The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is Obama's World War T Losing Even the Media?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Obama Defends Transgender Directive for School Bathrooms
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS MAY 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday made an impassioned argument for his administration’s decision to instruct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, saying that society must protect the dignity and safety of vulnerable children.

The remarks were the president’s first public comments on a directive released Friday that has added fuel to a searing national debate over transgender rights. Mr. Obama said the guidance, issued by the Education and Justice Departments, represented “our best judgment” on how to help schools wrestling with the issue.

“We’re talking about kids, and anybody who’s been in school, been in high school, who’s been a parent, I think should realize that kids who are sometimes in the minority — kids who have a different sexual orientation or are transgender — are subject to a lot of bullying, potentially they are vulnerable,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed News.

Usually, reporters clean up these kind of stream of consciousness burbles to make the respondent sound more articulate. (Trump is an exception.) But a good passive-aggressive way to make most people look dumb or disingenuous is just to quote them word for word. For example, I can recall a frontpage article in the Houston Post in 1979 about my champion College Bowl quiz contest team at Rice U. that quoted me verbatim with all my usual stumbles left in from the phone interview we did. Nominally, the article was about what super geniuses we were, but I sounded like a doofus because I was accurately quoted. I thought it was a pretty clever way for the reporter to stick the knife in.

“I think that it is part of our obligation as a society to make sure that everybody is treated fairly, and our kids are all loved, and that they’re protected and that their dignity is affirmed.”

- 1 pt.: Run-on sentence

… “The president is turning the Constitution on its head,” Mr. Abbott [governor of Texas] told Fox News. “He’s trying to cram down as many parts of his liberal agenda on the United States of America as he possibly can” before leaving office in January.

Indeed.

… “We said, ‘It is our view that you should try to treat these kids with dignity,’ ” Mr. Obama said, adding that the administration had sought to help educators and administrators by including a set of “best practices” from school districts that have enacted similar transgender policies. “There are school districts who have been wrestling with this problem and have, we think, done a good job in accommodating them in a way that is good for everybody, and so you can learn from these best practices. This is what we are advising.”

But the directive represents more than just a suggestion. While it does not carry the force of law, it signals how the administration interprets federal statutes, bringing with it an implied threat that schools that act otherwise could lose federal funding.

 
• Tags: World War T 
Hide 281 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. SFG says:

    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls. At least for the moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls.
     
    If you overreach into my stall, buddy, your fingers're gonna be hurtin'!
    , @Gross Terry
    the over-reach is the point.... I'm shocked by how you guys don't see the exact same game plan as during gay normalization taking place here.

    The point is to shift the arguemenet from "Is transgender a legitimate category? What the hell does it mean to have a "womans brain in a man's body"? to a question of latrine policy and who gets hurt more. Both argument arrays accepts the validity of transgenderism, and that's the entire point of the arguemenet reframe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/is-obamas-world-war-t-losing-even-the-nyt/#comment-1421989
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Is this personal for Obama? Are we getting a glimpse into some bathroom trauma in his past? It really seems like he’s way too wrought up about this essentially meaningless issue.

    I would put it this way: if you’re going to cause more of a stir going into the men’s room than the ladies room–i.e., if you’re Ru Paul–go into the ladies room. Otherwise, go into the men’s room. When it comes to locker rooms, if you have a penis it should be obvious in which locker room you belong.

    One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman’s locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals.

    If the Democrats lose the next election on this issue, will Hillary say, in the words of Henry Clay, “I’d rather be right than be president.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    As I noted earlier:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/
    , @Connecticut Famer
    "One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman’s locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals."

    Because if I'm a transgender person then it's all about ME. The feelings of the women upon whom all of this is being inflicted are irrelevant. One of the characteristics of these so-called gender issues is the high level of narcissism exhibited by the self-proclaimed "victims." Then again, we live in a culture of narcissism--and come to think of it, the late Christopher Lasch authored a book called "The Culture of Narcissism" over thirty years ago.

    He was very prescient.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Just as liberals bolt neighborhoods when they have to rub up against undesirables, they’ll bolt Obama if he forces undesirables into their bathrooms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    After 7-1/2 years, there appears to be a lack of evidence of any liberals bolting Obama for any reason...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. D. K. says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Is this personal for Obama? Are we getting a glimpse into some bathroom trauma in his past? It really seems like he's way too wrought up about this essentially meaningless issue.

    I would put it this way: if you're going to cause more of a stir going into the men's room than the ladies room--i.e., if you're Ru Paul--go into the ladies room. Otherwise, go into the men's room. When it comes to locker rooms, if you have a penis it should be obvious in which locker room you belong.

    One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman's locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals.

    If the Democrats lose the next election on this issue, will Hillary say, in the words of Henry Clay, "I'd rather be right than be president."
    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    DK, .....the line in the article that says...." displaying her male genitalia...." says it all .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. SPMoore8 says:

    It is inconceivable to me that the NYT would ever oppose the extension of TG rights. The author of the article simply needs to be properly educated.

    As I have said several times now, TG bathroom rights are really a problem for cis-women and trans-women and cis-girls and trans-girls. It’s not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    By the same token, Civil Rights re-enactors who want to recapture some nice ’60′s persecution groove (without dogs, fire hoses, or Klansmen) can also fantasize about staging “sh*t ins” in segregated bathrooms all across America. However, this is false, because there are already two types of bathrooms for men and women, so the proper thing would be to simply abolish gendered bathrooms altogether, and again, let the women sort it out.

    Except that that isn’t what TG’s want. For them, using a “ladies room” is a concrete justification of who they are, just as using a “men’s room” would be a humiliating act of submission to heteronormative standards, etc. And, as I have said before, I have a suspicion that market forces would not support this over the long term (witness the supposed confrontation in CT.)

    The same applies to locker rooms (if it ever gets to that point). I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don’t know the answer either. Maybe she’s a lesbian?

    Of course, evil conservatives who think these kinds of things are unworkable and likely to cause problems can only wait and see if any of their predictions or reads of human nature play out. But this is one case where conservatives can adopt a completely laissez faire attitude with complacency.

    Certain things are likely to happen, subject to the growth of the privileged TG minority (privileged in the sense that they get to chose what gender they are). One, is that there will be lots of private shunning and complaints. Second, that there will be a lot of prepubescent sexual exploration. Third, there are likely to be sexual interactions among youngsters who will both be below any age of consent, but also for that matter prosecution. Fourth, the private realm persecution of TG’s will not stop, since using the girl’s room at Unz Elementary (or Junior High, or High School) isn’t going to get you invited to Connie’s slumber party. And, no, Bob won’t be inviting you to his sleepover, either. Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations. I might be wrong about these things, and if I am, that’s great. But I remember pubescent and prepubescent sexuality as being very confused, and I think it will become even more confused if we start putting sexually dimorphic physical entities in intimate proximity at earlier ages. Again, biology has a way of overriding whatever it is you think you think.

    Bottom line: Emancipating bathrooms will do nothing to console the victims of gender dysphoria, whatever its cause and whatever its proper treatment. At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @e
    It’s not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.


    ????? I'd think it would be of concerns to fathers everywhere. Right now, if your 15 year old daughter goes to the women's room at McDonald's and a man follows her in there, anyone seeing that thinks, "Danger--that man followed that girl into the bathroom. We have to stop him or report him."

    When bathrooms are no longer male or female, that same man following that same girl into the bathroom for who knows what reason will NOT be reported.

    , @Dissident

    I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don’t know the answer either. Maybe she’s a lesbian?
     
    In peri-pubescent youth-- even when no "gender" confusion is present, isn't it fairly normal that just about anything can trigger arousal? At least, that is what I have read and heard.

    I must ask why you used the feminine pronoun "she" for your hypothetical youth who you described as being biologically male but identifying as female. Your doing so, especially when taken together with what you wrote at the conclusion of your post, makes me wonder whether you might find yourself ambivalent here. Are you less-than-certain that sex, i.e. whether one is male or female, is, in fact, an objective, immutable reality?

    Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations.
     
    Perhaps now they still can. How much longer, however, at this rate, can we expect that to last? Weren't private schools once able to "set their own rules for admissions" with regard to race, for example?

    At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.
     
    That last sentence, along with your use of "necessary" unnerve me for the same reason that your use of "she" that I pointed-out above does. Do you have any doubts that "gender realignment/reassignment" is anything less-than quackery?
    , @Buffalo Joe
    SP, The bathroom issue is not the driving part of the Obama agenda. The Title IX tie in involves the use of locker rooms. There are plenty of single toilet restrooms that can easily be used by any gender, many restaurants feature just one bathroom since they need to be ADA compliant. The use of a female locker room by a "trans" with a dick and a set of balls is what is at stake here. Click on D.K.'s link.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    SP... One more thing, Dr. McHugh, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins has stated that you can't cure gender confusion with surgery and Johns Hopkins does not perform gender reassignment surgery, too hard on their staff Cosmetic Surgeons and Urologists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Of course, nobody at the NYT (except maybe the cleaning crew) sends their kids to a public school, so Obama’a posturing has no effect on them. LGBT is just another issue (like Black Lives Matter, campus rape, women’s rights, global warming (oops -”climate change”), etc., that the Democrats can bring up safely to stoke their base because their Soros-Bezos-Spielberg billionaire supporters don’t care about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Billionaire Tom Steyer cares about climate change above all else and puts his money where his mouth is. During the 2014 midterm elections, no one spent more political cash than him.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-tom-steyer-top-political-donor-20141230-story.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Only a permanent revolution can guarantee permanent employment to professional SJW crusaders.

    I’m indifferent to this minuscule minority population and the bathrooms so many are arguing about. However little can match my white hot hate and contempt for the smug self anointed vanguard of the SJW revolution that relishes the arena of battle for the thrill of conflict and victory more than any cause. The experts in anti-bullying have become the worst bullies themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    The experts in anti-bullying have become the worst bullies themselves.

     

    Absolutely. Here's a list that I happened to have handy of links with prime examples of "LGBTQ" hate and intolerance:

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/04/02/a-call-for-sanity-in-the-matter-of-memories-pizza-vs-the-internet/
    http://americansfortruth.com/issues/homosexual-hate/
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-hurl-feces-at-german-parents-protesting-pro-gay-school-curric
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2013-12-14.html#04
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2015-04-04.html#02
    http://johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2014-11-15.html#06
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/report-owners-of-indiana-pizzeria-opposed-to-gay-marriage-receive-death-threats/

    Then there is the way that homosexual dissidents who dare to expose and denounce aspects of "LGBTQ" orthodoxy are treated by the enforcers of said orthodoxy. Men such as Bill Weintraub ( http://man2manalliance.org ) and Rob McGee ( http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com/ ) (Graphic content alert for both sites).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Bill P says:

    Is this personal for Obama? Are we getting a glimpse into some bathroom trauma in his past? It really seems like he’s way too wrought up about this essentially meaningless issue.

    It’s probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it’s really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today’s white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There’s a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "It’s probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it’s really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today’s white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There’s a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it."

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Black Death
    Of course, nobody at the NYT (except maybe the cleaning crew) sends their kids to a public school, so Obama'a posturing has no effect on them. LGBT is just another issue (like Black Lives Matter, campus rape, women's rights, global warming (oops -"climate change"), etc., that the Democrats can bring up safely to stoke their base because their Soros-Bezos-Spielberg billionaire supporters don't care about it.

    Billionaire Tom Steyer cares about climate change above all else and puts his money where his mouth is. During the 2014 midterm elections, no one spent more political cash than him.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-tom-steyer-top-political-donor-20141230-story.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Hopefully he learned his lesson.
    , @Black Death
    @Harry Baldwin

    True, Tom Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire who donates lots of money to the Democrats and climate change causes. But where did his money come from, and why is he buying so much political influence? Answer here:

    Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.

    and

    But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

    A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.”

    ....

    So there you have it. Steyer is just another rent-seeking Democratic billionaire, just like Soros, Bezos, Spielberg and all the rest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The remarks were the president’s first public comments on a directive released Friday …

    All the hardcore business is dumped on the public by potus on Friday.

    But I can’t think of a single media watchdog that stands guard Friday afternoons/nights even though about 1/3 of Fridays during the year are newsy due to the dumping.

    Especially with a Dem Potus this Friday dump window is key because if you wait until the evening the entire talk radio industry is completely impotent for a crucial 60 hours until Monday morning.

    The idea of 24/7/365 news cycle in the USA is bs. The news media goes almost completely to sleep all weekend even in an election year.

    To get an idea of just how cynical and corrupt the media is take a look at how reluctant the A list journalists are to come back in on the weekend to cover even big news.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    I can confirm this anecdotally. I work in the news media; thanks to the withering away of more-or-less independent newspapers and TV stations in the past decade and a half, weekends are a dead zone for news at most outlets. Weekend stories are either evergreen-type features ("Local World War II vet turns 100, shares memories"), or "in-depth" packages that are fussed over for weeks. So-called "breaking" news gets short shrift on weekends -- few news organizations want to shell out the money to have a bunch of crackerjack reporters racking up overtime on Saturday and Sunday. Government officials are completely aware of this, of course. Thus, they long ago figured out that late Friday was the perfect time for officials to release damaging info about themselves and their departments.

    This has always been the case, of course, but it's gotten much worse over the course of my career; seasoned reporters used to be hip to the "Friday afternoon news dump" trick, but the younger recruits are a lot more naive, and in many cases they lack a stable of experienced old-timers who can clue them in to the tricks of the trade.

    Obama's guy Ben Rhodes might have been more clever than he knew...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Jefferson says:
    @Bill P

    Is this personal for Obama? Are we getting a glimpse into some bathroom trauma in his past? It really seems like he’s way too wrought up about this essentially meaningless issue.
     
    It's probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn't have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it's really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today's white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls' bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There's a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it.

    “It’s probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it’s really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today’s white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There’s a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it.”

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?
     
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. All that unites these groups is their opposition to normal whites organised in communities.
    , @Merema
    Transgender are legally accepted in Islam. That's why Iran has one of the highest rate of trans-gendering surgeries and "treatments" in the world. Pakistan has a whole set of transgender casts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. e says:
    @SPMoore8
    It is inconceivable to me that the NYT would ever oppose the extension of TG rights. The author of the article simply needs to be properly educated.

    As I have said several times now, TG bathroom rights are really a problem for cis-women and trans-women and cis-girls and trans-girls. It's not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    By the same token, Civil Rights re-enactors who want to recapture some nice '60's persecution groove (without dogs, fire hoses, or Klansmen) can also fantasize about staging "sh*t ins" in segregated bathrooms all across America. However, this is false, because there are already two types of bathrooms for men and women, so the proper thing would be to simply abolish gendered bathrooms altogether, and again, let the women sort it out.

    Except that that isn't what TG's want. For them, using a "ladies room" is a concrete justification of who they are, just as using a "men's room" would be a humiliating act of submission to heteronormative standards, etc. And, as I have said before, I have a suspicion that market forces would not support this over the long term (witness the supposed confrontation in CT.)

    The same applies to locker rooms (if it ever gets to that point). I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don't know the answer either. Maybe she's a lesbian?

    Of course, evil conservatives who think these kinds of things are unworkable and likely to cause problems can only wait and see if any of their predictions or reads of human nature play out. But this is one case where conservatives can adopt a completely laissez faire attitude with complacency.

    Certain things are likely to happen, subject to the growth of the privileged TG minority (privileged in the sense that they get to chose what gender they are). One, is that there will be lots of private shunning and complaints. Second, that there will be a lot of prepubescent sexual exploration. Third, there are likely to be sexual interactions among youngsters who will both be below any age of consent, but also for that matter prosecution. Fourth, the private realm persecution of TG's will not stop, since using the girl's room at Unz Elementary (or Junior High, or High School) isn't going to get you invited to Connie's slumber party. And, no, Bob won't be inviting you to his sleepover, either. Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations. I might be wrong about these things, and if I am, that's great. But I remember pubescent and prepubescent sexuality as being very confused, and I think it will become even more confused if we start putting sexually dimorphic physical entities in intimate proximity at earlier ages. Again, biology has a way of overriding whatever it is you think you think.

    Bottom line: Emancipating bathrooms will do nothing to console the victims of gender dysphoria, whatever its cause and whatever its proper treatment. At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    It’s not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    ????? I’d think it would be of concerns to fathers everywhere. Right now, if your 15 year old daughter goes to the women’s room at McDonald’s and a man follows her in there, anyone seeing that thinks, “Danger–that man followed that girl into the bathroom. We have to stop him or report him.”

    When bathrooms are no longer male or female, that same man following that same girl into the bathroom for who knows what reason will NOT be reported.

    Read More
    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    • Replies: @27 year old
    When that kind of thing becomes a problem, some fathers will probably accompany their daughters into the bathroom.
    , @SPMoore8
    Well, you ar right, but unfortunately to even suggest that such a thing might happen will cause you to be accused of "transhate" and of the "canard of dual sexuality" (or something) and therefore you will need several well documented cases of sexual assault before you can get any traction. Anything else is a slur on transwomen -- and you can bet that the "No True Transwoman Fallacy" argument will be a main feature.

    As I've noted before, I've had daughters creeped out by TG's in the Northeast on a couple of occasions. They lost our business and in both cases my wife didn't tell me about the incidents until later. And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.

    That's why the women should take the lead, because it means nothing to us men. If a guy is on a double date, and she says, "Me and Suzy are going to powder our noses" you can just say, "Hey, that's great, mind if I join you? I gotta take a leak." I mean, truly, we really don't care. So leave it up to the women to decide what to do here.

    As for the hypothetical you describe, shoot, just go in there too. I'll get my mom to sign a note later.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. neutral says:

    This is a serious question, what exactly counts as transgender today ? If I genuinely decide that I am a woman can I go to the female toilet ? – according the law that the left wants to implement. Or do I need to have some kind of proof that I really am a woman from a psychologist or other state authority ? Or is this law only meant for those that have had surgery to their genitalia ? I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    From your parents you need a note. "Please excuse Johnny's absence for school yesterday, he was discovering he is now a girl, named Jane. Please give him access to the Girl's Room and the special health lecture on menstruation that the girls will be getting from the representative from Modess (rhymes with, "Oh, yes!") next week.

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.
    , @27 year old
    That is a really weird aspect of this thing. They aren't saying anybody can use any bathroom they want, nor are they directing schools to stop having separate bathrooms for boys and girls. Even though that's the logical conclusion. They seem to be implying by the wording they use that it would be not ok for a random normal guy to use the girls bathroom just because he felt like it. But they're also not really committing to a framework for deciding what's ok, beyond "if a liberal feels bad, then it's bad"
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law."

    I know the way it used to work according to the law. If you were a man, who thought he was a woman, you were deemed mentally deranged, and nobody - no person, no institution - was required to indulge you in your own peculiar delusion.

    A lot of young people today seem to have fallen for all this "gender" bullshit:

    I am a tall chinese woman
    , @Lurker
    It's all about your feelings. If you feel you are lady trapped in gentleman's body then you're good to go (to the bathroom).

    No requirement to have undergone any physical changes of any kind so that you don't even have to remotely resemble a woman in any way. You may look like Chuck Norris but inside you feel like Audrey Hepburn.

    The SJWs want us to think in terms of people who at least look like women, but that has to be deliberate misdirection. Better to think of Chuck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Polynikes says:

    Unlike urban violence, the elites can’t just move away from pedophiles in dresses using the women’s restroom. This one won’t go down as easy.

    Obama may change his tune when ol’ Denny Hasert gets out, throws on a dress, and decides to use the same lockerroom as Malia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Our Fearless Leader needn't worry. Hastert isn't into girls.

    But if the Great and Mighty One had a son, then Denny would look at him. A lot. While lounging in a La-Z-Boy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    If there are now guys in the women’s room, it means I have to accompany my daughter into the rest room. I guess I already should have, but it seems like much more of a danger now.

    But that’s really the women’s problem. They voted Obama in and they will vote for Clinton, so they can deal with me making sure my daughter is safe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @e
    It’s not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.


    ????? I'd think it would be of concerns to fathers everywhere. Right now, if your 15 year old daughter goes to the women's room at McDonald's and a man follows her in there, anyone seeing that thinks, "Danger--that man followed that girl into the bathroom. We have to stop him or report him."

    When bathrooms are no longer male or female, that same man following that same girl into the bathroom for who knows what reason will NOT be reported.

    When that kind of thing becomes a problem, some fathers will probably accompany their daughters into the bathroom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @e
    It already is a problem and will, with this policy, get worse.

    From today's Marc Thiessen WaPost column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-we-should-protect-transgender-people-but-not-by-opening-restrooms-to-predators-who-pretend-to-be-transgender/2016/05/16/3a9713ce-1b76-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html) :

    "Creating a new 'right' for biological men to use women-only facilities is an open invitation to sex predators pretending to be transgender in order to get access to vitcims at their most vulnerable.

    "It is happening already even without an invitation. Take the case of Taylor Buehler, a man who was arrested in 2012 after entering a women’s bathroom at Everett Community College in Washington state dressed in a bra and wig. He claimed that he was just there to use the facilities, but under police questioning, Buehler 'admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident … [in which] he took a shower in the girls’ locker room for sexual gratification.'

    "Or take the case of Norwood Smith Burnes, a 51-year-old Rome, Ga., man who was arrested for undressing in front of children in a Walmart women’s room. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution , Burnes was wearing a short skirt, high heels, red nail, polish, and green eye shadow and was found in 'stages of undress . . . in the presence of several young children.” After his arrest, the paper said, police discovered that he 'had a long record of indecent exposure and was on probation for public indecency.'"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. kids who are sometimes in the minority — kids who have a different sexual orientation or are transgender — are subject to a lot of bullying, potentially they are vulnerable…

    Is he speaking from experience here? How was Poon-a-Ho in the 70s?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. SPMoore8 says:
    @e
    It’s not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.


    ????? I'd think it would be of concerns to fathers everywhere. Right now, if your 15 year old daughter goes to the women's room at McDonald's and a man follows her in there, anyone seeing that thinks, "Danger--that man followed that girl into the bathroom. We have to stop him or report him."

    When bathrooms are no longer male or female, that same man following that same girl into the bathroom for who knows what reason will NOT be reported.

    Well, you ar right, but unfortunately to even suggest that such a thing might happen will cause you to be accused of “transhate” and of the “canard of dual sexuality” (or something) and therefore you will need several well documented cases of sexual assault before you can get any traction. Anything else is a slur on transwomen — and you can bet that the “No True Transwoman Fallacy” argument will be a main feature.

    As I’ve noted before, I’ve had daughters creeped out by TG’s in the Northeast on a couple of occasions. They lost our business and in both cases my wife didn’t tell me about the incidents until later. And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.

    That’s why the women should take the lead, because it means nothing to us men. If a guy is on a double date, and she says, “Me and Suzy are going to powder our noses” you can just say, “Hey, that’s great, mind if I join you? I gotta take a leak.” I mean, truly, we really don’t care. So leave it up to the women to decide what to do here.

    As for the hypothetical you describe, shoot, just go in there too. I’ll get my mom to sign a note later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gruff

    And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.
     
    http://www.thelocal.at/20160425/teen-confesses-to-gang-rape-attack-in-vienna
    , @e
    Actually, I'm not suggesting the tranny will be the guy following the girl into the bathroom. It will be a straight guy, maybe one dressed as a tranny or maybe just dressed regularly, but he'll have indecent motives.

    That's what has me baffled, that all the talk is about trannies, not about the pervs or criminals who'll use the change as an invitation to do all kinds of things to females. It's as if POTUS issued a directive to all homeowners to leave the doors to their houses unlocked day and night because locking them will hurt the feelings of fellow citizens.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    OT: The annual “got into 7 Ivies” story:

    Brockton student chooses Harvard after getting accepted to 7 Ivy League schools – http://www.boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/05/14/brockton-student-chooses-harvard-getting-accepted-7-ivy-league-schools

    Read More
    • Replies: @unlearnedelder
    The kid's name is Obinna Igbokwe.
    "Igbokwe", I guess I don't even need to lookup his last name to check his ethnicity (Igbo, as usual)
    , @Percy Gryce
    Which Ivy didn't he apply to? The story doesn't say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. One of the more glaring aspects of the Justice Department’s actions is that set aside “trans” or single user bathrooms are deemed discriminatory and transgender women must have the right to use the general women’s bathrooms.

    The Justice Department is claiming authority for this action under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which relates to “sex” discrimination in education. The Obama administration is claiming that Title IX applies to “gender identity” just as it applies to “sex”. The problem is that there is extensive case law and legislative history relating to Title IX where it is explicitly clear that the law relates to “sex” and it never mentions gender and certainly not “gender identity”.

    The irony is that this interpretation by the Obama Administration “conflates” gender and sex which runs counter to modern day Leftist dogma. In modern feminist theory, “sex” is genetic while “gender” is “performance” or otherwise a “social construct”. Thus, while one cannot choose their sex, gender is fluid and can change over time. Most feminists make a distinction between sex and gender, while the Obama Administration is claiming the words are synonymous even though there is no evidence that this was ever the intention of Congress.

    The real kicker comes when this is applied to college women sports. If “sex” under Title IX is synonymous with “gender identity” then we are one enterprising lawsuit away from completely upending college sports as we know it. Under this interpretation, anyone born a male that “identifies” as female can play women’s college basketball, soccer and other sports. Most critically, men who identify as female now will have equal access to women college sports scholarships!

    On the plus side, NCAA women’s basketball is about to get a hell of a lot more entertaining. On the downside, many upper middle class women soccer players are going to lose out on lucrative scholarships to male soccer players who happen to “identify” as female.

    Read More
    • Replies: @e
    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

    American College of Pediatricians:

    2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

    3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

    _______________________________

    I don't know about you, but I've not seen one anchor person refer to the ACP's position nor interview a spokesperson. Something tells me they've not been invited.
    , @Jocko Homo
    NCAA allows unmedicated female2males to play on men's teams but not unmedicated male2females to play on womens teams. A lawsuit could change this of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. SPMoore8 says:
    @neutral
    This is a serious question, what exactly counts as transgender today ? If I genuinely decide that I am a woman can I go to the female toilet ? - according the law that the left wants to implement. Or do I need to have some kind of proof that I really am a woman from a psychologist or other state authority ? Or is this law only meant for those that have had surgery to their genitalia ? I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    From your parents you need a note. “Please excuse Johnny’s absence for school yesterday, he was discovering he is now a girl, named Jane. Please give him access to the Girl’s Room and the special health lecture on menstruation that the girls will be getting from the representative from Modess (rhymes with, “Oh, yes!”) next week.

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex.
     
    "Gender" has nothing to do with anything. It's not even a social construct, it's a linguistic one.

    Return to gender,
    Address unknown.
    No such member,
    No such bone...
    , @wren
    The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    The party line is that what you see is not what you see. Girl, boy, black, white -- same thing, so don't let your lying eyes fool you.

    We've always been at war with Eastasia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @SFG
    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls. At least for the moment.

    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls.

    If you overreach into my stall, buddy, your fingers’re gonna be hurtin’!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I see that SFG is taking a wide stance on the issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. SPMoore8 says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls.
     
    If you overreach into my stall, buddy, your fingers're gonna be hurtin'!

    I see that SFG is taking a wide stance on the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I see that SFG is taking a wide stance on the issue.
     
    I wonder if the little US flag stamp I stuck above that famous stall is what inspired the airport to redesign it out of existence. But, hey, tourists were seeking it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @SPMoore8
    From your parents you need a note. "Please excuse Johnny's absence for school yesterday, he was discovering he is now a girl, named Jane. Please give him access to the Girl's Room and the special health lecture on menstruation that the girls will be getting from the representative from Modess (rhymes with, "Oh, yes!") next week.

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex.

    “Gender” has nothing to do with anything. It’s not even a social construct, it’s a linguistic one.

    Return to gender,
    Address unknown.
    No such member,
    No such bone…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Nicely done!
    , @tbraton
    Ah, those were the days, my friend. According to H.W. Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" (1959 ed.): "gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." We have since moved on to new frontiers, such as converting intransitive verbs into transitive verbs, e.g., "graduate college." I think there is some connection to the transgender controversy, which is roiling the nation's bathrooms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. OT, Utica, “the town that loves refugees”, gets sued for discrimination in the school system against refugees:

    https://nextcity.org/features/view/refugees-us-cities-immigration-utica-new-york

    Who could have seen that one coming?

    Oddly, things don’t seem to be working out. Love doesn’t seem to be the answer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @neutral
    This is a serious question, what exactly counts as transgender today ? If I genuinely decide that I am a woman can I go to the female toilet ? - according the law that the left wants to implement. Or do I need to have some kind of proof that I really am a woman from a psychologist or other state authority ? Or is this law only meant for those that have had surgery to their genitalia ? I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    That is a really weird aspect of this thing. They aren’t saying anybody can use any bathroom they want, nor are they directing schools to stop having separate bathrooms for boys and girls. Even though that’s the logical conclusion. They seem to be implying by the wording they use that it would be not ok for a random normal guy to use the girls bathroom just because he felt like it. But they’re also not really committing to a framework for deciding what’s ok, beyond “if a liberal feels bad, then it’s bad”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @SPMoore8
    I see that SFG is taking a wide stance on the issue.

    I see that SFG is taking a wide stance on the issue.

    I wonder if the little US flag stamp I stuck above that famous stall is what inspired the airport to redesign it out of existence. But, hey, tourists were seeking it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. JohnnyD says:

    Meanwhile, Obama sends his daughters to one of the best private (Quaker) schools in the country…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Das says:

    Based on this article, it looks like most of these parents of ‘transgender’ children are really just confused (or, in denial) parents of extremely gay children: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/a-boys-life/307059/

    They’d rather think that little Johnny is wearing a dress because he’s a “girl born in the wrong body” than the more obvious explanation for that behavior.

    It makes the Obama administration’s crusade on this issue even more hilarious. In 20 years there’s going to be a cohort of gay adults tearfully telling us about how their homophobic parents forced them to adopt a girl’s name and use the girl’s bathroom at school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Svigor says:

    Women’s rights lose again.

    Maybe it’s time the right stole women’s rights from the left? The left throws women under the bus every time there’s a conflict, so why not?

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday made an impassioned argument for his administration’s decision to instruct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, saying that society must protect the dignity and safety of vulnerable children.

    WTF?

    The man who has failed two grades and is now 20 in high school should be using the same locker room as the 14 year old girls, because safety?

    From that Olympia story:

    But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.

    It’s like they’re proud of how stupid they are. “Look buddy, leftism is a suicide cult, and in suicide cults, we don’t care about silly things like making sense!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    More men would be uncomfortable with chicks with dicks in the men’s bathroom than women would be with them in their bathrooms. It’s sort of like how men don’t have gay friends, while women have gay male friends or don’t mind having gay males around. Frankly, it’d be better if gay men used the women’s bathrooms too, since them being in the men’s bathroom is more uncomfortable to men than them being in women’s bathroom is to women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Please don't come around here projecting your issues on me, Scooter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Mr. Anon says:
    @neutral
    This is a serious question, what exactly counts as transgender today ? If I genuinely decide that I am a woman can I go to the female toilet ? - according the law that the left wants to implement. Or do I need to have some kind of proof that I really am a woman from a psychologist or other state authority ? Or is this law only meant for those that have had surgery to their genitalia ? I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    “I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.”

    I know the way it used to work according to the law. If you were a man, who thought he was a woman, you were deemed mentally deranged, and nobody – no person, no institution – was required to indulge you in your own peculiar delusion.

    A lot of young people today seem to have fallen for all this “gender” bullshit:

    I am a tall chinese woman

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes

    I know the way it used to work according to the law. If you were a man, who thought he was a woman
     
    ...you kept it to yourself.

    Today, it's all about Celebrate Diversity! so you shout it from the rooftops, and force everyone to indulge your mentally deranged fantasy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    Obama’s policy: You’re female if you say you are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. gruff says:
    @SPMoore8
    Well, you ar right, but unfortunately to even suggest that such a thing might happen will cause you to be accused of "transhate" and of the "canard of dual sexuality" (or something) and therefore you will need several well documented cases of sexual assault before you can get any traction. Anything else is a slur on transwomen -- and you can bet that the "No True Transwoman Fallacy" argument will be a main feature.

    As I've noted before, I've had daughters creeped out by TG's in the Northeast on a couple of occasions. They lost our business and in both cases my wife didn't tell me about the incidents until later. And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.

    That's why the women should take the lead, because it means nothing to us men. If a guy is on a double date, and she says, "Me and Suzy are going to powder our noses" you can just say, "Hey, that's great, mind if I join you? I gotta take a leak." I mean, truly, we really don't care. So leave it up to the women to decide what to do here.

    As for the hypothetical you describe, shoot, just go in there too. I'll get my mom to sign a note later.

    And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.

    http://www.thelocal.at/20160425/teen-confesses-to-gang-rape-attack-in-vienna

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    Unless these Afghans gained access posing as women, this rape doesn't apply here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Das
    Based on this article, it looks like most of these parents of 'transgender' children are really just confused (or, in denial) parents of extremely gay children: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/a-boys-life/307059/

    They'd rather think that little Johnny is wearing a dress because he's a "girl born in the wrong body" than the more obvious explanation for that behavior.

    It makes the Obama administration's crusade on this issue even more hilarious. In 20 years there's going to be a cohort of gay adults tearfully telling us about how their homophobic parents forced them to adopt a girl's name and use the girl's bathroom at school.

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.
     
    I dunno. Some of those hormone treatments are pretty serious. I'd say it's more like the fad of parents getting their kids lobotomized back in the fifties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dully

    I can't help but feel that many of these so-called "trans" youngsters might be the products of attention-seeking parents eager to participate in the hype.
    , @Lurker
    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.

    My feeling is that educationalist/liberal types are very pleased with themselves these days for not buying into such unenlightened notions of nurture over nature. But when it comes to some other things . . . not so much.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    Like the book Struwwelpeter (1845), by Heinrich Hoffmann, a collection of cautionary tales telling children of the terrible things that befall those who won't obey. Excerpt:

    The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb

    One day, Mamma said, "Conrad dear,
    I must go out and leave you here.
    But mind now, Conrad, what I say,
    Don't suck your thumb while I'm away.
    The great tall tailor always comes
    To little boys that suck their thumbs.
    And ere they dream what he's about
    He takes his great sharp scissors
    And cuts their thumbs clean off, - and then
    You know, they never grow again."
     

