Graham, you’ve been right on everything you’ve said since you first embarked on your campaign of sanity, truth and reality in the face of delusion, lies, abuse and utter insanity. One day the truth will emerge and all the people who’ve propped up the insanity in the face of mounting evidence, will have to account for the horrors they’ve been complicit in enabling and promoting. I hope they feel nothing but shame.
I'm reminded of a photograph taken in Germany just after the Second WW. It showed some allied troops forcing the German towns-people in places like Dachua and Buchenwald to march through the concentration camps there and see for themselves what had been done "in their names".
Same thing should apply to those people -- particularly so-called doctors, lawyers, politicians, philosophers, and biologists -- who have contributed in any way to the butchering, castration, and sterilization of autistic and dysphoric children. The lot should be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind.
Why has he gone all in on something so obviously false? Does he think the masses are stupid, won’t do any checking, and will just accept his word for it? Weird to show everyone that he’s 1. a liar, 2. a poor journalist, 3. a gender zealot
O my word , I’m hopeless , yes I loved 24 I could do the swipey thing with the computer tables cos it’s not realm😂, took me a long time to do iPhones ,iPads etc
Why did this MAN feel he was equipped to dismiss he horror of what is going on? Be it one or one thousand young lassies doing this is enough. How about Susie Green bypasing NHS and taking her son to Thailand..there are plenty more doing it.
I wonder just how many gendered souls will be crowdfunding for breast reconstruction in the years to come. Asking surgeons to rebuild breasts with no actual skin 'pockets' will be nigh on impossible - but no doubt, for the right price, some doctors will be able to do it. If it wasn't so sad it would be fun to see the backpedalling.
> "This is nitpicking. Even one woman undergoing an elective double mastectomy due to a belief that her gendered ‘soul’ has somehow been born into the wrong body is one too many. It is a religious belief, and I believe its global influence has caused more harm than the Catholic Church's historic control over Ireland"
Amen to that. Apropos of which, something from out here -- in the colonies ... 😉🙂
Something I ran across the other day from US lawyer "Unyielding Bicyclist" which speaks damningly to the rot on the Democrat side of the ledger, but also among "The Woke" in general:
"I never get tired of reading ACLU lawsuits. Here's Chase Strangio and 14 other lawyers claiming that a girl is a boy because her first period upset her"
Anything that Trump is guilty of kind of pales into insignificance in the face of that medical scandal, a crime of the century. Should be hell to pay for that. A bunch of "doctors", and lawyers and politicians and "biologists" and "philosophers" -- and "journalists" -- should be strung up by their "nuts" and left to twist in the wind.
While true believers like the ACLU lady lawyer and male impersonator Chase Strangio deserve a lot of the blame for gender identity ideology and its consequences, philosophers are the greatest offenders. Malcontent philosophers Michel Foucault, Judith Butler and others dreamed up the scientifically baseless concepts that became popularized as gender identity ideology. Gender ideology conquered American institutions seemingly at the speed of light without the consent of a majority of the electorate. Today it is unassailable anywhere liberals or progressives govern. There is no guarantee that the judiciary will break its grip on society. If a politician or a political party burdens the public with an unpopular law, the voters have the option of defeating them at the polls or demanding a repeal. Who do I go to get gender identity ideology repealed? Considering the nearly absolute power Butler and her ilk have to shape some aspects of our lives, we might as well get used to the idea that we're living under the rule of philosopher kings.
I think I might loathe Chase Strangio. At a certain point you have to believe people when they tell you who they are, even if you want to asume good intentions. She knows she’s put male rapists in prison cells with women and she knows she’s help sterilize kids and stunt their growth, and she doesn’t care.
Less a problem with "philosopher kings" as a concept than with the fact that too many "pretenders" to the throne are charlatans, grifters, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists. Which says something not very flattering about the scientific illiterates who follow and support them.
But while there are more than a few flies in the gender identity "ointment", there is some merit in the concept of gender which too many are too quick to throw out with that "baby's" bathwater. Something which James Lindsay -- no friend of Butler & her ilk -- more or less accepts:
"As all this confusing controversy indicates, gender genuinely is a complicated issue that is somehow related to biological sex. The question is how they are related. On the one hand, there seem to be very obvious connections between the two: most men are masculine in various ways and most women are feminine in various ways ..., but that this is the case doesn’t explain why it is. .... Thus, gender being understood as the sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness is also not controversial, nor is the idea that maleness and femaleness are, indeed, social constructions, that is, ideas about what it means to be male and to be female, which are, in fact, somewhat flexible. ...."
