he is a born sadist and murderer. (John 8:44)

The Law of Human Sacrifice: For a long time the newspaper Der Sturmer endeavored to find the actual law of ritual murder, the law of human sacrifice. It finally succeeded in doing so. In a trial in which Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were being tried (because of "offending the Jewish Religious Society") it was proposed that they call as witness Dr. Erich Bischoff. Dr. Bischoff appeared.


He was the leading German expert on the laws of the Talmud. He had dedicated his entire life to the study of the Jewish law books. Dr. Bischoff brought with him a translation of a secret Jewish law, which clarified with one stroke the question of ritual murder. It comes from the book of Sohar. This book is considered to be holy by the Jews.


"You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel for certain is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred...We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow...We who have posed as the saviors of the world...We are nothing but the world' seducers, it's destroyers, it's incinderaries, it's executioners...we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in leading you to a new hell...There has been no progress, least of all moral progress...and it is our morality which prohibits all progress, and what is worse -- it stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours...I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness: I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness..." The eastern Jews especially conform to its laws. In the book of Sohar (a companion of the Talmud). The English translation related:

"Further there is a Law concerning the slaughter of foreigners, who are the same as beasts. This slaughter is to be carried out in a lawfully valid manner. The ones who do not follow the Jewish Religious Law have to be offered to God as a sacrifice. It is to them that Psalm 44:22 refers: ?Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter." (Thikunne Sohar, edition Berdiwetsch 88b)

Dr. Erich Bischoff declared himself ready to offer an opinion on this expressed law of ritual murder. However he was rejected. He was not admitted by the court for "fear of bias."


The Catholic priest Dr. Gottsberger took his place. The defendants handed him the above mentioned law in Hebrew and German. Dr. Gottsberger was embarrassed and confused.

After a long consideration he stated that he would not be able to deliver an opinion on the law of human sacrifice. Due to this Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were sentenced to several months imprisonment. Later on, however, Dr. Bischoff (in the trial of 30th October - 4th November 1931) established the correct translation of this law.

This translation and publication of the law of human sacrifice is the greatest blow ever struck the Jews in this controversy. This Law commands the Jews to Butcher Christians and non-Jews. This is to be done in a "Lawful Valid Way." This means that Christians are to be sacrificed in the same way as animals. They are to be sacrificed to the Jewish God Baal (Lucifer, Devil, Satan). Therefore, we are dealing with a law which doesn't only permit the practice of Ritual Murder. But commands it.

Jewish Confessions: A further and irrefutable proof of the existence of Jewish Ritual Murder are the numerous Jewish confessions. They come from trials, voluntary statements and from confessions by former rabbis. The confessions were made in two court cases. One of them took place in Trent in 1475, and the other one in Damascus in the years 1840 - 1842.

The voluntary statement was made by the young Jewess Ben Noud who made it to the French Count Durfort-Civrac. The confessions were made by the following rabbis who truly converted to Christianity: Drach and Goschler, Fra Sifto of Siena, Paolo Medici, Giovanni da Feltre and by the former chief rabbi Neofito, who later changed his name to Teofito and became a monk. These men more or less confirmed the existence of Ritual Murder. In 1803 the former rabbi Neofito published a sensational book in the Moldavian language. In it he gives details about the terrible Jewish secret of the blood mystery. This book was translated in 1843 into Greek and later in 1883 into Italian, under the title "Il sangue cristiano nei riti ebraici della moderna Sinagoga," causing the Jews to become very excited the world over.

On page 19 of this work the Jew Teofito confesses how he was initiated into the knowledge of Ritual Murder. And how the Jews for thousands of years have concealed it from the Christian and non-Jewish world. Teofito writes:

"This secret of the blood is not know to all the Jews, but only to the Chakam (doctors) or the rabbis and the scholars, who therefore carry the title ?Conservatori del mistero del sangue' (Conservators of the mystery of blood!). They pass it on by word of mouth to the Jewish fathers. They in turn reveal it to their sons who regard this as a great honor. At the same time they make terrible threats of punishment if one of them betrays this secret...


