You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.

The profession can change, the venue can change, but the gender-woo methodology remains the same.  Personally attack the person who dares to speak about biological reality, libel and defame their character while poisoning the well as to prevent discussion of an import issue facing women.

The bullshit doesn’t change.  It is especially disheartening to see professionals whose business is to be thoughtful and charitable completely abandon those principles in order to defend normative patriarchal values.


“A debate has arisen among philosophers concerning a couple of papers published recently in the prestigious journal Philosophical Studies. The first paper, “Are women adult human females?” by Alex Byrne (January, 2020) attempts to refute what Byrne identifies as “the orthodox view among philosophers,” that “the category woman is a social category, like the categories, wife, firefighter, and shoplifter,” rather than a biological category, like the categories vertebrate, mammal, or adult human female.” Byrne argues woman is a biological category, that to be a woman is to be an adult adult human female. The second paper, “Escaping the Natural Attitude About Gender,” by Robin Dembroff (forthcoming, but available already online), attempts to discredit Byrne’s argument.

The controversy surrounding the two articles does not concern the arguments themselves but the fact that Dembroff’s article includes an ad hominem against Byrne in which Dembroff effectively accuses Byrne of bigotry against transsexuals despite the fact that there is nothing in Byrne’s paper to support such a charge. The editor of the journal, Stewart Cohen, resigned in protest because he wanted to publish an apology for printing an article that included defamatory rhetoric, rhetoric which should never have made it past the journal’s referees, but the publisher of the journal, Springer, refused to allow him to do that.

Philosophers are not generally known for being warm and fuzzy. But Dembroff’s paper represents a new low in levels of civility. Usually, philosophers aim their barbs at an opponent’s cognitive abilities. Even then they aspire to some subtlety. They’ll intimate that an opponent is feebleminded, but they rarely say so directly. It’s not simply that it’s rude. It’s unprofessional. It’s rare, for the same reason, for a philosopher to directly accuse another of being a “shoddy scholar.” It’s rarer still, again, for the same reason, for a philosopher to accuse another of being immoral. Yet Robin Dembroff has advanced both charges against Byrne.

The debate amongst philosophers surrounding what Byrne has dubbed GenderGate, focuses on a brief passage at the end of Dembroff’s article. The line is:

Byrne’s paper fundamentally is an unscholarly attempt to vindicate a political slogan [“women are adult human females”] that is currently being used to undermine civic rights and respect for trans persons. And it is here that I return to Byrne’s advice to question the motivations behind this debate.”If someone is personally heavily invested in the truth of [some proposition] p,” Byrne writes, “it is prudent to treat [their] claim that p is true with some initial caution.” I agree. So we may ask: What are the motivations of someone who would so confidently insert themself into this high-stakes discourse while so ill-informed?

That is, Dembroff is insinuating here that Byrne has an anti-trans agenda that he is trying to advance in an scholarly paper published in an academic journal even though, again, there is nothing in Byrne’s paper to support such a charge.”

The Gender-woo really needs to stop. :/


Catch the rest of the essay on Counterpunch.




This is Patriarchy 2.0 in action.


The concerns of females in society are put in last place because a tiny minority of oppressed males are more important.  :/



How not to run an academic institution. My Alma mater is demonstrating some worrisome (read batshit fucking stupid) decisions regarding firing female staff for having the absolute gall of teaching the ‘unorthodox’ view that biological sex is important to women and their struggle against patriarchy.

Her feminist views are apparently causing a small segment of students to feel unsafe and thus because if we are not walking on eggshells around entitled gender deluded males one must be doing the whole academic thing wrong.

Something very wrong has happened at the University of Alberta. A professor has been fired from part of her academic job for views on sex and gender that break with current orthodoxy.

