Because the rainbow flag gang has been cheering for their enemies since Oct. 7. Killing off identified LGBTQ people has been a thing in Gaza for many years Don’t pull this shit in Gaza or you will know the *true* meaning of the word ‘genocide’. Photo by Ketut Subiyanto The colorful folks who lose their minds when Republicans and conservative Christians enact anti-transgender laws give genocidal, homo-hating psychopaths a free pass because, I guess, at least Hamas hates Jews as much as the other unleashed bigots on the left . If there’s one thing that doesn’t exist in the West today, it’s ‘trans genocide’. That’s a fantasy cooked up in brains housed in overprivileged, unmarginalized, mostly male bodies desperately seeking cultural relevance. If anyone implemented an actual genocide campaign against the genderfluid set, evidence so far indicates it would miss their gaydar. It’s true that transfolk are at higher risk of violence than other groups, but it hardly approaches the level of ‘genocide’, a very much-abused word that used to mean something super-serious, like the conscious attempt to exterminate a group of people based on certain characteristics. We’ve seen it in Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Chinese Revolution, the 20th-century Russian attempt against Ukrainians in the ‘30s, and of course the ‘gold standard’ for the most systematic attempt ever to eliminate Others, Nazi Germany. Pre-Columbian Indigenous groups everywhere occasionally attempted genocide too; and it was a lot easier back then when tribes and bands were a few hundred members at most, rather than today’s cities, states and countries. The most recent example of a limited attempt at genocide was Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel in October. It’s linked and locked to genocide because Hamas’s charter is quite explicit on their mandate to eliminate Judaism from all of what is now Israel. ‘From the river to the sea’, that’s what it means. Don’t let Hamas apologists tell you otherwise. Hamas’s 1988 Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement is pretty plain-spoken: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). It quotes the Koran: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). There’s more anti-Semitic genocidal crapola, but let’s not get off on a tangent. In case you’re wondering if Israel’s uncomfortably disproportionate defensive response, which has killed a ton more Gazans than Israelis on Oct. 7 is ‘genocide’, as the Islamofascist cheerleaders on North American campuses insist, Time Magazine weighed in on the matter in November. Defining genocide gets very tricky without the evidence of a specific intention to destroy the group, it says, but notes, “That can be a high bar because very often people contribute to genocidal policies, even if that's not their direct intention.” That renders allegations of Israeli genocide of Palestinians a little less abstractly. While Israel’s explicit purpose is to wipe out Hamas, they’re taking a helluva lot of civilians with them, and with the Gazan death toll now estimated around 20,000 since October 7th, the carnage can no longer be blamed solely on Hamas’s use of the civilian population as human shields. With a massive human rights crisis of displaced people and countless neighborhoods reduced to rubble, Israeli forces are squandering whatever moral righteousness for response they possessed for October 7. When defining genoicide, most experts refer to the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which created the definition in 1948. If the Israeli government has genocidal intent toward the Palestinians themselves, they’re less explicit than Hamas, or many other antisemitic genocidists of the Arab/Muslim world, for whom the elimination of Jews and ergo the State of Israel has been boldly stated for generations. In North America, the last genuine genocide attempt was the centuries-long effort to eliminate ‘the Indian’ from what they called Turtle Island and what we call ‘the United States’ and ‘Canada’. There have been no genuine genocide attempts here since, and the ‘trans genocide’ one sees repeated ad nauseum on social media is merely hypervole rooted in very few expressions of a few sick individuals who either genuinely would like to eliminate all trans people, or just crank them up. Either way, there’s no concerted effort to eliminate them, and the violence against them isn’t remarkable compared to many other groups. The Human Rights Campaign notes that last year in the United States, 32 transgender people were murdered , 81% of them non-white, 59% of them black. They claim to have documented 302 violent deaths of transgender and ‘gender non-conforming people’ since 2013. Those numbers aren’t good, but they’re no evidence of genocide. A fair chunk of them may be genuine hate crimes (although there could be other reasons, like a john who doesn’t want to pay his transgender prostitute). Like so-called ‘hate crime’ hoaxes against black people, when you drill down to the meat of the story, you often find that there was less evidence of a hate crime than initially alleged in the legacy/social media. Some transfolk are killed by police (go figger), some in prison, and a few in ICE detention centers. About 2 6% are killed by intimate partners . Welcome to WomanWorld, fellas. This is what you signed up for. Happy to join you in the fight against intimate partner violence, everyone has the right to not be murdered by a partner! I can’t find statistics specifically for Canada on transgender murders. The U.S. numbers do seem to be going up, but whether that’s a response juiced by ‘anti-trans’ information in the media, as transactivists allege, or other reasons (it’s hardly uncommon to get murdered by the police or in prison) is unclear. It could be that trans numbers grow every year as more jump on the Trans Train. I can’t help but wonder whether violent, aggressive transactivism has something to do with it. “Can we just start stabbing transphobes?” Transactivists are pretty famously aggressive and violent against women, particularly in Europe where they’ve been documented physically attacking feminists at public protests, in the time-honored tradition of men attempting to shut down women’s speech. La plus ça change, n’est-ce pas? Some things never change. Feminists were also violently attacked by transactivists and Antifa in Portland, Oregon in November. But I suspect transactivist woman-haters have little to do with it. Partner violence, prison violence, sex worker violence - also, la plus ça change. But the LGBTQ cheerleader section for Hamas makes me wonder if they’d even notice if anyone launched a genuine trans genocide. While even Gaza isn’t guilty of a concerted, systematic effort to eliminate transfolk or other LGBTQ people, they sure do love to push them off buildings when they identify someone who doesn’t adhere strictly to Islamic dictates about who and what to shag. It’s a little better on the West Bank where homosexuality has been decriminalized since 1951 (yes really!). The status is far more confusing in Gaza, with a patchwork of laws covering who may do what with whom. Homosexuality is not specifically banned, but don’t expect any help from the police for homophobic or (genuine) transphobic violence in action. Prison is the customary punishment for gay activity, but can also include the very occasional flogging for ‘adultery’. Not sure what you get when you murder gay or trans people in Gaza. High fives? People do get killed there for partaking of Oscar Wilde-style love. This includes a Hamas commander executed for allegedly partaking in an act of ‘moral turpitude’ (their euphemism for gay sex) and theft, although some allege he was tortured into making a confession. This sounds suspiciously like what happens in other parts of the Middle East all the time for women - ‘honor killings’ executed by family members, or stoned by the community, on rumors of alleged non-chaste behavior with a male, no evidence required. Wagging tongues get women killed all the time in the Middle East for such alleged sex crimes, just as they did in medieval Europe for alleged witchcraft. Gay Palestinians can avoid getting murdered by turning informant for the authorities (including Israeli authorities who blackmail them to become Israeli collaborators). Still, Israel has actually become a bit of a gay retreat for Palestinians trying to escape Gazan homophobia, and is the only place in the Middle East where one will find Pride Parades. If you’re going to be gay in the Middle East, Palestine is one of the worst places to do it. And Israel is the best. Even so, Palestinians aren’t attempting anything approaching ‘trans genocide’, or even ‘gay genocide’, but if it was to start anywhere Palestine would be in my top three guesses. And I wonder: Would Western transactivists even notice? And if they did, would they dare, with typical Regressive Left cowardice, to call out dark-skinned homophobes and transphobes? Would Western condemnation of Gazan homophobia be regarded with embarrassed looks as ‘cultural imperialism’? If they can’t identify the rampant homophobia and genuine transphobia in Palestine, and they cheer for the equally homophobic Hamas, I’m not sure they’d recognize an actual genocide if fluorescent-dressed corpses started dropping on their heads. It’s possible the rise in trans murders in the West is a consequence of rising violence and murders overall. The numbers may also be rising because more people are ‘going trans’, so there are simply more of them to run afoul of others, whether it’s due to transphobia, ‘trans panic’, or police arrest. But it’s certain the West’s claims of ‘trans genocide’ is an effort to inflate the emotionalism of the debate, as so many movements are wont to do (including on the right). We see the same inflation from the ‘antiracist’ set when they claim black deaths by police are ‘the new lynching’ or ‘genocide’ against blacks. Ironically, more trans people (and white people) are killed every year by the cops than black people. And interestingly, the Black Lives Matter website has fuck all to say about Israel, whereas on Glenn Loury’s Substack , they’ve discussed the anti-Semitism problem in the black community, not to mention in the DEI industry , where most DEI consultants are black women. What’s worrying is how much violence against everybody is growing, not just transfolk. Whether they’re murdered for their lifestyle choice or for the common reasons so many others are murdered, it’s not okay. But it’s not genocide either. And I’m not sure any of them would notice if it turned into one. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Are you voting for someone with a fuzzy grip on reality? Or against your own interests? Independents will never win, but why not send a message? Image generated by Poe AI, after a lot of effort to get Biden to not look like Trump, and to grasp the concept of ‘two devil horns each’, not each with one devil horn “I’m voting for Trump this time.” Really? “I guess I’ll vote for Biden again, anything’s better than Trump.” Are you sure? I mean, I’ve got food in my fridge older than these two codgers! (Okay, maybe it’s time to throw out the meat loaf.) Acting grand-dadly is the latest fad in D.C amongst the 75+ set. Mitch McConnell ‘freezes’; Trump and Biden have both been scrutinized for potential dementia, and not only by their adversaries and critics. A Washington pharmacist claims he is regularly filling and hand-delivering prescriptions for treating Alzheimer’s disease—to many members of Congress. Anyone who’s a baby boomer is already pretty damn old, but our two truly serious candidates from the two biggest parties are from the friggin’ Silent Generation . Or maybe Trump is a very early boomer. Born in 1945, he’s on the cusp, although no one has ever accused him of silence. A guy who worships dictators and admits he wants to be one himself is the worst possible choice ever, with or without his cookies. He gave us four years’ experience with his petty and morally corrupt presidency, incapable of telling the truth, obsessed with his own petty grievances, issuing crazy directives ignored by his staff , spending more time tweeting than running the country, and insulting and disrespecting everyone, including military veterans. Except deplorable dictators, with whom he may have shared sensitive American intelligence—and kept it unsecured in his bathroom. Remember the days when Republicans lost their shit when someone burned a flag? Now they wipe their shit with the American flag. I think Biden is a somewhat less demented choice in both senses of the word but—I’m not voting for him either. God/dess help us if he dies in office. President Kamala Harris: Another reason to Just Say No to Joe. I expected the former San Francisco district attorney to set fire to her enemies the way Congresswoman Katie Porter does when she traps a hapless CEO in the Senate chambers hot seat. Harris has a glare that could melt steel but not, apparently, her critics. She’s too Hillary Clinton: Stiff, robotic, unwilling to speak her mind and there’s no way she could ever utter an actual sarcastic zinger. Not publicly, anyway. She’s a bright, smart woman, but too hyper-conscious of her burdensome identity labels: Female, black, Asian etc. and first Vice President to be all that stuff. I think most of us would like to see someone younger than either of the two acuity-challenged Methuselahs. I mean, I want a President I don’t have to explain the difference between a boy and a girl to. And ffs, Donald Trump thinks Nikki Haley is Nancy Pelosi! We bitch about shitty candidates but how is this not our fault? We get what we vote for in the primaries. The Republicans run in fear from any candidate with a brain because their voters do . The Democrats scream on sight at any candidate who isn’t woke because hating all the people the Republicans don’t and wanting to censor as many library books as Moms for Liberty is what passes for ‘progressivism’. And who do we vote for? Whoever we think is the lesser of the two evils. Even when they’re both against our own interests. So I wonder. Why vote for either? What if those of us fed up with both extremes voted for some independent candidate we know will never win but at least doesn’t stand in contradiction to our own interests, and who possesses more conscious thought than a jellyfish? I’m not alone. Bari Weiss’s The Free Press recently covered how voters from both sides are switching in The Great Scramble . It reminds me of Afghanistan before 9/11. Their choices were only the Taliban and the Northern Alliance; voters constantly changed the reigning party and received brand-new violence, same as the other. Would you prefer Mao or Hitler? Sound familiar? The article mirrors exactly how I feel: Politically homeless, abandoned by the party I voted for all my life (Democrat). Not wanting to see either side win. Seeing violence and repression no matter which doddering old man leads his younger, toxic party to victory. What message would it send if a whack of Americans voted, but not for either major party candidate? What if the winning geezer won with, like, 38% of the vote? Even though all those independent candidates came nowhere within megaphone-shouting distance of winning? I asked that question on Quora recently and most argued against voting indy. A fellow named Mark Stinson described how the states’ elections require a plurality of the vote and how even a 38% winner (the person with the most popular votes) wins all that state’s electors, and how, in the current state of Congress, the Republicans would probably get the votes needed to win in the 26 primarily Republican House delegations. His full answer is here (you have to scroll down). But we’ve got to do something. There aren’t a lot of declared Democratic challengers to the incumbent’s reign, who’s widely regarded as the only person who can beat Trump, since he did it once before. Elections are about many different issues, but at the core we care about our own, and our tribe’s, interest. In my position, my tribe under threat constitutes half the country. The same threat I perceive from the right, although expressed differently. I don’t consider the Democrats pro-women’s rights anymore. Why should anyone vote against their own interests? You’ve got abject whackjobbery in the GOP, and abject wokejobbery in the Dems. As a feminist, I find myself increasingly