"And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hope of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us Christians as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther. O how they love that book Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope!When I was 13 years old, recalls Teofito; mother took me aside, led me into a room, where nobody could listen and after he described to me the hatred of Christians, he taught me that God ordered the Christians to be slaughtered and to collect their blood...'My son,' he said (as he kissed me): ?With this confession I have placed my trust in you.' With these words he put a crown on my head and explained to me the Blood Secret, adding that Jehovah had revealed it to the Jews and commanded them to practice it ...I was in the future, possessor of the most important secret of the Jewish religion...

"Thereafter followed the curses and threats of punishment if I should ever reveal this secret to anyone, neither my mother nor my sister nor brothers or future wife; but only to one of my future sons who was the most wise, eager, and most suitable. In this way the secret shall be inherited from father to son until the farthest descendant."

This is a part of the monk and former Chief Rabbi Teofito's confession. From other confessions and admissions there is a remarkable agreement on the following points:

1). The laws demand the Jews to butcher non-Jews from time to time. (The Laws of The Talmud and the Law of Human Sacrifice)

2). The sacrifice shall take place chiefly:

a. At the Purim Festival
b. At the Passover Festival

It is demanded of the Jews to butcher an adult Christian if possible, or a black non-Jew for the Purim and to butcher a child for the Passover. The child must not be over seven years old and must die in agony.

3). The blood of the victims must be violently drained. It is to be used at Passover in wine and in the Massen (bread). What this means is that a small part of the blood is mixed into the dough and the wine. The procedure is to be performed by the Jewish father.

4). The procedure takes place in the following manner: The father pours a few drops of fresh or dried and powdered blood into a glass, dips a finger of his left hand into it and sprinkles (blesses) everything which is on the table, saying: "Dam Issardia chynim heroff Jsyn prech harbe hossen mashus pohorus." (Erod, VII, 12) Which translated is: "We therefore beg God to send down the ten plagues upon all the enemies of the Jewish religion (This means the Christians. With this they dine and afterwards the father cries):"Sfach, chaba, moscho kol hagoym!" Which translated: "Thus (like the child whose blood has been mixed in the bread and wine) may all Goyim burn in hell!" (This wicked Jewish ritual is suspiciously similar to Christian Communion. In this the wine is taken in place of the blood and the bread as the body. What Christians do symbolically, the Jews do in reality: this is the unique difference. But it is like all Jewish teachings, it is the reverse of what is taught by God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible).

5). The ritual blood is also used other ways:

a. The young married couple is given a hard boiled egg which is seasoned with dried blood which has been pulverized.
b. It is also given to pregnant women in the same way in order to ease their child birth.
c. It is mixed with egg-white, put on a linen cloth and placed on the chest of dead Jews so that they will enter heaven without atonement.
d. At circumcision powdered blood will be sprinkled on the wound so it will heal quickly.
e. Dip fruits or vegetables into it and then eat them, (Schuldran arch Orach cajjim 158,4) or
f. A dying or decrepit Jew can be saved with it. (Jore Deah 155,3)

The Jews have a superstition which originates from the Orient. They believe that old people can become younger by drinking the blood of young children.

6). The remainder of the blood is preserved with the greatest of care by the local rabbis and sold in small bottles by appointed wandering Jews at neighboring synagogues. This same rabbi certifies that the blood is genuine pure Christian blood.

7). The Ritual Murder and the Blood Mystery are acknowledge by all Talmudic Jews, and practiced whenever possible. The Jew believes that he will be "atoned" by it.

The Hurons, the Canadians and the Iroquois were philosophers of humanitarianism in comparison to the jews. These are seven Jewish customs and regulations were established not only in the trials from Trent and Damascus, but in various trials and court cases which took place in different parts of the world throughout history. And of course they were completely independent of each other. This proves beyond a doubt their truth and validity.


Civilized people find this practice so abhorrent that they cannot believe it, despite the hundreds of pages of evidence against the Jews which are found in court records. Historical records for five thousand years have provided irrefutable proof of the blood gu

John Allen Chau #fundie washingtonpost.com

John Allen Chau, 26, of Vancouver, Wash., an Instagram adventurer who also led missionary trips abroad, traveled to the Andaman Islands — an Indian territory in the Bay of Bengal — this month to make contact with members of the tiny Sentinelese tribe, police said. The tribe, which has remained isolated for centuries, rejects contact with the wider world and reacts with hostility and violence to attempts at interaction by outsiders. The island is off-limits to visitors under Indian law.

