“How long will women stand for this insult?” Magdalen Berns Another game-changing moment from Rowling This is what they were dreading, and why they tried to silence her. There are countless scandals waiting to break around this movement, but the worst of it is what they did and what they continue to do to so many kids. The Observer has finally made a resounding statement on the matter, and now Rowling’s millions of followers know about it.
Gregor Murray"s mum gave birth to a male child and named him Gregor. All through school he was a male child and you could tell this by looking at him. He grew into an eejit, sorry, he grew into an adult male and everyone can still tell that just by looking at him. But he is still a member of that tribe called eejits and will probably be in the tribe for life unless he is adopted by the numpties or tumpshies. My advice to him is please get back under the couch with the rest of the dust bunnies and gie us peace!
David seems to have picked a fight with a solicitor this evening over the same tweet. This is of course an excellent decision for him and I strongly advise that he should apply all his formidable legal experience and intellect to seeking reparations.
David Paisley shows he really is just at it. He doesn’t give 2 hoots about the ‘cause’ he’s fighting. He is in it for the drama. His downfall cannot come soon enough. Horrible person.
As well as the Susie Green TED talk, I recommend Kellie-Jay Keen's excellent dissection and critique of it: Breaking TED with Susie Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rZ1IC-6gk
Also, when Ollie Lambert, producer, made a Channel 4 documentary Trans Kids: We Need to Talk, he faced refusal to participate from Mermaids, Stonewall and Helen Webberley. In this very funny, insightful talk, he (an experienced documentary maker) compares this unfavourably with the two sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict (subjects such as war and conflict are what he's more used to tackling and he'd never before experienced the difficulties he had making the Trans documentary).
Whenever I see Susie Green’s TED talk, apart from all the lies, homophobia, stereotyping, and transhausen by proxy, I just see a thick bint in a lilac shell top and I CAN’T BELIEVE ANYONE LISTENS TO HER. That she has any kind of flex over professionals and intellectuals of Cass and Joyce’s calibre says everything about what’s wrong with the current situation. Is there actually a truly intelligent proponent of gender ideology? I can’t think of one, which makes sense.
She is very very faux. She reminds me of Pauline from League of Gentleman or Marjorie Daws from Little Britain. Once you've seen the clip of her and Jackie's Granny having a good old tinkly laugh at the surgeon's inability to fashion a good facsimile of a vagina, because the Puberty Blockers Jackie had been taking since 12 had not left a lot of penile tissue to work with, you see her differently:
38:57: Susie Green (to camera). The majority of surgeons around the world do something called penile inversion where they basically use the skin from the penis to create the vagina. And she hadn’t developed through full puberty so to not put too fine a point on it there wasn’t much there to work with [starts to smile] –; sorry Jackie (she’ll hate that) [turns away from camera and convulses with laughter].
39.15: cuts to a still photo of 16-year-old Jackie on a hospital bed waiting to go into the operating theatre.
Everything Susie Green's son went through, or put through, rather, was for her. She made up her mind very early on in his life that the supposed gender non- conforming behaviour he exhibited, which sounds perfectly commonplace in very young children, indicated something she didn't want. Though she passes responsibility for that into her husband. Her son didn't stand a chance, and no one acted to give him one. It's extremely sad, her son could have developed into a young boy/man happy and contented to be that, gay or straight.
I would like to see some data on these kids who are socially transitioned early: sex; which parent supports the transition and which doesn't (if there is conflict); whether there was a history of stillbirth, death of another child or difficulties conceiving. I'd like to understand if in some cases it could be as simple as the mother having wanted a girl. Because it seems that the young transitioners tend to be boys. And the ones getting the attention for it tend to be mothers. But this kind of research about this particular group cannot happen because it would be seen as not only 'transphobic' (as we saw from the response to Lisa Littman's research about a different cohort - teen girls with sudden onset) but also blaming parents.
I'd like to see some too, I think it would be interesting to have a wider picture of what was going on for the parent(s) and family, and their histories and experiences.
Oh it was so great to watch that Sarah Phillimore interview again, she is so brilliantly clear and forthright in her communication, it's absolutely stunning to hear and watch for a second time. Also the point about dodgy specific Greens not wanting to give animals drugs but its totally fine to give them to children. So hilarious. So true.
