How can you be nonpartisan and have any expectation that you can promote this cause? The Democrat party has embraced these radicals for their votes. That gives them protection and power to perpetuate their malice. Not until the Democrat party joins in absolute active opposition (not just paying it oppositional lip service while not taking any action) will this crap stop.

It is friggin' crazy that women dominate the Democrat party and this conflict even exists. Joe Biden appointed his likely only Supreme Court Justice that would not or could not define "woman". She replaced RGB, our SCOTUS champion of women's rights. What the hell is wrong with the Democrat party that it marches in lock-step solidarity for anything it can do to win elections, but leaves a train of destructed women's rights in its wake?

How can anything clear-thinking individual accept that "Republicans are the existential threat", when Democrat are either fomenting, or tacitly supporting, destruction of gender identity, women's rights and family culture?

Expand full comment

I believe women are substantially more likely to support trans ideology than men. It's not despite but because of women's disproportionate influence on the Democratic party that this conflict exists. It might seem counterintuitive, but it's still true.

Expand full comment

Women are more vulnerable to male gaslighting disguised as victimhood maybe, but the originators are 99% over-entitled, over-privileged, white male narcissistic fetishists.

I agree that their recruits are mostly women, but there are plenty of lefty beardsplainers and violent male anarchists in there as well.

Expand full comment

Right. And those weaponizing trans identities against women in sports, prisons, medicine and the arts are 100% men.

Expand full comment

Well, someone needs to get through to all the women at the HRC, gender identity Profs, etc...because a whole heck of a lot of women are the ones out there promoting a lot of this nonsense.

Expand full comment

Heinrich Himmler on How Bolshevik Christianity Spreads Homosexuality and Hatred of Women . . .

❝150 years ago someone at a Catholic university wrote a doctoral thesis with the title: “Does a woman have a soul?” From this the whole tendency of Christianity emerges: it is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is, I am firmly convinced, an erotic union of men (Männerbund) for the erection and maintenance of this 2,000-year old Bolshevism.❞


Expand full comment

It’s well off women, same as it ever was. They think they won’t suffer so they feel safe to brag about supporting it. The D is still suffering from being completely out of touch with the majority.

Expand full comment

A.k.a luxury beliefs

Expand full comment

Absolutely. The men are right at the top but they have chosen to put some women in significant seats of power eg Directors of non-profits, Senior Management, Professors of Gender Studies, etc. who are educating and directing the footsoldiers eg female student population who have been indoctrinated at University by gender studies and queer theory and Judith Butler is a God to them. They come out of Uni, into the professions or non-profits, like Warrior Queens ready to save a specific cause and 'Trans' is that cause.

Expand full comment

If you cannot be honest about the sex, what can you be honest about?

When Arnold Schnitzel-wagger (sic) got caught impregnating his voluptuous maid, the tsunami of faux moral outrage swept across television and computer screens from people who have the slenderest claim to any semblance of fidelity or ethics of any kind.

Arnold couldn't admit he likes fat girls and Maria couldn't admit she was too anemic to get the job done anymore . . . After all, marrying into the Katholic Kennedy Klan should come with special social privileges, should it not?

Whatever happened to 'make love not war' or 'free love, baby'?

Did Arnie just miss the flight of the Lolita Express that weekend, or did Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have the flights booked that month?

Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not.

The older pagan sexual mores were much more conducive to the health of Nordic-Scandinavian societies, and much more supportive of women than those of the Jewish god Yahweh, the locust master, the one who drowned the world and demanded a witch be burned alive, or an adulteress be stoned to death . . .


Expand full comment

LOL. You must be a misogynist, believing that women are more susceptible than men...

Expand full comment

Or you could say I'm a misandrist for pinning the original insanity on men.

Let's just say I'm misidiotist and call it even.

Expand full comment

Heinrich Himmler on How Bolshevik Christianity Spreads Homosexuality and Hatred of Women . . .

❝The German woman, not the man, has borne the greater sacrifice of blood in the witch and heretic trials. The priests knew exactly why they burned 5,000-6,000 women: exactly because they emotionally held fast to the old knowledge and the old doctrine and emotionally and instinctively could not be dissuaded from them, while the man had already converted by logic and thought…❞


Expand full comment

"Not until the Democrat party joins in absolute active opposition (not just paying it oppositional lip service while not taking any action) will this crap stop."

You lost me at "Democrat party." The party I belong to is the Democratic Party. There is no "Democrat party" except in the Republican lexicon. The term is on a par with "Repug," except that while "Democrat party" is in universal use among Republicans including (or especially) elected officials, "Repug" remains confined to the surlier fringes of social media.

Is this a tempest in a teapot? No. Here is an excerpt from a 2021 piece in the online AP about the Democratic/Democrat divide:


Amid bipartisan calls to dial back extreme partisanship following the insurrection, the intentional misuse of “Democrat” as an adjective remains in nearly universal use among Republicans. Propelled by conservative media, it also has caught on with far-right elements that were energized by the Trump presidency.

Academics and partisans disagree on the significance of the word play. Is it a harmless political tactic intended to annoy Republicans’ opponents, or a maliciously subtle vilification of one of America’s two major political parties that further divides the nation?

Thomas Patterson, a political communication professor at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said using “Democrat” as an adjective delivers a “little twist” of the knife with each usage because it irritates Democrats, but sees it as little more than that.

“This is,” he says, “just another piece in a big bubbling kettle of animosities that are out there.”

Others disagree. Purposely mispronouncing the formal name of the Democratic Party and equating it with political ideas that are not democratic goes beyond mere incivility, said Vanessa Beasley, an associate professor of communications at Vanderbilt University who studies presidential rhetoric. She said creating short-hand descriptions of people or groups is a way to dehumanize them.

In short: Language matters.



Short of a series of judicial rulings that ban the practices that flow from trans ideology or the replacement of our democracy with an authoritarian regime that suspends the US Constitution and does away with the rule of law, they only way society will put put the nightmare of gender identity ideology behind us it through the democratic process.