Chau’s riveting journal of his last days, shared with The Washington Post by his mother, shows a treacherous journey by dark in a small fishing boat to the area where the small tribe lived in huts. The men — about 5 feet 5 inches tall with yellow paste on their faces, Chau wrote — reacted angrily as he tried to attempt to speak their language and sing “worship songs” to them, he wrote.

“I hollered, ‘My name is John, I love you and Jesus loves you,’ ” he wrote in his journal. One of the juveniles shot at him with an arrow, which pierced his waterproof Bible, he wrote.

?“You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people,” he wrote in a last note to his family on Nov. 16, shortly before he left the safety of the fishing boat to meet the tribesmen on the island. “God, I don’t want to die,” he wrote.

many #fundie rr-bb.com

*Obama to take the oath of office using his middle name (Hussein)*

is Obama a racist? I thought only racists used his middle name.
---
I thought Obama did not want anyone to use his middle name ever. WAIT...he promised CHANGE!!! He has changed his mind and it is now ok to use his middle name. Obama does deliver on his promises of hope and change.
---
But what will he swear ON? There are rumors swirling that he will not swear on a Bible. That disturbs me much more than what name he'll use.
---
Lets see:
Barack Hussein Obama...
Sadom Hussein....
Osama Bin Laden...
---
I think it shows a disgusting hypocrisy. During his campaign that name was off-limits. Every time it was used, an apology followed. Or a law-suit was threatened. Now that he's gotten the office and there's nothing to fool the voters with, now suddenly it's an 'honorable' name.
This smacks of blatant hypocrisy and anyone who can't see through it is naive, imo.
---
You're not poking fun at our new President Elect Hussien Obama are you? I'd be careful about that young en'
---
I'd have him swear in on the book about the only thing he really cares about, himself. Therefore, he should swear on his autobiography.
---
Yep, President Hussein Obama.
The Muslim will be in. And he will seek to improve relations with Muslims as he said he would do.
Soooooo........roll out the red carpet for Allah.
---
I seriously doubt that Obama really intends to uphold and defend the Constitution, no matter what book he uses.

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

[From an "article" titled "How Atheism Empowers ISIS"]

I think Gobry is absolutely correct here. Contemporary secular progressives simply do not trade in the marketplace of metaphysical ideas. Consider the state of American higher education, an institution nearly monopolized by Vulgar Marxism. Studies like philosophy, literature and religion are in decline and increasingly viewed with utilitarian contempt, while gender studies and psychology are the disciplines of choice for vast swaths of students who demand an endless supply of “trigger warnings.” Social sciences are conducive to Vulgar Marxism because they can be reduced to interpersonal tensions of race, class, and privilege, while Plato and Thomas Aquinas are too busy talking about invisible realities that bind the entire human narrative together.

Gobry’s term Vulgar Marxism reminds me of a similar term coined by philosopher Michael Novak, “vulgar relativism.” In his 1994 acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, Novak identified vulgar relativism as “nihilism with a happy face,” and said that its noxious effect on both the mind and the heart was a symbolic red carpet for brutal oppression:

For [relativists], it is certain that there is no truth, only opinion: my opinion, your opinion. They abandon the defense of intellect. There being no purchase of intellect upon reality, nothing else is left but preference, and will is everything. They retreat to the romance of will.

But this is to give to Mussolini and Hitler, posthumously and casually, what they could not vindicate by the most willful force of arms. It is to miss the first great lesson rescued from the ashes of World War II: Those who surrender the domain of intellect make straight the road of fascism. Totalitarianism, as Mussolini defined it, is la feroce volanta . It is the will-to-power, unchecked by any regard for truth. To surrender the claims of truth upon humans is to surrender Earth to thugs.

