top of page

234 items found for ""

  • Where Does 'Slavery Trauma' Really Come From?

    Is it epigenetic, or do we all traumatize ourselves with historical knowledge? The dreams of medieval tortures began when I was around seven or eight. I can’t remember the brutal details, but generally — men coming after me, wanting to torture me. The dreams petered out, then flared up many years later. Burning stakes, cages and sharp blades. One memorable device I wasn’t even familiar with. The huge heavy weight looked like a child’s top, flat above, tapering to a dull but broad point. My persecutors wanted to center it over my belly and crush me. When I awoke I thought, “What the hell? I’ve never even read of anything like that.” Past-life memories? Intergenerational trauma? Psychically tuning in to another time? Maybe. Although the earliest dreams started when I read my first book on the European witch craze. Written for children, its descriptions of interrogations, tortures and executions were nevertheless graphic. It was too upsetting to finish. Later nightmare revisits coincided with my exploration of Wicca. My adult reading now contained far more graphic historical descriptions, and I also had a better idea of what a torture chamber looked like thanks to old Vincent Price movies and a Gilligan’s Island episode in which the castaways are held but not harmed in a mad scientist’s torture chamber. I learned that there was, in fact, a torture device rather like my belly crusher. But I wonder: Was it a past life memory, or had I learned about it years prior and forgotten it? One’s unconscious doesn’t forget as easily as the conscious mind shocked into welcome forgetfulness. I can’t swear I hadn’t learned about it when I was younger. Memory is odd; we forget things. When reminded, we may not even recall a sense of familiarity of once having known it. I read years ago about a woman who ‘remembered’ a past life involving a minor historical incident in which she recounted details confirmed by other history books. Turns out earlier records had gotten some details wrong. They’d been corrected in modern versions. She’d ‘remembered’ not the incident that happened, but the faulty narrative in a childhood book. Coleman Hughes - American writer and podcast host, vile conservative lackey to illiberals, a breath of fresh air to us remaining libs—has just published a new book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. One might call him downright reactionary for suggesting we return to an earlier time for America when many civil rights leaders prescribed striving for colorblindness, and blamed racial inequities more on class struggles than systemic racism, even as Hughes acknowledges its current existence. He scandalizes ‘woke’ progressives when he dreams of a ‘colorblind’ America in which we recognize race, but treat each other like we do others. Easier said than done in the Ignited States of America, but seemingly doable in Canada, which doesn’t suffer from the lengthy slave legacy of America. Racism exists here, but is less prone to the racial hysterics of ‘woke’ American antiracism, which claims modern trauma from a slave history that ended nearly 160 years ago. No one is truly colorblind, but we can work toward it, and Hughes (I haven’t read his book yet) smashes the woke lunacy holding that claiming to be ‘colorblind’ is racist, and questions whether one can suffer trauma from things that happened to others. It would certainly give the rest of us opportunity to claim historical trauma, since it’s the story of the human race, although interestingly we never seem to suffer it if we don’t know what our ancestors went through. Like, I don’t have PTSD from my French ancestor who fought in Napoleon’s army and must surely have seen some shit. Nor did I know anyone growing up who suffered post-generational trauma from fathers who served in Korea or grandfathers in WWII. Colorblindness may be naive, for sure, but racist it ain’t. Not when one is making a good-faith effort to not be racist, however imperfectly. As any white person subjected to woke racism knows, there is no escape from being cast as a ‘white supremacist’. Even if you think you’re not, you are. White skin is the Mark of the Beast. Hughes’s skepticism of appropriated trauma caught my eye in his own article about his book on The Free Press. He questions the claim of PTSD (‘Post-Traumatic Slavery Disorder’) for those who’ve lived a more privileged life than their ancestors. Hughes briefly touches upon the emerging science of epigenetics, which explores whether historical trauma can become encoded in our genes. It’s an interesting theory which requires a lot more research. The early science leans that way, with experiments on rodents and nematode worms, with whom you have more in common, genetically, than you’d like to know. Genetic memories go back as far as 14 generations for our wormy cousins, and if it ultimately proves similar for humans, that’s 350–500 years back depending on how you count the length of generations. So yes, we could all hypothetically have genetic memories of trauma. Lab mice taught to fear and avoid a scent similar to cherry blossoms passed on that fear to the next generation. What I find a little questionable about human ‘inherited trauma’ is it only seems to affect people whose ancestral trauma was inflicted by white people. Other groups besides black Americans lay claim to inherited trauma too—specifically Native North Americans from white hands. But I wonder: How much of the spiritual trauma is caused by ‘ancestral memories’ or ‘genetic trauma’, versus how much of it is historical learning? Trigger warning: Some descriptions of medieval and Native American tortures and violence follow. I have a horse in this race myself, as I stated earlier. After reading about witches and fueling my nightmares with old horror movies, I became a modern-day Pagan over thirty years ago. I’ve witnessed and felt that same toxic confusion between the nightmarish abuses of centuries past, with the aggressive feelings and sometimes downright loathing for people today — modern men and the Catholic Church (the primary villains of the Witches’ Narrative). You see it when some female writers recount the tortures of the damned for moderns, in case we weren’t aware of how they ripped flesh from bones with red hot pincers or how the strappado worked. Let’s pour lemon juice on our wounds by describing in gruesome detail burning rods driven up vaginas, iron cages over hot coals, the rack tearing female joints apart like a hungry warrior with a leg of mutton. And yeah, they did those things to Jews, Muslims, atheists, heretics, and other assorted ‘not the right kind of Christians’. By the time you were done reading that shit, you were ready to firebomb your local St. Peter’s. Our angry feelings also bled over to modern men, most of whom, as far as we knew, thought the Spanish boot was something worn by hipster metrosexuals. We conflated the abuses of patriarchal dead guys with priests who no longer torture or burn women at the stake. I might arguably have my own ‘inherited genetic witch trauma’, as my genealogy stems primarily from France, a hotbed of witchmania, as well as England and Germany. England was a better place to be accused, Germany the worst. England eschewed the cruelest tortures, and preferred hanging for execution; Germany refined maximizing human suffering to a hellish art form and death by stake-burning took much longer. And they managed to make it even worse while you waited to die. Don’t ask. Just don’t. But I can’t say my dreams aren’t a direct result of my early childhood books and movies, and my draw to Wicca may be laid directly at the feet of an old Wiccan boyfriend in Massachusetts, where Paganism is no longer an executable offense. Why isn’t anyone who doesn’t read history books experiencing intergenerational ‘inherited trauma’? American blacks speak of the damage caused them by the American slave system, but never of the ancient system that existed in pre-colonial Africa. Nor does any modern black woman, to my knowledge, claim ‘ancestral’ damage stemming from a 2,000-year-old legacy of one of the worst human rights abuses ever, believed to have originated in Africa: Female genital mutilation. Where is epigenetic legacy of pre-European, Middle Eastern, Indian, and Eastern Asian slavery, along with FGM? American slavery ended in the 1860s; FGM, along with slavery, is still practiced in some parts of Africa today. As for horrible slave ‘memories’, we are all likely descended from slaves. It’s a universal institution, spanning thousands of years and just about every single human community. We are blind to probably more than a few slave owners and traders in our own family trees. Black Americans’ genealogies, sundered by the slave trade, disappear only a few generations back, so they need never confront their own ugly past on the other side of the auction block: When their ancestors bought, sold and traded other human beings. Then there’s pre-European Indigenous violence. Again, don’t ask. But if you insist, go here. I’ll give you the thumbnail sketch: Mass murder, roasting alive, rape, torture, shit with pointy sticks you don’t want to know about, slavery (of course) and cannibalism. And that shit was just a few hundred years ago. Native Americans experienced horrendous genocide efforts from European colonists, but no one ever expresses ancient memories of being slowly roasted over a fire by warriors who looked a lot like themselves. Perhaps today’s slavery-traumatized modern blacks have done it to themselves with their own historical research, and, does mishandling that knowledge cause them to excoriate the wrong people? Are there better ways for all of us to handle knowledge of ancient abuses against our forebearers? I believe we must never forget history; we can never know too much, we must drill down forever deeper for new insights into the human condition and behavior; where we’ve come from, where we are, where we’re going. As ugly and traumatic as it is to revisit the trauma of slavery, or witch hunts, the danger lies in allowing ourselves to feel too victimized and even worse, to confuse the descendants with the villains of those dark times. The new conflation of ‘white supremacy’ with all white people today I believe is fed by an unhealthy preoccupation with the slavery era. I mean, we fought a damn war over it, people! It drives misplaced black aggression, confusing white people today with the slave owners of the past. As bad as modern, true white supremacists are, they’re a much tinier representation of white Americans. There are plenty of reasons for black Americans and women to be angry; but not for something no one supports anymore. It’s counterproductive to add needless anger aimed at moderns for things that happened generations ago. Women should be angry at patriarchal abuses today, but no longer for the wheel or the rack or Vincent Price’s famous pendulum. It makes no sense to be angry at Catholic priests anymore for abuses against women they haven’t practiced in hundreds of years; let’s instead excoriate them for the way they’re abusing children now. I don’t frankly care whether any of us are suffering ‘epigenetic’ or ancestral trauma. It’s the entire story of human history: Humans treating each other like absolute shit since we came down from the trees. We can be outraged by the oppression and cruelties of the past while keeping it in our modern-day perspective. Let’s continue drilling down deep, understanding the prejudices and conscious or unconscious biases that drove our ignorant ancestors, and recognize we all descend from cruel, stupid human beings, and that we’re not as morally far removed from them as we’d like to think. The baying human jackals of X and Instagram—on the right and the left—greatly resemble those whose cries arose for Nero’s circuses and Shakespeare’s bear-baiters. Human trafficking is also universal, including in your own country. Anyone who watches porn is pretty certainly supporting human slavery. Yes, we’re so much more civilized now. I will join the iconoclastic Coleman Hughes and other human progressives who encourage a return to sane, common-sense social justice values while we pull down ‘antiracism’s’ false idols: DEI, ‘Doing the work’, which too many of their own refuse to do, and ‘tolerance’, but only for themselves and their opinions. I’m done with the wounds of the past. The dreams have stopped screaming. I no longer live in the seventeenth century, and I hope ‘antiracists’ emigrate from there too. Trust me, for all its faults, the 21st-century is waaaaay better. 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!