resistant to voting for any candidate or party who’s not. The ‘woke’ Democrats are in thrall to a transgender religion which signals a much deeper problem so-called liberals have with women’s rights. The Squad and other woke-ass-kissing politicians are willing to put women in serious danger in service for the votez for sexual fetishists cosplaying womanhood for the wanks. Sorry, Dems, but supporting women’s right to abortion is no longer enough to prove feminist credentials. I believe the unquestioning loyalty too many in the party express towards ‘trans rights’, a subject on which I’ve spilled many words already, exemplifies a pervasive left-wing misogyny no less threatening than historical conservative hostility to women’s rights, and I wonder whether the pledged allegiance to restore Roe is mostly Democratic efforts to distract female voters from an uglier agenda: Namely, the right to say no to aggressive men. I’m not at all sure misogynist souls are any different riding an elephant or a donkey. Men seem pretty willing no matter how they vote to protect male sexual interests, even if it’s not their own. Help out a bro’, could you, buddy? Roe seems to be the only policy point on which Democrats aren’t actively trying to harm women. The only policy point on which the Republicans support women is by resisting the transgender cult, including ‘gender-affirming’ care. But I can’t vote for them, either. Not when culty Trumplove is the intellectually deranged equivalent of ‘Transwomen are women’. Got this for Christmas. It explores how the left is moving toward the right, the very people they claim to fight. Women are half the population, and our safety, equality and interests far outweigh what suspiciously predatory men want. Wokeness = misogyny, exemplified by disbelieving Hamas’s own documented livestreamed rape and atrocity videos. The Squad’s refusal to support Israeli rape victims makes the Epstein-friendly pussy-grabber look like Harry Styles. And denying that men who grow their hair long don’t possess any physical advantage over their female teammates demonstrates conscious stupidity on the same level as that Biden stole the election because it’s simply impossible not enough Americans voted for Trump the last time around for him to lose. Even as Republicans don’t support ‘transing’ children, they’re the ones who destroyed Roe, and many are want to eliminate birth control , like Clarence Thomas, who’s also against gay marriage (I wonder how he feels about returning 1968’s anti-miscegenation law? ). Republicans also voted against the Violence Against Women Act. There’s so much wrong with both misogynist parties, but Donald Trump ? Again? With all the other lib-hating, reason-averse, censorship-happy, misogynist, racist, homophobic, but more mentally acute candidates Republican voters have to choose from, why does it have to be the dictator-lover who clearly hates democracy? What does it tell us about what’s really wrong with this country? Hint: It ain’t Trump. I know there’s a lot more to an election than women’s rights. Trump is killing the Democrats, rightfully, on immigration . One of the massive delusions of the illiberal left, as I’ve pointed out many times before, is its unwillingness to just say no to anyone. Not just sexual fetishists seeking to bend women to their will, but to any old Mexican rapist who wants to immigrate to the U.S., because guaranteed, there will be rapists and other ‘bad hombres’ as Trump has put it, when you allow unfettered access from any place on the planet. Related: They’re Black Democrats. And They’re Suing Chicago Over Migrants. - The Free Press Voters have plenty of economic concerns too, and I also recognize I don’t live in the U.S. anymore so I don’t have to live with whichever bad decision y’all make. What does bother me is that the only decent Republican candidate worthy of considering was the guy who entered not to win but to try and warn Americans about what an unqualified human being Donald Trump was to allow into power again. Chris Christie knew he had no chance of winning; and it’s a shame because he was the only candidate with a brain not addled by ideotology. I’ve liked him ever since he ate a doughnut on Letterman in response to his many fat-shamers But every time I think about holding my nose and voting for the sort of less toxic party, I feel ashamed. I can’t do this anymore. I just can’t. Fuck it, America. I’ll ‘throw away’ my vote on some candidate or party who has no hope of winning. I can’t, I won’t, vote against my own interests. Ranked voting There’s a better way to conduct elections. It’s too late for 2024, but we should start talking about it now. Someone answering my question on Quora pointed out the idea of ‘ranked voting’, which sounds like a better way to elect a candidate rather than by which one drools the least . With ‘ranked voting’, a voter ranks three or more candidates from most to least preferred. Vivek Ramalamasalami was still in the race when I designed this Ranked voting is a little more complicated, but Rankedvoting.co , which believes it’s promoting a more pro-democracy electoral reform, claims ranked voting “determines the candidate with the strongest support, encourages civil campaigning, reduces wasted votes, and eliminates the need for multiple elections.” In other words, your vote does count, since you’re not just voting for your fave, but the ones you’d rather see if s/he can’t win. It’s already in practice in some states and municipalities. In 2022, Alaska’s new non-partisan primary system offered all candidates on a unified ballot. Voters ranked who they wanted, which advanced the top four candidates to the instant runoff. Supposedly, it reduced extremism and encouraged greater cooperative governance. Voters are believed to have made more nuanced decisions rather than strict party-based ones. After all, no one knows who will make the Final Four or whether any will be Your Party Humanoid. I could sneak in a rank for Chris Christie. Because the elections were more ‘meaningful’, meaning “ballots cast in competitive elections that are not effectively pre-determined based on party affiliation alone,” a higher percent of Alaskans (35%) cast them, more than any other state. The ‘cooperative governance’ comes into play when campaigning candidates have to cooperate with each other after an election ends, as it did in Alaska last year, with an unusual bipartisan majority coalition in the Alaska Legislature’s two chambers. The result is that lawmakers have to work together now, and when they run again have to appeal to a broader swathe of voters rather than just playing to their base. That bit interests me even more about ranked voting. It’s an interesting idea for creating greater voter engagement, and other options if you’re not that keen on the candidate of your own party. And we could all do with more ‘civil campaigning’. It’s ten months until the U.S. federal election. What are your thoughts or opinions? Since we won’t have ranked voting, will you vote for one of the Paw-Paws or will you send a message to Washington? I might still try writing in Lyndon Larouche , Ross Perot or Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf . Yeah, I know they’re all dead, but if I’m asked to rank three of the candidates in the poll at the top of this article my choices are: Death by chocolate Death by George Clooney-shagging The bullet. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

THIS is how they can take back their power from their accused rapist in court--and win! Trump image public domain photo; Carroll image CC0 4.0, both from Wikimedia Commons Yanno, Donald Trump could have saved himself a total of $88 million dollars if only he’d chosen to prove his innocence. E. Jean Carroll, who’s accused him for decades of having raped her in a New York department store changing room, kept his salvation in an evidence drawer somewhere. It was a you-know-what-stained dress. Trump could have exonerated himself in a heartbeat and made this aaaaaaallll go away years ago, and even more importantly, saved himself $88M. He merely needed to provide a DNA sample that failed to match the DNA on the dress, at a critical juncture in his life when he’s about to lose a substantial portion of his real estate assets, may be permanently barred from the real estate industry in New York, and will need all that’s left of his dough to pay off the lawyers, since his legal troubles may outlast his life. And they’re doing such a fine job for him, aren’t they. I mean, even Tacopina has dropped him. When the guy who looks like a Sopranos reject leaves you alone with the blonde who’d rather be pretty than smart (Tee hee, giggle giggle! Mission accomplished, Barbie!), you are, well, rhymes with ‘tucked’. “She’s lying!” said Trump. “He’s lying!” said Carroll. “And I’ve got the dress to prove it!” So of course, like any innocent man would do, Trump refused to supply a DNA sample to settle the case without all this courtroom drama and $88M + lawyer fees. (Although granted, they’re probably working for free and just haven’t figured that out yet. They should ask any New Yorker .) There’s a very strong, powerful lesson here for rape victims, especially future victims, feminists, anti-rape advocates and others who bemoan the very real problem of victims not being believed and not receiving justice in court: PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE! There’s only one other semen-stained dress more famous than Carroll’s and I suspect it forced another President into an embarrassing admission. Monica Lewinsky famously kept her dirty dress, not to prove rape—she made it very clear her affair with Clinton had been consensual, and instigated by her—and he stopped claiming he’d ‘never had sexual relations with that woman’ after America began debating whether he should be forced to provide a DNA sample. And you don’t even need a little plastic cup for it; a blood sample will work just fine. So here’s something a rape victim—or her friend or roommate dealing with the immediate aftermath—can do. Put the evidence in a plastic baggie! Semen evidence on clothes can apparently last for decades, so the victim doesn’t have to report it immediately if she’s distraught, ridiculously traumatized and too ashamed to admit what happened, although it would be better for her case if she did. But still—evidence in a baggie weeks, months, or even years later is a lot better than she said/he said. Granted, if she files charges the man will invariably claim the sex was ‘consensual’, but DNA evidence proving something happened between them is better than her word alone, and will refute, “I’ve never even met the woman!” By the time many women get around to reporting, the bruises are gone, her memories may be fuzzy or dissipated, witnesses in the vicinity scattered, and there’s no point in conducting a rape test now. A suspect who refuses to provide a DNA sample for comparison looks an awful lot like he’s hiding something, and that will sit quite differently with a jury. THIS is how we bring justice to rape victims. THIS is how victims only have to take twenty seconds to protect their interests when they’re sobbing in a fetal position. THIS is how rape victims can take back their power. Take off whatever provides incontrovertible evidence that Mr. X had sex with you, put it in a plastic bag, seal it up and put it somewhere safe. This is something women’s activists need to broadcast from the rooftops: PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE! PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE! Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Since progressive feminists no longer #Believe[All]Women, let's talk about actual false rape allegations vs denying documented rapes By UK Government - Foreign Secretary James Cleverly visits Israel, 10/11/23, CC BY 2.0 by Wikimedia Commons There’s an overtly antisemitic Palestinian professor at NYU telling his compliant, passive classroom that Hamas atrocities aren’t true, especially reports of beheaded babies and sexually assaulted women. No, his #MeToo-generation students aren’t trying to cancel him. Since ‘progressive’ feminists around the world have joined incels, men’s rights activists, misogynists and certain Palestinian professors in believing that ‘some women lie about rape’, even when their brutal rapes were livestreamed, recorded, and uploaded by the perpetrators to Facebook, now seems like a good time to talk about what heretofore had been a taboo topic for many— actual false rape allegations vs the feminist New Thang: Denial of actual rapes. Until recently (like, October 8th), fem-babes heavily downplayed or outright denied some women lie about rape. Their battle cry was #BelieveWomen, like, to the point of Catholic Inquisition-style witness-or-else sacred holy writ. AI-generated image from Poe.com. Man, AI-generated images have a long way to go ;) Bill Maher pointed out that a better hashtag was #TakeAccusationsSeriously . Investigate before judging, he encouraged. Women don’t lie about rape as much as men think they do, but they lie more than women think they do. Progressive feminists who #BelieveWomen never required much, if any, evidence at all. To question an accuser was verboten . Period. If she said he did it, that settles it. Some even thumb their noses at the notion of due process for accused rapists and sexual harassers. The problem is, false rape allegations sometimes happen, and it even make the news on occasion. I myself have known two women who made them, one of them against two separate men. It happens. By refusing to address that small percentage of women who really have lied about rape, feminists hurt women, and especially real rape victims. False allegations are estimated to be around 2%-8%, so, if 100,000 women claimed they were raped, an estimated 2,000-8,000 could be lying. That’s claimed, because many women believe they were raped but don’t tell anyone. So the number of overall false rape allegations could be much, much lower, but it’s hard to quantify when you can’t count the ones who keep mum. In the wake of October 7th, some ‘progressive’ feminists have found a new way to hurt rape victims - the sort of bass-ackwards ‘false false rape allegation’. It’s denying or downplaying verified reports of Hamas’s mass rape and hideous torture of sexual assault victims. This, despite global investigation with documenting video and forensic evidence, the former often recorded by the Hamas animals themselves in the act. To put this in perspective, denying Hamas’s mass wartime rapes requires as much suspension of disbelief as it does to think January 6 was a peaceful protest. Women’s groups globally are finally getting around to admitting, well, something may have happened that day, maybe even a lot of somethings, hobbled as they are by the idiotic and racist notions that all Jews are white, all Hamas terrorists are not, and that ‘colonizers’ and ‘oppressors’ always deserve what they get. These rapes were awfully embarrassing for the progressive narrative that everything is all about dark oppressed and white oppressors. It’s convinced some feminists that maybe ‘blaming the victim’ isn’t so bad after all, when you don’t like the victims. Like, Jews. What more, besides Hamas perpetrator confessions, recordings, and brutal videos, would convince these women’s organizations they don’t need better evidence to be, you know, really really Really Really REALLY REALLY sure. “I can’t hear you! I can’t see you! No, no, no rape victims here!” Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels (Whispering) Yes, some women really do lie Women who actually lie about rape are, to paraphrase the immortal words of Lord Alfred Douglas and Oscar Wilde, “The feminist crime that dares not speak its name.” Feminists preferred to keep mum about it, deny its existence or discount its importance. Hamilton rape allegations false 10 Years Later, the Duke lacrosse rape case still stings Rolling Stone & UVA: A Campus Rape — What Went Wrong? UCSB student sentenced for fake rape report Woman recants Conor Oberst rape story: ‘I made up those lies’ The Hofstra date rape that didn’t happen The Tawana Brawley case Police say woman made up story of rape at Campus Lodge apartments ( This one lied “as a lesson to women in the area that an attack could happen to them.”) Incident at GW (George Washington University) — Rape hoax Woman falsely accused trooper of sex abuse in CT Lena Dunham’s mis-identification of an alleged rapist Myrtle Beach woman faces felony charges for falsely claiming rape Woman jailed for ten years for making series of false rape claims (This one got an innocent man jailed) Emmett Till’s accuser admits she lied. Now his family wants the truth This notorious lynching of a black teenager accused of whistling at or touching, although not raping a white woman in 1955 was one of the catalysts touching off the modern American civil rights movement. Feminists have swept under the rug that a few women do lie, because every admitted falsehood, they believe, makes it easier for men to deny rape occurs much at all. The narrative is a direct response to an appalling historic record in which women were and still are regularly not believed when they allege sexual abuses committed against them. We see our past mirrored in less enlightened countries where women are blamed for their own rapes, accused of ‘asking for it’, and otherwise treated with a skepticism that wouldn’t greet, say, someone alleging their house had been robbed. The biggest rape liars are men. They always say they didn’t do it. But feminist excuses or distractions from the severity of the false allegation crime fuels the perception once again that women can’t be trusted to tell the truth, that ideology and claimed victimhood trumps evidence. It makes it even harder to ‘believe women’ when otherwise guileless feminists who never met a rape victims they didn’t believe turn around and deny rapes that clearly occurred, and even worse, actual documented mass rape. Sometimes women deserve rape. Right? Feminist groups at the United Nations, the folks who once strongly condemned mass wartime rape in days of yore, looked the other way, whistled in the dark, and mumbled a lot. “Every new wave of warfare brings with it a rising tide of human tragedy, including new waves of war’s oldest, most silenced and least condemned crime,” said Pramila Patten , the UN’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. Unfortunately, that was in July 2023, three months before October 7th. She didn’t, according to the website, get around to issuing any official statement on the Hamas attack until December 8th, with a press release expressing how Patten was “gravely concerned about emerging reports of sexual violence, against both women and men, while they were held in Hamas captivity.” ‘Emerging’? Where the hell has she been? “Special Representative Patten expresses concern for those civilians still held hostage by Hamas, and calls for their immediate, safe, and unconditional release.” Nothing about the rapes that happened to the ones before December 8, especially the ones who didn’t survive to tell their stories. Two frickin’ months. While one might argue that investigations need to happen first - and I agree - this was one of the first massacres livestreamed by the perpetrators, documented on the fly. So, like, what part of this was still in dispute, Ms. Patten? Other ‘feminists’ flat-out denied it happened at all. In Canada, we had Samantha Pearson , who heads up the University of Alberta’s sexual assault center. And Sara Jama , a Canadian Member of Parliament, and Susan Kim , a Victoria, British Columbia city council member, all of whom signed letters calling the Hamas sexual assaults ‘unverified’ or the attack on Israel an ‘unverified accusation’. After the near-constant #MeToo global dissection of rape and sexual assault since the world discovered Harvey Weinstein was a disgusting pig, we were lectured incessantly on how we should #BelieveWomen and that women rarely, if ever, lie. For all the bleating and drumbeating about how rape victims are traumatized further when they’re not believed, it seems today’s progressives would sooner quietly believe that the Hamas rapes were all a big lie, or at least, not as bad as people made them out to be. I mean, come on, it’s just Israelis saying it! “Okay, this is a bit awkward. We can’t help you.” (Satire) What harms women far more than false rape allegations are false allegations of false rape allegations. The Hamas ‘dispute’, if you can call it that, frankly ‘denial’ is a better word, harms all women and rape victims by making it look like feminists everywhere can’t recognize rape when it’s jammed up a screaming woman’s asshole. Video evidence of genuine rape is rare, outside of porn channels , and even rarer is recorded rape by wartime perpetrators. What hurts more than angry men’s rights activists’ denial is when it comes from so-called feminists. Hamas’s rape handmaids, deniers, ignorers, and apologists today strongly suggest or outright state those Israeli women deserved what they got, that all Israelis that day deserved it, because they’re ‘oppressors’. Some women, they believe, do deserve their rapes. I wonder if they realize how much they themselves are colonizers, settlers and oppressors. I guess they’ll deserve it, too. Other articles I’ve written on how women collaborate with ‘rape culture’: How Do Women Enable Rape, Trafficking & Sexual Abuse? When Is Rape Culture Totally Hot? Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

It's not right vs left, but liberal vs illiberal. Allies on the right are working with the libs to resist public school DEI. And the illiberals can't understand why. Public domain image from Rawpixel I hope it’s a sign of the times, that perhaps, at long last, liberals and conservatives are learning to cooperate again. Not in Washington D.C., of course; that’s crazy talk! But in upscale Newton, Massachusetts, activist parents are partnering with conservative groups similarly self-tasked with bringing a little common sense and maybe even actual education to—well, public education. Certain Newton Public Schools parents maintain that DEI initiatives are bringing down academic scores, while others disagree. The controversy pits those who claim diversity and inclusion are critical for racial equity against those who want to de-emphasize DEI initiatives and social justice politics. Sound like a typical left vs right tug-of-war over children’s education? Think again. Newton is no New England bastion of white, conservative values. According to Data USA , it’s 72% white, 15% Asian, about 5% multiracial, about 3% black, and 2% Hispanic. Unlike their northern neighbors hovering at around 90% white. The median income of this average-age-forty suburb is $164,607, with nearly 72% property ownership in an area where the average house price is a little under a million. And Massachusetts, in a new study, finds the state ranks first for the best U.S. school systems. A group called Newton Families for Improving Academics or also ImproveNPS, has circulated a petition calling for empowering parents to advise educators more on school policies, practices and curricula. Their wild-eyed extremist aim? To, quote, “Provide a culture of fairness and understanding with an emphasis on common humanity above group identity.” Their pro-DEI adversaries paint them as ‘right-wing’, which they’re largely not, and cozying up to conservative activist organizations (well…somewhat). Maybe the pro-DEIs are getting their information from sources like Boston’s PBS-affiliated WGBH radio and TV. The WGBH headline I found is Right-leaning groups opposed to diversity efforts find unlikely allies in Newton parents . WGBH’s website states, “True journalism is driven by the hunt for the truth,” but the article reveals a fair amount of bias and not much investigative digging for alternative interpretations or points of view. The website also claims a commitment to science, which is noticeably missing in the their search results for ‘gender-affirming care’ for kids which don’t appear to address growing documentation of the lack of evidence behind it . Not exactly promoting a balanced-sounding approach. The activist parents are concerned about how much DEI ideology has crept into the system. The resistors aren’t screaming, red-faced, red-capped MAGAs; Newton is a moderately liberal town in a solidly blue state from which Senator Elizabeth Warren hails. The Newton DEI fuss seems to be more of a face-off of what I hope to see more of in this new year: Not liberals vs conservatives, but hard-left illiberals challenged by traditional liberals and conservatives. Last year, the Newton Public' Schools Statement of Values and Commitment to Equity was amended to call for ‘racial equity’. The parents fighting back say they’d prefer a more humanist, universal approach to education. To the extremist illiberal mind, unquestioningly committed to a diversity model now under attack for many very good reasons, a more moderate, truly inclusive approach looks threateningly right-wing. One of the external organizations the activist parents are collaborating with is no right-wing think tank. WGBH’s description of FAIR , the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, subtly suggests it might be conservative, noting that, “Almost all of FAIR’s legal and political advocacy has been directed against DEI and anti-racism efforts across the country,” and that its work “is based on a philosophy that equates diversity, inclusion and equity policies with what it calls ‘neo-racism’ — a new twist on the idea of ‘reverse racism’.” The Elect: The Threat To A Progressive America from Black Antiracists - John McWhorter , author of Woke Racism What WGBH doesn’t mention is FAIR’s commitment to, according to their What We Stand For page, ‘defending civil rights and liberties’, advocating for those ‘threatened or persecuted for free speech’, ‘respectful disagreement,’ ‘that objective truth exists,’ and that they are ‘pro-human’, committed to ending (non-color-specific) racism. All classic, traditional liberal values. FAIR and other critics challenge DEI and other ‘antiracism’ efforts because that’s where they find plenty of intolerance and racism. What it also doesn’t tell you is that FAIR’s Executive Director is Monica Harris, a black lesbian feminist who some writer colleagues and I wrote about last year when she got censored by blogging platform Medium for quite politely criticizing transactivism that she claimed harmed women, lesbians and gay men. Not exactly a screaming white supremacist Proud Girl. On the other hand, WGBH claims to have taken part in a FAIR Zoom meeting for outreach and recruitment in which the staff facilitator claimed they had united in common cause with the far-right group Moms for Liberty, an allegation I can’t yet confirm. The cooperation may have been circumstantial rather than intentional as the FAIR facilitator said, “There’s been a few cases where we have been on the same side of them to support each other in some town hall kind of situations.” This is what I call the Murky Middle , where you don’t always like the company and allies you keep. Where you find yourself suddenly toe to toe with some political hack you think you can’t stand, but then you realize she also groks Jordan Peterson’s personal responsibility rap, or you find not all libs drink the trans Koolaid. Or the Bible-toting Christian lady shares your concerns that her kids might die in a Uvalde-style shooting, and she wants saner gun laws too. And she finds you don’t want to repeal the Second Amendment, either! This is where social and political ‘salvation’ for all of us lies—putting aside our differences and working together for common goals. Perhaps even borrowing, stealing, or revisiting some of the other side’s better ideas. One Newton pro-DEI parent interprets FAIR’s website with the same suspicion and trepidation I once associated with conservatives protesting a Playboy-carrying 7-11, terrified they might see a naked nipple. “It’s a lot of dog whistles on [FAIR’s] website. The language they use is very lovely, but when you look at it basically it is an ‘All Lives Matter’ kind of narrative, it’s coded language. They can’t come out in Newton and say, ‘We don't like these programs that are focused on Black kids, kids of color .’” I wonder if Monica Harris realizes she’s just one declined antiracism workshop away from embracing white supremacy or something. It highlights just how far some have strayed from actual liberalism. FAIR’s value commitments really are out of the liberally libby-lib Great Book of Liberalism. And ‘All Lives Matter’ has sounded a lot less right-wing and more necessarily universal since the DEI-disoriented brought antisemitism and calls for Nazi-reminiscent genocide back into fashion. DEI consultants’unwillingness to address antisemitism after it exploded last fall as quite arguably the most pressing racism problem we face now, is exactly why traditional liberals are turning to the right who have been calling attention to DEI excesses for years. ‘All Lives Matter’ is what I want to yell at any kaffiyeh-clad protesters, since it’s quite clear that Jewish lives don’t. The article quotes a Harvard (oh no!) history and race professor as saying that FAIR and similar groups are trying to ‘de-legitimize’ antiracism efforts and position them as morally wrong. The comment exposes the lack of self-awareness and the self-satisfied, dogmatic self-righteousness with which the far left comes to resemble their sworn enemies on the far right. No, we can’t possibly be wrong, we have all the answers! Wokeland, Wokeland über alles! The professor simply can’t fathom that the criticism and resistance woke antiracism receives is because so many of us can point to its blatant unexamined racism and promotion of divisive perpetual conflict between identity group human constructs ever-further defined as ‘marginalized’. Maybe he should read FAIR ’s guest article, How our treatments for ‘racial trauma’ already make the problem worse by Dr. Tara Gustilo . This explains why us libby-libs want to dial back DEI and ‘antiracism’ initiatives as much as our conservative counterparts: Because they make our racial problems WORSE, not better! Maybe then, the Harvard professor and all of Newton’s terrified parents might understand why others don’t always perceive them as ‘antiracist’ and ‘socially just’ as they think they are. Before I moved to Canada and became a liberal gadfly—for liberals—I spent more than twenty years talking with, debating, and arguing with conservative Republican Christians. I see the same sort of rigid, faith-based, slavish devotion to a morality begun with good intentions but corrupted by humans’ relentless ability to make it all about themselves—how good and virtuous they are—and how deplorable Those People Are. I do it. You do it. We all do it. But if we’re honest, we try not to do it, and if we continue to, we at least have the decency to feel quietly hypocritical and ashamed of ourselves. ImproveNPS has pointed out to their ultra-lefty neighbors that many black intellectuals support a more universal antiracism return to an emphasis on working hard and downplaying structural racism allegations. Like Cornel West, Coleman Hughes, Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell. Something for these parental illibs to think about on the next Martin Luther King Day. Another terrified parent, and a Brandeis University professor, claimed it was all about ‘ white supremacist politics ’, not higher educational standards. Because, you know, all those Newton DEI critics wear their sheets at night rather than sleep on them, amirite? So what’s the deal with racists and academic scores in Newton? Are Newtonites super-racist? Are they woke-crazy social justice warriors? The details are murky. In 2016, a group of Newton High School students caused a scandal when they drove a car around with an unfurled Confederate flag. Others allege racist and antisemitic attacks, and Principal Henry Turner said some felt like others ‘didn’t want them to succeed’. A different group involved in Newton, Parents Defending Education , definitely owns more conservative cred than FAIR. PDE was founded by Nicole Neily, an operative affiliated with the notoriously right-wing Koch Network. In Newton, PDE tried to shut down a scholars program they claimed only allowed ‘underrepresented’ students, except it didn’t—it was open to all. PDE also targets antiracism and pro-LGBTQ policies. Still, a liberal like me is with them at least partially; they state classrooms should provide ‘rigorous instruction’ in ‘history, civics, literature, math, the sciences, and the ideas and values that enrich our country’. So yeah, there may be some ugly right-wing and even racist elements in Newton. But there may