I was very encouraged by the editorial in the Observer, it highlighted many of the issues which are a massive concern. Particularly the lack of attention, or no attention, paid to comorbidities present in young people, particularly girls turning up at GICs. And to the inadequate understanding puberty blockers being used this way in terms of the long term results. As it points out, going down this path disregards the possibility and the reality that gender dysphoria can change and be resolved over time, without the kind of damaging intervention that isn't reversible. I hope this makes the impact it should, because the lives and futures of young people are being messed around with serving an agenda that has no concern whatsoever for their well-being.
Vindication is on the horizon heading straight on into victory. But at what cost? I'm thankful for courageous people who held the line while all about people fell back from the battle.
As lazy as it is to say people are stupid...what this issue has taught me is how very many thick people they are. Or, at least, people whose motivations lead them to express a high degree of stupidity. So many egregious, Logic Fails from supposedly learned people.
Also, what I have learned is how easily many men will throw other men out of the 'man box' for not towing the line, thus passing them over to women. And also how many women seem very keen to be Martyr Mummy/doormat to any old bloke who says he feels sad.
If they didn't have so much money and time, there would be a lot fewer. That's why I like the woman on Spinster who wants to put them to work doing street-cleaning with a toothbrush. In the rain. Naked.
has been suspended from Twitter for hate speech for calling Rachel (née Richard) Levine a man. Which is objectively true. The price of getting our account back is deleting the tweet. This is real life.
Thinking on the Keith Olbermann comment … about Lia Thomas chappy.
@SethDillon (CEO TheBabylonBee)
Again, it’s redundant to call him a biological male. There’s no such thing as a non-biological male, so there’s no need to ever use that qualifier.
That Observer article was very encouraging and very, very welcome; the cowardly, misogynistic stance of its sister paper now becomes all the more obvious.
Oh, I'm certain that the vast majority of people don't know anything much about this subject at all. The very news outlets, organizations, and leaders they look to for information and guidance have either gone silent or jumped aboard the trans-train. Finding out what's really going on takes considerable effort, as well as enough luck to have stumbled across a vital clue that there even IS something to find out in the first place.
Beyond sheer unawareness itself, I think that people tend to misinterpret transgenderism as CHALLENGING gender-roles, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia: they assume that a man who identifies AS a woman must therefore identify WITH women, and be wearing a dress because he's rejecting all of those pink-is-for-girls/blue-is-for-boys stereotypes. They also assume that, since women's oppression is based on our biology-- and our reproductive biology in particular-- redefining "woman" in non-biological terms must be super-enlightened and feminist, the opposite of viewing us as mere baby-machines. (What they fail to realize is that the REAL problem isn't women's biology per se, it's how that biology is interpreted by gender... namely as evidence of our supposed natural inferiority.)
I've thought for a while that straight men, specifically, may end this whole shitshow once they perceive that "trans" has the very concept of sexual orientation in its sights... including heterosexuality. Because for the T, anything based on biological sex is the enemy. And I somehow doubt that straight dudes (who, after all, still run the world-- sorry Beyonce) are gonna accept "girldick" in their dating-pool anytime soon.
Great summary. We have had years to amass evidence, and understand the way the other side sees it, and it is so very frustrating to see events actively ignored or mis-represented in the MSM. But, I have a little hope now that the levee is breaking; that the MSM (aside from the most Left Wing) will face their own cowardice and start doing their job. I have no doubt that there are many many people - a majority - who once they see what transactivism really wants, will not have a bar of it.
And when it does we have all our ducks (and arguments) in a row. This has been decades in the making - Stonewall itself pushed it along brilliantly, but they themselves were not the beginning; they were ideologically captured in the efforts of men to attach men's sexual rights to gay rights*. The dismantling of it may also be the work of many years. The most worrying thing is how gender ideology is being directed at children, and in our schools. I think THAT should be one of our most important focusses.
@FreeToBeYou&Me For which very reason they're not trying it on with men, but also of course because they are not homosexual, so they wouldn't want to be in men's dating pools even if men would accept them. They want to be in women's dating pools because they are heterosexual, but the problem is that to present as such would mean them having to deny or suspend their trans identity, so lesbian dating pools are their only hope, even though they most definitely are also unwanted there.