  • Here's A Running List Why 'Transwomen' Don't Belong In Women's Spaces

    This is for everyone who denies trans-identified males are a threat to women in private spaces. I've found some who are. I’m losing patience fast with the ‘trans ally’ perpetual ignorance about the documented dangers of allowing trans-identified men (TiMs) into women’s private spaces. Talk to the ‘woke’ about sexual predators masquerading as women to access places men were forbidden before, and you’ll find a wall of DGAFery and a veritable Moron Tabernacle Choir of defensive ‘I never heard of that!’ That’s when skepticism struggles out of the dark hidey-holes of their brains and they need ‘cites’, ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ that male bodies are a danger to women no matter how they ‘identify’. Trans allies never seem to require evidence for things like obstructed transition teen suicide, but whatever. I have zero tolerance for woke ‘progressives’ who claim allegiance to women’s rights and freedoms, but turn all pissy when we draw the line for men at the hallowed doors of our rooms for getting semi- or fully-naked. The men fighting so hard to get into these places are not gender dysphoric. They’re fetishists, sexual opportunists, and in the worst cases, predators. Particularly those who ‘identify’ as trans immediately after criminal conviction. And most especially those who landed in prison in the first place because they are convicted sex offenders. ‘Progressives’ can’t fathom the no-brainer that allowing people to ‘identify’ as something they’re not and using the toilet corresponding to their ‘feeling’ will be used by some TiMs to gain access to places where they can more easily assault women and children. “That never happens!” Progressives feign ignorance when I cite research that TiMs exhibit nearly no difference in criminality and violence than male-identifying men. It’s not rocket science; they’re men underneath the dress, and most importantly between the ears. But they never heard of that research! Progressives can be remarkably ignorant about a subject they have strong opinions about. Crime statistics are now skewed by a seeming rise in sexual violence committed by women because of the insistence on treating TiMs rapists and predators as female. A few brave news sites are properly gendering people with penises who shove their dicks into unconsenting orifices just like, you know, males. But most refer to ‘transwoman’ defendants as ‘she’ and even in court, female victims are often forced to refer to their accused with female pronouns. This has falsely increased the ‘rape by female’ crime stat by misgendering male rapists as female. Not to mention a further victory for misogynist transactivists for forcing an already-humiliated woman to further bend to male desires and spread her forced lie on the stand in compliance. I’ve created a Resources section on my Substack nav bar where you’ll find this along with other articles I’ve written one can use to debunk the woke illiberal left professing ignorance of (whatever). I couldn’t find a convenient website or list chronicling the sexual predations of TiMs so I can send a massive citation to the selectively skeptical. So I compiled my own. It doesn’t include all trans crimes, like trans mass shootings or TiMs assaulting males, or trans-identified women. The purpose of this list is to demonstrate why males can’t be trusted in women’s private spaces. They’re segregated because some men are sexual predators, and we don’t know who. Except in prison, where the crimes they committed are well-known. It’s only TiMs driving this push. They cite safety concerns but they resist the solution of third bathrooms or changing rooms. Why is that? Here’s something for ‘trans allies’ to consider: Every time a man commits a crime while trans, or transitions after arrest when it’s clear he’s going to prison, it increases the statistics for trans crime. Even when he commits it before transitioning, and especially if he commits a sex crime in a female prison, it becomes linked to the trans predator crime statistics and adds to the anti-trans narrative for those dreaded right-wing critics who jump all over these stories like a drag queen on a new pastel wig color. It further adds to the narrative that transwomen are or are prone to sexual predation and many, in fact, are not. It sure doesn’t help the trans ‘grooming’ reputation, deserved or not, either. Here’s something else for overly-defensive non-criminal TiMs and their allies to consider: How long do you think you can sweep these stories under the rug? How credible do you think you look when you deny the obvious? Why aren’t you joining others in pointing out how most ‘trans prisoners’ are trans-for-convenience, to get into women’s prisons? These guys are ruining your reputation! If you really don’t want to be lumped in with sexual predators, SPEAK OUT, BITCHES!!! I’ve arranged this list into four sections: Criming Before Trans, Criming After Trans, Criming In Prison and Women Speak Out. That last includes articles about the terrorism female inmates experience with ‘trans’ convicted sexual predators in their environment. This is by no means a comprehensive list; I haven’t obsessively looked for trans crimes, but when I see one I save it. I want to make something absolutely, positively, beyond all shadow of a doubting Thomas crystal clear: NOT ALL TiMs ARE SEXUAL PREDATORS. Countless TiMs go about their business every day without sexually assaulting anyone. This list is NOT meant to damn all TiMs. It’s to refute baseless claims that women have nothing to fear from strange men in places historically exclusive of men because human males have a long, ugly, millennia-long documented history of not being able to control their sexual urges. And we never know which ones to trust, so we ban them all. That includes you, TiMs. If that’s your biggest life challenge, it’s a First World Problem. My documentation process I’ve done my best to document these as accurately as I can. If I can’t verify a story enough I don’t include it. Right-wing news is where most of these stories emerge, as the left-wing media only acknowledges it when it can no longer be ignored. If there’s any there there, more reliable news sources at the time or shortly after will feature it, and I use those. A lot of the information comes from feminist websites like Reduxx, and this is where one can find the most details. Telling the truth about trans anything when it doesn’t reflect well on their victimhood narrative is extremely difficult to get left-leaning websites to cover, as Lisa Selin-Davis at BROADview in Brief writes in her stellar article Why It's So Hard for the Mainstream Media to Get This Story Right. The left and factual information about trans: It’s like feeding spinach to a toddler. It’s difficult to know what to believe anymore because even formerly reliable sources, like Associated Press and Reuters, and once-respected science journals, have been drinking the social justice Kool-Aid and ignoring valid discussions in more right-leaning media about, for example, the lack of scientific evidence behind gender-affirming care or the teen suicide myth. The left can’t be trusted much either, just as the right can’t be trusted on climate change or Donald Trump. Let me know what you think. If there’s a better source for a story, or you think the story shouldn’t be included, let me know and why with supporting evidence or at least a good logical argument. My documentation process I’ve done my best to document these as accurately as I can. If I can’t verify a story enough I don’t include it. Right-wing news is where most of these stories emerge, as the left-wing media only acknowledges it when it can no longer be ignored. If there’s any there there, more reliable news sources at the time or shortly after will feature it, and I use those. A lot of the information comes from feminist websites like Reduxx, and