If you aren’t aware of the world of Irish Dance, you might not know that it’s competitive. Dancers at the highest, most competitive level train like Olympians. Since the inception of major competitions in 1970, competitors have been separated by sex.
Why oh why are we (on the pro-girl/pro-sanity side) always conceding ground on the question of pre vs. post puberty as regards mixed sex athletic competitions? As though merely stopping a boy's puberty will make for a perfectly level playing field.
I beg of you to stop---infant boys and girls have different growth charts from birth!! Boys are always taller and heavier, on average, even if the advantage goes into hyper-drive with puberty. And of course (as the article notes) the last thing we want to do is to encourage boys to take puberty-blocking drugs---so let's bolster arguments against puberty-blockers by noting that even that heinous practice won't eliminate the physical male sex-advantages.
The pendulum will swing the other way. Trans will be the most hated and most pitied on the planet, and history will remember them as sad collateral actors in a sick ideology that destroyed a generation of youth. The law suits are only a harbinger of what will come. The courts will decide the fate of the butchers and charlatans who pushed this, but it will be up to us to shame the rest.
Who will partner with these mutilated and destroyed persons? If a man cuts off his penis and has a fake vagina built, no normal man will be interested. The only ones that they will end up with are other mutilated persons.
This keeps happening, in sector after sector, sport after sport. I refuse to believe there are so many people in positions of authority who have completely lost their minds. Somebody, somewhere, must be holding a gun to their heads. No?
DM is an irrelevant joke now but yes “trans age” I get it. Rip Curl Surf Company did the same thing by” letting go” of the amazing Bethany Hamilton as their representative of their women’s division and put in a male surfer pretending to be female (he grew his hair and wears a “bikini top”) who as recently as last year was competing as a man! They’re just taking the piss now and laughing at these so called woke companies who promote men in drag as actual women! Not a cent will I ever spend with Rip Curl again didn’t their marketing division hear about Bud Light?? Pathetic!
Rip Curl is beginning to realize what a fuckup they perpetuated, and have put out various apologies. Not enough IMHO. Any support of trans wacks puts you into the "untouchable" camp.
Not only are all PITTs articles informative, helpful and important each in their own way, but they are all so beautifully written. DWYT will be shouting this one out. Thanks for all you do PITT.
ANGER! That is what I felt reading your essay. Also, OUTRAGE! I am of Irish descent, both of my great-grandparents on my mothers and my father's side came from Ireland. My mother had dual citizenship. I have always been proud of my heritage and love my Irish name. The Irish Dance is unique and beautiful and something I have enjoyed watching since I was a young girl. I am disgusted that any male would be allowed to participate as a "female" in this competitive dance, or in any competition for that matter. Just another heartbreaking story of how upside down this world has become. I am sad for the girls who were bumped, for all their hard work, for their deep dedication and also for their parents who sacrificed and supported their dreams - only to have them shattered. My fists are clenched!
The inherit misogyny behind this movement has me seeing red. You are so right about how girls should not have to cater to men's feelings. I hope this insanity ends soon.
Would it though? This is the utter stupidity of entertaining this whole “trans” identification world. The disabled WILL be next if this “movement” is allowed to continue getting it’s way. It’s so perverse and self absorbed these people are attention seeking crazies who are being allowed to bully their way into every corner of human experience and corrupt it. Time to shut diwn the bullies.
We already have "trans-age". Dylan Mulvaney had his 100 days of "girlhood" even though he is an adult man. How about we all identify as permanently 21 years old? (And, yuck - I heard about a diaper fetish club for men in NH.)
And then there is trans-ethnicity. Elizabeth Warren is American Indian and Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who Identified as black.
However, none of that involved medicalization and invading female spaces/events - maybe just a few hair care products and pacifiers, etc.
The hair care comment really trivialises and diminishes the impact of Rachel Dolezal's actions on Black people. Rachel Dolezal by self IDing as Black and operating in stealth, infiltrated Black spaces and took up various work positions and funding that was specifically ring-fenced for highly intelligent and academically gifted Black women to operate in their specialised field of African-American studies and to lead a Black organisation such as a chapter of the NAACP. Ironically, these positions and funding were ring-fenced to halt women like Rachel Dolezal from using their privilege to permanently secure these lucrative and status enhancing positions for themselves. However, self IDing as Black, putting on Blackface, operating in stealth and propped up by lies and delusion allowed Rachel to gain exclusive benefits by deception whilst depriving a specific group of life-changing benefits intended for them. So no, it wasn't just about a few 'hair care products'.