    Symbolic of something else, perhaps.
    http://germanstories.vcu.edu/struwwel/daumen_e.html
    , @Alec Leamas
    Invariably you'll hear (perhaps apocryphal) complaints about a nun who was tough on someone's Mother or Aunt or Uncle for being left-handed, forcing the use of the latters' right hand for the purposes of penmanship. This is often used as evidence of the cruelty of Catholic schools and the nuns who staffed them, juxtaposed to modern enlightened views.

    When I hear such complaints, and explain that in those days penmanship was taught with and required the use of ink wells and fountain pens, and the resultant impracticality and mess associated with dragging one's left hand across wet ink. In response I get nothing but blank stares.

    Of course, it was also the case that all methods of penmanship required that the script be slanted at an angle from left to right which is pleasing to the reader of the Latin alphabet in script because all of the languages that employ it are read left to right. Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Jefferson
    "It’s probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it’s really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today’s white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There’s a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it."

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. All that unites these groups is their opposition to normal whites organised in communities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jill
    The left will always partner with the muslim since they both hate Christians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. One thing that’s confused me is…gay marriage, for better or worse, was the culmination of decades of propaganda and social change. I mean, you had “Philadelphia” and “Will and Grace” and lots of other high culture and low to let you know that gay tolerance was really, really important. And while I’ve probably known more gay people than most, almost everyone has gay acquaintances in their mid-level circle. Even the fact that most adolescent boys tease each other about homosexuality at some point or another suggests that it’s an important topic. It’s not just out of nowhere. The SCOTUS argument from last year’s decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn’t wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people’s ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    I mean, I used to teach in the East Village. Most of the hippy-dippy parents there would have backed some kind of accommodation to whichever boy decided he was a girl that week– for that school, in that neighborhood, with some discretion for the school to figure out implementation. But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.
     
    Arbitrary power - the more arbitrary, the better.

    Nothing new about that.
    , @Stan Adams
    Trans lib is but one front in World War N - the War on Normal.

    As Steve has said, they want to destroy the idea that anything is abnormal or unhealthy. They dream of a world in which the basest perversities are tolerated, celebrated, and even mandated.

    Gay marriage opens the door to trans lib. Trans lib opens the door to ... bestiality lib? Bestiality lib opens the door to ... necro lib? Necro lib opens the door to ... pedo lib?

    Where does it end?

    In the end, all of this bullshit will go away, if only because our new Muslim overlords won't allow it.
    , @Percy Gryce

    The SCOTUS argument from last year’s decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn’t wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people’s ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.
     
    They're both part and parcel--along with women in combat--of denying the natural differences between men and women and their corresponding social roles.

    More basically it's about denying the givenness of any aspect of life. It's part of the leftist perpetual revolution--in this case against nature itself.
    , @Jack D
    You may be right that they haven't laid the groundwork properly for this battle, but no bureaucracy in history has ever put itself out of business (and there are a lot of professional SJW bureaucrats because they have no otherwise marketable skills). They could have declared victory in WWG and gotten real jobs in a productive sector, but you knew that wasn't going to happen, so WWT was the natural next front.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Spmoore8 says:
    @gruff

    And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.
     
    http://www.thelocal.at/20160425/teen-confesses-to-gang-rape-attack-in-vienna

    Unless these Afghans gained access posing as women, this rape doesn’t apply here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gruff
    I know I just wanted to throw that out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. wren says:
    @SPMoore8
    From your parents you need a note. "Please excuse Johnny's absence for school yesterday, he was discovering he is now a girl, named Jane. Please give him access to the Girl's Room and the special health lecture on menstruation that the girls will be getting from the representative from Modess (rhymes with, "Oh, yes!") next week.

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    The party line is that what you see is not what you see. Girl, boy, black, white — same thing, so don’t let your lying eyes fool you.

    We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    I sometimes wonder if Obama is secretly trying to sink Hillary's campaign with a pink torpedo.
    , @BenKenobi
    Beg your pardon, Comrade. But I do believe we've always been at war with North Carolina.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Lurker says:
    @neutral
    This is a serious question, what exactly counts as transgender today ? If I genuinely decide that I am a woman can I go to the female toilet ? - according the law that the left wants to implement. Or do I need to have some kind of proof that I really am a woman from a psychologist or other state authority ? Or is this law only meant for those that have had surgery to their genitalia ? I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law.

    It’s all about your feelings. If you feel you are lady trapped in gentleman’s body then you’re good to go (to the bathroom).

    No requirement to have undergone any physical changes of any kind so that you don’t even have to remotely resemble a woman in any way. You may look like Chuck Norris but inside you feel like Audrey Hepburn.

    The SJWs want us to think in terms of people who at least look like women, but that has to be deliberate misdirection. Better to think of Chuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Steve Sailer
    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    I dunno. Some of those hormone treatments are pretty serious. I’d say it’s more like the fad of parents getting their kids lobotomized back in the fifties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dully

    I can’t help but feel that many of these so-called “trans” youngsters might be the products of attention-seeking parents eager to participate in the hype.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents:

    "You put me on hormones, you deprived me of secondary sexual characteristics, you had my budding sexual organs removed, then replaced with plastic surgery: look what you did to me!"

    "We were only trying to make you happy! We only did what you told us we needed to do to make you happy!"

    "Mom! I was nine years old!"
    , @TheJester
    We had an eye opener when our daughter attended the local high school in Northern Virginia circa 2009 to 2011. She had frequent stories about girls in school deciding that they didn't have boyfriends because they were lesbians. These stories circulated for about two to three weeks. In that time frame, boyfriends mysteriously materialized and the girls decided they were normal. We personally knew a couple of these girls as we carpooled them around the social scene.

    It was clear to us that these girls were "gender fluid" for a few weeks to retain their self-respect when faced with the social crisis of not having a boyfriend. Being "lesbian" was a convenient rationalization to avoid the devastating stain of rejection. "I don't have a boyfriend because I don't want one because I'm a (fill in the blank) ...." Two weeks later, they and their new-found boyfriends were walking the halls as if nothing had happened.

    The danger in all of this is that the SJWs, by precasting scripted rationalizations for girls, women, and minorities of both sexes regarding life and sexuality, are retarding their ability to grow up and deal with reality. The precast rationalizations are perhaps factors in large numbers of Millennials and disturbing numbers of minorities behaving as if they were permanent adolescents.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    We had a girl come into the kids' ballet studio thinking she was a boy, and insisting her parents treat her as a boy. The kid was FOUR. The studio was baffled since boys are so rare in ballet and they get free dance lessons. The parents were utterly perplexed, but accommodating the kid's delusion, probably at the urging of whatever weirdo was advising them in the pediatric office.

    This family could have caused real grief to our studio if they'd pushed us making room for their problem (imagine the little girl insisting on being in the boys' dressing room during shows).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Lurker says:
    @Steve Sailer
    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.

    My feeling is that educationalist/liberal types are very pleased with themselves these days for not buying into such unenlightened notions of nurture over nature. But when it comes to some other things . . . not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Yes, my grandmother too. Knuckles, meet ruler. I don't know whence Steve Sailer got the idea that it only happened in Germany.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.
     
    My mother and her mother as well, during their World War childhoods. They were outer-borough Germans, like the Trumps. (NYC was the third-largest German city in the world.) I took the Lysenkoist path, ending up right-handed, but with strong auxiliary abilities on the left. My nature decided to skip the nurture. Too painful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Spmoore8 says:
    @wren
    The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    The party line is that what you see is not what you see. Girl, boy, black, white -- same thing, so don't let your lying eyes fool you.

    We've always been at war with Eastasia.

    I sometimes wonder if Obama is secretly trying to sink Hillary’s campaign with a pink torpedo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    Poor Hillary.

    First, Bill's and now Barry's.

    I still blame her for who she is, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. SPMoore8 says:
    @Daniel Williams

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.
     
    I dunno. Some of those hormone treatments are pretty serious. I'd say it's more like the fad of parents getting their kids lobotomized back in the fifties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dully

    I can't help but feel that many of these so-called "trans" youngsters might be the products of attention-seeking parents eager to participate in the hype.

    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents:

    “You put me on hormones, you deprived me of secondary sexual characteristics, you had my budding sexual organs removed, then replaced with plastic surgery: look what you did to me!”

    “We were only trying to make you happy! We only did what you told us we needed to do to make you happy!”

    “Mom! I was nine years old!”

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents ...
     
    No joke. Such a child wouldn't be "trans" before they treated him, but he certainly would be anomalous when they finished.

    I sometimes wonder what sorts of things will seem ridiculously quaint or inane to my grandchildren, like leeching or pre-germ theories of disease are to me. This "trans" nonsense has got to be one of those things.

    , @Anonym
    This sort of thing was actually done back in the 1970s, maybe the 1980s. Sex change plus hormone therapy. From memory, it was done to straight male children, by doctors who were all about advancing the brave new groovy world, while chasing a buck. Some (most?) operatees are still resentful about it.

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrati for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.

    Optional surgeries have been pushed by doctors short of money for a long time, and likely will continue to be something that is pushed by unethical doctors. Removing the teeth of children and installing dentures, removing tonsils, were some medical money making fashions that went on. I see this gender reassignment, along with some cosmetic surgery, pill prescribing for some mental illness or ADHD, as yet another way for unethical people in the medical profession to make money. Of course, the SJW component probably dominates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Steve Sailer
    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    Like the book Struwwelpeter (1845), by Heinrich Hoffmann, a collection of cautionary tales telling children of the terrible things that befall those who won’t obey. Excerpt:

    The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb

    One day, Mamma said, “Conrad dear,
    I must go out and leave you here.
    But mind now, Conrad, what I say,
    Don’t suck your thumb while I’m away.
    The great tall tailor always comes
    To little boys that suck their thumbs.
    And ere they dream what he’s about
    He takes his great sharp scissors
    And cuts their thumbs clean off, – and then
    You know, they never grow again.”

    Symbolic of something else, perhaps.

    http://germanstories.vcu.edu/struwwel/daumen_e.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @SPMoore8
    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents:

    "You put me on hormones, you deprived me of secondary sexual characteristics, you had my budding sexual organs removed, then replaced with plastic surgery: look what you did to me!"

    "We were only trying to make you happy! We only did what you told us we needed to do to make you happy!"

    "Mom! I was nine years old!"

    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents …

    No joke. Such a child wouldn’t be “trans” before they treated him, but he certainly would be anomalous when they finished.

    I sometimes wonder what sorts of things will seem ridiculously quaint or inane to my grandchildren, like leeching or pre-germ theories of disease are to me. This “trans” nonsense has got to be one of those things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Using medical leeches is called for in some unambiguous situations. Where it is possible to restore blood flow TO a severed part, but the veins that drain it will take longer to repair, nothing will preserve the part better than a leech sucking up the excess blood, until the body can repair the veins.

    You probably don't believe in the medical use of maggots, either. sheesh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I had an acquaintance who became transgender, then killed himself.

    This was pretty recently. It was truly tragic.

    I was very sad, and thought about his death.

    I blame society. Society made him what he was.

    He was encouraged to think that he could become a beautiful woman, and encouraged to think that he was a woman. But I think he was smarter than that. I think he knew that after all was said and done, he was still the guy he had always been, just in womens’ clothing and makeup.

    I don’t think his death was due to a lack of acceptance of what he wanted. I think it was due to a lack of acceptance by him and those around him of reality.

    I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces.

    We shall see.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @e
    It is sad, very sad but it's obvious that these people are mentally disturbed to begin with. Those who never transition have a high rate of suicide and those who do transition have a high rate of suicide.
    , @Anonym
    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children's TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the "herbivores men" of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.

    You would see some of this when I grew up, that children who had been fed a diet of Bruce Lee movies would get sucked in by McDojo cult leaders. And truth be told, you could make a similar sort of case for Arnold and Stallone movies leading to Joe Weider making a fortunate peddling protein powder and sugar.

    On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn't IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no. I think it is fair to say that we have quantitively and qualitatively more unreal entertainment than every before. And this is showing up with people with strange sex urges wanting to live them out.

    This also gets back to porn. We can watch more porn than we could ever hope to download. Whatever fake reality we want to live in, it's there. I think this is where the trans-thing is coming from.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces."

    Quite true.

    And it should be noted that all this trans-nonsense is being pushed by a lot of the same people who styled themselves as members of the "reality-based community".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. 5371 says:
    @Lurker
    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.

    My feeling is that educationalist/liberal types are very pleased with themselves these days for not buying into such unenlightened notions of nurture over nature. But when it comes to some other things . . . not so much.

    Yes, my grandmother too. Knuckles, meet ruler. I don’t know whence Steve Sailer got the idea that it only happened in Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Superman says:

    Obama played the media like a fiddle. He tossed the bathroom stuff out there as bait and the media ran with it. Meanwhile, virtually unnoticed is the meat of the directive:

    The Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation Friday that will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations, which could then be subsidized by taxpayers through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That explains it. I expect Obama to come out as Baracka once he's left office.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. WGG says:

    World War T pisses me off, and this is yet another escalation, so obviously I find it loathesome. Is it a safety issue for normal girls and women? Indirectly. It further muddies the water of acceptable behavior and pollutes the culture with dishonest, degenerate pageantry. That in turn causes everyone to hold themselves to a lower standard.

    Middle and high school girls are, however, much more likely to be harmed by each other in a locker room than some misguided froot loop in a peasant skirt. There are some very aggressive bullies and lesbians in those locker rooms with our daughters already. Granted, locker room bullies are ever emboldened by this culture pollution, and therefore these guidelines have a greater indirect impact than a direct one.

    I just wanted to be honest that I hate this more for a cultural aesthetic reason than a “safety” reason. And the leftists who like this edict, like it for the same reason. Safety is not really the issue on either side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. wren says:
    @Spmoore8
    I sometimes wonder if Obama is secretly trying to sink Hillary's campaign with a pink torpedo.

    Poor Hillary.

    First, Bill’s and now Barry’s.

    I still blame her for who she is, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Michael Dougherty seems to think that this is “proof” that Trump will lose in November cause otherwise liberals wouldn’t be pulling these shenanigans.

    I think he is over estimating the power of Right side of History hubris and being an upset wonk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    That's interesting reasoning: Because your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, it shows he is confident that that foot won't be needed in his upcoming battle with you.

    Kind of like how after their first debate, Romney was confident he no longer had to confront Obama in subsequent debates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Spotted Toad
    One thing that's confused me is...gay marriage, for better or worse, was the culmination of decades of propaganda and social change. I mean, you had "Philadelphia" and "Will and Grace" and lots of other high culture and low to let you know that gay tolerance was really, really important. And while I've probably known more gay people than most, almost everyone has gay acquaintances in their mid-level circle. Even the fact that most adolescent boys tease each other about homosexuality at some point or another suggests that it's an important topic. It's not just out of nowhere. The SCOTUS argument from last year's decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn't wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people's ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    I mean, I used to teach in the East Village. Most of the hippy-dippy parents there would have backed some kind of accommodation to whichever boy decided he was a girl that week-- for that school, in that neighborhood, with some discretion for the school to figure out implementation. But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    Arbitrary power – the more arbitrary, the better.

    Nothing new about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Polynikes
    Unlike urban violence, the elites can't just move away from pedophiles in dresses using the women's restroom. This one won't go down as easy.

    Obama may change his tune when ol' Denny Hasert gets out, throws on a dress, and decides to use the same lockerroom as Malia.

    Our Fearless Leader needn’t worry. Hastert isn’t into girls.

    But if the Great and Mighty One had a son, then Denny would look at him. A lot. While lounging in a La-Z-Boy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pepperinmono
    Didn't Obama say recently that if his father were still alive, he would look just like Bill Cosby?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Anonymous
    OT: The annual "got into 7 Ivies" story:

    Brockton student chooses Harvard after getting accepted to 7 Ivy League schools - www.boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/05/14/brockton-student-chooses-harvard-getting-accepted-7-ivy-league-schools

    The kid’s name is Obinna Igbokwe.
    “Igbokwe”, I guess I don’t even need to lookup his last name to check his ethnicity (Igbo, as usual)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Is it possible that O. has a very personal interest in this?

    Could he be planning to emulate the person formerly known as Bruce Jenner?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. e says:
    @SPMoore8
    Well, you ar right, but unfortunately to even suggest that such a thing might happen will cause you to be accused of "transhate" and of the "canard of dual sexuality" (or something) and therefore you will need several well documented cases of sexual assault before you can get any traction. Anything else is a slur on transwomen -- and you can bet that the "No True Transwoman Fallacy" argument will be a main feature.

    As I've noted before, I've had daughters creeped out by TG's in the Northeast on a couple of occasions. They lost our business and in both cases my wife didn't tell me about the incidents until later. And furthermore nobody really expects a young girl/woman to be sexually assaulted in the bathroom.

    That's why the women should take the lead, because it means nothing to us men. If a guy is on a double date, and she says, "Me and Suzy are going to powder our noses" you can just say, "Hey, that's great, mind if I join you? I gotta take a leak." I mean, truly, we really don't care. So leave it up to the women to decide what to do here.

    As for the hypothetical you describe, shoot, just go in there too. I'll get my mom to sign a note later.

    Actually, I’m not suggesting the tranny will be the guy following the girl into the bathroom. It will be a straight guy, maybe one dressed as a tranny or maybe just dressed regularly, but he’ll have indecent motives.

    That’s what has me baffled, that all the talk is about trannies, not about the pervs or criminals who’ll use the change as an invitation to do all kinds of things to females. It’s as if POTUS issued a directive to all homeowners to leave the doors to their houses unlocked day and night because locking them will hurt the feelings of fellow citizens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    I think the scenario you describe is very likely but until it happens again and again, any objections will be labeled bigotry.

    I spoke to my wife about this tonight. She's very tolerant of "difference." But she is absolutely not buying this idea of a woman with a penis.
    , @duncsbaby
    White people locking doors is racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Will President Trump tell us:

    You didn’t build that wall, I did!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @Lurker
    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.

    My feeling is that educationalist/liberal types are very pleased with themselves these days for not buying into such unenlightened notions of nurture over nature. But when it comes to some other things . . . not so much.

    My mother was born left handed but school had it drummed out of her as a child. This in Britain, not Germany.

    My mother and her mother as well, during their World War childhoods. They were outer-borough Germans, like the Trumps. (NYC was the third-largest German city in the world.) I took the Lysenkoist path, ending up right-handed, but with strong auxiliary abilities on the left. My nature decided to skip the nurture. Too painful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. e says:
    @Clifford Brown
    One of the more glaring aspects of the Justice Department's actions is that set aside "trans" or single user bathrooms are deemed discriminatory and transgender women must have the right to use the general women's bathrooms.

    The Justice Department is claiming authority for this action under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which relates to "sex" discrimination in education. The Obama administration is claiming that Title IX applies to "gender identity" just as it applies to "sex". The problem is that there is extensive case law and legislative history relating to Title IX where it is explicitly clear that the law relates to "sex" and it never mentions gender and certainly not "gender identity".

    The irony is that this interpretation by the Obama Administration "conflates" gender and sex which runs counter to modern day Leftist dogma. In modern feminist theory, "sex" is genetic while "gender" is "performance" or otherwise a "social construct". Thus, while one cannot choose their sex, gender is fluid and can change over time. Most feminists make a distinction between sex and gender, while the Obama Administration is claiming the words are synonymous even though there is no evidence that this was ever the intention of Congress.

    The real kicker comes when this is applied to college women sports. If "sex" under Title IX is synonymous with "gender identity" then we are one enterprising lawsuit away from completely upending college sports as we know it. Under this interpretation, anyone born a male that "identifies" as female can play women's college basketball, soccer and other sports. Most critically, men who identify as female now will have equal access to women college sports scholarships!

    On the plus side, NCAA women's basketball is about to get a hell of a lot more entertaining. On the downside, many upper middle class women soccer players are going to lose out on lucrative scholarships to male soccer players who happen to "identify" as female.

    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

    American College of Pediatricians:

    2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

    3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

    _______________________________

    I don’t know about you, but I’ve not seen one anchor person refer to the ACP’s position nor interview a spokesperson. Something tells me they’ve not been invited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    I suspect that the American College of Pediatricians have got their wires crossed a bit and have never studied life history theory.

    One can expect, on simple evolutionary (selection) grounds and the fact that we are a social species with overlapping but different make and female cultures and abilities (Males have on average, 90% more upper body strength than females, 60% more lower body strength, and males fit naturally into hierarchical groups more readily than females while females are more attuned to dyadic relationships) that males and females would have different behaviors from birth and have clear male and female personas/identities.

    Check something like MacCoby's The Two Sexes: Growing up apart and coming together. In it she points out that a very early age boys and girls self-segregate based around each other's play styles. They recognize and associate people with play styles of their type.

    Life history theory tells us that what it is to be male or female (humans) changes over the person's life, and changes dramatically when life stages change (eg, boys suddenly stop disliking girls and become very interested in girl's bits ...)

    However, other natural experiments tell us that this is driven by biology. Eg, CAH-afflicted girls who evince more male-like behavior (more rough and tumble play and more systematizing behavior.)

    Lastly, there is evidence in the literature that there are people out there with one biological sex but their brains have been wired up thinking they are the opposite sex, but such people seem to number around 1/10,000 or less.
    , @SteveO
    Just for clarity, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a relatively new organization (founded in 2002) of socially conservative pediatricians. It was founded in reaction to the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) for adoption by gay couples.

    While that does not make the ACP wrong about this or anything else, it does mean that it is not the gold-standard organization for pediatricians. That would be the venerable AAP. If a reporter wants to find out what the pediatric profession is thinking about something, he goes to the AAP. When you see stories about various "won't someone think of the children!" health scares, the chances are 9/10 they came from the AAP. Its influence over the profession is enormous: The AAP makes "recommendations" for health guidelines (e.g. immunization schedules) and pediatric training programs that pediatric providers largely must follow or risk being accused of not practicing "standard of care" medicine.

    Anyway, the point is that it's not surprising that one doesn't see the ACP quoted in the media very often. They aren't the go-to organization for matters relating to child health. And, again, while their political position does not make them less credible, they do have an ax to grind every bit as much as the very PC AAP does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Spotted Toad
    One thing that's confused me is...gay marriage, for better or worse, was the culmination of decades of propaganda and social change. I mean, you had "Philadelphia" and "Will and Grace" and lots of other high culture and low to let you know that gay tolerance was really, really important. And while I've probably known more gay people than most, almost everyone has gay acquaintances in their mid-level circle. Even the fact that most adolescent boys tease each other about homosexuality at some point or another suggests that it's an important topic. It's not just out of nowhere. The SCOTUS argument from last year's decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn't wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people's ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    I mean, I used to teach in the East Village. Most of the hippy-dippy parents there would have backed some kind of accommodation to whichever boy decided he was a girl that week-- for that school, in that neighborhood, with some discretion for the school to figure out implementation. But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    Trans lib is but one front in World War N – the War on Normal.

    As Steve has said, they want to destroy the idea that anything is abnormal or unhealthy. They dream of a world in which the basest perversities are tolerated, celebrated, and even mandated.

    Gay marriage opens the door to trans lib. Trans lib opens the door to … bestiality lib? Bestiality lib opens the door to … necro lib? Necro lib opens the door to … pedo lib?

    Where does it end?

    In the end, all of this bullshit will go away, if only because our new Muslim overlords won’t allow it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Insane. There’s no other word for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. e says:
    @Anonymous
    I had an acquaintance who became transgender, then killed himself.

    This was pretty recently. It was truly tragic.

    I was very sad, and thought about his death.

    I blame society. Society made him what he was.

    He was encouraged to think that he could become a beautiful woman, and encouraged to think that he was a woman. But I think he was smarter than that. I think he knew that after all was said and done, he was still the guy he had always been, just in womens' clothing and makeup.

    I don't think his death was due to a lack of acceptance of what he wanted. I think it was due to a lack of acceptance by him and those around him of reality.

    I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces.

    We shall see.

    It is sad, very sad but it’s obvious that these people are mentally disturbed to begin with. Those who never transition have a high rate of suicide and those who do transition have a high rate of suicide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    And this all becomes more understandable when you realize that libs and progs are very much into natural selection and the killing off of certain populations. (Haven't you ever known libs and progs who claim that 9 out of 10 humans have to die so they can have more stuff and sustainability?)

    They just don't want to admit it where it happens. To others, and especially to themselves.

    Like indulging the tendency of blacks to slaughter blacks through the removal of all legal, social, or force restraints, this set of policies guarantees many more suicides of mentally ill individuals.

    I'd say it is (probably subconsciously) designed to do so. It feeds and proliferates the madness, then drives the mad person madder through liberal progression of confusion and conflict.

    And that, my friends, is genetic warfare in a nutshell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Jefferson says:

    “But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people’s ordinary lives.”

    Most Americans do not personally have at least one friend who is Transgender because there are currently only 700,000 thousand of them in a country of over 323 million people.

    There are more people who live in the city limits of San Francisco than there are Transgenders in this country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. “There are school districts who have been wrestling with this problem and have, we think, done a good job in accommodating them in a way that is good for everybody, and so you can learn from these best practices.”

    Doesn’t that mean school districts should be left to do their own thing, without being morally lectured by the national government?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Spmoore8 says:
    @e
    Actually, I'm not suggesting the tranny will be the guy following the girl into the bathroom. It will be a straight guy, maybe one dressed as a tranny or maybe just dressed regularly, but he'll have indecent motives.

    That's what has me baffled, that all the talk is about trannies, not about the pervs or criminals who'll use the change as an invitation to do all kinds of things to females. It's as if POTUS issued a directive to all homeowners to leave the doors to their houses unlocked day and night because locking them will hurt the feelings of fellow citizens.

    I think the scenario you describe is very likely but until it happens again and again, any objections will be labeled bigotry.

    I spoke to my wife about this tonight. She’s very tolerant of “difference.” But she is absolutely not buying this idea of a woman with a penis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Stan Adams
    Trans lib is but one front in World War N - the War on Normal.

    As Steve has said, they want to destroy the idea that anything is abnormal or unhealthy. They dream of a world in which the basest perversities are tolerated, celebrated, and even mandated.

    Gay marriage opens the door to trans lib. Trans lib opens the door to ... bestiality lib? Bestiality lib opens the door to ... necro lib? Necro lib opens the door to ... pedo lib?

    Where does it end?

    In the end, all of this bullshit will go away, if only because our new Muslim overlords won't allow it.

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that’s the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children’s rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?
     
    They clearly don't WANT to, but over time:

    1. it will gradually becomes clearer that there is no principled way to do so and to hold on to the tenants of sexual and personal emancipation that are the hallmark of the left since the Enlightenment, and
    2. secular, liberal sacred cows like public education will be exposed as even more teaming with perverts than conservative institutions they like to scapegoat

    ... and when this happens it will be in their interest to try and convince the public that pedophilia is really "... a... good... thing!!!"
    , @Brutusale
    That's "minor-attracted persons", you ageist!

    Seriously, we live in a world where the US armed services command tells the rank-and-file to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by our Afghani allies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

    Our boy Corvinus proved to be the perfect example of the Leftie willing to accept pretty much everything when he took issue with my statement that the mainstreaming of deviancy has continued apace, no, accelerated. I truly believe that pedophilia will be mainstreamed in my lifetime.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?"

    Perhaps because some of them are pederasts. For the rest because they will be told that it is "progressive". Ultimately,............because they can.

    "Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?"

    A lot of liberal parents are only fanatical about appearing to support children's rights. Some liberal parents now send their five and six year old children in for hormone treatement so as to aid their "transition".

    "Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys."

    And liberals have very pointedly not used it as a weapon against Hollywood, where it is - by some accounts - rampant.
    , @Forbes
    It's not pedophilia so much as Celebrate Diversity!--the unquestioning of difference. It becomes the tolerance of difference, then the overt encouragement where school children are so taught that all is acceptable--it's just an autonomous choice. Schooling today is primarily about the socialization of acceptance. It is a blurring of the lines until there are no lines--no distinctions.

    Where 13, 14, and 15-year olds can conduct themselves in sexual relations as they choose with total social acceptance--in other words, the age of consent is meaningless. Due to the acceptance of minors engaging in sexual relations, some states have altered consent rules such that it is the age difference that constitutes statutory rape, e.g. a 17-year old having sex with a 14-year old is not rape, while a 20-year doing so constitutes rape. Rather than a fixed age of consent, it is age differential that matters.

    Now, most would consider pedophilia to be sex with pre-pubescent adolescents--but most (some?) of the Catholic Church's problem was homosexual priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, and not solely pedophilia. So again, distinctions were blurred because the lapdog media wanted to poison the Church, while also not exposing rampant homosexuality.

    Why should sexual relations with a minor not go through the same blurring of distinctions? Much of the agenda of the left is about destroying the family--the left's advocacy for so-called children's rights is about 'empowering' children and liberating them from their parents--not protecting children, except under auspices of the state.
    , @anonymous coward

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?
     
    Pedophilia and "children's rights". Pedophilia will be legalized by a radical lowering of the age of consent -- after all, it's 'ageist' and bigoted to demand that only adults can make sexual decisions.

    Moreover, there will be a big 'think of the gay children' tear-jerking campaign -- they will claim that age of consent laws are a ploy used by bigots to persecute the development of gay kids.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?
     
    NAMbLA's [sic; the minuscule was deliberate] branch in Canada disbanded once the age of consent was lowered to 14. They figured that was the best they could ever hope for. People could tolerate some "ephebophilia", but never "pedophilia". (This use of -philia, by the way, is an abuse of Greek.)

    But in rights-obsessed 20th-century America, the gay movement was reluctant to abandon NAMbLA, and NAMbLA's ephebos reluctant to abandon its pedos. Lesbians especially hated male pedos, so the issue was highly controversial the more the movement mainstreamed. Harry Hay, arguably the founder of the gay rights movement, was defiant ("NAMbLA walks with me!") at one of their last parade appearances, and Ed Hermance, who ran the largest gay bookstore in the hemisphere, carried their Bulletin until his young staff threatened to strike if he didn't remove it. So we see a bit of a generational split there.

    It all came to a head with the release of the documentary Chickenhawk, featuring the proudly pederastic Leland Stevenson. He was too much for everybody. The gay movement has cracked down on the pedos ever since. The ephebos are lying low. Stevenson recently died in Sri Lanka, a few years after Arthur C Clarke did.

    So, no, while many "liberals" might have been soft on pedos in the past, mostly from ignorance, you won't see that again for a long, long time. Perhaps the severity with which female teachers who sleep with their students are now dealt with is a way to give egalitarian cover for a more understandable crackdown on males.

    By the way, Clarke's diaries are sealed until 2038. That might have been his estimate of when it would all have safely blown over.
    , @No_0ne
    "Children's rights" = how dare your interfere with a child's right to make their own sexual choices?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonym says:
    @SPMoore8
    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents:

    "You put me on hormones, you deprived me of secondary sexual characteristics, you had my budding sexual organs removed, then replaced with plastic surgery: look what you did to me!"

    "We were only trying to make you happy! We only did what you told us we needed to do to make you happy!"

    "Mom! I was nine years old!"

    This sort of thing was actually done back in the 1970s, maybe the 1980s. Sex change plus hormone therapy. From memory, it was done to straight male children, by doctors who were all about advancing the brave new groovy world, while chasing a buck. Some (most?) operatees are still resentful about it.

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrati for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.

    Optional surgeries have been pushed by doctors short of money for a long time, and likely will continue to be something that is pushed by unethical doctors. Removing the teeth of children and installing dentures, removing tonsils, were some medical money making fashions that went on. I see this gender reassignment, along with some cosmetic surgery, pill prescribing for some mental illness or ADHD, as yet another way for unethical people in the medical profession to make money. Of course, the SJW component probably dominates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrat[o] for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.
     
    Walter Tetley, the voice of Sherman in the cartoon, suffered from some medical condition that blocked his puberty, so he sounded like a little boy throughout his life. That was the official story. But the voice of Mr Peabody joked that Walter's mother had had him "fixed", to keep the radio gigs coming in.

    I sure hope it was a joke. Otherwise she was the worst stage mother in American history.

    Neutering healthy boys was controversial enough when it happened in old Italy. Parents offering up their poor boy often told the buyer that he "was bitten by a pig."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. World War T seems like an incredibly minor issue relative to the press it gets. You would think liberals would be more concerned with economic inequality, global warming, the ecological devastation caused by third world overpopulation, or how US intervention in the Middle East has caused a tremendous refugee problem that is destroying the EU. Maybe the fact that those more traditional leftist issues help Sanders and hurt Clinton has something to do with the emphasis on World War T?

    Read More
    • Replies: @gruff
    Precisely. "Even if we broke up the banks, would that make trannies any freer to go into girl's bathrooms? NO!" - Rodham
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. gruff says:
    @Spmoore8
    Unless these Afghans gained access posing as women, this rape doesn't apply here.

    I know I just wanted to throw that out.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. gruff says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    World War T seems like an incredibly minor issue relative to the press it gets. You would think liberals would be more concerned with economic inequality, global warming, the ecological devastation caused by third world overpopulation, or how US intervention in the Middle East has caused a tremendous refugee problem that is destroying the EU. Maybe the fact that those more traditional leftist issues help Sanders and hurt Clinton has something to do with the emphasis on World War T?

    Precisely. “Even if we broke up the banks, would that make trannies any freer to go into girl’s bathrooms? NO!” – Rodham

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anonym says:
    @Anonymous
    I had an acquaintance who became transgender, then killed himself.

    This was pretty recently. It was truly tragic.

    I was very sad, and thought about his death.

    I blame society. Society made him what he was.

    He was encouraged to think that he could become a beautiful woman, and encouraged to think that he was a woman. But I think he was smarter than that. I think he knew that after all was said and done, he was still the guy he had always been, just in womens' clothing and makeup.

    I don't think his death was due to a lack of acceptance of what he wanted. I think it was due to a lack of acceptance by him and those around him of reality.

    I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces.

    We shall see.

    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children’s TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the “herbivores men” of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.

    You would see some of this when I grew up, that children who had been fed a diet of Bruce Lee movies would get sucked in by McDojo cult leaders. And truth be told, you could make a similar sort of case for Arnold and Stallone movies leading to Joe Weider making a fortunate peddling protein powder and sugar.

    On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn’t IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no. I think it is fair to say that we have quantitively and qualitatively more unreal entertainment than every before. And this is showing up with people with strange sex urges wanting to live them out.

    This also gets back to porn. We can watch more porn than we could ever hope to download. Whatever fake reality we want to live in, it’s there. I think this is where the trans-thing is coming from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children’s TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the “herbivores men” of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.
     