Unless Democrats and Independents can be persuaded to withdraw their support from the trans agenda and from the politicians who advance it through legislation, meaningful legislative or social change is unlikely.

Republicans would do well to heed the old saying that one traps more flies with honey than with vinegar. Many members of the Democratic Party are already highly critical of the excesses of trans activists. Others are persuadable. However, one of the best ways to alienate Democrats from the cause is for Republicans to keep on leveling partisan insults at them.

Gender critical Democrats and Republicans agree that trans women are not women. If Republicans would agree that Democrats are not members of the "Democrat party," we might be able to make progress together.

Expand full comment

This is a good post. Frankly though, you are missing the bigger picture. First, I reject the label of the old party of the working class being connected with the word "democratic" because as you point out in your second paragraph the party today is about everything but that.

Second, the Democrat party, including those you claim can be attracted with honey, are the same cohort very comfortable heaping vile labels on conservatives and Republicans. We baskets of irredeemable deplorables, fascists, semi-Nazis, racists, xenophobes, misogynist... need me to stop yet? And so Democrats (note that root of that word, "Democrat") get all wee weed up being told they are members of the Democrat Party. LOL.

A party of Democrat people is a "Democrat Party". A party of Republican people is a "Republican Party".

I also disagree that any material number of Democrats can be sweetened with honey. I live in left coast in a liberal college town and no Democrat here will ever vote for a Republican. It is all team sports for them. Politics is their religion. They cannot let it go.

The name of the game is to brand the Democrats for what they are so that independents break out of their cult media propaganda trance supporting the party of social and economic destruction.

I have old liberal friends that have adopted the woke ideology. In fact, I cannot find one that will speak out against it. For them winning in politics is more important that is the health of the county.

So Democrat Party it is and will always be. And the fact that it gets their goat motivates me to say it more.

Expand full comment

Heinrich Himmler on How Bolshevik Christianity Spreads Homosexuality and Hatred of Women . . .

❝150 years ago someone at a Catholic university wrote a doctoral thesis with the title: “Does a woman have a soul?” From this the whole tendency of Christianity emerges: it is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is, I am firmly convinced, an erotic union of men (Männerbund) for the erection and maintenance of this 2,000-year old Bolshevism.❞


Expand full comment

Sure Wilhelm. Historical conspiracy postulating bordering on hysteria is unbecoming.

Intolerance and subjugation of people deemed outside of some ideological or theological boundary is certainly a common story of history. However, today the standards of Christianity are welcoming to all people that walk with the Christian God and accept the lord Jesus into their lives. It is the religion of leftism that has devolved as the premier intolerant and subjugating force today. Just dare to oppose the Democrat doctrine and be prepared to be canceled or worse.

Expand full comment

Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals.

The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and which are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, at our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our bio-symbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples.

One sometimes wonders why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always claimed to stand for? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.

Don Rumsfeld was right with the comment ‘Europe has shifted on its axis’, the wrong side won WW2, and it is becoming clearer with each and every day . . .

What has NATO done to defend Europe?

Absolutely nothing.

My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh, or in some ethereal Teutonic boogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels, and Tel Aviv.


Expand full comment

Why should anyone with the slimmest moral sense vote for a Republican in the age of Trump and Empty Greene? The conservatism of Barry Goldwater is as dead as the liberal Rockefeller wing of the GOP. What's left is a bunch of vile stupid people like Boebert, leading a base of third-grade dropouts with red hats and black beards.

I voted to reelect Gov. John Spellman in Washington State because his Democrat𝐢𝐜 opponent came from the logging industry. Spellman lost. My solitary Repyblican votw since I began voting and punched the chad for McGovern.

Oh, by the way, economics is a pseudoscience, I don't base my vote on reading entrails.

Expand full comment

Why should anyone with the slimmest moral sense vote for a Democrat in the age of the Biden crime family and radical leftist illiberalism?

Economics is math. Math is definitive. It is those that practice "economics" ignoring the math that are pseudoscientists. One of the biggest frauds, Paul Krugman, even got a Nobel prize for his junk.

Expand full comment

No, math is math.

The basis of scientific method is hypothesis falsification. Economics continues to esteem hypotheses that have utterly failed. Universities give tenue to Lafferites.

It isn't science.

"Biden crime family." Lert's watch Republicans wet themselves trying to back that up.

"Radical left." Uh-huh. Right. Got a link to Democrats pushing for peasant collectives? What you know about left and right in politics would leave plenty of space on a Post-It note.

I live in a Communist country, you know, Right here on the currency:

𝐂𝐨̂𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐨𝐚̀ 𝐗𝐚̂ 𝐇𝐨̣𝐢 𝐂𝐡𝐮̉ 𝐍𝐠𝐡𝐢̃𝐚 𝐕𝐢𝐞̣̂𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐦

Oh, Krugman got a Swedish banking prize. He earned it. Funny hearing Krugman being called a fraud by a guy who thinks Trump is smart.

Now go drink your ivermectin.

Expand full comment

Put your black mask back on and go burn down a federal building in Portland.

It is not that you are ignorant, you just know so much that just isn't so.

Expand full comment

The weakness of "trans" is its moral foundation in teen suicide, because without that they have nothing but dyed hair, nose rings, pronouns, and dumb neologisms., Expose the lie of "trans teen suicide" and it all collapses.

Write your representatives daily.

We need the Democrats to do something they are capable of and Republicans are not: admit they've been wrong. They've been dead wrong in supporting an ideology that mutilates children.

Right now dozens of Demicrat𝐢𝐜 representatives and Senators are calling for Menendez to resign. Republicans are backing Santos and Trump. Do the math.

Expand full comment

Here is the problem in a nutshell:

God never intended liberals to rule. There were put on the earth to help regulate the harm of uncontrolled greed. But when given too much power, liberals destroy their own house. The Democrat Party is the party of liberals and they have gone bat-poo insane. Just go visit San Francisco to see it for yourself.