The "assumption that redefining women's reproductive biology as non-biological must be super-enlightened (i.e. Woke) and feminist" is of course the core fallacy, and it comes from the fantasy factory of queer theory. Replacing sex with gender is in truth neither enlightened nor feminist nor inclusive nor right nor just nor socialist - quite the reverse. Sex is tangible, gender is not, so it's replacing a house with a picture of a dream palace. The one you can live in the other you can only dream of living in. Anyone's entitled to their dreams of course; what you can't do is force other people to live in your dream with you.
But the ludicrous yet persistent thrust to continue on the reality denial path in spite of all the glaringly obvious objections and contradictions with it, raises the interesting question you hint at: is it only women who are targetted for total deconstruction, or is it ultimately aimed at humanity itself? Is transgenderism an end in itself or is it rather a preliminary and preparatory stage to an ominous goal of a complete and authoritarian transhumanist totalitarian dystopia? This is Jennifer Bilek's theory, and I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it as conspiratorial nonsense.
I think by now a good percentage of people are well aware of what's going on, and they care enough about it too, but they are with good reason shit scared to speak out against it. I think we will win, and certainly hope so because losing will usher in a nightmare of a vampire society feeding off itself and drinking its own blood. But it's a close call and we'll need all the courage and solidarity we can muster.
Sex? I think they should be required to marry one! Let them marry some pornsick dude who spends all his time gazing at his butt-ugly face in a mirror and NOT doing the housework, cooking, errands, and taking care of his man.
Gregor Murray"s mum gave birth to a male child and named him Gregor. All through school he was a male child and you could tell this by looking at him. He grew into an eejit, sorry, he grew into an adult male and everyone can still tell that just by looking at him. But he is still a member of that tribe called eejits and will probably be in the tribe for life unless he is adopted by the numpties or tumpshies. My advice to him is please get back under the couch with the rest of the dust bunnies and gie us peace!
David seems to have picked a fight with a solicitor this evening over the same tweet. This is of course an excellent decision for him and I strongly advise that he should apply all his formidable legal experience and intellect to seeking reparations.
David Paisley shows he really is just at it. He doesn’t give 2 hoots about the ‘cause’ he’s fighting. He is in it for the drama. His downfall cannot come soon enough. Horrible person.
As well as the Susie Green TED talk, I recommend Kellie-Jay Keen's excellent dissection and critique of it: Breaking TED with Susie Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rZ1IC-6gk
Also, when Ollie Lambert, producer, made a Channel 4 documentary Trans Kids: We Need to Talk, he faced refusal to participate from Mermaids, Stonewall and Helen Webberley. In this very funny, insightful talk, he (an experienced documentary maker) compares this unfavourably with the two sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict (subjects such as war and conflict are what he's more used to tackling and he'd never before experienced the difficulties he had making the Trans documentary).
In the end he concludes that if people are confident of their case, they will debate with anyone. Well worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjxE5l96lNU
That was a VERY interesting watch. Thank you Ellen.
It's good isn't it? Funny.
Whenever I see Susie Green’s TED talk, apart from all the lies, homophobia, stereotyping, and transhausen by proxy, I just see a thick bint in a lilac shell top and I CAN’T BELIEVE ANYONE LISTENS TO HER. That she has any kind of flex over professionals and intellectuals of Cass and Joyce’s calibre says everything about what’s wrong with the current situation. Is there actually a truly intelligent proponent of gender ideology? I can’t think of one, which makes sense.
She is very very faux. She reminds me of Pauline from League of Gentleman or Marjorie Daws from Little Britain. Once you've seen the clip of her and Jackie's Granny having a good old tinkly laugh at the surgeon's inability to fashion a good facsimile of a vagina, because the Puberty Blockers Jackie had been taking since 12 had not left a lot of penile tissue to work with, you see her differently:
From the BBC TV programme "Transexual Teen to beauty Queen", referenced in this article: https://4thwavenow.com/page/3/
38:57: Susie Green (to camera). The majority of surgeons around the world do something called penile inversion where they basically use the skin from the penis to create the vagina. And she hadn’t developed through full puberty so to not put too fine a point on it there wasn’t much there to work with [starts to smile] –; sorry Jackie (she’ll hate that) [turns away from camera and convulses with laughter].