    It's the formats too. They are too distorted and grotesque in that cloned CGI way. They penetrate the kiddies minds more than the flat old cartoons like Terrytoon's Mighty Mouse and Bugs Bunny.
    , @al gore rhythms
    "On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn’t IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no"

    Interesting. I was watching a rerun of 'The Matrix' ercently and thinking how much of a 'transgender' fantasy it is, and a Western one too--Keanu Reeves controlling the Matrix to be whoever he wants to be. A fantasy of infinite human plasticity. And of course the film was made by two brothers who later became transgendered.

    There may not have been a direct campaign in Western societies on this issue, but we've been softening up for it in countless ways.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Anonymous
    OT: The annual "got into 7 Ivies" story:

    Brockton student chooses Harvard after getting accepted to 7 Ivy League schools - www.boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/05/14/brockton-student-chooses-harvard-getting-accepted-7-ivy-league-schools

    Which Ivy didn’t he apply to? The story doesn’t say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Which Ivy didn’t he apply to? The story doesn’t say.
     
    Follow the link to the full story at Enterprise. Yale rejected him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Spotted Toad
    One thing that's confused me is...gay marriage, for better or worse, was the culmination of decades of propaganda and social change. I mean, you had "Philadelphia" and "Will and Grace" and lots of other high culture and low to let you know that gay tolerance was really, really important. And while I've probably known more gay people than most, almost everyone has gay acquaintances in their mid-level circle. Even the fact that most adolescent boys tease each other about homosexuality at some point or another suggests that it's an important topic. It's not just out of nowhere. The SCOTUS argument from last year's decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn't wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people's ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    I mean, I used to teach in the East Village. Most of the hippy-dippy parents there would have backed some kind of accommodation to whichever boy decided he was a girl that week-- for that school, in that neighborhood, with some discretion for the school to figure out implementation. But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    The SCOTUS argument from last year’s decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn’t wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people’s ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    They’re both part and parcel–along with women in combat–of denying the natural differences between men and women and their corresponding social roles.

    More basically it’s about denying the givenness of any aspect of life. It’s part of the leftist perpetual revolution–in this case against nature itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Clyde says:

    World War T seems like an incredibly minor issue relative to the press it gets.

    Gays have a tremendous number of fellow travelers in today’s American mass media. Always pushing the gay agenda which is to wreck normal heterosexual society, overtly or subtly. To keep this assault-wrecking going on, after gay marriage this crowd moved on to World War T.
    Meanwhile Trump talks about problems for real Americans such as immigration and trade. The media is pushing the line that Trump has a woman problem. We are going to see that Hillary has a larger man problem. She is a dumpy looking turnoff. Here is how she really looks without professional stage makeup and advantageous lighting.

    http://dailym.ai/1TkVB6a
    Huma carries designer shopping bags for her millionaire boss as Hillary Clinton stops off at Ralph Lauren for a spot of retail therapy

    Hillary Clinton went to Ralph Lauren store on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Aide Huma Abedin was seen carrying her millionaire boss’ shopping bags.
    Another of Clinton’s assistant was spotted holding a blue garment bag. Clinton went to meet HIV/Aids campaigners at her Brooklyn headquarters

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Honestly, there's nothing startling in that candid photo. She doesn't look bad for her age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Stan Adams
    Our Fearless Leader needn't worry. Hastert isn't into girls.

    But if the Great and Mighty One had a son, then Denny would look at him. A lot. While lounging in a La-Z-Boy.

    Didn’t Obama say recently that if his father were still alive, he would look just like Bill Cosby?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. rvg says:

    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront’s membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast’s with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF’s female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    That's really interesting. Do they write like males or females? There are a lot of males pretending to be female on the internet, but their communication style gives the game away.

    If actually female... wow. WN is really going mainstream. But I've often said that the only reason WN gets any traction is because of mass immigration and PC, the same causes that propel Trump's popularity. Let's face it, in the 1950s, 1950s attitudes were wildly popular, by definition. There was nothing innately repulsive about such attitudes for women then, the only reason women today might find such attitudes repulsive is because women have been soaking in an intellectual bath of PC entertainment and education from the cradle.
    , @anon

    which contrast’s with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics
     
    That's where you'e going wrong; feminine psychological characteristics aren't typically soft.

    They are soft within their particular circle of sympathy but hard outside of that for obvious evolutionary reasons.

    European women on average have the widest circle of sympathy and you're taking that as the norm but it's not - hang around gypsy women for example whose circle of sympathy doesn't extend much past cousins and see how much they care about other people's kids.

    If you set the scale as
    - self
    - family
    - clan
    - tribe
    - nation
    - race
    - humanity

    with most populations the weighted average of their individual circles of sympathy would be somewhere around the clan position on the scale

    white people the average is centered more around the nation position.

    i.e. all groups will have individuals at each position but the frequencies vary.
    , @unpc downunder
    Well I doubt many are lesbians. Lesbians are more signficantly more likely to vote for progressive parties than gays or straight women. They also make up a very high percentage of far-left LGBT activists.

    I would guess most female Stromfront supporters would be working and lower-middle class women who have had bad experiences with minorities or who have male friends or relatives with nationalistic views. In Europe working class white women are a big percentage of the vote for nationalist parties.

    Some upper middle-class women are very strongly anti-Islam, and twitter about it constantly, but I don't think they would be Stormfront supporters.

    , @neutral
    This will probably sound bizarre to many here, but you can actually go to Stormfront and ask those questions, they have a section where outsiders can ask and debate anything they want. The sites that tend to be the most censored are actually the ones like National Review or The Guardian. If you want a short answer to your question, then its basically because white women in large non white areas have problems with things like groping, muggings or worse, nobody at National Review or The Guardian can provide them with help with such things.
    , @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical Stormfront female?
     
    I'd be delighted, ascasc. Here goes...

    1. Male
    2. FBI agent
    3. Possesses the ability to select a sufficiently cute avatar

    I hope this has been informative.
    , @WGG
    I don't post on Stormfront, but I adhere to white nationalist ideology and have red-pilled many friends and family. Short answer: I was raised from a young age to be a purity-minded Christian, and had my naive notions about the fellowship dashed early by parents and others alike. I was taught how to be clean, so I recognize filth. Our society is septic. And who is pumping out all forms of filth? Well, we know who, but Steve won't let me say.

    I technically have a high IQ, but I never did anything special with it. I used to work in sales, now I stay home with my kids. Keeping them safe is a high priority for me, so avoiding certain low-impulse-control populations is paramount.

    My husband is -to me- a rock star. I tell him all the time that I admire him and the other upstanding white men of honor who have been the driving forces behind all good in this world. Every time a helpful new invention or innovation hits the news, I know exactly what demographic created it, with well over 90% accuracy. White men are magic. They should be lauded and assisted in anyway possible.

    The racial crime and IQ stats don't lie. If there were hard stats for POZ promotion, I am sure those would reflect the truth about those-who-must-not-be-named. Truth matters. I want to live in a world with low levels of conflict. If that were possible in a multi-cultural society, I would accept it. It isn't possible, or rather, it isn't possible with Western adherence to liberty principles. As they say- liberty, safety, diversity: choose any two. I choose the first two.

    If you want more WN women- be a man of honor, hard work, and loyalty. The contrast with the majority of the globe is self-explanatory.
    , @carol
    I don't know about Stormfront, but in any far right organization often the most active and outspoken members are the women. E.g. Phyllis Shafley. Also our local Eagle Forum president here was female. Older retired women feel safest to hold non SJW views.

    I think they sense they get a pass and can say more out loud with fewer consequences. De Beauvoir wrote as much in Second Sex - they are merely indulged by the men, or used, ala Coulter - and it's true.

    Alleged "racism" is more covert of course but you can get them to talk immigration and ghetto politics in private conversation more than you can with the hypercautious men.

    , @Whoever
    There is no advantage to being female on the internet. As long as no one suspects a person of being female, a good discussion can be had on lots of supposedly typically male-oriented subjects that many women are actually interested in, whether politics, war, science or...oh...naval aviation. But if the men find out they are talking with a woman, the misogynists swarm out of the woodwork and can be quite vicious.
    There's a case where the difference between male and female may appear: men seem to love to engage in flame wars, but women...not so much. They'll just leave.
    I'm reminded of Mary Ann Esfandiari, a brilliant NASA scientist and Commander in the US Navy Reserve. She used to post a lot on various internet aerospace-oriented sites. But she was relentlessly hated off to the point that she finally gave it up. It just wasn't worth it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Nico says:
    @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?

    They clearly don’t WANT to, but over time:

    1. it will gradually becomes clearer that there is no principled way to do so and to hold on to the tenants of sexual and personal emancipation that are the hallmark of the left since the Enlightenment, and
    2. secular, liberal sacred cows like public education will be exposed as even more teaming with perverts than conservative institutions they like to scapegoat

    … and when this happens it will be in their interest to try and convince the public that pedophilia is really “… a… good… thing!!!”

    Read More
    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Nico

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?
     
    They clearly don't WANT to, but over time:

    1. it will gradually becomes clearer that there is no principled way to do so and to hold on to the tenants of sexual and personal emancipation that are the hallmark of the left since the Enlightenment, and
    2. secular, liberal sacred cows like public education will be exposed as even more teaming with perverts than conservative institutions they like to scapegoat

    ... and when this happens it will be in their interest to try and convince the public that pedophilia is really "... a... good... thing!!!"

    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don’t know what yet, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.
    , @Lot

    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don’t know what yet, though.
     
    What's next on the libertarian-libertine --important new constitutional rights-- agenda isn't a big secret.

    1. Repeal of Utah's anti-polygamy criminal laws. I doubt the left really cares much about going for actual state recognition of second wives. And not too many politically active wives really want to legally allow a younger concubine to join the household as co-wife. But ending criminal prosecutions of the men in the random renegade Morman cult towns for polygamy seems like a very easy target.

    I wish them well on this task. I feel pretty good about the rare little sparks of demographic life in my demographically decaying race. Good for the Mormons, Amish, Ultra-Orthodox, and Alaska evangelicals. I find their quirks charming and worthy of preservation, not criminal prosecution.

    2. Complete repeal of federal marijuana possession and intra-state trafficking laws, and expansion beyond the current four states of recreational marijuana legalization. Right now recreational marijuana is legal in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, D.C. and Alaska. Recreational legalization will be on the ballot in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Massachusetts in November, and likely pass in all four states, or at worst in three.

    3. Decriminalization of prostitution is a top agenda item for feminists. One thing holding them back is they are divided into two camps that actually hate each other. One camp says just legalize it for the women, not the johns and pimps. The other says it isn't really legal for them if their customers and business managers can be picked up and tossed in jail. They toss vile accusations at each other, including "trans-exclusionary," "privileged" and of course "racist."
    , @Percy Gryce
    Nico didn't say it's the next thing but that it's coming gradually. It is and for the reasons he excellently adduces. I would add that when the Catholic Church's counter-measures become most effective--and the usefulness of that particular stigma to beat the dogma wanes--that will be another sign of the shift.

    But you can already see the baby steps:

    Sixteen years ago(!) the U.K. lowered the age of homosexual consent to 16.

    Every time there is a conviction for statutory rape by a teen-aged offender--particularly if the perpetrator is a NAM--there is push back against those laws and often a reworking to weaken them (e.g., the Marcus Dixon case).

    The continued elite support for Roman Polanski is a key straw in the wind. When the time is right, we know exactly how elite opinion will turn.

    , @biz
    The next thing will be polyamory.

    The cultural offensive will be to have polyamorous relationships accorded the same respect as monogamous ones. We are probably less than a decade away from the first 'enlightened' valentine's day ad featuring a picture perfect seemingly wholesome MFF triad. They're not about freaky sex - they're so in love.

    The legal offensive will be to have plural marriages recognized. When multiple, potentially unlimited, people can get survivor and social security benefits from one person, well that's basically an unlimited welfare state. Monogamy will be a financial sucker's bet. Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final fronteir of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.
    , @Nico
    Mr. Sailer, I don't argue this will necessarily be the "next" thing. However, there are plenty of indications that the legitimation of pederasty and pedophilia (under the guise of "consensual child-adult sex," of course) is somewhere on the menu. For one thing, legitimation of pederasty WAS a point on the agenda of the Gay Liberation movement until NAMBLA was expelled from LGBT umbrellas groups in the 1970s, as they began seizing opportunities to go "mainstream."

    For another, the most strident of the SJWs in their never-ending quest for the expansion of rights already float the idea that 16-year-olds should be allowed the franchise, or that children should be able to sue their parents (see Hillary Clinton: "Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment & others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally by parents."). Even if they (sometimes) don't mention sexual rights, for now, you can bet those will follow if they score victories on other fronts in this arena.

    Also, there are the well-known penchants of Third World populations, especially Muslim Third-Worlders, and the affinity of the Left for disregarding the basic social rules they pound on Westerners and Christians to accommodate immigrants.

    Finally, there is the observable fact of the gradually-lowering age of puberty. This does not mean anything in itself, but given the Left's penchant for abusing science one can easily imagine them using this point to argue that 12-year-olds are or ought to be ready for sex.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Trelane says:

    The System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether always comes to mind when the subject takes this unfortunate turn.

    http://poestories.com/read/systemoftarr

    Edgar Allen Poe was half genius and half hack but he knew, I think, exactly what he was talking about when the subject was, as it is here, madness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Clyde says:
    @Anonym
    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children's TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the "herbivores men" of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.

    You would see some of this when I grew up, that children who had been fed a diet of Bruce Lee movies would get sucked in by McDojo cult leaders. And truth be told, you could make a similar sort of case for Arnold and Stallone movies leading to Joe Weider making a fortunate peddling protein powder and sugar.

    On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn't IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no. I think it is fair to say that we have quantitively and qualitatively more unreal entertainment than every before. And this is showing up with people with strange sex urges wanting to live them out.

    This also gets back to porn. We can watch more porn than we could ever hope to download. Whatever fake reality we want to live in, it's there. I think this is where the trans-thing is coming from.

    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children’s TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the “herbivores men” of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.

    It’s the formats too. They are too distorted and grotesque in that cloned CGI way. They penetrate the kiddies minds more than the flat old cartoons like Terrytoon’s Mighty Mouse and Bugs Bunny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anonym says:
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    That’s really interesting. Do they write like males or females? There are a lot of males pretending to be female on the internet, but their communication style gives the game away.

    If actually female… wow. WN is really going mainstream. But I’ve often said that the only reason WN gets any traction is because of mass immigration and PC, the same causes that propel Trump’s popularity. Let’s face it, in the 1950s, 1950s attitudes were wildly popular, by definition. There was nothing innately repulsive about such attitudes for women then, the only reason women today might find such attitudes repulsive is because women have been soaking in an intellectual bath of PC entertainment and education from the cradle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rvg
    My working theory is that these are males with multiple accounts, or females with male brains. Since I could hardly envision a neurotypical female being attracted to WN. plus a female WN would be subject to a lot more opprobrium than a male WN, considering how females are supposed to be caring and such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.

    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Track record vs Waterloo. I was going to suggest that Steve suggest World War B (eastiality). However, I think it's unlikely that the SJWs will go down that path.

    Even 10-15 years ago, the LGBT were talking about LGBT issues, not LGB issues, so it is an indication of what was next. They kind of telegraphed that one.
    , @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing".
    The next thing may be
    https://markdyal.com/
    , @wren
    As long as we don't continue too far along this path that was so nicely mapped out by Huxley and Orwell, we might be OK.

    But if the state gets too mixed in with googlefacebook and all the cameras and microphones (noted while facing into a camera while typing into a phone) and society continues to be proud to deny reality, we are screwed.

    PC thinking is just phase one, to soften our brains.

    When the thinkpol knock on my door in the middle of the night for thoughtcrimes committed while commenting on iSteve, we will have arrived.

    Or at least that may happen when I truly love whatever the latest PC thing is.

    Whatever it may be.
    , @BenKenobi
    "...Sailer let his mind drift. Unmoored from space and time, the images came to him. Images he could feel. Not sensations -- but memories of sensations. A pride parade. A whiff of lavender. A verdant field stretching to the horizon. A public bathroom, door wide. A boot stomping a face. The field again. The door to the bathroom slammed. The images stopped. He opened his eyes.

    Sailer turned to his disciples. "I... cannot see the Next Big Thing." He was perplexed.

    Amongst the crowd, Desiderius spoke up. "Then, perhaps, there will not be."

    A speculative murmur wove through the disciples."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Anonym says:
    @Desiderius
    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.

    Track record vs Waterloo. I was going to suggest that Steve suggest World War B (eastiality). However, I think it’s unlikely that the SJWs will go down that path.

    Even 10-15 years ago, the LGBT were talking about LGBT issues, not LGB issues, so it is an indication of what was next. They kind of telegraphed that one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. rvg says:
    @Anonym
    That's really interesting. Do they write like males or females? There are a lot of males pretending to be female on the internet, but their communication style gives the game away.

    If actually female... wow. WN is really going mainstream. But I've often said that the only reason WN gets any traction is because of mass immigration and PC, the same causes that propel Trump's popularity. Let's face it, in the 1950s, 1950s attitudes were wildly popular, by definition. There was nothing innately repulsive about such attitudes for women then, the only reason women today might find such attitudes repulsive is because women have been soaking in an intellectual bath of PC entertainment and education from the cradle.

    My working theory is that these are males with multiple accounts, or females with male brains. Since I could hardly envision a neurotypical female being attracted to WN. plus a female WN would be subject to a lot more opprobrium than a male WN, considering how females are supposed to be caring and such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cattle Guard
    The "Taylor Swift For Fascist Europe" Facebook page comes to mind - obviously run by guys. Great fun, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Steve,

    You’ve got this all wrong. It’s BuzzFeed News. Everyone knows how Obama talks because we can watch him in videos. The narrative about Obama is that he’s extremely well-spoken. You yourself even called him a good writer in a recent post. BuzzFeed is quoting him verbatim because they believe that Obama’s words are, ipso facto, articulate.

    everyone else,

    This is not really a “safety issue”. A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory bathrooms. For example, Haverford College in PA started gender-neutral bathrooms back in the mid-1990s. If there were a general safety issue with men’s raging hormones, it would have turned up on campuses and caused the end of the policy. There just aren’t enough Haven Monahans in the world to overturn gender-neutral bathrooms.

    Outside the Haverfords of the world, there may be enough low-IQ men, pervs, and blacks to cause gender-neutrality to be unsustainable in public bathrooms. However, Obama’s directive is not aimed at public bathrooms, it’s aimed at public school bathrooms. As public schools are becoming more and more like small high-security prisons, it will not be difficult to design policies to manage this problem.

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage? We could be on the cusp of widespread gender-neutrality in many forms. The comments above on Title IX problems are insightful, but not a lock. I had association with a university that chose to cut both women’s and men’s swimming rather than cut a men’s basketball team, although this obviously hurt women athletes. But guess who trumps women? Blacks.

    I’m sure the specifics of genderless athletic competition could be worked out. For example, once the genetics of muscular development are understood thoroughly, they’ll be able to divide people in other kinds of competitive divisions not based on sexual/gender orientation. It was never really “fair” for me to have to compete against ectomorphic guys in cross-country running, nor for them to compete against me in field sports. In the future, this can be “recognized” and “remedied.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage?
     
    What really happened is the super-wealthy sort of collectively changed their mind, and they run America so quickly the rest of the public followed and the laws changed. It happens. The super-rich are a pretty small circle, and a fad or strongly-held political opinion can sweep through quickly.

    The rich have big social circles and often big families. One well-loved member of the family turns out gay, or maybe a member of the partnership or board of directors, and the rich flip or at most soften their view and avoid the issue. And rich women find gays delightful. Between these two factors, and most rich men not really caring to take a stand on a stupid issue, the rich flipped, and it took maybe three years to change things. Ken Mehlman just got together with the biggest GOP super-donors and convinced them to just give money to the pro-gay Republicans.

    This devastated opposition to gay marriage among elective officials. In modern American politics, you don't say no to a super-donor.

    And Ted Olsen signaled to all the other good Republican lawyers that they should no longer defend gay marriage bans in court, and if they want to win and look good, they should flip like him and argue for marriage equality, and that was enough for Justice Kennedy, who has a high opinion of Olsen.
    , @e
    This is not really a “safety issue”. A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory
    bathrooms.


    You think the % criminals attending college match the % in the general population?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Lot says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.

    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don’t know what yet, though.

    What’s next on the libertarian-libertine –important new constitutional rights– agenda isn’t a big secret.

    1. Repeal of Utah’s anti-polygamy criminal laws. I doubt the left really cares much about going for actual state recognition of second wives. And not too many politically active wives really want to legally allow a younger concubine to join the household as co-wife. But ending criminal prosecutions of the men in the random renegade Morman cult towns for polygamy seems like a very easy target.

    I wish them well on this task. I feel pretty good about the rare little sparks of demographic life in my demographically decaying race. Good for the Mormons, Amish, Ultra-Orthodox, and Alaska evangelicals. I find their quirks charming and worthy of preservation, not criminal prosecution.

    2. Complete repeal of federal marijuana possession and intra-state trafficking laws, and expansion beyond the current four states of recreational marijuana legalization. Right now recreational marijuana is legal in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, D.C. and Alaska. Recreational legalization will be on the ballot in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Massachusetts in November, and likely pass in all four states, or at worst in three.

    3. Decriminalization of prostitution is a top agenda item for feminists. One thing holding them back is they are divided into two camps that actually hate each other. One camp says just legalize it for the women, not the johns and pimps. The other says it isn’t really legal for them if their customers and business managers can be picked up and tossed in jail. They toss vile accusations at each other, including “trans-exclusionary,” “privileged” and of course “racist.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @TangoMan
    What’s next on the libertarian-libertine –important new constitutional rights– agenda isn’t a big secret.

    This presumes the war is to be taken to the turf of the enemy but remember we're dealing with the Coalition of the Fringes here and they're not a stable coalition. This transgender bathroom war is a symbolic victory for transsexuals but doesn't really deliver the psychic goods for them. Their enemy here is not normal society rather it is the homosexuals. The male lesbians are very frustrated with the bigoted female lesbians who don't want to have sex with the male lesbians because they have a penis. See the Cotton Ceiling.

    We may have a bit of an interlude until the problem between the male and female lesbians is resolved and this is going to require the Coalition of Fringes to pick sides in this internecine war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    which contrast’s with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics

    That’s where you’e going wrong; feminine psychological characteristics aren’t typically soft.

    They are soft within their particular circle of sympathy but hard outside of that for obvious evolutionary reasons.

    European women on average have the widest circle of sympathy and you’re taking that as the norm but it’s not – hang around gypsy women for example whose circle of sympathy doesn’t extend much past cousins and see how much they care about other people’s kids.

    If you set the scale as
    - self
    - family
    - clan
    - tribe
    - nation
    - race
    - humanity

    with most populations the weighted average of their individual circles of sympathy would be somewhere around the clan position on the scale

    white people the average is centered more around the nation position.

    i.e. all groups will have individuals at each position but the frequencies vary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Its so funny to see the SF top brass pandering so hard to 2nd wave feminists.
    , @Anonymous
    Swedes are centered around humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Desiderius
    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.

    “Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing”.
    The next thing may be

    https://markdyal.com/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. wren says:
    @Desiderius
    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.

    As long as we don’t continue too far along this path that was so nicely mapped out by Huxley and Orwell, we might be OK.

    But if the state gets too mixed in with googlefacebook and all the cameras and microphones (noted while facing into a camera while typing into a phone) and society continues to be proud to deny reality, we are screwed.

    PC thinking is just phase one, to soften our brains.

    When the thinkpol knock on my door in the middle of the night for thoughtcrimes committed while commenting on iSteve, we will have arrived.

    Or at least that may happen when I truly love whatever the latest PC thing is.

    Whatever it may be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?

    Because they’re not liberals; they’re brain washed zombies who do whatever the TV tells them.

    So the question is why would a handful of sociopath billionaires who own *all* the media want to normalize pedophilia?

    I can think of a few possible reasons but the first step is for people to get it in their heads that is precisely what is happening – they are working to normalize pedophilia one taboo at a time, destroying resistance with each step.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Lot says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,

    You've got this all wrong. It's BuzzFeed News. Everyone knows how Obama talks because we can watch him in videos. The narrative about Obama is that he's extremely well-spoken. You yourself even called him a good writer in a recent post. BuzzFeed is quoting him verbatim because they believe that Obama's words are, ipso facto, articulate.

    everyone else,

    This is not really a "safety issue". A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory bathrooms. For example, Haverford College in PA started gender-neutral bathrooms back in the mid-1990s. If there were a general safety issue with men's raging hormones, it would have turned up on campuses and caused the end of the policy. There just aren't enough Haven Monahans in the world to overturn gender-neutral bathrooms.

    Outside the Haverfords of the world, there may be enough low-IQ men, pervs, and blacks to cause gender-neutrality to be unsustainable in public bathrooms. However, Obama's directive is not aimed at public bathrooms, it's aimed at public school bathrooms. As public schools are becoming more and more like small high-security prisons, it will not be difficult to design policies to manage this problem.

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage? We could be on the cusp of widespread gender-neutrality in many forms. The comments above on Title IX problems are insightful, but not a lock. I had association with a university that chose to cut both women's and men's swimming rather than cut a men's basketball team, although this obviously hurt women athletes. But guess who trumps women? Blacks.

    I'm sure the specifics of genderless athletic competition could be worked out. For example, once the genetics of muscular development are understood thoroughly, they'll be able to divide people in other kinds of competitive divisions not based on sexual/gender orientation. It was never really "fair" for me to have to compete against ectomorphic guys in cross-country running, nor for them to compete against me in field sports. In the future, this can be "recognized" and "remedied."

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage?

    What really happened is the super-wealthy sort of collectively changed their mind, and they run America so quickly the rest of the public followed and the laws changed. It happens. The super-rich are a pretty small circle, and a fad or strongly-held political opinion can sweep through quickly.

    The rich have big social circles and often big families. One well-loved member of the family turns out gay, or maybe a member of the partnership or board of directors, and the rich flip or at most soften their view and avoid the issue. And rich women find gays delightful. Between these two factors, and most rich men not really caring to take a stand on a stupid issue, the rich flipped, and it took maybe three years to change things. Ken Mehlman just got together with the biggest GOP super-donors and convinced them to just give money to the pro-gay Republicans.

    This devastated opposition to gay marriage among elective officials. In modern American politics, you don’t say no to a super-donor.

    And Ted Olsen signaled to all the other good Republican lawyers that they should no longer defend gay marriage bans in court, and if they want to win and look good, they should flip like him and argue for marriage equality, and that was enough for Justice Kennedy, who has a high opinion of Olsen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I agree with your point about the influence of gays and super-donors in the Republican Party, but I don't think your story explains everything.

    There have always been gays in the families of the wealthy and around them in business. And people often knew who they were. Simple association with gays has not always led people to the conclusion that gay marriage is okay. I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    I don't know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion. My guess is that, in both cases, changes in what "everyone knows" about being gay had a big effect. When everyone knows that boys who want to dress like girls are just born that way, and can't help it, and are just like you and me, we can see rapid acceptance of transgenderism too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    Reagan: “Tear down this wall!”

    Obama: “Tear off that penis!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    Kennedy - "A man on the moon within 10 years"

    Obama - "A man in every woman's bathroom within one year"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    turns out that when obama was age 10 or thereabout and living in indonesia, he had a nanny for a few years who happened to be a male tranny…whatever…I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something…and whether that would explain his affinity for trans people and his having married a women that many people think is a tranny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something... [I wonder] whether that would explain... his having married a women that many people [wonder if she] is a tranny.
     
    I love this kind of reasoning. What do we call it? A chain of wonders? A wonderful chain? Six degrees of speculation?

    Anyhow, nanny and prostitute. When Michelle Obama makes the police blotter for turning tricks, I'll remember this comment!!
    , @Zippy
    I can believe that Obama is or has been on the down-low; despite the occasional macho posturing, he seems oddly effeminate.

    But the notion that Michelle Obama is a tranny is just ridiculous. Too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. She is, like many black women, more masculine than the average white or Asian woman. But too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. And her family was not the sort of family that could pull that transition off when she was six or something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Lot

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage?
     
    What really happened is the super-wealthy sort of collectively changed their mind, and they run America so quickly the rest of the public followed and the laws changed. It happens. The super-rich are a pretty small circle, and a fad or strongly-held political opinion can sweep through quickly.

    The rich have big social circles and often big families. One well-loved member of the family turns out gay, or maybe a member of the partnership or board of directors, and the rich flip or at most soften their view and avoid the issue. And rich women find gays delightful. Between these two factors, and most rich men not really caring to take a stand on a stupid issue, the rich flipped, and it took maybe three years to change things. Ken Mehlman just got together with the biggest GOP super-donors and convinced them to just give money to the pro-gay Republicans.

    This devastated opposition to gay marriage among elective officials. In modern American politics, you don't say no to a super-donor.

    And Ted Olsen signaled to all the other good Republican lawyers that they should no longer defend gay marriage bans in court, and if they want to win and look good, they should flip like him and argue for marriage equality, and that was enough for Justice Kennedy, who has a high opinion of Olsen.

    I agree with your point about the influence of gays and super-donors in the Republican Party, but I don’t think your story explains everything.

    There have always been gays in the families of the wealthy and around them in business. And people often knew who they were. Simple association with gays has not always led people to the conclusion that gay marriage is okay. I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    I don’t know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion. My guess is that, in both cases, changes in what “everyone knows” about being gay had a big effect. When everyone knows that boys who want to dress like girls are just born that way, and can’t help it, and are just like you and me, we can see rapid acceptance of transgenderism too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.
     
    1) position A
    2) position B
    3) neutral

    as long as position A and B are allowed to debate then the neutrals will be split between them. If you can force people who hold position B to shut up then all the neutrals will move to position A.
    , @TangoMan
    I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    Ann Coulter tweeted about the physician who caught Ebola and chastised him for going on a medical mission to Africa instead of proselytizing here in America's godless cities. Her point was that these missionaries saw the task as too difficult, had given up on America, and sought out greener pastures.

    If her assessment is accurate, then it likely extends beyond just religious missionaries. How much are people willing to sacrifice to save society? I'm not convinced that we're seeing an embrace of homosexual marriage, instead I see capitulation, people just don't have the stomach for a big cultural fight because they've become dispossessed in their own society.
    , @SteveO

    I don’t know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion.
     
    I can't speak for (A), but (B) at least in part came about because:

    1. Nearly unanimous media support for SSM. That was partly driven by (A) but also driven by the fact that the people who write for TV, movies, most news outlets, etc., are on average very liberal on social issues and have been for decades. The idea of allowing gays to marry is not new. These social liberals were already halfway on board with it 10 years ago. Things just reached a tipping point.

    2. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual couples just short of marriage was already widespread. Once you've accepted that two men can love each other and be a couple just like you and your husband (don't overlook the influence of women and the feminization of society in this matter), then it just seems silly not to let them marry.

    3. Finally, there is the painful fact that heterosexuals had already made a mockery of marriage with the ease and frequency of divorce. It was hard even for non-liberals to take defense of marriage talk seriously when it came from the mouths of twice- or thrice-divorced "social conservatives". In other words, marriage had already been thoroughly degraded by the people it was meant for; why not allow others to join it?

    By the way, it's very common, even here at iSteve to see the destruction of marriage blamed on homosexuals, but they are a small and peripheral group in this regard. It's straight people who have degraded marriage by making it too easy to get out of. Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men's room, why don't SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again? I'm not advocating shunning people who divorce; some marriages truly do need to end. But how much better off we would be if there was still at least some social pressure to stay married, at least until the kids are grown (as, indeed, there is within the upper middle class).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Mr. Blank says:
    @Anonymous
    The remarks were the president’s first public comments on a directive released Friday ...

    All the hardcore business is dumped on the public by potus on Friday.

    But I can't think of a single media watchdog that stands guard Friday afternoons/nights even though about 1/3 of Fridays during the year are newsy due to the dumping.

    Especially with a Dem Potus this Friday dump window is key because if you wait until the evening the entire talk radio industry is completely impotent for a crucial 60 hours until Monday morning.

    The idea of 24/7/365 news cycle in the USA is bs. The news media goes almost completely to sleep all weekend even in an election year.

    To get an idea of just how cynical and corrupt the media is take a look at how reluctant the A list journalists are to come back in on the weekend to cover even big news.

    I can confirm this anecdotally. I work in the news media; thanks to the withering away of more-or-less independent newspapers and TV stations in the past decade and a half, weekends are a dead zone for news at most outlets. Weekend stories are either evergreen-type features (“Local World War II vet turns 100, shares memories”), or “in-depth” packages that are fussed over for weeks. So-called “breaking” news gets short shrift on weekends — few news organizations want to shell out the money to have a bunch of crackerjack reporters racking up overtime on Saturday and Sunday. Government officials are completely aware of this, of course. Thus, they long ago figured out that late Friday was the perfect time for officials to release damaging info about themselves and their departments.

    This has always been the case, of course, but it’s gotten much worse over the course of my career; seasoned reporters used to be hip to the “Friday afternoon news dump” trick, but the younger recruits are a lot more naive, and in many cases they lack a stable of experienced old-timers who can clue them in to the tricks of the trade.

    Obama’s guy Ben Rhodes might have been more clever than he knew…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin

    Government officials are completely aware of this, of course. Thus, they long ago figured out that late Friday was the perfect time for officials to release damaging info about themselves and their departments.
     
    Absolutely accurate in my own experience in/with federal and state agencies. The other trick is to have buddies at the bigger news outlets who have a sense of what's going to be in the news cycle for the coming weeks.

    If they have, say, an enormous "investigative" series launching the week after next--say on pedophilia in day care centers or breast augmentations gone wrong or Africanized bees in your children's lunch boxes or puppies who turn into zombies--then don't launch this Friday, hold it a week. Not only do you benefit from the weekend dead zone, anyone who might pick it up on Monday will be distracted by the sensational front-page gruel and resulting clickstorms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Leftist conservative
    turns out that when obama was age 10 or thereabout and living in indonesia, he had a nanny for a few years who happened to be a male tranny...whatever...I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something...and whether that would explain his affinity for trans people and his having married a women that many people think is a tranny.

    I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something… [I wonder] whether that would explain… his having married a women that many people [wonder if she] is a tranny.

    I love this kind of reasoning. What do we call it? A chain of wonders? A wonderful chain? Six degrees of speculation?