also be efforts to reduce academic standards a bit, which might lower Newton’s scores, in service to students who just may not be cutting it. Why remains a mystery. Some point to Newton eliminating something called mathematics ‘tracking’ which groups students by ability, IQ, or achievement levels, which some say is discriminatory. Others point to Newton’s declining Advanced Placement college prep courses, which were opened up to include more black students. Some accuse changes made to the AP program since the pandemic, and others claim it’s DEI. It’s unclear whether there’s been any investigation to determine why fewer students are enrolling, and not scoring as highly. Is it DEI, or something else? Or is DEI a contributor but not a cause? One giant suspect: Pandemic lockdown , which has been disastrous for child and youth education, and which today has resulted in high levels of absenteeism across North America. There’s concern in Newton, perhaps not without just cause, that right-wing groups might use these kerfuffles as excuses to push ‘anti-woke’ education efforts. And unchecked anti-DEI is just as anti-educational as unchecked pro-DEI. Consider that ‘anti-CRT’ activists usually want to replace the left’s simplistic, overtly racist message of white oppressors vs darker oppressed with an equally simplistic and racist sanitized history of the Civil War and why it was fought in the first place, and, as Nikki Haley demonstrated recently, a remarkable inability to mention the s——-y word . Are the pro-equity parents afraid their adversaries will return common-sense education and a universalist humanist approach to race issues that have become highly unfashionable for today’s identity-obsessed antiracists? Maybe their adversaries are afraid their kids will catch the ROGD ‘trans virus’ so many are bringing home from school after the successful permeation of American education by LGBTQ activists, and particularly transactivists . What I hope to see come out of this, and education battles across North America, is liberals and conservatives working together to bring about a better education system, hopefully diluting each side’s more extreme education inclinations. Maybe on a different battleground, conservatives and liberals can work together on, for example climate change, just as I hope ImproveNPS can keep the worst excesses of Parents Defending Education in check. The Newton Public Schools controversy holds out hope that maybe red and blue can come together, after all. And that the ‘enemies’ of liberty, free speech and diversity of ideas come from the extremes, not the Murky Middle. MAKE AMERICA GRAPE AGAIN!!! Image by Ali Zifan on Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International li Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

It's probably not politic to bitch about politics, or anything else, during Christmas Week, don't you think? Happy holidays to all of my subscribers! Image generated by Poe AI I fully expected to have a good Christmas this week, despite my mother passing away two days before. Dying at Christmas is A Thing in our family; Mom is simply the third. My sister-in-law’s sister succumbed to everywhere-cancer in 2006; my father passed away a week before in 2011; and Mom cut it close. But dying in December isn’t as uncommon as one might think. Facebook friends offered their condolences and sometimes memories of their own families’ Christmas deaths. When my brother and I Facetimed with the funeral director, he mentioned that November, December and January were their busiest months, and it was A Thing for funeral directors everywhere. ‘Tis the season to be depressed and commit suicide, right? Or drink yourself to death, or super-shoot heroin, because you have no family left, or you can’t stand them, or they can’t stand you? Suicide is indeed seasonal, but it’s a myth that it increases during the holiday season. Suicides, for some reason, are more popular in warmer weather - spring and summer. December-January deaths are attributed to the cold, winter season. People die of heart attacks while overexerting themselves shoveling snow or trying to dig the car out, often exacerbated by nicotine and alcohol. Flu season, the Seniors Killer, is during the winter. People die on the roads when the weather is bad, although auto accidents go up a lot more during vacation season, once again the warmer months. Or they live in those parts of the South that aren’t yet used to the New Climate Change that now dumps more snow on their streets than they’ve ever seen before (or at all). But my mother passed away not due to Killer Christmas but because a week and a half ago, she and my family and the care workers at her retirement home agreed to put her into hospice. Mom made the final decision, while not having much idea of what was happening as we debated her future. Her hearing is shot and you have to speak directly in her ear. “Let’s ask Mom what she wants,” I said. “She’s of reasonably sound mind, right?” Everyone agreed she was. “What do you want, Mom?” my brother asked. “Do you want to continue physical therapy, to try and get better, maybe be able to get around with your walker again?” (Mom broke her hip in early September). “Or do you want to ‘rest’, as you put it to me earlier?” “I want to rest,” Mom said. “I think this is the end of the road.” That was a pretty clear signal. She was ready to die. We agreed with clear minds and clear hearts; we remembered the countless times over the decades, even when we were kids, that Mom said she didn’t want to be a vegetable; pull the plug on me! She didn’t want to be kept alive needlessly. She didn’t want to live in a hospital bed. If she couldn’t lead a quality life she’d prefer to die. Hell, we gave her the opportunity in late October; we pulled the plug on her, with the best data we had available at the time, and she lived. She would have been 92 in April; she doesn’t owe anyone anything. She died not because it was Christmas but because when you go into hospice, you give up. My brother called me two days before she died. “Just to warn you, I think Mom will pass in a few weeks.” I hoped to get through the holidays but I’ve been on Death Watch for months, so after I got home from dinner and a movie with a friend, I opened a suitcase and started throwing things into it. And then the 3:15am call came, Saturday morning, with the news. I’ll be in the States by the time you read this, and I’m good. I’ve lost my mother at 60; she lost her own at 28, and for my uncle at 23, far too young for people to lose their mothers. But that’s life. So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut said. I guarantee you, Heaven just became a much funnier place. My mother was famous for her sense of humour, her wisecracks, her ability to lighten up a somber moment. I just hope she doesn’t tell Jesus that joke about the buxom newly-deceased woman and St. Peter. :) The year ends on a somber note with a new war in the Middle East (Oh no! Again?) begun with a horrific attack on civilians, with a level of cruelty that must have dead Nazis rolling over their bright red coals yelling, “Dammit! Why didn’t WE think of that?” As if the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine wasn’t already depressing enough. Now the number of dead Gazans far exceeds dead Israeli Jews and those of us of sound mind don’t know who to blame anymore. It’s the Middle East. And as Kurt Vonnegut said… But there are silver linings shining bravely through the dark clouds, and the one I hope will eventually shine brightest in 2024 is an end to wokeness. It’s clearly past its sell-by date, like a carton of milk. Social justice, fresh and new, is good for us but at some point it turns stale and then downright rotten. We’ve already explored Everything Wrong With Wokeness this year, maybe now it’s time to explore how we can bring reason, rationality and honest, nuanced discourse to a world sorely in need. With wokeness can go the Trump cult, and MAGAs, wokies’ equally-toxic brothers and sisters. I’m not at all sure what the next election holds for Trump, the most-indicted ex-President ever, or the U.S. if he wins. Whether he’ll be permitted to hold office. Whether he’ll do it from jail. Whether someone will find an unprecedented solution to keep the least-qualified President ever out of office (again). Which may or may not be the Supreme Court, depending on whether they ever get around to deciding the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, and pending decisions from about a dozen other states, as to whether Trump can be kicked off a ballot in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The MAGAs are just as fact-free, reason-free, rationalism-free, or dismissive of universal human rights as the wokies. What can we do to save those who’ve not yet chosen extremism? What can honest conservatives do to bring their family members, friends, colleagues, and associates back from the brink of a wannabe dictator who’s now boldly quoting Hitler? What can honest liberals do? How do we bring back the working relationship between us grassroots and laypeople that once functioned in Washington DC attheendoftheday? We can’t fix Washington but we can fix ourselves. Those of us to the left and right still in possession of our critical faculties can find plenty of common ground, even if we never agree on everything. Maybe we can even begin to identify the best of both worlds, and the worst of both worlds, be honest with ourselves about what we’ve been pushing from our side that clearly doesn’t work, and seeing how we can smoosh the best of the best all together and whether that, perhaps, leads to a better, more equitable world in which everyone is happier, wherever they’re doing it, whatever they’re doing, and even whoever they’re doing ;) Thoughts? Comments? Vile, computer-melting flames? Let me know what you’d like to see me focus on in 2024, (or less). If you don’t feel comfortable leaving a comment, you can email me at n chardenet at gmail dot com. And I hope you will have a happy holiday, whatever you celebrate, and if your holiday is over already, hope you enjoy your time off thanks to some other god, and if you don’t believe in that religion stuff, thank Darwin for the time off you got thanks to everyone else’s Imaginary Superfriends. :) I leave you with my all-time favorite Christmas TV commercial (2007) from Virgin Mobile, about as politically correct in a very funny way as you can possibly get! Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Not to mention make it harder for other alleged victims to be taken seriously. Photo by Mo Eid on Pexels Look, I don’t know what really happened and neither does anyone else. Only two people do, and anyone who hasn’t talked to them doesn’t know much either. When a woman reports a rape we need to take the allegations seriously, meaning it needs to be properly investigated before passing judgement. A woman has accused a well-known writer of having raped her in June of 2021, and that must be, I repeat, investigated before we pass judgement on the veracity of the accuser or the accused. Celeste Marcus, a managing editor for Liberties Journal, has accused writer Yascha Mounck of the alleged crime. The only problem is, she hasn’t reported it properly. Instead of filing a report with the police, she took her accusation to The Atlantic, where Mounck was a freelance writer until they ‘severed ties’ with him because of the allegation. No police report. No lawyers. No formal accusation except on X, Marcus’s unnamed testimonial on Liberties Journal, and that which The Atlantic reports. Let me be clear. I am passing judgement on neither party. My goal is not to persuade you as to innocence or guilt; I don’t know nor do I have an opinion. At least, not yet. But the way this story broke bothers me greatly. Marcus didn’t go to the police; she accused first on X. Her post included an email exchange with Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, in which she named Mounck. Hours later, Mounck was cut loose from The Atlantic. No trial, no jury, and as I must remind you, no police report. Marcus’s essay on Liberties Journal (there’s a paywall) in which she claimed she didn’t report it to the police because she was ‘feeling broken’ and could ‘barely function’, is a pretty common response to being raped, but it proves nothing. I render judgement instead against Marcus’s lousy judgement in how she handled this. She’s had two and a half years to think about it. If she has the labia to publicly call out her accuser, she has the labia to file a police report. Even now is a perfectly fine time to do it. But you DON’T report a rape first in the court of public opinion since, if Mounck is ever brought to trial, it will be extremely difficult for him to receive a fair one. Due process: I know it’s unpopular with feminists and the more extreme #MeToo corners, but it applies to everyone, even accused rapists. Even , I would remind us, to a certain ex-President. Full disclaimer: I subscribe to Yascha Mounck’s Persuasion newsletter on Substack. I listen to his podcasts sometimes. I like him, but I’m in no way Taylor Swift-level superfan. If I replace Mounck in my brain with someone I really can’t stand—say, Alex Jones—I would still write this commentary. Because questionable ways of reporting an alleged rape for the first time, and compromising one’s credibility up front, hurts all rape victims, and no one deserves to be maligned in the public forum without due process. No, not even Alex Jones. Image by kalhh from Pixabay It makes it look like there might have been a political motive behind it—Mounck’s accuser strongly appears to have set out to get him let go as an Atlantic freelance writer, which is a very prestigious website to write for. It sets a bad precedent for women who want to report, but are afraid of the backlash. She’s said on X, “I will not be raped with impunity.” She succeeded, but she harms the believability of rape victims and herself in the process. This wasn’t the way to do it. She probably doesn’t have much of a court case after two and a half years and no forethought to save anything that might genetically link him to the alleged crime. If she really was raped, she has the highly understandable desire to not let him get away scot-free. Whether he’s guilty or not, Yascha Mounck’s reputation is now permanently linked to a rape charge online, whether proven or not in a court of law. If he’s not guilty, she’s potentially created a new enemy for rape victims, and Goddess knows they have a hard enough time being believed. Some will take her accusation as sacred writ. Thou shalt not disbelieve , especially on hyper-polarized social media and office water cooler discussions. But she’s just invited a whole bunch of angry males fed up with unsubstantiated rape accusations to move closer to the far right, where all women are lying whores, and unless she takes Mounck to court, they remain unsubstantiated. Not all her new enemies will be right-wingers, men’s rights activists, incels, and other hyper-partisans who already uncritically believe Mounck didn’t do it as uncritically as some women believe he did. One side requires no evidence, the other won’t believe it if it exists. Some recruits will be those with serious doubts about extremist feminism and willy-nilly rape accusations. Certainly Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic gang didn’t require any evidence, just one woman’s say-so. This is how people got horribly murdered in medieval Europe: Unsubstantiated accusations of crimes, which people just believed, and countless people were hideously jailed, tortured, and executed without a shred of evidence against them, just ‘witnesses’ who testified to the most outlandishly unbelievable ‘satanic’ acts of offense against their neighbors. From which we get the term ‘witch hunt’. This is how black men got hideously lynched in the South for many generations: On the evidence-free accusations of white men or white women, ostensibly for having raped a white woman or some such other nonsense. This is how people get murdered in the Middle East today, customarily called ‘honor killings’. Its victims are mostly women accused of some sexual impropriety which could be as minor as talking to an unrelated male. Or vicious gossip by other women who want to ruin or eliminate her. Men uncritically believe what they say and let the stoning begin. Or, in other places, pushing accused