this is where one can find the most details. Telling the truth about trans anything when it doesn’t reflect well on their victimhood narrative is extremely difficult to get left-leaning websites to cover, as Lisa Selin-Davis at BROADview in Brief writes in her stellar article Why It's So Hard for the Mainstream Media to Get This Story Right. The left and factual information about trans: It’s like feeding spinach to a toddler. It’s difficult to know what to believe anymore because even formerly reliable sources, like Associated Press and Reuters, and once-respected science journals, have been drinking the social justice Kool-Aid and ignoring valid discussions in more right-leaning media about, for example, the lack of scientific evidence behind gender-affirming care or the teen suicide myth. The left can’t be trusted much either, just as the right can’t be trusted on climate change or Donald Trump. Let me know what you think. If there’s a better source for a story, or you think the story shouldn’t be included, let me know and why with supporting evidence or at least a good logical argument. Criming Before Transition Stephen Terence Wood (Karen White) - UK - Transgender woman who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life - The Guardian, 10.11.18. The U.K.'s most notorious trans-identified male had a long ugly history of sexual violence against women and children and was one of the first 'transwomen' to be sent to a women's prison, where he proceeded to rape two inmates. Daniel Lee Smith (Zera Lola Zombie) - Oregon - Murdered his girlfriend - Wanted transfer to female prison - 09.11.23 Thomas Preston Lamb (Michelle Renee Lamb) - Kansas - He kidnapped and murdered a woman in 1969 and then kidnapped another in 1970. He was serving three consecutive life sentences when he turned trans at the ripe old age of 81 and was quietly moved into a woman’s prison (duh). He blamed his crimes on his gender confusion. His full murder case is in the Kansas City Public Library. David Ayrton (Davina Ayrton) - Transgender woman jailed for raping teenager (while still a man) - England - 03.04.16 Criming After Transition Freddie Christian Trenchard (Alyssa Christine Trenchard) - England - BBC - Raped a woman while trans - 10.30.23 Gabrielle Alejandro Gentile (Barbie Kardashian) - Ireland - Irish Times - Imprisoned for threatening to rape, torture and murder his own mother - 04.27.23 No birth name (Daniela D) - Netherlands - Extremely violent TiM inmate moved to women's prison - 12.04.23 Adam Graham (Isla Bryson) - Scotland - Found guilty of raping two women - BBC - 01.24.23 No birth name (Samantha Norris) - England - Facing kiddie porn charges after being acquitted of exposing his penis to 11-year-old girls - MSN - 01.26.23 No birth name - (Maria Childres) - Kentucky - Trans-Identified Male Accused Of Sexually Abusing Infant Will Be Represented By Trans Activist Lawyer - WPSD Local 6 - 02.07.23 Jamie Kevin Harold Waller (Abigail Walker) - Sex offender back in prison after messaging underage girls on Facebook - Yahoo News Canada - 01.24.24 Darren Merager (No trans name) - Serial flasher just can’t stop exposing his dick to women. This article is about his most recent non-sexual offense arrest last year, but chronicles his long history of indecent exposure in women’s-only spa changing room - California - 12.15.23 Cody D’Entremont (Desiree Anderson) - Suspect arrested after report of sexual assault at women's shelter - Ontario, Canada - 04.19.23 No real name (Rachel Queen Burton) - TikTok transwoman star pleads guilty to child sex abuse offenses - Australia - 02.06.24 The alleged unnamed Saskatoon guy, or maybe transwoman, in the Shaw Centre girls’ changing room - Sasktachewan, Canada - 03/08/23. Allegedly, on January 27th of this year, some male person wandered around naked in the women’s changing room. The Saskatoon Council says the incident was misrepresented on social media, which is entirely possible, but won’t say exactly what did occur. What seems fairly certain, though, is that they’re committed to keeping the changing rooms open to people choosing depending on how they identify. Which sounds like something happened, or maybe it didn’t, but no matter, because if something happens there, or again, the Council will just tell critics to stop being transphobic. Sean Patrick Smith (Shauna Smith) - Transgender woman charged with voyeurism in Target dressing room - Idaho - 07.14.16 Christopher Hambrook (Jessica) - A convicted sex offender assaulted women in two Toronto homeless shelters, claiming to be a transwoman. It happened in 2012 so I’m having a hard time finding a reliable source for it (The Toronto Sun seems to have covered it the most but they’re not reliable) but I do find the incident cited in more reliable sources. - Toronto, 2012 Bathroom incidents (No names, high school students) - After assault, Edmond transgender bathroom policy questioned - Oklahoma - 12.8.22 - An Edmond police report indicates an Oct. 26 assault in the girls’ bathroom at Memorial High School in which a girl was ‘badly beaten’ by a male student who identified as a female. Miguel Martinez (No trans name) - Transgender man convicted of assaulting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom - Montana - 10.20.17 No male name (Katie Dolatowski) - 18-year-old transwoman sexually assaults underage girl in a supermarket bathroom - Scotland - 02.06.19 (Unnamed attacker) - Woman who fought after transwoman attacker in a public park bathroom tells anti-trans group to stop using her story - Washington - 03.16.17 It’s important to note that TiMs are also attacked in public restrooms. That’s not okay either, regardless of whether they belong there or not. Clearly, the solution to this fiasco is third bathrooms, but certain TiMs don’t want that. Gee, I wonder why they’re not more concerned for their own safety. Like, you know, women are. Criming while trans in prison Strawberry Hampton and Janiah Monroe - Illinois - Accused of prison rape - WTTW News - 02.19.20 Ramel Blount (Diamond Blount) - New York - Trans prisoner on Rikers Island - raped female prisoner - Bronx County District Attorney Report (NY) - 04.25.22 Jermaine Gibson (Cyntara) - New Jersey - TiM accused of raping female prisoner after his repeated sexual harassment - Reduxx - 05.29.23 Jonathan Roberston (Siyaah Skylit) - California - Female inmates report brutal rape of female inmate by TiM inmate- Reduxx - 05.31.22. Trans allies, including Pink News, had successfully petitioned to move him from an all-male prison where he lived in fear of his life, allegedly. (Unnamed) - Mexico - Trans-identified male with sexual violence history assaults female inmate - Reduxx - 08.19.23 Grow Some Labia! is a reader-supported publication. I lean left, but not so far my brains fall out. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Women Speak Out Unisex changing rooms put women in danger of sexual assault, data reveals - Independent UK - Sunday Times is better but paywalled - 09.02.18 Why transactivists keeping going to bat for rapists and murderers - Eliza Mondegreen - Substack - 01.26.23 Transgender prison policy: Women prisoners speak out - Woman’s Place UK - 11.04.21 Female prisoners sue California for putting TiMs in women's prisons - 04.14.23 Men's Safety, Women's Danger: An Incarcerated Woman Speaks Out - No sex crimes alleged, just a lot of female prisoner terror - 05.06.23 Other sources: Trans Crime UK - Extensively documents crimes committed by trans individuals in the UK. Relies heavily on right-wing sources so I would remind you: Copy and paste the names, both birth and trans if the article contains them, into Google and see if you find a better source. The right doesn’t always get it right either. To my knowledge, no transmen are requesting to be sent to male prisons. This isn’t a comprehensive list, but I’ll be adding to it as I run across more stories. 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!

