Wikipedia is another piece in the puzzle of how media, tech and activists work together to defame those of us who refuse to accept the destruction of fremale-only spaces.
That a human being can change sex IS a Big Lie. I used to talk about this on twitter a lot before I was suspended. Not one human being can 'transcend' their biological sex. The Nazis knew the value of a Big Lie. A lie so big as to be beyond unbelievability. They understood that most human beings universally tell lies and therefore are able to suss out most lies -- but a Big Lie is a rare beast indeed. It's immensity and rarity is precisely what makes in believable in an almost psychologically perverse way.
Like the "You couldn't make it up!" Or the "If it happened in real life you wouldn't believe it". It's too fantastic to be a lie, and so must be true.
But re the twaw, I'd always assumed it meant "are women" in a metaphorical way. Ergo, We'll be polite and treat transwomen AS IF they are women. But it's gone beyond that now and most people didn't see it coming till its embedded .
Unfortunately we have to give the TRA their due. They have become experts at misrepresentation, misdirection and misinformation. They had to because if anyone was allowed to debate them, they have nothing, ZERO arguments to back up their preposterous ideology.
Absolutely, they have nothing, fucking nothing. Just bullshit and threats. We and when I say 'we' l, mean women, are again clearing the way for men and apologising if we aren't getting up quickly enough. I'm not prepared to do that anymore. If I find one of these sexual predators hanging around women's lavatories, I'd like to think I'd tell him to fuck off. I think I'd be more motivated to protect myself rather than coddling the ego of the sort of man I get the sense doesn't like women at all. A 'woman' like Chucky, perhaps. The fake tits and fake oestrogen do nothing to distract from the man who despises women and wants to intimidate and manipulate them. Their ideology is preposterous, their aims are preposterous and their rhetoric is poisonous. For all I care, they can all die in their sleep.
Many not even aware that there are Scientologists within Transworld, who are experts at creating and maintaining Cults, who know exactly how to gaslight, how to hypnotise, how to brainwash. This has been a long time planned. I've said many times before that this war against women and children has been carried out like a Military Coup...globally. Oh, and Scientologists love to work 'under the radar', so that by the time anyone finds out what they're doing, it's already done and dusted. The Trans Cult and its' global domination (at present) is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen, the speed its' risen, the global indoctrination. Every part of society, in all countries, picked apart, then put back together with Trans Cult dominating all the way through 'the new society'. Hitler, Mao and all other dictators would be giving Transworld 10/10 for what they've done. The war can only be won by ALL of us coming together, women AND men too, to tear down their 'new laws/new rules' and bring back sanity and safety for us all.
We agree that Scientology is a cult and that trans ideology has all the markings of an incredibly successful worldwide cult. Scientology is on its way to oblivion. How long before the trans cult follows?
definitely wikipedia is run by misogynistic men. i used to automatically contribute to them until i found out about their TRA propaganda. regarding the rest, this is like arguing with a narcissist. the only way to win is to not engage with them and try to predict some of these potential attack opportunities ahead of time. make corrections/clarifications to a point and then move on and try not to make the same PR mistake next time. its all part of the process of getting the truth out during widespread gaslighting.
Apparently there is a higher proportion of autistic males in occupations dealing with information organisation & technology, than in other occupations. And figures of 20% to 40% of autistic children show up in studies of comorbidities with gender dysphoria, among children and teens referred to gender clinics.
The incidence of autism is also much higher in males, than in females: in a ratio (so far as I remember) of around 8:1. But women with autistic traits tend to be a lot better at "masking" them, than men.
So it seems reasonable to suppose that an apparently strong bias towards males editing Wikipedia and moderating Reddit, plus their apparent bias towards gender cultism, might have something to do with autism.
It seems that the social difficulties of most autistic people make them natural prey for the gender cult: which proceeds by members finding their own legitimisation in extracting recognition from others -- so it's an inherently proselytising cult.
Btw I'm not condemning autism: as a form of neurodivergence which is no-one's fault. But it helps to know what we're up against.
And I have a good few autistic traits myself. Among other things I'm pretty sure my father -- and his siblings -- had Aspergers: and it's highly heritable. He distinguished himself as a pioneer in information science: but drove us mad with his obsession, and insensitivity to "normal" social signals.
Plus men have the time to spend hours venting their spleen destroying women via Wikipedia while their Mommies, wives or sisters do their laundry, make their meals, mind their kids.
I think we'd all like to believe that these people are dumbos, but they are not. At least, the ones behind it are not. Women are always at a disadvantage up to the point when we are willing to fight back - physically, if necessary, as the Suffragettes did - because men are socialised to fight (generally speaking) while we are socialised to be passive (although that it is not our natural condition, which is to stand our ground in a different way to men's).
What is happening to the women here is the same as happened during the miners' strike: agitators, professional troublemakers and propagandists are being employed against us. The MSM and some social media sites are happy to side with the 'trans'. We have to be smart enough not just to see it, but to call it out, take videos, photos, recordings.
These people are smart. We have to be smarter. We also need to harness the help of the male allies we have, too - and these include straight men, gay men and even a few 'trans' who support us and respect our spaces and rights. Most of the last are older transsexuals, rather than self-ID 'trans'. We need all the help we can get, and men understand other men in ways we simply do not.
Sadly, from experience, some women can be the absolute worst when confronted by other gender critical women. Not only have they drunk the Kool-Aid, they're actively making it and pouring it. Their reaction makes me want to scream.
It used to be called Stockholm Syndrome when the lives and safety of captives were so at risk and so scary that there was survival value in seeing the POV of their captors, and going along with them. It made captivity more bearable.
But today's capitulation of captives of the gender identity cult seems to be based on NOT realising the degree of threat: or brushing it under the carpet. And instead even valuing the kudos and group identification of being "inclusive" and "progressive": by wilful refusal to acknowledge the sacrifice of females to male misogyny masquerading as Victim's Rights.
I think the brainwashing has to be pretty severe for women to lose their common sense so completely to such manipulative male demands: especially when so blatantly backed up by hate speech and threats of violence.
It's classic coercive control, with plenty of gaslighting by narcissistic abusers.
I think it's just because some women are so opportunistic and desperate for male approval they go along with any evil - like "gun molls" go along with their sociopathic mates.
Are you familiar with the Hollywood movie that was made about the black policeman who interacted with the KKK? What the movie forgot to tell people was that he was also spying for the government on civil rights groups.
I think women are at a disadvantage in numerous ways in this fight: yes men are socialised to fight -- or to be more aggressive than women who, because of our basic physical inferiority to men, cannot afford to get into physical fights which we will lose.
Women are socialised to be "passive" in the sense of putting the needs of others before our own -- and condemned for selfishness if we don't: exploited by the trans "Be kind" tyranny. Women are also trained to be cooperative: the value identified by Darwin as primary in the extraordinary success of the human species. And the weapon traditionally belonging to women, both in bringing up children and as compensation for our physical inferiority to men, has been command of words.
The gender cult has appropriated that weapon to itself by making a mockery of language: destroying the undisputed meanings that "men" and "women" have probaly had for as long as language has existed (well over 30,000+ years), and thereby also destroying the painfully acquired sex-based rights of women and girls that are ALSO based on our physical inferiority to men.
We cannot fight off the male rapists and sex offenders (of whom 99% are male): we can only prevent them from getting too many chances to attack us (with 88% of victims of sex offences being female).
The final insult is for those in power, captured by gender cult vocabulary, to call this policy "inclusivity": of welcoming (by default) all violent and abusive men, not just those pretending to be women, into female-only "safe" spaces (and destroying women's sports, etc) -- at the expense of women and girls.
The only resort of the gender cult is to pretend such men don't exist: until their crimes in newspaper headlines prove otherwise. But they didn't need to infiltrate and dismantle the criminal justice system too: because this had already been achieved (in the UK at leesst) by rightwing government defunding it: rape has already been effectively legalised.
It was easy for Stonewall to coopt an already systemically misogynist and homophobic police force into waving rainbow and trans flags: with an Equality Act for gender ID to corrupt crime stats. A sudden upsurge in crimes committed by "women".
We didn't have a chance. This gender cult takeover was globally orchestrated and billionaire-financed.
We can only learn better ways to fight back. Our biggest problem is the WOMEN who go along with it all.
I think it's a direct effect of evolution; women evolved to be nurturers and cooperate to protect and nurture the next generation . Otherwise the human race would have become extinct. Many men evolved for competition and conquest. The anthropologist/sociologist Thorstein Veblen, sums it up pretty well in his writings on barbarism.
Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf is worth reading if you want to understand the TRA propaganda model. Hitler says that he was very impressed with the Bolshevik propaganda.
The Trans-Rights movement is based more on simple slogans "Trans Women are Women", "Trans Rights are Human Rights". Anyone who questions these are automatically cast as the baddies.
They use emotion exclusively over reasoned argument - we must be angry about the imagined attacks on 'us' - we must 'care'. However, this care and understanding has to be directed at one particular group (the 'German' people/trans) but little care should be given to 'others' (Jews/women).
I would like to point out that I am not making a direct comparison to what happened to the Jews in Germany - just pointing out that some of the propaganda tactics are the same.
This is not the first time that we have fallen foul of the "Bolshevik propaganda model". We were involved in an anti-racism campaign.
While we tried to counter some of the misinformation given about migrants, however, the response from others was just to call people who even mentioned 'immigration', racist, fascists and Nazis. Even comments on social media that asked quite legitimate questions were deleted because they were 'hate speech'.
We were accused of being 'soft on racists', and even Nazi's and Fascist ourselves. Despite this and mainly because we did most of the work, we wrote all the leaflets for the local group and gave a talk at the local college.
Obviously they did not really think that we were racists, fascists and Nazi's but just tried to bully us into accepting their ideology. They were just using 'racism' as a political football and did not even have enough interest in the subject to find out a few facts or think through some political analysis - it is a lot easier for them to shout Nazi, Fascist and Racist.
The Nazis are the most effective "go to" villains for smearing any movement. This device sometimes reaches ludicrous extremes i.e. the most frantic hair splitting. Do you recall how Jeremy Corbyn "mispronounced" the name Epstein? To rhyme with "mine" rather than "clean". This of course "proving" that Corbyn headed an anti-Semitic party. As someone who learned German at school, I know that "ei" SHOULD rhyme with "mine" and "ie" SHOULD rhyme with "clean". So the propaganda was basically saying that the German language itself is anti-Semitic! Of course this naturally dovetails with a Western audience primed on Hollywood movies to feel a shudder when they hear the German language.
I find the word 'Nazi' so misused that it has become meaningless. There are a few groups of people who are enveloped in Fascist ideology. There are many arguments you can use to counter their various political views, but just name-calling is not effective. Having said that, if they are out intimidating people, I am not 'soft on racists'.
There is a danger that the fight against the trans-ideology could lead to negativity against anyone who is not 'gender conforming' - I used to quite often wear a dress (I do not any more since I do not want to be associated with the TRAs). However, just because I do not conform to the stereotype of a 'real man' it is rather worrying that some think I should chop my dick off and put me on hormones to convert me to my real 'gender'.
They call us Nazi's because our belief that 'trans-women are not women' makes some people feel 'unsafe' as they sing 'punch a Nazi in the face'. They say they are going to come down our local pub to 'take us down' which would be worrying if they could take down their own underpants unaided.
The whole “gender ideology” matter seems to me to have led to a phenomenon which is most notable for its sheer aggravation. There is a sense of impending fisticuffs whenever the topic is broached, and I feel that that is very much intended as a “divide and rule” strategy. Of course, there is a whole history of appalling homophobia stretching back – but it seems to me that acceptance of gays is pretty much universal now. Now, permit me my “paranoia”, but I think that when one avenue for a divisive strategy dries up, the propagandists try to reintroduce it via some new scheme. They did this with the racism issue by introducing more and more pedantic “offences” i.e. the whole “political correctness” thing thus ensuring that the racism issue would continue.
As for transgenderism, I doubt if there is any substance there at all. There may be folk who feel they are “in the wrong body” and this may be a genuine matter but, if so, I reckon it must be a rare condition. It’s more likely, especially with young people, that it is the constant talk of this “wrong body” that implants the idea in their head.
One thing I have always felt is that there is a curious sexlessness about the transgender movement. I no longer feel we are discussing the issue of men who want to dress as women, or people who are gay etc. These are familiar notions and I reckon none of them are likely to cause offence. Hence the careful incubation of this “gender ideology” in which everyone is, as with the racial PC thing, encouraged to feel completely ill at ease because they no longer know what to say.
What this all results in – or, at least, what it is clearly aiming at – is the reintroduction of the old homophobic “Nazi” intolerance. Those who quite rightly object to gender ideology are being corralled into “taking the Nazi path”. So e.g. the appearance of a man who dresses as a woman in public – which wouldn’t have raised a single eyebrow previously – is now being “recontextualised” as something which “you must have a strong opinion of”. Which of course leads to fisticuffs.
I think it just needs to be taken less seriously as a source. Much like Twitter, I don't have an issue with there being social media platforms where speech is controlled: the problem I have is when internet service providers and payment platforms won't allow anyone else to make a similar site (Josh "Null" Moon has written a lot about this), and when politicians take the very strictly and carefully curated population of Twitter posters as representative of the electorate and our interests. Both sites have far more respect than they deserve.
Unfortunately I cannot agree. I use Wikipedia a lot (and help to support it) and am generally very impressed by the depth of knowledge on uncontroversial subjects: eg settled science.
But some Wikipedia content is hugely disappointing -- ignorant, opionated and dismissive -- in areas of fringe science I happen to know something about, from books that cite a wealth of peer-reviewed studies.
And, though any so-called "evidence" for "gender identity" -- let alone reasons for dismissing biological sex -- is simply propaganda, it gets the same weight as settled science.
And what else would you expect from a globally orchestrated capture of governments and institutions, but the TRA gender cult line: with its 24/7 team of TRA Wikipedia editors ready to instantly eliminate any dissenting voice.
But because this activist gender cult trash co-exists side by side with a mass of well-informed, genuinely authoritative content on other subjects, it benefits from implicit but undeserved endorsement by proximity.
This is highly misleading for anyone who goes to Wikipedia for a good introduction to and overview of any subject (and sometimes a lot more) without referring to other sources.
This is a real.let-down, and a big disservice to Wkipedia's millions of readers who just want some unbiased facts -- and don't know enough to distinguish facts from propaganda.
I agree with you, Emily. I will use Wikipedia to look up an actor's career but not for anything serious, certainly not anything in the realm of social issues.
I used it to look stuff up when I was a student, but my degree was in maths, and I made sure to check the proofs line by line to confirm it for myself. And even then I'd usually use Wolfram or something instead. It's a good enough place to start but you can't rely on it. The fact that journalists are apparently using it as the sole source for their articles is shocking. I suppose it's like the "ideas laundering" in academia but in journalism.
When I worked for the Press Association we were repeatedly warned off using Wikipedia as a reliable source.
There was an American criminal (from memory, a serial killer) who wrote or amended his own Wikipedia entry. His unreliable narrative found its way into news reports via journalists covering his trial.
As I've just written, I've found Wikipedia to a be very useful resource. But heavily biased in many areas.
I kind of got into this issue because of its bastardization of the article on sequential hermaphroditism which seems congenitally incapable of recognizing that many members of many species are in fact neither male nor female, that they're sexless:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
What happens a lot of the time is that people listen to the pro-TRA media and do not think beyond what they are told. When we explain some of the problems and implications of the trans-ideology then we tend not to have any problems convincing people.
The problem with Wikipedia is that editing wars are generally won by the wrong side of any controversial issue: the side representing the biggest vested interests, the side that refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary, the side that will not allow any dissent even to be heard.
I think the only answer to this is regulation of Wikipedia (but by whom?) that insists that differing viewpoints MUST be allowed to be expressed, side by side: not just one "winning" side in the editing war. Even though I don't like the idea of eg climate denialists getting their say. All the better: because most of their half-baked simplistic theories and spurious "facts" are so easy to refute.
One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it tends to be well referenced. You can check out the original sources. A good thing about academic references is that you can check out 'citations' - i.e. papers that reference that paper - what do they say about it.
This brings us to a bigger problem, in that things are not written in isolation. With the trans issue, it is sometimes difficult to even research the topic.
This is not just a problem about Wikipedia, but how we gain knowledge and how this is disseminated in society (e.g. media bias).
Totally disagree. There are problems with Wikipedia but the last thing we want is more restriction on the freedom of expression - they would very soon stop anything that could be considered a 'hate' crime.
Regulation is not a threat to free speech. Wikipedia passes itself off as something that is both factual and editable by anyone when both of these claims are false. Wikipedia bros control and prevent people from editing pages as they see fit. It is legalized slander to allow this. People treat it as a reputable source like a real encyclopedia when it is not.