Expand full comment

Let's let this "God" speak for himself.

We are in the 21st century. The time to use imaginary supernatural beings as moral reference points is long past. "God" didn't "intend" shit because "God" does not exist, the idea was invented by illiterates who were afraid of lightning.

Seconded on "Democrat Party" Don't experct to be taken seriously if you want to play games like that. I write "Republican," not "RepubliKKKan," and I expect the same sobriety from those I take the time to read.

If you think the contemporary Democrat𝐢𝐜 Party is liberal, you're so far to the right you're falling off the swingset.

Expand full comment

Progressives aren’t liberals. Neither are the DNC. “Liberal” implies freedom of thought.

Activists are activists. BLM, the Rainbow Reich, etc have nothing to do with liberalism. They just want to hurt someone, and whatever cause is available and socially acceptable will be what they get wound up about. I think the DNC is using these buttfuck bananas folks to help force ideology. I’ve never seen it condemned, but I could be wrong.

Not all of us are gaslight psychos. Feminists have joined with conservatives and are actually doing the legal and advocacy work to stop gender ideology indoctrination and the illegal destruction of children’s healthy bodies. There are plenty of us that are up in arms over a lot of the bullshit done in our name, believe me.

The only way we can mitigate the manipulation and harms inflicted on us by an ever more totalitarian regime is to get over ourselves, ignore the sadists and trolls, and come together toward this common goal.

You can roll your eyes, but it’s true. Us women are already doing it.

Expand full comment

I live in a community that is self-identified as 80% liberal. It is a California college town. The older voters - the baby boomers - have ingested and adopted the full bowl of social justice absurdity that you are attributing to being non-liberal. Recently the city has been in the news because it has the highest percentage of young school girls in the nation claiming gender dysphoria. A moderate conservative friend of mine who had voted for Biden is leading the charge against the schools and teachers that are pushing this crap into the heads of the children. He is routinely attacked by those people you are claiming to be true liberals.

I understand the base ideology of classis liberalism and neoliberalism, and I agree that the drift to postmodernist radicalism is not that. However, the people that label themselves liberals today have "progressed" to adopting the postmodernist ideas. These include doing away with the concept/rights of free speech and free expression... the bedrock of liberalism.

What I see are people that have claimed they are liberal Democrats that frankly don't appear to have any bedrock values nor core moral filters other than collective power to win at politics. Now that their adoption of destructive radical left politics is starting to show danger for the upcoming elections, they are sliming to a new position that THEY were never part of that radical movement... they are in fact just normal liberal Democrats.

Sorry, don't buy it.


Expand full comment

You are free to think what you like, of course, but the fact you’re living in a California college town is why you’re perceiving liberals as all crazy. You’re in woke ground zero. Same with feminism.

There’s a whole wide world out there, away from academia. The crazies didn’t invent these things, and they don’t own them.

Expand full comment

Jump on Heather Richardson-Cox's Substack or Robert Reich's Substack and try to have a conversation with the 50, 60 and 70 year old self-defined liberals commenting there and note the large number of likes for comments that support the woke ground-zero game.

Sure there are feminists that are non-woke. But the Democrat party is the female voter party and is dominated by feminists and the party is WAY deep into the woke project.

I don't see much evidence in the political sphere that there is a material side-hustle of moderate center and center-left people working against what they like to claim is a radical left faction that they don't support. Everyone in the Democrat sphere today is quacking like the same political duck. I think this meme that there is a separate moderate faction is having cake and eating it too.

Expand full comment

you seem in denial of reality. 75% of everyone oppose gender biz policies that allow men onto womens spaces and sterilize gays to address normal issues most grow out of. many democrats oppose these policies as well. but so what? its the democratic party, their political leaders, that have swallowed bogus claims promoted by gender activists and have implimented policies that set women's rights back 300 years and harm disadvantaged and marginalized groups such as gays, kids, dysphoric ppl.

democrats caused this. democrats implimented these policies without anyone knowing about or voting on it becuase their gender biz masters told them to. democrats made this "political" when they robbed the rights of a half doz groups. i have voted dem by whole life. but no longer.

i understand the confusion. the media all use style guides that prevent two sides reporting of this issue.

being "nice" to democrats wont help anything.


Expand full comment

My vote has almost never been "for Democrats," it's much more often a vote "against Republicans," who have never in my lifetime been good people but who are now unspeakably vile and loathsome.

I voted "for" Obama but he let me down with his lily-livered centrism.

Their support for "gender ideology" would be a del breaker for me, except Palin was enough of a deal breaker for the whole sick country that I packed up and left it two years after the Obama vote.

I vote for the preservation of the natural kingdom. If stupid and shallow people want to remove themselves from the gene pool, well, good.

Expand full comment

I actually think the sterilizations are probably seen as a bonus. Autism diagnoses in children have absolutely exploded in recent years, and no one really knows why (I have my ideas, but they’re not checked against any data). Autistics are WAY overrepresented within the self-identifying trans population.

I mean, what a clever eugenics program, huh? Too bad about all the gay kids and foster kids that get pulled into it. Oh well. You gotta break some eggs to make a progressive utopia, right?

Ever notice the people who tell you to sacrifice everything for “The Cause” never sacrifice anything?