  • How Not To Report A Rape And Compromise Your Own Credibility When You Do

    Not to mention make it harder for other alleged victims to be taken seriously. 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. 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. 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!

  • I Went Nazi-Hunting On Substack. Now I Ask: Whose Nazis Are *We*?

    Something we should ask ourselves. Since a lot of speech is protected, ugly or not. Just call me Simone Geezernthal, Nazi Hunter. The Atlantic has been preoccupied with an alleged ‘Nazi problem’ on Substack. If you’re not familiar with the hubbub, Bub, they and their fellow journo lackeys keep writing about how Substack is infested with Nazis. Last fall some guy named Casey Newton on some popular tech newsletter I’m not familiar with left Substack quite raucously in a PR-fueled blaze of incandescent virtue signalling, huffing and puffing that Substack refused to do anything about its ‘Nazi problem’. The Guardian announced that he took ‘more than 170,000 subscribers elsewhere,’ which is a bit hyperbolic as probably most of them stayed put, while following Newton elsewhere for his work, unless they wanted to join the flamboyant anti-Nazi parade out the door. What actually materially departed was Newton’s paying subscribers, which is how Substack makes money. The Nazi naysayers hightailed it to Ghost, a famously highly-decentralized platform which, as Freddie deBoer pointed out, allows for no central moderation which means it’s pretty surely a hate-orgy free-for-all. Nor, as he notes, is it easy to tell whether a content provider is using Ghost or not, so for all Newton knows, the next time he goes Nazi-hunting, he may not need to leave his own ‘hood. Newton is almost certainly now in the company of far more Nazis and other unsavouries than he was on Substack. I learned about the fascism flap after finding an open letter to Substack encouraging the urge to purge. I was like, “I didn’t know we had any Nazis.” It was probably news to most, and, like me, figured it was just woke snowflake brains melting down over a deadnaming or a positive comment about Tucker Carlson. But no, The Atlantic and other Nazi hunters were talking about real Nazis, people who voice standard Nazi points of view even if you can’t find the verboten N-word in their publications. One pub, from The Atlantic story, and run by a genuine white supremacist, had a Nazi ‘sonnenrad’ profile image (it looks like the world’s most hideous spider). These weren’t woke ‘Nazis’ defined as ‘anyone who disagrees with us’. Substack, in response to the journalistic frenzy, did in fact purge a few genuinely Nazi accounts they claimed violated their Terms of Service, brought to their attention by The Atlantic’s story. I had encountered one pretty suspiciously Nazi dude already, but he found me. He’d called me a ‘kikesucking Zionist asswhore’, responding to a comment I’d left somewhere, sympathetic to post-October 7 Israel. The guy’s response was rife with antisemitism and what I can pretty confidently call some genuine expressions of hardcore, old-school, unquestionable Nazi sympathies. He’d gone through all the comments on the article and flamed others too. I calmly blocked him and had a lovely breakfast with my fellow Zionist asswhores. If there were any other Nazis on Substack, they didn’t show up in my feed. Substack's Terms of Service Like most blogging or social media platforms, Substack feeds its readers undiscovered content based on their tastes. Since my own skew heavily toward rational liberal and conservative thought, I don’t see extremist content. Not even woke crap, which I criticize regularly. Substack really does function rather effectively as an intellectual/ideological bubble. Most Substack writers and readers won’t see nutsy Nazis either. What us First Amendment lovers love about Substack is it’s one of the few blogging platforms left that doesn’t politically censor speech. Every platform has to censor at least a little. But Substack’s idea of protected speech more closely resembles the Constitution’s rather than their more authoritarian ‘woke’ competitors, like Medium, Substack’s biggest competitor. Where the woke rule is where free speech goes to die. Substack’s ToS states, “We host and celebrate a diverse range of thought and discussion,” and as far as I can tell, except for violence-spewing Nazis, that’s true. I’ve not once been called down, taken down, or excoriated by Substack for anything anti-woke I’ve written, and my articles critical of misogynist transactivism would melt down half of Medium memberships’ brains. Substack’s policies on ‘hate speech’ read like most other platforms’ with one key difference: Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition. What’s different is its definition of offending behavior as ‘credible threats of physical harm to people….” Credible threats. Like, “Kill all the gay blind left-handed Mexican trans-plumbers for Jesus,” not criticism of transactivists, Black Lives Matter, atheists, religious fundamentalists, LGBTQ, Fox News, Antifa, or people who love Israel/Palestinians/Hamas more than you think they should. I’m guessing if anyone’s whining to Substack that ‘Grow Some Labia is literally killing transpeople!!! with her g̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ transphobic articles,’ that Substack support staff, whiskey tumblers at their elbow, are ignoring them, or explaining that I haven’t violated their ToS by literally killing or urging others to literally kill transpeople. I’m an old-school free speech advocate. I want its boundaries to be as narrowly interpreted as our Founding Fathers, and Substack does. My no-nos include “From sea to shining sea, America will be free—of n——rs”, “We’ll pull another Jan 6 if Biden steals another election and this time we burn the fucker down!”, or “So-and-so is a pedophile,” (when they’re not). I got to wondering where the remaining, ToS-abiding Nazis are on Substack. Where have all the Nazis gone, short time passing? I began with the Nazi guy who’d flamed me at Thanksgiving. I found his publication and he is, so far, the most unquestionably blatant Nazi I’ve found. His pub features a hook-nosed Jewish cartoon character with a crazy-ass GIF incorporating a spiral, Satanism, Judaism, and Hillary Clinton. His music tastes indicate I’m not the only ‘kike-sucking Zionist asswhore’; count Miley Cyrus in my company. Substack’s Nazis tend to keep a low profile. Several are sparse on content and subscribers. I kept searching on popular Nazi and white nationalist keywords for ‘posts’, ‘people’ and ‘publications’ and couldn’t find much. I found a few via the original Atlantic/bandwagon-jumpers feeding frenzy. One publication claimed to be “a small professional team of pro-White advocates centred around a single mission: bringing a pro-White perspective to analysis of both foreign and domestic policy.” Lots of anti-Israel content and ‘replacement theory’ white nationalist crapola. Their recommendations led to another publication which complains about wealthy Zionists and the left and offers a dissection of Jewish power. Another recommendation led me straight to a genuine Fascist newsletter, which included book recommendations for the budding Fascist, an article about Christianity and Fascism, and promises analysis and discourse on Third Positionism, a neo-fascist political ideology. The easiest way to find Nazis on Substack is to dig up a Nazi and follow his Recommendations links. Two more goose-stepping goobers I found via the Atlantic article were described as practically dripping with antisemitism. I didn’t delve deep into the dismal dregs of Deutschblütig drek, and I did find some pretty straightforward antisemitism but I wouldn’t exactly call it a SwastikaSturm. I’m not defending it, and I