It's no less of an impact, just because it involved Black women and race, than for it to be about sex & gender and for a man to infiltrate women's spaces, take up women's positions and valuable funding specifically ring-fenced for women for the exact same reasons as outlined above. Except the privilege is being wielded by white men and the same tactic of self ID and putting on womanface is being used to get around any barriers put in place to halt unfair, male privilege.
A negative impact is a negative impact. Let's not trivialise and diminish that just because it was a racial negative impact.
I get what you’re saying but “White Men”? Neil De Grasse Tyson is not a white man but he spouts some utter bullshit about the “legitimacy” of the self identifying Trans Movement. Is he to be believed because he’s a black man and a supposedly very intelligent Astro Physicist (not a Biologist mind you). Hmmmm just wondering why so prejudiced towards White Men??
Isn't this an accurate descriptor of men like Wil 'lia'm Thomas, 'Sasha' Lowerson, 'Laurel' Hubbard, Caitlyn Jenner, Dylan Mulvaney, etc., that are very frequently stood on podiums clutching women’s trophies in sports or being lauded as ‘Women Of the Year’, at ground level? And at elite level, the multi-billionaires that are funding the trans-humanism agenda, such as Martin(e) Rothblatt, the Pritzker family, etc.?
It's shouldn't be so triggering or send one into automatic defence mode, to state an established fact. We all have known for centuries that ‘power and authority’ has resided with white males and that the women’s movement was birthed from this known fact. So given the context, why the emphasis on ‘white male’? I also mentioned ‘black women’ too, where relevant to the context.
As for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I totally agree with you. He has absolutely come out with some ‘left of field’ utter nonsense of recent times. However, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Neil De Grasse Tyson is not self IDing as a woman nor stood on a podium collecting an award (and funding) ‘exclusively’ meant for woman, as a man and being able to get away with doing so because the higher echelons of western society is wholly supporting these very specific group of men(the privilege) compared to the unsupportive victimisation of women, in what is supposed to be their own exclusive spaces.
The fact that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an ‘astrophysicist’ but was publicly made to defend the trans position ‘as a scientist’ to save his career (that much was blatantly obvious), just shows the lack of power and authority he has. He was a very well respected astrophysicist and that cringeworthy and irrational defence of the trans ideology, left him cancelled in many people’s minds. I’m sure his puppet Masters up high, racially resembled the men stood on the podiums, exuberantly collecting their women’s trophies.
I am not going to disagree with you about Rachael Dolezal. I just think people should be as angry about men in Womanface as they are about her... And her efforts (though they had a very bad impact I agree) did not involve mutilation of anyone - child or adult. And, she was one person who was caught. People became angry and stayed angry. Good.
With the Trans Industrial Complex we have masses of American kids indoctrinated into a cult through our schools via official education (Federal Government and teachers union policy), parents kept in the dark about their minor children, and kids set onto a path of sterilizing drugs and mutilation.
' I just think people should be as angry about men in Womanface as they are about her... '
But they are though🤔. Quite blatantly and even more so, given the huge effects on western society. Remembering that many people across the globe have been punished, lost their careers and their lives have been devastated for speaking up which has curbed others from expressing their true feelings. So, I don't quite get this comment. The majority of people are angry, shocked, frustrated, devaststed, feel betrayed, are fearful given the hostile environment and the consequences that have been metered out. People are angry and wondering 'how the hell did we get to the point of this State sanctioned and enabled lunacy!'
Rachel Dolezal has been old news for years. Literally 'a moment' in time for the history books. No-one outside the US cared about Rachel Dolezal (if they even knew she existed). It was barely reported, if at all, in most International press. I stumbled upon it a year after it happened, on Youtube, due to references similar to yours that caused me to research the issue. She was a mere individual, as opposed to a very aggressive, cult like ideology and movement that is attempting to 'force' unwanted and extremely dangerous and harmful change on the fabric of society. She garnered attention due to the novel idea of someone white 'identifying' as black (something 99.999% of white people would never want to do) and falsely gaining a benefit meant for black people from the deception. Hence the Black outrage that garnered media attention when she was exposed. Remembering, she was operating in stealth.