gay men off buildings. Here’s the thing: We don’t know what happened between Mounck and Marcus, as it was two and a half years ago. It sounds like something happened, however consensual or not, because Mounck responded, “That wasn’t rape,” not what you reply when you haven’t had any sexual contact with the alleged victim. Image by Jean Beaufort on Public Domain Pictures Whether Marcus was raped or not, and I emphasize yet again I don’t know and neither do you, if she can’t prove her claims she will be forever linked to what some could call a spurious rape claim, another black mark against rape claimants. If you’re inclined to excuse her ruination of Mounck’s reputation because you think he probably did it, or he’s a white guy so he must have done it, or so what because so many innocent women are raped, remember: Unsubstantiated allegations work both ways. While I don’t expect too many men will accuse biological women of raping them, there are many other he-said-she-said crimes of which they could be accused. Like issuing threats to him or his family. Or fraud. Or physical assault. Or abusing their children. Once something’s online, it’s forever. If you want to get back at your rapist, if you want to punish him for his crime, there are far more responsible ways to do it: Report it FIRST to the police. Preferably shortly after, but if you don’t, BEFORE you make it public. Take him to court if you can. Even if you don’t get a conviction, rape trials are pretty damn punishing and shaming, and not just for her. Keep any DNA evidence in a plastic bag. You never know when you might change your mind about going to the police, and your credibility will be much higher. It’s not what women and rape victims want to hear, but denying a person their due process rights by making unsubstantiated allegations in the public forum is dead wrong. If feminists are serious about wanting to end rape, there’s no way out of properly reporting it and going through the legal system. Yes, it’s very hard on the victims, but it will never change if more don’t do it and we don’t hold the legal system accountable and force them to evolve with each case. But we must remember: Due process is for everyone. No immunity from it for people you don’t like, like accused rapists. That, too, works both ways: No immunity from it for you , either. Taking it to the public forum first looks very, very bad for the accuser. It lacks seriousness and reduces her credibility. Learn from this. Do it right the first time. Even if it’s years later. Don’t harm other rape victims. If you’ve been raped and don’t know what to do next, please call your local rape crisis hotline. The (U.S.) National Sexual Assault Hotline (24/7 & confidential) is 1-800-656-4673. In Canada it’s 1-844-750-1648. For First Nations and Inuit it’s 1-855-242-3310. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Almost-but-not-quite International Women's Day is 'inclusive' of all but one type of woman in Peterborough, Ontario Photo by Sarah Cervantes on Unsplash Here’s what’s not happening in Peterborough , Ontario today for International Women’s Day 2024. The INSPIRE International Women’s Day Event, which promised to ‘Inspire Inclusion’, the theme of this year’s global event according to the main IWD website, had been scheduled for today, but was cancelled in February due to—non-inclusion. Or ‘postponed’ as they put it, which is a bit weird as who the hell is going to come to an International Women’s Day event after the actual commemorative day? By ‘postponed’ I expect they mean ‘cancelled until next year’. Seems some women are less welcome than others. Image by Daniel Ullrich on Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-sa-2.0-DE INSPIRE rescinded the invitation to their scheduled keynote speaker, Leah Goldstein, who, as it turns out, has a ‘problematic’ past. Seems thirty years ago, when she was living in Israel, where she was raised after being born in Vancouver, she spent her military service in the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force. Goldstein served in training only, not combat. Before she moved back to Canada, she served as a police officer in the late ‘90s. So what does military service during the Yitzhak Rabin years have to do with Goldstein’s Israel-free keynote speech today? “In recognition of the current situation and the sensitivity of the conflict in the Middle East, the Board of INSPIRE will be changing our keynote speaker,” they told the media. Although Goldstein’s ethnicity is easy to guess by her name (she’s not married), one wonders if perhaps learning she’d served in the IDF was that left-wing dog whistle calling the anti-Semites to arms. It was, according to the National Post, “a small but growing and extremely vocal group”, who had a problem with Goldstein’s military service. It’s always a ‘small and extremely vocal group.’ ‘Social justice’ activists are like chihuahuas: The littlest ones make the most noise. Goldstein, presumably, was hired to speak at this event because of her accomplishments - she won a 4,800 km bicycle race in 2021, becoming the first woman to win the solo category of Race Across America, one of the longest in the world. She was also going to speak about becoming a 17-year old World Kickboxing Champion, along with “bravery, growth and overcoming sexism.” She sounds like a perfectly badass powerful motivated feminist chick, exactly the sort of role model one might want to promote on International Women’s Day. It takes some real labia to serve in the military and then move on to police service, and then to bike 3,000 miles across North America - and beat everyone else. But, the whiniest wokes yapped and scrapped, so INSPIRE caved like wimpy corporate CEOs and did what the chihuahua mob demanded. Inclusive, indeed. The festival’s organizer sparkies asked Goldstein to provide a statement about Israel prefacing her speech, although she hadn’t intended to address it at all or make it political. One wonders how much INSPIRE would have liked it if she had. Now INSPIRE may be investigated by the city’s DEI office, as has been asked by one of Peterborough’s city councillors. INSPIRE hadn’t asked Goldstein what she planned to speak about at the event, or to see a draft of her speech. But they wanted to make sure she held the woke-approved ‘correct’ irrelevant opinion, whether she intended to bring it up or not. I could perhaps see some concern about divisiveness if her speech touched upon the war—perhaps organizers might be concerned about a day devoted to inspiring and motivating women devolving into a crazy political free-for-all—but it doesn’t appear they asked to see her speech, or what she intended to speak about. According to the International Women’s Day website, under its call to commitment to ‘inspire inclusion’, it says, When women aren't present, we must ask: "If not, why not?" When women are discriminated against, we must call out poor practice. When the treatment of women is not equitable, we must take action. And we must do this each time, every time. What did INSPIRE do to respond to their failure to meet the standards for International Women’s Day 2024? They battened down their website and their Facebook page. You get a ‘private site’ message and a request to log in. I wonder how controversial INSPIRE’s keynote speech might have been had the speaker been a Palestinian woman describing getting bombed and displaced every day by the IDF, with nary a mention of Hamas or Gazan votes for. Would anyone have objected? At any rate, the Maneschevitz hit the fan once word got out about INSPIRE’s cancellation. The mass media got involved. Social media got involved. People flooded City Hall and INSPIRE, along with a few beleaguered unrelated women’s groups, with supportive comments, mostly for Goldstein rather than the wokemonsters of INSPIRE. As always, ‘progressives’ demonstrated their commitment to ‘inclusion’ stops at anyone with the ‘wrong’ political opinions or with ties to a group they don’t like. Maybe they should have invited instead a less controversial speaker—like a man pretending to be a woman, as the Hershey company did last year. You know, someone whose major life challenge is deciding which bathroom to pee in. There will be other rallies and events in Peterborough for International Women’s Day, but not for the Judaeophobic unINSPIREd. I hope they spend the day, rather, reflecting on just what ‘inclusion’ really means, and why ‘diversity’ never seems to include differing political ideas. Or why the hell someone’s military service decades ago matters. Or if it’s only with a military service they don’t like. Or why they felt the need to ask Leah Goldstein about her views on the war. Were they going to dictate the ‘statement’ they wanted her to make first? Would they have approached a Palestinian speaker this way, or, indeed, anyone other than a Jew? The whole thing just has a highly distasteful odor about it. The stench of antisemitism sandwiched within ‘progressive’ politics. Don’t judge the City of Peterborough from this sorry affair. It’s a lovely small town in the Kawarthas, a chain of lakes in south central Ontario. Peterborough is rustic and country and drop-dead gorgeous during the fall. Every town has its bad apples, and obnoxious, snappy little human chihuahuas. Hopefully they’re chastened at the demise of an event they themselves have wrought. Anyway, I hope you all have an awesome International Women’s Day! Go forth and be a badass, no matter what your politics! International Women’s Day: It’s for all women, not just the ones you like. Public domain image from Rawpixel Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I know, it's two days late! I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

We TERFs hate to say "I told you so," but--goddammit, people! Will you believe us gender critics NOW??? Royalty-free photo from Pxfuel Transgender medicine is largely built on lies. It can be defined in three words: Conscious medical malpractice. One of the most ‘respected’ organizations (I’ve never understood why) supporting transgender medicine and ‘gender affirming’ healthcare is WPATH, the World Professional Association For Transgender Health. It was founded in 1979 and sought to create a network of ‘professionals’ specialized in treating transgender variance. A shocking leak of documents called The WPATH Files released early this week, compiles WPATH chat forum and email screen shots and Zoom videos in a new report with extensive documentation. Written by journalist Mia Hughes and released by Michael Shellenberger at Environmental Progress, it provides jaw-droppingly clear evidence WPATH’s ‘expertise’ is transactivist quackery despite a number of actual medical practitioners on staff. It’s about as ‘evidence-based’ as a Superman comic. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the scientific method, and proper research trials. It’s. Just. Horrifying! Michael Shellenberger , the activist who also brought us the Twitter Files, can be found on Substack along with a video he’s assembled of WPATH’s most horrifying Zoom hits. The full video is here . The WPATH Files PDF can be downloaded here: The WPATH Files: PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC SURGICAL AND HORMONAL EXPERIMENTS ON CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS, AND VULNERABLE ADULTS WPATH has transformed itself into a leading ‘scientific’ authority on transgender health and medicine, particularly in the area of ‘gender-affirming’ care (GAC) of children. But The WPATH Files validate what both conservative and liberal gender-critical voices have been calling out the entire field for for years: That WPATH clinicians and healthcare providers know their GAC could or does cause incalculable harm to their patients, including children. They treat their patients with unproven methods for which there is little to no research; without knowing or much caring whether puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones lead to infertility, sterility, loss of orgasmic capability, brittle bones, cognitive impairment, and even death. They experiment: And they call it ‘medically necessary’ so insurance companies will pay for it. WPATH ignores the clear signs that some of these treatments are linked to cancer in their young patients, that many have psychological problems unrelated to their alleged ‘gender dysphoria’; and they even have embraced ‘nullification’ for those who want ‘non-binary’ genitals or who desire to get rid of their penis. Yes, these so-called ‘doctors’ discuss castrating even children . And some of them confess to having performed these surgeries in private chats captured by leakers who are probably in the Witness Protection Program now. And here’s a new one: Some of their patients want dual genitals: Both a penis and a vagina. Some WPATH ‘experts’ dismiss concerns about long-term outcomes, acknowledge that most children and teens are too young to understand and appreciate the potential future problems they might have, like not having children, a concept too far into the future for any of them to think, and whose reaction is often, “Oooh, babies, gross!” They acknowledge that even parents don’t have the medical understanding of what’s being done to their kids. They know these children and adults aren’t making informed decisions. That they can’t, given that the healthcare providers themselves don’t have enough data, or even any in some cases, to support it. WPATH knows. WPATH knows. THEY KNOW! Where’s the evidence? As a result, WPATH’s claims to provide ‘evidence-based care’ are a pack of lies. This will come as less of a surprise to those of us who’ve been following the slow-motion derailment of the Trans Train for years. Especially after the revelation last year that systematic evidence reviews out of the most liberal/progressive countries in Europe indicate there’s little to no scientific evidence to support the transgender industry’s claims that transitioning children immediately must occur to prevent them from committing suicide. The transgender suicide myth was addressed in a Finnish study just published in BMJ Mental Health (2024), Suicide Mortality Among Gender-Dysphoric Adolescents and Young Adults in Finland: The finding of low suicide rates and no evidence of benefits of gender reassignment continues to challenge the practice of youth transitions. In which was noted, “…the study found no convincing evidence that gender-referred youth have statistically significantly higher suicide rates as compared to the general population, after controlling for psychiatric needs.” [Italics mine] NewsNation scores highly for factualism and rated in ‘least biased’ category on Media Bias Fact Check Although we should note post-transition patients do have a high suicide rate, about which transactivists are strangely silent, so let’s understand that evidence indicates that the rate has to do with pre-existing psychological co-morbidities, which are routinely ignored and unexplored by transgender healthcare professionals [See: Tavistock scandal , England]. The lack of evidence that gender transition reduces the risk of suicide leads to hideously inverting the emotional blackmail with which GAC clinicians routinely terrorize resistant parents and caretakers: Would you rather have a dead daughter or a dead mutilated daughter? This report on WPATH’s gross medical negligence is merely the tip of the rainbow-hued iceberg. GAC gender woo has been problematic from its inception, especially when it focused on children. I have read the report; it’s 242 pages, 71 for the report and the rest the documenting screenshots and image captures of doctors speaking in direct contradiction to what they tell the public: What they don’t know, and must speculate on, as they confer with each other on the next experimental treatment for a patient. They make it clear they support and have performed surgeries on pre-teens and teens regardless of what the public is told about how that ‘almost never happens’. The report is well-written, in plain English, with a lot of highly-qualified footnotes if you want to get into the weeds. They speak of the detransitioners including those around age 32 who regret sacrificing their fertility, and if they could do it over again, would preserve eggs or sperm. One WPATH expert stated there’s a 27% regret rate . One professional acknowledges being ‘stumped’ by a 9-year-old grappling with ‘fertility’ issues. They discuss children