In other words, embracing the secular atheistic worldview is in fact laying out a welcome mat for terrorists like ISIS. Of course, not all atheists are aggressively relativistic or Marxist, but it is indisputable that the overwhelming majority of such articulations come from atheistic voices. Crank atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris write glowingly about a future sans religion, which will supposedly signal the impending disappearance of violent oppressors such as ISIS. These writers conveniently ignore the fact that Europe, having spent now more than a generation as a post-Christian secular fantasy, is impotent to drive Islamic extremism from its culture. The idea that atheism disarms the forces of oppression and violence is no more credible than arming our anti-ISIS forces with water guns.

Islamic terrorism is fueled by worldview. Failure to acknowledge this basic fact stems from a latent acceptance of vulgar relativism, the idea that transcendent ideas like religion and philosophy are excuses for the racial and geopolitical stuff that’s actually REAL. Declaring religious ideas irrelevant or off-limits will continue to put the West into the vulnerable stupor that ISIS has already taken advantage of. To take ISIS seriously, we have to take its religious convictions seriously, which means taking religion per se seriously, which means, in the end, taking secular progressivism out to the trash heap.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. #conspiracy web.archive.org

Deadly Immunity

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.

"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in 25 years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children." More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis -- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the 20-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that 6-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored Hilleman's warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received 11 vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of 22 immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?"

But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months were being injected with a total of 187 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 40 percent greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. Under the expanded schedule of vaccinations, multiple shots were often administered on a single day: At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, children routinely received three innoculations that delivered 99 times the approved limit of mercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, "I think if we really have an influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next 20 years, because we always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials."

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he "would make money" if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for me," he insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works."

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's health, proud of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists."

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. "We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge."

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink data-sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used to study vaccine safety, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be-published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa Legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism," state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation, told the magazine Byronchild earlier this year. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen." It's hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

Pepe Escobar #conspiracy atimes.com

‘Resistance’ runs amok in the US Deep Throat War

Bob Woodward’s book and the ‘resistance’ op-ed look increasingly like a sophisticated psy-ops scheme and a prelude for a ‘Deep State’ coup

We now live in a psy-ops world. The latest Deep Throat War in Washington bears all the elements of an epic of the genre. Fear: Trump in the White House, by Bob Woodward, who remains an associate editor at the Washington Post, will be released next week, on the 17th anniversary of 9/11.

This, in turn, will divert attention from the fact that the former, Bush era-coined Global War on Terror has metastasized into an all-American Rebels With A Cause special, featuring support for the “moderate rebels” al-Qaeda in Syria, former Jabhat al-Nusra, now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

In the wake of Fear, a Deep Throat surged out of nowhere in the form of an anonymous Op-Ed in the New York Times, which spilled the beans on Trumpian chaos in the White House.

Post-modern cynics were left wondering if this one-two walks and talks like a tie-in, it must be a tie-in. The Washington Post is the property of multi-billionaire Jeff “Amazon” Bezos and it has been on a permanent collision course with President Donald Trump.

And yet the Post may be seething now because Deep Throat, this time around, actually helped the competition. Adding insult to injury, the Times timed the release of its bombshell Op-Ed for the day after the Post’s strategic “leak” of Woodward’s book.

The heart of the matter is that the possible tie-in plays to the simple premise – extolling the role of a small “resistance” or the good guys. They are driven to protect “our values” and “our institutions” from dangerously chaotic Trump.

Post-truth cynics also cannot help being reminded of the historical precedence of a 1970s “resistance” – at the Nixon White House – who leaked to the press that “Tricky Dick” was out of control and was kept in check by true American patriots.

The current Deep Throat War is more like the case of a fractioned Deep State out for revenge on Trump via its media arm. The one-two tie-in – Woodward’s book and the “resistance” Op-Ed – looks increasingly like a sophisticated psy-ops – a prelude for a Deep State white coup.

At the heart of the “resistance” is Russia. Trump, who was egged on by the divide-and-rule personal advice from Henry Kissinger since before the inauguration, essentially wants better relations with Russia to try to detach Moscow from the strategic partnership with Beijing.

Virtually everyone surrounding the president, not to mention most Deep State factions, are opposed to this.

And this brings me back to the “gutless” Op-Ed, according to the Trump administration, by a “senior official,” according to the Times. It argued that Trump was always against moves to counter proverbial Russian aggression before he finally acquiesced.