wouldn’t mind if the Substacker effed off and took his shit to TruthSocial, but finding these and other Nazis was sort of like exploring the city you live in and finding a gang of skinheads in some far corner of town where you never go and probably could never find again unless you saved the coordinates in your GPS. Another publication was run by the notorious white nationalist Richard Spencer and denigrated Einstein as not being all that bright, frankly, while claiming that Aryans were mostly responsible for producing geniuses. There were also some podcast hysterics about Jews in caves in New York, a big not-news story if you missed it, about one actual tunnel underneath a Brooklyn synagogue that had the right wing hyperventilating all over social media. The publication that caused similar respiratory distress for The Atlantic, the one with the big ugly spider image, described itself as a ‘pro-white think tank and publishing house’, denies that valuing and writing about one’s own race is ‘dangerous’ or ‘supremacist’, and notes that Indigenous Americans regularly rally around and support their own communities. What The Atlantic failed to mention was how sparse that publication was, with an interview with some white supremacist dude, an ‘about’ page and another hook-nosed Jew caricature. I’m not sure how much of a ‘Nazi problem’ Substack ever had, really; supposedly, some publications gone bye-bye had thousands of subscribers, including a considerable number of paying ones. I suspect Casey Newton’s departed paid subscriptions hurt more than the Nazi lucre Substack shut down, but I could be wrong. Substack spokescritters have stated they don’t like Nazi content but if it doesn’t violate their Terms of Service they’ll leave it be. That won’t make anyone who viscerally loathes Nazis happy, especially Jewish readers and writers. But it does mean a lot other speech is protected. Including Jews’. And ours. Because we are all someone else’s ‘Nazis’, and some of them are more powerful than The Atlantic. Whose Nazi are you? This is important because censors never stop with genuine Nazis: Eventually, we all become their Nazis. In 2021, Substack was attacked in the popular press for allowing ‘transphobic’ writers, and transactivists launched a campaign to pressure them to remove the writers they found offensive. Transgender Map listed many respected, respectable Substack writers who wrote ‘anti-trans’ (i.e.,, gender critical) content. Substack is one of the few platforms that refused to back down. It’s clear, reviewing the list of ‘anti-trans’ writers, that transactivists’ gripes also include simply anyone who writes contrary to ‘woke’ narratives in general; Jonathan Haidt’s After Babel is mentioned, and he never writes about transgenderism that I’ve ever seen. Transgender Map disapprovingly cites his founding of Heterodox Academy and promotion of ‘intellectual diversity’ and challenging ‘enforced’ academic orthodoxies, which it claims are ‘buzzwords’ for ‘people who want academic freedom without academic responsibility of accountability.’ They also spuriously link him to some sort of ‘cover-up’ of some alleged ‘fabricated case report’ linked to a transsexual researcher they don’t like without explaining exactly what Haidt had to do with it, if anything. These are the ‘Nazis’ of which I am part: Transactivism-critical feminist, defender of free speech and challenger of ‘entrenched orthodoxies’, and who has been deplatformed by Medium, along with Vocal and X-Twitter wannabe CounterSocial for being too trans-critical. We forget that offensive speech is also covered by the First Amendment, as evidenced by the ACLU’s most (in)famous court case, the right of Nazis to protest in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s, where many Holocaust survivors lived. (They ended up marching in a Chicago park instead by mutual agreement). Damn them all you want - and many of us did back then - but almost certainly, the speech the CensorNazis come for next is your own, and censorship has become much more fashionable for left-wing authoritarians in recent years. The ‘hate speech’ I’ve been banned for was for ‘transphobia’, meaning someone didn’t like my gender-critical commentary—absolutely protected by the First Amendment, but not required for public platforms to abide by. There’s an uncomfortably prescient quote from the story I referenced about the Nazi brouhaha in Illinois nearly fifty years ago. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League argued against the Nazi demonstration in full regalia because it would cause Holocaust survivors to relive their emotional trauma. “We responded,” Nazi defense lawyer David Goldberger—yes, David Goldberger—wrote on the 2020 ACLU memoir of the case, “that no one who objected [to] the Nazis had to attend their demonstration and that if claims of subjective harm could shut down a public assembly then anyone who objected to a controversial demonstration could prevent it by asserting it would inflict emotional harm.” Exactly like many arguments made by woke fragile flowers today to justify shutting down opinions or speech they don’t like, claiming the flimsiest of flimsy pretenses of emotional ‘harm’, as though they could be destroyed by an argument they can’t logically refute. Some of them even believe words can murder, which is where the accusations of ‘literally killing transpeople’ come from, against people who would literally be in jail if they had. Apart from clearly unprotected speech, like advocating violence against others, it’s too easy to say that this speech is fine, but that speech is not, and mission creep sets in. Holocaust survivors, and Jews overall, can argue genuine mental harm for having to tolerate Nazis, but less genuinely trans-identified males, themselves demonstrably abusive, now claim ‘harm’ from feminist resistance to their aggressive misogyny. Although I rarely run across actual transactivists on Substack, I did happen across a ‘woke’ one the other day bitterly lamenting Pamela Paul’s courageous article (for the otherwise trans-submissive New York Times) focusing on detransitioning kids and questioning whether their initial hasty transitions were justified. Transactivists know the jig is almost up. I doubt the whiny trans guy knows I even exist, and I’m not going to go poking his bear. I’m his ‘Nazi’, and on a different platform, he and his kind have successfully petitioned to censor this ‘transphobe’ writer and her ‘hateful’ content (all of which you can find here), as they have to so many others like me who offend not just the trans set but other cherished woke dogma. The folks who want to deplatform Nazis are almost always the same ones looking to deplatform anyone who runs afoul of their extremist illiberal worldview. Nazis are the easy target but they’re only the first shot across the bow. I blocked the kook-sucking anti-Zionist asswhore who besmirched our comment threads; he slimed back to the grody grotto he oozed out from. I’m done hunting Nazis and I’m quite grateful to Substack for upholding free speech standards. It’s comforting to know that unless the Woke Pod People leave pods in Substack’s founders’ beds one night, I’ll be able to snark my way through wokeness, MAGAs, transactivism, the Paw-Paws election, fluffy-brained feminism and even Hitler himself. In fact, making fun of our enemies is the best way to take their power. Thankfully, Substack’s got our backs. Real-life Jew Dick Shawn camps up hippie Hitler on stage in 1968’s The Producers, which made fun of Hitler and Nazis. It was made by a whole bunch of Jews including producer Mel Brooks, starring fellow Jews Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel, Kenneth Mars (who played the Hitler-worshipping ex-Nazi) Renee Taylor, and Jehovah knows who else. 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!