In contrast, the Trans issue is 'major', particularly in the western world and it's reach is international, particularly in Asia. It is strongly being campaigned against and fought at so many levels by very courageous people (given they are fighting a whole international system that is heavily funded by the financial elite with an agenda they are hell bent on achieving). There's a reason why they call the UK, my neck of the woods, 'Terf Island'.
To say people aren't as angry about men in womanface as they were when Rachel Dolezal was in blackface is just not true. I don't quite know how you came to that conclusion. People have fought very hard for harmful laws to be undone, reversed or restricted, in regards to the Trans issue, across the western world. Particularly Europe. The only people that were sngry in Rachel's case were the people that were affected, black people. Everyone else simply thought it was novel. To make a comparison with the Rachel Dolezal case, on the issue of 'anger', is a false equivalent.
I’m white and I am still outraged by Rachel. Her arrogance about it was appalling! I saw her on Dr Phil and he didn’t shame her, which he had a perfect opportunity to do. With drag queens, I think there should be some shaming, even though that’s a “bad word”! There is no right or wrong, no consequences. We really needed the “anti trans laws” put into place, because there were no guidelines for it to protect children.
I see... I live in the US where the Donezal thing was big news and everyone was angry (rightfully).
I also live in an area where all the schools fly the Pride Progress flag (even elementary) and GI in taught in K-12 schools. Most people around me do not appear to understand.
There are also alot of "lawn flags". DIE needs to go. And, under the cover of Covid our National Teachers union, led by Randi Weingartner, poured a great deal of money into the schools for "Social Emotional Learning" and the like.
Things are probably turning around faster in the UK where you are - where the Tavistock cliinic has been closed. In the US it is full steam ahead with mainstream media not even discussing Tavistock. You have to be on something like PITT or Bari Weiss's Free Press to have even heard of the name. Kids still get taken away from parents over lack of "affirmation".
And, the male athletes are still winning in girls sports. Swimmer WilLiaM Thomas cannot but I read he is suing to get back at it. We will see what happens in the courts.
Drag - Woman-face - is an abomination. And the new "family-friendly" drag, where 4 YO children are being socialized into putting money into the private areas of men, is training in pedophilic activity. Parents who bring their children to these events are doing terrible things to these children. I have no idea what kind of perverted sexual views these children will have.
This is the most repulsive part of this movement. The little kids are saying it’s fun, and that the queens are nice, and kind to them. Now picture the same event without the makeup, wigs, etc. Men touching little kids while reading stories to them, in a school or library. Sounds like pedophilia to me. Of course they’re being kind to the little kids! How else would they lure them into their crazy trap!
This was an excellent article. Different from the usual stories we see on PITT. I didn't know Irish Dance was competitive and segregated (I would have guessed sex-integrated and competitive against other teams, but that's based on Lord of the Dance).
Given that so much of this stuff started in and is perpetuated by the left, mostly the far left, (I'm a liberal who's not as easily gaslit and manipulated by misogynists and fetishists), my suspicion is that one reason why this is so popular is because progressives are in denial of their misogyny. It really is a 'man thing' and not a left or right thing (and I don't damn ALL men on either side; you all know - and we know - which of you aren't misogynists). I suspect deep within many progressive men is a longing for a return to the good old days when women had less power and ergo less power to say no to the power of the Almighty Boner. I listened to Helen "Trans" Joyce speak about this a few weeks ago on YouTube....she made the point that there is NO force in the universe greater than the Power of the Boner. When the Penis gets engaged, nearly *nothing* will stand in its way of being satisfied, the way it wants to be.
(And again I remind you: NOT ALL LEFT/RIGHT MEN. But self-control is something many of your brethren have yet to learn.)
Yes, it's misogyny on the left that's been buried for decades but never overcome.
The modern concept of leftism is based on the revolutionary concepts of the 1960s hippy peace movement. But the hippie movement was based on the 19th-century pioneer movement, which was highly sexist.
Nobody in the 1960s really addressed that. They said, "Sure, men can caretake and women can work!" but in reality the hippie women wound up barefoot in the kitchen among the children, while the men swung hammers and drank beer around the table talking politics. Women's libbers were not in the center of the hippie movement. They were mostly considered a bit too outspoken against male supremacy and therefore not included in the mainstream movement.