In late March, Kathleen Lowrey, an associate professor at the University of Alberta, was asked to resign from her role as the Department of Anthropology’s associate chair, undergraduate programs, on the basis that one or more students had gone to the University’s Office of Safe Disclosure and Human Rights and the Dean of Students, André Costopolous, to complain about her without filing formal complaints. All Professor Lowrey has been told is that she is somehow making the learning environment “unsafe” for these students because she is a feminist who holds “gender critical” views. 

Apparently, Lowrey’s very openness about her views is a problem. Should a course have gender or sex as a central theme, on day 1 she offers a summary of her views along with the declaration that no student need agree with her about any of it, as she did this year with her course “Anthropology of Women.” As she cleaves to a feminism that asserts the continuing importance of biological sex and feminist projects of resisting patriarchal oppression, her views put her out of step with much current thinking about the nature of gender, which from the seminal work of Judith Butler forward takes sex to be a social construct. Lowrey also posts statements related to her views on her office door — something she is entitled to do. She contends that in asking her to resign from her service role the University is endorsing ideological conformity. 

Lowrey refused to resign from her service role and insisted that if the University wished to dismiss her from it, it would need to put its reasons for doing so in writing. She subsequently received a letter from the Dean of Arts Lesley Cormack dismissing her from her service role without offering any specifics as to why. The letter simply declares that the Dean believes that “it is not in the best interests of the students or the University” for Lowrey to continue in it.”

This is unbelievable.  Exactly what part of a healthy part of academic debate does this help?


“The University of Alberta takes the position that Lowrey had to be dismissed from her service role “for the good of the department” because at least one student claims that for the University to let her continue in the role would be for it to run the risk of the department losing students to another field of study. The argument, in effect, is that Lowrey could not be allowed to let the Department suffer a financial penalty for her views. (In the University of Alberta’s budget model, government funding “follows” students to the departments in which they take their courses.) With its worry that Lowrey’s views will have financial consequences for the Department of Anthropology, the University of Alberta lets an unfortunate development of the academy over the last few decades, in which students have become tuition-paying “customers” upon whom universities rely for more and more of their revenues, come into direct conflict with academic freedom principles. This is a very serious problem. No department at any university in Canada should be taking the position that it has to concern itself with how a professor’s intellectual views may affect a department’s bottom-line. 

Finally, the University of Alberta takes the position that it had to dismiss Lowrey from her service role because if it did not do so students would feel that the University “cared more” about “supporting” the professor than it did about them. This is a terrible line of reasoning, which pits students against a professor when what ought to be of paramount concern to all is the commitment to intellectual engagement and critical scrutiny of ideas as fundamental to the University’s flourishing. Quite simply, at a university, unorthodox or controversial views must be actively debated, and never suppressed, if the university is to meet its societal obligations. 

The University of Alberta needs to restore Professor Lowrey to her role as associate chair, undergraduate programs, in the Department of Anthropology, and university administrators elsewhere need to make sure that they do not fall into the University of Alberta’s mistake. It is essential that our universities never become homes for orthodoxy of any kind. “Dogma is bad for people,” writes UBC professor emeritus William Bruneau elsewhere on this blog. But for universities dogma is much, much worse. It is anathema to the academic mission.”


Kathleen Lowrey needs to reinstated yesterday.  This sort of totalitarian anti-academic thinking has to stop.


Oh and email the Dean about this travesty –



The amount of pandering going to male delusions of gender remains quite firmly out of control.

A segment of the left has really lost the plot and gone of the rails.  The idea that feelings are more important that material reality, that one should expect others to validate your personal choice and that sex is changeable have all originated from the political wing I used to call my home.   It was bullshite like this that made me distance myself from the so called ‘progressives’ because much of their ideology is a regressive, male-centric circus shit shitshow of tragically absurd assertions and baseless presuppositions.  Meghan Murphy writes on the Feminism Current about the superciliousness of the woke left:

“Last year, Sessi Kuwabara Blanchard published an article at Vice complaining that his heterosexual male friends didn’t want to sleep with him, writing:

“I’m single this Valentine’s Day, and I feel like shit. I feel undesirable, and I feel powerless to change that. Most of all, I want to know why the guys I crush on, namely cis, straight, male 20-somethings, won’t fuck me.”