    Anyhow, nanny and prostitute. When Michelle Obama makes the police blotter for turning tricks, I’ll remember this comment!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @rvg
    Huh? Michelle Obama is not bad looking by the standards of black women who are not mulattoes unless you have some weird prejudice against black people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    which contrast’s with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics
     
    That's where you'e going wrong; feminine psychological characteristics aren't typically soft.

    They are soft within their particular circle of sympathy but hard outside of that for obvious evolutionary reasons.

    European women on average have the widest circle of sympathy and you're taking that as the norm but it's not - hang around gypsy women for example whose circle of sympathy doesn't extend much past cousins and see how much they care about other people's kids.

    If you set the scale as
    - self
    - family
    - clan
    - tribe
    - nation
    - race
    - humanity

    with most populations the weighted average of their individual circles of sympathy would be somewhere around the clan position on the scale

    white people the average is centered more around the nation position.

    i.e. all groups will have individuals at each position but the frequencies vary.

    Its so funny to see the SF top brass pandering so hard to 2nd wave feminists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. rvg says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something... [I wonder] whether that would explain... his having married a women that many people [wonder if she] is a tranny.
     
    I love this kind of reasoning. What do we call it? A chain of wonders? A wonderful chain? Six degrees of speculation?

    Anyhow, nanny and prostitute. When Michelle Obama makes the police blotter for turning tricks, I'll remember this comment!!

    Huh? Michelle Obama is not bad looking by the standards of black women who are not mulattoes unless you have some weird prejudice against black people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. anon says: • Disclaimer

    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    and the women come out to cut up what remains,
    just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    and go to your god like a soldier

    Kipling

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. TangoMan says:
    @Lot

    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don’t know what yet, though.
     
    What's next on the libertarian-libertine --important new constitutional rights-- agenda isn't a big secret.

    1. Repeal of Utah's anti-polygamy criminal laws. I doubt the left really cares much about going for actual state recognition of second wives. And not too many politically active wives really want to legally allow a younger concubine to join the household as co-wife. But ending criminal prosecutions of the men in the random renegade Morman cult towns for polygamy seems like a very easy target.

    I wish them well on this task. I feel pretty good about the rare little sparks of demographic life in my demographically decaying race. Good for the Mormons, Amish, Ultra-Orthodox, and Alaska evangelicals. I find their quirks charming and worthy of preservation, not criminal prosecution.

    2. Complete repeal of federal marijuana possession and intra-state trafficking laws, and expansion beyond the current four states of recreational marijuana legalization. Right now recreational marijuana is legal in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, D.C. and Alaska. Recreational legalization will be on the ballot in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Massachusetts in November, and likely pass in all four states, or at worst in three.

    3. Decriminalization of prostitution is a top agenda item for feminists. One thing holding them back is they are divided into two camps that actually hate each other. One camp says just legalize it for the women, not the johns and pimps. The other says it isn't really legal for them if their customers and business managers can be picked up and tossed in jail. They toss vile accusations at each other, including "trans-exclusionary," "privileged" and of course "racist."

    What’s next on the libertarian-libertine –important new constitutional rights– agenda isn’t a big secret.

    This presumes the war is to be taken to the turf of the enemy but remember we’re dealing with the Coalition of the Fringes here and they’re not a stable coalition. This transgender bathroom war is a symbolic victory for transsexuals but doesn’t really deliver the psychic goods for them. Their enemy here is not normal society rather it is the homosexuals. The male lesbians are very frustrated with the bigoted female lesbians who don’t want to have sex with the male lesbians because they have a penis. See the Cotton Ceiling.

    We may have a bit of an interlude until the problem between the male and female lesbians is resolved and this is going to require the Coalition of Fringes to pick sides in this internecine war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Chrisnonymous
    I agree with your point about the influence of gays and super-donors in the Republican Party, but I don't think your story explains everything.

    There have always been gays in the families of the wealthy and around them in business. And people often knew who they were. Simple association with gays has not always led people to the conclusion that gay marriage is okay. I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    I don't know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion. My guess is that, in both cases, changes in what "everyone knows" about being gay had a big effect. When everyone knows that boys who want to dress like girls are just born that way, and can't help it, and are just like you and me, we can see rapid acceptance of transgenderism too.

    I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    1) position A
    2) position B
    3) neutral

    as long as position A and B are allowed to debate then the neutrals will be split between them. If you can force people who hold position B to shut up then all the neutrals will move to position A.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. TangoMan says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    I agree with your point about the influence of gays and super-donors in the Republican Party, but I don't think your story explains everything.

    There have always been gays in the families of the wealthy and around them in business. And people often knew who they were. Simple association with gays has not always led people to the conclusion that gay marriage is okay. I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    I don't know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion. My guess is that, in both cases, changes in what "everyone knows" about being gay had a big effect. When everyone knows that boys who want to dress like girls are just born that way, and can't help it, and are just like you and me, we can see rapid acceptance of transgenderism too.

    I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    Ann Coulter tweeted about the physician who caught Ebola and chastised him for going on a medical mission to Africa instead of proselytizing here in America’s godless cities. Her point was that these missionaries saw the task as too difficult, had given up on America, and sought out greener pastures.

    If her assessment is accurate, then it likely extends beyond just religious missionaries. How much are people willing to sacrifice to save society? I’m not convinced that we’re seeing an embrace of homosexual marriage, instead I see capitulation, people just don’t have the stomach for a big cultural fight because they’ve become dispossessed in their own society.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @rvg
    My working theory is that these are males with multiple accounts, or females with male brains. Since I could hardly envision a neurotypical female being attracted to WN. plus a female WN would be subject to a lot more opprobrium than a male WN, considering how females are supposed to be caring and such.

    The “Taylor Swift For Fascist Europe” Facebook page comes to mind – obviously run by guys. Great fun, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    Well I doubt many are lesbians. Lesbians are more signficantly more likely to vote for progressive parties than gays or straight women. They also make up a very high percentage of far-left LGBT activists.

    I would guess most female Stromfront supporters would be working and lower-middle class women who have had bad experiences with minorities or who have male friends or relatives with nationalistic views. In Europe working class white women are a big percentage of the vote for nationalist parties.

    Some upper middle-class women are very strongly anti-Islam, and twitter about it constantly, but I don’t think they would be Stormfront supporters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Some upper middle-class women are very strongly anti-Islam, and twitter about it constantly, but I don’t think they would be Stormfront supporters."

    White women make up an extremely miniscule percentage of Nazi 3rd Reich Stormfront type racists.

    But a lot of White women are Archie Bunker type racists, meaning they can be friends with Nonwhite people but they still notice things that would be considered racist by the Left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anonym says:

    I know this is old news, but in WWG here is how the battle lines are drawn. HBD much? The same bifurcation with NW Europe and IQ is seen here. WWG is mostly a NW Eurosphere phenomenon.

    http://ilga.org/downloads/03_ILGA_WorldMap_ENGLISH_Overview_May2016.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. dr kill says:
    @Anonymous
    More men would be uncomfortable with chicks with dicks in the men's bathroom than women would be with them in their bathrooms. It's sort of like how men don't have gay friends, while women have gay male friends or don't mind having gay males around. Frankly, it'd be better if gay men used the women's bathrooms too, since them being in the men's bathroom is more uncomfortable to men than them being in women's bathroom is to women.

    Please don’t come around here projecting your issues on me, Scooter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. tbraton says:

    It appears that some in the press are no longer running cover for our affirmative action baby President. Last week, I came across an article in the “American Thinker” from 2011, which I found from a link posted in one of your threads by another poster recently (whose name I lost track of, otherwise I would name him to give him credit).
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/08/early_obama_letter_confirms_inability_to_write.html If anybody hasn’t read that piece, I strongly suggest he do so, for it provides some revealing insights into the abilities of our President and his First Lady. Since the “writing sample” consists of a letter Obama wrote while President of the Harvard Law Review in response to a complaint about affirmative action sent by an Asian student, it offers some insight to President Obama’s handling of another ticklish issue, which bathrooms transgender students are allowed to use.

    Here are the concluding paragraphs from the article:

    “To his credit, Obama concedes that he “may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy.” This did not strike him as unusual as he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career.”

    On the basis of his being elected president of Law Review — a popularity contest — Obama was awarded a six-figure contract to write a book. To this point, he had not shown a hint of promise as a writer, but Simon & Schuster, like Sidley Austin, took the Harvard credential seriously. It should not have. For three years Obama floundered as badly as Michelle had at Sidley Austin. Simon & Schuster finally pulled the contract.

    Then Obama found his muse — right in the neighborhood, as it turns out! And promptly, without further ado, the awkward, passive, ungrammatical Obama, a man who had not written one inspired sentence in his whole life, published what Time Magazine called “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.”

    To question the nature of that production, I have learned, is to risk the abuse promised to Mr. Chen’s theoretical employer. After all, who would challenge Obama’s obvious talent — or that of any affirmative action beneficiary — but those blinded by what Obama calls “deep-rooted ignorance and bias”?

    What else could it be?”

    The article is equally devastating when it comes to Michelle Obama:

    “Scarier than Obama’s style, however, is his thinking. A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.

    In the case of Michelle Obama, affirmative action did all three. The partners at Sidley Austin learned this the hard way. In 1988, they hired her out of Harvard Law under the impression that the degree meant something. It did not. By 1991, Michelle was working in the public sector as an assistant to the mayor. By 1993, she had given up her law license.

    Had the partners investigated Michelle’s background, they would have foreseen the disaster to come. Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.”

    She did not write well, either. Mundy charitably describes her senior thesis at Princeton as “dense and turgid.” The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observes, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.”

    Michelle had to have been as anxious at Harvard Law as Bart Simpson was at Genius School. Almost assuredly, the gap between her writing and that of her highly talented colleagues marked her as an affirmative action admission, and the profs finessed her through.”

    In this age of constantly changing values, it’s good to see that the same muddled thinking Obama engaged in at Harvard Law 25 years ago still continues during his tenure at the White House.

    BTW the article seems to confirm the rampant speculation that has been going on for some time that Obama did not actually write “Dreams From My Father,” but that it was ghost-written by his Chicago friend and neighbor, Bill Ayers, the former domestic terrorist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Clifford Brown
    One of the more glaring aspects of the Justice Department's actions is that set aside "trans" or single user bathrooms are deemed discriminatory and transgender women must have the right to use the general women's bathrooms.

    The Justice Department is claiming authority for this action under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which relates to "sex" discrimination in education. The Obama administration is claiming that Title IX applies to "gender identity" just as it applies to "sex". The problem is that there is extensive case law and legislative history relating to Title IX where it is explicitly clear that the law relates to "sex" and it never mentions gender and certainly not "gender identity".

    The irony is that this interpretation by the Obama Administration "conflates" gender and sex which runs counter to modern day Leftist dogma. In modern feminist theory, "sex" is genetic while "gender" is "performance" or otherwise a "social construct". Thus, while one cannot choose their sex, gender is fluid and can change over time. Most feminists make a distinction between sex and gender, while the Obama Administration is claiming the words are synonymous even though there is no evidence that this was ever the intention of Congress.

    The real kicker comes when this is applied to college women sports. If "sex" under Title IX is synonymous with "gender identity" then we are one enterprising lawsuit away from completely upending college sports as we know it. Under this interpretation, anyone born a male that "identifies" as female can play women's college basketball, soccer and other sports. Most critically, men who identify as female now will have equal access to women college sports scholarships!

    On the plus side, NCAA women's basketball is about to get a hell of a lot more entertaining. On the downside, many upper middle class women soccer players are going to lose out on lucrative scholarships to male soccer players who happen to "identify" as female.

    NCAA allows unmedicated female2males to play on men’s teams but not unmedicated male2females to play on womens teams. A lawsuit could change this of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @okie
    there was a fawning piece on this on 60 minutes last month. A world class girl at a ivy who lopped off her breasts and was finishing last on the boys team.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Leftist conservative
    Reagan: "Tear down this wall!"

    Obama: "Tear off that penis!"

    Kennedy – “A man on the moon within 10 years”

    Obama – “A man in every woman’s bathroom within one year”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Superman
    Obama played the media like a fiddle. He tossed the bathroom stuff out there as bait and the media ran with it. Meanwhile, virtually unnoticed is the meat of the directive:

    The Department of Health and Human Services issued a final regulation Friday that will pressure health insurers to cover sex change operations, which could then be subsidized by taxpayers through Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
     

    That explains it. I expect Obama to come out as Baracka once he’s left office.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. neutral says:
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    This will probably sound bizarre to many here, but you can actually go to Stormfront and ask those questions, they have a section where outsiders can ask and debate anything they want. The sites that tend to be the most censored are actually the ones like National Review or The Guardian. If you want a short answer to your question, then its basically because white women in large non white areas have problems with things like groping, muggings or worse, nobody at National Review or The Guardian can provide them with help with such things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Merema says:
    @Jefferson
    "It’s probably personal for Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and a number of other black activist officials. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with sexuality.

    What it’s really about is segregation. In their minds, the white conservative Southern guys who wanted their parents to drink at separate water fountains and sit in the back of the bus in the 1950s are exactly the same as today’s white conservative Southern guys who want to keep trannies out of girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms. These guys are the enemy. They must be crushed at every turn.

    There’s a kind of weird teleological rationale behind it."

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?

    Transgender are legally accepted in Islam. That’s why Iran has one of the highest rate of trans-gendering surgeries and “treatments” in the world. Pakistan has a whole set of transgender casts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Gays are what, perhaps 3% of the population? And of that what percent would be interested in getting married, perhaps 20% of them? Thats under 1% of the population yet it’s been hyped up as the most important issue of our time. The trans-weirdos are even less of a presence numerically even though they’re very showy since they seek attention. Weirdo wars centering around toilets are engaging but also serve as a distraction, as other commenters have pointed out, from important issues in which nothing much is being offered to the mass of Americans. It seems politics is not only show business for ugly people but also seems to draw a lot of sexually deviant people who need to keep it in the closet for professional reasons. The president himself has been suspected of being light in the loafers and his two main areas of concern throughout his presidency have been championing the sex fringe and hugging black thugs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    Gays are what, perhaps 3% of the population? And of that what percent would be interested in getting married, perhaps 20% of them? Thats under 1% of the population yet it’s been hyped up as the most important issue of our time.
     
    Leaving aside the question of whether a gay identity is a legitimate category of human, most gay men didn't really want to get married in any meaningful sense of the word - statistically speaking the majority of married gay men continue pursuit of promiscuous sex outside of the marriage and often with the full knowledge and permission of the other partner. This is, of course, a direct contradiction of what a marriage was understood to be, and this is the point that they're making by calling their relationships marriage; viz, to render it ridiculous at best and ideally meaningless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    which contrast’s with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics
     
    That's where you'e going wrong; feminine psychological characteristics aren't typically soft.

    They are soft within their particular circle of sympathy but hard outside of that for obvious evolutionary reasons.

    European women on average have the widest circle of sympathy and you're taking that as the norm but it's not - hang around gypsy women for example whose circle of sympathy doesn't extend much past cousins and see how much they care about other people's kids.

    If you set the scale as
    - self
    - family
    - clan
    - tribe
    - nation
    - race
    - humanity

    with most populations the weighted average of their individual circles of sympathy would be somewhere around the clan position on the scale

    white people the average is centered more around the nation position.

    i.e. all groups will have individuals at each position but the frequencies vary.

    Swedes are centered around humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Humanity is starting to circle around the Swedes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Harry Baldwin
    Billionaire Tom Steyer cares about climate change above all else and puts his money where his mouth is. During the 2014 midterm elections, no one spent more political cash than him.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-tom-steyer-top-political-donor-20141230-story.html

    Hopefully he learned his lesson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Anonymous
    Swedes are centered around humanity.

    Humanity is starting to circle around the Swedes.

    Read More
    • Agree: Forbes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Steve Sailer
    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.

    Invariably you’ll hear (perhaps apocryphal) complaints about a nun who was tough on someone’s Mother or Aunt or Uncle for being left-handed, forcing the use of the latters’ right hand for the purposes of penmanship. This is often used as evidence of the cruelty of Catholic schools and the nuns who staffed them, juxtaposed to modern enlightened views.

    When I hear such complaints, and explain that in those days penmanship was taught with and required the use of ink wells and fountain pens, and the resultant impracticality and mess associated with dragging one’s left hand across wet ink. In response I get nothing but blank stares.

    Of course, it was also the case that all methods of penmanship required that the script be slanted at an angle from left to right which is pleasing to the reader of the Latin alphabet in script because all of the languages that employ it are read left to right. Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Converting left-handers to right-handedness was a thing in the early 20th Century (Reagan was a lefty switched to righty) and then it stopped being a thing (all three candidates in the Presidential debate of 1992 took notes left-handed). But the story is kind of lost in the mists of time. Nobody cares about lefthander rights.
    , @Brutusale
    Not apocryphal at all. My left-handed uncle was traumatized in Catholic school (1950s) because of it, and my mother says she was concerned enough to ask the principal about it (1960s) when my lefty elder brother started first grade.
    , @Olorin

    Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.
     
    No it is not.

    1. Southpaw scribes with fountain pens need merely curl the hand around ("backhanded") and raise the elbow a bit. No smudging.

    2. Then create the letters with the right-leaning slant. No harder than drawing a line that slants.

    Spoken from experience as a non-challenged lefty who loved calligraphy as a child.

    (After reading "Canticle for Liebowitz" I had this fantasy at age 11 of writing my own science fiction epic in the form of a mediaeval incunabulum. I liked the scripts in the rare books I'd seen at various libraries and museums. Instead I ended up learning different script styles with different fountain pen nibs and writing stuff for other kids who though it was cool, oddly enough. My favorite was the illness absence slip requested by my best friend, who had had chicken pox; the parent signed it, but it was very classy. I still have the pens and nibs.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Alec Leamas
    Invariably you'll hear (perhaps apocryphal) complaints about a nun who was tough on someone's Mother or Aunt or Uncle for being left-handed, forcing the use of the latters' right hand for the purposes of penmanship. This is often used as evidence of the cruelty of Catholic schools and the nuns who staffed them, juxtaposed to modern enlightened views.

    When I hear such complaints, and explain that in those days penmanship was taught with and required the use of ink wells and fountain pens, and the resultant impracticality and mess associated with dragging one's left hand across wet ink. In response I get nothing but blank stares.

    Of course, it was also the case that all methods of penmanship required that the script be slanted at an angle from left to right which is pleasing to the reader of the Latin alphabet in script because all of the languages that employ it are read left to right. Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    Converting left-handers to right-handedness was a thing in the early 20th Century (Reagan was a lefty switched to righty) and then it stopped being a thing (all three candidates in the Presidential debate of 1992 took notes left-handed). But the story is kind of lost in the mists of time. Nobody cares about lefthander rights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Why are so many Presidents left handed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @anonymous
    Gays are what, perhaps 3% of the population? And of that what percent would be interested in getting married, perhaps 20% of them? Thats under 1% of the population yet it's been hyped up as the most important issue of our time. The trans-weirdos are even less of a presence numerically even though they're very showy since they seek attention. Weirdo wars centering around toilets are engaging but also serve as a distraction, as other commenters have pointed out, from important issues in which nothing much is being offered to the mass of Americans. It seems politics is not only show business for ugly people but also seems to draw a lot of sexually deviant people who need to keep it in the closet for professional reasons. The president himself has been suspected of being light in the loafers and his two main areas of concern throughout his presidency have been championing the sex fringe and hugging black thugs.

    Gays are what, perhaps 3% of the population? And of that what percent would be interested in getting married, perhaps 20% of them? Thats under 1% of the population yet it’s been hyped up as the most important issue of our time.

    Leaving aside the question of whether a gay identity is a legitimate category of human, most gay men didn’t really want to get married in any meaningful sense of the word – statistically speaking the majority of married gay men continue pursuit of promiscuous sex outside of the marriage and often with the full knowledge and permission of the other partner. This is, of course, a direct contradiction of what a marriage was understood to be, and this is the point that they’re making by calling their relationships marriage; viz, to render it ridiculous at best and ideally meaningless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Harry Baldwin
    Billionaire Tom Steyer cares about climate change above all else and puts his money where his mouth is. During the 2014 midterm elections, no one spent more political cash than him.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-tom-steyer-top-political-donor-20141230-story.html

    True, Tom Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire who donates lots of money to the Democrats and climate change causes. But where did his money come from, and why is he buying so much political influence? Answer here:

    Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.

    and

    But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

    A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.”

    ….

    So there you have it. Steyer is just another rent-seeking Democratic billionaire, just like Soros, Bezos, Spielberg and all the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I have seen speculation that Steyer and Soros (who is also investing in coal) are helping to push the war on coal so as to drive down the price of coal mining stocks. They can then can move in and buy them, and sell the coal to China. Of course in terms of green-house gas generation, it doesn't much matter where the coal is burned, whether it is here or in China.
    , @Forbes
    Another interesting part of the coal story--or the war on coal story--explains China's sponsorship of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank--a development bank that nearly every OECD country (except the US) signed-on.

    The Obama administration, through control and influence of the World Bank, and the other regional development banks, e.g. Asia Development Bank, has blocked the financing and development of fossil-fueled power plants, in pursuit of Obama's 'green' policies. Obama was unable to convince other OECD countries to abstain from the China-sponsored bank.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. okie says:
    @Jocko Homo
    NCAA allows unmedicated female2males to play on men's teams but not unmedicated male2females to play on womens teams. A lawsuit could change this of course.

    there was a fawning piece on this on 60 minutes last month. A world class girl at a ivy who lopped off her breasts and was finishing last on the boys team.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Wilkey says:

    At least during the real civil rights era those arguing over the issue could agree what race meant. But when conservatives today argue with the left today conservatives are referring to an objective biological fact, male vs. female, while leftists are referring to “identity.”

    It seems to me there’s a very simple solution to all this. Bathroom use has never been legally defined as a matter of gender “identity.” Laws on bathroom use have implicitly, if not explicitly, referred to biological fact. So to claim that bathroom laws that restrict male bathrooms to people with penises and restrict female bathrooms to people with vaginas violate any sort of civil right is absurd. Gender identity is a matter bathroom laws have never, you might, say, given a shit about. It’s like suddenly claiming that laws for mens and womens bathrooms violate someone’s civil rights because they don’t take into account whether you’re a Republican or Democrat.

    So, if they must, the states should just make it more explicit. Instead of having mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms they merely need to resdesignate them “penis bathrooms” and “vagina bathrooms.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Jack D says:
    @Spotted Toad
    One thing that's confused me is...gay marriage, for better or worse, was the culmination of decades of propaganda and social change. I mean, you had "Philadelphia" and "Will and Grace" and lots of other high culture and low to let you know that gay tolerance was really, really important. And while I've probably known more gay people than most, almost everyone has gay acquaintances in their mid-level circle. Even the fact that most adolescent boys tease each other about homosexuality at some point or another suggests that it's an important topic. It's not just out of nowhere. The SCOTUS argument from last year's decision, that gay marriage arises in part from the historical development of straight marriage into its present egalitarian, companionate form, isn't wrong. You can, ala Rod Dreher, see gay marriage as hugely consequential or harmful without seeing it as a huge leap from what came before.

    But World War T is none of those things. It had none of the long-term cultural buildup, none of the connection to most people's ordinary lives. It just arrived, ordered by the Megaphone. Boom, Caitlyn in a centerfold. It felt artificial.

    I mean, I used to teach in the East Village. Most of the hippy-dippy parents there would have backed some kind of accommodation to whichever boy decided he was a girl that week-- for that school, in that neighborhood, with some discretion for the school to figure out implementation. But ordering this in Alabama, or Wyoming, or even the South Bronx, displays a breathtaking yen for power.

    You may be right that they haven’t laid the groundwork properly for this battle, but no bureaucracy in history has ever put itself out of business (and there are a lot of professional SJW bureaucrats because they have no otherwise marketable skills). They could have declared victory in WWG and gotten real jobs in a productive sector, but you knew that wasn’t going to happen, so WWT was the natural next front.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. jill says:

    From putting men on the moon to putting men in women’s restrooms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "From putting men on the moon to putting men in women’s restrooms."

    That's good. That's a contrast worth highlighting to liberals. This is what liberalism has become.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Converting left-handers to right-handedness was a thing in the early 20th Century (Reagan was a lefty switched to righty) and then it stopped being a thing (all three candidates in the Presidential debate of 1992 took notes left-handed). But the story is kind of lost in the mists of time. Nobody cares about lefthander rights.

    Why are so many Presidents left handed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Why are so many Presidents left handed?
     
    This makes it look like a recent trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
    There are a couple of comments there regarding why, but nothing enlightening IMHO.

    I wonder if the timing of the trend ties in with the comments about forcing people towards right handedness in the past. Has anyone seen research comparing handedness to eye or foot/leg dominance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Brutusale says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex.
     
    "Gender" has nothing to do with anything. It's not even a social construct, it's a linguistic one.

    Return to gender,
    Address unknown.
    No such member,
    No such bone...

    Nicely done!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    Can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical Stormfront female?

    I’d be delighted, ascasc. Here goes…

    1. Male
    2. FBI agent
    3. Possesses the ability to select a sufficiently cute avatar

    I hope this has been informative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    That was good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. RudyM says:

    I find Scott Creighton’s take on this pretty persuasive. He sees it as an intentional move to create support for further privatization of education (which Obama does have a record of supporting):

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/bathroom-brawl-obama-administration-using-transgendered-to-further-their-school-privatization-agenda/

    I still don’t like how the whole transgender thing has been railroaded through in recent years and I still puzzle as to what larger agenda might be behind it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zippy
    @RudyM: Maybe there is no "larger agenda" behind the transgender push. Lots of people seem intent on thinking that the billionaire class is like SPECTRE or HYDRA: rationally pursuing some logical, if evil, aim. I think you're giving them too much credit.

    Here's what I think: Steve is partly correct inasmuch as a lot of it is status competition. Proving themselves virtuous by being more tolerant than the next guy. Since most people have given up on the homosexuality issue, and only evil rednecks are racist, they have to come up with something, and transgenderism is it. Combine that with the way "tolerance" (of a certain sort) has been elevated as The Most Important Virtue, and the way people don't want to seem mean, and boom, World War T.

    There is no secret plan or larger agenda, and it really is just as dumb as it seems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Dissident says:
    @SPMoore8
    It is inconceivable to me that the NYT would ever oppose the extension of TG rights. The author of the article simply needs to be properly educated.

    As I have said several times now, TG bathroom rights are really a problem for cis-women and trans-women and cis-girls and trans-girls. It's not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    By the same token, Civil Rights re-enactors who want to recapture some nice '60's persecution groove (without dogs, fire hoses, or Klansmen) can also fantasize about staging "sh*t ins" in segregated bathrooms all across America. However, this is false, because there are already two types of bathrooms for men and women, so the proper thing would be to simply abolish gendered bathrooms altogether, and again, let the women sort it out.

    Except that that isn't what TG's want. For them, using a "ladies room" is a concrete justification of who they are, just as using a "men's room" would be a humiliating act of submission to heteronormative standards, etc. And, as I have said before, I have a suspicion that market forces would not support this over the long term (witness the supposed confrontation in CT.)

    The same applies to locker rooms (if it ever gets to that point). I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don't know the answer either. Maybe she's a lesbian?

    Of course, evil conservatives who think these kinds of things are unworkable and likely to cause problems can only wait and see if any of their predictions or reads of human nature play out. But this is one case where conservatives can adopt a completely laissez faire attitude with complacency.

    Certain things are likely to happen, subject to the growth of the privileged TG minority (privileged in the sense that they get to chose what gender they are). One, is that there will be lots of private shunning and complaints. Second, that there will be a lot of prepubescent sexual exploration. Third, there are likely to be sexual interactions among youngsters who will both be below any age of consent, but also for that matter prosecution. Fourth, the private realm persecution of TG's will not stop, since using the girl's room at Unz Elementary (or Junior High, or High School) isn't going to get you invited to Connie's slumber party. And, no, Bob won't be inviting you to his sleepover, either. Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations. I might be wrong about these things, and if I am, that's great. But I remember pubescent and prepubescent sexuality as being very confused, and I think it will become even more confused if we start putting sexually dimorphic physical entities in intimate proximity at earlier ages. Again, biology has a way of overriding whatever it is you think you think.

    Bottom line: Emancipating bathrooms will do nothing to console the victims of gender dysphoria, whatever its cause and whatever its proper treatment. At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don’t know the answer either. Maybe she’s a lesbian?

    In peri-pubescent youth– even when no “gender” confusion is present, isn’t it fairly normal that just about anything can trigger arousal? At least, that is what I have read and heard.

    I must ask why you used the feminine pronoun “she” for your hypothetical youth who you described as being biologically male but identifying as female. Your doing so, especially when taken together with what you wrote at the conclusion of your post, makes me wonder whether you might find yourself ambivalent here. Are you less-than-certain that sex, i.e. whether one is male or female, is, in fact, an objective, immutable reality?

    Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations.

    Perhaps now they still can. How much longer, however, at this rate, can we expect that to last? Weren’t private schools once able to “set their own rules for admissions” with regard to race, for example?

    At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    That last sentence, along with your use of “necessary” unnerve me for the same reason that your use of “she” that I pointed-out above does. Do you have any doubts that “gender realignment/reassignment” is anything less-than quackery?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    My personal belief is that people who suffer from gender dysphoria are tragically insane. But I don't control their lives or their perceptions. Just trying to be fair.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @SFG
    I suspect this bathroom thing is going to be one of those places where the left overreaches and stalls. At least for the moment.

    the over-reach is the point…. I’m shocked by how you guys don’t see the exact same game plan as during gay normalization taking place here.

    The point is to shift the arguemenet from “Is transgender a legitimate category? What the hell does it mean to have a “womans brain in a man’s body”? to a question of latrine policy and who gets hurt more. Both argument arrays accepts the validity of transgenderism, and that’s the entire point of the arguemenet reframe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill, Percy Gryce
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Jill says:

    What will be the consequences of Obama’s bathroom policy in public schools? It may be similar to today’s LA Times story…when the 8th grade boys have some fun in the little girls bathroom…

    L.A. school district reaches $88-million settlement in sex misconduct cases at two campuses

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-l.a.-school-abuse-settlements-20160516-snap-story.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. tbraton says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Seriously: The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex.
     
    "Gender" has nothing to do with anything. It's not even a social construct, it's a linguistic one.

    Return to gender,
    Address unknown.
    No such member,
    No such bone...

    Ah, those were the days, my friend. According to H.W. Fowler’s “A Dictionary of Modern English Usage” (1959 ed.): “gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder.” We have since moved on to new frontiers, such as converting intransitive verbs into transitive verbs, e.g., “graduate college.” I think there is some connection to the transgender controversy, which is roiling the nation’s bathrooms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "We have since moved on to new frontiers, such as converting intransitive verbs into transitive verbs, e.g., “graduate college.”"

    We have also converted transitive verbs into intransitive ones, like "advocate". I can barely recall the last time I saw someone use "advocate" properly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. TheJester says:
    @Daniel Williams

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.
     
    I dunno. Some of those hormone treatments are pretty serious. I'd say it's more like the fad of parents getting their kids lobotomized back in the fifties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dully

    I can't help but feel that many of these so-called "trans" youngsters might be the products of attention-seeking parents eager to participate in the hype.

    We had an eye opener when our daughter attended the local high school in Northern Virginia circa 2009 to 2011. She had frequent stories about girls in school deciding that they didn’t have boyfriends because they were lesbians. These stories circulated for about two to three weeks. In that time frame, boyfriends mysteriously materialized and the girls decided they were normal. We personally knew a couple of these girls as we carpooled them around the social scene.

    It was clear to us that these girls were “gender fluid” for a few weeks to retain their self-respect when faced with the social crisis of not having a boyfriend. Being “lesbian” was a convenient rationalization to avoid the devastating stain of rejection. “I don’t have a boyfriend because I don’t want one because I’m a (fill in the blank) ….” Two weeks later, they and their new-found boyfriends were walking the halls as if nothing had happened.

    The danger in all of this is that the SJWs, by precasting scripted rationalizations for girls, women, and minorities of both sexes regarding life and sexuality, are retarding their ability to grow up and deal with reality. The precast rationalizations are perhaps factors in large numbers of Millennials and disturbing numbers of minorities behaving as if they were permanent adolescents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Brutusale says:
    @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    That’s “minor-attracted persons”, you ageist!

    Seriously, we live in a world where the US armed services command tells the rank-and-file to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by our Afghani allies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

    Our boy Corvinus proved to be the perfect example of the Leftie willing to accept pretty much everything when he took issue with my statement that the mainstreaming of deviancy has continued apace, no, accelerated. I truly believe that pedophilia will be mainstreamed in my lifetime.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Seriously, we live in a world where the US armed services command tells the rank-and-file to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by our Afghani allies."

    Why We Fight - to secure and protect the corrupt power and licentious privilege of degenerates. And we wonder why so many people hate us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Harry Baldwin
    Is this personal for Obama? Are we getting a glimpse into some bathroom trauma in his past? It really seems like he's way too wrought up about this essentially meaningless issue.

    I would put it this way: if you're going to cause more of a stir going into the men's room than the ladies room--i.e., if you're Ru Paul--go into the ladies room. Otherwise, go into the men's room. When it comes to locker rooms, if you have a penis it should be obvious in which locker room you belong.

    One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman's locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals.

    If the Democrats lose the next election on this issue, will Hillary say, in the words of Henry Clay, "I'd rather be right than be president."

    “One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman’s locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals.”

    Because if I’m a transgender person then it’s all about ME. The feelings of the women upon whom all of this is being inflicted are irrelevant. One of the characteristics of these so-called gender issues is the high level of narcissism exhibited by the self-proclaimed “victims.” Then again, we live in a culture of narcissism–and come to think of it, the late Christopher Lasch authored a book called “The Culture of Narcissism” over thirty years ago.

    He was very prescient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979), and "The Revolt of the Elites" (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I've ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. jill says:
    @Daniel Williams

    Does Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett believe that most Muslims are on their side on the issue of Transgender rights?
     
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend. All that unites these groups is their opposition to normal whites organised in communities.

    The left will always partner with the muslim since they both hate Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Jack Hanson
    Michael Dougherty seems to think that this is "proof" that Trump will lose in November cause otherwise liberals wouldn't be pulling these shenanigans.

    I think he is over estimating the power of Right side of History hubris and being an upset wonk.

    That’s interesting reasoning: Because your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, it shows he is confident that that foot won’t be needed in his upcoming battle with you.