Today, women's lib has to deal with the conservative misogynist influence of the 1980s on feminism, with the duplicitously named "third-wave feminism," which is neither third-wave nor feminism. Young women of the 1990s were shoved back into the male gaze and male exploitation, only now under the guise of "feminism." I remember when it began. It was truly bizarre.
And young men who had been taught that sexism is women's problem, not theirs, were suddenly released from even lip-service to feminism.
All that led to what we have today: young men on the left run amock with violent misogyny and young women handmaidens eagerly, submissively supporting them. Bernie Sanders spearheaded the blatant misogynist divide on the left. And the transgenderist lobby has used it to take over our world.
I remember 'third wave' feminism. Hell, I actually remember the hippies although I was a small child at the time.
I had a friend in CT who used to be with the Yippies - not the Abbie Hoffman/Jerry Rubin gang, but one of their 'chapters' I guess. She talked about how they were 'smashing monogamy' but I asked her (non-judgementally) if the women slept around as much as the men did and she said no...theoretically they were free to do as they liked but the men would get all passive-aggressive and just make it too difficult to be with other men so....they kinda passively let their men do what they want with other women but kept their own vadge in their pants. And I was like...with all the wisdom of someone nine years her junior, "Sounds like you weren't 'smashing monogamy' so much as preserving patriarchy. How positively Establishment of you!"
Women weren't feminist enough - *couldn't* be feminist enough - to call out the bullshit in the movement I could clearly see when it was like fifteen years behind us all. Now I look back and see how much bullshit *my* generation - I'm early X - put up with that I never would now, and many young women wouldn't either, even though they put up with a lot of shit that makes me wonder, "Have you learned *nothing* from the mistakes we made before you?"
*Now* misogynist men are being held responsible - a la Weinstein, Cosby, Louis CK, Kevin Spacey (who knew men could prey upon young men too....?) I think the proliferation of violent, largely sex-trafficked porn has done as much to ruin romance, love and sex for us as has crazy, out-of-control feminism (and feminism is partly to blame too). Tragically, now the misogyny is on full display on the left and I feel like I'm walking among the Pod People, having to explain to people I *know* are smart enough to understand why it's not okay for men to usurp women's protected status?
Who needs Trump & The Republicans when we've got the 'progressive' left working harder than their 'enemies' to destroy women's rights? With dizzy little fembabe chickie-boos helping?
I am 71. Thus, I was fully there during the "hippie age". I did the drugs - non-addictive ones. I listened to the music. I wanted to engage in free love, but this was a limited resource.
The hippie time really only lasted from about 1969-1972. After that, the drug scene got much much more brutal. Heroin took over. Most rock stars of that period went thru a heroin addiction. I read a lot about drugs, and was interested in the "drug experience", but was completely uninterested in opioids. My reasoning was that everyone seemed to get addicted, so it must be a pretty good high - I stayed far away from that. The experience of Odysseus with the sirens is the best example.
The scene by 73 was not good. Drugs had taken over many places. I went to grad school, and left hippie-dom behind.
I used to romanticize the '60s, when I was growing up in the '80s, and it was kind of a rejection of the whole Reagan Revolution and the revolting materialism of the day. Ironically, I got over it in one night the first time I dropped acid when I was 23. One of the things I did was imagine I was in the '60s while I was listening to '60s music as I thought I would be much happier there. But then I realized how fucked up it must have been to be a young person then. I already knew the '60s wasn't all sunshine and flower power, that women weren't always treated very well, and blacks weren't either, and not just by 'MCPs' and right-wingers. I was able to feel how uncertain the future must have been, especially for young men afraid of being drafted to fight a war with a highly questionable and ever-changing reason for being there, realizing you were cannon fodder for someone else's stupid war ('Platoon' captured this very well). I thought of how uncertain the future must have seemed, which I had a little inkling of from the '60s literature of the time I was reading.
The next morning, I was very glad I didn't grow up during the '60s, and while I never made peace with Reagan, I realized that, as a woman, I had a lot more opportunity now than I would have back then.
I'm full-on middle Gen X, born in 1961, the same year as Douglas Coupland, who wrote "Generation X" about his own generation. (The term Generation X was coined by Billy Idol, born in 1956, for his own generation--all of us growing up under the shadow of the Cold War, as opposed to the Boomers growing up in post-WWII prosperity.)