and adults with intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia and homeless people; all are deemed worthy of consent to these life-altering, body-destroying practices. In defiance of their Hippocratic Oath to ‘take care that [the sick] suffer no hurt or damage’, they regularly advocate for a practice the very height of harm: mutilating and removing perfectly healthy tissue , because their uninformed, often clearly mentally disturbed and/or immature patients demand it. As I read with growing horror it occurred to me the only difference between these people and Nazi concentration camp doctors was consent. The male sexual fetishes and fantasies The horrors mount, one after the other. WPATH’s Standards of Care, most recently SOC8, removed the lowered age requirement to ‘avoid lawsuits’. In 2021, a systematic evidence review of the earlier SOC7 rated it as ‘low quality’ and ‘do not recommend’. SOC8 introduced advice for handling surgical ‘non-binary interventions’, part of the aforementioned ‘nullifications’ including castration. If you’re not familiar with the more horrifying male sexual fetishes out there, The WPATH Files document their discussion of a growing ‘Eunuch Community’ of men and the non-medical professional castrators they hire. It’s against the law, but so what if no one complains? The report mentions the ‘Eunuch Archives’, a website that caters to adult men who detail their child castration fantasies . WPATH doctors also debate the ethics (What? What are those?) of inducing lactation in an adult male who’s not interested in nursing a child, but just wants to experience it. Lactophilia, by the way, is a growing fetish among trans-identified men well-detailed in Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy ’s recent amazing discussion with two other feminists about the horrifying implications for infants being suckled by suspiciously pedophilic men who are turned on by getting their nipples sucked. Ironically, the WPATH doctors’ discussion of the wannabe ‘chest feeder’ ends with the decision that this particular patient’s desire for induced lactation (yes, it can be done for males and they will produce breast milk) ends with the decision that it’s not ‘medically necessary’. This patient is the only one to whom they said ‘No’. Some of the WPATHologicals exhibit some discomfort at the realization that at least some of these desired surgeries are in service to male sexual fetishes, primarily autogynephilia which throws the whole ‘gender dysphoria’ explanation up for debate. It’s HORRIFYING! The whole time my brain kept screaming. “WHY? WHY? WHY?” I read this terrible report with my mouth hung open mouthing the words, “What the fuck? What the fuck? What the bloody fucking fuck?” One of the many aspects of the whole transgender craze I’ve found unfathomable is the abandonment of evidence-based science-backed healthcare by medical professionals. It’s like social justice aliens turned doctors and clinicians and therapists into Pod People. How could this happen in the 21st century? The WPATH Files’s section on the history of ‘pseudoscientific hormonal and surgical experiments on children and vulnerable adults,’ answers how this could happen. In fact, again. The medical profession has looooong had a weird obsession with fixing psychiatric illness experimentally by removing or damaging healthy tissue—especially genitals and reproductive organs. It begins with the infamous lobotomies of the mid-twentieth century, then backtracks to the ovariotomies of the 19th century, in which every psychological malady that affected ‘hysterical’ women were attributed to their ovaries, and, like transgender patients today, they begged doctors to remove theirs, which the doctors were happy to do. It wasn’t until doctors started removing healthy ovaries from female prisoners that the public began resisting. Not surprisingly, doctors who resisted ovariotomies were attacked for being ‘wanting in humanity’ and ‘guilty of criminal neglect of patients,’ not unlike those attacked for being ‘transphobic’ or hateful today. It’s like the medical profession never learns that psychiatric distress happens between the ears, not the legs or hips. Is it the money to be made? Do they really believe they’re saving the world? What I still don’t understand is how they can remove healthy flesh and think they’re helping rather than harming. But I guess if parents can resist asking the obvious question Where were all the trans kids when we were growing up? it’s not hard to shut your mind off from the part of the Hippocratic Oath that prohibits that. Transgender healthcare is patient-driven, not doctor- or evidence-driven, and for the underaged, it’s kid-driven. The WPATH professionals routinely talk about their ‘experiments’ with trying to help patients receive the results conforming to the body image they want, despite being told that while people can be ‘non-binary’, hormones are not, and that each one comes with a package of changes, not all of which may be desired. Outside criticisms of their work, when they discuss it, are dismissed as conservative transphobia and hysteria. If you’re wondering what the trans community’s reaction is to this report’s release, guess. Just guess. The left-wing media, at least at the time of this writing, is near-silent on the subject. Nothing so far from the New York Times, The Atlantic, the Toronto Star, the Huffington Post, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, the Daily Beast, the Intercept, Washington Post, Politico, Time, or Newsweek. Nada x 13. One exception this morning: The Guardian. The collusion and collaboration with a scientifically bankrupt medical practice spreads far and wide, a filthy web littered with money, discarded breasts, mutilated genitals and the misguided intentions of progressive social justice activists who believe quite passionately they’re on the ‘right side of history’ when in fact they must know, not too deep down, that history may well judge them harshly, but hopefully after they’re dead. WPATH is considered one of the primary, perhaps the primary go-to for reliable, consistent, reviewed, scientific and evidence-based policy and practice for treating people with ‘gender dysphoria’, a term invented in 2013. It is none of these things. It’s the big pile of poo the entire field of transgender healthcare is rooted in: Lies. Unapproved, unethical medical experiments. Low- or no-quality research. A complete disregard for the clear harms they’re doing to their patients and except for the wannabe ‘chest feeder’, an otherwise utter lack of ability to say no to any surgery consumers demand, no matter how outrageous or inhumane. Dear God and Goddess, what have we become? CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 image by Peter Thoeny on Flickr Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Social justice is laudable. But privileged and luxury belief-laced extremism has turned to the same evils it claims to fight. Can it be saved? Pretty, serious-looking brunette young woman in the foreground, walking down a hall, the other people blurred In the late ‘90s I was on the Internet Usenet forum alt.support .childfree, for those who’d chosen the no-kids life by choice. It was a great support forum, for awhile. Later I complained to my then-partner, “It’s gotten very anti-child. We’ve always had a few of those nutters there, but now even the reasonable ones sound extremist about kids, and put down expectant mothers. They don’t seem to understand that kids are human beings too.” ‘Stork parking’, the spaces reserved for pregnant women at shopping centers, had just become a thing and many asc’ers were outraged. “Unfortunately that seems to be the way of discussion forums,” he replied. “Eventually the extremists take over if users don’t moderate.” I left a.s.c the day a friend with children scrolled through and was appalled at the nastiness. Embarrassed to be seen in such company, I didn’t offer a farewell or a reason for departure; I simply stopped contributing. The natural gravitation toward extremism Liberal feminists have achieved many fantastic victories. Women’s education, Roe v Wade, Title IX, better if not yet equal pay. Men no longer have the right to rape their wives, arguing that ‘We’re married, she has to give it to me.’ Black civil rights progressed down a close similar path, and, thanks to progressive liberals, only in red states now is gay marriage considered a scandal and an offense against God. Now, most of the progress to de-marginalize further lies with individuals’ responsibility to step up and ‘do the work’ of improving and developing themselves, trying harder, asserting themselves more, refusing victimhood. It’s up to you , baby. But social justice needs new mountains to scale, and because of the last half-century’s successes, activists must climb higher to find new forms of ‘oppression’ they can fight. They have to exaggerate and catastrophize because on some level they know their current projects are fairly weak. Hence the rise of ‘microaggressions’ and ‘intersectionality’ to find ‘marginalizations’ people didn’t know they had, and who are too privileged or too young to know what real discrimination feels like. These ideas have come to be known as ‘luxury beliefs’, those you need to be wealthy and educated enough to support. Rob Henderson, the author of the newly-published Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family & Social Class , argues that luxury beliefs are the new status symbols, in an age where almost anyone can afford luxury goods, or cheaper knockoffs, or you can just steal them. They’re beliefs people higher up hold that benefit themselves, but harm the classes below them . Social justice activism tends toward extremism on the other side, too. Conservative activism has moved toward a cult of personality and MAGAism after getting much of what they wanted—an end to Roe, unfettered access to guns, the end of affirmative action and a more conservative Supreme Court friendly to rolling back other liberal successes. Activists and the ‘chattering classes’ demonize the opposition and compete for attention expressing ideas and opinions ever more extreme, just as my compatriots once did on a.s.c. How privileged do you have to be to think the protected speech of ‘misgendering’ is actually a crime, however much you support trans rights? Those who police and criminalize protected speech that offends their delicate sensitivities and succeed demonstrate just how marginalized they aren’t . That goes for those supporting ‘Don’t say gay’ Ronald DeSantis or insurrectionists pitching a tantrum because their side lost. These, too, are luxury beliefs. What once was called ‘wokeness’, a commitment to social justice and correcting inequities in the system, is now primarily a well-to-do luxury brand for the non-marginalized of all colors, fast-tracking toward the authoritarianism they claim to fight. Twenty-four hours after the October 7 attack, students at academic moron factories celebrated antisemitism and a vicious terrorist cult, when they would have better served genuine human rights by encouraging Palestinians to stop murdering gay and transfolk . Regressive Left feminists turn into good little Handmaids for the Patriarchy when sly sexual predators claim the fake-ass ‘gender dysphoria’. Woke social justice activists claim to fight homophobia while ‘trans-ing’ any kid unfortunate enough not to fit the rigid gender stereotypes they condemn the right for, and favor ‘de-colonizing’ everything except men in women’s bathrooms , changing rooms and prisons. But still… Wokeness, the extremism that once properly called itself progressive and liberal, is rooted in pre-civil rights black social justice and originally referred to staying aware of impending violence and systemic racism at a time when it was still unofficially okay to lynch a black man. After the Ferguson, Missouri riots in 2014, it elevated the meaning of awareness of dangerous cops, a caution important for white people too. Is it possible to be ‘woke’ and ‘not a fasch-hole? On another note I also wonder: How many conservatives are tired of their political beliefs and ideologies being twisted by a narcissistic psychopath and his mouth-breathing miscreants? I use the word ‘woke’ somewhat less as I realized it was offensive to people who are ‘woke’ but not crazy-ass extreme, including some of my friends. The most extreme, I expect, have defriended or unfollowed me by now and the rest ignore me. I’ve taken to referring to wokeness as ‘illiberal’ which makes a very important point that some so-called liberals aren’t. It does seem a shame, on some level, for ‘woke’ to have been misappropriated as badly as it has been. Or ‘colonized by white activists’, if you want to wokely honest. I’m not sure it’s as effective anymore as a term solely for black awareness when there’s less racism in America, regardless of what you’ve heard about the prevalence of ‘white supremacy’. There’s something to be said for being ‘woke’ to injustice, if only we could agree on what that is. Is injustice really some old white lady who said ‘Negro’ because she was young in an era when that was a perfectly polite way to refer to black people, or is it better focused on the practice of ‘carding’ by some police departments, randomly stopping people and demanding identification, asking questions, who are often disproportionately black? When did ‘woke’ become so weak? It’s not as though the world lacks for oppression to eliminate. A black President drew out bald-faced American racism on the right the way Hamas’s attack on Israel vomited the anti-Semites and whitey-haters on the left. Maybe social justice is just weary after fighting so hard for so many genuinely progressive projects and they want easier assignments like de-’whitewashing’ Hollywood. Somewhere along the way it became the problems it tried to solve, and refused to look within and ‘do the work’ it demands of others. Marginalized = sinless, apparently. How is Ibram X. Kendi prescribing black racism against white people not 100% bloody racist himself? He’s a non-starter for many liberals because he’s the problem he claims to want to solve. It strikes me that the next iteration of ‘antiracism’ in America—2.0—should be examining and coming to terms with anti-white racism, which sounds right-wing and ‘yabbut’ but genuine antiracists can see how unserious woke ‘antiracism’ really is because it supports racism. Yeah, we can see where that’s going. If there’s one thing you can count on with humanity, it’s to exploit others. Will Kendi eventually advocate for 400 years of white slavery to ‘atone’ for a past we turned our back on 160 years ago? Wait for it. Woke social justice craziness isn’t over yet. I suspect ‘social justice’ will get worse before it gets better, especially if the Republicans and their golden god prevail. (Where are the statue puller-downers when you need them?) Unless those wokes who haven’t yet given their brains over to the dark forces of extremism join other level-headed liberals to fight to take it back. ‘Woke’ can be rehabilitated only if enough level-headed liberals grow the labia and balls to do it, and make it clear that illiberals are hardly ‘woke’ to racism, sexism, and homophobia when they’re pushing it themselves. Woke social justice warriors don’t listen to the right, so they have to hear critiques from their own, which is risky. The ‘woke’ are famously intolerant of those who fail to hew strictly to social justice doctrine, but the times they are a-changin’, and it may soon become less socially acceptable to identify as ‘woke’ in 2024. DEI, one of the main engines of toxic wokeness, is under fire. Colleges and universities are slashing their DEI budgets and the legal system is examining whether it’s constitutional to demand pledges to political narratives like ‘antiracism’ to get or keep a job. It’s becoming clear that DEI, as it’s implemented today, is creating and encouraging racism and other bigotries rather than alleviating it. ‘Don’t Call Me Karen’ Doesn’t Go Over Well At Uber The DEI industry could save itself, I suspect, if it embraced a universal social justice commitment to reducing all racism and discrimination. Like if it told the full story of slavery rather than treating it as though Europeans singularly invented it in 1619. It would enjoin POC to examine themselves along with their white cohorts and ask themselves whether they’re treating white people unfairly (or men, or ‘cis-het’, or whatever). Because tribalism is universal, and racism is tribalism, and anyone who hasn’t lived all their life in a cave knows it’s not just restricted to white people. Or men. Or cis-het. I don’t think DEI will do that, though. Illiberal fundamentalism has seized the far-left soul and I already know from twenty-plus years of arguing with Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. that you can almost never change the fundamentalist mindset. Ibram X. Kendi said it and I believe it! A Man’s Suicide Started With A DEI Consultant’s ‘Antiracism’ Workshop We have to hold these people to account, just as we do the crazies on the MAGA side—demanding facts, evidence, and rational theories pertaining to others’ suspected motivations, not conspiracy theories and blanket ‘they hate us, they hate America, they hate democracy’ condemnations. That’s whether they’re on the right or left, or you are. Hold your own as accountable as you do the other side. I have a formerly progressive friend who, over pandemic lockdown, fell down the rabbit hole of left-wing conspiracies. He gets really, really mad when I challenge some of his crazier assertions. It’s QAnon crap for the left. We need to make more ‘illibs’ like him really really REALLY mad. I’ve begun by challenging the broader, wokenized definition of ‘white supremacy’. Systemic racism exists, but if we hadn’t made progress black people would still be using separate fountains, feared for ‘contaminating’ swimming pools and Clarence Thomas would have picked pubic hairs off his Coke can on a park bench rather than a law office. White supremacists are the KKK, not you or me or even the guy who cracks a racist joke. White supremacists are racists, but not all racists are white supremacists. What can you do to challenge social justice extremism, and bring ‘woke’ back to some semblance of normalcy, not to mention social justice? Or the crazies on Team MAGA? I do suspect Americans are getting fairly tired of both, since voters are famously switching sides for the forthcoming election and I honestly don’t think anyone has a clue which candidate will win. We in the Murky Middle are the new Silent Majority, although maybe with the decline of power on both sides, we won’t have to be afraid to speak up anymore. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