I don't see how gender is a complicated issue (beyond humanity's sick addiction to it), or why there should be any question about how it is related to biological sex.
Gender is an ideology which places value judgements on biological sex, by interpreting femaleness as being inferior to maleness. There. How complicated is that? What's unclear about its relationship to biological sex?
Maybe the confusion arises because people get distracted by its innumerable EXPRESSIONS-- hair length, clothing styles, personality traits, behaviors/pastimes, even goddamn COLORS. But these things all have the same root: whatever is seen as "superior" in a given time and place is gendered "male", and whatever is seen as "inferior"-- weak, trivial, lacking in prestige/respect-- is gendered "female". To the point that, if its status changes from one to the other, so does its "gender" (when being a secretary was a prestigious occupation, it was reserved for men; once it was no longer respected, it became the stereotypical "pink-collar ghetto" job).
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -- too many irons in the fire. 🙂
But a big part of the problem is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin -- and their dogs, cats, and gerbils -- has a different and quite antithetical definition for "gender". And many, if not most, don't realize that they're talking entirely different languages. Evolutionary "biologist" (jury still out on that question) Colin Wright had a decent summary of that problem some years ago:
"Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female); 2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex; 3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations; 4. Sex-related behavior; 5. Personality traits"
Too many insist that "sex" and "gender" are identical -- item 1 -- but the other four have some degree of currency or reasonableness. Your own "places value judgements on biological sex" probably qualifies as part of item 3 -- "sex-based expectations" -- but there's some justification to include items 4 & 5. And those two are, more of less, the direct result of different biological "inheritances" by men and women. But item 2 -- subjective feelings -- is kind of the black sheep of the family since it is more or less what is meant by "gender identity", an individual's affinity or expression of items 3, 4, & 5.
There are fundamental behavioural and personality differences between men and women that are reasonably encompassed by the term "gender". Why it's reasonable to talk about some kids being "gender non-conforming" -- masculine girls and feminine boys for example.
You might have some interest in an old post by Kathleen Stock who more or less reasonably argued that many Radfems were "barking (mad)" to want to try abolishing "gender":
Shane continues a tradition of misogynistic men telling women there's nothing to be concerned about which is as old as the hills. Plus he's ruining beards!
Oh how sad. All those precious young women who will never experience the joy of breastfeeding their babies - all for lie. All those young women with wounds instead of breasts and troublesome ones at that. Well done debunking an idiotic journalist covering up a tragedy.
Well said ,Graham. In fact ,you have been proven right on everything you have said about the gender ideology cult ,and your opinions have been well vindicated. Your detractors should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their cowardice in refusing to acknowledge truth and reality. Women will be forever grateful to you for supporting us in spite of the bullying and "cancellations" you've been subjected to. Thank youx
Deliberate misinformation. Obvs a ludicrous figure - but they don't care. Gender zealots can now quote this bogus untruth, and say 'Well. estimates vary wildly...' and 'it's hard to know the real facts...' Just trying to muddy the water, and stop any sensible debate of the actual subject. On TV they'll be arguing about what the real stats are- so they can avoid talking about the actual issue of human suffering.
I've been following the Moira Deeming vs John Pesutto case, here in Australia, as best I can over the last few days. Here's the link to the live session (I know we're in different time zones, so many will still be asleep. I'm in Perth and it's around a quarter to 8am Thursday morning). Over eighty people are waiting as viewers. I find it heartening to know there's interest. NB it disappears after the live broadcast and is not retrievable, so I've missed chunks and relied on others to summarise.
I have to say the use and abuse of guilt by association (pretty much the only tool the defence has up their sleeve) is the most shocking (but not surprising) and nauseating tactic, which makes it difficult to watch.
That and the fact that Pesutto's lawyer is as dull as ditchwater—the classic plummy-voiced, educated leftie Aussie man who presents as the self-appointed saviour of trans activists, who has spoken as though gender ideology is axiomatic to human life. He's so far used a lot of diversion, really scraping the bottom of a very rank barrel. I also can't believe how much hearsay from random social media commentators is permitted in a court of Law!