Expand full comment

i agree with you. its democrats and liberals who have accepted the unevidenced claims of gender activists and are promoting policies that set womens rights back 300 years and promoting quack care that harm gays, kids and ppl with psych issues, trampling on rights and civil liberties of a doz groups.

why are they doing this? they have been lied to via a decades long carefully crafted PR and lobby campaign . this PR campaign goal is to erase and colonize the rights of women, gays, kids and dysphoric ppl for the benefit of white men activists.

these activists have scammed the democrats via a misinformation campaign that claims there are magic people who benefit from having an opposite gender identification affirmed. the problem is every gender activist claim is a lie.

theres no evidence that opposite gender identification benefits anyone. and if it was just that it wouldnt be a problem. no one cares if men in drag use the mens room. but when men are in the womens bathroom thats a problem becuase 99% of assaults on women are via biological men.

gender affirmation is a responce to a self reported gender ideiently. this involves handing out gender meds like candy to any kid that wants them. and of course they do , theyre told on the internet that gender meds help every normal kid issues. in reality they make every issue worse. every gov systematic review on earth found gender meds dont help anything. yet democrats have accepted the unevidenced and false claims that gender affirmation helps. it doesnt. in 2021, 43000 US kids reported gender dysphoria. most would grow out of it without gender meds. instead democrats are promoting a system that causes these kids to be tricked into life long harm.

yes. democrats need to own the fraud they are promoting. anyone still voting democrat should stop until they stop promoting this harmful fraud and rights colonization

Expand full comment

"why are they doing this? "


Expand full comment

Thanks for the partisan take, but we already have 57 bazillion of those.

Rounding up.

Expand full comment

"partisan take" - The Democratic party is a full-throated proponent of the mutilation of children. If you are a Democrat, this is your policy. Own it, honey.

Expand full comment

Ok, HYPERpartisan take, if you prefer. You do not impress.

Every party has its strengths and weaknesses. This particular issue hit the Dems in all of their weak points at once - inability to set boundaries with their own, weaponized victimhood, superficial compassion, performative politics, knee-jerk opposition to the Right.

On this issue, the Dems are the idiots. On another issue, it will be the GOP. The throughline remains: tribalism is stupid.

So don't be stupid. Learn something, so that when it's YOU whose allies are all being colossal idiots, you will be less likely to fall for the idiocy along with them. It might even cause you to reflect on some of your past positions and realize with embarrassment how tribalist you were being. It certainly did for me.

Let's be devoutly loyal only to the truth.

Expand full comment

Republicans are generally rock solid in their "idiocy" based on standard Republican principles which are not really idiocy except from the view of the modern Democrats filled with ideas of progressive absurdity that are actually far beyond idiocy and into the realm of insanity.

If you disagree, please then list what you consider to be new "idiocy" from Republicans.

Expand full comment


"Cutting taxes increases revenues"

"More guns will make us safer"

"Letting the wealthy keep more money will encourage investment in America and the wealth will trickle down"

"People don't need anyone to tell them how to live their lives"

"Immigrants are filthy and murderous people"

"Donald Trump is a good man"

"The world is a better place when America is feared than when America is respected"

"We should return to the morality of the 18th century when men were men and women knew their place"

"The founders were libertarian"

"The free market is infallible"

"Global warming is a hoax"

"Abortion is murder, because 'life begins at conception*'"

Need more?

PS: the Democrats are dead wrong on "woke."

Republicans are dead wrong on everything else and opposed to "woke" for the wrong reasons.

*life began billions of years ago in the primordial oceans. Gametes are not dead.

Expand full comment

LoL. "Rounding up" -- but not by much ... 😉🙂

Though I find it absolutely amazing, if rather depressing, that "Amurikan politics" looks more and more like the Hatfield & McCoy feud all the time.

Something of an old though rather brilliant, even if quite damning elaboration on that theme by Mark Twain:

MT: "Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; and where the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals. ....

We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God."


Feelings before facts -- one hopes that won't be an epitaph ...

Expand full comment

It is a giant increase in education combined with a corresponding decrease in developed emotional intelligence. And with a large population of emotionally disabled people with degrees, they have gone desperate to mainline feelings over critical thinking.

Everyone filters thoughts through emotions. The key is to control those emotions and have self-awareness of them impacting views and decisions. Do you let your emotions drive your opinions and then have other strong emotions of defense of those opinions? If so then you are at risk of getting many things wrong. Because decisions make from a basis of emotions are suboptimized.

People lacking emotional intelligence will mistake their feelings for logic, and they will see people that don't share their views as irrational. People having emotional intelligence can easily see the flaw in behavior of those without it.

This in a nutshell defines are current red-vs-blue divide. We are a mess of uncontrolled emotions that are ginned up by the politics of spin and the media.

I watched a program on Singapore interviewing a top administrator for why that country worked so well. She thought about the question and explained that officials there represent the people and not themselves, and they think logically about how to solve problems and improve the lives of the people they represent. We don't have those type of people in positions of leadership in this country.

Expand full comment

People shouldn't be allowed to vote until at least 30 ... 😉🙂

ICYMI, something I ran across recently that you might have some interest in:

“The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played. ― Orwell"


We all tend to "follow the groove" without thinking overmuch. Takes some effort to question and challenge the premises we start off from, that puts us into those grooves.

Expand full comment

The 1960s were supposed to represent the birth of the left activist hive where the narrative is all of those committed people against the conformity of the man. But it really was... a giant reach for belonging to a collective of people who could never rise up to meet the quality of their parents of the Greatest Generations.

There is a saying that bad times create strong men that create good times that create weak men and create bad times. We are living the age of week men. Following the groove is a sign of weakness.

Expand full comment

Says the guy following the groove the weakest and most despicable people the nation has ever produced.

Expand full comment

Generally agree, though "following the groove" has its value. Though generally only if one is aware of the starting point, of the premises and foundations on which one is building some argument, policy, or society.

"Prisoners of Their Premises: How Unexamined Assumptions Lead to War and Other Policy Debacles."


Expand full comment

“Democrat Party”

Not reading.

Do you see any of us writing “RepubliKKKan?”

Expand full comment

Yup. A whole lot of that. But that is a non sequitur. It is like using Democrack or Demoncrat. "Democrat Party" just corrects the mistake.

You must know that it is quite telling that it gets Democrats (not Democratics) all wee weed up.

Expand full comment

So you do this infantile wordplay to get people who haven't learned to love Big Brother "all wee weed up."