The biggest problem is that it's the world's encyclopaedia and the only facts allowed in it are those approved by TRAs. Don't blame the audience. I don't like restrictions either, but enough to guarantee neutrality seems justifiable to me.
Indeed. On many topics, Wikipedia is an incredibly useful resource. And "the price is right" -- I've often contributed a shekel or two.
But, as I've just argued above, on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids.
My "tale of woe" for being deplatformed there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
I might have seen that play out. I often look at the "Talk" pages for "gender issues" topics and remember a guy getting bullied to hell and then getting kicked off. It was good to see that there was fight-back but depressing to see that there was no way of winning.
But the problem is that Wikipedia editing wars squelch any "freedom of expression" -- except for the winning side. Regulation is needed to PROMOTE freedom of expression.
There is also (1) manipulation and (2) "distraction" in "the Big Lie". Narcissistic men are really good at lying in HUGE ways: Why do we pay any attention to them?
Because they have very powerful and often quite charismatic personalities (whereas we are more used to 'give and take' in our exchanges and find out too late that with them it's all give and no take.) It takes an effort not to get sucked in.
I think women need to consider -- and our daughters need to be taught -- what they find "charismatic." This is how women referred to Bill Clinton, a serial sexual predator. We need to learn to see what is right in front of us and make sure our children are not told 1) that they didn't see what they saw, 2) that they didn't hear what they heard, 3) that they didn't experience what they experienced. Those three things are common parenting tactics.
Absolutely we need to be wise to all the ways we are gaslit and things are glossed over and minimised; and by the same token to trust our inner authority and guidance (which I suggest comes from the body); and to foster that ability in children. I am not a parent and I don't know what are common tactics in parenting but I think in society generally people are too liable to place authority in others rather than in their own instincts. We are quite disembodied as a society, and people with their own selfish agendas take advantage of that.
Just to be clear: the gender critical people like us give and the TRAs take. I stopped "giving" in to my gas-lighting Trans H quite early on, but then, obviously, he refused to talk with me because I wasn't "playing his game". It was terrifying, infuriating and deadening all at the same time. I am so glad that he died last year, even though I had divorced him and not seen him, except in connection with the divorce, since he walked out on us in 2006. A long time ago.
Your relief is quite understandable. I realise that my comment re 'give and take' was ambiguous; but I was thinking in terms of 'giving out' opinions versus receiving other peoples'. But your interpretation works just as well. And you of course having been through this are well aware of this dynamic but other people without such experiences will be more naive to it.
It's taken me decades to understand the relationship that, for me, finished ALL my relationships with men (too many of them had been abusive): because my (already fragile) self-confidence was finally so shaken and undermined that I could no longer trust my own judgement -- or any man, again.
But now I know so much more about transvestism, narcissism and gaslighting: words I had never heard of then. I sometimes wonder if that man ever "transitioned": he'd be nearly 70 now. I'd be very surprised if he didn't. But I don't want to know.
I find 1984 more frightening now than when I first read it decades ago. Then it seemed so far fetched and now our noses are being rubbed in it by people we trusted.
Jennifer Government's a good one too. Even Ingsoc in Nineteen Eighty-Four was a better society than this one, at least punters actually got arrested rather than being tolerated as "empowering sex workers".
‘Think a year or two ago Orwell was taken off UK school reading syllabus, along with William Golding. “Lord of the Flies” another one from my school syllabus, chilling. Golding apparently based some of it on Nazis (real ones) written after war (think).
Thanks Lisa. Trouble is the NZ press seem so captured but if the general public could see the livestream they would quickly see who the real fascists are
Has anyone ever thought about a class-action lawsuit against Wikipedia for this practice? They knowingly allow lies to be published about people. Surely that is against some law (libel? defamation?). At the very least, we should be able to get Wikipedia to put a disclaimer on every passage that is objected to by the person being described. In any case, we should make a LOT of noise about this in the mainstream media. Most people probably think Wikipedia contains only vetted information.
P.S. It's very helpful to have this explanation of how "The Big Lie" was used at that event. I'm always trying to defend it from TRA attacks on Twitter.
Jennifer Bilek is an unsung hero in this war. She is magnificent at digging deep into this ideology and its drivers. At first I thought it was conspiracy theorist stuff, it all sounded so implausible, but after reading a few articles and listening to an interview, I realised that if anyone knows the dark motivations underpinning this movement, it's her. And John Uhler, with his deep knowledge of sexual deviance. Gender is a hydra with many heads, we need to cut off each and every one, but for that we need to know about each and every one.
The way things are turning out "conspiracy theorist stuff" is never implausible. All that demonised expression means is an arrangement made in secret with repercussions that involve others. It recalls a line from Yes Minister in which Humphries complains that "open government" is a contradiction in terms. You can either be open or you can have a government.
There are "conspiracy theorists" who (in the UK) are typically climate change (or anthropogenic climate change) deniers and supporters of Brexit; are anti-vaxxers and supporters of "Freedom" (no lockdowns, no social distancing); are anti-immigration & are often racists and xenophobes; and are nationalists and monarchists. Some go further and believe in the Great Reset, that the UN is trying to reduce global population by murdering people, that vaccine injections include microchips designed by Bill Gates for a state surveillance system (they forget we already have mobile phones), and the whole QAnon nonsense eg the Clintons running a child sex trafficking ring from the basement of a Pizzeria (which has no basement) -- where a man actually turned up with an AK-47 to "rescue the children".
Then there are the real conspiracies: of the tobacco industry to deny any link between smoking and cancer, of the fossil fuel industry to deny any link between CO2 emissions and global heating -- predicted by Exxon's own research scientists in the 1960s, on an Exxon research ship equipped with CO2 monitors, with $millions spent annually on denying it ever since.
In London there's 55 Tufton Street and the Tufton Street far right thinktanks including the so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation which has never employed a climate scientist, colluding with Atlanticist free market politicians (Institute of Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies) to pull the UK out of Europe for unregulated trade with the US: including selling off the NHS to US healthcare outfits -- but done piecemeal, by stealth: while running down the NHS to make an eventual sell-off easier, with legally irreversible sales. All prepared for by the 2012 Health & Social Care Bill.
But as the real elites engineering all this, they cleverly point in other directions: to the entire population of Turkey (70m?) about to accede to the EU and swamp the UK with immigrants: all lies used by Vote Leave in 2016. Priti Patel has just ramped that up to 100m globally unless the "invasion" by small boats crossing the Channel is stopped: by an illegal Tory bill seeking to criminalise asylum seekers exercising their human right to claim refuge.
Conspiracies are not necessarily conducted in secret, but right under our noses, in the glare of daylight and press reporting. But a large part of the UK media exists to push the interests of its billionaire rightwing proprietors and the perceived interests of the goverrnments they support, in moulding public opinion in order to get votes to keep them in power.
Thankfully at present, they are failing abysmally: because the gap between what's actually been happening and what they want us to believe, is too big for credibility. And that's how Sturgeon suddenly fell from power: because she couldn't bring herself in front of the tv cameras to maintain that a male rapist was a woman -- whatever her GRR (Scotland) Act had to say about it. She could only duck the issue and say it was up to the prison service to decide where trans prisoners were housed.
We need these public showdowns to illustrate how ludicrous and damaging is much legislation ostensibly passed "in the public interest": but actually pushed by lobbyists (often with big donations to MPs and to the party in government) to legislate against the public interest.
The transgender matter has shown up how the entire media can push a story as true and even “scientifically validated ” when it is not only ludicrous but even oxymoronic.
This now gives a splendid insight into the media, how centralised it is and how “bought” it is.
Thus we have what amounts to a totalitarian media in the sense that there is no variation across the supposedly separate channels.
This gives an enormous power to the ability to present any argument as the ruling class see fit, to misrepresent it and apply non-sequitur labels such as “Right Wing”.
There is no necessary link between e.g. scepticism over climate change and xenophobia just as the women protesters in Australia are not Nazis though the media will now portray them as such. And that pantomime was clearly a coordinated move that involved the police. Furthermore, once again the media – along with Wikipedia and supposedly Left groups like the World Socialist Web Site are fully on board with this demonisation of the anti-trans movement.
As for the label “conspiracy theory” or even the single word “conspiracy”, this has been the most astonishingly successful Orwellian re-fashioning of language in my lifetime, though the transgender re-assigning of terminology may yet surpass it. We now have a population that automatically smirks at the mention of “conspiracy” and should they be unwise enough to pursue such avenues, they can always be relied upon to back off when you tell them they are being “Right Wing”. And then you can always redirect them to yesterday’s battles such as protesting over cigarettes.