I was a flower child of the 1960s. My parents were older than Boomers, so they didn't quite fit in, but those were our people. All those young college students looking earnestly to children for the wisdom of the ages--it was great.
Young women my age grew up under the influence of women's lib. We were NEVER going back to the shit our mothers and grandmothers took off of men. Women's lib had changed everything!
Then suddenly I was "old" at 30 in the early 1990s, and younger women were parading around talking about the most regressive effeminate tropes as "feminism" and looking down their noses at me when I said, "For fuck's sake, that's not feminism. That's misogyny."
Misogyny has always been alive and well on the left. We feminists had our brief, shining moment. And not coincidentally, that's when Janice Raymond wrote "The Transsexual Empire--The Making of the She-Male."
Women's libbers understood.
But the Reagan-Bush Sr era brought back misogyny, just as they brought back war-mongering. And it's all snowballed into violent young men today violently harassing and attacking older women who have the nerve to speak up about women's rights right out in public.
I blame the misogyny that's always been hidden on the left. But I blame even more the misogyny that's always been blatant on the right.
Transsexualism is, after all, a conservative men's mental illness:
Ah yes, I've seen that article - I have it on my hard drive. I save stuff that's important so I don't spend a lot of time trying to Google it later or realize now it's behind a paywall. I don't know that I'd call it a 'conservative' problem based on this one article although it's clear that conservative men can be particularly fetish-y -- witness all the gay sex-loving Christian Republican conservative politicians who regularly get busted doing guys (But in the immortal words of South Park's Mr. Garrison from far off in the mountains: "But I'm not GAAAAAAAAAAY!"
Transsexualism is also learned, and I strongly suspect porn has a lot to do with this - transgender porn remains one of the most popular porn searches on porn sites everywhere, and I remember the 'shemale' porn you could get on computer BBS's right before the world went Internet. A lot of these middle-aged sudden onset transbabes got it from porn, and esp 'sissy porn'.
Porn is non-partisan and it encourages misogyny regardless of how truly progressive one might be when it starts. It encourages the belief that women exist to satisfy male desire how they want it and when they want it, to be taken by force if necessary (rape porn is also quite popular, esp since a lot of it features genuine rape).
This current iteration of 'feminism' is clearly designed, like much of human society always has been, by men, for men, to serve men, and fuzzy-headed liberal women are going along with it. We really are all baby feminists; 150-160 years of feminism is just a blink of an eye, really, and I see the traditional weak spots in women's psychology and upbringing going unchallenged for much of today's feminists. The ones who support all this trans crap are the ones most easily gaslit and manipulated; and that's directly rooted in the female's evolved ability, and also nurtured ability, to be 'nice' and 'accommodating' which we've had to be to survive historical misogyny, but now it's putting us in danger again.
it's time to re-evaluate the "sexual revolution". There are all kinds of problems with it.
Whenever I hear about "polyamory", which is the new name for "smashing monogamy", it does not sound successful. That's because it's impossible to separate sex from affection. If you have sex with someone, unless you are a complete piece of crap, you form an affectionate bond with them. The idea of "polyamory" is sex-without-guilt, and that's just not possible. Every story about "open marriages" seems to break down when one party falls prey to human bonds of affection.
Monogamy is the worst form of relationship, except for every other type that has ever been tried.
"That's because it's impossible to separate sex from affection. If you have sex with someone, unless you are a complete piece of crap, you form an affectionate bond with them." <sigh>
George, I wish I could believe you. I wish it were true. It hasn't been my experience for the last two decades with men. That silly-ass thing dangling between many men's legs is so *all-fired important* to them that it's the first thing they want to talk about. I tell them, "I don't want to talk about sex initially. It comes later." "Well okay but...." and the sex crap starts pouring out of their mouths, and they're planning when we're gonna do it and I'm like, dude...we're *never* gonna 'do it'. I am *so so tired* of men even my age obsessed with their next lay. I agree with you about 'open marriage' - although I do know couples who seem to be happy doing it years later, even as I remember a smirking, self-satisfied poly woman many, many years ago bragging about how she and her husband had an 'open' marriage and it was soooo much better than those traditionalist monogamists. And a few years later they got divorced...he fell in love with someone else, I think.