  • Liberals And Conservatives Are Making For Strange Bedfellows In Massachusetts

    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. 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!!! 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!

  • False 'False Rape Allegations': The Way Feminists Now Collude With Rape

    Since progressive feminists no longer #Believe[All]Women, let's talk about actual false rape allegations vs denying documented rapes 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. 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. (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! 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!

  • Donald Trump Offers A Terrific Lesson On How Rape Victims Can Get True Justice

    THIS is how they can take back their power from their accused rapist in court--and win! 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!

  • Why Not Vote For A Completely Different Evil This November?

    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? “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’. 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. 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!

  • If Someone Held A Real Trans Genocide, Would Transfolk Even Notice?

    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 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 26% 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!

  • Random Stuff Men Say That Make Me Go 'WTF, Feminists?"

    #MeToo has trained men to fear women. Why should they? How can men change the conversation? It's time for all of us to speak truth to power. Okay, it was a really weird thing to talk about at a professional holiday sales mixer. But, in my defense, the gentleman did ask what I did on my off-time when I wasn’t doing sales. So I answered honestly. “I have a website called Grow Some Labia,” I said, and as soon as it was out of my mouth I was like oh fuck. “What? Grow some Libya?” he asked, clearly confused. Waytago, Sushi-For-Brains, I thought, but I plowed forward. “Grow Some Lay-bi-a,” I said. “Grow some labia?” I don’t think he knew what the word meant, or perhaps wasn’t sure if he understood me right. I am not explaining to this guy what labia are, I thought, but also realized I had boldly chosen this name for my mission, and I was going to have to explain it to an awful lot of people. Okay, I’ve been out of the in-person professional networking thing since the pandemic, but usually people ask me stuff like, “So what do you do?” with the understanding they mean, How are you keeping yourself off the streets and out of the pool hall? And absolutely everyone else did that night. Except for this guy. Instead of explaining what labia are, I said, “I write about how women and others can reclaim their power—” “Oh, so you’re a feminist!” he said, wide-eyed, like I’d just told him my profession was ‘serial castrater’. “I come from a very patriarchal country!” It sounded more like fright than warning. “It’s okay, I’m not the scary kind of feminist!” I said. So I told him a bit about Grow Some Labia, without mentioning the name again, and emphasized how my mission was not just to help women, but men too, to avoid bad, abusive relationships, to speak truth to power even when you’re not marginalized. He and I shared something in common: We both are. And not. He’s a man, and I’m white. I explained I also want to bring the masses together on the left and right so we can take liberalism and conservatism back from, well, the crazies. I didn’t define the crazies. I didn’t want to get too political. Shortly after, another gentleman joined us, and we returned to more business-like conversation. At some point the first guy said he’d left a job because of a female manager. Twice, she had said something extremely personal about him in front of other people. He was horrified. He was humiliated. He resigned the next day. He didn’t tell us what exactly she said, but I asked, “Did you report her to HR?” “Yes, I hope you reported her!” the other guy chimed in. “I didn’t,” the first man replied. I didn’t ask why. I know why women don’t do it. “Maybe I should have.” “Women aren’t allowed to do that either, you know,” I told him. “We aren’t allowed to harass or say humiliating things to men in the workplace. The rules are for everyone.” There. That’s the kind of feminist I am. If he figures out how to spell ‘labia’ maybe he’ll visit my website and see I’m not the kind of feminist who thinks The Patriarchy is, like, this overwhelming male-only Illuminati controlling the world. with their own Patriarchal space lasers aimed at Amy Comey-Barrett’s head. “That’s right,” the other guy concurred. I felt so bad for the first guy. Did he not know the rules apply to us, too? Maybe he did, but didn’t feel comfortable reporting it. Maybe the HR manager was a woke woman, or worse, a DEI consultant. Maybe he didn’t think he had the right. I didn’t feel comfortable asking him about it, I had just met the guy. Maybe men really don’t know we can’t do pull this stuff either. Maybe that’s a failure of feminism. We need to upgrade. So. A year ago this past spring I went down to the States to visit my Mom. She lived at a retirement home and I had to pack her walker into my rental car. I asked for help with one of the older assistants there, a guy about my age. “Hey, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re a very beautiful woman!” he said. “Please don’t get mad!” “Awww, I think you’re a very sweet man for saying so!” I replied sincerely with a broad grin. He started getting really nervous. Like he’d just fucked up. “Please don’t get mad, I shouldn’t have said that,” he reiterated. “I don’t want to get in trouble with HR again. I said this to someone once before and she reported me.” “I promise you I’m not like that,” I assured him. I saw where this had gone. The poor man! He was my generation, old enough to remember when telling a woman she was pretty couldn’t get you fired for being a galactic-level asshole. “I got in so much trouble before,” he said. “Listen,” I said, and I looked him right in the eye, “I’m not that kind of woman. I’m a feminist, but not the victim kind. We’re of the same generation. I don’t get bent out of shape over stupid stuff. I’m flattered when a man tells me that, and I know he’s not trying to get a date. I don’t believe women are disrespected when you say stuff like that.’ “I know I shouldn’t have said that,” he said. “Yeah, I’ll agree, since you got busted once already, but only because you never know who will take it the wrong way even though you didn’t mean it that way. I’m sorry someone reported you. Y’know, if I’d been upset by what you said I would have told you, nicely, why. I wouldn’t have gone ratting you out to HR.” Why is that always the first line of defense? Why can’t we first explain to the man why what he said rubbed us the wrong way, and if he’s a jerk about it, then you take him to HR? This guy was so worried I was going to report him. I crossed-my-heart-and-hoped-to-die like I was six and told him may God strike me dead if I’m lying: I am not going to change my mind in a few days and report him. I am not going to talk to my gal pals and let them change my mind. A man who tells a woman she’s pretty should not be reported to HR. Maybe if everyone’s had training telling them they shouldn’t handle it themselves. Or if they think the guy will be a jerk, or worse. But, I think if I was the workplace associate to step out of line, under different circumstances, I would appreciate it if the aggrieved party told me privately, first. I could be an asshole about it, upon which they’d be perfectly justified in escalating it. Or I could be a big girl (or a big boy, if I was a man) and say I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said/done that, I’m sorry I offended/hurt you, it won’t happen again. And I’d have been very, very grateful they didn’t report me to HR. Michael Woudenberg has written a great Substack on clothing, sex, and how everything we wear advertises our sexuality, with some great questions we should ask ourselves before we go out dressed however we are (especially young people who don’t always think about the consequences). It’s food for thought. Women have social, romantic and sexual responsibilities, too. I’ve been thinking about these stories a lot because I don’t like the power #MeToo has given me over men. On the one hand, I like that they know they can’t pull Harvey Weinstein shit. People like that get what they deserve. On the other hand, men need to understand they don’t have to take endless shit from the sort of feminists who throw tantrums over tiny little ‘microaggressions’ (which we Gen Xers used to call a ‘compliment’). That there’s a way to stand up to women when they get out of hand (as we sometimes do). When we’re being too sensitive. Can a man explain himself like an adult and challenge her notion that she’s been ‘microaggressed’ or whatever? Can he tell a woman she’s pretty, and respond powerfully and responsibly if she goes on social media to pitch a feminist tantrum, and can he challenge all the anonymous haters who tell him he’s a dirtball and human slime? I think there is. We should talk about that more. I think we’ve hit ‘peak woke’ including all its in-your-face, balls-to-the-wall, belligerent feminism. I’m behind feminism 100%. Everyone has a right to a seat at the table. Let all of us achieve our full potential and be held back only by our talent, skills, experience, drive and intellect. Not by arbitrary invisible rules, and senseless identity-driven boundaries. If we’re not achieving yet, it’s up to us. Related: Why Shouldn’t Transwomen (And Other Men) Compete With Women In Chess? I hope my non-white mixer friend perhaps drew a lesson from our conversation about my feminist blog and his dipstick manager: We need to hold our own tribe to the same standards to which we hold another. Female managers don’t get to behave badly just because they’re arguably less empowered as women. Women can be sexist pigs too, just as people of color, and especially self-described ‘antiracists’, can be, in fact, racist. I hope to help sincere men stand up to and challenge over-the-top feminism, just as I, a white person, challenge histrionic antiracism. I focus on non-white racism because the world is full of critics of the other kind. In fact, there isn’t enough actual white racism to go around, so 'antiracists’ have manufactured truckloads of ‘white supremacy’ so they have a reason to get up in the morning. It’s in your chocolate chip cookies! And traffic signals! Even Pokémon! Even water is racist! Don’t drink it or bathe in it or you’re supporting white supremacy! White people, including non-woke liberals, can speak truth to power too, and yes, even people of color have power. If one can destroy lives with cancellation, or support a filthy terrorist organization like Hamas, as Black Lives Matter clearly does (I can’t find ‘Israel’ or ‘Hamas’ referenced anywhere on their website from their search engine, and ‘October 7’ brings up irrelevant event links), and if it has the power to misappropriate funds, it’s powerful enough to criticize, no natural skin cancer prevention required. We have to think carefully, and be wary of our words as we speak truth to power, but white people can challenge black or brown racism, even as ‘antiracists’ claim eternal victimhood. Yes, we can do it without being racist, a Karen or a Kyle, although we have to learn not caring when they call us that. We have to know when an accusation of racism is meant sincerely, upon which we should pause and consider whether maybe they have a point, and when to know it’s just being lobbed to shut you down. ‘Progressives’ deserve the reputation for being wusses. They’ll only speak truth, ultimately, to white male power. They pretend no one else has any, despite numerous clear advancement of many people who are neither white nor male, or one but not the other. Accountability is for everyone. Illiberal feminists, ironically, collude and collaborate with ‘The Patriarchy’ when they refuse to challenge misogynists of color. Especially Hamas. Women have power we didn’t have before. #MeToo has been fantastic for giving voice to women who’ve been silent about very real grievances against patriarchy, particularly entitled penises. Men know there may now be real consequences to acting upon sexual entitlement. Where Third and Fourth Wave feminism has erred is in blanketing all men with the sins of a minority. Men who wish to challenge extremist feminism have to be ready for accusations of being sexist or misogynist, and have to be comfortable challenging themselves if they think it might occasionally be true, but know when to look her in the eye and say, “No, men have a right to voice opinions on rape/alleged sexism/Russell Brand too. No, you don’t get to invoke my manhood to shut me up. If you have a logical response to what I just said, let’s hear it. Otherwise, if all you’ve got is defensive victimhood bullshit, come back when you can argue like an adult.” We need to think, and talk more about this. ‘Woke’ is in the hot seat now for numerous reasons and we, the new Silent Majority, have the power to challenge its power. How can we do this, as rational-thinking lefties and righties? We will talk about this more. Let me know your thoughts. 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!

