Like I said, these men are mentally disturbed and dangerous

This entry was posted in Left-wing extremism. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Like I said, these men are mentally disturbed and dangerous

  1. cuckoo says:

    Gretchen Felker-Martin’s debut novel, “Manhunt,” follows two trans women “attempting to survive in a world ravaged by a plague which transforms anyone with enough testosterone in their system into a shrieking monstrosity.”

    Looks like we just found the next Victorian Premier’s Literary Award winner.

  2. cuckoo says:

    I’m just curious enough to ask how this ‘novel’ makes clear to the reader that these two characters are ‘trans women’. Surely if they’re women, they’re women and that’s it. Jane Austen never has to tell us that Elizabeth Bennett is a woman, or Mr. Darcy is a man.

  3. NoFixedAddress says:

    Eventually we are going to run out of swine to cast legion into.

    But I note that J.K. Rowling is still condemning the evil and is still pulling in the big $dollars for her current series about weird beasts.

  4. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Let me preface this by saying that I know there are those who consider me a “transphobe” and a “bigot” and I don’t care, I wear those badges with honour. Why? The trans movement is an assault on women, truth, science, language and reality.

    Here are some facts…

    1. Sex is immutable. You cannot change sex. It is in our DNA. No amount of surgery or hormones will change the sex you were born with. You can pretend to be a woman or a man but you are not and never will be a female or a male.

    2. There are profound biological differences between the sexes that no amount of surgery or hormones will change. A male that has gone through male puberty will always, even after hormones and surgery, be stronger than a biological woman.

    3. The trans movement is profoundly anti-female, it is misogynistic to its core. Much of what constitutes the “trans activist movement” promotes prostitution, pornography, violence against biological women. They sexualise and fetishize what they imagine a woman is, however this does not accord with how the bulk of women, including myself, thinks, feels and dresses. Note how many transsexual men, when putting on “female” attire, dress in stiletto high shoes, mini skirts and so on. They think that this kind of whorish attire makes them women. Many of these autogynephiliac men (and this is exactly what they are) get sexually aroused by dressing up as women.

    4. The rise of the trans movement over the last decade, and particularly over the last five years is, at its core, a sinister queer movement that aims to legitimise perversions and fetishes, including sex with minors…and yes, even sex with infants. I state categorically that the movement is both criminal and misogynistic. This movement has nothing to do with respecting LGB people. I do respect LGB people however I never believed in the ludicrous notion of “SSM” and I’m proud to say that I voted no to it. I knew from the beginning of the agitation for “SSM” that it had nothing to do with “marriage” or “partnership” but rather was a insidious Trojan Horse for the introduction of other much more sinister queer tenets. I have been proven right.

    5. Whilst I acknowledge gender dysphoria, historically an extremely rare condition that only ever effected young boys and which is a condition most boys grow out of, this sudden surge in men pretending/identifying as women is a deliberate consequence of the Marxist post-modernist ideology and of the whole LGBTQRARSE ideology that has consumed western society for the last four decades. The idea that a man with a penis and a beard can simply “identify” as a woman and gain entry into women’s spaces such as change rooms, toilets and prisons and compete against women is not just absurd, it’s sinister and we have to ask where this ludicrousness comes from. Such things would have been laughed about only a decade ago. But now it’s a reality. All of this was predicted by the feminist Janice Raymond in her 1979 book called “The Transsexual Empire, The Making of the She-Male. It is about the annihilation of the female from society.

    6. Most of this has been brought on by toxic feminism, particularly the insidious third wave feminism which is pure post-modernism. I’m not talking about the likes of Germaine Greer and so on but even they bear some responsibility for the emergence of the trans movement. The trashing of men, the absurd notion that there’s no difference between males and females, all of this has ensued from the rise of feminism. Human society, since we walked out of Africa, has been dependent on certain pillars, such as religion, family and behaviours. Once those pillars are smashed, a vacuum is created with the consequence that evil will spread unhindered and this is precisely what we are witnessing now.

    Finally, as the well known feminist Sheila Jeffreys says, the trans movement is an assault on women, it belittles women, it ridicules women, it sexualises and fetishizes women, it sexualises children and it is profoundly misogynistic. Sheila Jeffreys says that she looks forward to the day when, just like it is now anathema for white people to put on blackface (unless you’re Justin Trudeau), it will one day be anathema for men to pretend to be women. However I won’t hold my breath.

    Apologies about the rant!

  5. Lee says:

    Very well said, Cassie.
    What I find particularly horrifying, insidious, and evil is the targeting of children, largely at the behest of the trans or queer lobbies, and which has the full backing of at least one premier.

  6. Tel says:

    Sex is immutable. You cannot change sex. It is in our DNA.