When Blanchard discussed this problem with his friends, they tried to ease him into the truth, letting Blanchard know that pestering his male friends about this would only make him feel bad: “They said the guys I like won’t fuck me because they’re straight.” Blanchard wrote this off as “transphobia” — his friends were *gasp* “implying that heterosexuality is male attraction to women,” meaning he didn’t “make the cut.”

Despite Blanchard’s insistence that “desire is fluid,” the categories of “gay” and “straight” exist for a reason: this describes the vast majority of people’s sexual preferences. And there is very little politicizing can do about this.

A hard-to-hear reality I’ve made clear many times is that the crux of transgenderism, for many who identify as trans, is delusion. And that trans identity rests on others — the “woke,” as it were — playing along. When we use preferred pronouns, we participate in this, as we do when we refer to trans-identified males as women, and trans-identified females as male. Many claim this is simply an issue of being kind, respectful, and polite, but, in the end, these lies hurt trans-identified people, as well as the rest of us. The result is a group of males left wondering why, despite being told they are literally women, are not viewed as or treated as literal women. And women are left without rights, boundaries, or the ability to speak the truth.

The woke, I’m sorry to tell you, are liars. This is not a coincidence; it is the basis of their politics.

The answers to the questions asked by the woke are easy. But they pretend there is some long, deep discussion to be had about, as Blanchard puts it, “what it would take for someone to want to fuck me.”

The question is wrong, of course, and intentionally so. And the answer is obvious. If we were to engage with the truth, Blanchard and Violet would be less hurt by the answers. Instead, we’ve decided the lie is what is “nice.”

The time for ‘nice’ is fucking over.  Entitled males need to step back and get themselves waaaaay back to their own lane.

(From Outnews) It’s in this spirit that we invite you to read on.

Can you explain why you set up the LGB Alliance?

In 2015, Stonewall decided to adopt an agenda promoting gender identity theory and set up their Trans Advisory Group. This meant abandoning its original mission to promote the rights of LGB people. According to gender identity theory, everyone has a gender identity (a feeling) that should take priority over biological sex – including in law making. In addition, Stonewall says that anyone should be able to change their sex simply by making a legal declaration, and that legislation giving women and girls their own sex-protected places should be repealed. Children should be taught that they may have been “born in the wrong body” if they differ in any way from 1950’s gender stereotypes. These ideas are not only controversial but harmful, yet all requests to discuss them are banned as Stonewall describes any questioning as “transphobic”.

We tried for two years to engage Stonewall in discussion, including a petition launched in October 2018, which received almost 10,000 signatures. Our request was simply that Stonewall would talk to us. Many other groups and individuals wrote to Stonewall expressing serious concern about the direction they had chosen to take – all were brushed aside. Since Stonewall refused to talk to us we had no choice but to set up as a separate group.

What are your key objectives?

  1. To advance the interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals at a time when we are under threat from concerted attempts to introduce confusion between biological sex and the notion of gender.
  2. To amplify the voices of lesbians and to highlight the dual discrimination we experience as women who are same-sex attracted in a male-dominated society. We support women’s reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
  3. To protect children and young people from being taught unscientific gender doctrines, particularly the idea that they may have been born in the wrong body, which may lead to life-changing and potentially harmful medical procedures.
  4. To promote respectful freedom of speech and informed dialogue.

Are there any trans members of LGB Alliance?

We don’t have members. We are an LGB group which is lesbian led. We welcome support from anyone who shares our aims/objectives – be they straight, gay, lesbian, trans or whatever.

Many transsexuals have concerns at the direction taken by groups supposed to represent them and have fundamental disagreements – including the belief that anyone can change their sex, a notion with which they disagree. These are the people who join us at our meetings and make public statements against the silencing of differences of opinion. Like us, they want respectful freedom of speech and informed dialogue.