  • LGBTQ Has A Persistent 'Grooming' Image Problem. Where Does It Come From?

    Gay activists brought this on themselves with over-inclusivity. They need to set some boundaries, and NOW. “My husband isn’t behind gay rights,” Janie, our church organist said back in my teen years. “He wonders if it’s a slippery slope. What’s next, necrophilia? Sex with animals? Sex with children?” “It would never go that far,” I replied. “That other stuff is just gross. Dead bodies and animals are against the law! And no one thinks it’s okay to have sex with children!” Forgive me my lack of prescience, it was 1980, and I was 17. Fast-forward forty-three years and things have changed. Rather a lot. Gay rights activists are having a come-to-Jesus moment, if you’ll pardon the expression. They need to draw some clear boundaries, and fast. Because conservatives, and especially Christians, have never been down with going down on thy fellow man, and gay men’s cruelest adversaries have for many decades spread what we might call the ‘blood libel’ for gay men, the old conservative canard that they’re out to seduce and convert kids to gayism. They’re not, but the optics aren’t good now, thanks to transactivists. LGBTQ has acquired persistent grooming accusations in the last several years, although it’s important to note that grooming can also include manipulating another for one’s own personal purposes, not necessarily sexual. But transactivism’s aggressive focus on children makes many look suspiciously pedo-y. LGBTQ is no more prone to pedophilia than straight people, regardless of how they dress, but they have to deal with this ugly resurrected optic. The historical liberal inability to say No to anyone persuaded the alphabet soup gang to allow the one letter heretofore prohibited - the ‘H’. This permitted entry, unintentionally or not, of a fair number of heterosexual male-to-female (M2F) transwomen, not all of whom were ‘gender dysphoric’, regardless of what they claimed. Historically, a particular male sexual fetish called autogynephilia has accounted for a fair number of transsexuals (now identifying as transgender) according to transsexualism research by pioneers Dr. Raymond Blanchard and Dr. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would Be Queen. It’s much easier to garner public acceptance of a ‘dysphoria’ than for a sexual fetish. Particularly when kids are around. Related: Conservative Men In Conservative Dresses: The Article That Described Today’s Trans Movement Over 20 Years Ago - The Distance, Eva Kurilova The unintended consequence of this inclusivity unwittingly opened the door to certain heterosexual men unconcerned with how their child-focused behavior might be interpreted or affect the movement at large. It bat-signalled pedophiles to prepare to breach the LGBTQ fortress—again. Because guess what, this shit has happened before. Gay activists and other progressives are slow learners. Transactivists, with their queer-positive agenda, are the reason the optics aren’t good, as indoctrination and grooming is clearly present. Grooming isn’t always about sex with children. Catholic families have ‘groomed’ sons to become priests. One can groom (or attempt to) another for many different objectives. But it’s become closely associated with grooming children for sexual purposes, and that’s an image most LGBTQ know to stay miles away from. To be clear: Neither transactivism nor the transgender community is a hellhole of undercover pedophiles, with one exception: The prison system, where, in Canada, 44% of transwomen prisoners have a history of sexual offenses, nearly half in England and Wales, and half in the United States. But that’s a different story since male prisoners often identify after conviction in order to get admitted to women’s prisons. Apart from that, there’s no data to indicate non-prisoner transactivists, drag queens or gay men are especially attracted to children. No more than straight men who wear dude clothes and do dude stuff. Bring in the fetishists In the early years, the rainbow acronym wasn’t longer than George Santos’s impressive resume. In the beginning, it was LGB - Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual - but over the years, it’s grown into a late night comedian’s joke - LGBTQIA2+, and it now includes, indirectly, the least marginalized group ever - H(etorosexual) men. Related: We’re Running Out Of Letters Of The Alphabet! - Anthony Eichenberger, Medium M2F transwomen attracted to women aren’t the only heterosexuals in the movement. F2M transmen, especially young former teenage girls, exploded exponentially in the past twelve years, which included a fair number of budding lesbians. Many detransitioned teens have claimed they realized later they were simply gay. But we don’t hear too much from F2Ms, gay or heterosexual. The activism is primarily on the biological male (M2F) side. LGB activists’ introduction of ‘T’ - Transsexual or today, Transgender - around 2000 brought the pedophile image problem back to gay men by association in a roundabout way. Perhaps it was progressive worship of holy political correctness, ‘inclusivity’, or simply pressure to conform and belong. Gay Pride parades have openly displayed sexual fetishism they share with heteros for many years - ‘kink’, ‘bears’, puppy hoods, ponyboys, BDSM. Perhaps gay activists didn’t realize just how hetero transsexualism was, heavily populated by autogynephiles and cross-dressers. Gay men have always been hypersensitive to the conservative smear that they seduce children, an image not helped with a four-decades-long Catholic priest scandal, which is far less gay than one might think. Not all male-on-male perpetrators are gay, especially in the Church. But fifty-four years after Stonewall launched the gay rights movement, ‘inclusivity’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘non-judgmentalism’, coupled with some monumental past pedophile screwups, leave homosexual men facing renewed allegations of sexual grooming, thanks to Trans, and here’s how. Pedos, Part Un In the late ‘80s the International Lesbian/Gay Association idiotically admitted NAMBLA to their ranks, later discovered and busted by ultra-conservative Republican US Senator Jesse Helms (1994). Embarrassment ensued. Pedos, Part Deux Britain’s Paedophile Information Exchange for ten years lobbied for the abolition of the age of sexual consent. Its founder was a gay college student who didn’t identify as a pedophile, but whose affair with a 15-year-old gay teenager revealed to him that perhaps they needed to legalize laws allowing older men to have sex with underage boys (or maybe girls too, but EWWWW!) (Note: Adults who like teenagers are not pedophiles, but hebephiles, which may or may not be legal depending on age of consent laws in their area.) PIE was pretty closely associated with gay UK culture. One member’s pro-pedophile speech at a 1975 gay rights conference raised a few eyebrows, not to mention a minor media shitstorm when it argued for the ‘sexual liberation’ of children. A survey in the late ‘70s revealed that its members mostly favoured sex with girls aged 8-11 and boys aged 11-15. Charges of ‘gay recruitment’ tailed the gay rights movement like an obsessed private investigator for many years after. Liberal Feminists: Some child molesters aren’t as bad as others For sixteen years organized gangs of U.K. Pakistani Muslim men sexually abused and exploited young white girls, teaching liberals that the only thing worse than raping kids is ‘stigmatizing’ dark-skinned rapists. While this scandal didn’t include homosexuality or LGBTQ, ‘progressive’ feminists, customary LGBTQ ‘allies’, normalized heterosexual pedophilia that was, shall we say, less condemnatory than it would have been for ‘non-marginalized’ [ie., white] perpetrators. Makes you wonder who else is getting away with molesting kids because 'progressives’ are afraid to be called the dreaded ‘R(acist)’ word. Ladies, if you’re going to be raped, make sure it’s by white men, or ‘progressive’ feminists will ignore you. Social media, Part Un Not much later in the U.S., the ‘T’s Ed Wood-reminiscent straight men aggressively lobbied for increased trans rights. Trans grooming began on social media but wasn’t about adult-child sex; it was to promote and spread trans/gender ideology, primarily by teens and young adults, not older ones. Transactivists groomed malleable feminists and progressives to accept (undercover) male desires. It’s a long, slow, but largely dependable process. Then the schools… This is where grooming adults, especially parents, really got started. Transactivists introduced gender ideology into public education, teaching kids in elementary school they have to figure out what sex they are despite millions of years of baby humans not requiring any assistance from the Genderbread Person. Transactivists pushed an aggressive agenda based on queer theory and indoctrinated mostly progressive parents to go along. If any resisted, education activists called them ‘right wingers’ and ‘fascists’ and told kids not to tell mommy and daddy if they wanted new pronouns or to be treated as something they’re not. Just imagine how those same ‘progressive’ parents would react if they found there was a similarly aggressive push by Christian fundamentalists to instill literalist Bible ideology in their kids, especially if it was offered as a counterpoint to gender ideology indoctrination. Teachers, principals