    Kind of like how after their first debate, Romney was confident he no longer had to confront Obama in subsequent debates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I don't get Dougherty. At first he seemed to be like some sort of Old Testament prophet, preaching to the cuck establishment that Trump was punishment for their sins.

    Now that he has gotten what he wanted, it seems like he's morose and declaring every little thing as the end of Trump. ,he certainly is further along the shitlord axis than Douthat, but comes across more depressed about everything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Brutusale says:
    @Alec Leamas
    Invariably you'll hear (perhaps apocryphal) complaints about a nun who was tough on someone's Mother or Aunt or Uncle for being left-handed, forcing the use of the latters' right hand for the purposes of penmanship. This is often used as evidence of the cruelty of Catholic schools and the nuns who staffed them, juxtaposed to modern enlightened views.

    When I hear such complaints, and explain that in those days penmanship was taught with and required the use of ink wells and fountain pens, and the resultant impracticality and mess associated with dragging one's left hand across wet ink. In response I get nothing but blank stares.

    Of course, it was also the case that all methods of penmanship required that the script be slanted at an angle from left to right which is pleasing to the reader of the Latin alphabet in script because all of the languages that employ it are read left to right. Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    Not apocryphal at all. My left-handed uncle was traumatized in Catholic school (1950s) because of it, and my mother says she was concerned enough to ask the principal about it (1960s) when my lefty elder brother started first grade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.
    , @Alec Leamas
    You're providing a one degree of separation anecdote like the ones I'd referred to in my original comment.

    N.B. that lots of people like to tell similar stories about all manner of different disciplinary and pedagogical happenings in Catholic schools, particularly that which was perpetrated by nuns with a certain pride - like an old soldier or Marine reminiscing about the tough as nails Drill Sergeant/DI. A grain of salt is warranted.

    Not saying they're all false (I have my own), but they're often told with a certain literary license and folkish exaggerated style, passed down from older siblings to younger, etc. Legends of nuns like "Big Louie" and "Sr. A-thumpya" are legion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @e
    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

    American College of Pediatricians:

    2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

    3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

    _______________________________

    I don't know about you, but I've not seen one anchor person refer to the ACP's position nor interview a spokesperson. Something tells me they've not been invited.

    I suspect that the American College of Pediatricians have got their wires crossed a bit and have never studied life history theory.

    One can expect, on simple evolutionary (selection) grounds and the fact that we are a social species with overlapping but different make and female cultures and abilities (Males have on average, 90% more upper body strength than females, 60% more lower body strength, and males fit naturally into hierarchical groups more readily than females while females are more attuned to dyadic relationships) that males and females would have different behaviors from birth and have clear male and female personas/identities.

    Check something like MacCoby’s The Two Sexes: Growing up apart and coming together. In it she points out that a very early age boys and girls self-segregate based around each other’s play styles. They recognize and associate people with play styles of their type.

    Life history theory tells us that what it is to be male or female (humans) changes over the person’s life, and changes dramatically when life stages change (eg, boys suddenly stop disliking girls and become very interested in girl’s bits …)

    However, other natural experiments tell us that this is driven by biology. Eg, CAH-afflicted girls who evince more male-like behavior (more rough and tumble play and more systematizing behavior.)

    Lastly, there is evidence in the literature that there are people out there with one biological sex but their brains have been wired up thinking they are the opposite sex, but such people seem to number around 1/10,000 or less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Clyde

    World War T seems like an incredibly minor issue relative to the press it gets.
     
    Gays have a tremendous number of fellow travelers in today's American mass media. Always pushing the gay agenda which is to wreck normal heterosexual society, overtly or subtly. To keep this assault-wrecking going on, after gay marriage this crowd moved on to World War T.
    Meanwhile Trump talks about problems for real Americans such as immigration and trade. The media is pushing the line that Trump has a woman problem. We are going to see that Hillary has a larger man problem. She is a dumpy looking turnoff. Here is how she really looks without professional stage makeup and advantageous lighting.

    http://dailym.ai/1TkVB6a
    Huma carries designer shopping bags for her millionaire boss as Hillary Clinton stops off at Ralph Lauren for a spot of retail therapy

    Hillary Clinton went to Ralph Lauren store on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Aide Huma Abedin was seen carrying her millionaire boss' shopping bags.
    Another of Clinton's assistant was spotted holding a blue garment bag. Clinton went to meet HIV/Aids campaigners at her Brooklyn headquarters
     

    Honestly, there’s nothing startling in that candid photo. She doesn’t look bad for her age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Hillary looks too tired and haggard to perform Presidential duties. Dems really don't care because its all about getting your man in there. Once you have that Presidential power you can sort out the details later and delegate away from Hillary. Same as was done with idiot child Obama.

    Hillary looks average for her age but way below average for the vitality a serious president needs. She is low energy and big mouth. She telegraphs how low energy she is by the lame-arse spin and one upmanship she tries out on Trump from time to time. She spins and fails.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. RudyM says:

    The irony is that this interpretation by the Obama Administration “conflates” gender and sex which runs counter to modern day Leftist dogma. In modern feminist theory, “sex” is genetic while “gender” is “performance” or otherwise a “social construct”. Thus, while one cannot choose their sex, gender is fluid and can change over time. Most feminists make a distinction between sex and gender, while the Obama Administration is claiming the words are synonymous even though there is no evidence that this was ever the intention of Congress.

    I’m pretty new to (paying attention to) this issue, but it seems like trans activists constantly equivocate in their use of “gender.”

    I’ve recently gone from ignoring the issue, to “Whaaaaat?!” pretty much overnight. One of the things that pushed me over the edge is the insistence of many trans activists that we must all bow to their own self-identification and not worry about trivial things like genes, biology, the evidence of our senses, etc.

    Title IX is clearly being abused and that needs to be nipped in the bud, if it’s not too late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous
    I had an acquaintance who became transgender, then killed himself.

    This was pretty recently. It was truly tragic.

    I was very sad, and thought about his death.

    I blame society. Society made him what he was.

    He was encouraged to think that he could become a beautiful woman, and encouraged to think that he was a woman. But I think he was smarter than that. I think he knew that after all was said and done, he was still the guy he had always been, just in womens' clothing and makeup.

    I don't think his death was due to a lack of acceptance of what he wanted. I think it was due to a lack of acceptance by him and those around him of reality.

    I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces.

    We shall see.

    “I think this kind of story will become more common as more people are told that reality is not real.

    Then, when they run into it, everything is much worse and others have to pick up the pieces.”

    Quite true.

    And it should be noted that all this trans-nonsense is being pushed by a lot of the same people who styled themselves as members of the “reality-based community”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    How to identify a racist, sexist homophobe by the shape of their face:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. Mr. Anon says:
    @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical Stormfront female?
     
    I'd be delighted, ascasc. Here goes...

    1. Male
    2. FBI agent
    3. Possesses the ability to select a sufficiently cute avatar

    I hope this has been informative.

    That was good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown
    Much obliged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Marcus says:

    So much for the sneaking into the girls’ locker room trope, now it’s “I’m a butch dyke trapped in a boy’s body, respect my identity!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  147. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    “Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?”

    Perhaps because some of them are pederasts. For the rest because they will be told that it is “progressive”. Ultimately,…………because they can.

    “Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?”

    A lot of liberal parents are only fanatical about appearing to support children’s rights. Some liberal parents now send their five and six year old children in for hormone treatement so as to aid their “transition”.

    “Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.”

    And liberals have very pointedly not used it as a weapon against Hollywood, where it is – by some accounts – rampant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    What's funny about that is pederasty is a lot more "normal" historically than the modern concept of homosexuality as a facsimile of male-female marriage. It's still dominant in the Muslim world, where what we consider homosexuality is illegal and mostly unheard of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. OT:

    German broadsheet Die Welt: German local governments are spending € 260 million/month on the 65,000 unaccompanied minor refugees (theo: many neither minors nor refugees) who arrived in Germany in 2015.

    translate.google.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.

    Nico didn’t say it’s the next thing but that it’s coming gradually. It is and for the reasons he excellently adduces. I would add that when the Catholic Church’s counter-measures become most effective–and the usefulness of that particular stigma to beat the dogma wanes–that will be another sign of the shift.

    But you can already see the baby steps:

    Sixteen years ago(!) the U.K. lowered the age of homosexual consent to 16.

    Every time there is a conviction for statutory rape by a teen-aged offender–particularly if the perpetrator is a NAM–there is push back against those laws and often a reworking to weaken them (e.g., the Marcus Dixon case).

    The continued elite support for Roman Polanski is a key straw in the wind. When the time is right, we know exactly how elite opinion will turn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Mr. Anon says:
    @tbraton
    Ah, those were the days, my friend. According to H.W. Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" (1959 ed.): "gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." We have since moved on to new frontiers, such as converting intransitive verbs into transitive verbs, e.g., "graduate college." I think there is some connection to the transgender controversy, which is roiling the nation's bathrooms.

    “We have since moved on to new frontiers, such as converting intransitive verbs into transitive verbs, e.g., “graduate college.””

    We have also converted transitive verbs into intransitive ones, like “advocate”. I can barely recall the last time I saw someone use “advocate” properly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Mr. Anon says:
    @Brutusale
    That's "minor-attracted persons", you ageist!

    Seriously, we live in a world where the US armed services command tells the rank-and-file to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by our Afghani allies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

    Our boy Corvinus proved to be the perfect example of the Leftie willing to accept pretty much everything when he took issue with my statement that the mainstreaming of deviancy has continued apace, no, accelerated. I truly believe that pedophilia will be mainstreamed in my lifetime.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/

    “Seriously, we live in a world where the US armed services command tells the rank-and-file to ignore the sexual abuse of young boys by our Afghani allies.”

    Why We Fight – to secure and protect the corrupt power and licentious privilege of degenerates. And we wonder why so many people hate us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. RudyM says:

    It makes the Obama administration’s crusade on this issue even more hilarious. In 20 years there’s going to be a cohort of gay adults tearfully telling us about how their homophobic parents forced them to adopt a girl’s name and use the girl’s bathroom at school.

    This angle is discussed extensively on some left/liberal “gender critical” sites, notably:

    https://4thwavenow.com/

    The site has a feminist orientation, but many of the arguments presented are simply common sense. Also, the discussion is not that focused on theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. Mr. Anon says:
    @jill
    From putting men on the moon to putting men in women’s restrooms.

    https://twitter.com/peddoc63/status/732169857161134080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    “From putting men on the moon to putting men in women’s restrooms.”

    That’s good. That’s a contrast worth highlighting to liberals. This is what liberalism has become.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. duncsbaby says:
    @e
    Actually, I'm not suggesting the tranny will be the guy following the girl into the bathroom. It will be a straight guy, maybe one dressed as a tranny or maybe just dressed regularly, but he'll have indecent motives.

    That's what has me baffled, that all the talk is about trannies, not about the pervs or criminals who'll use the change as an invitation to do all kinds of things to females. It's as if POTUS issued a directive to all homeowners to leave the doors to their houses unlocked day and night because locking them will hurt the feelings of fellow citizens.

    White people locking doors is racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Mr. Anon says:
    @Black Death
    @Harry Baldwin

    True, Tom Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire who donates lots of money to the Democrats and climate change causes. But where did his money come from, and why is he buying so much political influence? Answer here:

    Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.

    and

    But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

    A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.”

    ....

    So there you have it. Steyer is just another rent-seeking Democratic billionaire, just like Soros, Bezos, Spielberg and all the rest.

    I have seen speculation that Steyer and Soros (who is also investing in coal) are helping to push the war on coal so as to drive down the price of coal mining stocks. They can then can move in and buy them, and sell the coal to China. Of course in terms of green-house gas generation, it doesn’t much matter where the coal is burned, whether it is here or in China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    That is the most rational explanation I have heard for the whole Global Warming nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Daniel Williams

    I can just imagine some transperson fifteen years from now, lambasting his/her parents ...
     
    No joke. Such a child wouldn't be "trans" before they treated him, but he certainly would be anomalous when they finished.

    I sometimes wonder what sorts of things will seem ridiculously quaint or inane to my grandchildren, like leeching or pre-germ theories of disease are to me. This "trans" nonsense has got to be one of those things.

    Using medical leeches is called for in some unambiguous situations. Where it is possible to restore blood flow TO a severed part, but the veins that drain it will take longer to repair, nothing will preserve the part better than a leech sucking up the excess blood, until the body can repair the veins.

    You probably don’t believe in the medical use of maggots, either. sheesh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Mr. Anon
    I have seen speculation that Steyer and Soros (who is also investing in coal) are helping to push the war on coal so as to drive down the price of coal mining stocks. They can then can move in and buy them, and sell the coal to China. Of course in terms of green-house gas generation, it doesn't much matter where the coal is burned, whether it is here or in China.

    That is the most rational explanation I have heard for the whole Global Warming nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "...the whole Global Warming nonsense."

    If you're really interested in the apocalypse, you might want to read Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can't Afford to Lose by Dr. Stephen H. Schneider. You can get if for $4.00 (including shipping) from Amazon books. You'll get more apocalypse than you bargained for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Brutusale
    Not apocryphal at all. My left-handed uncle was traumatized in Catholic school (1950s) because of it, and my mother says she was concerned enough to ask the principal about it (1960s) when my lefty elder brother started first grade.

    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    True...not political enough. It doesn't involve "color" or "gender."
    , @SPMoore8
    Speaking as a left hander who was born in the middle '50's, I don't recall getting any grief about it. My handedness was identified early for writing because I formed letters instinctively with the left hand when I was 4 (having older kids in the neighborhood expedited the process.) Handedness for everything else manifested when my father taught me baseball a couple of years later.

    Never had any problem with it, except for some teasing in primary school. The fact that Paul McCartney is a lefty gave it some cachet, Willie McCovey, too.

    I used to like to think that there was something special in being a lefty, but actually I don't think so.

    My penmanship has always been awful and since I spent many years learning non-Roman alphabets it's even worse now. At this point I can't even read my own handwriting.
    , @Alec Leamas
    A common theory derives from the fact that the Latin word for left as in left handed is "sinister" and carries connotations of evil and of bad fortune, contrasted with the word for right "dexter," from which derives the word "dexterous." Technically, ambidexterous means essentially having two good or right hands.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth...
     
    Cobb was righthanded. He batted left. That's the best set-up for reaching the majors. Very common, even at the top: Cobb, Ted Williams, Yogi Berra, Joe Morgan.

    Throw left, bat right-- exceedingly rare. Rickey Henderson, Cleon Jones, who else? Only 57 ever, excluding pitchers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Marcus says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia?"

    Perhaps because some of them are pederasts. For the rest because they will be told that it is "progressive". Ultimately,............because they can.

    "Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?"

    A lot of liberal parents are only fanatical about appearing to support children's rights. Some liberal parents now send their five and six year old children in for hormone treatement so as to aid their "transition".

    "Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys."

    And liberals have very pointedly not used it as a weapon against Hollywood, where it is - by some accounts - rampant.

    What’s funny about that is pederasty is a lot more “normal” historically than the modern concept of homosexuality as a facsimile of male-female marriage. It’s still dominant in the Muslim world, where what we consider homosexuality is illegal and mostly unheard of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Daniel Williams

    It reminds me of how Germans got very worked up a century ago against left-handedness and tried to nurture it out of children.
     
    I dunno. Some of those hormone treatments are pretty serious. I'd say it's more like the fad of parents getting their kids lobotomized back in the fifties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dully

    I can't help but feel that many of these so-called "trans" youngsters might be the products of attention-seeking parents eager to participate in the hype.

    We had a girl come into the kids’ ballet studio thinking she was a boy, and insisting her parents treat her as a boy. The kid was FOUR. The studio was baffled since boys are so rare in ballet and they get free dance lessons. The parents were utterly perplexed, but accommodating the kid’s delusion, probably at the urging of whatever weirdo was advising them in the pediatric office.

    This family could have caused real grief to our studio if they’d pushed us making room for their problem (imagine the little girl insisting on being in the boys’ dressing room during shows).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce

    We had a girl come into the kids’ ballet studio thinking she was a boy, and insisting her parents treat her as a boy. The kid was FOUR. The studio was baffled since boys are so rare in ballet and they get free dance lessons. The parents were utterly perplexed
     
    From the words I bolded, I surmise that the kid may have simply been a prodigious grifter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. e says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Steve,

    You've got this all wrong. It's BuzzFeed News. Everyone knows how Obama talks because we can watch him in videos. The narrative about Obama is that he's extremely well-spoken. You yourself even called him a good writer in a recent post. BuzzFeed is quoting him verbatim because they believe that Obama's words are, ipso facto, articulate.

    everyone else,

    This is not really a "safety issue". A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory bathrooms. For example, Haverford College in PA started gender-neutral bathrooms back in the mid-1990s. If there were a general safety issue with men's raging hormones, it would have turned up on campuses and caused the end of the policy. There just aren't enough Haven Monahans in the world to overturn gender-neutral bathrooms.

    Outside the Haverfords of the world, there may be enough low-IQ men, pervs, and blacks to cause gender-neutrality to be unsustainable in public bathrooms. However, Obama's directive is not aimed at public bathrooms, it's aimed at public school bathrooms. As public schools are becoming more and more like small high-security prisons, it will not be difficult to design policies to manage this problem.

    Does anybody remember how rapidly the public turned from anti- to pro-gay marriage? We could be on the cusp of widespread gender-neutrality in many forms. The comments above on Title IX problems are insightful, but not a lock. I had association with a university that chose to cut both women's and men's swimming rather than cut a men's basketball team, although this obviously hurt women athletes. But guess who trumps women? Blacks.

    I'm sure the specifics of genderless athletic competition could be worked out. For example, once the genetics of muscular development are understood thoroughly, they'll be able to divide people in other kinds of competitive divisions not based on sexual/gender orientation. It was never really "fair" for me to have to compete against ectomorphic guys in cross-country running, nor for them to compete against me in field sports. In the future, this can be "recognized" and "remedied."

    This is not really a “safety issue”. A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory
    bathrooms.

    You think the % criminals attending college match the % in the general population?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    No, I think you didn't read my whole post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Harry Baldwin
    That's interesting reasoning: Because your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, it shows he is confident that that foot won't be needed in his upcoming battle with you.

    Kind of like how after their first debate, Romney was confident he no longer had to confront Obama in subsequent debates.

    I don’t get Dougherty. At first he seemed to be like some sort of Old Testament prophet, preaching to the cuck establishment that Trump was punishment for their sins.

    Now that he has gotten what he wanted, it seems like he’s morose and declaring every little thing as the end of Trump. ,he certainly is further along the shitlord axis than Douthat, but comes across more depressed about everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. It’s always funny how the grandaddy of this tranny nonsense, Dr. John Money, never comes up. A pedophile, he was later discovered to have falsified most of his data and had his “subjects” enacting weird sex play. For science, of course.

    He’s the one we have to thank for the division of gender and sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zippy
    @Jack Hanson The weird thing is that Money's theory was that socialization trumps biology -- that if you castrate a boy, treat him like a girl, give him a few hormones, and he'll be a perfectly well-adjusted girl. (Except for the part about having kids, of course.) This turned out to be wrong, and his most famous case was a dismal failure.

    But the theory behind the current generation of "transsexual" four-year-olds is that there is something innate in the four-year-old, who just knows he's really a girl, and that nothing we do can ever socialize that out. They're saying that the tranny child's innate female nature trumps both his physical biology and socialization. This is exactly the opposite of what Money claimed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. BenKenobi says:
    @wren
    The party line now is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex. Therefore, girls with penises are no different than girls without penises, except of course that the girls with penises have penises while the girls without penises do not, and, according to Freud, are probably a little envious. If you think otherwise you are a hateful person.

    The party line is that what you see is not what you see. Girl, boy, black, white -- same thing, so don't let your lying eyes fool you.

    We've always been at war with Eastasia.

    Beg your pardon, Comrade. But I do believe we’ve always been at war with North Carolina.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. PapayaSF says:

    I really wonder if there isn’t “something in the water.”

    Sure, there have always been tiny numbers of people who think they are, or want to be, the opposite sex. But it seems far more common now, and not just because of activism and media hype. Are we going to find out that this spike in gender dysphoria is caused by hormone-disrupting plastics? That would be interesting. Transgender activists might have mixed feelings to discover that it was something artificial and accidental made them the way they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Most of the high-achieving celebrity trans are somewhere on the autism spectrum. Perhaps that's a side effect of autism? Is autism increasing? It's argued about a lot, but nobody knows for sure ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. For the past 240 years since the Declaration of Independence was signed this wasn’t an issue. Until the SJWs discovered their latest victim– “transgendered people.” Now–its a problem! I gotta hand it to them–they sure know how to create problems where there weren’t any.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. @PapayaSF
    I really wonder if there isn't "something in the water."

    Sure, there have always been tiny numbers of people who think they are, or want to be, the opposite sex. But it seems far more common now, and not just because of activism and media hype. Are we going to find out that this spike in gender dysphoria is caused by hormone-disrupting plastics? That would be interesting. Transgender activists might have mixed feelings to discover that it was something artificial and accidental made them the way they are.

    Most of the high-achieving celebrity trans are somewhere on the autism spectrum. Perhaps that’s a side effect of autism? Is autism increasing? It’s argued about a lot, but nobody knows for sure …

    Read More
    • Replies: @WGG
    That makes some sense. Autism makes it hard to pick up on cues from others, so one must, I assume, rely solely on the inner voice to apprise reality. If there is any hiccup in that assessment, there is no way to self-correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.

    True…not political enough. It doesn’t involve “color” or “gender.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. This is like gay marriage. You never heard of it, then one day the media overwhelms you with articles supporting this. You were not allowed to hear the other side. The media would only hint that the opposition were kooks and weirdos, not the cool people.
    Gays want the age of consent lowered. Both male and female homosexuals desire underage playmates that they can dominate. Heterosexual perverts have not interest in this.This time instead of passing a law, they are using the bathroom issue to groom a new generation and for society to accept this. This is very clever. Expect more of World War Underage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. Marcus says:

    OT: but i got a laugh out of this, look at the names of the federal prosecutors, FOB slumdogs forcing Americans who have lived there for centuries to “integrate” their schools. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mississippi-city-ordered-to-desegregate-schools-60-years-after-landmark-ruling/ar-BBt983N?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=DELLDHP

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. WGG says:
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    I don’t post on Stormfront, but I adhere to white nationalist ideology and have red-pilled many friends and family. Short answer: I was raised from a young age to be a purity-minded Christian, and had my naive notions about the fellowship dashed early by parents and others alike. I was taught how to be clean, so I recognize filth. Our society is septic. And who is pumping out all forms of filth? Well, we know who, but Steve won’t let me say.

    I technically have a high IQ, but I never did anything special with it. I used to work in sales, now I stay home with my kids. Keeping them safe is a high priority for me, so avoiding certain low-impulse-control populations is paramount.

    My husband is -to me- a rock star. I tell him all the time that I admire him and the other upstanding white men of honor who have been the driving forces behind all good in this world. Every time a helpful new invention or innovation hits the news, I know exactly what demographic created it, with well over 90% accuracy. White men are magic. They should be lauded and assisted in anyway possible.

    The racial crime and IQ stats don’t lie. If there were hard stats for POZ promotion, I am sure those would reflect the truth about those-who-must-not-be-named. Truth matters. I want to live in a world with low levels of conflict. If that were possible in a multi-cultural society, I would accept it. It isn’t possible, or rather, it isn’t possible with Western adherence to liberty principles. As they say- liberty, safety, diversity: choose any two. I choose the first two.

    If you want more WN women- be a man of honor, hard work, and loyalty. The contrast with the majority of the globe is self-explanatory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. WGG says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Most of the high-achieving celebrity trans are somewhere on the autism spectrum. Perhaps that's a side effect of autism? Is autism increasing? It's argued about a lot, but nobody knows for sure ...

    That makes some sense. Autism makes it hard to pick up on cues from others, so one must, I assume, rely solely on the inner voice to apprise reality. If there is any hiccup in that assessment, there is no way to self-correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. BenKenobi says:
    @Desiderius
    Kinda hoping that means there might not be a next thing, given your talent for prognostication.

    I.e. that this turns out to be the Waterloo.

    “…Sailer let his mind drift. Unmoored from space and time, the images came to him. Images he could feel. Not sensations — but memories of sensations. A pride parade. A whiff of lavender. A verdant field stretching to the horizon. A public bathroom, door wide. A boot stomping a face. The field again. The door to the bathroom slammed. The images stopped. He opened his eyes.

    Sailer turned to his disciples. “I… cannot see the Next Big Thing.” He was perplexed.

    Amongst the crowd, Desiderius spoke up. “Then, perhaps, there will not be.”

    A speculative murmur wove through the disciples.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Forbes says:
    @Anon
    Just as liberals bolt neighborhoods when they have to rub up against undesirables, they'll bolt Obama if he forces undesirables into their bathrooms.

    After 7-1/2 years, there appears to be a lack of evidence of any liberals bolting Obama for any reason…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. res says:
    @Percy Gryce
    Which Ivy didn't he apply to? The story doesn't say.

    Which Ivy didn’t he apply to? The story doesn’t say.

    Follow the link to the full story at Enterprise. Yale rejected him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @The most deplorable one
    That is the most rational explanation I have heard for the whole Global Warming nonsense.

    “…the whole Global Warming nonsense.”

    If you’re really interested in the apocalypse, you might want to read Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can’t Afford to Lose by Dr. Stephen H. Schneider. You can get if for $4.00 (including shipping) from Amazon books. You’ll get more apocalypse than you bargained for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Forbes says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "I repeat this is meant as a serious question, too many people either laugh at this or get angry, I really want to know how this would work according to the law."

    I know the way it used to work according to the law. If you were a man, who thought he was a woman, you were deemed mentally deranged, and nobody - no person, no institution - was required to indulge you in your own peculiar delusion.

    A lot of young people today seem to have fallen for all this "gender" bullshit:

    I am a tall chinese woman

    I know the way it used to work according to the law. If you were a man, who thought he was a woman

    …you kept it to yourself.

    Today, it’s all about Celebrate Diversity! so you shout it from the rooftops, and force everyone to indulge your mentally deranged fantasy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @e
    This is not really a “safety issue”. A number of colleges have gender-neutral dormitory
    bathrooms.


    You think the % criminals attending college match the % in the general population?

    No, I think you didn’t read my whole post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. res says:
    @Jack D
    Why are so many Presidents left handed?

    Why are so many Presidents left handed?

    This makes it look like a recent trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
    There are a couple of comments there regarding why, but nothing enlightening IMHO.

    I wonder if the timing of the trend ties in with the comments about forcing people towards right handedness in the past. Has anyone seen research comparing handedness to eye or foot/leg dominance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. AnonNJ says:

    What really amazes me about this is that part of the reason why the ERA failed to pass was fear that it would eliminate slit-sex bathrooms and lead to women being drafted. Even without the ERA, people seem fine with that happening now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. Bob123 says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. Forbes says:
    @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    It’s not pedophilia so much as Celebrate Diversity!–the unquestioning of difference. It becomes the tolerance of difference, then the overt encouragement where school children are so taught that all is acceptable–it’s just an autonomous choice. Schooling today is primarily about the socialization of acceptance. It is a blurring of the lines until there are no lines–no distinctions.

    Where 13, 14, and 15-year olds can conduct themselves in sexual relations as they choose with total social acceptance–in other words, the age of consent is meaningless. Due to the acceptance of minors engaging in sexual relations, some states have altered consent rules such that it is the age difference that constitutes statutory rape, e.g. a 17-year old having sex with a 14-year old is not rape, while a 20-year doing so constitutes rape. Rather than a fixed age of consent, it is age differential that matters.

    Now, most would consider pedophilia to be sex with pre-pubescent adolescents–but most (some?) of the Catholic Church’s problem was homosexual priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, and not solely pedophilia. So again, distinctions were blurred because the lapdog media wanted to poison the Church, while also not exposing rampant homosexuality.

    Why should sexual relations with a minor not go through the same blurring of distinctions? Much of the agenda of the left is about destroying the family–the left’s advocacy for so-called children’s rights is about ‘empowering’ children and liberating them from their parents–not protecting children, except under auspices of the state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Now, most would consider pedophilia to be sex with pre-pubescent adolescents–but most (some?) of the Catholic Church’s problem was homosexual priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, and not solely pedophilia. So again, distinctions were blurred because the lapdog media wanted to poison the Church, while also not exposing rampant homosexuality.
     
    Not "most", certainly not "some", but something like "very close to all" of the Catholic pedophilia scandal was homosexual priests grooming and molesting post-pubescent boys. The typical victim was a confused high school aged boy. Almost no girls, almost no little boys.

    This was clearly a scandal of what happens when you let the fags loose. (Or put the fags in charge.) Of course, it was pitched quite differently.

    ~~~
    I'm involved in Scouting and as folks know it's been homo, homo, homo, bigot, bigot, bigot these last few years. Scouting annoying to lefties because it's obviously a good thing, but inherently sort of conservative--pass on civilization--thing. So it's traditionalism must be undermined.

    But scouting has had a few scandals where some creep--i.e. homosexual--got it and groomed and molested some boy(s).

    The way you'd actually protect against that would in fact be to ... keep *out* the homosexuals, anyone who seems a bit off. So it's the classic damned if you do, damned if you don't.


    But there's no doubt about the reality here. The number of pedophiles actually sexually interested in eight year old boys is ... tiny. (And i'm not convinced they aren't also gay, they certainly aren't normal straight guys.) While the number of gays ready and willing to groom 14 year old boys is huge.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Clyde says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Honestly, there's nothing startling in that candid photo. She doesn't look bad for her age.

    Hillary looks too tired and haggard to perform Presidential duties. Dems really don’t care because its all about getting your man in there. Once you have that Presidential power you can sort out the details later and delegate away from Hillary. Same as was done with idiot child Obama.

    Hillary looks average for her age but way below average for the vitality a serious president needs. She is low energy and big mouth. She telegraphs how low energy she is by the lame-arse spin and one upmanship she tries out on Trump from time to time. She spins and fails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. SteveO says:
    @e
    http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

    American College of Pediatricians:

    2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

    3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

    _______________________________

    I don't know about you, but I've not seen one anchor person refer to the ACP's position nor interview a spokesperson. Something tells me they've not been invited.

    Just for clarity, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a relatively new organization (founded in 2002) of socially conservative pediatricians. It was founded in reaction to the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) for adoption by gay couples.

    While that does not make the ACP wrong about this or anything else, it does mean that it is not the gold-standard organization for pediatricians. That would be the venerable AAP. If a reporter wants to find out what the pediatric profession is thinking about something, he goes to the AAP. When you see stories about various “won’t someone think of the children!” health scares, the chances are 9/10 they came from the AAP. Its influence over the profession is enormous: The AAP makes “recommendations” for health guidelines (e.g. immunization schedules) and pediatric training programs that pediatric providers largely must follow or risk being accused of not practicing “standard of care” medicine.

    Anyway, the point is that it’s not surprising that one doesn’t see the ACP quoted in the media very often. They aren’t the go-to organization for matters relating to child health. And, again, while their political position does not make them less credible, they do have an ax to grind every bit as much as the very PC AAP does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Relying on facts vs. emotional rhetoric is not "having an axe to grind".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Spmoore8 says:
    @Dissident

    I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don’t know the answer either. Maybe she’s a lesbian?
     
    In peri-pubescent youth-- even when no "gender" confusion is present, isn't it fairly normal that just about anything can trigger arousal? At least, that is what I have read and heard.

    I must ask why you used the feminine pronoun "she" for your hypothetical youth who you described as being biologically male but identifying as female. Your doing so, especially when taken together with what you wrote at the conclusion of your post, makes me wonder whether you might find yourself ambivalent here. Are you less-than-certain that sex, i.e. whether one is male or female, is, in fact, an objective, immutable reality?

    Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations.
     
    Perhaps now they still can. How much longer, however, at this rate, can we expect that to last? Weren't private schools once able to "set their own rules for admissions" with regard to race, for example?

    At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.
     
    That last sentence, along with your use of "necessary" unnerve me for the same reason that your use of "she" that I pointed-out above does. Do you have any doubts that "gender realignment/reassignment" is anything less-than quackery?

    My personal belief is that people who suffer from gender dysphoria are tragically insane. But I don’t control their lives or their perceptions. Just trying to be fair.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Mr. Anon
    That was good.

    Much obliged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Forbes says:
    @Black Death
    @Harry Baldwin

    True, Tom Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire who donates lots of money to the Democrats and climate change causes. But where did his money come from, and why is he buying so much political influence? Answer here:

    Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.

    and

    But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

    A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.”

    ....

    So there you have it. Steyer is just another rent-seeking Democratic billionaire, just like Soros, Bezos, Spielberg and all the rest.

    Another interesting part of the coal story–or the war on coal story–explains China’s sponsorship of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank–a development bank that nearly every OECD country (except the US) signed-on.

    The Obama administration, through control and influence of the World Bank, and the other regional development banks, e.g. Asia Development Bank, has blocked the financing and development of fossil-fueled power plants, in pursuit of Obama’s ‘green’ policies. Obama was unable to convince other OECD countries to abstain from the China-sponsored bank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Forbes says:
    @Connecticut Famer
    "One of the odd things about this controversy is the assumption that the feelings of a man who wants to undress in the woman’s locker room trumps the feelings of all the actual women who have to share the locker room with him. This seems to make sense to liberals."

    Because if I'm a transgender person then it's all about ME. The feelings of the women upon whom all of this is being inflicted are irrelevant. One of the characteristics of these so-called gender issues is the high level of narcissism exhibited by the self-proclaimed "victims." Then again, we live in a culture of narcissism--and come to think of it, the late Christopher Lasch authored a book called "The Culture of Narcissism" over thirty years ago.

    He was very prescient.

    Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979), and “The Revolt of the Elites” (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I’ve ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979), and “The Revolt of the Elites” (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I’ve ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.
     
    Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions and The Quest for Cosmic Justice also get right to the core. And catch this subtitle: The Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. What else is there to say?

    Other than, Is Reality Optional?
    , @guest
    I read "Culture of Narcissism" and was bothered by two things that kept coming up. One, that he stuck by Freud despite Freud being obviously wrong by saying humans had changed in the meantime--from neurotics to narcissists--instead of just admitting Freud didn't know what he was talking about. (Not mostly, anyway. Some of his ideas were good.) The other was that he took the soulless, lonely, citydwelling, men in gray flannel suits as representative of the whole, despite the fact that the majority of people didn't live that way. The ones running the culture, maybe, but not most people.