Why are we lesbian led? Because lesbians have been hardest hit by the promotion of gender identity theory by mainstream LGBT organisations. Attempts have been made to silence lesbians over the last few years and to ensure that there are no lesbians at Pride and other LGBT events.  This is done with threats of violence and name calling on social media – phrases such as “Kill a TERF” are common.

Some lesbians have been extremely brave and successfully demonstrated against this exclusion. The group “Get the L Out” managed to delay the beginning of the Pride march in London in 2018. A group at Lancaster Pride held another demonstration in 2019 but were surrounded and shouted down by trans rights activists. A photo of this was subsequently tweeted by the Head of the Board of Trustees of Stonewall, praising the transactivists. Yes, really.

Lesbians are told that it is “transphobic” to be exclusively attracted to other women. According to gender identity theory, they should be open to considering biological males as potential partners, as gender is more important than sex, and if someone with a penis says he is a lesbian then he IS a lesbian. Hard to believe but true – as is evidenced by the fact that around 40% of individuals on dating sites for lesbians are people with male bodies.

Only by telling and retelling of stories can we raise the consciousness of others.  Thank you for your words Incessant Sentinel.

Surviving the Cult of Queer

The general concept of grooming is often too narrowly defined. While, yes, we usually see it used to reference paedophiles grooming young children, the word’s application has a much broader scope. The most common factor between all applications of this word is an individual or group of individuals slowly, methodically desensitising and preparing a person for an illegal activity, or an activity the person would not usually participate in (perhaps has even declined participating in already). Whether intentional or passive, the grooming individual will typically gently nudge and push boundaries of what their victim is comfortable with, but not so much the victim will immediately reject it. The idea is to then have a reference point: ‘If you were comfortable doing this thing then this next slightly further thing surely isn’t that big of a deal’, etc. This compounds and escalates until the victim has reached the desired final goal; usually a behaviour or specific act. Even if the groomer becomes more bold or escalates more rapidly, by this point the victim is usually inducted into a social circle where they feel they cannot air their grievances.

There is a lot of overlap here with the practices of cults. First a vulnerable or malleable target is a selected. Next, the target is love-bombed; inundated with acceptance, support, emotional-availability, and generally making the person feel special and unique. After this, the victim is encouraged to cut ties with friends and family who are not part of the “in crowd” – this is often both an emotional and physical isolation, designed to remove the victim’s exposure to naysayers and censor their media input. And finally is the control. When a victim has no other structure or framework available in their lives, a cult will threaten to revoke any and all love, support, etc. (and with it the victim’s only lifeline) if they do not comply with all they ask of them. A lot of groomers operate on this same emotionally manipulative level.

The biggest difference between grooming and friendly persuasion is consent. Friendly-persuasion seeks to have an individual state their views or practices, and reasons for having them, in the hope that by providing clarity they may encourage another person to come round to their view. Grooming is more subversive, and by definition more malicious – it is a conscious (though sometimes unintentional) practice in which someone seeks to mould and perhaps even force someone round to views that the perpetrator knows they would not normally be comfortable with. It is a process so slow, and so invasive, that while it is clear as glass to any outsider, few victims realise the true scope of what has happened to them until they are removed from the situation. Looking back on my own experience, I find it inconceivable that I was ignorant to what was happening for so long.

Parts of my pre-teen – early teenage years are a grey area for me; I have many clear memories of school and my small circle of friends, but the areas of my life referenced in this article are not so clear-cut in my mind. While I do not believe I experienced any event so traumatic as to erase all memory, said memory associated with this part of my life is not pleasant to think about – I believe it is less abject trauma, and more emotional discomfort. Whatever the cause, some isolated events are difficult to put into sequential order. While I remember the individual pockets clearly, I will admit I may make minor errors in terms of what order some occurred.