How fortunate we are to have such a fine example of maturity gracing us with his august presence.

Expand full comment
Sep 23, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Thank you for this article. I had no idea that this happened. It’s frightening.

Expand full comment

I wish that was true, but, alas, it isn't. Plenty of women are yapping about "pregnant people" to be "inclusive."

Expand full comment
Sep 24, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

I admire the bravery of all the female de-transitioners and their amazingly honest paintings! Any violence must be squashed! I'm glad the words, stories, interviews, documentaries, and paintings are getting out to show the dangers of experimental puberty blockers, wrong sex hormones and surgeries that Leave one impotent or needing revisions. Puberty is not a disease; it's a normal rite of passage to adulthood. Many cultures celebrate it.

Expand full comment

Seen plenty of rally signs calling for detransitioners to die.

This cult has always been sick and nasty but now it’s in FBI watch list territory.

Expand full comment

The US needs to get on the celebration bandwagon. Would've spared several generations a lot of frustration and shame.

Expand full comment

If this is how they roll, then let it be known that I am a Proud TERF! Biological Women Matter!

Our Lives Matter, our spaces matter. Therefore, I refuse to allow any biological men to take over our spaces because they “feel like a woman.” I AM a woman.

If that makes me a TERF; then by God, I will wear the badge proudly.

Expand full comment

Yep. The pattern is there. If you're hosting a multi-day gender-critical event, like this one, or the Moms For Liberty conference in Philly earlier this year, you can pretty much count on the TRAs vandalizing a venue the night before or first night after it begins.

Expand full comment

The pushback at the extremity of "trans" activists has arrived. A half dozen European countries have shut down pediatric treatment, Canada just had a series of events that were overhwelmingly opposed to the "trans" cult, even unto heartwarming sentiments like "End Gender Ideology." Finally.

The counterprotests, with their tired accusations of "transphobia," were conspicuously small by comparison.

One interesting new wrinkle in the confrontation is the belief among activists that, for example, lesbians who don't want to date "trans women," which is to say, men, usually with intact genitalia, are "transphobic."


Aside from the obvious rebuttal that "trans women" are actually men, and lebians are attracxted to other women, there is a more serious point to be made: 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞.

Sure, you can force yourself to have sex with someone who doesn't arouse you, prostitutes wouldn't have a lot of clients if they didn't, but to force oneself to be attracted, well, that doesn't happen.

My own attractions have changed many times, even a few periods of heterosexuality, and many racial shifts, and at no point did I ever summon these changes, nor did I have any control over them.

So now "trans" people are saying that to fail to find them attractive, even if their impersonations are failures, or even if they make no attempt to impersonate ... is "transphobia."

This is nonsense!

Expand full comment

Of course it was vandalized. We are all subversives, don't you get it? Despite the majority does not believe you can change sex. Seen, heard in 2 restaurants in "super woke" Brooklyn.

Do this. You matter.


Expand full comment

Bunch of "raging grannies" ... 😉🙂


Though the claim that one change sex depends on how you define the category. Go with the Kindergarten Cop version, i.e., "boys have penises and girls have vaginas"? Sure -- "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄

Bit more difficult to justify the claim if one goes with the standard biological definitions by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. Though most people -- mostly "women" for some strange unfathomable reason ... -- tend to be reluctant to accept those definitions and tend to balk at the logical consequences ...

Expand full comment

Human sex is determined by the fusion of spermatozoan and ovum. A permatozoan with an X chromosome yields a female zygote; if a Y chromosome, a male zygote. The sex is determined at that moment and it immutable and lifelong.

Human sex is irrespecitve of the state of gonads, or even their presence or absence. Fetuses are male or female; prepubescent children are male or female; postemenopausal women remain female.

This is the "standard biological definition" of the human sexes; there is no other.

I am at a loss to understand why you bring this, yet again, into a thread about vandalism at a convention about detransitioning women. It isn't relevant at all.

Expand full comment

🙄 :rolleyes:🙄 IYEUO

I brought it up because Ute said "change sex" -- a "conclusion" that depends very much on the premises, on the axioms, on the definitions one starts out from.

There's no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female", they mean whatever we say they mean. We could say they mean "convex and concave mating surfaces" as with plumbing and electrical connectors -- which is apparently what most people think they mean.

But standard biological definitions, those published in reputable biological journals and dictionaries, stipulate that the terms denote those with functional gonads.

Expand full comment

Nonsense from beginning to end. To "change sex" is impossible and has nothing to do with premises or axioms; but it is you, not Ute, who opines that sex is mutable.

The middle paragraph is unworthy of discussion. It is mockery, and I will not engage in insults or mockery. I will issue neither, I will respond to neither.

If that "functional gonads" definition had any concurrence in biology then you would have no trouble finding corroboration, instead of glossary entries and definitions that make no reference to gonadal states. Despite months of equivocation over definitions, categories, and simple verb tenses, you have produced no support for a position that you claim to be universal.

And "standard."

No, Steersman, the definition of the human sexes is exactly as I stated. The definitions apply to genotypes, not individuals. Not even ovotesticular hermaphrodites are "sexless."

No more misinterpreted journal quotes, no more dictionary entries, no more credentials. Find an 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 entry—in a recent edition of a graduate text or authoritative scientific tome—that states explicitly, repeat, 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲, without inference, embellishment, or interpretation, that the 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑠 is fundamental to a definition of the human, repeat, 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 sexes, else stop interrupting threads to repeat this.

Expand full comment

CF: "Find an 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 entry ... that states explicitly ... that the 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑠 is fundamental to a definition of the human, repeat, 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 sexes"

You seem to have some difficulty with the idea that the same definition has to apply to all anisogamous species, no exceptions.

But ask and it shall be given:

"For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."


Doesn't produce any gametes either from zygote to embryo to puberty -- "does not have any biological sex, yet".

Expand full comment

"You seem to have some difficulty with the idea that the same definition has to apply to all anisogamous species, no exceptions."