I also know of lots and lots of marriages that failed miserably. In the olden days that conservatives yearn for, it was better for the men because they could do whatever they wanted and the wives pretty much had no power to leave. They could beat their wives, and rape them, and it was considered a 'family matter', not a criminal one. I don't want those days back again either.
I wonder what a healthier compromise might be? Something that brings marriage back in vogue (but it *must* include affection for the wives--that has ALWAYS been lacking in many) and maybe less dumb-ass porno crap too.
Marriage - for those who really are monogamous and who want kids (I do think monogamy is best for kids, although some are probably gonna disagree with me on that)
Polyamory - for them's that really can't settle down and want to tomcat around
Less judgement against women who want to do that too
More recognition (mostly from the left) that we ARE creatures of evolution and we haven't shaken off 'traditionalist' pair bonding the way many like to think we have (the whole LGBTQ rainbow tribe/experimenting with different identities was actually kind of interesting until it went too far, as pretty much all social movements are wont to do)
Marriage actually *is* better for most couples, IF they have chosen wisely and know how to work out their differences and problems and not go running for the divorce court the first time they have a big fight about something.
There's a compromise in there, somewhere. There *has* to be. Because not everyone can fit in the same holes. That's the big mistake conservatism has always made.
I find it interesting that your story about the polyamorous couple that divorced because you think he might have fallen in love with someone else inadvertently bolsters George Q's assertion that sex generally involves some degree of affection.....
It does, I think. That's the sticky wicket...are we more designed for monogamy than we know? Are some truly not designed for it? I know a poly couple here in Toronto who's been together for many years, longer than the 5 or less that I think the gal in Ohio was many years ago. I used to have a wandering eye myself when I was younger...eventually I outgrew it. So I don't know. I know the human brain is complex and we never really know ourselves as well as we think we do.
Wow. Yet another sport that is putting boy's feelings and "identity" above actual female athletes who have worked for years to get where they are. I'm sick of the Trans agenda and these males who conveniently identify into the opposite sex category to steal competitions. They have won nothing, its pure theft. Their delusional parents are complicit too.
Why oh why are we (on the pro-girl/pro-sanity side) always conceding ground on the question of pre vs. post puberty as regards mixed sex athletic competitions? As though merely stopping a boy's puberty will make for a perfectly level playing field.
I beg of you to stop---infant boys and girls have different growth charts from birth!! Boys are always taller and heavier, on average, even if the advantage goes into hyper-drive with puberty. And of course (as the article notes) the last thing we want to do is to encourage boys to take puberty-blocking drugs---so let's bolster arguments against puberty-blockers by noting that even that heinous practice won't eliminate the physical male sex-advantages.
Exactly. Just stupid!
Where are all the trans men and trans boys who want to compete in men’s and boys sports? That alone should tell us something ain’t right.
The pendulum will swing the other way. Trans will be the most hated and most pitied on the planet, and history will remember them as sad collateral actors in a sick ideology that destroyed a generation of youth. The law suits are only a harbinger of what will come. The courts will decide the fate of the butchers and charlatans who pushed this, but it will be up to us to shame the rest.
Who will partner with these mutilated and destroyed persons? If a man cuts off his penis and has a fake vagina built, no normal man will be interested. The only ones that they will end up with are other mutilated persons.
Totally agree!!
This keeps happening, in sector after sector, sport after sport. I refuse to believe there are so many people in positions of authority who have completely lost their minds. Somebody, somewhere, must be holding a gun to their heads. No?
DM is an irrelevant joke now but yes “trans age” I get it. Rip Curl Surf Company did the same thing by” letting go” of the amazing Bethany Hamilton as their representative of their women’s division and put in a male surfer pretending to be female (he grew his hair and wears a “bikini top”) who as recently as last year was competing as a man! They’re just taking the piss now and laughing at these so called woke companies who promote men in drag as actual women! Not a cent will I ever spend with Rip Curl again didn’t their marketing division hear about Bud Light?? Pathetic!
Rip Curl is beginning to realize what a fuckup they perpetuated, and have put out various apologies. Not enough IMHO. Any support of trans wacks puts you into the "untouchable" camp.