But to what exactly am I referring? Well, while I may make commentary at parts, I think it more pertinent and respectful to those reading to allow room for personal judgement. Baring in mind my introduction to this piece, I encourage you to read my experiences with a critical brain.

The Human Library
My pubescent period was a difficult time for me. I could write an entire article all about what an unequivocal wreck of a human being I was (in spite of my wonderfully supportive mother), but I will try and succinctly list my situation at the time:

  1. I was recovering from an intense period of physical and mental bullying from two previous schools (institutionally backed up by the headmasters’ “boys will be boys” attitude) that still leave scars to this day.
  2. I had undiagnosed mental health problems and learning difficulties. I’ve since learned I’m high functioning Aspergers/ASD which overlaps with Dyspraxia, a co-morbid symptom of both being depression and/or chronic anxiety. I have an exceptionally high IQ in some areas, followed by comically sharp dips into below-average struggling in others. This can affect my ability to make friends and perform socially.
  3. Puberty is a fucking nightmare. I was in a vulnerable and confused place about my sexuality, and where my attraction lay. It is only these years later that I have come to make a peace with my bisexuality. I was always an androgynous individual.
The Human Library is a world-over project in which pockets of the group organise public meets. The “books” are volunteers who feel their “title” is often misrepresented or misunderstood: homeless, OCD, single mother, fraud victim, etc. If it’s something worth talking about you can volunteer. A book is “rented” by a member of the public for a few minutes, and the two can sit down with the pretext of asking any awkward or burning questions you don’t normally get to ask. It is a wonderful concept. My mother was originally involved, talking about her experiences in mental health, though after a while she began to dip off due to other commitments. I was drawn to this project by a number of factors. They lacked any teenagers, and I’d been bullied for a myriad of reasons I knew other teens (particularly girls) felt unable to speak about – such innocuously subversive things it was hard to put into words. I initially had my title as ‘Tomboyish/Androgynous’, in the hope my personal perspective might make some sceptics realise the weight of the words they slung, or to make at least one person like myself not feel so alone and to offer them catharsis.
It is in the waiting area of these events that I first met someone that we’ll call “Rita“. The first time I met Rita, I assumed they were a man, right up until they told me their name. They looked, sounded, and behaved exactly like your typical “bloke”, complete with a fresh-shaved stubble and wide leg-spread sitting, and it was only when they took their coat off that I realised they had breast implants. I will not claim to know the ins and outs of Rita’s life, nor will I pass value judgements on it, but this was my initial impression of them. Later, at other events, there was also “June“, an older individual who fit in the same category appearance and situation-wise as Rita. Meeting June, I initially thought they were a 50/60 year old man with mid-length hair, until told otherwise. Whatever their individual tags or labels, it was clear these people were attempting to pass for female, or at the very least more feminine than they were. Given the environment we were in, I promised myself to keep an open mind. I didn’t even know them after all.
We talked aimlessly in classic British style, weather, the refreshment station lacking tea, etc. for some time, then chatted briefly about our “book titles” – this provided good way of practising our spiel for the public, so I was not opposed to it. I explained my title, my desire to remove the stigma in growing girls who were experiencing non-typical behaviour, and vaguely hashed out the idea of my own confusion in my appearance and attraction. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. With the benefit of it, I can pinpoint the exact first instance of “nudging” I experienced from this group. It was when Rita started talking with me, a girl under the age of 16 they barely knew, about their breasts and their implants.
And later, details on the surgery of sexual organs, particularly turning a penis into a vagina.
The topic of their breasts came up at least once every Human Library afternoon, like Rita couldn’t resist talking about it. If I looked uncomfortable, it was waved away as me being naive, uneducated on the subject, or even part of the “problem stigma”. It was framed in a way that insisted  ‘it’s ok, that’s why we’re at the human library, I’ll educate you‘. I felt unable to silence them when uncomfortable, given the conditions of the Library. When June was in attendance, they often corroborated Rita about how any hesitation to listen to them marked a form of ignorance or even bigotry. Despite my discomfort, I also found an odd acceptance within the group. These few members were proposing titles and labels to me in a way that made me feel normal and accepted. Terms like “genderqueer”, “genderfluid” or “transvestite/genderplay”. They said it with such authority, enthusiasm and kindness, that I felt comforted by the notion. I was gradually and consistently directed to stories and suggestions of transgender-ism, surgery options, and chest binding. Once again with the benefit of hindsight, these conversations often took place out of earshot of the other Library volunteers.
Some of the places I became directed to by this group were online communities. Many were men-turned-women like Rita and June, but others were teenagers or young adults. Here they discussed and actively encouraged drastic changes, via surgery or binding/stuffing, as if promising a final elixir to contentment and happiness. Via both the Human Library group and online, people constantly attempted to bait me into incrementally more intimate discussions, with limited or non-existent results due to my shyness. Rita had, however, made references to my own chest and cup-size in conversation at least twice. In this confusion of terminology and candour, I soon became fixated on the idea of being “gender-queer”.