That is absurd and therefore ignored, along with the bait in "you seem to have some difficulty with the idea." In any case, I clearly specified 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 sexes, even unto writing it twice. You are dodging. Again.

Your quote, however, continues with

"However with a reasonably high probability we can predict this embryo to be on a developmental trajectory that will lead to becoming a reproductively competent (sperm-producing) male. Hence, as an operational 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, it may be justified to call it a 'male embryo.'"

The argument is and has been about 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧s, from the beginning. Your hijackings always commence with the phrase "standard biological definitions," which they are not.

It's obvious why you stopped before that immediately following sentence; your triumph lasted only seconds.


Expand full comment

🙄 :rolleyes:🙄 IYEUO....

Expand full comment

Point out where I have stated any opinion.

I take it you can't answer the simple challenge. "Ipso facto sexLESS" is universal, is it not?

Let's see your cards.

Expand full comment

If genitalia doesn't assign gender, how does removing genitalia affirm gender?

Expand full comment

We are supposed to honor these uh people's sense of "who they really are" when they were so uncomfortable with "who they really were" that they had themselves neutered and surgically modified.

Explain it to me like I'm five.

Expand full comment

Demanding that shit makes sense is transphobic

Expand full comment

gender ID is just whatever thought anyone has at the moment. if one thinks they are a cat then wearing a cat costume would affirm that belief. but its not really a belief since participants dont actually belive they are opposite gender. and these thoughts and opposite ID are completely voluntary and can change often. every study ever done found kids who ID as another gender usually grow out of it with puberty, unless they take gender meds. if they do take the meds they still grow out of it but it takes much longer.

pill companies have convinced government that it helps people to play pretend they are the opposite gender. but this really isnt true. every government systematic review ever done on earth found gender meds dont help anything. the US gov has never done a review if gender meds or affirming opposite gender help. it doesnt. even so, the US gov has accepted the unevidenced claims of activists and big biz that it does. the main thing going on is white males are attempting to colonize the rights of women, kids, gays, dysphoric ppl and others. they have spent decades promoting a carefully crafted PR and lobby campaign with the goal of robbing kids right to unmedicated puberty and robbing womens right to safety and sex based spaces. the gender industry has promoted their activisism via a 1000 points of misinformation. all of it easily disprovable. and their ideas are really a religion that people just belive without thinking since its so conflated and complicated many dont bother if any of its true or not. the complexity and contradiction is part of the gimic. it allows activists to use a shell game to scam people of their rights. who benefits? white men activists. who loses? historically marginalized groups such as women, kids, gays and people with psych issues such as gender dysphoria

Expand full comment

So women who have boundaries are “waging war on (trans) autonomy, eh?

I have to agree. We are so totally waging war on their autonomy. No apologies.

Expand full comment

I think the defaced poster and doors and windows with graffiti on them should be removed and made into an artwork that goes with the exhibition.

Expand full comment

My hunch is that this Trantifa conflagration really isn't about women or transgender people at all, although most participants may think so, but at its core is a massive mind game by far left extremists who aim to destabilize society. If you can get people to recite lies ("men can be women") then you own them. Antifa are the street thugs, but the intelligentsia that insists on deplatforming so-called conspiracy theorists, racists and transphobes are in the highest levels of our institutions calling the shots now. The emperor is naked, but nobody wants to run the risk of saying so after they've spent a fortune on DEI trainings and can be canceled in an instant. Orwell warned us, but we lack a coherent resistance. Gratitude to all the brave truth tellers.

Expand full comment

I hope this vandalism has gotten a lot of coverage, though I tend to doubt it. Along with academia and medicine, the press is cowed from doing anything to offend the "trans" cult, and the fact that the cultists defaced and vandalized an exhibit about women who had the temerity to change their minds about changing their bodies will likely go underreported out of fear of being called "transphobic."

But the die is cast. The "trans" cult is becoming more and more violent and crazy and the fact that they are having ever more reversals is just enraging them more. The protests in Canada are going to hurt, and they won't be long coming to the USA.

Expand full comment

The TRA insanity coupled with the fascist thuggery of antifa nazis is a terrible thing. What is required is for NORMAL NON-INSANE PEOPLE to STAND AGAINST TRANNIENSANITY.

Expand full comment

The entire trans establishment is a result of women bloc-voting D. The resistance by women to trannies is women resisting the results of their own votes. I’ll care about the assaults on women, women’s sports, etc., when women stop voting against their own interests.

And the logically perfect argument against female suffrage is trannies: women voting to abolish women.

Civilization OR female suffrage. It’s a binary choice.

Expand full comment

Yyeeaahh, if your first response to trans insanity is to blame women, you are not really here to oppose trans insanity, but to shit on women.

If you could take that shit elsewhere, that would be great.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Your misogyny is showing 🙄

Expand full comment

Interesting. Evolution is misogynistic? Go do a search in IMDB: “mean girls.” You’ll get pages of hits. Ask women in the workforce if they’d prefer a male or female mgr. No one likes feminist women, women least of all.

Or just drink you Chardonnay, pet your cat and repeat your silliness. To yourself.

Expand full comment

"No one likes feminist women"

Wow, you're just overflowing with pearls of wisdom, aren't you

Expand full comment

The world has left you behind.

Expand full comment

^^^These screeds can actually be very funny, if you only read the first line and the last line :-)

Expand full comment

There's a lot of blame to go around. Some of it to some women. But if you think it's all down to women, that really just shows you haven't fully explored this issue. Some people think it's all AGPs, or all homophobia. Etc. While it's important to understand the roots of it, I think it's more important to figure out what to do now, rather than wasting time arguing over who's to blame.

Expand full comment

Doubt that it's a waste of time to give thought to who's to blame. Quite reasonable to argue that those most responsible have the greatest obligation to fix the problem or repudiate their arguments that contributed most to it.