Now, compare it with Republicans on Capitol Hill, who forced the White House to impose even stronger sanctions on Russia. And yet they do not label themselves as “resistance.”

The anonymous “resistance” warrior has to be put in context with Trump’s basic instinct of trying, at least, to put together an Art of the Deal dialogue with North Korea and Russia.

This is seen by the mainstream media as a “preference for autocrats and dictators,” such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, over America’s “allied, like-minded nations.” Again, this sounds like something straight from the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.

The arcane rules in Washington determine that whistleblowing should proceed only via two authorized forms. This involves a leak, as in Mark Felt, the original Deep Throat, to the Post, or leaking official documents, as in Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

Digital smuggling, as in the Edward Snowden case, or receiving digital files from insiders, as in Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, is strictly off-limits.

The “resistance” bears no documents. Instead, the “resistance” warrior tries to make the case that Trump is not running the show as the real protagonists are anonymous functionaries who can be equally praised as “patriots,” according to the Times, or derided as “traitors,” or “TREASON?” as Trump tweeted.

Curiously enough, the site MyBookie lists the odds for the US president charging the “resistance” warrior with treason at 1-2, which is more likely than Trump being impeached by 2020 at 3-1.

Meanwhile, there is no debate whatsoever on the dire consequences of removing a sitting president – as alluded by the “resistance” warrior – because he’s unwilling to let US-Russia confrontation degenerate into a nuclear red alert.

It would be hard to dismiss the President when he says: “I’m draining the Swamp, and the Swamp is trying to fight back.”

Boo Radley #fundie moonbattery.com

I saw a list of items we could send our to our soldiers for support. It stated explicitly that NO PORK PRODUCTS are allowed. We won't send the soldiers a ham for fear of insulting Muslim sensitivities, but we are willing to force our hardworking soldiers to sleep under the bunk of some fruit who spent last night wanking off to the fantasy of... that same hardworking soldier.

I suppose the fudgepackers will refuse to go to Afghanistan because they will claim to be in greater danger because of their sexual orientation. "You've got to let me fight even though I'm dithruptive and a morale breaker. But don't thend me to Afghanithtan, because the Muthlims dethpithe homothexualth. But I'm thtill a viable, reliable tholdier."

Or scarier still, the Commander in Chief *buurrrrp* may decide that sending homosexuals to Muslim countries is as offensive as sending pork rinds, and deem those countries off-limits to the honorable fighting faggots.

Bill Perkins #fundie raptureready.com

The Pokémon Go phenomenon is more proof the world is being readied for Satan's rule. The world is going crazy playing a game called Pokémon Go. The public saturation is so large the app downloads will soon surpass Twitter. There are some 20 million DAILY users of the game and large companies like Kellogg's, Kraft Foods and Burger King are heavily promoting it.

Few believers realize what the game actually is and apparently see no problem letting their children play it hours on end. In a nutshell, Pokémon Go is an occult-rooted and demon-oriented game of witchcraft originally created in god-less Japan. Believers’ children should have nothing to do with it!

If I were to suggest you should get out a Ouija Board and ask it a few questions, most grounded Believers would immediately point out the occult properties of Ouija that are obviously off-limits to Bible-believing Christians. And if you think using a Ouija Board is bad, Pokémon is 1000 times worse.

It’s like a three dimensional Ouija Board that is not played in one spot, but outside, all over the world as players chase and empower virtual demons. Yes, you read that correctly. Let's start with the word “Pokémon.” It’s a Japanese word that means “pocket monster.” And this comes from the same company (Wizards of the Coast) that originally developed the highly occultic and anti-Christian ‘Dungeons and Dragons” and “Magic” games.

Nintendo negotiated a license to distribute the game and its stock has since soared. The game is played by downloading an app to your smart phone which is used to find and capture Pokeballs. The Pokeballs are found all over town—appearing as images on the players' phones in parks, schools, hospitals, businesses, freeways, landmarks, etc.

They’re then used to throw at and capture virtual pocket monsters appearing all around in the mapped streetscape. Called “immersive play” or “augmented reality,” players use their smart phone's GPS and camera functions to blur reality with fantasy that, in essence, gives spirit and soul to digital objects.