Gender and Dyspraxia

Throughout all my multiple experiences and events I volunteered at, I now recognise a presiding theme of one-upmanship. Some of the regular volunteers, whether the problem groomer-types or not, often felt a need to be the “most special”. It was frankly exhausting to be around. The gentleman with chronic OCD, we’ll call him “Frank”, was initially endearing if eccentric, and I honestly saw a lot of myself in him and his social isolation. However, even he was not immune to this trait.

After one Library session of using the book title ‘Genderqueer’, something didn’t sit right with me. I was tomboyish, certainly, but to imply it as an accomplished identity felt uncomfortable to me. It just wasn’t a label that fit. I felt like a fraud, and like I’d been almost jimmied into it a little, then pressured to stay. Now, myself and my mum had always suspected me of having some kind of high-functioning ASD-type issues, and had begun more seriously digging into the prospects at the time, having read that this general uncertainty and confusion could be more physical than psychological. I was personally over the moon at the prospect. I was a textbook Dyspraxic, all bar a formal diagnosis, and the idea of having some diagnosis that finally explained and helped me rationalise one of the biggest set of problems in my life was invigorating. It didn’t fix the issues, but it gave me a firm foundation of understanding to work from.

During our lunch break during a Library session, I quite rightly sought to share this newfound insight with what I believed to be some of my most open minded and accepting of friends/acquaintances. The reception was a mixture of ambivalent and unempathic results. I was either actively steered away from this path, with insistences that others were just trying to suppress my gender identity and attempts to blame my problems on something else, or was met with people competitively throwing out gems like: ‘Oh, well, I’ve got dyspraxia too. And depression. And OCD and anxiety and aspergers, sooo-‘ and then bizarrely proud, smug shrugging, as they’d somehow “won” the conversation by out-pathologising me. This particular example came from Frank.

The next time we had a public session, I used the title “Dyspraxia / ASD”. I came at it from an honest and open position of being new to the concept of it, yet being a possessor of it, and how I now realised it affected my life. That day, my title was hands-down one of the most demanded talks in the Library, and I was enthused with the progress that was made, along with the fantastic conversations I had with individuals just like myself. To accomplish my original goal, of making gas-lit, jaded victims of bullying and cruelty feel vindicated and justified almost drove me to tears. Rita and some of the inner-circle seemed displeased and did not share my newfound happiness, often passive-aggressively trying to put down my success whenever I returned to the waiting area. I was becoming less dependent, less enamoured with them and the concept of cross-dressing or gender-play, and their attempts to label the ones I now reached out to as the enemy only succeeded in me severing ties with them and the Human Library altogether.

Follow Ups

Our area is small, and as such the political circles are smaller still. I have encountered Rita at various discussions or debates, mostly gender related, and more or less ignore their work now. I find myself unable to objectively listen to their stances, given the inappropriate references to gynaecological surgery and my breasts I encountered when underage, no matter how well-intentioned they thought it was – I will not degrade anyone involved by pretending to listen to someone I can no longer respect.