    We've well caught up to the narcissists of the skyscrapers in the 70s, however. How could a culture in which people spend hours a day on "social media" not be narcissistic? So he was prescient.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. SPMoore8 says:
    @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.

    Speaking as a left hander who was born in the middle ’50′s, I don’t recall getting any grief about it. My handedness was identified early for writing because I formed letters instinctively with the left hand when I was 4 (having older kids in the neighborhood expedited the process.) Handedness for everything else manifested when my father taught me baseball a couple of years later.

    Never had any problem with it, except for some teasing in primary school. The fact that Paul McCartney is a lefty gave it some cachet, Willie McCovey, too.

    I used to like to think that there was something special in being a lefty, but actually I don’t think so.

    My penmanship has always been awful and since I spent many years learning non-Roman alphabets it’s even worse now. At this point I can’t even read my own handwriting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I think the forcing lefties to write with their right hand thing was out of fashion after WWII (though maybe it lingered longer in Catholic schools in flyover states, etc.) - this was the Dr. Spock era when the child care rules were re-written (permissively) for the baby boomers. The introduction of the ball point pen might also have been a factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophilia and “children’s rights”. Pedophilia will be legalized by a radical lowering of the age of consent — after all, it’s ‘ageist’ and bigoted to demand that only adults can make sexual decisions.

    Moreover, there will be a big ‘think of the gay children’ tear-jerking campaign — they will claim that age of consent laws are a ploy used by bigots to persecute the development of gay kids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. There are Men, Women and the certifiably insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  193. Media and politicians (Hillary’s refused to join this holy crusade – for now) are slowly getting the message that we American dolts aren’t pushovers we were in the past. We’re inured to this, and it’s getting a LOT more difficult to intimidate us into silence. Yes, this is part of the ‘Trumpening” , but it really started over the past five years or so, as more and more Americans were disgusted by the hideous persecution of unintentional, defenseless heretics like Paula Deen and even Donald Sterling. Notice how, now, just a couple years after the magnificent offensive against it failed miserably, the Chik-fil-A purge has dropped down the memory hole?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Bill De Blasio is attempting to revive the Chik-fil-A purge in NYC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. SPMoore8 says:

    Since we are discussing all of these abnormal (or so they seem to us) activities I would like to summarize a few points.

    I think it is clear that the TG bathroom issue is not only silly but as far as TG-ism can possibly go. It’s silly, in the sense that people’s bathroom conduct is never going to be controlled by the state, so if people don’t like this new concept they will simply avoid public restrooms, which basically means avoiding establishments that cater to the minute TG population. This will lead to less market activity and more privatization, sort of like wedding planners or caterers, who, today, never advertise in public but survive by word of mouth.

    The main opponents to the TG bathroom beachhead will be women, or nobody. This is because men use public restrooms to get in, do their business, and get out, as rapidly as possible. (Unless they are some weirdo who likes to take up an entire stall to conduct conference calls or do private internet stuff on his laptop: I’ve seen that.) Women on the other hand, not only use restrooms much more often (because bladder) but also to fix their face, gossip with the other girls, and so on. So it’s really a woman’s issue.

    If TG’s “win”, there’s nowhere else to go. TG marriage is a yawner, we already have SSM. Okay, TG’s in the armed services, but I’ve been out for 40 years so I can’t pretend it will mean anything to me. It will probably mean something to some young 18 year old who wants to be a man and who goes to the recruitment center and ends up being interviewed by a transgender master sergeant, however. You can expect enlistments to continue to go down.

    However, the main point is that WWT will be over in a flash. There’s nothing to conquer.

    What’s next? I think pedophilia is not coming soon, but gender confusion aggravated by WWT is likely to lead to ever younger sexual activity among children, not necessarily predatory from outside, but just among the various confused “boys” and “girls” who won’t know what they are doing. This in turn will lead to further lowerings of the age, or punishable age, of consent violations. We won’t be sending many 10 year olds to prison for 25 to life for rape.

    I expect polygamy/polyandry will come sooner, especially if there are government benefits and/or handouts and/or tax writeoffs involved. Because everyone knows there is unlimited money, and filthy rich people have all that money hidden in their mattresses.

    Prostitution is likely to become ever more legal, and that in turn will probably lower the age of consent as well. Remember that ages of consent can be lowered, or raised. What’s telling to me is that if a 10 year old girl can buy a morning after pill without any investigation of the circumstances, then that must mean that 10 year olds getting pregnant is de facto legal.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation. The same goes for necrophilia.

    As someone else noted, the lefty SWJ notion that one’s future sexual praxis is determined genetically creates huge problems for the gender fluidity (or, if you prefer, air headedness) of teenagers.

    I basically think all of this stuff is incredibly stupid, but I enjoy talking about it, and hearing other people’s views. The only part that I think is sad is when people do irreparable harm to their bodies in fulfillment of some bizarre notion of reality. I felt that way about religious schismatics who mutilated their bodies in previous centuries, and I feel the same about the TG movement today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Target's embracing of this nonsense has cost it $6 billion in market cap. About 12%.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/targets_market_cap_down_6_billion_since_start_of_transgender_bathroom_policy.html

    And to the arrogant CEO that doesn't matter.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-target-transgender-bathroom-20160513-story.html
    , @Mark2
    Hard to see prostitution becoming legal. Feminists/church ladies (two sides of the same coin really) are stridently opposed to legalization because it would lower the price of sex and diminish their ability to use sex as a bargaining chip. The "sex trafficking" histrionics would get trotted out immediately, as would the usual panoply of feminist bromides. It would also force vice police to actually do something useful, like deal with violent crime.

    Of course, as you've pointed out, when feminism comes into conflict with another arm of the left-wing coalition, the former almost always loses.
    , @Bill Jones
    Pedophilia is coming sooner than you think. The positioning has started.
    ‘minor-attracted person’ is the Newspeak phrase.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/legalizing-sexual-child-abuse-pedophilia-now-classified-as-a-sexual-orientation/

    , @Dissident

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation.

     

    I recall hearing Animal Rights advocate Peter Singer on the radio some years ago suggesting that animals could effectively consent to sex with humans. Singer said that as long as the animal wasn't being restrained, it could simply walk away from the human if it wasn't interested in buggering with him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. SteveO says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    I agree with your point about the influence of gays and super-donors in the Republican Party, but I don't think your story explains everything.

    There have always been gays in the families of the wealthy and around them in business. And people often knew who they were. Simple association with gays has not always led people to the conclusion that gay marriage is okay. I also find it difficult to believe that the general public can be so easily swayed so quickly only by cues from the upper classes trickling down through party politics, media, etc.

    I don't know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion. My guess is that, in both cases, changes in what "everyone knows" about being gay had a big effect. When everyone knows that boys who want to dress like girls are just born that way, and can't help it, and are just like you and me, we can see rapid acceptance of transgenderism too.

    I don’t know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion.

    I can’t speak for (A), but (B) at least in part came about because:

    1. Nearly unanimous media support for SSM. That was partly driven by (A) but also driven by the fact that the people who write for TV, movies, most news outlets, etc., are on average very liberal on social issues and have been for decades. The idea of allowing gays to marry is not new. These social liberals were already halfway on board with it 10 years ago. Things just reached a tipping point.

    2. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual couples just short of marriage was already widespread. Once you’ve accepted that two men can love each other and be a couple just like you and your husband (don’t overlook the influence of women and the feminization of society in this matter), then it just seems silly not to let them marry.

    3. Finally, there is the painful fact that heterosexuals had already made a mockery of marriage with the ease and frequency of divorce. It was hard even for non-liberals to take defense of marriage talk seriously when it came from the mouths of twice- or thrice-divorced “social conservatives”. In other words, marriage had already been thoroughly degraded by the people it was meant for; why not allow others to join it?

    By the way, it’s very common, even here at iSteve to see the destruction of marriage blamed on homosexuals, but they are a small and peripheral group in this regard. It’s straight people who have degraded marriage by making it too easy to get out of. Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men’s room, why don’t SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again? I’m not advocating shunning people who divorce; some marriages truly do need to end. But how much better off we would be if there was still at least some social pressure to stay married, at least until the kids are grown (as, indeed, there is within the upper middle class).

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Forbes

    ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again?
     
    That ship sailed.

    US (and Western) society is enraptured with the idea of 'no consequences' for mistakes and poor choices. It's always claimed as someone else's fault--and no one should be burdened with those mistakes and choices. At bottom, it's about being responsible for yourself, and for the consequences of your conduct. And there's absolutely no impetus for imposing responsibility in a society that reduces every personal preference and peccadillo into a constitutional right to engage in near every and any conduct, however fraught or mistake-prone.

    As it is, making divorce more difficult would make marriage pointless--if it isn't already. It's mostly an excuse for an elaborate party celebrating a couples' union. And such was regularly voiced as a significant reason to allow gays to marry--who wants to deny them a party (because everyone has the right to a wedding reception)?

    With half of children born without the benefit of married parents, and half of all marriages ending in divorce, marriage is superfluous.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men’s room, why don’t SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again?
     
    Sometime in the 1980s, South Dakota became the 49th state to adopt no-fault divorce. It was a good quarter-century before the last state fell-- New York, in 2010.

    Let's congratulate the Empire State for holding out so long.

    How did the Trump divorces play out under this regime? Were they filed elsewhere? It's not like he had nowhere else to live!

    http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. biz says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.

    The next thing will be polyamory.

    The cultural offensive will be to have polyamorous relationships accorded the same respect as monogamous ones. We are probably less than a decade away from the first ‘enlightened’ valentine’s day ad featuring a picture perfect seemingly wholesome MFF triad. They’re not about freaky sex – they’re so in love.

    The legal offensive will be to have plural marriages recognized. When multiple, potentially unlimited, people can get survivor and social security benefits from one person, well that’s basically an unlimited welfare state. Monogamy will be a financial sucker’s bet. Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final fronteir of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    That is precisely Whiskey's point.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final frontier of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.
     
    Nope - not going to happen. The original reason for polygamy was not the ascendance of the mighty 10%, it was the absence of male candidates to service the female population.

    In the modern era there won't be enough male homosexuality, male transgender-y, male-castrati or male transspecies-ality to account for the pre-modern attrition from perpetual war. Today, there are far too many ways for someone to 'reach out and touch someone' in the 10% for the prior configuration to exist.

    Of course, if the neo-cons have their way with the whole 'invade-the-world' program, then I may be wrong.
    , @Lurker
    Agreed. All sorts of SJW weirdness will be paraded before us - no more Victorian values. And when the dust settles rich/powerful/charismatic men will monopolise most of the women and the beta SJWs who advocated for it will find that not only can they not settle down/marry they won't even be able to get a girlfriend. Fapping for life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Olorin says:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday made an impassioned argument for his administration’s decision to instruct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity,

    I guess every lame duck president tries to establish a legacy.

    But “The First Black President’s” handlers really should have advised him not to come across like a Third World tribal big mon, using his supreme power…to dictate where and how his favorites will wee wee and boom boom.

    I cannot think of any other POTUS who’d, erm, stoop to this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  198. @Brutusale
    Not apocryphal at all. My left-handed uncle was traumatized in Catholic school (1950s) because of it, and my mother says she was concerned enough to ask the principal about it (1960s) when my lefty elder brother started first grade.

    You’re providing a one degree of separation anecdote like the ones I’d referred to in my original comment.

    N.B. that lots of people like to tell similar stories about all manner of different disciplinary and pedagogical happenings in Catholic schools, particularly that which was perpetrated by nuns with a certain pride – like an old soldier or Marine reminiscing about the tough as nails Drill Sergeant/DI. A grain of salt is warranted.

    Not saying they’re all false (I have my own), but they’re often told with a certain literary license and folkish exaggerated style, passed down from older siblings to younger, etc. Legends of nuns like “Big Louie” and “Sr. A-thumpya” are legion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.

    A common theory derives from the fact that the Latin word for left as in left handed is “sinister” and carries connotations of evil and of bad fortune, contrasted with the word for right “dexter,” from which derives the word “dexterous.” Technically, ambidexterous means essentially having two good or right hands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    That makes me recall the world's most evil cartoon character, a lefty and a Jew, Simon Bar Sinister!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bar_Sinister
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @SPMoore8
    Since we are discussing all of these abnormal (or so they seem to us) activities I would like to summarize a few points.

    I think it is clear that the TG bathroom issue is not only silly but as far as TG-ism can possibly go. It's silly, in the sense that people's bathroom conduct is never going to be controlled by the state, so if people don't like this new concept they will simply avoid public restrooms, which basically means avoiding establishments that cater to the minute TG population. This will lead to less market activity and more privatization, sort of like wedding planners or caterers, who, today, never advertise in public but survive by word of mouth.

    The main opponents to the TG bathroom beachhead will be women, or nobody. This is because men use public restrooms to get in, do their business, and get out, as rapidly as possible. (Unless they are some weirdo who likes to take up an entire stall to conduct conference calls or do private internet stuff on his laptop: I've seen that.) Women on the other hand, not only use restrooms much more often (because bladder) but also to fix their face, gossip with the other girls, and so on. So it's really a woman's issue.

    If TG's "win", there's nowhere else to go. TG marriage is a yawner, we already have SSM. Okay, TG's in the armed services, but I've been out for 40 years so I can't pretend it will mean anything to me. It will probably mean something to some young 18 year old who wants to be a man and who goes to the recruitment center and ends up being interviewed by a transgender master sergeant, however. You can expect enlistments to continue to go down.

    However, the main point is that WWT will be over in a flash. There's nothing to conquer.

    What's next? I think pedophilia is not coming soon, but gender confusion aggravated by WWT is likely to lead to ever younger sexual activity among children, not necessarily predatory from outside, but just among the various confused "boys" and "girls" who won't know what they are doing. This in turn will lead to further lowerings of the age, or punishable age, of consent violations. We won't be sending many 10 year olds to prison for 25 to life for rape.

    I expect polygamy/polyandry will come sooner, especially if there are government benefits and/or handouts and/or tax writeoffs involved. Because everyone knows there is unlimited money, and filthy rich people have all that money hidden in their mattresses.

    Prostitution is likely to become ever more legal, and that in turn will probably lower the age of consent as well. Remember that ages of consent can be lowered, or raised. What's telling to me is that if a 10 year old girl can buy a morning after pill without any investigation of the circumstances, then that must mean that 10 year olds getting pregnant is de facto legal.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation. The same goes for necrophilia.

    As someone else noted, the lefty SWJ notion that one's future sexual praxis is determined genetically creates huge problems for the gender fluidity (or, if you prefer, air headedness) of teenagers.

    I basically think all of this stuff is incredibly stupid, but I enjoy talking about it, and hearing other people's views. The only part that I think is sad is when people do irreparable harm to their bodies in fulfillment of some bizarre notion of reality. I felt that way about religious schismatics who mutilated their bodies in previous centuries, and I feel the same about the TG movement today.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    Acceptance of open homosexuality and no fault divorce came about pretty close together and were all part of the same sexual revolution. Something bigger and deeper had changed after WWII that made everything fall apart in so few years.

    A lot of the divorced social conservatives you're referring to have been left by their spouses. Are they supposed to stay single? Do you have an honest answer for that one?

    The one politician I remember blaming divorce for so much social ill was George HW Bush. I was shocked and impressed that he dared say that during a debate. He was humble about it and cautious, but unambiguous.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    I'm enjoying not shopping at Target.

    My other reply to you is misplaced. Hearkens back to an earlier comment, SteveO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Anonym
    This sort of thing was actually done back in the 1970s, maybe the 1980s. Sex change plus hormone therapy. From memory, it was done to straight male children, by doctors who were all about advancing the brave new groovy world, while chasing a buck. Some (most?) operatees are still resentful about it.

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrati for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.

    Optional surgeries have been pushed by doctors short of money for a long time, and likely will continue to be something that is pushed by unethical doctors. Removing the teeth of children and installing dentures, removing tonsils, were some medical money making fashions that went on. I see this gender reassignment, along with some cosmetic surgery, pill prescribing for some mental illness or ADHD, as yet another way for unethical people in the medical profession to make money. Of course, the SJW component probably dominates.

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrat[o] for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.

    Walter Tetley, the voice of Sherman in the cartoon, suffered from some medical condition that blocked his puberty, so he sounded like a little boy throughout his life. That was the official story. But the voice of Mr Peabody joked that Walter’s mother had had him “fixed”, to keep the radio gigs coming in.

    I sure hope it was a joke. Otherwise she was the worst stage mother in American history.

    Neutering healthy boys was controversial enough when it happened in old Italy. Parents offering up their poor boy often told the buyer that he “was bitten by a pig.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Walter Tetley, the voice of Sherman in the cartoon, suffered from some medical condition that blocked his puberty, so he sounded like a little boy throughout his life.
     
    Sounds like Richard Bealls (not sure of spelling and can't find any info to link-to), who had a career in old-time radio playing young boys. I heard him in a number of shows and found him to truly sound like a boy.

    I learned about Bealls (and discovered OTR) through Max Schmid, who hosts OTR shows:
    https://www.facebook.com/maxgoldenage?_rdr=p

    According to Schmid, Bealls' high, child-like voice was the result of a medical condition that caused him to never reach sexual maturity.

    (Incidentally, Max Schmid's broadcast show airs on WBAI, the rabidly-left (and downright looney and chaotic) Pacifica outlet in New York. Schmid, however, while quite the Cultural Marxist in his own right, is nonetheless quite moderate (and normal) by BAI standards. Schmid is generally an enjoyable host to listen-to and can be rather funny, particularly when he complains about and even takes little digs at the culture of incompetency, chaos and perpetual internecine fighting that WBAI is infamous for. All that said, I do have to also note that while Schmid stays clear of politics and ideology for the most part, he has managed, in passing, to get in some rather nasty snipes at the right.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Jack D says:
    @SPMoore8
    Speaking as a left hander who was born in the middle '50's, I don't recall getting any grief about it. My handedness was identified early for writing because I formed letters instinctively with the left hand when I was 4 (having older kids in the neighborhood expedited the process.) Handedness for everything else manifested when my father taught me baseball a couple of years later.

    Never had any problem with it, except for some teasing in primary school. The fact that Paul McCartney is a lefty gave it some cachet, Willie McCovey, too.

    I used to like to think that there was something special in being a lefty, but actually I don't think so.

    My penmanship has always been awful and since I spent many years learning non-Roman alphabets it's even worse now. At this point I can't even read my own handwriting.

    I think the forcing lefties to write with their right hand thing was out of fashion after WWII (though maybe it lingered longer in Catholic schools in flyover states, etc.) – this was the Dr. Spock era when the child care rules were re-written (permissively) for the baby boomers. The introduction of the ball point pen might also have been a factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Mark2 says:
    @SPMoore8
    Since we are discussing all of these abnormal (or so they seem to us) activities I would like to summarize a few points.

    I think it is clear that the TG bathroom issue is not only silly but as far as TG-ism can possibly go. It's silly, in the sense that people's bathroom conduct is never going to be controlled by the state, so if people don't like this new concept they will simply avoid public restrooms, which basically means avoiding establishments that cater to the minute TG population. This will lead to less market activity and more privatization, sort of like wedding planners or caterers, who, today, never advertise in public but survive by word of mouth.

    The main opponents to the TG bathroom beachhead will be women, or nobody. This is because men use public restrooms to get in, do their business, and get out, as rapidly as possible. (Unless they are some weirdo who likes to take up an entire stall to conduct conference calls or do private internet stuff on his laptop: I've seen that.) Women on the other hand, not only use restrooms much more often (because bladder) but also to fix their face, gossip with the other girls, and so on. So it's really a woman's issue.

    If TG's "win", there's nowhere else to go. TG marriage is a yawner, we already have SSM. Okay, TG's in the armed services, but I've been out for 40 years so I can't pretend it will mean anything to me. It will probably mean something to some young 18 year old who wants to be a man and who goes to the recruitment center and ends up being interviewed by a transgender master sergeant, however. You can expect enlistments to continue to go down.

    However, the main point is that WWT will be over in a flash. There's nothing to conquer.

    What's next? I think pedophilia is not coming soon, but gender confusion aggravated by WWT is likely to lead to ever younger sexual activity among children, not necessarily predatory from outside, but just among the various confused "boys" and "girls" who won't know what they are doing. This in turn will lead to further lowerings of the age, or punishable age, of consent violations. We won't be sending many 10 year olds to prison for 25 to life for rape.

    I expect polygamy/polyandry will come sooner, especially if there are government benefits and/or handouts and/or tax writeoffs involved. Because everyone knows there is unlimited money, and filthy rich people have all that money hidden in their mattresses.

    Prostitution is likely to become ever more legal, and that in turn will probably lower the age of consent as well. Remember that ages of consent can be lowered, or raised. What's telling to me is that if a 10 year old girl can buy a morning after pill without any investigation of the circumstances, then that must mean that 10 year olds getting pregnant is de facto legal.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation. The same goes for necrophilia.

    As someone else noted, the lefty SWJ notion that one's future sexual praxis is determined genetically creates huge problems for the gender fluidity (or, if you prefer, air headedness) of teenagers.

    I basically think all of this stuff is incredibly stupid, but I enjoy talking about it, and hearing other people's views. The only part that I think is sad is when people do irreparable harm to their bodies in fulfillment of some bizarre notion of reality. I felt that way about religious schismatics who mutilated their bodies in previous centuries, and I feel the same about the TG movement today.

    Hard to see prostitution becoming legal. Feminists/church ladies (two sides of the same coin really) are stridently opposed to legalization because it would lower the price of sex and diminish their ability to use sex as a bargaining chip. The “sex trafficking” histrionics would get trotted out immediately, as would the usual panoply of feminist bromides. It would also force vice police to actually do something useful, like deal with violent crime.

    Of course, as you’ve pointed out, when feminism comes into conflict with another arm of the left-wing coalition, the former almost always loses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @SPMoore8
    Since we are discussing all of these abnormal (or so they seem to us) activities I would like to summarize a few points.

    I think it is clear that the TG bathroom issue is not only silly but as far as TG-ism can possibly go. It's silly, in the sense that people's bathroom conduct is never going to be controlled by the state, so if people don't like this new concept they will simply avoid public restrooms, which basically means avoiding establishments that cater to the minute TG population. This will lead to less market activity and more privatization, sort of like wedding planners or caterers, who, today, never advertise in public but survive by word of mouth.

    The main opponents to the TG bathroom beachhead will be women, or nobody. This is because men use public restrooms to get in, do their business, and get out, as rapidly as possible. (Unless they are some weirdo who likes to take up an entire stall to conduct conference calls or do private internet stuff on his laptop: I've seen that.) Women on the other hand, not only use restrooms much more often (because bladder) but also to fix their face, gossip with the other girls, and so on. So it's really a woman's issue.

    If TG's "win", there's nowhere else to go. TG marriage is a yawner, we already have SSM. Okay, TG's in the armed services, but I've been out for 40 years so I can't pretend it will mean anything to me. It will probably mean something to some young 18 year old who wants to be a man and who goes to the recruitment center and ends up being interviewed by a transgender master sergeant, however. You can expect enlistments to continue to go down.

    However, the main point is that WWT will be over in a flash. There's nothing to conquer.

    What's next? I think pedophilia is not coming soon, but gender confusion aggravated by WWT is likely to lead to ever younger sexual activity among children, not necessarily predatory from outside, but just among the various confused "boys" and "girls" who won't know what they are doing. This in turn will lead to further lowerings of the age, or punishable age, of consent violations. We won't be sending many 10 year olds to prison for 25 to life for rape.

    I expect polygamy/polyandry will come sooner, especially if there are government benefits and/or handouts and/or tax writeoffs involved. Because everyone knows there is unlimited money, and filthy rich people have all that money hidden in their mattresses.

    Prostitution is likely to become ever more legal, and that in turn will probably lower the age of consent as well. Remember that ages of consent can be lowered, or raised. What's telling to me is that if a 10 year old girl can buy a morning after pill without any investigation of the circumstances, then that must mean that 10 year olds getting pregnant is de facto legal.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation. The same goes for necrophilia.

    As someone else noted, the lefty SWJ notion that one's future sexual praxis is determined genetically creates huge problems for the gender fluidity (or, if you prefer, air headedness) of teenagers.

    I basically think all of this stuff is incredibly stupid, but I enjoy talking about it, and hearing other people's views. The only part that I think is sad is when people do irreparable harm to their bodies in fulfillment of some bizarre notion of reality. I felt that way about religious schismatics who mutilated their bodies in previous centuries, and I feel the same about the TG movement today.

    Pedophilia is coming sooner than you think. The positioning has started.
    ‘minor-attracted person’ is the Newspeak phrase.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/legalizing-sexual-child-abuse-pedophilia-now-classified-as-a-sexual-orientation/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. carol says:
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    I don’t know about Stormfront, but in any far right organization often the most active and outspoken members are the women. E.g. Phyllis Shafley. Also our local Eagle Forum president here was female. Older retired women feel safest to hold non SJW views.

    I think they sense they get a pass and can say more out loud with fewer consequences. De Beauvoir wrote as much in Second Sex – they are merely indulged by the men, or used, ala Coulter – and it’s true.

    Alleged “racism” is more covert of course but you can get them to talk immigration and ghetto politics in private conversation more than you can with the hypercautious men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @carol
    ...so also I think you may be assuming people on the internet are young, when we all not that's not true. Most people turn out to be older and frustrated and wanting to say things they've been holding in for years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @D. K.
    As I noted earlier:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/

    DK, …..the line in the article that says….” displaying her male genitalia….” says it all .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    It's male genitalia, not MALE GENITALIA.

    The latter can be used to, like, rape and run corporations and armies and stuff.

    The former just gets whipped out as evidence of being a trans woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Svigor says:

    I sometimes wonder if Obama is secretly trying to sink Hillary’s campaign with a pink torpedo.

    Hillary’s doing that all by herself. Her latest is announcing that if she wins, she’s going to put Bill in charge of the economy.

    Michael Dougherty seems to think that this is “proof” that Trump will lose in November cause otherwise liberals wouldn’t be pulling these shenanigans.

    I think he is over estimating the power of Right side of History hubris and being an upset wonk.

    Might as well say Trump’s (and his supporters’) shenanigans are proof that Trump will win in November.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. @SPMoore8
    It is inconceivable to me that the NYT would ever oppose the extension of TG rights. The author of the article simply needs to be properly educated.

    As I have said several times now, TG bathroom rights are really a problem for cis-women and trans-women and cis-girls and trans-girls. It's not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    By the same token, Civil Rights re-enactors who want to recapture some nice '60's persecution groove (without dogs, fire hoses, or Klansmen) can also fantasize about staging "sh*t ins" in segregated bathrooms all across America. However, this is false, because there are already two types of bathrooms for men and women, so the proper thing would be to simply abolish gendered bathrooms altogether, and again, let the women sort it out.

    Except that that isn't what TG's want. For them, using a "ladies room" is a concrete justification of who they are, just as using a "men's room" would be a humiliating act of submission to heteronormative standards, etc. And, as I have said before, I have a suspicion that market forces would not support this over the long term (witness the supposed confrontation in CT.)

    The same applies to locker rooms (if it ever gets to that point). I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don't know the answer either. Maybe she's a lesbian?

    Of course, evil conservatives who think these kinds of things are unworkable and likely to cause problems can only wait and see if any of their predictions or reads of human nature play out. But this is one case where conservatives can adopt a completely laissez faire attitude with complacency.

    Certain things are likely to happen, subject to the growth of the privileged TG minority (privileged in the sense that they get to chose what gender they are). One, is that there will be lots of private shunning and complaints. Second, that there will be a lot of prepubescent sexual exploration. Third, there are likely to be sexual interactions among youngsters who will both be below any age of consent, but also for that matter prosecution. Fourth, the private realm persecution of TG's will not stop, since using the girl's room at Unz Elementary (or Junior High, or High School) isn't going to get you invited to Connie's slumber party. And, no, Bob won't be inviting you to his sleepover, either. Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations. I might be wrong about these things, and if I am, that's great. But I remember pubescent and prepubescent sexuality as being very confused, and I think it will become even more confused if we start putting sexually dimorphic physical entities in intimate proximity at earlier ages. Again, biology has a way of overriding whatever it is you think you think.

    Bottom line: Emancipating bathrooms will do nothing to console the victims of gender dysphoria, whatever its cause and whatever its proper treatment. At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    SP, The bathroom issue is not the driving part of the Obama agenda. The Title IX tie in involves the use of locker rooms. There are plenty of single toilet restrooms that can easily be used by any gender, many restaurants feature just one bathroom since they need to be ADA compliant. The use of a female locker room by a “trans” with a dick and a set of balls is what is at stake here. Click on D.K.’s link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    "Your right to gender self-selection ends when you stick your penis in my face." -- That should be a rallying cry to women. But no one will say it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. carol says:
    @carol
    I don't know about Stormfront, but in any far right organization often the most active and outspoken members are the women. E.g. Phyllis Shafley. Also our local Eagle Forum president here was female. Older retired women feel safest to hold non SJW views.

    I think they sense they get a pass and can say more out loud with fewer consequences. De Beauvoir wrote as much in Second Sex - they are merely indulged by the men, or used, ala Coulter - and it's true.

    Alleged "racism" is more covert of course but you can get them to talk immigration and ghetto politics in private conversation more than you can with the hypercautious men.

    …so also I think you may be assuming people on the internet are young, when we all not that’s not true. Most people turn out to be older and frustrated and wanting to say things they’ve been holding in for years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @SPMoore8
    It is inconceivable to me that the NYT would ever oppose the extension of TG rights. The author of the article simply needs to be properly educated.

    As I have said several times now, TG bathroom rights are really a problem for cis-women and trans-women and cis-girls and trans-girls. It's not a problem for men, of any kind, at all. So I would recommend just avoiding it. Let the women sort it out.

    By the same token, Civil Rights re-enactors who want to recapture some nice '60's persecution groove (without dogs, fire hoses, or Klansmen) can also fantasize about staging "sh*t ins" in segregated bathrooms all across America. However, this is false, because there are already two types of bathrooms for men and women, so the proper thing would be to simply abolish gendered bathrooms altogether, and again, let the women sort it out.

    Except that that isn't what TG's want. For them, using a "ladies room" is a concrete justification of who they are, just as using a "men's room" would be a humiliating act of submission to heteronormative standards, etc. And, as I have said before, I have a suspicion that market forces would not support this over the long term (witness the supposed confrontation in CT.)

    The same applies to locker rooms (if it ever gets to that point). I can sincerely believe that Jane (who is biologically John) believes she is a girl. However, if she finds herself getting an erection when her girl classmates are getting undressed, I imagine Jane will get very confused. I mean, biology is weird like that. And I don't know the answer either. Maybe she's a lesbian?

    Of course, evil conservatives who think these kinds of things are unworkable and likely to cause problems can only wait and see if any of their predictions or reads of human nature play out. But this is one case where conservatives can adopt a completely laissez faire attitude with complacency.

    Certain things are likely to happen, subject to the growth of the privileged TG minority (privileged in the sense that they get to chose what gender they are). One, is that there will be lots of private shunning and complaints. Second, that there will be a lot of prepubescent sexual exploration. Third, there are likely to be sexual interactions among youngsters who will both be below any age of consent, but also for that matter prosecution. Fourth, the private realm persecution of TG's will not stop, since using the girl's room at Unz Elementary (or Junior High, or High School) isn't going to get you invited to Connie's slumber party. And, no, Bob won't be inviting you to his sleepover, either. Finally, you will probably see a greater exodus of students into private schools, which presumably can set their own rules for admissions and bathroom accommodations. I might be wrong about these things, and if I am, that's great. But I remember pubescent and prepubescent sexuality as being very confused, and I think it will become even more confused if we start putting sexually dimorphic physical entities in intimate proximity at earlier ages. Again, biology has a way of overriding whatever it is you think you think.

    Bottom line: Emancipating bathrooms will do nothing to console the victims of gender dysphoria, whatever its cause and whatever its proper treatment. At best, it will just humor it along until the parents can raise the money for the necessary surgery. As to the applicability of that, no comment.

    SP… One more thing, Dr. McHugh, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins has stated that you can’t cure gender confusion with surgery and Johns Hopkins does not perform gender reassignment surgery, too hard on their staff Cosmetic Surgeons and Urologists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Yes,

    Paul McHugh, M.D.
    University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital
     
    ,
    one of the three authors of the statement at the American College of Pediatricians web site that was posted earlier by the commenter "e" (which is the source of the above description of Dr. McHugh):
    Gender Ideology Harms Children

    Before continuing, let me quote what I feel may be the single most critical sentence from that page (linked just above):

    According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5
     
    I already knew about Dr. McHugh, having seen references to an op-ed of his that appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 2014

    Note that the article at the WSJ web site is only available to subscribers. (Also note that it says it was updated just a few days ago: May 13th, 2016) A web search, however, led me to a two-page PDF of what appears to be the same op-ed (though probably not including whatever recent updates were made) at this apparently Roman Catholic site (appears interesting)

    I had the impression, though (sadly), that McHugh, who is now in his eighties, was largely an anachronism; a relic of a bygone era when saner heads prevailed. (I would add, as well, more scrupulous ones; other commenters in this thread have mentioned that providing "trans" "therapy" and "treatments" can be rather lucrative) I was quite surprised, therefore, to discover the link cited above that "e" had provided; the name alone, "American College of Pediatricians", suggested a prestigious and highly mainstream organization. Could any such institution in 2016 still get away with officially holding and promoting such "transphobic" and "outdated" views? It seemed too good to be true...and, alas, it was; a quick web search suggests with near-certainty that the American College of Pediatricians-- as solid and credible as it may inherently be-- is rather far from being considered mainstream.

    According to the Wikipedia entry for the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds),

    The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.
     
    Reading that, I realized that the American Academy of Pediatrics would appear to be the dominant mainstream association of pediatricians and that I probably was thinking of it when I first discovered the web site of the American College of Pediatricians. I then read,

    The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group", with "a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people.
     
    And I immediately realized that it was extremely unlikely that citing the ACPeds web site would have any credibility to anyone not already considerably conservative on the social issues-in-question. Still, I do think the site and the knowledge that it (and the organization behind it) exist is valuable in its own right and I am certainly grateful to the commenter "e" for having linked to it.
    , @Hibernian
    There's been a campaign to delegitimize Dr. McHugh, who's retired, I think, at least from Johns Hopkins, and I'm not sure if they're still following his policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. SPMoore8 says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    SP, The bathroom issue is not the driving part of the Obama agenda. The Title IX tie in involves the use of locker rooms. There are plenty of single toilet restrooms that can easily be used by any gender, many restaurants feature just one bathroom since they need to be ADA compliant. The use of a female locker room by a "trans" with a dick and a set of balls is what is at stake here. Click on D.K.'s link.