Pokémon gives power to whomever catches them. When you capture your pocket monsters, you train them to have more and more “power” to use against other people’s Pokémon. The characters even mimic evolution as the Pokémon “evolve” from 1 to 100 as the game progresses.

are some 150 named Pokémon and they have special powers as they share the world with humans. For instance the Pokémon named “Haunter” can hypnotize, eat your dreams and drain your energy. “Abra” reads minds and “Kadabra” spews negative energy. Do note the names they use!

So the bottom line is that playing Pokémon Go is dealing with the devil’s demonic world. “Pocket monster” is just a ruse for “pocket demon.” The world has gone crazy searching out virtual demons! Most have no clue. Christian kids are being unsuspectingly sucked into the world of the occult by the millions.

“No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.” (2 Cor.11:14).

Realize, especially regarding children, that this is a gateway to the occult and is strictly forbidden in the Bible. We certainly don’t want our children dealing with demons. But most see no harm in letting their kids play the game. As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people (Lev. 20:6).

Nintendo’s stock has soared since acquiring the rights to distribute Pokemon Go Believe it or not, hundreds of churches, both liberal and conservative, are EMBRACING Pokémon Go by making their church a PokeStop or gym for the game. Really? REALLY? These churches actually think that by advertising “come catch ‘em all” that they can reach more un-churched people.

Unbelievable! They might as well advertise, “Come let your demons play with our demons.” The Bible is quite clear, even tying deceiving spirits into the latter days:

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).

In the Old Testament the Lord was quite clear about steering clear of witchcraft as the penalty for practicing sorcery was death! “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” (Ex. 22:18). In multiple passages, we are warned. Yet somehow we missed the obvious. This game is quite evil!

Two months into playing Pokémon an eight-year-old boy asked his mother “What is channeling?” The boy explained that there were channelers, bad spirits and ghosts in his Pokemon game, calling out dead Pokémons' spirits.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you” (Deuteronomy.18:10-12).

Paul the apostle pointedly warned us about the invisible war going on around us in verses we all can quote from memory but never really seem to find a reason to apply:

“Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:11-12).

We need to heed Paul's warning. If you have kids or grand-kids involved with this game, it’s time to get out the Bible and teach the inerrant truth in God's Word about the incredible dangers of the occult. Otherwise you risk losing them to the dark side.

Robert Lindsay #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Well then, let me ask you something. Would a 15 year old girl have the experience to be able to tell if a boy her age is approaching her with longer term or sexual interest in her and therefore she would associate with him as she would with someone else and let down her guard, without having complete knowledge and understanding the implications of what she is getting into? You say she is Little Miss Naivete. If so, why wouldn’t a slick teenage boy be able to groom her as well.

I myself had sex with a number of 15 year old girls between the ages of 18-20. Believe me, they knew what they were doing. They pretty much seduced me in most cases.

No how is it that a 30 year old woman can be molested again?

I think this whole thing is a mountain in a molehill. In the past few towns I have lived in, you honestly cannot even talk to underage girls, ever. People will get pretty upset if they even see you talking to them.

I learned this the hard way because I have always talked to everyone my whole life and I am comfortable around kids. So at the local coffee shop, I would try to make conversation with some of the girls in line or putting milk and sugar in their coffee. Well after a little while, these idiot kids started calling me “molester” apparently for doing nothing other than that. Then I figured out that it’s not ok for a man my age (or possibly any man, I have no idea) to talk to teenage girls without getting called a molester.

Now I live in a Latino town, and you still can’t talk to teenage girls. It’s basically impossible. You can’t even ask what school they go to or if they are in high school or college. Those are considered “molester” questions. It’s not even very easy to look at them. They’re about as off-limits as human beings can be. And this is a Latino town where nobody cares about much of anything, and a lot of people are poor.

Now given that that’s the way things are, the way I see it is that the vast majority of teenage girls getting involved with adult men these days know exactly what they are doing, and in fact the relationship is 100% consensual. I figure in most cases the girls probably even seduce the men. But I do not know how anyone pulls off any such relationship nowadays because I see these girls as not only untouchable but also untalkable. How likely are they to be “groomed” if you can’t even say Hi to them?