Frank continued to Facebook message me once, maybe twice a year up until 2018 – I’d originally friended him so I could like/share the posts about the junior football team he coached, and help support them. The messages were mostly harmless, if exceptionally overly-familiar – he often acted as if we were close friends. Some details were a little too intimate, but nothing rude or crass, simply overtly-emotional. Until, after having not spoken to him more than 7 times in my life (3 of which were online), he randomly messaged me with: ‘I think I’m transgender.’ followed by something along the lines of ‘I paint fingernails. I need advice’. It is worth noting that Frank is younger than Rita, but still a good chunk older than myself. I had no response, and it was quite frankly the final nail in a coffin of over familiarity and oppressively non-appropriate behaviour. I did not really know this man, yet had been asked on many separate instances by him to answer unusual and intimate questions for his own benefit. I doubt maleficence in his case, but over-exposure to a cult of over-sharing, to the point where I think he genuinely believed this was normal, everyday behaviour between near-strangers. I politely, but firmly, explained I no longer believed any further communication was appropriate, that I was not the one to discuss these issues with (nor was I qualified to), and have not heard from him since.


I bring us to the end of this tale with the unfortunate reflection that there is no one message to glean from it. This article is different to my usual, in that it is more a telling of facts and experience than introspection. But I would like it to serve a purpose.

If it were to find any such purpose, let it be the knowledge that my story is not unique. Indeed, it is also one that has a significantly happier ending than most who also tell it. The subversive behaviour is often hard to describe – when we victims attempt to cite it we are often dismissed or ignored. Grooming, cultish behaviour, stamps a lasting impression on our lives, and yet I still find myself struggling to formulate a description of the seditious nature of many involved. Even now, I find myself simultaneously appalled to remember all that occurred, yet not feeling my article has done justice to the constant chipping and nudging I was bombarded with for so long.

These individuals were given unprecedented access to myself, and other vulnerable persons. Laughably, persons with direct labels on themselves as to how they may be manipulated, literally like a book on the shelf to be perused and selected. It doesn’t matter if the intention is malicious or ignorant, there are increasing pockets of sub-cultures in which this damaging behaviour is encouraged, overlooked, excused, and even hidden. Children are having normal, sometimes transient, issues and parts of maturation pathologised into immediate, permanent, life-changing surgery. Pre-teens who have not fully developed their sexuality are having said sexuality scrutinised and laid-bare by grown men and women who have no rights to it, nor qualifications beyond ‘I think it’. And we have grown women regretting their transitions as the freedom of their adult lives finally allows escape and outside perspective on these sub-cultures.

I cannot force judgement or groom any who reads the stories of myself or others, but I can hope for friendly persuasion. I can hope for mindfulness and scrutiny to the damage being done by unqualified, emotionally stunted individuals with no medical credentials. I escaped the “Cult of the Queer”, yet others are still firmly at the mercy of these people, the whims of the incapable, and many vulnerable books still sit on the shelves unaware they’re being selected.

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,320 other followers

Progressive Bloggers


July 2020


Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

A. Lien



A topnotch site

I Won't Take It

Life After an Emotionally Abusive Relationship

Exploring best practice and research in sexual violence. A loud voice in the fight against victim blaming. Written and Managed by Jessica Eaton, Doctoral Researcher in Forensic Psychology

Unpolished XX

No product, no face paint. I am enough.

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle


the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Teach The Change

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby


A blog in support of Helen Steel

Blasting through Left-wing BS with truth bombs


Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian


Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy


Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Easilyriled's Blog

cranky. joyful. radical. funny. feminist.

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress


Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution


Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.


short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

Trans Animal Farm

The Trans Trend is Orwellian

Princess Henry of Wales

Priestess Belisama

miss guts.

just a girl on a journey

writing by renee

Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights

%d bloggers like this: