Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds
- Twórca wątku trannyfucker
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
LateNightMuffin
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 25 Lip 2019
Where are the adults? Why did none of the adults stop them? THIS is why these shits keep winning, because adults don't step in and stop them.
queue-anon
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 13 Sty 2019
Savage also used to tell the truth about trannies.
I figured tranny bullying finally broke him when I read a Savage Love column where a crossdressing straight man wrote to Savage, told him he wasn't ready to transition yet, but fetishized pissing like a woman and wanted to reroute his urethra into his taint (apparently just sitting down to piss wasn't enough). Savage treated the question like an ask from a Real True Woman and not a gross, fetishistic tranny. He also used to tell straight men with wives and kids to hold off transitioning until the kids were grown, but that was Literal Murder, and he doesn't do that anymore either.
I have negative respect for the dude for what a fucking coward he is. He knows full well what trannies are, but his househusband's BDSM hobby and their mansion on North Capitol Hill require him to play dumb.
I get opposing conversion therapy for kids since they can't opt out, but why is the community so obsessed with protecting self-hating, delusional adults? There would be no tears shed for Lindsay Graham if it turned out he sought conversion therapy, and the average LG adult seeking it out is more likely on his, or Marcus Bachmann's, level of self-hatred. Who cares what they do to themselves? Adults are free to make stupid decisions, especially if their self-harm doesn't affect anyone else.
- Dołączono
- 4 Gru 2018
I’m sure Katie Herzog could out her pal Dan as a closet terf, which he most certainly is— but as you say Dan knows who writes his checks, and he’s got that useless 50 year old thot at home desperate to be kept in Nasty Pig underoos or whatever the hell it is Terry is shilling these days. And when all this collapses, Savage will memoryhole this whole fiasco and his part in normalizing it.
I feel for their kid. He’s basically the posh version of Zinnea Jones’s stepsons, but Dan and Terry have like an entire floor of their house as a dedicated sex dungeon while Zack just has a shower stall.
Traummaschine
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 17 Kwi 2018
I think you underestimate their motivation. Yelling at people, especially white people, is all they have, and I'm pretty sure they love it. They live for the power trip they get from telling white people they are racist shitbags to their faces and seeing whitey only squirm in retaliation.
Comrade Autogynephilia
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 24 Sie 2019
- Dołączono
- 24 Sty 2018
A Modest Proposal
For preventing the biological sex of children [aka penis-babies and vagina-babies] in American households, from being a burthen on their exploration of gender identity, and thereby benefitting the …
4thwavenow.com
- Dołączono
- 24 Sie 2014
No one reads Dan Savage for his wokester advices; people only read his column for lurid, fucked-up stories -- and playing nice to troons will secure Savage a source of the most deliciously prurient stories.
- Dołączono
- 10 Wrz 2019
Not surprising that Evergreen turned into such a dumpster fire of current and future professional tardbuck recipients. Evergreen has no prerequisite courses (most all universities in the US require you to have a certain number of credits in math, art, science etc regardless of your degree) and you get to design your degree instead of majoring in a set degree.
Also their mascot is a big penis clam:
- Dołączono
- 24 Sty 2018
but matt groening went there and said it was awesome
- Dołączono
- 10 Wrz 2019
I'm sure it is if you, like Matt Groening, have the skill and drive to produce something but if you're an exceptional navel gazing tranny whose only ambition is to live off of asspats it's likely just an enabling adult daycare.
- Dołączono
- 28 Gru 2014
The problem is the culture of "inclusivity" and respecting "marginalized" people, even when you can just self-identify as any marginalized group, prohibits calling out and defending the organization or group from cancerous predatory people who will literally destroy the group, either to get a benefit or, quite often, just out of sheer malice and evil.
So they've let cancerous shits who hate the institution itself and are destroying it completely take hold. It's social cancer, and they've turned off any immune response that would ordinarily expel destructive, shitty people who are a threat to everyone else.
- Dołączono
- 7 Wrz 2016
The resolution is crap but it says "Evergreen State College" on the paper.
- Dołączono
- 24 Sty 2018
I wasn't being totally serious, but really things changed a lot since he went there, the educational model they used isn't viable because the left lost their minds collectively. They didn't have grades, but they did rely heavily on critique from instructors and other students in the writing classes he took. Now there isn't a way to critique anyone in good faith, it is all based on relative privilege levels. It has been bonkers watching things change from conservatives insisting that d&d will turn your kids into murderous devil worshippers vs liberals saying that Joker will turn white boys into murderous incels. I don't think I have seen an issue totally change political parties like freedom of speech has in the past decade.
- Dołączono
- 31 Sty 2015
Study of "gender dysphoria" in the brain has long missed one possible cause
A new paper argues the causes of gender dysphoria don't lie in anatomy, but in brain networks.
Bad news for troons - no ladybrains.
- Dołączono
- 3 Cze 2016
It's just bad nurturing. Well duh.Study of "gender dysphoria" in the brain has long missed one possible cause
A new paper argues the causes of gender dysphoria don't lie in anatomy, but in brain networks.www.inverse.com
Bad news for troons - no ladybrains.
Wyświetl załącznik 1033976
- Dołączono
- 6 Sty 2019
Study of "gender dysphoria" in the brain has long missed one possible cause
A new paper argues the causes of gender dysphoria don't lie in anatomy, but in brain networks.
Bad news for troons - no ladybrains.
Wyświetl załącznik 1033976
It would be pretty interesting to approach treatment of gender dysphoria as a sort of sensory-processing disorder. How long until the funding gets pulled from this lab?
- Dołączono
- 10 Lip 2017
Matt Greonig followed a career path that insured he would never ever have to put his Alma Matter on a resume or Job Application.
- Dołączono
- 19 Paź 2019
It's Univ. of Michigan, he's going to have a bad time.
Y I K E S :
Frances_Larina on Twitter
“Yikes! Stephen Gliske's GD theory is NOT actually backed by neurobiology, only his own, "hear me out, what if we could retrain the brain to not feel gender dysphoria" free-association exercise to try to refute 25 yrs of neurology, genetics, endo & fetal dev studies.”
twitter.com
S E K I Y :
Removeddit
^- total ignorance. Most men who troon out are heterosexual.
They are going to tear into every aspect of Gliske's life and shit all over it. Poor guy. Countdown until he retracts and apologizes?
Xiphias
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 22 Sie 2019
An article on trans lobbyist tactics:
The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists
A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?
People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.
Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.
How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.
So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?
Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.
The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.
The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.
As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and ‘advocacy’ across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares ‘best practice’ in ‘lobbying’ to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.
In the words of the report:
Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’
In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.
And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?
I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.
Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:
What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:
Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’
For example:
‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’
I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.
Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’
According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:
‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.
In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’ (Emphasis added).
Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.
I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.
A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.
I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a ‘veil’ and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.
I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.
A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?
People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.
Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.
How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.
So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?
Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.
The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.
The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.
As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and ‘advocacy’ across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares ‘best practice’ in ‘lobbying’ to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.
In the words of the report:
You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to ‘restrict’ the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report.
Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’
In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.
And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?
I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.
Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:
Among those techniques: ‘Get ahead of the Government agenda.’
What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:
That will sound familiar to anyone who knows how a Commons select committee report in 2016, which adopted several positions from trans groups, was followed in 2017 by a UK government plan to adopt self-identification of legal gender. To a lot of people, that proposal, which emerged from Whitehall looking quite well-developed, came out of the blue.
Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’
For example:
‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’
I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.
Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’
According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:
‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.
In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’ (Emphasis added).
Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.
I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.
A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.
I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a ‘veil’ and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.
I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.
- Dołączono
- 6 Sty 2019
This is setting a precedent- once children can consent to life altering, non essential medical treatment, other things start to look trivial. From there the wedge is driven in - they will start to try to scrap or change the age of consent. It also sets a precedent for parental alienation, removal of children from parents if the views of those parents are deemed problematic.
In short it sets the scene for a free for all on what adults and groups can do to children and for stripping the parents of any ability to protect their children. If the public realised this they’d be wielding flaming pitchforks. Hence the deals being done in the shadows.
PIE tried this in the seventies. I think in the USA you had nambla?