Last weekend, at a Manchester UK “Pride Parade”, an ordinary gay man…yes a gay man…was heckled, abused and screamed at, called a bigot and transphobe and required police protection to escort him away from the parade. You might ask what his heinous crime was to elicit such outrage and hostility, well you see this ordinary gay man was wearing a t-shirt that triggered other Pride marchers and they very much objected to it. Those same outraged marchers didn’t have a problem with the men in the parade dressed in sexually explicit outfits that fully reveal their bottoms or the men dressed up as bears, dogs and cats (apparently dressing up as furry animals is a fetish) or the men dressed up in bondage simulating sex but they were outraged by an ordinary gay man wearing a t-shirt with the following on it….
LGB Alliance
Note the missing letters….no Q, no T and no I. LGB Alliance was originally set up in the UK two years ago by a group of gay men and women concerned that organisations such as Stonewall had been hijacked by militant transgender ideology and activists. There are now LGB Alliance organisations in the US, Canada and Australia. The whole purpose of LGB Alliance is to separate itself from sinister queer, transgender and intersectional ideologies.
For the sin of creating this new organisation the founders of LGB Alliance have been smeared as far-right, transphobes, white supremacists, anti-Semites, Nazis and all the rest of the smears and slurs that many progressives love to throw at their ideological enemies. The Oz chapter of LGB Alliance has among its members the wonderful Professor Holly Lawford Smith, who lectures in political philosophy at Melbourne University and who is currently under vicious attack by the always tolerant (sarcasm alert) transgender activists and their militant allies. They want to silence her. You might ask what was Lawford Smith’s crime to warrant such attacks? Well, she dared to assert that…yes wait for it…biological sex is real. Lawford Smith believes, as I do, that men with penises who identify as women are not women and such men should not be given license to enter women’s safe spaces such as change rooms and toilets, such men should not be allowed to compete against biological females in sport and such men are engaging in sexual fetishes such as autogynephilia; fetishes that once upon a time were either rightly derided and laughed at or rightly regarded as something more sinister. Now we might laugh at all of this but militant transgender ideology is making its way through our education system, government departments and corporations. So we now have situations where male prisoners, such as rapists, are identifying as women and being transferred to women’s prisons….only to rape women there.
For further reading on this, please read Helen Joyce’s superb new book, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. Helen Joyce is also currently under attack by the oh-so tolerant transgender and queer activists, her book has been cancelled by the biggest bookseller in the UK, Waterstones, because of complaints made by a few noisy and very militant activists.
Here, also, is another discussion involving Abigail Shrier who has been similarly targeted for harassment for her own book, Irreversible Damage: Teenage Girls and the Transgender Craze, in the US:
Biological sex is a reality. Sex is not assigned at birth, it is recorded at birth. Transwomen aren’t women.
Nice work Cassie.
I must admit to using DDG to look up at least one word. I hope that doesn’t lead to spam of a certain persuasion!
Great article Cassie. This latest manifestation of Cultural Marxism must be intended to humiliate people and force them to say things any sane person with half a brain knows is ridiculous. Like O’Brien making Winston say 2 + 2 is not equal to 4.
Over several weeks, O’Brien tortures Winston to cure him of his “insanity”, in particular his “false” notion that there exists a past and an external, self-evident reality independent of the Party; O’Brien explains that reality only exists within the human mind, and since the Party controls everyone’s mind, it therefore controls reality.
He is entirely honest about the brutal cynicism of the Party; the Party does not seek power to benefit themselves or their subjects, but simply to revel in that power: “Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
It is Tim Blair’s victimology totem pole writ large.
I hope “regular common-or-garden” gays enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame.
Is this the slippery slope we were warned about?
I love the way they screech out ‘far-right’.
The beliefs of the supposed far-right are invariably ones that have been mainstream for centuries. How can they be extremists? A man has an outtie, a woman has an innie. Marriage is a bond between a man (outtie) and a woman (innie). Children should be protected and shielded from things they can’t understand until they can, including sex. People are individuals. Work hard to succeed. Be independent. Help others.
How can the history of the past few centuries be far anything? They would seem to be by definition a centre.
It is the progs leaping to an extreme position pretending everyone else has done it. They can’t back that up. Best not think too much.
Their calling people ‘far-right’ is a reflex, not a fact.
2+2=5
we love big TransSibling
The common gay man is now the far right.
Bloody hell.
“I just want regular gay sex”.
“Bigot”.
Thanks Cassie, the only way is to keep calling out the lunatics and telling them no. Unfortunately to the radical left you give an inch they take ten miles. SSM was the inch now we’re seeing the 10 miles. The left is never satisfied, never.
eat the rich till they are the only rich left….and keep eating to the marxist singularity
John Cleese is CRUSHING Woke Cancel Culture!!!
*“I just want regular gay sex”.
“Bigot”.*
Do you ever wonder what it is like in the cities?
*No.
How about these radishes this year?*
Well, he is not on board with the eruptive left.
Their opponents should not be characterised by the bogans of yore who would go ‘pooftah bashing’. Most people believed sodomy to be a sin but not beyond redemption. Fruits were accepted even if not celebrated. Aggressive promotion of homosexuality did undermine mores. But anything aggressive did. Most gays just lived their lives. Alan Jones’ fans were supposed to be turned against him by the fact he was a shirt lifter in that boring book by that boring ABC-ite – but it didn’t. The ABC did not understand how his conservative audiences felt about gays.
It is enough that this guy was not a QWERTY extremist for him to be labeled ‘far right’.
It is a reflex.
“SSM was the inch now we’re seeing the 10 miles. The left is never satisfied, never.”
Which is why I voted NO to SSM….I knew it was the “inch” and the aggressive behaviour of the activists during the SSM campaign confirmed my suspicions that it was all about pushing ideology and SSM was just the beginning…it had nothing to do with “love”…as for “love”…..traditionally and historically marriage in almost all cultures had nothing to do with love…it was about tribe, clan, community, economics…and of course the most important part of marriage was the procreation of children. It was a boon if you ended up “loving” your husband or wife.
The problem is no one in the west is willing to speak up against the alphabet fascism. Our religious leaders have been neutered and silenced…apart from one religious ideology which isn’t afraid to speak up….this religious ideology isn’t scared of the alphabet fascists…and it’s interesting because those electorates which resolutely voted NO in the plebiscite back in 2017 contain significant numbers of these religious adherents.
worth a watch
Dr. Rhonda Patrick on Vaccine Misinformation and Long-haul Covid
Joe Rogan
this continues on spotify at about 140:00
“SSM was the inch now we’re seeing the 10 miles. ”
Sorry, I just can’t see the causation or logical corollary. You say it’s a slippery slope, but show me the rise over run.
Go back 10 years and you will see lobbying & policies for trans privileges independent of SSM (say at the UN). Trans stuff was known to SSM activists to be a tar baby, they were questioning if to keep the T in LGBT…look at articles even in 2013 & 2014 in big outlets like the New Yorker.
SSM would eliminate at least one facetious reason to claim gender fluidity.
Can we stop talk about taking and giving various lengths on this thread please.
“Go back 10 years and you will see lobbying & policies for trans privileges independent of SSM (say at the UN). Trans stuff was known to SSM activists to be a tar baby, they were questioning if to keep the T in LGBT…look at articles even in 2013 & 2014 in big outlets like the New Yorker.”
Really, I don’t recall vocal transgender ideologues spouting their nonsense a decade ago……it started to pop its ugly head up in about 2014 and it really became prominent in 2016 and 2017. The truth is…for queer and transgender ideology, the embrace of SSM empowered them, many of them are unapologetic about what they want. SSM marriage was the trojan horse. This has nothing to do with normal gay and lesbian people, most of whom just want to live ordinary lives. I don’t have a problem with civil recognition of SSM couples…..but it isn’t a marriage.
I rest my case.
I can’t find the Dave Chapelle bit on the T’s & the car ride.
Thanks for this post Cassie.
Does anyone know whether the trans-activists have ever tried to justify their demands logically?
XY person says to XX person “I identify as the same gender as you”.
XX person says “well I don’t identify as the same gender as you”.
On what grounds can XY person’s assertion be given primacy?
Yes, XX person will generally use the word “woman” to describe XX person’s self-identified gender, and so will XY person, but whatever arguments there might be about what that word means or doesn’t mean, that argument is in reality only about which side is acting as Humpty Dumpty, not about the reality which the word does or doesn’t adequately describe.
If gender is something objective and normative, a trans-activist could not make any moral criticism of anyone for making assertions about someone else’s gender. At most they could argue that such assertions were erroneous, and they’d need to explain why. Yet in reality trans-activists always insist that no-one is allowed to contradict someone’s assertions about that someone’s own gender identity. Such an insistence could be justified only if (no doubt among other factors) gender identification contains some element of personal right of choice, rather than being solely a matter of objective normative fact.
If so, isn’t XX person justified in choosing to identify as a gender different to XY person?
If it’s a matter of pure subjective personal choice, no matter how stridently XY person demands that XX person’s gender conform with XY person’s wishes surely XX person is allowed to say no?
Or if it’s required that gender identification be based on some criteria, then if there’s any element of personal right of choice in gender identity (see above), presumably there must be some element of personal choice in what those criteria are.
So if XX person has a set of criteria by which XX person’s own gender identity is determined (oh, I don’t know, say, purely hypothetically, criteria involving chromosomes and the consequent anatomy and physiology …. crazy stuff I know, but just as an example), why is XY person allowed to insist that those criteria are invalid, and that XX person is obliged to gender identify in accordance with criteria imposed on XX person by XY person?
It seems to me that, however one cuts the cake, it’s simply logically untenable that XY person can insist that XX person accede to being gender-grouped with XY person.
Apologies if that’s a rather laborious exposition on something that should be obvious. In a world where people accepted self-evident reality all we’d need to do would be, like Dr Johnson kicking a stone and saying “I refute it thus”, nude up and let res ipsa loquitur. But we don’t live in such a world.
Great, informative post, Cassie.
Worth remembering is that homosexuals (let alone trans-wackos) constitute less than 2 percent of the population. Homosexuality is quite rare. Militant gays (and the trans lobbyists) nevertheless control discourse and public policy in relation to marriage, children’s education, advertising and speech.
How?
In two interwoven ways: the mainstream left (leaving aside for a moment that it is no longer truly mainstream) uses them and their demands as cultural cudgels against the “right” and – with the help of the media – are able to con many into seeing alphabet folk as being harmless victims and their foes as monsters. Second: violence. Every form of left-wing extremism currently playing out on the streets of the Western world is underwritten by the demonstrably credible threat of violence.
“C.L.says:
September 1, 2021 at 10:41 pm
Great, informative post, Cassie.”
Thank you C.L….high praise from one of my favourite writers.
You write…
“Militant gays (and the trans lobbyists) nevertheless control discourse and public policy in relation to marriage, children’s education, advertising and speech.”
Indeed, which is why I wrote my piece two weeks ago here on DB’s blog….that the day will come, a day I believe isn’t too far away, when people like us are squeezed out of ALL public discourse and so we need to start to prepare for this by becoming self sufficient and by setting up own alternative networks. And don’t get me wrong…I’m not a conspiracy monger but even speaking up about such ludicrous things as gender identity will provoke public scorn and censure.
As Stephen Chavura and Rod Dreher have said and written….we’ll be like dissidents in Eastern Europe and like “recusants”.
I believe in the west we’re already living under tyranny, a tyranny run by ugly minorities, a curious alliance between far-left progressives and Islam. This has been strengthened by the collapse of Christianity.
It won’t end well.
“Timothy Neilsonsays:
September 1, 2021 at 10:24 pm”
Good to see you here Tim and great post…..no….your post isn’t laborious and it echoes exactly what Helen Joyce writes and speaks about.
Joyce also argues that not only do we need to have courage and speak up about this nonsense but we also laugh at this nonsense…..because it is laughable.
Thanks for the topical piece, Cassie. Re its origins, when I was lecturing at a University in the 90’s in a very left-wing faculty, the idea of ‘Queer’ theory was gaining traction as part of the post-modernist base on which all curricula were building. This theory questionned ‘maleness’ as anything inherent, destabilising ‘gender’ from ‘sex’, and opened the way to the ‘trans’ ideology.
Quadrant in the July-2021 magazine had interesting articles by John Whitehall on “A Litany of ABC Transgender Myths’ and Eugene Alexander Donnini on ‘The Sordid Origins of Transgender Theory’. Whitehall’s work is well known, and details the harms of transgender ideology and medical interventions on the adolescent mind. Donnini traces the ‘trans’ notion to Marcuse’s ‘Eros and Civlisation’ and the desire to both sexualise children and deny the family. It is associated to with the boy-love movement and other elements of cultural amorality.
The whole bandwaggon of those early years was thoroughly louche and highly Marxist. Very unpleasant reading, but important to know about.
From Donnini’ article:
The man who wrote a lot of the internationally-acclaimed foundational material for dissing biological ‘maleness’ was in my time lecturing in academia on the issue while undergoing his own personal journey via feminism to a critique of maleness, which I suspect turned into a sort of self-hatred, for this tall, broad-shouldered and very male-looking man in the interventing period has turned himself into a woman. I saw him as a her on TV and nearly fell of my chair. I knew his wife reasonably well in the early years before she passed away with cancer. I often wonder what she might think now.
Whitehall’s article of course also details how the ABC has hopped thoroughly on the transgender bandwaggon to the exclusion of all critique of it, pushing it hard in whatever fora it can (a considerable reach and all of it taxpayer funded). The normalising of this form of self-expression, dangerous for adolescents and often leading to life-long unhappiness, is similar to that which we have previously seen about single-motherhood, welfare dependence, aboriginal ‘identity’ and resultant victimhood pathos, and of course middle-class feminism, but on that, don’t mention the third world. Now, in the face of a major military catastrophe, these ABC feminists are attempting to raise some positive PR for the Taliban.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, The Evil march on, holding up mutilated children as their shields from criticism –
Transgender 3-year-old Tried to Cut off ‘her’ Penis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nOEM1GxuKU
Sep 3, 2021
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
Meanwhile, Mrs Nong doesn’t engage in the discussion…instead Mrs Nong just cuts and pastes something to draw attention to herself.