    “Your right to gender self-selection ends when you stick your penis in my face.” — That should be a rallying cry to women. But no one will say it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    SP, Bravo, you said it and it should be said again and again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    NAMbLA’s [sic; the minuscule was deliberate] branch in Canada disbanded once the age of consent was lowered to 14. They figured that was the best they could ever hope for. People could tolerate some “ephebophilia”, but never “pedophilia”. (This use of -philia, by the way, is an abuse of Greek.)

    But in rights-obsessed 20th-century America, the gay movement was reluctant to abandon NAMbLA, and NAMbLA’s ephebos reluctant to abandon its pedos. Lesbians especially hated male pedos, so the issue was highly controversial the more the movement mainstreamed. Harry Hay, arguably the founder of the gay rights movement, was defiant (“NAMbLA walks with me!”) at one of their last parade appearances, and Ed Hermance, who ran the largest gay bookstore in the hemisphere, carried their Bulletin until his young staff threatened to strike if he didn’t remove it. So we see a bit of a generational split there.

    It all came to a head with the release of the documentary Chickenhawk, featuring the proudly pederastic Leland Stevenson. He was too much for everybody. The gay movement has cracked down on the pedos ever since. The ephebos are lying low. Stevenson recently died in Sri Lanka, a few years after Arthur C Clarke did.

    So, no, while many “liberals” might have been soft on pedos in the past, mostly from ignorance, you won’t see that again for a long, long time. Perhaps the severity with which female teachers who sleep with their students are now dealt with is a way to give egalitarian cover for a more understandable crackdown on males.

    By the way, Clarke’s diaries are sealed until 2038. That might have been his estimate of when it would all have safely blown over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    [Re: NAMbLA] "So we see a bit of a generational split" -- I see what you did there.
    , @Dissident

    NAMbLA’s [sic; the minuscule was deliberate] branch in Canada disbanded once the age of consent was lowered to 14.
     
    According to this article, the age of consent (AOC) in Canada was raised in 2008 to 16, after having been set at 14 since 1890. Assuming the statement of yours about NAMbLA disbanding is correct and assuming that it happened much later than 1890, I suspect that you must have been referring-to the extension of the AOC of 14 to homosexual acts. That surely would have have had to have occurred much later than 1890 but still prior to 2008, when the AOC-- almost certainly for both homo- as well as hetero- acts-- was raised to 16.

    The article, however, notes the following important exceptions and caveats to the AOC of 16:

    Youth 12 or 13 years of age can consent to nonexploitative sexual activity with peers when the age difference is no more than two years. For example, a 12-year-old child is deemed capable of consenting to sexual activity with a 14-year-old, but not a 15-year-old.
     
    (I find this rather disturbing; the extent of the difference in sexual and physical development between the ages of 12 and 14 that is typical can be highly conducive to the abuse of the younger individual by the older one.)

    and,

    Youth 14 or 15 years of age can consent to nonexploitative sexual activity when the age difference is no more than five years. For example, a 15-year-old can consent to having sexual intercourse with a 20-year-old, but not with a 21-year-old.
     
    Seems like such exceptions would severely limit any usefulness that a lower AOC would have for NAMbLA types.

    So, no, while many “liberals” might have been soft on pedos in the past, mostly from ignorance, you won’t see that again for a long, long time.
     
    As pointed-out by others, there are indications that the tide may be starting to slowly turn on that. To add to the examples that they gave, I will cite Judith Levine's 2002 book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex.

    Perhaps the severity with which female teachers who sleep with their students are now dealt with is a way to give egalitarian cover for a more understandable crackdown on males.
     
    I've had the same thought. Specifically, that if women who sexually indulge in boys were to be treated more leniently than men who do the same, there would be cries of "homophobia".

    Not to say that even a 17-year-old boy can't be vulnerable, even to an attractive female teacher. But the melodramatic statements and protests of moral indignation attributed to parents and in some cases, even to the boy himself, in which it is claimed that he was so traumatized by the experience can be hard to take seriously. In some cases at least, I suspect that the real motive for such attacks upon the teacher is a financial one or one of revenge for some other wrong ascribed to her (fairly or otherwise).

    And of course, there are obvious critical differences, physical as well as psychological, between woman-boy and man-boy as well as man-girl sexual unions. And such differences clearly make the first category considerably less problematic than the second two. To claim otherwise is preposterous. (As is the claim that homosexuality in any form can be considered equivalent to heterosexuality.)

    I must question, though, your writing, "a more understandable crackdown on males". Does that not imply that you view said crackdown as less-than fully valid and justified?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. SPMoore8 says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children’s rights – ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?
     
    NAMbLA's [sic; the minuscule was deliberate] branch in Canada disbanded once the age of consent was lowered to 14. They figured that was the best they could ever hope for. People could tolerate some "ephebophilia", but never "pedophilia". (This use of -philia, by the way, is an abuse of Greek.)

    But in rights-obsessed 20th-century America, the gay movement was reluctant to abandon NAMbLA, and NAMbLA's ephebos reluctant to abandon its pedos. Lesbians especially hated male pedos, so the issue was highly controversial the more the movement mainstreamed. Harry Hay, arguably the founder of the gay rights movement, was defiant ("NAMbLA walks with me!") at one of their last parade appearances, and Ed Hermance, who ran the largest gay bookstore in the hemisphere, carried their Bulletin until his young staff threatened to strike if he didn't remove it. So we see a bit of a generational split there.

    It all came to a head with the release of the documentary Chickenhawk, featuring the proudly pederastic Leland Stevenson. He was too much for everybody. The gay movement has cracked down on the pedos ever since. The ephebos are lying low. Stevenson recently died in Sri Lanka, a few years after Arthur C Clarke did.

    So, no, while many "liberals" might have been soft on pedos in the past, mostly from ignorance, you won't see that again for a long, long time. Perhaps the severity with which female teachers who sleep with their students are now dealt with is a way to give egalitarian cover for a more understandable crackdown on males.

    By the way, Clarke's diaries are sealed until 2038. That might have been his estimate of when it would all have safely blown over.

    [Re: NAMbLA] “So we see a bit of a generational split” — I see what you did there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    “So we see a bit of a generational split” —I see what you did there.
     
    It was a accident!

    I didn't mean to "crack" a joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Formerly CARealist
    We had a girl come into the kids' ballet studio thinking she was a boy, and insisting her parents treat her as a boy. The kid was FOUR. The studio was baffled since boys are so rare in ballet and they get free dance lessons. The parents were utterly perplexed, but accommodating the kid's delusion, probably at the urging of whatever weirdo was advising them in the pediatric office.

    This family could have caused real grief to our studio if they'd pushed us making room for their problem (imagine the little girl insisting on being in the boys' dressing room during shows).

    We had a girl come into the kids’ ballet studio thinking she was a boy, and insisting her parents treat her as a boy. The kid was FOUR. The studio was baffled since boys are so rare in ballet and they get free dance lessons. The parents were utterly perplexed

    From the words I bolded, I surmise that the kid may have simply been a prodigious grifter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Anonym
    Maybe I am getting old but it disturbs me to see how fantastical children's TV programming has become. Everything is either CGI or animated. It is less the format than the unreal nature of the content that sets children up to have to unlearn a lot of things in life, or retreat into fantasy worlds like the "herbivores men" of Japan. Buttkicking babes, buttkicking rabbits, etc. Etc.

    You would see some of this when I grew up, that children who had been fed a diet of Bruce Lee movies would get sucked in by McDojo cult leaders. And truth be told, you could make a similar sort of case for Arnold and Stallone movies leading to Joe Weider making a fortunate peddling protein powder and sugar.

    On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn't IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no. I think it is fair to say that we have quantitively and qualitatively more unreal entertainment than every before. And this is showing up with people with strange sex urges wanting to live them out.

    This also gets back to porn. We can watch more porn than we could ever hope to download. Whatever fake reality we want to live in, it's there. I think this is where the trans-thing is coming from.

    “On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn’t IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no”

    Interesting. I was watching a rerun of ‘The Matrix’ ercently and thinking how much of a ‘transgender’ fantasy it is, and a Western one too–Keanu Reeves controlling the Matrix to be whoever he wants to be. A fantasy of infinite human plasticity. And of course the film was made by two brothers who later became transgendered.

    There may not have been a direct campaign in Western societies on this issue, but we’ve been softening up for it in countless ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Interesting. I was watching a rerun of ‘The Matrix’ recently and thinking how much of a ‘transgender’ fantasy it is, and a Western one too–Keanu Reeves controlling the Matrix to be whoever he wants to be. A fantasy of infinite human plasticity. And of course the film was made by two brothers who later became transgendered.

    There may not have been a direct campaign in Western societies on this issue, but we’ve been softening up for it in countless ways.


    It's interesting you mention the Wachowskis and The Matrix, which is an expression of cyberpunk and hacker heroism. I think of slashdot and how it has long been so leftist SJWey (with a small rightist libertarian contingent). Why? And I think of early adoption, the retreat of nerdish denizens into the world of computer-generated fantasy land long before it was kind of what everyone did. Fantasy worlds, downloadable porn, creating and wielding your own avatar... that's where it all started and those are the early adopters of it all. The Wachowskis were into that world back in 1999 when it was still a subculture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @SPMoore8
    [Re: NAMbLA] "So we see a bit of a generational split" -- I see what you did there.

    “So we see a bit of a generational split” —I see what you did there.

    It was a accident!

    I didn’t mean to “crack” a joke.

    Read More
    • Agree: Spmoore8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Steve Sailer
    My vague impression is that continental Herr Professors had a theory about why lefthanders should be converted. But perhaps the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth, worked against it here?

    But nobody seems to know or care about the history of discrimination against lefthanders.

    the popularity of lefthanded baseball players in America, like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth…

    Cobb was righthanded. He batted left. That’s the best set-up for reaching the majors. Very common, even at the top: Cobb, Ted Williams, Yogi Berra, Joe Morgan.

    Throw left, bat right– exceedingly rare. Rickey Henderson, Cleon Jones, who else? Only 57 ever, excluding pitchers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. The next thing you know is that girls with penises will be suing to have stand up urinals in the ladies room, and men with vaginas will want tampon dispensers in the gents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  219. @Forbes
    Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979), and "The Revolt of the Elites" (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I've ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.

    Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979), and “The Revolt of the Elites” (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I’ve ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.

    Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions and The Quest for Cosmic Justice also get right to the core. And catch this subtitle: The Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. What else is there to say?

    Other than, Is Reality Optional?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    I gobbled up Sowell's Conflict of Visions when it came out. That would've been around the same time as Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites,which I just read this year. Lasch's two works strike me as more powerful because they come from a traditional liberal. Mention Sowell to a left-liberal, and they dismiss him because he's conservative. I loaned Revolt to a liberal-lefty friend, and he said he couldn't finish it. I think he found critique from a liberal too depressing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @SPMoore8
    "Your right to gender self-selection ends when you stick your penis in my face." -- That should be a rallying cry to women. But no one will say it.

    SP, Bravo, you said it and it should be said again and again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. anonn says:

    A bit late to this. As a leftist and a socialist, these identity politics appeals stopping working on me a few years ago. Recognition that all people get the same real, tangible, civil rights was important. Once the marriage decision came down, I kind of think we won and it’s time to move on.

    I just can’t get that excited about how rude Southerners are to LGBT people. If it’s that bad, move to the coasts.

    At this point the Dems keep harping on the tiniest of slights so we all stop paying attention to the Rs and the Ds joint project of killing the middle class forever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  222. @Bill Jones
    Target's embracing of this nonsense has cost it $6 billion in market cap. About 12%.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/targets_market_cap_down_6_billion_since_start_of_transgender_bathroom_policy.html

    And to the arrogant CEO that doesn't matter.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-target-transgender-bathroom-20160513-story.html

    Acceptance of open homosexuality and no fault divorce came about pretty close together and were all part of the same sexual revolution. Something bigger and deeper had changed after WWII that made everything fall apart in so few years.

    A lot of the divorced social conservatives you’re referring to have been left by their spouses. Are they supposed to stay single? Do you have an honest answer for that one?

    The one politician I remember blaming divorce for so much social ill was George HW Bush. I was shocked and impressed that he dared say that during a debate. He was humble about it and cautious, but unambiguous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Forbes says:
    @SteveO

    I don’t know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion.
     
    I can't speak for (A), but (B) at least in part came about because:

    1. Nearly unanimous media support for SSM. That was partly driven by (A) but also driven by the fact that the people who write for TV, movies, most news outlets, etc., are on average very liberal on social issues and have been for decades. The idea of allowing gays to marry is not new. These social liberals were already halfway on board with it 10 years ago. Things just reached a tipping point.

    2. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual couples just short of marriage was already widespread. Once you've accepted that two men can love each other and be a couple just like you and your husband (don't overlook the influence of women and the feminization of society in this matter), then it just seems silly not to let them marry.

    3. Finally, there is the painful fact that heterosexuals had already made a mockery of marriage with the ease and frequency of divorce. It was hard even for non-liberals to take defense of marriage talk seriously when it came from the mouths of twice- or thrice-divorced "social conservatives". In other words, marriage had already been thoroughly degraded by the people it was meant for; why not allow others to join it?

    By the way, it's very common, even here at iSteve to see the destruction of marriage blamed on homosexuals, but they are a small and peripheral group in this regard. It's straight people who have degraded marriage by making it too easy to get out of. Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men's room, why don't SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again? I'm not advocating shunning people who divorce; some marriages truly do need to end. But how much better off we would be if there was still at least some social pressure to stay married, at least until the kids are grown (as, indeed, there is within the upper middle class).

    ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again?

    That ship sailed.

    US (and Western) society is enraptured with the idea of ‘no consequences’ for mistakes and poor choices. It’s always claimed as someone else’s fault–and no one should be burdened with those mistakes and choices. At bottom, it’s about being responsible for yourself, and for the consequences of your conduct. And there’s absolutely no impetus for imposing responsibility in a society that reduces every personal preference and peccadillo into a constitutional right to engage in near every and any conduct, however fraught or mistake-prone.

    As it is, making divorce more difficult would make marriage pointless–if it isn’t already. It’s mostly an excuse for an elaborate party celebrating a couples’ union. And such was regularly voiced as a significant reason to allow gays to marry–who wants to deny them a party (because everyone has the right to a wedding reception)?

    With half of children born without the benefit of married parents, and half of all marriages ending in divorce, marriage is superfluous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Bill Jones
    Target's embracing of this nonsense has cost it $6 billion in market cap. About 12%.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/targets_market_cap_down_6_billion_since_start_of_transgender_bathroom_policy.html

    And to the arrogant CEO that doesn't matter.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-target-transgender-bathroom-20160513-story.html

    I’m enjoying not shopping at Target.

    My other reply to you is misplaced. Hearkens back to an earlier comment, SteveO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Brutusale says:
    @Alec Leamas
    A common theory derives from the fact that the Latin word for left as in left handed is "sinister" and carries connotations of evil and of bad fortune, contrasted with the word for right "dexter," from which derives the word "dexterous." Technically, ambidexterous means essentially having two good or right hands.

    That makes me recall the world’s most evil cartoon character, a lefty and a Jew, Simon Bar Sinister!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bar_Sinister

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Forbes says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism” (1979), and “The Revolt of the Elites” (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I’ve ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.
     
    Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions and The Quest for Cosmic Justice also get right to the core. And catch this subtitle: The Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. What else is there to say?

    Other than, Is Reality Optional?

    I gobbled up Sowell’s Conflict of Visions when it came out. That would’ve been around the same time as Lasch’s The Revolt of the Elites,which I just read this year. Lasch’s two works strike me as more powerful because they come from a traditional liberal. Mention Sowell to a left-liberal, and they dismiss him because he’s conservative. I loaned Revolt to a liberal-lefty friend, and he said he couldn’t finish it. I think he found critique from a liberal too depressing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @SteveO

    I don’t know what they are, but there are some other factors that explain (A) the decision at the top to support gay marriage and (B) the rapid change in public opinion.
     
    I can't speak for (A), but (B) at least in part came about because:

    1. Nearly unanimous media support for SSM. That was partly driven by (A) but also driven by the fact that the people who write for TV, movies, most news outlets, etc., are on average very liberal on social issues and have been for decades. The idea of allowing gays to marry is not new. These social liberals were already halfway on board with it 10 years ago. Things just reached a tipping point.

    2. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual couples just short of marriage was already widespread. Once you've accepted that two men can love each other and be a couple just like you and your husband (don't overlook the influence of women and the feminization of society in this matter), then it just seems silly not to let them marry.

    3. Finally, there is the painful fact that heterosexuals had already made a mockery of marriage with the ease and frequency of divorce. It was hard even for non-liberals to take defense of marriage talk seriously when it came from the mouths of twice- or thrice-divorced "social conservatives". In other words, marriage had already been thoroughly degraded by the people it was meant for; why not allow others to join it?

    By the way, it's very common, even here at iSteve to see the destruction of marriage blamed on homosexuals, but they are a small and peripheral group in this regard. It's straight people who have degraded marriage by making it too easy to get out of. Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men's room, why don't SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again? I'm not advocating shunning people who divorce; some marriages truly do need to end. But how much better off we would be if there was still at least some social pressure to stay married, at least until the kids are grown (as, indeed, there is within the upper middle class).

    Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men’s room, why don’t SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again?

    Sometime in the 1980s, South Dakota became the 49th state to adopt no-fault divorce. It was a good quarter-century before the last state fell– New York, in 2010.

    Let’s congratulate the Empire State for holding out so long.

    How did the Trump divorces play out under this regime? Were they filed elsewhere? It’s not like he had nowhere else to live!

    http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    I think the distinction of 'no-fault' divorce is insignificant. NYS was one of the first states to liberalize (if that's the correct term) divorce laws around 1970--whereby a one year separation was all that was necessary. Move out, maintain a separate residence for a year, and voila. I am omitting a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, e.g. alimony, child support, property division, etc., that can be highly contentious. In fact, those are the issues litigated, not divorce per se. Show up with a settlement agreement worked out between the parties, and you're good to go.

    To the best of my recollection, Trump's divorces were amicable (outside of Page Six in the NYPost), he settled significant sums on the ex-wife, and paid for his kids. Many others--Revlon's Ron Perlman comes to mind--had virtual wars. But the wars were about money--not divorce.

    An aside: I was patronizing the same neighborhood restaurant, as was Marla Maples, a few days before her picture landed on page one of the NYPost, so my recollections go back far enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    An odd thing about this is it seems like a no-brainer for Trump to oppose, but he’s doing the nuance thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    It's one of many indications he's an NYC liberal at heart. I think he may be coming around to a federalism argument against President Barry's decrees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. V Vega says:

    Obama spent his formative years almost completely divorced from average american black folks, which might be why he’s tone deaf to them all the time:

    This is why I maintain that Bill Clinton is the only true black president we’ve had so far, and Obama just does a half-assed job of mimicking Bill’s political aims. Obama knows just enough in the abstract sense to make things worse than if Bill were running things. Obama’s “black voice” carries a heavy, comical lisp.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  230. e says:
    @27 year old
    When that kind of thing becomes a problem, some fathers will probably accompany their daughters into the bathroom.

    It already is a problem and will, with this policy, get worse.

    From today’s Marc Thiessen WaPost column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-we-should-protect-transgender-people-but-not-by-opening-restrooms-to-predators-who-pretend-to-be-transgender/2016/05/16/3a9713ce-1b76-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html) :

    “Creating a new ‘right’ for biological men to use women-only facilities is an open invitation to sex predators pretending to be transgender in order to get access to vitcims at their most vulnerable.

    “It is happening already even without an invitation. Take the case of Taylor Buehler, a man who was arrested in 2012 after entering a women’s bathroom at Everett Community College in Washington state dressed in a bra and wig. He claimed that he was just there to use the facilities, but under police questioning, Buehler ‘admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident … [in which] he took a shower in the girls’ locker room for sexual gratification.’

    “Or take the case of Norwood Smith Burnes, a 51-year-old Rome, Ga., man who was arrested for undressing in front of children in a Walmart women’s room. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution , Burnes was wearing a short skirt, high heels, red nail, polish, and green eye shadow and was found in ‘stages of undress . . . in the presence of several young children.” After his arrest, the paper said, police discovered that he ‘had a long record of indecent exposure and was on probation for public indecency.’”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Comments are strongly against Thiessen, as predicted. At the same time, business is off for Target, also as predicted.

    It's really up to the women and girls to decide how this shakes out. If there is an assault or voyeurism in a ladies' room, all we will hear is "No True Transgender" would ever do that, along with copious whining from these special snowflakes about the bigotry they experience, etc. etc. As predicted.

    The implementation of this program, as stated, is just going to turn off women and girls from public facilities or any public situation where they will run into some guy who thinks he's a woman. And if the women are cool with it, who cares?

    On the other hand, if it leads to an epidemic of assault or voyeurism, the solution will not be to ban TG's but to put cops in every bathroom.

    It's fun to talk about WWT, but it's a mistake to take it too seriously. It's just a gigantic leftwing troll, and the lives of those encouraged to act out in this way, particularly in childhood, are the real victims. But we can't do anything for them, either ......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @SteveO
    Just for clarity, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a relatively new organization (founded in 2002) of socially conservative pediatricians. It was founded in reaction to the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) for adoption by gay couples.

    While that does not make the ACP wrong about this or anything else, it does mean that it is not the gold-standard organization for pediatricians. That would be the venerable AAP. If a reporter wants to find out what the pediatric profession is thinking about something, he goes to the AAP. When you see stories about various "won't someone think of the children!" health scares, the chances are 9/10 they came from the AAP. Its influence over the profession is enormous: The AAP makes "recommendations" for health guidelines (e.g. immunization schedules) and pediatric training programs that pediatric providers largely must follow or risk being accused of not practicing "standard of care" medicine.

    Anyway, the point is that it's not surprising that one doesn't see the ACP quoted in the media very often. They aren't the go-to organization for matters relating to child health. And, again, while their political position does not make them less credible, they do have an ax to grind every bit as much as the very PC AAP does.

    Relying on facts vs. emotional rhetoric is not “having an axe to grind”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Hibernian says:
    @San Fernando Curt
    Media and politicians (Hillary's refused to join this holy crusade - for now) are slowly getting the message that we American dolts aren't pushovers we were in the past. We're inured to this, and it's getting a LOT more difficult to intimidate us into silence. Yes, this is part of the 'Trumpening" , but it really started over the past five years or so, as more and more Americans were disgusted by the hideous persecution of unintentional, defenseless heretics like Paula Deen and even Donald Sterling. Notice how, now, just a couple years after the magnificent offensive against it failed miserably, the Chik-fil-A purge has dropped down the memory hole?

    Bill De Blasio is attempting to revive the Chik-fil-A purge in NYC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. SPMoore8 says:
    @e
    It already is a problem and will, with this policy, get worse.

    From today's Marc Thiessen WaPost column (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-we-should-protect-transgender-people-but-not-by-opening-restrooms-to-predators-who-pretend-to-be-transgender/2016/05/16/3a9713ce-1b76-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html) :

    "Creating a new 'right' for biological men to use women-only facilities is an open invitation to sex predators pretending to be transgender in order to get access to vitcims at their most vulnerable.

    "It is happening already even without an invitation. Take the case of Taylor Buehler, a man who was arrested in 2012 after entering a women’s bathroom at Everett Community College in Washington state dressed in a bra and wig. He claimed that he was just there to use the facilities, but under police questioning, Buehler 'admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident … [in which] he took a shower in the girls’ locker room for sexual gratification.'

    "Or take the case of Norwood Smith Burnes, a 51-year-old Rome, Ga., man who was arrested for undressing in front of children in a Walmart women’s room. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution , Burnes was wearing a short skirt, high heels, red nail, polish, and green eye shadow and was found in 'stages of undress . . . in the presence of several young children.” After his arrest, the paper said, police discovered that he 'had a long record of indecent exposure and was on probation for public indecency.'"

    Comments are strongly against Thiessen, as predicted. At the same time, business is off for Target, also as predicted.

    It’s really up to the women and girls to decide how this shakes out. If there is an assault or voyeurism in a ladies’ room, all we will hear is “No True Transgender” would ever do that, along with copious whining from these special snowflakes about the bigotry they experience, etc. etc. As predicted.

    The implementation of this program, as stated, is just going to turn off women and girls from public facilities or any public situation where they will run into some guy who thinks he’s a woman. And if the women are cool with it, who cares?

    On the other hand, if it leads to an epidemic of assault or voyeurism, the solution will not be to ban TG’s but to put cops in every bathroom.

    It’s fun to talk about WWT, but it’s a mistake to take it too seriously. It’s just a gigantic leftwing troll, and the lives of those encouraged to act out in this way, particularly in childhood, are the real victims. But we can’t do anything for them, either ……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @biz
    The next thing will be polyamory.

    The cultural offensive will be to have polyamorous relationships accorded the same respect as monogamous ones. We are probably less than a decade away from the first 'enlightened' valentine's day ad featuring a picture perfect seemingly wholesome MFF triad. They're not about freaky sex - they're so in love.

    The legal offensive will be to have plural marriages recognized. When multiple, potentially unlimited, people can get survivor and social security benefits from one person, well that's basically an unlimited welfare state. Monogamy will be a financial sucker's bet. Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final fronteir of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.

    That is precisely Whiskey’s point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Dissident says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    SP... One more thing, Dr. McHugh, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins has stated that you can't cure gender confusion with surgery and Johns Hopkins does not perform gender reassignment surgery, too hard on their staff Cosmetic Surgeons and Urologists.

    Yes,

    Paul McHugh, M.D.
    University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

    ,
    one of the three authors of the statement at the American College of Pediatricians web site that was posted earlier by the commenter “e” (which is the source of the above description of Dr. McHugh):
    Gender Ideology Harms Children

    Before continuing, let me quote what I feel may be the single most critical sentence from that page (linked just above):

    According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

    I already knew about Dr. McHugh, having seen references to an op-ed of his that appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 2014

    Note that the article at the WSJ web site is only available to subscribers. (Also note that it says it was updated just a few days ago: May 13th, 2016) A web search, however, led me to a two-page PDF of what appears to be the same op-ed (though probably not including whatever recent updates were made) at this apparently Roman Catholic site (appears interesting)

    I had the impression, though (sadly), that McHugh, who is now in his eighties, was largely an anachronism; a relic of a bygone era when saner heads prevailed. (I would add, as well, more scrupulous ones; other commenters in this thread have mentioned that providing “trans” “therapy” and “treatments” can be rather lucrative) I was quite surprised, therefore, to discover the link cited above that “e” had provided; the name alone, “American College of Pediatricians”, suggested a prestigious and highly mainstream organization. Could any such institution in 2016 still get away with officially holding and promoting such “transphobic” and “outdated” views? It seemed too good to be true…and, alas, it was; a quick web search suggests with near-certainty that the American College of Pediatricians– as solid and credible as it may inherently be– is rather far from being considered mainstream.

    According to the Wikipedia entry for the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds),

    The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples.

    Reading that, I realized that the American Academy of Pediatrics would appear to be the dominant mainstream association of pediatricians and that I probably was thinking of it when I first discovered the web site of the American College of Pediatricians. I then read,

    The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group”, with “a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people.

    And I immediately realized that it was extremely unlikely that citing the ACPeds web site would have any credibility to anyone not already considerably conservative on the social issues-in-question. Still, I do think the site and the knowledge that it (and the organization behind it) exist is valuable in its own right and I am certainly grateful to the commenter “e” for having linked to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Hibernian says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    SP... One more thing, Dr. McHugh, chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins has stated that you can't cure gender confusion with surgery and Johns Hopkins does not perform gender reassignment surgery, too hard on their staff Cosmetic Surgeons and Urologists.

    There’s been a campaign to delegitimize Dr. McHugh, who’s retired, I think, at least from Johns Hopkins, and I’m not sure if they’re still following his policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Olorin says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    DK, .....the line in the article that says...." displaying her male genitalia...." says it all .

    It’s male genitalia, not MALE GENITALIA.

    The latter can be used to, like, rape and run corporations and armies and stuff.

    The former just gets whipped out as evidence of being a trans woman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Hibernian says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    An odd thing about this is it seems like a no-brainer for Trump to oppose, but he's doing the nuance thing.

    It’s one of many indications he’s an NYC liberal at heart. I think he may be coming around to a federalism argument against President Barry’s decrees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Olorin says:
    @Mr. Blank
    I can confirm this anecdotally. I work in the news media; thanks to the withering away of more-or-less independent newspapers and TV stations in the past decade and a half, weekends are a dead zone for news at most outlets. Weekend stories are either evergreen-type features ("Local World War II vet turns 100, shares memories"), or "in-depth" packages that are fussed over for weeks. So-called "breaking" news gets short shrift on weekends -- few news organizations want to shell out the money to have a bunch of crackerjack reporters racking up overtime on Saturday and Sunday. Government officials are completely aware of this, of course. Thus, they long ago figured out that late Friday was the perfect time for officials to release damaging info about themselves and their departments.

    This has always been the case, of course, but it's gotten much worse over the course of my career; seasoned reporters used to be hip to the "Friday afternoon news dump" trick, but the younger recruits are a lot more naive, and in many cases they lack a stable of experienced old-timers who can clue them in to the tricks of the trade.

    Obama's guy Ben Rhodes might have been more clever than he knew...

    Government officials are completely aware of this, of course. Thus, they long ago figured out that late Friday was the perfect time for officials to release damaging info about themselves and their departments.

    Absolutely accurate in my own experience in/with federal and state agencies. The other trick is to have buddies at the bigger news outlets who have a sense of what’s going to be in the news cycle for the coming weeks.

    If they have, say, an enormous “investigative” series launching the week after next–say on pedophilia in day care centers or breast augmentations gone wrong or Africanized bees in your children’s lunch boxes or puppies who turn into zombies–then don’t launch this Friday, hold it a week. Not only do you benefit from the weekend dead zone, anyone who might pick it up on Monday will be distracted by the sensational front-page gruel and resulting clickstorms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Forbes
    It's not pedophilia so much as Celebrate Diversity!--the unquestioning of difference. It becomes the tolerance of difference, then the overt encouragement where school children are so taught that all is acceptable--it's just an autonomous choice. Schooling today is primarily about the socialization of acceptance. It is a blurring of the lines until there are no lines--no distinctions.

    Where 13, 14, and 15-year olds can conduct themselves in sexual relations as they choose with total social acceptance--in other words, the age of consent is meaningless. Due to the acceptance of minors engaging in sexual relations, some states have altered consent rules such that it is the age difference that constitutes statutory rape, e.g. a 17-year old having sex with a 14-year old is not rape, while a 20-year doing so constitutes rape. Rather than a fixed age of consent, it is age differential that matters.

    Now, most would consider pedophilia to be sex with pre-pubescent adolescents--but most (some?) of the Catholic Church's problem was homosexual priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, and not solely pedophilia. So again, distinctions were blurred because the lapdog media wanted to poison the Church, while also not exposing rampant homosexuality.

    Why should sexual relations with a minor not go through the same blurring of distinctions? Much of the agenda of the left is about destroying the family--the left's advocacy for so-called children's rights is about 'empowering' children and liberating them from their parents--not protecting children, except under auspices of the state.

    Now, most would consider pedophilia to be sex with pre-pubescent adolescents–but most (some?) of the Catholic Church’s problem was homosexual priests having sex with post-pubescent boys, and not solely pedophilia. So again, distinctions were blurred because the lapdog media wanted to poison the Church, while also not exposing rampant homosexuality.

    Not “most”, certainly not “some”, but something like “very close to all” of the Catholic pedophilia scandal was homosexual priests grooming and molesting post-pubescent boys. The typical victim was a confused high school aged boy. Almost no girls, almost no little boys.

    This was clearly a scandal of what happens when you let the fags loose. (Or put the fags in charge.) Of course, it was pitched quite differently.

    ~~~
    I’m involved in Scouting and as folks know it’s been homo, homo, homo, bigot, bigot, bigot these last few years. Scouting annoying to lefties because it’s obviously a good thing, but inherently sort of conservative–pass on civilization–thing. So it’s traditionalism must be undermined.

    But scouting has had a few scandals where some creep–i.e. homosexual–got it and groomed and molested some boy(s).

    The way you’d actually protect against that would in fact be to … keep *out* the homosexuals, anyone who seems a bit off. So it’s the classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    But there’s no doubt about the reality here. The number of pedophiles actually sexually interested in eight year old boys is … tiny. (And i’m not convinced they aren’t also gay, they certainly aren’t normal straight guys.) While the number of gays ready and willing to groom 14 year old boys is huge.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alec Leamas, Forbes
    • Replies: @Dissident
    In a 2010 piece entitled, "Homosexuality and the Church Crisis", Brian W. Clowes makes much of the same arguments that you do and presents a wealth of evidence:
    http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_20homosexualitychurchcrisis.html

    Some excerpts:

    This paper demonstrates that there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse.
     

    NAMBLA is by no means on the fringes of the "gay rights" movement. For years, it was a member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993.
     

    NAMBLA and similar groups may be in the forefront of promoting "gay" sex with young boys, but dozens of other prominent homosexuals have transmitted the same message;
     
    (Numerous examples of such follow).

    Several years ago, I came across an opinion piece on what appeared to be a mainstream "Gay" site (if I recall correctly, it billed itself as the Netherlands top Gay publication) that explicitly defended men having sex with boys as young as six and approvingly quoted the infamous, "Sex before eight or it's too late" slogan. Given the extent to which the mainstream Gay Lib movement has jettisoned this not-insubstantial part of their past and successfully hid it from the benighted masses, I was rather surprised to find such an article. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find it again.

    --------

    The number of pedophiles actually sexually interested in eight year old boys is … tiny.
     
    Well, actually...

    A pedophile, by definition, is attracted-to pre-pubescent children. (As opposed to hebephiles: attracted to peri-pubescent; ages roughly 11-14 or ephebophiles:attracted-to post-pubescent adolescents; ages roughly 14-19.) So if talking about actual pedophiles, a very large percentage would indeed be attracted to eight-year-olds.

    (And i’m not convinced they aren’t also gay, they certainly aren’t normal straight guys.)
     