NY Magazine's manly misogynist Andrew 'Andrea' Chu sees children as mere pawns and women as obstacles in the trans cult's weird, gender-bending games Image from Rawpixel It’s never about the evidence. Or lack thereof. Andrew (Andrea) Chu, the NY Magazine book critic, and winner of a Pulitzer Prize short story whose lead ‘graph is about all the things one could stick up one’s ass (don’t ask, but if you must know…. ), has written a cover story for the periodical that makes me very glad I don’t subscribe (and not just because I’m not interested in DIY proctology). Chu, a trans-identified male, has written a delusional, very dude-ish, and occasionally downright creepy cover story called Why Trans Kids Have The Right To Change Their Biological Sex , which demonstrates how divorced (acrimoniously) from humanity the trans craze is. He doesn’t mention the WPATH Files ; his story was published five days after its release so it may have already gone to press, or he deliberately ignored it. He’s defensive and dismissive and has that whole mansplaining vibe of a guy who’s been outside his wheelhouse ever since he slipped on his first Wonderbra. He argues about what I guess is a new human right we never knew we had—to change sex whenever the hell we want, at whatever the hell age we want. Damn the critics and those few brave scientists who say No, you’re assigned your sex at conception, not by the first doctor who sees your mini-wee-wee or wittle hoochy-cooch. Nadda mention of ‘gametes’ anywhere, which are the Ultimate Decider of how that shalt meander down one’s life’s journey. Gametes, in case you’ve forgotten your high school biology (don’t worry, I Googled so you don’t have to!), are an organism’s reproductive sex cells, X and Y, and you’ll probably at least remember from Mr. Hanson’s class that shit started When Eggy Met Spermy. Recall, please, that Eggy tosses an X, and Spermy tosses—something—and then it was a toss-up (ar ar!) as to what resulted until Birth Day, or with the ultrasound if you were born in the 1970s or beyond. I can’t find this sex-changing ‘human right’ anywhere in the U.S Constitution. Maybe I have a defective copy. I wonder how the Founding Fathers would react, say, if I travelled back in time and asked them about the right to change sex. It didn’t go well. The First Continental Congress degenerated into mass chaos and Button Gwinnett moved to forever ban women from Congress. Image generated by Poe AI, which knows historical white men when asked about them. The ‘right’ to gender reassignment Trans kids have this ‘right, Chu says, without the need for parental approval, and he puts words in their little mouths when he writes, “What trans kids are saying is this: The right to change sex that has been enjoyed for decades by their parents, friends, teachers, coaches, doctors, and representatives, especially if those people are white and affluent — this right belongs to them, too.” First of all, no, they’re not sophisticated enough to think that way, and two, the way Chu describes it you’d think all the adult role models in kids’ lives have been racing to the trans clinic for decades switching back and forth—Heather Has Two Mommies! No, Wait, Heather Had Two Mommies, But Now One Is A Daddy—No, Scratch that, Heather Has One Daddy and One Non-Binary Parent—Now Heather Has Two Non-Binary Genderqueer Parents—Now Heather Has A Perpetual Prescription for Prozac Because She Doesn’t Recognize Either Of Her Parents When They Walk Through The Door And The Other Day She Called 911 Because She Thought Some Strange Weird Guy In An Expensive Dress And A Beard Was There To Steal Their Car. In Chu’s world, children should be understood as ‘full members of society,’ and claims ‘it does not matter where it [the desire to transition] comes from.’ Perhaps in their zeal to ‘destigmatize’ mental illness, which is one of the many non-dysphoric explanations behind the rise in transgenderism, the illibs decided to deny it even exists. Rather a lot like their denial of the differences in male and female brains. So, when someone experiences psychiatric distress of some sort, we treat the body rather than the brain? Then, I assume, if someone walks into the clinic with cancer, which is happening already with girls put on ‘T’(estosterone), [p.23, WPATH Files] we will teach them to woo the cancer away with, I don’t know, psychotherapy? Crystals? Rebirthing? If you’ve ever dealt with a cult, or a conservative religion that closely resembles one, you know there is no such thing as questioning the Sacred Dogma. Posted on Facebook, ‘Transwomen can’t have babies because men haven’t got a womb.” Public domain image from Picryl Evidence is for right- and left-wing whack jobs In Chu’s crazy transactivist world, which has gotten a lot crazier since the release of the WPATH Files, the massive collection of data, videos, screenshots of exchanged messages and discussions, and reliable citations isn’t enough to make the trans crowd take back what they’ve been saying for years (which no one expects they will), or rethink what they thought they knew , or at the very least, have the brains to STFU and hope everyone forgets about them when the world finally comes to realize what pseudoscientific and desperately harmful claptrap they’ve been promoting for years. Don’t expect the True Believers ever to acknowledge they were wrong. Chu’s abject denial of the evidence he acknowledges exists is breathtakingly Kool-Aidy. And OMG, the public is beginning to realize the jig is up! "First, it [an Atlantic article by Jesse Singal called When Children Say They’re Trans ] took what was threatening to become a social issue, hence a question of rights, and turned it back into a medical issue, hence a question of evidence; it then quietly suggested that since the evidence was debatable, so were the rights. This tactic has been successful: The political center has moved significantly on trans issues." Chu even identifies his previously unrecognized allies of his customary right-wing and radical feminist adversaries: Liberals. Those of us on the left who aren’t wokenized and fight his authoritarian illiberalism. His real tragedy is evidence, or clear lack thereof, moving public opinion! But now the facts are firmer with the release of the WPATH Files, not to mention support from the lib-iest in Europe. Which is: Gender reassignment is all a load of crap and experts know they’re harming their patients and that many will come to regret their decisions. But as Chu notes later, “If we are to recognize the rights of trans kids, we will also have to accept that, like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will.” So they’re going to blame the high regret rates and ruined lives on the kids’ poor choices. How can children have the same free will as adults when youthful free agency only goes so far when you’re seven years old, eyeing the cookie jar, and your internal morality debate only rises to the level of How likely am I to get away with this? vs I should do what Mommy wants and stay out of the jar since I’m diabetic and that cookie could send me to go live with God! For men like Chu (and, as we shall eventually see, he absolutely thinks like and is very much a man), children have free will when it’s convenient for The Cause but I’m not so sure he wants empowered ten-year-olds driving down the highways by themselves. He adds, “This does not mean shooting testosterone into every toddler who looks at a football. But if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty, which is a drastic biological upheaval in its own right." WTF? Puberty is not something you 'consent' to! This is trans-narcissism writ large, fueled by the traditionally male medical arrogance that they can 'fix anything', including that which ain't broke. Puberty is a natural life transition that every human being who’s lucky enough to make it that far goes through; the ones that don’t rest in small coffins in cemeteries. If you want to talk about consent, name one human being who ever ‘consented’ to being born. Life’s a bitch and so’s the disembodied asshole who sentenced you to the life you got, with the parents you got, and if you don’t like it, tough shit. It’s just life, man , it ain’t easy, but people go on to have happy lives and the ones who fare best are the ones who don’t fight reality, unlike Chu who projects his own conscious decision to transition onto the “many opponents of trans rights who observe with horror that they too might have transitioned given the chance…” Has anyone in the last sixty years said that, ever? Because it’s been an option for that long, although most people had to pay for it themselves, they didn’t have woke health insurance covering sex-change operations, and Chu believes it should be covered under Medicaid for All. Funny how he and his fellow cosplayers fail to advocate for health insurance covering detransition, which is estimated in the WPATH Files as being as much as 27%. Chu further projects his personal fantasies onto teenage girls when he claims these theoretical jealous still-stuck-in-their-birth-bodies anti-trans-ers fight transitioners because “so intensely did they hate being teenage girls.” Speaking as a former teenage girl, I never hated it, just the bullying that comes with failing to be a stone cold fox. Speaking as a former little girl whose Depression-era mother tried to teach her how to be a ‘lady’ (spoiler alert, it didn’t ‘take’!) I remember being annoyed by needing to be this stupid thing when it was clear boys had more fun and more freedom. I never wanted to be a boy, I just wanted the same rights and freedoms they enjoyed—and I still do. At the same time as Mom tried to turn me into Grace Kelly, feminists were taunted by misogynists (in early ‘70s parlance, ‘male chauvinist pigs’) who asked them, “What do you want now, a penis?” No, just the rights and freedoms a penis symbolized. But in TransWorld, as in the medical profession which has embraced this new ‘human right’ so assiduously, if you don’t feel good, fix it. With a pill or some ‘T’ or some health-degrading lifetime drug-dependent surgery. Live for the now, fully rational and soon-to-be-sterilized nine-year-old for whom the prospect of babies are 10-20 years away! Who knows when you’ll change your mind, if you think you don’t want them? Famously child-aversive George Clooney changed his mind at 56, when he agreed to impregnate his wife. Future fertility, though, is something Andrew Chu sneers at, assuming that we’re all Elon Musks worried about repopulating the earth: “The specter of mass infertility [he acknowledges this] cannot be underestimated. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the anti-trans movement is driven by a deep, unconscious dread that society will not have enough working female biology to support the deteriorating nuclear family — and, with it, the entire division of sex itself." Yeah, because with only eight billion people on the planet, the next pandemic could wipe us all out or something. And when did his enemy the liberals worry so much about the nuclear family? He claims, “Sex-altering care can indeed affect one’s fertility but not always irreversibly,” (actually it is pretty damn irreversible, although we can’t yet say exclusively), “(but it's happening a lot), and the trans population is still far too small to bring about that sort of demographic apocalypse." Um, what about those today who might want kids later, which, especially for women, happens around age 30? And for men, who can change their minds at any time? No thought to the individuals, the humans these decisions are affecting. This is all about preserving the precious narrative, with sneering condescension and disrespect at the lives that may be ruined by all of this. (Sudden thought: I wonder if Andrew-ea is secretly sorry s/he transitioned? Regrets, ‘ave you ‘ad a few-ah, Ands?) Where were all the trans kids before this? There's always so little discussion of real science in these trans-debates. Chu dismisses Lisa Littman’s heavily peer-reviewed seminal paper on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria as a ‘sham’, the customary dismissal with which transactivists wave their large hairy man-hands when a scientific paper fails to parrot their genderwoo quackery. Don’t ask, of course, Why all of a sudden has evolution gone off the rails? We evolved as a sexually dimorphic species to reproduce in a specific, immutable, irrevocable way; whether we do as individuals or not is beside the point; it's how we're designed. Intersex people are chromosomal anomalies and the primary reason why we must preserve the ability to receive sex reassignment surgery if warranted; for all others, after we've eliminated all likely non-dysphoric reasons for feeling this way. Mia Hughes, the journalist who wrote the WPATH Files report, suggests waiting until 25, when the brain is fully developed, but that's still dicey as women's biological clock often doesn’t ring until they’re closer to thirty. Sterile men may find it harder to marry or partner if they can't produce children. And as the WPATH Files have taught only those who hadn’t been paying attention, kids can't think far ahead enough to prepare for eventual non-traditional fertility, and may not yet be old enough to produce viable eggs or sperm. What we do know is that people considering transition often change their minds when they’re given the full story of what to expect. The WPATH Files tells the story of Dr. Az Hakeem who ran therapy groups at the Portland gender clinic in London twenty years ago. He introduced those who sought transition with regretful post-transitioners who shared why. The wannabes were excited and euphoric, until they met the post-trans group, which Dr. Hakeem described as “mourning, depression, and sadness.” And, “ They realized they didn’t really feel that authentic in their transgender identity, so they were still feeling just as inauthentic, but just in a different body.” As a result, almost all the wannabes gave up their dream when they realized just how difficult post-operative life was, and how