Not only are all PITTs articles informative, helpful and important each in their own way, but they are all so beautifully written. DWYT will be shouting this one out. Thanks for all you do PITT.
Transition is a grift. It is not an ID
ANGER! That is what I felt reading your essay. Also, OUTRAGE! I am of Irish descent, both of my great-grandparents on my mothers and my father's side came from Ireland. My mother had dual citizenship. I have always been proud of my heritage and love my Irish name. The Irish Dance is unique and beautiful and something I have enjoyed watching since I was a young girl. I am disgusted that any male would be allowed to participate as a "female" in this competitive dance, or in any competition for that matter. Just another heartbreaking story of how upside down this world has become. I am sad for the girls who were bumped, for all their hard work, for their deep dedication and also for their parents who sacrificed and supported their dreams - only to have them shattered. My fists are clenched!
The inherit misogyny behind this movement has me seeing red. You are so right about how girls should not have to cater to men's feelings. I hope this insanity ends soon.
Yeah, how hard is to understand that these girls aren’t competing against the boys’ gender identities but their male bodies?
Posts like this jolt me into remembering how ridiculous this all is.
Shouldn’t have to justify why there should be separate men & women’s categories
Sometimes it is painfully boring & eye rolling…if it wasn’t actually the most devastating experience that has taken over & ruined our lives
Can you imagine if any able bodied person "identified" as disabled , then insisted inclusion in the paralympics the outrage that would ensue?
Would it though? This is the utter stupidity of entertaining this whole “trans” identification world. The disabled WILL be next if this “movement” is allowed to continue getting it’s way. It’s so perverse and self absorbed these people are attention seeking crazies who are being allowed to bully their way into every corner of human experience and corrupt it. Time to shut diwn the bullies.
We already have "trans-age". Dylan Mulvaney had his 100 days of "girlhood" even though he is an adult man. How about we all identify as permanently 21 years old? (And, yuck - I heard about a diaper fetish club for men in NH.)
And then there is trans-ethnicity. Elizabeth Warren is American Indian and Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who Identified as black.
However, none of that involved medicalization and invading female spaces/events - maybe just a few hair care products and pacifiers, etc.
The hair care comment really trivialises and diminishes the impact of Rachel Dolezal's actions on Black people. Rachel Dolezal by self IDing as Black and operating in stealth, infiltrated Black spaces and took up various work positions and funding that was specifically ring-fenced for highly intelligent and academically gifted Black women to operate in their specialised field of African-American studies and to lead a Black organisation such as a chapter of the NAACP. Ironically, these positions and funding were ring-fenced to halt women like Rachel Dolezal from using their privilege to permanently secure these lucrative and status enhancing positions for themselves. However, self IDing as Black, putting on Blackface, operating in stealth and propped up by lies and delusion allowed Rachel to gain exclusive benefits by deception whilst depriving a specific group of life-changing benefits intended for them. So no, it wasn't just about a few 'hair care products'.
It's no less of an impact, just because it involved Black women and race, than for it to be about sex & gender and for a man to infiltrate women's spaces, take up women's positions and valuable funding specifically ring-fenced for women for the exact same reasons as outlined above. Except the privilege is being wielded by white men and the same tactic of self ID and putting on womanface is being used to get around any barriers put in place to halt unfair, male privilege.
A negative impact is a negative impact. Let's not trivialise and diminish that just because it was a racial negative impact.
I get what you’re saying but “White Men”? Neil De Grasse Tyson is not a white man but he spouts some utter bullshit about the “legitimacy” of the self identifying Trans Movement. Is he to be believed because he’s a black man and a supposedly very intelligent Astro Physicist (not a Biologist mind you). Hmmmm just wondering why so prejudiced towards White Men??
'I get what you’re saying but “White Men”? '
Isn't this an accurate descriptor of men like Wil 'lia'm Thomas, 'Sasha' Lowerson, 'Laurel' Hubbard, Caitlyn Jenner, Dylan Mulvaney, etc., that are very frequently stood on podiums clutching women’s trophies in sports or being lauded as ‘Women Of the Year’, at ground level? And at elite level, the multi-billionaires that are funding the trans-humanism agenda, such as Martin(e) Rothblatt, the Pritzker family, etc.?