We must always document the conflations and misrepresentations chronicled here. I've named this phenomenon a Strawman Ambush. The TRAs recreate a strawman target in our image, to joust at. Women who've divorced AGPs, who almost always claim they're the holy grail diagnosis of "true trans," accuse us of much more. I was accused of 2 assaults in our custody battle, both from years before, with no logical proof, no police called, did not happen. Later, in a weak moment, Neddy (my ex) said, regarding all of the smears, "I had to say that. Everyone likes you so much more than me."
Graham - you might indicate that it this article is apparently written by Lisa Morgan.
But on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids.
My "tale of woe" for being deplatformed there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
The Facebook group "Actual Gender Critical Left" has accused KJK of 'femaleism'. Apparently it means "the wrong kind of feminism." This was endorsed in a repost by Ruth Serwotka (of Woman's Place UK). It's especially disappointing of RS, because she herself has experienced physical violence from TRAs.
Risking your life to stand up for women’s rights looks like the right kind of feminism to me. No wonder KJK doesn't call herself a feminist, when GC feminists as well as liberal ones are colluding with TRAs to undermine her.
Name calling is a tactic common to narcissists and TRAs, as I see some of you recognise. Narcissists use false accusations to avoid being held accountable. The more unjust and heinous the accusation, the more likely it is that the accused will refocus their energy on defending themselves against it. We see this in the way TRAs use 'Nazi', 'racist' and 'transphobe.' As with a narcissist's insults, they tell you about the accuser, not the accused.
KJK appears to be quite hostile to feminists and feminism -- but I don't know who started it, or what brand of "feminism" she objects to: if it's male-centric "libfems" then she has a point.
And it seems she deliberately promotes "femalism" to distinguish her own movement to "Let Women Speak" as "Adult Human Females" as a more inclusive and basic "brand" than feminism -- split by competing and conflicting theories.
But the problem with KJK's rejection of "feminism" is that in practical terms it makes "femalism" into just another breakaway group. It would be absurd not to call it "feminist", however much KJK tries to disown the term.
I saw the livestreams where KJK first talked about "femalism - for females". I've even got the badge :-)
I found it confusing at first because she pronounced it femm-al-ism rather than female-ism, so it sounded like she was saying "feminism".
It would have made sense if it was a strategy to try to get the "real feminists" off her back with their constant criticisms that she was either doing feminism wrong or "wasn't a feminist because (insert reason)".
However, she introduced it positively, without any reference to that criticism:
"In 2021 I would like to invite you to join me in a new kind of women's activism. I'm calling it femalism. It centres women and girls and it's for us and it's by us. It's not a brand that men can co-opt. The only qualification is that you're female"
She expanded on this in her next livestream on 31 Dec 2020.
Back in the days when she scripted her livestreams or resorted to prompts, before she got right into her stride and had the confidence to wing it and speak and rant entirely spontaneously.
Really good reminders of how long KJK has been organising and encouraging women to take over the public square through Speakers Corner events in London, around the UK and in other countries - Covid allowing!
"Be brave in your deeds, be courageous with your words and be honest with your thoughts. The future is femalism.
And that's not to say anything about feminism, that has done the most incredible things throughout history. I just really want to take it back away from men. I don't want a man wearing, "The future is, either, this is what a feminist looks like".
Not interested in men wearing it. I'm interested in men wanting to do their own things and speak courageously and, you know, maybe you reclaim some of your spaces."
What she calls what she does is really the least important part of it.
She usually just calls herself a "Women's Rights Activist", which is surely enough?
It is feminists who go out of their way to distinguish themselves from KJK when they acknowledge that is what she is and also state that feminism is not about "women's rights" but about "women's liberation".
Interesting re-watching the New Years Eve 2020 livestream - she says Julie Bindel had agreed to come on her Channel but hadn't yet found time. I hope Julie does find the time.
The Wiki page on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a vile disgrace. The Nazi connection was a pure set up instantly transferred to this “virtual knowledge" site i.e. this “Matrix in the making”.
And as for Wiki’s other machinations, consider this:
Rachel Levine is "one of only a few openly transgender government officials in the United States". And "(s)he transitioned from male to female in 2011". As far as I could see, there is no mention anywhere of "her" original name.
So here we have an article that openly admits the "transition" thus implying there was a previous male state and tells you nothing at all about that previous state. Effectively: "We are telling you to your face that we are missing out something."
Incidentally, I can't find any further information on this individual’s shady past anywhere else. Which leads me to wonder about the control the elite have over all channels.
"Richard Levine is a mainstream American transgendered character. She is presently known as Rachel Levine. Expertly, she is a specialist. At present, she has been filling in as an educator at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.
Likewise, she has been filling in as the head of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders here. After the medical procedure, she gladly considers herself a lady. Nonetheless, she was totally a man before the medical procedure.
Richard or now, Rachel had no such interests until she was graduating. Yet, gradually in the wake of working in her particular field, she began developing interests in the crossing point of clinical, mental, and conduct medical problems."
“Transgenderism is looking more and more like Transgenderism™, when we look at the markets opening and its insidious presence in Hollywood.”
Cue a whole gallery of atrocities:
• Whoopi Goldberg’s trans modeling company on Oprah’s Oxygen network, (trans models reported as the future of modelling)
• Supernatural Extraterrestrial and Co, a high-fashion clothing line, promotes their willingness to embrace a future of male pregnancy.
• Cosmopolitan magazine’s breast-binding guide for young women in 2016.
• Cosmetology consultant services offering help to “trans women.”
• Crayola’s new gender-fluid make-up
• Artists photographing young “trans” children
• Almost every new TV series has at least a nod to transgenderism.
• Jazz Jennings (male teen who had his penis surgically removed) has been on many major talk-shows since his family decided he was transgender at the age of four.
• Jennings has his own reality TV series, his own trans foundation and has received many awards and accolades.
• A children’s storybook about Jennings’ life, which normalizes for young school children the idea that they can become the opposite sex, has been adopted as part of some school curriculums.
• Banks and investment houses sending millions of dollars to transgender organizations all over the globe.
And now for the ultimate:
• scientists already looking at changing our biology as a way to deal with climate change.
I hope KJK will take her place on Speakers Corner from now on. With Heiko and Piers Corbyn there on Sundays, this is the place to be, and they will defend to the death anyone's right to speak and be heard.
Good to see you there - I watched the playback of the stream.
That a human being can change sex IS a Big Lie. I used to talk about this on twitter a lot before I was suspended. Not one human being can 'transcend' their biological sex. The Nazis knew the value of a Big Lie. A lie so big as to be beyond unbelievability. They understood that most human beings universally tell lies and therefore are able to suss out most lies -- but a Big Lie is a rare beast indeed. It's immensity and rarity is precisely what makes in believable in an almost psychologically perverse way.
I will repeat here the words of William Casey, former director of the CIA:
We will know we are successful when everything that Americans believe is a lie.
Like the "You couldn't make it up!" Or the "If it happened in real life you wouldn't believe it". It's too fantastic to be a lie, and so must be true.
But re the twaw, I'd always assumed it meant "are women" in a metaphorical way. Ergo, We'll be polite and treat transwomen AS IF they are women. But it's gone beyond that now and most people didn't see it coming till its embedded .
Unfortunately we have to give the TRA their due. They have become experts at misrepresentation, misdirection and misinformation. They had to because if anyone was allowed to debate them, they have nothing, ZERO arguments to back up their preposterous ideology.
Absolutely, they have nothing, fucking nothing. Just bullshit and threats. We and when I say 'we' l, mean women, are again clearing the way for men and apologising if we aren't getting up quickly enough. I'm not prepared to do that anymore. If I find one of these sexual predators hanging around women's lavatories, I'd like to think I'd tell him to fuck off. I think I'd be more motivated to protect myself rather than coddling the ego of the sort of man I get the sense doesn't like women at all. A 'woman' like Chucky, perhaps. The fake tits and fake oestrogen do nothing to distract from the man who despises women and wants to intimidate and manipulate them. Their ideology is preposterous, their aims are preposterous and their rhetoric is poisonous. For all I care, they can all die in their sleep.
You're obviously not Canadian and haven't swallowed the "can't you just be nice and we'll all get along pill." Fucking right.