39.15: cuts to a still photo of 16-year-old Jackie on a hospital bed waiting to go into the operating theatre.
Everything Susie Green's son went through, or put through, rather, was for her. She made up her mind very early on in his life that the supposed gender non- conforming behaviour he exhibited, which sounds perfectly commonplace in very young children, indicated something she didn't want. Though she passes responsibility for that into her husband. Her son didn't stand a chance, and no one acted to give him one. It's extremely sad, her son could have developed into a young boy/man happy and contented to be that, gay or straight.
I would like to see some data on these kids who are socially transitioned early: sex; which parent supports the transition and which doesn't (if there is conflict); whether there was a history of stillbirth, death of another child or difficulties conceiving. I'd like to understand if in some cases it could be as simple as the mother having wanted a girl. Because it seems that the young transitioners tend to be boys. And the ones getting the attention for it tend to be mothers. But this kind of research about this particular group cannot happen because it would be seen as not only 'transphobic' (as we saw from the response to Lisa Littman's research about a different cohort - teen girls with sudden onset) but also blaming parents.
I'd like to see some too, I think it would be interesting to have a wider picture of what was going on for the parent(s) and family, and their histories and experiences.
Oh it was so great to watch that Sarah Phillimore interview again, she is so brilliantly clear and forthright in her communication, it's absolutely stunning to hear and watch for a second time. Also the point about dodgy specific Greens not wanting to give animals drugs but its totally fine to give them to children. So hilarious. So true.
I was very encouraged by the editorial in the Observer, it highlighted many of the issues which are a massive concern. Particularly the lack of attention, or no attention, paid to comorbidities present in young people, particularly girls turning up at GICs. And to the inadequate understanding puberty blockers being used this way in terms of the long term results. As it points out, going down this path disregards the possibility and the reality that gender dysphoria can change and be resolved over time, without the kind of damaging intervention that isn't reversible. I hope this makes the impact it should, because the lives and futures of young people are being messed around with serving an agenda that has no concern whatsoever for their well-being.
Vindication is on the horizon heading straight on into victory. But at what cost? I'm thankful for courageous people who held the line while all about people fell back from the battle.
and if ever we needed a commemorative statue for a great woman -- it would be one for Magdalen Berns. What a powerhouse.
I thought Olbermann was smarter than this.
As lazy as it is to say people are stupid...what this issue has taught me is how very many thick people they are. Or, at least, people whose motivations lead them to express a high degree of stupidity. So many egregious, Logic Fails from supposedly learned people.
Also, what I have learned is how easily many men will throw other men out of the 'man box' for not towing the line, thus passing them over to women. And also how many women seem very keen to be Martyr Mummy/doormat to any old bloke who says he feels sad.
Also: how many male perverts there are in the world. Eeew
If they didn't have so much money and time, there would be a lot fewer. That's why I like the woman on Spinster who wants to put them to work doing street-cleaning with a toothbrush. In the rain. Naked.
Keith Olbermann? Smarter? HAHAHAHAHA!
On twitter now
@TheBabylonBee
has been suspended from Twitter for hate speech for calling Rachel (née Richard) Levine a man. Which is objectively true. The price of getting our account back is deleting the tweet. This is real life.
Thinking on the Keith Olbermann comment … about Lia Thomas chappy.
@SethDillon (CEO TheBabylonBee)
Again, it’s redundant to call him a biological male. There’s no such thing as a non-biological male, so there’s no need to ever use that qualifier.
This may cheer us up https://mobile.twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1505926852224983043?cxt=HHwWhoC9ycmfkOYpAAAA. Kellie-jay Keen argues with man in toilet
That Observer article was very encouraging and very, very welcome; the cowardly, misogynistic stance of its sister paper now becomes all the more obvious.