You may have some interest in an early post by UK feminist Kathleen Stock who quite reasonably argued that feminism is in urgent need of a reboot, that the whole transgender issue has reduced much of feminism to "risible absurdities:


Though I'm not sure that she has enough "intellectual honesty" herself to do justice to that task.

Expand full comment

Feminism needed no help in sabotaging itself.

It was supposed to be about wage equality. This was a tangible goal whose success or failure was directly measurable.

And, lo, wages did converge somewhat. Not all the way to equality, but measurably.

This was no time to abandon the fight, it was time to press on, but feminism did abandon the fight, and did not press on.

Priorities moved to "patriarchy," to bitter screeds about controlling men, "power structures," unfairness. Womon and womyn, fish and bicycles, misandry by the boxcar load. Hate your husbands and boyfriends, become lesbians, all men rape.

Because progress against "patriarchal attitudes" cannot be measured, bitter misandrists could claim endlessly that no progress was being made.

Aim at each foot, fire!

Expand full comment

I do agree we need to know what's at the root of it all (who's to blame), to fix anything you need to understand what happened (possibly my feelings about blaming are coloured by my experiences in the world of addiction & recovery, where it seemed the more people focused on blame, the less progress they made on healing). I doubt those most responsible are likely to do any of the fixing, at least not yet. I don't know enough about the various iterations of feminism to comment on the state of it, though a lot of the people I follow on this subject would probably be called feminists.

Expand full comment

"at least not yet ... "

👍🙂 Exactly. Why we need to hold feminists' feet to the fire, figuratively speaking of course ...

But something of a murky topic which I certainly haven't "plumbed the depths of". Part of the problem being that feminism has about as many "sects" as does Christianity (38,000 for the latter at last count).

But you might have some interest in a recent post by Substacker Paula Wright who takes a well-deserved shot or two at one of those sects, radical feminism:


Kathleen Stock did likewise in one of her posts which argued, rather solidly, that Radfems were "barking (mad)" to try to "abolish gender".

Expand full comment

I suppose this is lazy of me, but "feminism" is a rabbit hole I'm choosing not to go down (I did read the article though :-). I did pay some attention to a prominent British radfem last year (because there was a distant family connection), but I don't connect with the radical end any more than I did 40 years ago at uni. I read Germaine Greer back then, and no doubt I have views which would make some people call me a feminist (while some feminists wouldn't), but I have never "identified" as such. That said, in exploring transworld in depth I've been surprised and disheartened at how much hatred still exists (for some) for women, as if we are a monolith (ditto for some of the YouTube sites geared to younger men, many of whom seem to both want women and loathe them in equal proportions).

Expand full comment

"rabbit hole", indeed. Why one needs some solid anchors in "reality" before doing any spelunking therein. Much of "feminism" being untethered from it at the outset.

But I'm certainly not denying that "feminism" has a bunch of justified grievances -- partly why I'm rather peeved at its corruption and bastardization by various antiscientific ideologues. One of the most damning indictments on that score that I've had the "pleasure" of reading came from a review of "Professing Feminism" by Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, not that I've read the book myself:

FC: "The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."


"virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment", indeed. Game, set, match; guilty as charged.

But that is most certainly not to say that "feminism" hasn't had or championed some decent and useful insights and perspectives. Prime example of that being the view that "gender" is most usefully defined as masculinity & femininity, as sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."


Expand full comment

Just where did these lunatics come up with the idea that a female can be identified by the lbs of makeup worn, a dress (sparkly and pink), long hair, large balloons on the chest, earrings, a ridiculous walk and voice (Mulvaney)? That garbage originally came from so-called conservatives, and God help any female who strayed from that box. This is why I was Independent until earlier this year and registered R, as it seems many R's that used to push this stereotype have FINALLY come around to realize how much damage that has done. The misogynistic lunatics have now run over to the democratic party, but I don't blame the women trying to save their party.

Expand full comment

You are completely confused. While feminist stupid enabled trannie madness, the main impetus is the AGP (autogynophilic) males. These deluded deranged wackos hate women but want to be women. Their insane delusional madness drives almost all of the madness.

Expand full comment

Sadly, lots of blame to go around.

Expand full comment

Perhaps take a look at the male millionaires and billionaires funding and promoting gender capitalism, at https://www.the11thhourblog.com

The estimated global purchasing power of the LGBTQ+ consumer market is now $3.7trillion. But all you can see to blame is Democratic women voters.

Expand full comment

Hmm .. so, IOW, mutilating & sterilizing children, and catering to the non-reproducing crowd is just fine as long as there are profits to be made... got it.

Expand full comment

No, you've missed the point. The transgender cult is largely a men's rights movement originally orchestrated and funded by rich and powerful men, who failed even to consider that it might impact women when a gathering of male lawyers met at Yogyakarta to define the set of demands to be put to governments internationally, by behind-the-scenes lobbying. Readymade laws were sprung on unprepared governments with the instruction to keep it all out of the press: deliberately keeping the public in the dark until it was too late to object. It was falsely presented as a "human rights" issue (as a disguise for liberating male sexual fetishism) to rope in so-called "progressive" parties and voters. Not just women were conned by the "Be Kind (OR ELSE)" line and victimhood pleading, and it is mainly MEN in leftwing parties (my own MP is one of them) who shout women down for protesting against the gender indoctrination, mutilation and sterilisation of already distressed children (now mainly girls), as medical malpractice and gross commercialism.

Expand full comment

"No, you've missed the point."

Say it ain't so!

Expand full comment

What's so great about reproduction?

It may have been important in 1700 but right now it's ensuring our extinction.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

There are too many of us. At least five billion too many.

But nobody needs to depart. The human population will fall quite sharply, and quite painfully, very soon.


Expand full comment

Nobody expected the Tranish Inquisition ...

"Women", in general, are sort of caught between the proverbial rock & a hard place, particularly in "Amurika": EITHER vote Democrat, keep abortion rights & lose segregated sex spaces OR vote Republican, lose abortion rights but keep segregated sex spaces.