So it's obvious to me that diversion is the name of the game. "Look, over here!" ...as yet another irrelevant set of statements by a third or fourth or even fifth party removed, gets trotted out. Splitting hairs over statistics and data is the strategy long used by Pharma-sponsored lobbyists commissioned to write smear pieces.
Then there's the matter of what some people will do to salvage their reputation. It's come to light in the Course of these proceedings, that John Pesutto as the leader of the Victorian Liberal Party, expelled Moira deeming because he was verging on paranoid about being seen to be associated with Nazis and "far right" activists. Thus, the entire attack on Moira Deeming was an exercise in saving face. Even the merest whiff of someone (mainly Kelly Jay Keen) having been in the same room as a self-declared "White Nationalist," despite Moira De not agreeing with KJK on all points, but seeing the value in giving a variety of women's voices and opinions a platform, has evoked this type of guilt by association reasoning. By that logic, working at the same workplace, your children attending the same school, or strolling through the park with your dog at the same time as someone with divergent political views can be construed as "associating with" them. What the allegation was in fact based on was a panel discussion in which KJK made it clear she was not a fan of Nazism in a "civilised society."
Graham, you’ve been right on everything you’ve said since you first embarked on your campaign of sanity, truth and reality in the face of delusion, lies, abuse and utter insanity. One day the truth will emerge and all the people who’ve propped up the insanity in the face of mounting evidence, will have to account for the horrors they’ve been complicit in enabling and promoting. I hope they feel nothing but shame.
You are a star.
Hear, hear.
More hear hear.
Nail on head, TT 👍
Dusty
I'm reminded of a photograph taken in Germany just after the Second WW. It showed some allied troops forcing the German towns-people in places like Dachua and Buchenwald to march through the concentration camps there and see for themselves what had been done "in their names".
Same thing should apply to those people -- particularly so-called doctors, lawyers, politicians, philosophers, and biologists -- who have contributed in any way to the butchering, castration, and sterilization of autistic and dysphoric children. The lot should be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind.
I think of that all the time in relation to this debate.
Indeed. Apropos of which and ICYMI:
"Josef Mengele, Pediatric Transition Pioneer":
https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/josef-mengele-pediatric-transition-7d1?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
The author makes several references to columnist Gerald Posner who has been researching that topic, his latest:
"My 40-year Hunt for Josef Mengele's Auschwitz Lab Notes"
My "sardonic" comment there which got a like out of him 🙂:
"Kinda think WPATH and 'Admiral' ['Rachel'] Levine got there before you ... 😉🙂"
https://www.justthefacts.media/p/update-my-40-year-hunt-for-josef/comment/69037450
But no joke, a crime of the century.
Well said.
Yes.
It's so Orwellian that "fact checking" has itself become total disinformation. The Ministry of Truth and FactChecking has arrived!
Snopes got on board with this cult years ago. I used to love Snopes!
Why has he gone all in on something so obviously false? Does he think the masses are stupid, won’t do any checking, and will just accept his word for it? Weird to show everyone that he’s 1. a liar, 2. a poor journalist, 3. a gender zealot
A very quick Google search shows that there are ten , on the first page, in Scotland alone
Maybe needs another job rather than journalist , that description should probably be in air quotes
he identifies as a journalist Petal. But he isn’t is he. He’s just another lying self serving bloke
I’m still riding a high from being able to do a Google search cb 😂
ha ha! Oh Petal you are silly. I got this image of you as a data analyst like in 24 if you’ve seen that.
O my word , I’m hopeless , yes I loved 24 I could do the swipey thing with the computer tables cos it’s not realm😂, took me a long time to do iPhones ,iPads etc
Little petal has to show me stuff
Real ! Sigh lol
…..enhance
I’ll take your word for it lol
My youngest brought his lap top through for me to buy him something once and I tried the swipey thing , never lived that down for a long time
Why did this MAN feel he was equipped to dismiss he horror of what is going on? Be it one or one thousand young lassies doing this is enough. How about Susie Green bypasing NHS and taking her son to Thailand..there are plenty more doing it.
And why? Shouldn’t he wonder for a second that he might be wrong?
I've learnt a while ago that you can't trust fact checkers. It's a sad state of affairs.
Fact ... 😉🙂
I wonder just how many gendered souls will be crowdfunding for breast reconstruction in the years to come. Asking surgeons to rebuild breasts with no actual skin 'pockets' will be nigh on impossible - but no doubt, for the right price, some doctors will be able to do it. If it wasn't so sad it would be fun to see the backpedalling.