Thought this tweet was standing up for people like Graham, then realised it was Jesse Singal and it couldn't be.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1505739433387171846
Have you seen this? Tom Harwood defends flashing online! https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1504118197947092995?s=21
Oh, I'm certain that the vast majority of people don't know anything much about this subject at all. The very news outlets, organizations, and leaders they look to for information and guidance have either gone silent or jumped aboard the trans-train. Finding out what's really going on takes considerable effort, as well as enough luck to have stumbled across a vital clue that there even IS something to find out in the first place.
Beyond sheer unawareness itself, I think that people tend to misinterpret transgenderism as CHALLENGING gender-roles, sexism, misogyny, and homophobia: they assume that a man who identifies AS a woman must therefore identify WITH women, and be wearing a dress because he's rejecting all of those pink-is-for-girls/blue-is-for-boys stereotypes. They also assume that, since women's oppression is based on our biology-- and our reproductive biology in particular-- redefining "woman" in non-biological terms must be super-enlightened and feminist, the opposite of viewing us as mere baby-machines. (What they fail to realize is that the REAL problem isn't women's biology per se, it's how that biology is interpreted by gender... namely as evidence of our supposed natural inferiority.)
I've thought for a while that straight men, specifically, may end this whole shitshow once they perceive that "trans" has the very concept of sexual orientation in its sights... including heterosexuality. Because for the T, anything based on biological sex is the enemy. And I somehow doubt that straight dudes (who, after all, still run the world-- sorry Beyonce) are gonna accept "girldick" in their dating-pool anytime soon.
Great summary. We have had years to amass evidence, and understand the way the other side sees it, and it is so very frustrating to see events actively ignored or mis-represented in the MSM. But, I have a little hope now that the levee is breaking; that the MSM (aside from the most Left Wing) will face their own cowardice and start doing their job. I have no doubt that there are many many people - a majority - who once they see what transactivism really wants, will not have a bar of it.
And when it does we have all our ducks (and arguments) in a row. This has been decades in the making - Stonewall itself pushed it along brilliantly, but they themselves were not the beginning; they were ideologically captured in the efforts of men to attach men's sexual rights to gay rights*. The dismantling of it may also be the work of many years. The most worrying thing is how gender ideology is being directed at children, and in our schools. I think THAT should be one of our most important focusses.
* See the article The Trans Umbrella is Older Than You Think: womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/
Thanks for the link. Yes, looks like the plan has been very many years in the making.
@FreeToBeYou&Me For which very reason they're not trying it on with men, but also of course because they are not homosexual, so they wouldn't want to be in men's dating pools even if men would accept them. They want to be in women's dating pools because they are heterosexual, but the problem is that to present as such would mean them having to deny or suspend their trans identity, so lesbian dating pools are their only hope, even though they most definitely are also unwanted there.
The "assumption that redefining women's reproductive biology as non-biological must be super-enlightened (i.e. Woke) and feminist" is of course the core fallacy, and it comes from the fantasy factory of queer theory. Replacing sex with gender is in truth neither enlightened nor feminist nor inclusive nor right nor just nor socialist - quite the reverse. Sex is tangible, gender is not, so it's replacing a house with a picture of a dream palace. The one you can live in the other you can only dream of living in. Anyone's entitled to their dreams of course; what you can't do is force other people to live in your dream with you.
But the ludicrous yet persistent thrust to continue on the reality denial path in spite of all the glaringly obvious objections and contradictions with it, raises the interesting question you hint at: is it only women who are targetted for total deconstruction, or is it ultimately aimed at humanity itself? Is transgenderism an end in itself or is it rather a preliminary and preparatory stage to an ominous goal of a complete and authoritarian transhumanist totalitarian dystopia? This is Jennifer Bilek's theory, and I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it as conspiratorial nonsense.
I think by now a good percentage of people are well aware of what's going on, and they care enough about it too, but they are with good reason shit scared to speak out against it. I think we will win, and certainly hope so because losing will usher in a nightmare of a vampire society feeding off itself and drinking its own blood. But it's a close call and we'll need all the courage and solidarity we can muster.
EXACTLY. They want them away: they want them to be someone else's responsibility. They are far from 'kind'
Sex? I think they should be required to marry one! Let them marry some pornsick dude who spends all his time gazing at his butt-ugly face in a mirror and NOT doing the housework, cooking, errands, and taking care of his man.