    It gets somewhat complicated. There is considerable evidence that there are a considerable number of otherwise heterosexual males who are attracted to pre- and even peri- pubescent boys (the appearance of facial hair is probably a pretty good indicator of the upper limit of attraction here). A certain percentage of such men prefer women and/or girls but when they are not available (or not easily enough available), find boys to be a satisfactory subsitute. Others actually prefer boys (but are nonethless also attracted to women and/or girls.) I don't know how the numbers break down. The infamous "Bacha Bazi" practice of Afghanistan, in which boys dress as girls and are buggered by men would appear to be an example of the former, i.e., boys being used in place of girls or women.

    ---------

    I’m involved in Scouting and as folks know it’s been homo, homo, homo, bigot, bigot, bigot these last few years.
     
    Even now that the Boy Scouts of America, after holding-out for so long, finally capitulated to the degeneracy lobby, first by only accepting openly homosexual scouts and then, a little later, going all the way and allowing even openly homosexual adult leaders?

    That wasn't enough to make you part ways with BSA?

    I could imagine that you might feel that you can do more good by staying and doing as much good as you can within the organization than by leaving. But would you allow your own children to join today's BSA? (In which the B could also stand for buggery) Wouldn't the risk to an impressionable youth of merely being influenced in a homosexual direction be sufficient reason for any parent wishing to avoid that to keep their sons out of BSA?

    Haven't many tradtionalists, esp. Christian churches, splintered-off from BSA since they fell? I wonder how many formed their own scouting organizations?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Olorin says:
    @Alec Leamas
    Invariably you'll hear (perhaps apocryphal) complaints about a nun who was tough on someone's Mother or Aunt or Uncle for being left-handed, forcing the use of the latters' right hand for the purposes of penmanship. This is often used as evidence of the cruelty of Catholic schools and the nuns who staffed them, juxtaposed to modern enlightened views.

    When I hear such complaints, and explain that in those days penmanship was taught with and required the use of ink wells and fountain pens, and the resultant impracticality and mess associated with dragging one's left hand across wet ink. In response I get nothing but blank stares.

    Of course, it was also the case that all methods of penmanship required that the script be slanted at an angle from left to right which is pleasing to the reader of the Latin alphabet in script because all of the languages that employ it are read left to right. Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.

    No it is not.

    1. Southpaw scribes with fountain pens need merely curl the hand around (“backhanded”) and raise the elbow a bit. No smudging.

    2. Then create the letters with the right-leaning slant. No harder than drawing a line that slants.

    Spoken from experience as a non-challenged lefty who loved calligraphy as a child.

    (After reading “Canticle for Liebowitz” I had this fantasy at age 11 of writing my own science fiction epic in the form of a mediaeval incunabulum. I liked the scripts in the rare books I’d seen at various libraries and museums. Instead I ended up learning different script styles with different fountain pen nibs and writing stuff for other kids who though it was cool, oddly enough. My favorite was the illness absence slip requested by my best friend, who had had chicken pox; the parent signed it, but it was very classy. I still have the pens and nibs.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I used to watch my left-handed brother do his math homework in pencil with that wrist curl to prevent smudging and it occurred to me when I was a teenager that having to do that when writing helped make his wrist soft tissue more flexible, helping him throw his ++ breaking balls when he was pitching.

    Neal Stephenson wrote his Baroque Cycle, 2,500+ pages, with a fountain pen for an estimation of the 17th Century quill and ink feel.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Whoever says:
    @rvg
    Speaking of atypical gender characteristics, can anybody here come up with a psychological profile of a typical WN female? Since it seems that anywhere from a third to 40% of Stormfront's membership are female. which I find really shocking, considering how hard WN ideology is, which contrast's with typically soft feminine psychological characteristics. Are WN females simply females who happen to have higher testosterone levels than your average female, and hence have more male psychological characteristics? I have looked at the posting history of SF's female membership, and a lot of their posts are basically hardly distinguishable from your typical feminist poster, with the exception of racial overtones.

    There is no advantage to being female on the internet. As long as no one suspects a person of being female, a good discussion can be had on lots of supposedly typically male-oriented subjects that many women are actually interested in, whether politics, war, science or…oh…naval aviation. But if the men find out they are talking with a woman, the misogynists swarm out of the woodwork and can be quite vicious.
    There’s a case where the difference between male and female may appear: men seem to love to engage in flame wars, but women…not so much. They’ll just leave.
    I’m reminded of Mary Ann Esfandiari, a brilliant NASA scientist and Commander in the US Navy Reserve. She used to post a lot on various internet aerospace-oriented sites. But she was relentlessly hated off to the point that she finally gave it up. It just wasn’t worth it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark2
    Cool story bro.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    A few years ago "Desert Lady" was a regular commenter on iSteve. Seemed to like being assumed to be a woman. Tried out a few different identities but the style was unmistakable, with the exasperated "Why am I the only one here who gets it?" refrain. Still posts here under a new handle. I'm sure many others have pegged him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Olorin says:
    @e
    It is sad, very sad but it's obvious that these people are mentally disturbed to begin with. Those who never transition have a high rate of suicide and those who do transition have a high rate of suicide.

    And this all becomes more understandable when you realize that libs and progs are very much into natural selection and the killing off of certain populations. (Haven’t you ever known libs and progs who claim that 9 out of 10 humans have to die so they can have more stuff and sustainability?)

    They just don’t want to admit it where it happens. To others, and especially to themselves.

    Like indulging the tendency of blacks to slaughter blacks through the removal of all legal, social, or force restraints, this set of policies guarantees many more suicides of mentally ill individuals.

    I’d say it is (probably subconsciously) designed to do so. It feeds and proliferates the madness, then drives the mad person madder through liberal progression of confusion and conflict.

    And that, my friends, is genetic warfare in a nutshell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @biz
    The next thing will be polyamory.

    The cultural offensive will be to have polyamorous relationships accorded the same respect as monogamous ones. We are probably less than a decade away from the first 'enlightened' valentine's day ad featuring a picture perfect seemingly wholesome MFF triad. They're not about freaky sex - they're so in love.

    The legal offensive will be to have plural marriages recognized. When multiple, potentially unlimited, people can get survivor and social security benefits from one person, well that's basically an unlimited welfare state. Monogamy will be a financial sucker's bet. Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final fronteir of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.

    Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final frontier of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.

    Nope – not going to happen. The original reason for polygamy was not the ascendance of the mighty 10%, it was the absence of male candidates to service the female population.

    In the modern era there won’t be enough male homosexuality, male transgender-y, male-castrati or male transspecies-ality to account for the pre-modern attrition from perpetual war. Today, there are far too many ways for someone to ‘reach out and touch someone’ in the 10% for the prior configuration to exist.

    Of course, if the neo-cons have their way with the whole ‘invade-the-world’ program, then I may be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    Without the social pressure for monogamy most women would choose to be the second or third or fourth hoe of a rich, famous, and tall NBA star than the first wife of a boring, short, broke, average joe. Hell some women are choosing it now even with the social pressure for monogamy. Without the social pressure for monogamy women will vote with their feet (and other parts) to leave 10% of the men with 90% of the women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Lurker says:
    @biz
    The next thing will be polyamory.

    The cultural offensive will be to have polyamorous relationships accorded the same respect as monogamous ones. We are probably less than a decade away from the first 'enlightened' valentine's day ad featuring a picture perfect seemingly wholesome MFF triad. They're not about freaky sex - they're so in love.

    The legal offensive will be to have plural marriages recognized. When multiple, potentially unlimited, people can get survivor and social security benefits from one person, well that's basically an unlimited welfare state. Monogamy will be a financial sucker's bet. Also with the stigma of polygamy reduced at the final fronteir of marriage, 10% of the men will have 90% of the women for eternity.

    Agreed. All sorts of SJW weirdness will be paraded before us – no more Victorian values. And when the dust settles rich/powerful/charismatic men will monopolise most of the women and the beta SJWs who advocated for it will find that not only can they not settle down/marry they won’t even be able to get a girlfriend. Fapping for life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Only it won't be "fapping" but virtual reality and sexbots. And condescendingly dismissing such intimate relationships between humans and robots/VR creations/etc as mere masturbation will be at least a microagression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Dissident says:
    @SPMoore8
    Since we are discussing all of these abnormal (or so they seem to us) activities I would like to summarize a few points.

    I think it is clear that the TG bathroom issue is not only silly but as far as TG-ism can possibly go. It's silly, in the sense that people's bathroom conduct is never going to be controlled by the state, so if people don't like this new concept they will simply avoid public restrooms, which basically means avoiding establishments that cater to the minute TG population. This will lead to less market activity and more privatization, sort of like wedding planners or caterers, who, today, never advertise in public but survive by word of mouth.

    The main opponents to the TG bathroom beachhead will be women, or nobody. This is because men use public restrooms to get in, do their business, and get out, as rapidly as possible. (Unless they are some weirdo who likes to take up an entire stall to conduct conference calls or do private internet stuff on his laptop: I've seen that.) Women on the other hand, not only use restrooms much more often (because bladder) but also to fix their face, gossip with the other girls, and so on. So it's really a woman's issue.

    If TG's "win", there's nowhere else to go. TG marriage is a yawner, we already have SSM. Okay, TG's in the armed services, but I've been out for 40 years so I can't pretend it will mean anything to me. It will probably mean something to some young 18 year old who wants to be a man and who goes to the recruitment center and ends up being interviewed by a transgender master sergeant, however. You can expect enlistments to continue to go down.

    However, the main point is that WWT will be over in a flash. There's nothing to conquer.

    What's next? I think pedophilia is not coming soon, but gender confusion aggravated by WWT is likely to lead to ever younger sexual activity among children, not necessarily predatory from outside, but just among the various confused "boys" and "girls" who won't know what they are doing. This in turn will lead to further lowerings of the age, or punishable age, of consent violations. We won't be sending many 10 year olds to prison for 25 to life for rape.

    I expect polygamy/polyandry will come sooner, especially if there are government benefits and/or handouts and/or tax writeoffs involved. Because everyone knows there is unlimited money, and filthy rich people have all that money hidden in their mattresses.

    Prostitution is likely to become ever more legal, and that in turn will probably lower the age of consent as well. Remember that ages of consent can be lowered, or raised. What's telling to me is that if a 10 year old girl can buy a morning after pill without any investigation of the circumstances, then that must mean that 10 year olds getting pregnant is de facto legal.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation. The same goes for necrophilia.

    As someone else noted, the lefty SWJ notion that one's future sexual praxis is determined genetically creates huge problems for the gender fluidity (or, if you prefer, air headedness) of teenagers.

    I basically think all of this stuff is incredibly stupid, but I enjoy talking about it, and hearing other people's views. The only part that I think is sad is when people do irreparable harm to their bodies in fulfillment of some bizarre notion of reality. I felt that way about religious schismatics who mutilated their bodies in previous centuries, and I feel the same about the TG movement today.

    Bestiality is not going to make the list because I assume few pets could file a criminal complaint, or articulate their sense of aggrieved violation.

    I recall hearing Animal Rights advocate Peter Singer on the radio some years ago suggesting that animals could effectively consent to sex with humans. Singer said that as long as the animal wasn’t being restrained, it could simply walk away from the human if it wasn’t interested in buggering with him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Seran says:

    How about we abolish men and women bathrooms and replace it with penis and vagina bathrooms?! Then it’s not about gender but sexual organs.

    All penis carriers use the penis-bathroom and all vagina carriers use the vagina-bathroom.
    The lesbian Caitlin Jenner would have to use the penis-bathroom

    And those who have a peginis can use both.

    Let’s call it Dicks and Pussies bathrooms

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    A woman commenting at Althouse's blog said she was at a Pirates baseball game last night and had to share the ladies room with three teenage boys. WWT is over unless women do something about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Mr. Anon says:

    “Of course, as you’ve pointed out, when feminism comes into conflict with another arm of the left-wing coalition, the former almost always loses.”

    That’s because feminists fight like girls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  249. Dissident says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    There are echoes of the castrati in this modern preoccupation. Creating a castrat[o] for the purpose of opera singing was of course, not followed up with hormone therapy, but the irreversible sexual mutilation part was definitely involved. It is interesting to read about.
     
    Walter Tetley, the voice of Sherman in the cartoon, suffered from some medical condition that blocked his puberty, so he sounded like a little boy throughout his life. That was the official story. But the voice of Mr Peabody joked that Walter's mother had had him "fixed", to keep the radio gigs coming in.

    I sure hope it was a joke. Otherwise she was the worst stage mother in American history.

    Neutering healthy boys was controversial enough when it happened in old Italy. Parents offering up their poor boy often told the buyer that he "was bitten by a pig."

    Walter Tetley, the voice of Sherman in the cartoon, suffered from some medical condition that blocked his puberty, so he sounded like a little boy throughout his life.

    Sounds like Richard Bealls (not sure of spelling and can’t find any info to link-to), who had a career in old-time radio playing young boys. I heard him in a number of shows and found him to truly sound like a boy.

    I learned about Bealls (and discovered OTR) through Max Schmid, who hosts OTR shows:

    https://www.facebook.com/maxgoldenage?_rdr=p

    According to Schmid, Bealls’ high, child-like voice was the result of a medical condition that caused him to never reach sexual maturity.

    (Incidentally, Max Schmid’s broadcast show airs on WBAI, the rabidly-left (and downright looney and chaotic) Pacifica outlet in New York. Schmid, however, while quite the Cultural Marxist in his own right, is nonetheless quite moderate (and normal) by BAI standards. Schmid is generally an enjoyable host to listen-to and can be rather funny, particularly when he complains about and even takes little digs at the culture of incompetency, chaos and perpetual internecine fighting that WBAI is infamous for. All that said, I do have to also note that while Schmid stays clear of politics and ideology for the most part, he has managed, in passing, to get in some rather nasty snipes at the right.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Mark2 says:
    @Whoever
    There is no advantage to being female on the internet. As long as no one suspects a person of being female, a good discussion can be had on lots of supposedly typically male-oriented subjects that many women are actually interested in, whether politics, war, science or...oh...naval aviation. But if the men find out they are talking with a woman, the misogynists swarm out of the woodwork and can be quite vicious.
    There's a case where the difference between male and female may appear: men seem to love to engage in flame wars, but women...not so much. They'll just leave.
    I'm reminded of Mary Ann Esfandiari, a brilliant NASA scientist and Commander in the US Navy Reserve. She used to post a lot on various internet aerospace-oriented sites. But she was relentlessly hated off to the point that she finally gave it up. It just wasn't worth it.

    Cool story bro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. @Whoever
    There is no advantage to being female on the internet. As long as no one suspects a person of being female, a good discussion can be had on lots of supposedly typically male-oriented subjects that many women are actually interested in, whether politics, war, science or...oh...naval aviation. But if the men find out they are talking with a woman, the misogynists swarm out of the woodwork and can be quite vicious.
    There's a case where the difference between male and female may appear: men seem to love to engage in flame wars, but women...not so much. They'll just leave.
    I'm reminded of Mary Ann Esfandiari, a brilliant NASA scientist and Commander in the US Navy Reserve. She used to post a lot on various internet aerospace-oriented sites. But she was relentlessly hated off to the point that she finally gave it up. It just wasn't worth it.

    A few years ago “Desert Lady” was a regular commenter on iSteve. Seemed to like being assumed to be a woman. Tried out a few different identities but the style was unmistakable, with the exasperated “Why am I the only one here who gets it?” refrain. Still posts here under a new handle. I’m sure many others have pegged him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Jefferson says:
    @unpc downunder
    Well I doubt many are lesbians. Lesbians are more signficantly more likely to vote for progressive parties than gays or straight women. They also make up a very high percentage of far-left LGBT activists.

    I would guess most female Stromfront supporters would be working and lower-middle class women who have had bad experiences with minorities or who have male friends or relatives with nationalistic views. In Europe working class white women are a big percentage of the vote for nationalist parties.

    Some upper middle-class women are very strongly anti-Islam, and twitter about it constantly, but I don't think they would be Stormfront supporters.

    “Some upper middle-class women are very strongly anti-Islam, and twitter about it constantly, but I don’t think they would be Stormfront supporters.”

    White women make up an extremely miniscule percentage of Nazi 3rd Reich Stormfront type racists.

    But a lot of White women are Archie Bunker type racists, meaning they can be friends with Nonwhite people but they still notice things that would be considered racist by the Left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. guest says:
    @Forbes
    Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism" (1979), and "The Revolt of the Elites" (1995) were more prescient than any one book by the any author I've ever read. Highly recommended. Lasch was a liberal, which should give a good idea how far the culture has drifted.

    I read “Culture of Narcissism” and was bothered by two things that kept coming up. One, that he stuck by Freud despite Freud being obviously wrong by saying humans had changed in the meantime–from neurotics to narcissists–instead of just admitting Freud didn’t know what he was talking about. (Not mostly, anyway. Some of his ideas were good.) The other was that he took the soulless, lonely, citydwelling, men in gray flannel suits as representative of the whole, despite the fact that the majority of people didn’t live that way. The ones running the culture, maybe, but not most people.

    We’ve well caught up to the narcissists of the skyscrapers in the 70s, however. How could a culture in which people spend hours a day on “social media” not be narcissistic? So he was prescient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Point taken about Freud, and grey-flannel suit types. Still, lots of authors used Freudian--and other metaphors--if only because they were flowing in the cultural waters of the time (1970s). I can gloss over a few dated references when outweighed by the 'hit rate' of the commentary on the human condition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. No_0ne says:
    @Anonymous
    Why would liberals want to legalise pedophilia? Liberals are fanatical about children's rights - ever see a liberal parent slap one of their kids for being a spoiled brat?

    Pedophile hysteria has been a very useful weapon for liberals in undermining the Catholic Church and painting conservative white males as bad guys.

    Liberalism autonomy theory 101: sex, race and gender should be made not to matter in personal choices, that's the program, no more, no less.

    You can argue that transgender bathroom access contradicts liberal support for children's rights but it has nothing to with ideological support for pedophilia.

    “Children’s rights” = how dare your interfere with a child’s right to make their own sexual choices?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. Nico says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Nah, the next thing will be something else. I don't know what yet, though.

    Mr. Sailer, I don’t argue this will necessarily be the “next” thing. However, there are plenty of indications that the legitimation of pederasty and pedophilia (under the guise of “consensual child-adult sex,” of course) is somewhere on the menu. For one thing, legitimation of pederasty WAS a point on the agenda of the Gay Liberation movement until NAMBLA was expelled from LGBT umbrellas groups in the 1970s, as they began seizing opportunities to go “mainstream.”

    For another, the most strident of the SJWs in their never-ending quest for the expansion of rights already float the idea that 16-year-olds should be allowed the franchise, or that children should be able to sue their parents (see Hillary Clinton: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment & others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.”). Even if they (sometimes) don’t mention sexual rights, for now, you can bet those will follow if they score victories on other fronts in this arena.

    Also, there are the well-known penchants of Third World populations, especially Muslim Third-Worlders, and the affinity of the Left for disregarding the basic social rules they pound on Westerners and Christians to accommodate immigrants.

    Finally, there is the observable fact of the gradually-lowering age of puberty. This does not mean anything in itself, but given the Left’s penchant for abusing science one can easily imagine them using this point to argue that 12-year-olds are or ought to be ready for sex.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Anonym says:
    @al gore rhythms
    "On some level, fantasy probably helps encourage creativity. But taken too far it leads to a diminished ability to cope with reality, to understand what works and what doesn’t IRL. Can a person be anything? In Hollywood, as seen in a movie, yes. In real life, no"

    Interesting. I was watching a rerun of 'The Matrix' ercently and thinking how much of a 'transgender' fantasy it is, and a Western one too--Keanu Reeves controlling the Matrix to be whoever he wants to be. A fantasy of infinite human plasticity. And of course the film was made by two brothers who later became transgendered.

    There may not have been a direct campaign in Western societies on this issue, but we've been softening up for it in countless ways.

    Interesting. I was watching a rerun of ‘The Matrix’ recently and thinking how much of a ‘transgender’ fantasy it is, and a Western one too–Keanu Reeves controlling the Matrix to be whoever he wants to be. A fantasy of infinite human plasticity. And of course the film was made by two brothers who later became transgendered.

    There may not have been a direct campaign in Western societies on this issue, but we’ve been softening up for it in countless ways.

    It’s interesting you mention the Wachowskis and The Matrix, which is an expression of cyberpunk and hacker heroism. I think of slashdot and how it has long been so leftist SJWey (with a small rightist libertarian contingent). Why? And I think of early adoption, the retreat of nerdish denizens into the world of computer-generated fantasy land long before it was kind of what everyone did. Fantasy worlds, downloadable porn, creating and wielding your own avatar… that’s where it all started and those are the early adopters of it all. The Wachowskis were into that world back in 1999 when it was still a subculture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Zippy says:
    @Leftist conservative
    turns out that when obama was age 10 or thereabout and living in indonesia, he had a nanny for a few years who happened to be a male tranny...whatever...I wonder whether he somehow made a sexual connection or something...and whether that would explain his affinity for trans people and his having married a women that many people think is a tranny.

    I can believe that Obama is or has been on the down-low; despite the occasional macho posturing, he seems oddly effeminate.

    But the notion that Michelle Obama is a tranny is just ridiculous. Too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. She is, like many black women, more masculine than the average white or Asian woman. But too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. And her family was not the sort of family that could pull that transition off when she was six or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    She has two kids.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. Brutusale says:
    @Olorin

    Properly forming the letters with the left hand and with a left to right slant is exceedingly difficult.
     
    No it is not.

    1. Southpaw scribes with fountain pens need merely curl the hand around ("backhanded") and raise the elbow a bit. No smudging.

    2. Then create the letters with the right-leaning slant. No harder than drawing a line that slants.

    Spoken from experience as a non-challenged lefty who loved calligraphy as a child.

    (After reading "Canticle for Liebowitz" I had this fantasy at age 11 of writing my own science fiction epic in the form of a mediaeval incunabulum. I liked the scripts in the rare books I'd seen at various libraries and museums. Instead I ended up learning different script styles with different fountain pen nibs and writing stuff for other kids who though it was cool, oddly enough. My favorite was the illness absence slip requested by my best friend, who had had chicken pox; the parent signed it, but it was very classy. I still have the pens and nibs.)

    I used to watch my left-handed brother do his math homework in pencil with that wrist curl to prevent smudging and it occurred to me when I was a teenager that having to do that when writing helped make his wrist soft tissue more flexible, helping him throw his ++ breaking balls when he was pitching.

    Neal Stephenson wrote his Baroque Cycle, 2,500+ pages, with a fountain pen for an estimation of the 17th Century quill and ink feel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Zippy says:
    @RudyM
    I find Scott Creighton's take on this pretty persuasive. He sees it as an intentional move to create support for further privatization of education (which Obama does have a record of supporting):

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/bathroom-brawl-obama-administration-using-transgendered-to-further-their-school-privatization-agenda/

    I still don't like how the whole transgender thing has been railroaded through in recent years and I still puzzle as to what larger agenda might be behind it.

    : Maybe there is no “larger agenda” behind the transgender push. Lots of people seem intent on thinking that the billionaire class is like SPECTRE or HYDRA: rationally pursuing some logical, if evil, aim. I think you’re giving them too much credit.

    Here’s what I think: Steve is partly correct inasmuch as a lot of it is status competition. Proving themselves virtuous by being more tolerant than the next guy. Since most people have given up on the homosexuality issue, and only evil rednecks are racist, they have to come up with something, and transgenderism is it. Combine that with the way “tolerance” (of a certain sort) has been elevated as The Most Important Virtue, and the way people don’t want to seem mean, and boom, World War T.

    There is no secret plan or larger agenda, and it really is just as dumb as it seems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. Zippy says:
    @Jack Hanson
    It's always funny how the grandaddy of this tranny nonsense, Dr. John Money, never comes up. A pedophile, he was later discovered to have falsified most of his data and had his "subjects" enacting weird sex play. For science, of course.

    He's the one we have to thank for the division of gender and sex.

    The weird thing is that Money’s theory was that socialization trumps biology — that if you castrate a boy, treat him like a girl, give him a few hormones, and he’ll be a perfectly well-adjusted girl. (Except for the part about having kids, of course.) This turned out to be wrong, and his most famous case was a dismal failure.

    But the theory behind the current generation of “transsexual” four-year-olds is that there is something innate in the four-year-old, who just knows he’s really a girl, and that nothing we do can ever socialize that out. They’re saying that the tranny child’s innate female nature trumps both his physical biology and socialization. This is exactly the opposite of what Money claimed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Very interesting observation (about Money's theory actually being the opposite of that of the current trans mongers.)

    When I was very young, probably around the time that I first became aware of the difference between the sexes, I went through a brief phase of expressing an interest in wanting to be a girl. From what I can recall of it now, I chalk it up to curiosity and the allure of that which is novel, exotic and unattainable. Thankfully, this was short-lived and passed quickly, never to return. I shudder to think, though, what could have happened had this childish foolishness of mine been indulged, encouraged and reinforced, as we see done today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. I used to watch my left-handed brother do his math homework in pencil with that wrist curl to prevent smudging and it occurred to me when I was a teenager that having to do that when writing helped make his wrist soft tissue more flexible, helping him throw his ++ breaking balls when he was pitching.

    Why does the ball curve so noticeably when a lefty throws it in from the outfield?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  262. Forbes says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Instead of worrying about gay marriage or trannies in the men’s room, why don’t SoCons speak up for ending no-fault divorce, reducing the grounds for divorce and generally making divorce difficult and slightly disgraceful again?
     
    Sometime in the 1980s, South Dakota became the 49th state to adopt no-fault divorce. It was a good quarter-century before the last state fell-- New York, in 2010.

    Let's congratulate the Empire State for holding out so long.

    How did the Trump divorces play out under this regime? Were they filed elsewhere? It's not like he had nowhere else to live!

    http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/

    I think the distinction of ‘no-fault’ divorce is insignificant. NYS was one of the first states to liberalize (if that’s the correct term) divorce laws around 1970–whereby a one year separation was all that was necessary. Move out, maintain a separate residence for a year, and voila. I am omitting a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, e.g. alimony, child support, property division, etc., that can be highly contentious. In fact, those are the issues litigated, not divorce per se. Show up with a settlement agreement worked out between the parties, and you’re good to go.

    To the best of my recollection, Trump’s divorces were amicable (outside of Page Six in the NYPost), he settled significant sums on the ex-wife, and paid for his kids. Many others–Revlon’s Ron Perlman comes to mind–had virtual wars. But the wars were about money–not divorce.

    An aside: I was patronizing the same neighborhood restaurant, as was Marla Maples, a few days before her picture landed on page one of the NYPost, so my recollections go back far enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. Forbes says:
    @guest
    I read "Culture of Narcissism" and was bothered by two things that kept coming up. One, that he stuck by Freud despite Freud being obviously wrong by saying humans had changed in the meantime--from neurotics to narcissists--instead of just admitting Freud didn't know what he was talking about. (Not mostly, anyway. Some of his ideas were good.) The other was that he took the soulless, lonely, citydwelling, men in gray flannel suits as representative of the whole, despite the fact that the majority of people didn't live that way. The ones running the culture, maybe, but not most people.

    We've well caught up to the narcissists of the skyscrapers in the 70s, however. How could a culture in which people spend hours a day on "social media" not be narcissistic? So he was prescient.

    Point taken about Freud, and grey-flannel suit types. Still, lots of authors used Freudian–and other metaphors–if only because they were flowing in the cultural waters of the time (1970s). I can gloss over a few dated references when outweighed by the ‘hit rate’ of the commentary on the human condition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. @Seran
    How about we abolish men and women bathrooms and replace it with penis and vagina bathrooms?! Then it's not about gender but sexual organs.

    All penis carriers use the penis-bathroom and all vagina carriers use the vagina-bathroom.
    The lesbian Caitlin Jenner would have to use the penis-bathroom

    And those who have a peginis can use both.

    Let's call it Dicks and Pussies bathrooms

    A woman commenting at Althouse’s blog said she was at a Pirates baseball game last night and had to share the ladies room with three teenage boys. WWT is over unless women do something about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Did the woman describe the boys that she saw in the ladies' room? The obvious question is whether they appeared as if they honestly considered themselves "trans" or were simply opportunistic peeping toms, presumably taking advantage of the "trans" madness currently sweeping the country?
    (Not that even the former would be acceptable.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. @Zippy
    I can believe that Obama is or has been on the down-low; despite the occasional macho posturing, he seems oddly effeminate.

    But the notion that Michelle Obama is a tranny is just ridiculous. Too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. She is, like many black women, more masculine than the average white or Asian woman. But too many people knew her for too long for that to be true. And her family was not the sort of family that could pull that transition off when she was six or something.

    She has two kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zippy
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve, I do happen to know both that Michelle Obama has two kids and that this disqualifies her for trannie-hood. I didn't mention it because the "Michelle is really a man" crowd has an explanation: faked pregnancies and other sources for the kids. To them, the kids are just elaborate "beards."

    My suggestion was that Michelle's family probably couldn't have started a ruse like this when Michelle was six and pulled it off for so long.

    It's good to question the conventional wisdom, but questioning can go around the bend to outright lunacy. The Michelle-is-really-a-man crowd has gone beyond that bend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. RudyM says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

    I demand that people use an entirely different vocabulary in discussing anything associated with me, as I want to distance myself from any associations standard vocabulary has with conventional frameworks which I disown. My pants are “pantzoons,” to make it clear that I do not endorse normative pantsness (I do not want to play the game, for instance, of “who wears the pants.”) My shoes are “zeeshoes,” because walking is, for me, an immersion in oceanic consciousness, which brings to mind seahorses, which should not go unshod. Those of us high on the psychoticism scale can surely have a field day with this, finally able to make everyone speak how he have feeled all along.

    What are pronouns? What is language? This is getting close to outlawing the use of my native language (English), which seems like it would raise some social issues of its own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    It appears that WWT and SJW has finally transcended itself into the world of the old English folk tale, "Master of All Masters" (printed below, I hope this isn't too long):

    A GIRL once went to the fair to hire herself for servant. At last a funny-looking old gentleman engaged her, and took her home to his house. When she got there, he told her that he had something to teach her, for that in his house he had his own names for things.

    He said to her: 'What will you call me?'

    'Master or mister, or whatever you please, sir,' says she.

    He said: 'You must call me "master of all masters". And what would you call this?' pointing to his bed.

    'Bed or couch, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'No, that's my "barnacle". And what do you call these?' said he, pointing to his pantaloons.

    'Breeches or trousers, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'You must call them "squibs and crackers". And what would you call her?' pointing to the cat.

    'Cat or kit, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'You must call her "white-faced simminy".

    And this now,' showing the fire, 'what would you call this?'

    'Fire or flame, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'You must call it 'hot cockalorum", and what this?' he went on, pointing to the water.

    'Water or wet, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'No, "pondalorum" is its name. And what do you call all this?' asked he as he pointed to the house.

    'House or cottage, or whatever you please, sir.'

    'You must call it "high topper mountain".'

    That very night the servant woke her master up in a fright and said: 'Master of all masters, get out of your barnacle and put on your squibs and crackers. For white-faced simminy has got a spark of hot cockalorum on its tail, and unless you get some pondalorum high topper mountain will be all on hot cockalorum' . . . That's all.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft43.htm
    , @Mr. Anon
    Perhaps one should just start referring to these people as "You", "Hey you", "This entity", "That animal", etc. Or better yet, just not associate with them at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. SPMoore8 says:
    @RudyM
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

    I demand that people use an entirely different vocabulary in discussing anything associated with me, as I want to distance myself from any associations standard vocabulary has with conventional frameworks which I disown. My pants are "pantzoons," to make it clear that I do not endorse normative pantsness (I do not want to play the game, for instance, of "who wears the pants.") My shoes are "zeeshoes," because walking is, for me, an immersion in oceanic consciousness, which brings to mind seahorses, which should not go unshod. Those of us high on the psychoticism scale can surely have a field day with this, finally able to make everyone speak how he have feeled all along.

    What are pronouns? What is language? This is getting close to outlawing the use of my native language (English), which seems like it would raise some social issues of its own.

    It appears that WWT and SJW has finally transcended itself into the world of the old English folk tale, “Master of All Masters” (printed below, I hope this isn’t too long):

    A GIRL once went to the fair to hire herself for servant. At last a funny-looking old gentleman engaged her, and took her home to his house. When she got there, he told her that he had something to teach her, for that in his house he had his own names for things.

    He said to her: ‘What will you call me?’

    ‘Master or mister, or whatever you please, sir,’ says she.

    He said: ‘You must call me “master of all masters”. And what would you call this?’ pointing to his bed.

    ‘Bed or couch, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘No, that’s my “barnacle”. And what do you call these?’ said he, pointing to his pantaloons.

    ‘Breeches or trousers, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘You must call them “squibs and crackers”. And what would you call her?’ pointing to the cat.

    ‘Cat or kit, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘You must call her “white-faced simminy”.

    And this now,’ showing the fire, ‘what would you call this?’

    ‘Fire or flame, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘You must call it ‘hot cockalorum”, and what this?’ he went on, pointing to the water.

    ‘Water or wet, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘No, “pondalorum” is its name. And what do you call all this?’ asked he as he pointed to the house.

    ‘House or cottage, or whatever you please, sir.’

    ‘You must call it “high topper mountain”.’

    That very night the servant woke her master up in a fright and said: ‘Master of all masters, get out of your barnacle and put on your squibs and crackers. For white-faced simminy has got a spark of hot cockalorum on its tail, and unless you get some pondalorum high topper mountain will be all on hot cockalorum’ . . . That’s all.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft43.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. donut says:

    Naw , fuck that shit :

    Give me :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  269. Dissident says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    A woman commenting at Althouse's blog said she was at a Pirates baseball game last night and had to share the ladies room with three teenage boys. WWT is over unless women do something about it.

    Did the woman describe the boys that she saw in the ladies’ room? The obvious question is whether they appeared as if they honestly considered themselves “trans” or were simply opportunistic peeping toms, presumably taking advantage of the “trans” madness currently sweeping the country?
    (Not that even the former would be acceptable.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The latter, I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. Dissident says:
    @Lurker
    Agreed. All sorts of SJW weirdness will be paraded before us - no more Victorian values. And when the dust settles rich/powerful/charismatic men will monopolise most of the women and the beta SJWs who advocated for it will find that not only can they not settle down/marry they won't even be able to get a girlfriend. Fapping for life.

    Only it won’t be “fapping” but virtual reality and sexbots. And condescendingly dismissing such intimate relationships between humans and robots/VR creations/etc as mere masturbation will be at least a microagression.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.</