> "This is nitpicking. Even one woman undergoing an elective double mastectomy due to a belief that her gendered ‘soul’ has somehow been born into the wrong body is one too many. It is a religious belief, and I believe its global influence has caused more harm than the Catholic Church's historic control over Ireland"
Amen to that. Apropos of which, something from out here -- in the colonies ... 😉🙂
Something I ran across the other day from US lawyer "Unyielding Bicyclist" which speaks damningly to the rot on the Democrat side of the ledger, but also among "The Woke" in general:
"I never get tired of reading ACLU lawsuits. Here's Chase Strangio and 14 other lawyers claiming that a girl is a boy because her first period upset her"
https://x.com/unyieldingbicyc/status/1826842593273041090
https://badfacts.substack.com/p/updates
Anything that Trump is guilty of kind of pales into insignificance in the face of that medical scandal, a crime of the century. Should be hell to pay for that. A bunch of "doctors", and lawyers and politicians and "biologists" and "philosophers" -- and "journalists" -- should be strung up by their "nuts" and left to twist in the wind.
While true believers like the ACLU lady lawyer and male impersonator Chase Strangio deserve a lot of the blame for gender identity ideology and its consequences, philosophers are the greatest offenders. Malcontent philosophers Michel Foucault, Judith Butler and others dreamed up the scientifically baseless concepts that became popularized as gender identity ideology. Gender ideology conquered American institutions seemingly at the speed of light without the consent of a majority of the electorate. Today it is unassailable anywhere liberals or progressives govern. There is no guarantee that the judiciary will break its grip on society. If a politician or a political party burdens the public with an unpopular law, the voters have the option of defeating them at the polls or demanding a repeal. Who do I go to get gender identity ideology repealed? Considering the nearly absolute power Butler and her ilk have to shape some aspects of our lives, we might as well get used to the idea that we're living under the rule of philosopher kings.
I think I might loathe Chase Strangio. At a certain point you have to believe people when they tell you who they are, even if you want to asume good intentions. She knows she’s put male rapists in prison cells with women and she knows she’s help sterilize kids and stunt their growth, and she doesn’t care.
Less a problem with "philosopher kings" as a concept than with the fact that too many "pretenders" to the throne are charlatans, grifters, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists. Which says something not very flattering about the scientific illiterates who follow and support them.
But while there are more than a few flies in the gender identity "ointment", there is some merit in the concept of gender which too many are too quick to throw out with that "baby's" bathwater. Something which James Lindsay -- no friend of Butler & her ilk -- more or less accepts:
"As all this confusing controversy indicates, gender genuinely is a complicated issue that is somehow related to biological sex. The question is how they are related. On the one hand, there seem to be very obvious connections between the two: most men are masculine in various ways and most women are feminine in various ways ..., but that this is the case doesn’t explain why it is. .... Thus, gender being understood as the sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness is also not controversial, nor is the idea that maleness and femaleness are, indeed, social constructions, that is, ideas about what it means to be male and to be female, which are, in fact, somewhat flexible. ...."
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-gender/
You might also wish to take a gander at the "charming" conversation I had with "Holly MathNerd" on the topic:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-gender/comment/13255143
And, speaking of scientific illiterates, give her my "regards" if you should happen to see her in your travels ...
I don't see how gender is a complicated issue (beyond humanity's sick addiction to it), or why there should be any question about how it is related to biological sex.
Gender is an ideology which places value judgements on biological sex, by interpreting femaleness as being inferior to maleness. There. How complicated is that? What's unclear about its relationship to biological sex?
Maybe the confusion arises because people get distracted by its innumerable EXPRESSIONS-- hair length, clothing styles, personality traits, behaviors/pastimes, even goddamn COLORS. But these things all have the same root: whatever is seen as "superior" in a given time and place is gendered "male", and whatever is seen as "inferior"-- weak, trivial, lacking in prestige/respect-- is gendered "female". To the point that, if its status changes from one to the other, so does its "gender" (when being a secretary was a prestigious occupation, it was reserved for men; once it was no longer respected, it became the stereotypical "pink-collar ghetto" job).