Sadly, "feminism" in general has been asleep at the switch and is part and parcel of the problem: feminists more or less created "gender" in the first place -- the worst aspects of it in particular -- and are now being "hoist by their own petard", by the "trans-mogrification" of the concept.

Certainly a "binary choice" in play, and one in which, one might reasonably argue, civilization "hangs in the balance". Something that both Helen Dale & Helen Joyce have recently emphasized:

"HD: If there’s one thing I just want to draw out of that, you talked about a civilization-ending movement. What makes you say that?

HJ: .... And you can expect dire consequences if you lie in your law and your policymaking and your education of all sorts at every level in school and universities about something absolutely fundamental to the nature of humanity."



Though denying "female suffrage" -- women's right to vote -- has to qualify as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Being charitable. As a famous Canadian suffragette -- Nellie McClung -- once put it:

“No nation rises higher than its women”


Largely why most Muslim countries are such basket cases. Rather doubt you'd be enthused about living in such a "civilization".

Expand full comment

Muslims are not uncivilized people and your sneer-quotes are unwarranted.

Yes Muslim treatment of women is deplorable but if you take the trouble to look a little closer you'll see that there's more to it that being behind the West. Suffrage in America was not granted until 1920, a century ago and a century and a half after the nation was founded. Switzerland, not until 1971. Nine years after Uganda.

If the Muslim world deserves sneer-quotes around the notion of civilization, it isn't because of denying women the vote.

I've worked with Muslims from a number of countries and found them to be, far and away, the most gracious of all coworkers. They are polite, considerate, and kind. And their religion seems deeply meaningful in their lives in a way that you don't see in reflexive western churchgoing.

If anyone deserves sneer-quotes around "civilization" it would be the nation that can't get enough guns, even as they advance to the leading cause of death in children.

Expand full comment

"no one expected the tranish inquisition" - good one, which I will steal.

Expand full comment

🙂 Use it far and wide with my blessings ... 😉🙂

Though I can't claim to have originated it -- that honour apparently goes to one William Ray, a Canadian journalist, in a Medium post some 5 years ago:

"The Tranish Inquisition clearly shows the Orwellian nature of our electronic Agora"


You might not be surprised to learn that Medium, in its "wisdom" has deleted it and put poor old William on the "naughty step". Fortunately, I have an archive that I'm more than happy to share 🙂:


Expand full comment

Whether one does or does not want to live in an islamic civilization, the fact of the matter is that demography wins. Guess who's having kids? Not western women. Why not? Feminism. Guess who will protect women's rights when there is no Western Civ? Correct: No one. Ready or not.

Really - none of this is rocket science; it's just honest stuff feminists don't want to hear. There will be no Western women's or children's rights when there is no Western Civilization.. which is exactly the path on which childless women have set us.

Expand full comment

If you really think we're going to die out because people are having fewer children, your grasp of arithmetic is deplorable.

Any idea how many thousands of years that would take?

You seem to have a seething and enraged hatred of women. Care to share why?

Once my ex and I stopped in some small Oregon town for breakfast. Probably one of those places with a single employer. Where teens graduate high school on Friday and on Monday report to The Factory where they'll work all their lives.

At the next table was a married couple, about 19 or 20. The wife was rocking one baby and already swollen with another.

But the piscine vacancy in her eyes was nothing compared to the despair in the young man's. He was as trapped as a bear in one of those bone-crushing devices and he knew it. That baby meant his life was already over. He'd never go further in education, never have a career, never make decent money, never get to travel.

No. Fucking. Thanks.

Expand full comment

With eight billion people in a world only capable of supporting three, I don't think having kids is a great idea anymore. And since those kids are unlikely to reach old age, it's become irresponsible. Why have children who are going to die young of heatstroke, hunger, thirst, or in one of several kinds of flame?

Expand full comment

Women didn’t “lose” abortion rights. The Court just held that the Constitution remained in effect: if something is not delegated to the federal government (abortion isn’t), nor denied to the states (ditto), then it belongs to the states. Straight bill of rights, tenth amendment. Those whining about Dobbs are just saying they reject the rule of law. But this is expected: they’re democrats.

Expand full comment

Dobbs was the best thing to happen to abortion rights in 60 years. Now enraged women are registering to vote and promoting very unrestricted abortion rules written into state constitutions by citizen initiatives. I expect 10-12 in 2024, and all will pass, including in my state of SD.

Expand full comment

"States' rights" ... where have I heard that before ... 🙄

Expand full comment

Let’s see... the Constitution?

You laughably resort to a single issue in the sarcastic pretense it supports your argument. While you, doubtless, desire the rest of the Bill of Rights, you make a childish reference in the pretense it can support you. Ignorance is bliss, right? You must be amazingly blissful.

Expand full comment


sarcastic pretense



Such a valuable contributor.

Expand full comment

What a relief to know I will never be compelled to quarter soldiers in my house.

I lost my reverence for the Quaint Parchment a long time ago. It comes from a world so unlike the present that it may as well be from a medieval principality, a world where a gun took half a minute to fire a second shot, a world without nuclear weapons or electronic surveillance, without television and the Internet.

And the glorious first amendment to protect criticism of government from arrest no longer does so, yet it protects political and commercial falsehood and enables profit from killing half a million people every year sellng cancer.

Expand full comment

🙄 You out there on the picket line calling for the States to pick up the ball that the Feds dropped?

Expand full comment

Say, Alex, y'think we should bring back slavery too? After all, all that black crime didn't happen before we took off the chains.

I nurture hope you're trolling, but that hope is bleak.

I'd wager that your stunning misogyny is a reaction to a small number of women in your life. Maybe only one.

Expand full comment

And where are the police investigations and arrests for criminal harassment, criminal vandalism & defacing property and discriminatory, sex related hate speech and harassment against women?

Expand full comment

The left hates free speech as much as the right now.

Expand full comment