fantasy-based their expectations. The Dudest Dude Since ‘The Dude’ Andrew-ea Chu came to extreme transvestism (he’s had ‘bottom surgery’) not because he was ever gender dysphoric but via one of the most female-offensive avenues imaginable: Sissy porn. I’m not going to describe it. Click the link if you want to know more. This explains why his article is an exercise in resounding male cluelessness: He’s just another sexual fetishist. A cross-dresser as dude between his ears as he once was between his legs. There are people who try to understand the other sex and others who don’t. When I wrote for Medium I was frustrated by all the self-victimizing young ‘feminists’ who hadn’t the foggiest clue what it was like to be a man in today’s society and weren’t interested in learning. There are men who don’t know or care what the world is like for women, and don’t want to hear about it. Then there are men like Andrew Chu who, despite having declared themselves female, think they know what it’s like to be a woman and prove themselves laughably wrong whenever they open their mouths or set fingers to keyboard. Ye shall know them by their clumsy, klutzy inability to put themselves in someone else’s kitten heels, even for one tiny nanosecond. Chu accuses J.K. Rowling of “ anxiously projecting her fears of sexual assault onto them [trans kids] from across the sea.” I don’t think she’s worried about kiddie rapists; she’s worried about the documented adult rapists in women’s clothing. But it doesn’t get dude-ier than this: “The TERF does not, after all, fear being assaulted by a Y chromosome in a women’s restroom. Her paranoid fantasy is of a large testosterone-fueled body wielding a penis — an organ to which, as [transactivist author Judith] Butler points out, the TERF attributes almost magical powers of violence." Only. A. Man. Could. Write. This. ‘Paranoid fantasy’. And not just any man. Only the sort of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, club wielding troglodyte who sees women as objects to be swept aside if they block men’s desires, and children as mere pawns in whatever weird-ass gender-bending game these jackoffs are playing. Only a man as large as Andrew Chu, who no one will ever try to rape because he clearly can fight back in a way a real woman can’t, fails to comprehend what it is to go through life always being minimally aware of the strange men around you, and hyper-aware if you’ve ever been critically assaulted. Only a man can write like this, for whom biological women are merely stumbling blocks to be removed, forcefully if necessary, so that entitled, narcissistic fetishists and misogynists can get whatever it is they want. For a fair number of them that’s autogynephilic male sexual pleasure, but I’ve seen enough to believe there are other reasons misogynist, dudier-than-The-Dude men might want to appropriate womanhood. There are political reasons. Pleasure reasons that may not involve autogynephilia per se: Simply forcing women to bend to your will, as they currently are permitted to do in what’s supposed to be the free Western world, or, more creepily, as one step closer to acceptance that if children have ‘free agency’, then they have the ‘right’ to decide with whom they want to have sex . This is where he’s going, whether he realizes it or not, when he argues children must be accepted as full members of society and it doesn’t matter why they want to transition. He's making an argument, in essence, that children are as logical and rational as adults and every wish of theirs should be respected. He's edging closer to, "Kids should be allowed to make their own decisions, period." The liberal media, with a few exceptions, is dragging its woke ass on acknowledging the release of the WPATH Files. So too, weirdly, is Fox News, and when I sent it to them I got a form email back saying they’d reach out if they want more details. So fuck ‘em. Tell your Congresscritters, especially the Republicans, that you demand a congressional investigation into WPATH and the medical profession at large. Canadians, we can do something similar since our Prime Minister is woke-as-fuck on trans rights over women’s rights. And if you haven’t already, download the WPATH Files and send it to any parent who’s considering or being railroaded into allowing their child to transition. The first step is stop with the pronouns. Now. It’s the only to way to fight back. Did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!

Persephone Phoenix reveals how she grew the labia to leave her abusive partner, and encourages others to do the same If you missed Part I of Persephone’s awesome story, it’s right here. Go ahead, we’ll wait! Don’t miss her excellent advice for others stuck in bad relationships (especially the part about ‘bad feminist theory’) at the end of this one, either! He had an absolute fit. He drove over to my house, used his key to come in and started yelling at me. He kicked a side table across my living room. I calmly picked up the phone and called 911. I told the operator my husband was attacking me. I told him to get out. He went downstairs and meekly sat on the porch waiting for the police. They talked to him and told him to go home and get some anger management training. They made sure I was okay and left. I installed a deadbolt on the front door. He called me the next day and cried like a whiny little bitch, saying “I can’t believe you called the police on me.” So much for his big, macho, Iranian male power. I hired my own lawyer: new attitudes, beliefs, behaviors emerge. After we were divorced, I found a lawyer who specialized in unfair separation agreements. He was appalled by what I had agreed to. He sent me a summary of an even more extreme case that he had won for a woman with a scheming husband who made my asshole look like the sweet Tom Hanks character in Forrest Gump . He got her a substantial settlement after the fact. My wonderful lawyer immediately sent a letter to my ex-husband. He, in turn, hired himself a shark lawyer who countered with threats and outrageous demands. My lawyer countered that with some simple observations about Canadian law. And that was that.  I got my fair share of the fancy house that had considerably increased in value in a hot real estate market. It turns out the other house was half owned by his business partner, so he couldn’t have given it to me in the first place. But I got a share of its value as well. He turned our daughter against me: Luckily, it was too late to turn back. By the time I came to my senses and demanded compensation from my ex-husband, our daughter was about 19. And he was not about to let things go. He was pissed that I was asking for his hard-earned money. Unfortunately, she still lived with him. Even when she was 15 and I lived down the street from her, she decided to blame me for the divorce, and refused to spend much time at my house. Now that she was in university, she wanted her own apartment, so he provided her with that--which gave him more opportunities for badmouthing me. At one point, she phoned me and asked, “Why are you trying to take all of Daddy’s money?” (My settlement was a tiny fraction of his net worth).  When I tried to explain to her how marriage law works in the civilized world, she angrily shouted at me, “I don’t want to hear about it!” In true narcissist fashion, her father had love-bombed and manipulated her to see me as the enemy. The estrangement from my daughter lasted a few years. We still saw and spoke to each other regularly, but there was tension that never fully dissipated. She resented me for reinventing myself, for losing weight and being happy about it, for dating, for getting remarried, for moving temporarily out of town.  She was very, very jealous of my new boyfriend whom I met after my second husband died suddenly and whom I eventually married. At least she was proud of me for learning to drive! (I finally got my license in my late 40s). He disowned our daughter—his only child: a new nadir for him, not me. It seemed like I would always be the second-best parent to my daughter. Daddy gave her a free apartment with a marble kitchen and bathroom right across the street from the home she had grown up in. I lived miles out of town on a farm and she had to take the train to visit me.  Horrifyingly, she was raped when she was 25. She didn’t even tell me. She also didn’t tell her father fearing that he might actually kill the guy or have him murdered by the Persian mafia (I honestly wouldn’t put either of those things past him—he was physically violent with males who thwarted him and had hinted darkly at connections to the mob). But I was about to become a heroine to my daughter. My ex developed knee problems. In exchange for the fabulous apartment, he had basically enslaved his daughter (as he had tried and failed to do with me). He required her to come over to his house regularly to do things like scoop the cat litter for his cat. He insisted that she work at his cafés for less than minimum wage, despite her university degree and knowing her desire to work in the tech industry.  I worried about her career, because she was nearing thirty and had only worked in restaurants and coffee houses. I stepped in. I arranged for an internship in New York City with my boyfriend’s brother-in-law. I gave her enough money to rent a shared apartment and live in Brooklyn for three months. Her dad was pissed . He had lost his little servant. When she came back, he demanded that she manage his main café while he recovered from surgery. She was sick of the abuse and control and refused. After that, she was dead to him. She still lived in his apartment and he began harassing her by sending over his submissive Asian girlfriend with messages like, “You have three weeks to vacate the premises.” He stiffed her for the final electric bill of over $400.00 even though he knew she had literally no money.  She couch-surfed for a few weeks, got a menial job, and moved into a truly awful shared apartment with a stranger. But at least she was free of her father. She no longer needed me to rescue her; she got started on her own hero journey. Photo by Vie Studio My daughter eventually achieved incredible career success all on her own: the hero cycle continues. She is now a software designer making a competitive salary. Five years after her father disowned her, she no longer needs him. She lives in  her own cute apartment with an adorable rescue cat. Oh, and we are now best friends. I got some therapy: Almost at the return threshold. Before I could have a successful relationship with my ill-fated second husband (he died two-and-a-half years after our wedding), and finally with my new, utterly perfect husband, I had to get some counseling.  There were leftover issues from my childhood that were preventing me from relating in a healthy way with men. I dated fruitlessly for several years trying to heal my wounds: Getting over that return threshold is hard. I could probably write a book about the losers I dated before I found any kind of committed relationship. There was the drunk, the player, commitment-phobe, and also the many married men who reached out to me on dating sites looking for a little action on the side (these ones I knew enough to refuse). My second husband was not perfect, but he made me feel loved and desired. I was amazed that someone could actually be crazy about me; that had never happened before. When he died suddenly in front of me one morning, I was devastated. I thought we would live out our lives on his farm. We were only together for two-and-a-half years. I met my new husband at age fifty: my reward arrives. Less than a year after my second husband died, I met my true husband. He was younger and handsome, and…Jewish!  (I have always had a religious bent and had become fascinated by Judaism at an early age). I could not believe my luck.  A few years after we got together, I converted to Judaism. We have a blissful relationship: The ultimate boon. I could write a whole other article about how happy I am in my marriage. I will try not to gush too much, but this man is amazing! We have been together over a decade and married for a couple of years.  He does almost all of the housework (I do most of the cooking and grocery shopping). He loves my cooking (even better than his wonderful mom’s!). He encourages me to buy things I need (instead of, like my ex, yelling at me in stores if I dared to buy clothes while he loaded up his shopping basket with whatever attire he felt like). He praises me to others (instead of complaining about me to whoever would listen, often right in front of me). The best thing about being with him is the constant, delightful two-way conversational flow (my ex-husband thought I talked too much; he once held up my teaching license, which had just arrived in the mail and declared scornfully: “License to talk!”). In short, we are best friends. Even spending time basically 24-7 during the pandemic lockdown did not lead to fights or irritation. No, our relationship is not conflict free—that would be impossible. But any fleeting arguments are usually over and forgotten about within minutes. He likes it when I drive. He compliments me and thanks me constantly. And I do the same for him. We both love classical music, take music lessons, and joyously attend concerts together (My ex-husband explained to me that classical music is “for snobs”). We agree on life goals. I would move anywhere for him (we recently moved from Canada to the United States). He has to work, while I am retired, so I don’t mind being flexible. In short, we have as ideal a relationship as possible given that we are both homo sapiens , the most problematic and aggressive species on the earth. Final reflections: The master-mistress of two worlds. Yes, life with my husband, with my daughter, and even with my ex-stepson (my late husband had a teenage son when I met him and we are still close. He is now married to a lovely woman and they have two adorable tiny humans, one of whom is old enough to call me “Gamma”), is more or less my dream life. But that is not the point of my story. My advice to women (and men) in abusive relationships, is to stop accepting treatment you don’t deserve. Women especially, do not rely on feminist theory about how the patriarchy is making you powerless and spend your time complaining to your girlfriends about how bad your partner is and how much he is victimizing you (I did this to a horrifying degree).  It does no good and simply reinforces your victim status. Victims don’t become heroes. And please, please, don’t wait around for someone to rescue you. Get some self esteem, even if you had two narcissistic, abusive parents like I did. Find a good therapist. And don’t wait until your 40s to do that. Try to realize your real value. It’s too easy to fall down the proverbial rabbit hole with an abusive partner, too easy to accept his or her negative evaluation of you that only serves their dark purpose to keep you entrapped. Don’t be naive about human nature; people usually don’t change when they have power. When you stay with an abuser, you give him permission to abuse you and any children you might have. Don’t let that happen. Do not make excuses for an abusive partner. It doesn’t matter what his mommy or daddy did to him. Your sympathy will only embolden him. If you have a good job and are financially stable, get out! If you don’t, bide your time and get away when you can. If you procrastinate like I did, don’t get down on yourself. It’s never too late to leave. I have a friend who put up with his abusive wife until his 60s. He always told me it was too late for him. She died and he immediately met the love of his life. So leave. Maybe you want a better relationship, or maybe you want to be alone because dating in the 2020s is an absolute shitshow. That’s okay too. Live your best life. Don’t let anyone stop you. Be the hero that lives inside you. I want to hear from other women, and men, and transfolk who've gotten out of bad relationships. What did you learn about yourself? What made you think differently about who you were letting into your life and why you let them stay? Drop me a line from the contact form in my main menu! And in the meantime, did you like this post? Would you like to see more? I lean left of center, but not so far over my brains fall out. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter  Grow Some Labia  so you never miss a damn thing!