Many not even aware that there are Scientologists within Transworld, who are experts at creating and maintaining Cults, who know exactly how to gaslight, how to hypnotise, how to brainwash. This has been a long time planned. I've said many times before that this war against women and children has been carried out like a Military Coup...globally. Oh, and Scientologists love to work 'under the radar', so that by the time anyone finds out what they're doing, it's already done and dusted. The Trans Cult and its' global domination (at present) is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen, the speed its' risen, the global indoctrination. Every part of society, in all countries, picked apart, then put back together with Trans Cult dominating all the way through 'the new society'. Hitler, Mao and all other dictators would be giving Transworld 10/10 for what they've done. The war can only be won by ALL of us coming together, women AND men too, to tear down their 'new laws/new rules' and bring back sanity and safety for us all.
We agree that Scientology is a cult and that trans ideology has all the markings of an incredibly successful worldwide cult. Scientology is on its way to oblivion. How long before the trans cult follows?
They've met their match with Posie, who is employing Beautiful Trouble techniques to perfection. (At the expense of her hairdo!)
definitely wikipedia is run by misogynistic men. i used to automatically contribute to them until i found out about their TRA propaganda. regarding the rest, this is like arguing with a narcissist. the only way to win is to not engage with them and try to predict some of these potential attack opportunities ahead of time. make corrections/clarifications to a point and then move on and try not to make the same PR mistake next time. its all part of the process of getting the truth out during widespread gaslighting.
It's the same sort of guys who moderate Reddit. There's a reason we call 'em Wikipaedos and Predditors.
Apparently there is a higher proportion of autistic males in occupations dealing with information organisation & technology, than in other occupations. And figures of 20% to 40% of autistic children show up in studies of comorbidities with gender dysphoria, among children and teens referred to gender clinics.
The incidence of autism is also much higher in males, than in females: in a ratio (so far as I remember) of around 8:1. But women with autistic traits tend to be a lot better at "masking" them, than men.
So it seems reasonable to suppose that an apparently strong bias towards males editing Wikipedia and moderating Reddit, plus their apparent bias towards gender cultism, might have something to do with autism.
It seems that the social difficulties of most autistic people make them natural prey for the gender cult: which proceeds by members finding their own legitimisation in extracting recognition from others -- so it's an inherently proselytising cult.
Btw I'm not condemning autism: as a form of neurodivergence which is no-one's fault. But it helps to know what we're up against.
And I have a good few autistic traits myself. Among other things I'm pretty sure my father -- and his siblings -- had Aspergers: and it's highly heritable. He distinguished himself as a pioneer in information science: but drove us mad with his obsession, and insensitivity to "normal" social signals.
Plus men have the time to spend hours venting their spleen destroying women via Wikipedia while their Mommies, wives or sisters do their laundry, make their meals, mind their kids.
Once again, Emily, you've given me something to repeat!
I can't take credit for it, I think the Farms came up with those ones IIRC.
I think we'd all like to believe that these people are dumbos, but they are not. At least, the ones behind it are not. Women are always at a disadvantage up to the point when we are willing to fight back - physically, if necessary, as the Suffragettes did - because men are socialised to fight (generally speaking) while we are socialised to be passive (although that it is not our natural condition, which is to stand our ground in a different way to men's).
What is happening to the women here is the same as happened during the miners' strike: agitators, professional troublemakers and propagandists are being employed against us. The MSM and some social media sites are happy to side with the 'trans'. We have to be smart enough not just to see it, but to call it out, take videos, photos, recordings.
These people are smart. We have to be smarter. We also need to harness the help of the male allies we have, too - and these include straight men, gay men and even a few 'trans' who support us and respect our spaces and rights. Most of the last are older transsexuals, rather than self-ID 'trans'. We need all the help we can get, and men understand other men in ways we simply do not.
Sadly, from experience, some women can be the absolute worst when confronted by other gender critical women. Not only have they drunk the Kool-Aid, they're actively making it and pouring it. Their reaction makes me want to scream.
It's the strategy of feeding other women to the monster so it won't eat you. Though it only really means it eats you *last*.
To me, it's akin to a Black person singing the virtues of the KKK. I just don't understand it.
It used to be called Stockholm Syndrome when the lives and safety of captives were so at risk and so scary that there was survival value in seeing the POV of their captors, and going along with them. It made captivity more bearable.
But today's capitulation of captives of the gender identity cult seems to be based on NOT realising the degree of threat: or brushing it under the carpet. And instead even valuing the kudos and group identification of being "inclusive" and "progressive": by wilful refusal to acknowledge the sacrifice of females to male misogyny masquerading as Victim's Rights.
I think the brainwashing has to be pretty severe for women to lose their common sense so completely to such manipulative male demands: especially when so blatantly backed up by hate speech and threats of violence.
It's classic coercive control, with plenty of gaslighting by narcissistic abusers.
This is an excellent book that shows that Stockholm Syndrome operates on several levels, and is an integral part of how women are conditioned to adopt the view of abusive men: https://www.amazon.com/Loving-Survive-Violence-Feminist-Crosscurrents/dp/0814730590
I think it's just because some women are so opportunistic and desperate for male approval they go along with any evil - like "gun molls" go along with their sociopathic mates.
Are you familiar with the Hollywood movie that was made about the black policeman who interacted with the KKK? What the movie forgot to tell people was that he was also spying for the government on civil rights groups.
Spike Lee's "BlacKkKlansman".
Thanks, Ella, for providing the title. I never watch Spike Lee movies.
I think women are at a disadvantage in numerous ways in this fight: yes men are socialised to fight -- or to be more aggressive than women who, because of our basic physical inferiority to men, cannot afford to get into physical fights which we will lose.
Women are socialised to be "passive" in the sense of putting the needs of others before our own -- and condemned for selfishness if we don't: exploited by the trans "Be kind" tyranny. Women are also trained to be cooperative: the value identified by Darwin as primary in the extraordinary success of the human species. And the weapon traditionally belonging to women, both in bringing up children and as compensation for our physical inferiority to men, has been command of words.
The gender cult has appropriated that weapon to itself by making a mockery of language: destroying the undisputed meanings that "men" and "women" have probaly had for as long as language has existed (well over 30,000+ years), and thereby also destroying the painfully acquired sex-based rights of women and girls that are ALSO based on our physical inferiority to men.
We cannot fight off the male rapists and sex offenders (of whom 99% are male): we can only prevent them from getting too many chances to attack us (with 88% of victims of sex offences being female).
The final insult is for those in power, captured by gender cult vocabulary, to call this policy "inclusivity": of welcoming (by default) all violent and abusive men, not just those pretending to be women, into female-only "safe" spaces (and destroying women's sports, etc) -- at the expense of women and girls.
The only resort of the gender cult is to pretend such men don't exist: until their crimes in newspaper headlines prove otherwise. But they didn't need to infiltrate and dismantle the criminal justice system too: because this had already been achieved (in the UK at leesst) by rightwing government defunding it: rape has already been effectively legalised.
It was easy for Stonewall to coopt an already systemically misogynist and homophobic police force into waving rainbow and trans flags: with an Equality Act for gender ID to corrupt crime stats. A sudden upsurge in crimes committed by "women".
We didn't have a chance. This gender cult takeover was globally orchestrated and billionaire-financed.
We can only learn better ways to fight back. Our biggest problem is the WOMEN who go along with it all.
I think it's a direct effect of evolution; women evolved to be nurturers and cooperate to protect and nurture the next generation . Otherwise the human race would have become extinct. Many men evolved for competition and conquest. The anthropologist/sociologist Thorstein Veblen, sums it up pretty well in his writings on barbarism.
Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf is worth reading if you want to understand the TRA propaganda model. Hitler says that he was very impressed with the Bolshevik propaganda.
The Trans-Rights movement is based more on simple slogans "Trans Women are Women", "Trans Rights are Human Rights". Anyone who questions these are automatically cast as the baddies.
They use emotion exclusively over reasoned argument - we must be angry about the imagined attacks on 'us' - we must 'care'. However, this care and understanding has to be directed at one particular group (the 'German' people/trans) but little care should be given to 'others' (Jews/women).
I would like to point out that I am not making a direct comparison to what happened to the Jews in Germany - just pointing out that some of the propaganda tactics are the same.
This is not the first time that we have fallen foul of the "Bolshevik propaganda model". We were involved in an anti-racism campaign.
While we tried to counter some of the misinformation given about migrants, however, the response from others was just to call people who even mentioned 'immigration', racist, fascists and Nazis. Even comments on social media that asked quite legitimate questions were deleted because they were 'hate speech'.
We were accused of being 'soft on racists', and even Nazi's and Fascist ourselves. Despite this and mainly because we did most of the work, we wrote all the leaflets for the local group and gave a talk at the local college.
Obviously they did not really think that we were racists, fascists and Nazi's but just tried to bully us into accepting their ideology. They were just using 'racism' as a political football and did not even have enough interest in the subject to find out a few facts or think through some political analysis - it is a lot easier for them to shout Nazi, Fascist and Racist.
The Nazis are the most effective "go to" villains for smearing any movement. This device sometimes reaches ludicrous extremes i.e. the most frantic hair splitting. Do you recall how Jeremy Corbyn "mispronounced" the name Epstein? To rhyme with "mine" rather than "clean". This of course "proving" that Corbyn headed an anti-Semitic party. As someone who learned German at school, I know that "ei" SHOULD rhyme with "mine" and "ie" SHOULD rhyme with "clean". So the propaganda was basically saying that the German language itself is anti-Semitic! Of course this naturally dovetails with a Western audience primed on Hollywood movies to feel a shudder when they hear the German language.
I find the word 'Nazi' so misused that it has become meaningless. There are a few groups of people who are enveloped in Fascist ideology. There are many arguments you can use to counter their various political views, but just name-calling is not effective. Having said that, if they are out intimidating people, I am not 'soft on racists'.
There is a danger that the fight against the trans-ideology could lead to negativity against anyone who is not 'gender conforming' - I used to quite often wear a dress (I do not any more since I do not want to be associated with the TRAs). However, just because I do not conform to the stereotype of a 'real man' it is rather worrying that some think I should chop my dick off and put me on hormones to convert me to my real 'gender'.
They call us Nazi's because our belief that 'trans-women are not women' makes some people feel 'unsafe' as they sing 'punch a Nazi in the face'. They say they are going to come down our local pub to 'take us down' which would be worrying if they could take down their own underpants unaided.
The whole “gender ideology” matter seems to me to have led to a phenomenon which is most notable for its sheer aggravation. There is a sense of impending fisticuffs whenever the topic is broached, and I feel that that is very much intended as a “divide and rule” strategy. Of course, there is a whole history of appalling homophobia stretching back – but it seems to me that acceptance of gays is pretty much universal now. Now, permit me my “paranoia”, but I think that when one avenue for a divisive strategy dries up, the propagandists try to reintroduce it via some new scheme. They did this with the racism issue by introducing more and more pedantic “offences” i.e. the whole “political correctness” thing thus ensuring that the racism issue would continue.
As for transgenderism, I doubt if there is any substance there at all. There may be folk who feel they are “in the wrong body” and this may be a genuine matter but, if so, I reckon it must be a rare condition. It’s more likely, especially with young people, that it is the constant talk of this “wrong body” that implants the idea in their head.
One thing I have always felt is that there is a curious sexlessness about the transgender movement. I no longer feel we are discussing the issue of men who want to dress as women, or people who are gay etc. These are familiar notions and I reckon none of them are likely to cause offence. Hence the careful incubation of this “gender ideology” in which everyone is, as with the racial PC thing, encouraged to feel completely ill at ease because they no longer know what to say.
What this all results in – or, at least, what it is clearly aiming at – is the reintroduction of the old homophobic “Nazi” intolerance. Those who quite rightly object to gender ideology are being corralled into “taking the Nazi path”. So e.g. the appearance of a man who dresses as a woman in public – which wouldn’t have raised a single eyebrow previously – is now being “recontextualised” as something which “you must have a strong opinion of”. Which of course leads to fisticuffs.
The leaflets we wrote: https://lowestoftstanduptoracism.wordpress.com/category/leaflets/
Wikipedia needs some kind of regulation .. anything tech-bros moderate is a huge problem for society.
I think it just needs to be taken less seriously as a source. Much like Twitter, I don't have an issue with there being social media platforms where speech is controlled: the problem I have is when internet service providers and payment platforms won't allow anyone else to make a similar site (Josh "Null" Moon has written a lot about this), and when politicians take the very strictly and carefully curated population of Twitter posters as representative of the electorate and our interests. Both sites have far more respect than they deserve.
Unfortunately I cannot agree. I use Wikipedia a lot (and help to support it) and am generally very impressed by the depth of knowledge on uncontroversial subjects: eg settled science.
But some Wikipedia content is hugely disappointing -- ignorant, opionated and dismissive -- in areas of fringe science I happen to know something about, from books that cite a wealth of peer-reviewed studies.
And, though any so-called "evidence" for "gender identity" -- let alone reasons for dismissing biological sex -- is simply propaganda, it gets the same weight as settled science.
And what else would you expect from a globally orchestrated capture of governments and institutions, but the TRA gender cult line: with its 24/7 team of TRA Wikipedia editors ready to instantly eliminate any dissenting voice.
But because this activist gender cult trash co-exists side by side with a mass of well-informed, genuinely authoritative content on other subjects, it benefits from implicit but undeserved endorsement by proximity.
This is highly misleading for anyone who goes to Wikipedia for a good introduction to and overview of any subject (and sometimes a lot more) without referring to other sources.
This is a real.let-down, and a big disservice to Wkipedia's millions of readers who just want some unbiased facts -- and don't know enough to distinguish facts from propaganda.
I agree with you, Emily. I will use Wikipedia to look up an actor's career but not for anything serious, certainly not anything in the realm of social issues.
I used it to look stuff up when I was a student, but my degree was in maths, and I made sure to check the proofs line by line to confirm it for myself. And even then I'd usually use Wolfram or something instead. It's a good enough place to start but you can't rely on it. The fact that journalists are apparently using it as the sole source for their articles is shocking. I suppose it's like the "ideas laundering" in academia but in journalism.
When I worked for the Press Association we were repeatedly warned off using Wikipedia as a reliable source.
There was an American criminal (from memory, a serial killer) who wrote or amended his own Wikipedia entry. His unreliable narrative found its way into news reports via journalists covering his trial.
Emily: "... look stuff up ..."
As I've just written, I've found Wikipedia to a be very useful resource. But heavily biased in many areas.
I kind of got into this issue because of its bastardization of the article on sequential hermaphroditism which seems congenitally incapable of recognizing that many members of many species are in fact neither male nor female, that they're sexless:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
Basically turning each sex into a binary -- functional and non-functional males & females.
Emily: "... usually use Wolfram ..."
👍🙂 Very useful application, even for dilettantes like myself:
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BooleanAndGeneRegulatoryNetworks/
Interesting video on collective stupidity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25kqobiv4ng
Interesting video, thanks for the link.
Also includes conditions for collective intelligence: the presence of some informed people -- so long as they're not silenced.
What happens a lot of the time is that people listen to the pro-TRA media and do not think beyond what they are told. When we explain some of the problems and implications of the trans-ideology then we tend not to have any problems convincing people.
Very glad to hear it.
The problem with Wikipedia is that editing wars are generally won by the wrong side of any controversial issue: the side representing the biggest vested interests, the side that refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary, the side that will not allow any dissent even to be heard.
I think the only answer to this is regulation of Wikipedia (but by whom?) that insists that differing viewpoints MUST be allowed to be expressed, side by side: not just one "winning" side in the editing war. Even though I don't like the idea of eg climate denialists getting their say. All the better: because most of their half-baked simplistic theories and spurious "facts" are so easy to refute.
One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it tends to be well referenced. You can check out the original sources. A good thing about academic references is that you can check out 'citations' - i.e. papers that reference that paper - what do they say about it.
This brings us to a bigger problem, in that things are not written in isolation. With the trans issue, it is sometimes difficult to even research the topic.
This is not just a problem about Wikipedia, but how we gain knowledge and how this is disseminated in society (e.g. media bias).
Totally disagree. There are problems with Wikipedia but the last thing we want is more restriction on the freedom of expression - they would very soon stop anything that could be considered a 'hate' crime.
Regulation is not a threat to free speech. Wikipedia passes itself off as something that is both factual and editable by anyone when both of these claims are false. Wikipedia bros control and prevent people from editing pages as they see fit. It is legalized slander to allow this. People treat it as a reputable source like a real encyclopedia when it is not.
Who is going to regulate? Perhaps they will get advice from Stonewall.
I agree .. it’s the who & how. ..
I didn’t love my word ‘regulation’ either but my point is ., people treat it as fact. So this is a problem.
"people treat it as fact." THAT is a the problem.
The biggest problem is that it's the world's encyclopaedia and the only facts allowed in it are those approved by TRAs. Don't blame the audience. I don't like restrictions either, but enough to guarantee neutrality seems justifiable to me.
Indeed. On many topics, Wikipedia is an incredibly useful resource. And "the price is right" -- I've often contributed a shekel or two.
But, as I've just argued above, on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids.
My "tale of woe" for being deplatformed there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
I might have seen that play out. I often look at the "Talk" pages for "gender issues" topics and remember a guy getting bullied to hell and then getting kicked off. It was good to see that there was fight-back but depressing to see that there was no way of winning.
But the problem is that Wikipedia editing wars squelch any "freedom of expression" -- except for the winning side. Regulation is needed to PROMOTE freedom of expression.
There is also (1) manipulation and (2) "distraction" in "the Big Lie". Narcissistic men are really good at lying in HUGE ways: Why do we pay any attention to them?
Because they have very powerful and often quite charismatic personalities (whereas we are more used to 'give and take' in our exchanges and find out too late that with them it's all give and no take.) It takes an effort not to get sucked in.
I think women need to consider -- and our daughters need to be taught -- what they find "charismatic." This is how women referred to Bill Clinton, a serial sexual predator. We need to learn to see what is right in front of us and make sure our children are not told 1) that they didn't see what they saw, 2) that they didn't hear what they heard, 3) that they didn't experience what they experienced. Those three things are common parenting tactics.
Absolutely we need to be wise to all the ways we are gaslit and things are glossed over and minimised; and by the same token to trust our inner authority and guidance (which I suggest comes from the body); and to foster that ability in children. I am not a parent and I don't know what are common tactics in parenting but I think in society generally people are too liable to place authority in others rather than in their own instincts. We are quite disembodied as a society, and people with their own selfish agendas take advantage of that.
Just to be clear: the gender critical people like us give and the TRAs take. I stopped "giving" in to my gas-lighting Trans H quite early on, but then, obviously, he refused to talk with me because I wasn't "playing his game". It was terrifying, infuriating and deadening all at the same time. I am so glad that he died last year, even though I had divorced him and not seen him, except in connection with the divorce, since he walked out on us in 2006. A long time ago.
Your relief is quite understandable. I realise that my comment re 'give and take' was ambiguous; but I was thinking in terms of 'giving out' opinions versus receiving other peoples'. But your interpretation works just as well. And you of course having been through this are well aware of this dynamic but other people without such experiences will be more naive to it.
It's taken me decades to understand the relationship that, for me, finished ALL my relationships with men (too many of them had been abusive): because my (already fragile) self-confidence was finally so shaken and undermined that I could no longer trust my own judgement -- or any man, again.
But now I know so much more about transvestism, narcissism and gaslighting: words I had never heard of then. I sometimes wonder if that man ever "transitioned": he'd be nearly 70 now. I'd be very surprised if he didn't. But I don't want to know.
Orwell was a genius.
That reminds me. I must order a new copy of "1984". Someone has borrowed mine. And I'll order "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley at the same time.
I find 1984 more frightening now than when I first read it decades ago. Then it seemed so far fetched and now our noses are being rubbed in it by people we trusted.
Same here. My generation read it as a warning and this one reads it as an instruction manual.
Jennifer Government's a good one too. Even Ingsoc in Nineteen Eighty-Four was a better society than this one, at least punters actually got arrested rather than being tolerated as "empowering sex workers".
‘Think a year or two ago Orwell was taken off UK school reading syllabus, along with William Golding. “Lord of the Flies” another one from my school syllabus, chilling. Golding apparently based some of it on Nazis (real ones) written after war (think).
Maybe Orwell was a genius but he was also quite a misogynist as the book The Orwell Mistique: Male Ideology by Daphne Patai spells out in detail.
Oo-er! ‘Putting on reading list, ta.
Thanks Lisa. Trouble is the NZ press seem so captured but if the general public could see the livestream they would quickly see who the real fascists are
Dusty
Has anyone ever thought about a class-action lawsuit against Wikipedia for this practice? They knowingly allow lies to be published about people. Surely that is against some law (libel? defamation?). At the very least, we should be able to get Wikipedia to put a disclaimer on every passage that is objected to by the person being described. In any case, we should make a LOT of noise about this in the mainstream media. Most people probably think Wikipedia contains only vetted information.
P.S. It's very helpful to have this explanation of how "The Big Lie" was used at that event. I'm always trying to defend it from TRA attacks on Twitter.
I have written about it on my Substack, including a transcript and some details about the origin that surprised me when I researched it:
https://genderwang.substack.com/p/what-lisa-morgan-really-said-at-newcastle
"Most people probably think Wikipedia contains only vetted information."
Most people would be right.
This blog has an interesting take on who is behind the big lie.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers
Jennifer Bilek is an unsung hero in this war. She is magnificent at digging deep into this ideology and its drivers. At first I thought it was conspiracy theorist stuff, it all sounded so implausible, but after reading a few articles and listening to an interview, I realised that if anyone knows the dark motivations underpinning this movement, it's her. And John Uhler, with his deep knowledge of sexual deviance. Gender is a hydra with many heads, we need to cut off each and every one, but for that we need to know about each and every one.
I do like your "post name letters denoting status" "GC". It reminds me of QC or rather KC now, of course. I might just "borrow" your idea. Wonderful!
And Bilek's well-researched expose of gender capitalism is to be found at http://the11thhourblog.com
The way things are turning out "conspiracy theorist stuff" is never implausible. All that demonised expression means is an arrangement made in secret with repercussions that involve others. It recalls a line from Yes Minister in which Humphries complains that "open government" is a contradiction in terms. You can either be open or you can have a government.
There are "conspiracy theorists" who (in the UK) are typically climate change (or anthropogenic climate change) deniers and supporters of Brexit; are anti-vaxxers and supporters of "Freedom" (no lockdowns, no social distancing); are anti-immigration & are often racists and xenophobes; and are nationalists and monarchists. Some go further and believe in the Great Reset, that the UN is trying to reduce global population by murdering people, that vaccine injections include microchips designed by Bill Gates for a state surveillance system (they forget we already have mobile phones), and the whole QAnon nonsense eg the Clintons running a child sex trafficking ring from the basement of a Pizzeria (which has no basement) -- where a man actually turned up with an AK-47 to "rescue the children".
Then there are the real conspiracies: of the tobacco industry to deny any link between smoking and cancer, of the fossil fuel industry to deny any link between CO2 emissions and global heating -- predicted by Exxon's own research scientists in the 1960s, on an Exxon research ship equipped with CO2 monitors, with $millions spent annually on denying it ever since.
In London there's 55 Tufton Street and the Tufton Street far right thinktanks including the so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation which has never employed a climate scientist, colluding with Atlanticist free market politicians (Institute of Economic Affairs, Centre for Policy Studies) to pull the UK out of Europe for unregulated trade with the US: including selling off the NHS to US healthcare outfits -- but done piecemeal, by stealth: while running down the NHS to make an eventual sell-off easier, with legally irreversible sales. All prepared for by the 2012 Health & Social Care Bill.
But as the real elites engineering all this, they cleverly point in other directions: to the entire population of Turkey (70m?) about to accede to the EU and swamp the UK with immigrants: all lies used by Vote Leave in 2016. Priti Patel has just ramped that up to 100m globally unless the "invasion" by small boats crossing the Channel is stopped: by an illegal Tory bill seeking to criminalise asylum seekers exercising their human right to claim refuge.
Conspiracies are not necessarily conducted in secret, but right under our noses, in the glare of daylight and press reporting. But a large part of the UK media exists to push the interests of its billionaire rightwing proprietors and the perceived interests of the goverrnments they support, in moulding public opinion in order to get votes to keep them in power.
Thankfully at present, they are failing abysmally: because the gap between what's actually been happening and what they want us to believe, is too big for credibility. And that's how Sturgeon suddenly fell from power: because she couldn't bring herself in front of the tv cameras to maintain that a male rapist was a woman -- whatever her GRR (Scotland) Act had to say about it. She could only duck the issue and say it was up to the prison service to decide where trans prisoners were housed.
We need these public showdowns to illustrate how ludicrous and damaging is much legislation ostensibly passed "in the public interest": but actually pushed by lobbyists (often with big donations to MPs and to the party in government) to legislate against the public interest.
The transgender matter has shown up how the entire media can push a story as true and even “scientifically validated ” when it is not only ludicrous but even oxymoronic.
This now gives a splendid insight into the media, how centralised it is and how “bought” it is.
Thus we have what amounts to a totalitarian media in the sense that there is no variation across the supposedly separate channels.
This gives an enormous power to the ability to present any argument as the ruling class see fit, to misrepresent it and apply non-sequitur labels such as “Right Wing”.
There is no necessary link between e.g. scepticism over climate change and xenophobia just as the women protesters in Australia are not Nazis though the media will now portray them as such. And that pantomime was clearly a coordinated move that involved the police. Furthermore, once again the media – along with Wikipedia and supposedly Left groups like the World Socialist Web Site are fully on board with this demonisation of the anti-trans movement.
As for the label “conspiracy theory” or even the single word “conspiracy”, this has been the most astonishingly successful Orwellian re-fashioning of language in my lifetime, though the transgender re-assigning of terminology may yet surpass it. We now have a population that automatically smirks at the mention of “conspiracy” and should they be unwise enough to pursue such avenues, they can always be relied upon to back off when you tell them they are being “Right Wing”. And then you can always redirect them to yesterday’s battles such as protesting over cigarettes.
We must always document the conflations and misrepresentations chronicled here. I've named this phenomenon a Strawman Ambush. The TRAs recreate a strawman target in our image, to joust at. Women who've divorced AGPs, who almost always claim they're the holy grail diagnosis of "true trans," accuse us of much more. I was accused of 2 assaults in our custody battle, both from years before, with no logical proof, no police called, did not happen. Later, in a weak moment, Neddy (my ex) said, regarding all of the smears, "I had to say that. Everyone likes you so much more than me."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJopS7fMUpQ&t=28s
Graham - you might indicate that it this article is apparently written by Lisa Morgan.
But on anything to do with gender, Wikipedia is about as "ideologically captured" as is Stonewall or Mermaids.
My "tale of woe" for being deplatformed there as an editor for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
The Facebook group "Actual Gender Critical Left" has accused KJK of 'femaleism'. Apparently it means "the wrong kind of feminism." This was endorsed in a repost by Ruth Serwotka (of Woman's Place UK). It's especially disappointing of RS, because she herself has experienced physical violence from TRAs.
Risking your life to stand up for women’s rights looks like the right kind of feminism to me. No wonder KJK doesn't call herself a feminist, when GC feminists as well as liberal ones are colluding with TRAs to undermine her.
Name calling is a tactic common to narcissists and TRAs, as I see some of you recognise. Narcissists use false accusations to avoid being held accountable. The more unjust and heinous the accusation, the more likely it is that the accused will refocus their energy on defending themselves against it. We see this in the way TRAs use 'Nazi', 'racist' and 'transphobe.' As with a narcissist's insults, they tell you about the accuser, not the accused.
KJK appears to be quite hostile to feminists and feminism -- but I don't know who started it, or what brand of "feminism" she objects to: if it's male-centric "libfems" then she has a point.
And it seems she deliberately promotes "femalism" to distinguish her own movement to "Let Women Speak" as "Adult Human Females" as a more inclusive and basic "brand" than feminism -- split by competing and conflicting theories.
But the problem with KJK's rejection of "feminism" is that in practical terms it makes "femalism" into just another breakaway group. It would be absurd not to call it "feminist", however much KJK tries to disown the term.
I saw the livestreams where KJK first talked about "femalism - for females". I've even got the badge :-)
I found it confusing at first because she pronounced it femm-al-ism rather than female-ism, so it sounded like she was saying "feminism".
It would have made sense if it was a strategy to try to get the "real feminists" off her back with their constant criticisms that she was either doing feminism wrong or "wasn't a feminist because (insert reason)".
However, she introduced it positively, without any reference to that criticism:
"My Alternative to the Queen's Speech #femalism"
25 Dec 2020
https://youtu.be/vN1JqS94-uc
"In 2021 I would like to invite you to join me in a new kind of women's activism. I'm calling it femalism. It centres women and girls and it's for us and it's by us. It's not a brand that men can co-opt. The only qualification is that you're female"
She expanded on this in her next livestream on 31 Dec 2020.
"The future is #femalism"
https://www.youtube.com/live/Mps562FHvuM?feature=share
Back in the days when she scripted her livestreams or resorted to prompts, before she got right into her stride and had the confidence to wing it and speak and rant entirely spontaneously.
Really good reminders of how long KJK has been organising and encouraging women to take over the public square through Speakers Corner events in London, around the UK and in other countries - Covid allowing!
"Be brave in your deeds, be courageous with your words and be honest with your thoughts. The future is femalism.
And that's not to say anything about feminism, that has done the most incredible things throughout history. I just really want to take it back away from men. I don't want a man wearing, "The future is, either, this is what a feminist looks like".
Not interested in men wearing it. I'm interested in men wanting to do their own things and speak courageously and, you know, maybe you reclaim some of your spaces."
What she calls what she does is really the least important part of it.
She usually just calls herself a "Women's Rights Activist", which is surely enough?
It is feminists who go out of their way to distinguish themselves from KJK when they acknowledge that is what she is and also state that feminism is not about "women's rights" but about "women's liberation".
Interesting re-watching the New Years Eve 2020 livestream - she says Julie Bindel had agreed to come on her Channel but hadn't yet found time. I hope Julie does find the time.
The Wiki page on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a vile disgrace. The Nazi connection was a pure set up instantly transferred to this “virtual knowledge" site i.e. this “Matrix in the making”.
And as for Wiki’s other machinations, consider this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine
Rachel Levine is "one of only a few openly transgender government officials in the United States". And "(s)he transitioned from male to female in 2011". As far as I could see, there is no mention anywhere of "her" original name.
So here we have an article that openly admits the "transition" thus implying there was a previous male state and tells you nothing at all about that previous state. Effectively: "We are telling you to your face that we are missing out something."
Incidentally, I can't find any further information on this individual’s shady past anywhere else. Which leads me to wonder about the control the elite have over all channels.
"Richard Levine is a mainstream American transgendered character. She is presently known as Rachel Levine. Expertly, she is a specialist. At present, she has been filling in as an educator at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center.
Likewise, she has been filling in as the head of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders here. After the medical procedure, she gladly considers herself a lady. Nonetheless, she was totally a man before the medical procedure.
Richard or now, Rachel had no such interests until she was graduating. Yet, gradually in the wake of working in her particular field, she began developing interests in the crossing point of clinical, mental, and conduct medical problems."
https://www.tvguidetime.com/people/richard-levine-height-weight-net-worth-age-birthday-wikipedia-who-nationality-biography-78049.html
This is a pretty seedy publication but has a lot of info on Richard Levine:
https://archive.ph/kPftm
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/05/transgenderism-just-big-business-dressed-pretend-civil-rights-clothes/
Business! Big Money! Commercials! Razzmatazz! Showbiz! Celebrity!
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/05/transgenderism-just-big-business-dressed-pretend-civil-rights-clothes/
“Transgenderism is looking more and more like Transgenderism™, when we look at the markets opening and its insidious presence in Hollywood.”
Cue a whole gallery of atrocities:
• Whoopi Goldberg’s trans modeling company on Oprah’s Oxygen network, (trans models reported as the future of modelling)
• Supernatural Extraterrestrial and Co, a high-fashion clothing line, promotes their willingness to embrace a future of male pregnancy.
• Cosmopolitan magazine’s breast-binding guide for young women in 2016.
• Cosmetology consultant services offering help to “trans women.”
• Crayola’s new gender-fluid make-up
• Artists photographing young “trans” children
• Almost every new TV series has at least a nod to transgenderism.
• Jazz Jennings (male teen who had his penis surgically removed) has been on many major talk-shows since his family decided he was transgender at the age of four.
• Jennings has his own reality TV series, his own trans foundation and has received many awards and accolades.
• A children’s storybook about Jennings’ life, which normalizes for young school children the idea that they can become the opposite sex, has been adopted as part of some school curriculums.
• Banks and investment houses sending millions of dollars to transgender organizations all over the globe.
And now for the ultimate:
• scientists already looking at changing our biology as a way to deal with climate change.
Cut off your willie to save the planet!
Hi GL, Don't know where to put this. Hope you've seen it. Heiko Koo arrives for his Sunday stint at Speakers Corner.
Dr.Heiko Koo films and argues with police at Speakers Corner today https://youtu.be/y_exxcEHGdc
I hope KJK will take her place on Speakers Corner from now on. With Heiko and Piers Corbyn there on Sundays, this is the place to be, and they will defend to the death anyone's right to speak and be heard.
Good to see you there - I watched the playback of the stream.
All the best.