    It is immutable at our current tech-level … but only just barely. The bioengineering revolution has not started yet, but signs on the horizon suggest it isn’t far off.

    Editing DNA is already possible on a small scale, and the cells communicate via hormones which are also open to artificial manipulation, so at least in principle all the pieces are in place to change biological sex. Also, racial characteristics, human intelligence, and a bunch of other things could in theory be manipulated. Whether this is a good idea, is something else entirely … especially considering the things that have gone wrong in the past when people went down this path, plus the additional risks involved with any novel technological tinkering.

    Most of the people reading this probably are not living in a tree, or a cave … humans tend to use their intellect to impose their will on the world around them … and this includes imposing their will on other humans. I use electricity, coming down a copper cable, because it improves my life … this is not natural, this is the result of humans who decided to change the world. Therefore, after accepting the fruits of technology, you cannot conclude that changing the world is evil per say … but arguably some changes are better than others.

    Are you bothered by a weight lifter getting roided up and YUUUGE by chemical means? What if that weight lifter is a biological woman who ends up with a clit as long as your thumb? Is that a bit disturbing … or entirely reasonable personal choice? Well you just have to think about that for yourself.

    Does that roided and modified person then get to decide what everyone else should be thinking? I’d say no they don’t … and that is the fundamental principle that doesn’t change regardless of technology or biology.

  7. Old Lefty says:

    I second everything Cassie has said, better than I could.

    But the linked article does not go far enough, referring to the author of this degenerate pervert filth as ‘she’. Surely to goodness the word is IT!

  8. C.L. says:

    I think where your analogy of genetic alteration and human ingenuity fails, Tel, is that it disregards the fact that the latter is a corollary of natural human intelligence. Seen as resulting from an exponential process of generational advancement, electricity and its benefits are not unnatural at all – any more than our avoidance of poisonous plants or dangerous reptiles is unnatural.

    On the question of immutability, then, I would only concede that it’s possible scientists may successfully interfere with what is immutable but, short of ‘editing’ all humans, that interference – however intricate or consequential – would be like dyeing an individual’s head of hair.

  9. C.L. says:

    I second everything Cassie has said…

    I third it. 👏

    —————————-

    Are you bothered by a weight lifter getting roided up and YUUUGE by chemical means? What if that weight lifter is a biological woman who ends up with a clit as long as your thumb? Is that a bit disturbing … or entirely reasonable personal choice?

    I am bothered in the sense that self-mutilation is very saddening and illicit steroid supply to the deluded is – and should remain – unlawful. Were she to be obsessed with muscling up naturally, that would be her business – however repulsive it is to me.

  10. Old Lefty says:

    Meanwhile, an encouraging development in the UK: the government trying to put a brake on the fashionable epidemic of ‘gender’ ‘affirmation’.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61203575

    In Yarragrad, Javid would be headed for ten years’ in prison.

  11. Tintarella di Luna says:

    The transgender activists are just Marxists trying to remake the world by having it collapse – it is aloft by both men and women, remove women and it collapses. The madness is very calculated – masculinity and femininity are needed to make the world a better place while feminism has morphed to make the world worse not better.

  12. Lee says:

    In Yarragrad, Javid would be headed for ten years’ in prison.

    Instead, the premier here should be doing fifty years’ in prison.
    The hypocrite has described the Katherine Deves-centred campaign focus on transgender athletes in women’s sport as a “wedge issue.”

  13. Tel says:

    … that the latter is a corollary of natural human intelligence.

    That does lead to an interesting struggle with definitions, on what part of human intelligence is regarded as “natural” and hos you go about measuring such a thing.

    Let me give an example … Chief Sequoyah of the Cherokee saw that white colonials would put their language onto a written page, and then recover the information afterwards … he reasoned (correctly) that Cherokee could do the same thing once they understood the mechanism. The result was that although Cherokee language had previously been oral, the tribe eventually moved to a system of writing giving them the ability to record their history and culture.

    This is technology, plain and simple … one of the fundamental stepping stones in human advancement … the ability to take transitory oral language and preserve it in a fixed format. Is this natural though? Has human intelligence been augmented by the tools of pen, ink and paper? Look at where this process has ended up … hard drives, memory sticks, Unicode, databases, search engines, and even neural networks. More technology, more things that keep humans occupied, but also give us the ability to do new things that never could be done before.

    What a person CAN do and SHOULD do at different things, but unless you first understand what is possible, there’s not meaning to arguing over what’s desirable. This business of saying, “You are what you are, and never strive to be anything else” is unacceptable to me … all striving represents some transformation, a hope that in future you will be better than you are now. We just don’t see “better” in a universally consistent way, and that’s kind of the whole issue in a subjective valuation kind of world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.