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -- too many irons in the fire. 🙂
But a big part of the problem is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin -- and their dogs, cats, and gerbils -- has a different and quite antithetical definition for "gender". And many, if not most, don't realize that they're talking entirely different languages. Evolutionary "biologist" (jury still out on that question) Colin Wright had a decent summary of that problem some years ago:
"Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female); 2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex; 3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations; 4. Sex-related behavior; 5. Personality traits"
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Too many insist that "sex" and "gender" are identical -- item 1 -- but the other four have some degree of currency or reasonableness. Your own "places value judgements on biological sex" probably qualifies as part of item 3 -- "sex-based expectations" -- but there's some justification to include items 4 & 5. And those two are, more of less, the direct result of different biological "inheritances" by men and women. But item 2 -- subjective feelings -- is kind of the black sheep of the family since it is more or less what is meant by "gender identity", an individual's affinity or expression of items 3, 4, & 5.
There are fundamental behavioural and personality differences between men and women that are reasonably encompassed by the term "gender". Why it's reasonable to talk about some kids being "gender non-conforming" -- masculine girls and feminine boys for example.
You might have some interest in an old post by Kathleen Stock who more or less reasonably argued that many Radfems were "barking (mad)" to want to try abolishing "gender":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
Shane continues a tradition of misogynistic men telling women there's nothing to be concerned about which is as old as the hills. Plus he's ruining beards!
smoke screens every 5 minutes with these terrible people. i don’t know how they sleep at night.
It hasn't affected them yet.
Oh how sad. All those precious young women who will never experience the joy of breastfeeding their babies - all for lie. All those young women with wounds instead of breasts and troublesome ones at that. Well done debunking an idiotic journalist covering up a tragedy.
I'm guessing Shane's pronouns are 'HEE/HAW'?
A donkey? A Democrat? 😉🙂
Well said ,Graham. In fact ,you have been proven right on everything you have said about the gender ideology cult ,and your opinions have been well vindicated. Your detractors should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their cowardice in refusing to acknowledge truth and reality. Women will be forever grateful to you for supporting us in spite of the bullying and "cancellations" you've been subjected to. Thank youx
Deliberate misinformation. Obvs a ludicrous figure - but they don't care. Gender zealots can now quote this bogus untruth, and say 'Well. estimates vary wildly...' and 'it's hard to know the real facts...' Just trying to muddy the water, and stop any sensible debate of the actual subject. On TV they'll be arguing about what the real stats are- so they can avoid talking about the actual issue of human suffering.
I've been following the Moira Deeming vs John Pesutto case, here in Australia, as best I can over the last few days. Here's the link to the live session (I know we're in different time zones, so many will still be asleep. I'm in Perth and it's around a quarter to 8am Thursday morning). Over eighty people are waiting as viewers. I find it heartening to know there's interest. NB it disappears after the live broadcast and is not retrievable, so I've missed chunks and relied on others to summarise.
I have to say the use and abuse of guilt by association (pretty much the only tool the defence has up their sleeve) is the most shocking (but not surprising) and nauseating tactic, which makes it difficult to watch.
That and the fact that Pesutto's lawyer is as dull as ditchwater—the classic plummy-voiced, educated leftie Aussie man who presents as the self-appointed saviour of trans activists, who has spoken as though gender ideology is axiomatic to human life. He's so far used a lot of diversion, really scraping the bottom of a very rank barrel. I also can't believe how much hearsay from random social media commentators is permitted in a court of Law!
So it's obvious to me that diversion is the name of the game. "Look, over here!" ...as yet another irrelevant set of statements by a third or fourth or even fifth party removed, gets trotted out. Splitting hairs over statistics and data is the strategy long used by Pharma-sponsored lobbyists commissioned to write smear pieces.
Then there's the matter of what some people will do to salvage their reputation. It's come to light in the Course of these proceedings, that John Pesutto as the leader of the Victorian Liberal Party, expelled Moira deeming because he was verging on paranoid about being seen to be associated with Nazis and "far right" activists. Thus, the entire attack on Moira Deeming was an exercise in saving face. Even the merest whiff of someone (mainly Kelly Jay Keen) having been in the same room as a self-declared "White Nationalist," despite Moira De not agreeing with KJK on all points, but seeing the value in giving a variety of women's voices and opinions a platform, has evoked this type of guilt by association reasoning. By that logic, working at the same workplace, your children attending the same school, or strolling through the park with your dog at the same time as someone with divergent political views can be construed as "associating with" them. What the allegation was in fact based on was a panel discussion in which KJK made it clear she was not a fan of Nazism in a "civilised society."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K85Gs60qPiI