and education administrators colluded by not informing the parents if or when their child wished to be treated differently. Slowly education’s transactivist ‘ally’ foot soldiers have been chipping away at parents’ right to know, which has led to lawsuits in Maine, California, Michigan and Wyoming, along with red states banning or pulling back on ‘gender-affirming care’ for children, and a 1 Million March For Children across Canada in September. Meanwhile, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is fighting a requirement for parental permission before teachers use chosen pronouns. Then there’s the controversial right-left censorship tug-of-war over the kid’s book Genderqueer, which includes many ridiculously inappropriate images including one guy giving another a blowjob. Yes really. No, nothing recruit-y to see here. Social media, Part Deux Social media-induced gender dysphoria has played a huge role in the explosion of trans people. Tumblr pioneered the plethora of labels and pronoun sets and churned out new ‘genders’ and identities, while YouTube offered what appear to be borderline trans recruitment videos with generalities offered for why one might be ‘trans’. A non-binary person notes that ‘discomfort with puberty’ and feeling like ‘you might be different’ are signs you might be trans. Somehow, older generations went through this too without requiring hormone blockers or surgery. Online activists encourage children to question whether they were ‘born in the right body’ and teach them how to approach their parents with this ‘problem’, and what to do if they encounter resistance. (Threaten to commit suicide!) Some position themselves as a child’s alternative ‘family’, one they could leave their birth family for if they aren’t supportive. The many types of grooming It’s not hard to understand why people conflate kid-focused transactivism with pedo grooming. The two agendas have several common elements, like teaching parents to accept authority that’s not theirs, to not question the adults who influence their children, to encourage their children not to tell Mommy and Daddy ‘secrets’ they won’t like, to help them source forbidden items like chest binders and puberty blockers, and using persuasive rhetoric to isolate children from their families, encouraging them to trust the stranger in the YouTube or TikTok video rather than the people who love them. The media has twisted its BVDs and Victoria’s Secrets into bunches trying to explain why transactivists aren’t actually ‘grooming’ kids for some nefarious sexual purpose. PolitiFact, an otherwise excellent resource for fact-checking the media and politicians, seems not to understand that grooming doesn’t only apply to describing pedo tactics, although that’s where it originated and is still strongly associated with it. It quoted David Finkelhor, a sociology professor and director of Crimes Against Children Research who defined grooming strictly as “a set of behaviors and manipulations that adults use to make it easier to introduce and complete sexual interactions with a child, without having to use physical force.” It misses that grooming can take other forms, sometimes connecting indirectly with pedophile objectives. One could argue that conservative religion grooms children by perpetuating a patriarchal structure that serves males by teaching young people to submit to male authority. While it’s not specifically about having sex with children, its norms nevertheless discourage young people from reporting sexual abuse by adults, especially those in direct authority like religious leaders or their aides. Another example might be child beauty pageants, long accused of grooming little girls and toddlers to sexualize themselves, offering what many regard as highly inappropriate performances that would be the envy of any drag queen. JonBenet Ramsey’s sexual abuse and murder is still unsolved 27 years later, and recent police attention has focused once again on a pedophile living in her neighborhood who may have been obsessed with the child who looked six going on twenty-six. The grooming image problem lies in the fact that transactivists have quite clearly been grooming children and parents to fit a murky gender agenda with unclear objectives. Some may be pedophiles with their own motives, but what’s much clearer is that with or without transactivist cooperation, pedophiles are busy rebranding while waiting for the right opportunity to apply for acceptability again, and transactivist narrative has groomed parents not to question their children, not to wonder whether an eight-year-old can know he’s ‘not supposed to be’ a boy, and that parents have no right to say no to or set boundaries for and around their own children. ‘MAPs’ A controversial doctor named Jacob Breslow on the board of a U.K. transchildren charity was forced to resign when a scandal erupted over a presentation he gave to a pedophile support group, in which he redefined pedophiles as ‘Minor Attracted Persons’ or MAPs. He compared masturbating and ‘cumming’ with a shoe to doing the same with a child, adding that it “requires a rethinking of both the child and of the person for whom the child is a sexual fantasy or partner." The charity, meanwhile, sent even underage kids breast binders on the sly, along with same-day cross-sex hormones, for kids with recalcitrant parents. Dr. Breslow’s pedo-friendly work sanitizing attraction to children may intersect shortly with parents groomed not to say No to their children. Parents have been taught to unquestioningly believe their children ‘know’ what’s allegedly best for themselves, and that they must accept new pronouns, names, and potentially fertility-destroying drugs and surgeries. The dangerous lesson primes parents to be ready for the day when they’re told, ‘It’s not your place to tell your child they can’t have sex with me. Children know what they want and need. Butt out.” [See: PIE, above.] And this just in: A pro-pedophile German activist group is demanding lesbians be removed from a Berlin Gay Museum exhibit claiming they have “submitted in every way to the anti-pedophile zeitgeist of the heterosexual mainstream.” Well at least lesbians can be counted on to defend kids, if not straight progressive feminists. The loudest voices in a large LGBTQ community where many are trans but neither activist, recruity nor groomy—have been encouraging us all to be more accepting, which is fine, transfolk have rights too, but it shouldn’t include a new class of sexual predators who already are a real threat to women and children, and especially female prisoners, where newly-transferred, newly-self-identified ‘transwoman’ prisoners exhibit high rates of prior sexual assault. ‘Woke’ initiatives to ‘respect’ male prisoners’ sudden trans identity has resulted in a spike in new ‘transwomen’ drawn directly from sexual predators. If these guys get out of prison and don’t drop the trans persona and offend again, it’s going to drive up trans sex crime statistics and greater public fear of transwomen. It’s unfortunate, because cross-dressers and autogynephiles may be fetishists, but their paraphilias have nothing to do with kids. Pedophilia is its own paraphilia, which can co-exist with others, but there’s no data to suggest other fetishes incline one towards children. In fact, the primary source of pedo-breeding may be freely-available kiddie porn, not LGBTQ membership. In the world outside prison, it’s the ‘T’, not the gay dudes, making the movement look predatory by association. It’s they who demand entrance to women’s-only safe spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms. The aggressive push by transactivists demonstrates how indisputably heterosexual male that corner of the trans movement is, as gay men have zero interest in seeing naked ladies, nor do they feel so ‘unsafe’ they need to use the ladies’ loo. I believe it’s also part of a greater political movement to force women to conform to male desires, which predatory heterosexual men have lost with modern feminism. Their allies are woke, illiberal and regressive ‘feminists’, easily manipulated by sexual predators. The LGBTQ ‘grooming’ problem isn’t just right-wing paranoia or moral panic. Many on the left have noted the similarities too. I’ve argued in the past that drag queens need to be mindful of similar concerns about themselves, and now those optics are focused on LGBTQ at large. It would greatly help if these transactivists were more respectful of parents’ rights to determine what education and socialization their child gets and not assume every parent who keeps a child home on Pride Day is necessarily raising a homophobe or transphobe-in-training. Grooming optics are a problem LGBTQ have created for themselves, and they can un-create it if they so choose. They need to know when to say No to aggressive transactivism. Or even kick out the ‘T’. They’ll get lots of support from unwoke feminists. And lesbians. I just gave my Pride flag, purchased at the 2010 Pride Parade, to a thrift shop as I find myself sort of embarrassed to have it now. I’m happy to re-adopt it someday if the movement cleans up its act. In the meantime, if you liked this post and want 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!

  • Just A Quick One For The Holidays - Life, Death & Kurt Vonnegut

    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! 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!

bottom of page