It's shouldn't be so triggering or send one into automatic defence mode, to state an established fact. We all have known for centuries that ‘power and authority’ has resided with white males and that the women’s movement was birthed from this known fact. So given the context, why the emphasis on ‘white male’? I also mentioned ‘black women’ too, where relevant to the context.
As for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I totally agree with you. He has absolutely come out with some ‘left of field’ utter nonsense of recent times. However, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Neil De Grasse Tyson is not self IDing as a woman nor stood on a podium collecting an award (and funding) ‘exclusively’ meant for woman, as a man and being able to get away with doing so because the higher echelons of western society is wholly supporting these very specific group of men(the privilege) compared to the unsupportive victimisation of women, in what is supposed to be their own exclusive spaces.
The fact that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an ‘astrophysicist’ but was publicly made to defend the trans position ‘as a scientist’ to save his career (that much was blatantly obvious), just shows the lack of power and authority he has. He was a very well respected astrophysicist and that cringeworthy and irrational defence of the trans ideology, left him cancelled in many people’s minds. I’m sure his puppet Masters up high, racially resembled the men stood on the podiums, exuberantly collecting their women’s trophies.
I am not going to disagree with you about Rachael Dolezal. I just think people should be as angry about men in Womanface as they are about her... And her efforts (though they had a very bad impact I agree) did not involve mutilation of anyone - child or adult. And, she was one person who was caught. People became angry and stayed angry. Good.
With the Trans Industrial Complex we have masses of American kids indoctrinated into a cult through our schools via official education (Federal Government and teachers union policy), parents kept in the dark about their minor children, and kids set onto a path of sterilizing drugs and mutilation.
For the record I am against it all.
' I just think people should be as angry about men in Womanface as they are about her... '
But they are though🤔. Quite blatantly and even more so, given the huge effects on western society. Remembering that many people across the globe have been punished, lost their careers and their lives have been devastated for speaking up which has curbed others from expressing their true feelings. So, I don't quite get this comment. The majority of people are angry, shocked, frustrated, devaststed, feel betrayed, are fearful given the hostile environment and the consequences that have been metered out. People are angry and wondering 'how the hell did we get to the point of this State sanctioned and enabled lunacy!'
Rachel Dolezal has been old news for years. Literally 'a moment' in time for the history books. No-one outside the US cared about Rachel Dolezal (if they even knew she existed). It was barely reported, if at all, in most International press. I stumbled upon it a year after it happened, on Youtube, due to references similar to yours that caused me to research the issue. She was a mere individual, as opposed to a very aggressive, cult like ideology and movement that is attempting to 'force' unwanted and extremely dangerous and harmful change on the fabric of society. She garnered attention due to the novel idea of someone white 'identifying' as black (something 99.999% of white people would never want to do) and falsely gaining a benefit meant for black people from the deception. Hence the Black outrage that garnered media attention when she was exposed. Remembering, she was operating in stealth.
In contrast, the Trans issue is 'major', particularly in the western world and it's reach is international, particularly in Asia. It is strongly being campaigned against and fought at so many levels by very courageous people (given they are fighting a whole international system that is heavily funded by the financial elite with an agenda they are hell bent on achieving). There's a reason why they call the UK, my neck of the woods, 'Terf Island'.
To say people aren't as angry about men in womanface as they were when Rachel Dolezal was in blackface is just not true. I don't quite know how you came to that conclusion. People have fought very hard for harmful laws to be undone, reversed or restricted, in regards to the Trans issue, across the western world. Particularly Europe. The only people that were sngry in Rachel's case were the people that were affected, black people. Everyone else simply thought it was novel. To make a comparison with the Rachel Dolezal case, on the issue of 'anger', is a false equivalent.
I’m white and I am still outraged by Rachel. Her arrogance about it was appalling! I saw her on Dr Phil and he didn’t shame her, which he had a perfect opportunity to do. With drag queens, I think there should be some shaming, even though that’s a “bad word”! There is no right or wrong, no consequences. We really needed the “anti trans laws” put into place, because there were no guidelines for it to protect children.
I see... I live in the US where the Donezal thing was big news and everyone was angry (rightfully).
I also live in an area where all the schools fly the Pride Progress flag (even elementary) and GI in taught in K-12 schools. Most people around me do not appear to understand.
There are also alot of "lawn flags". DIE needs to go. And, under the cover of Covid our National Teachers union, led by Randi Weingartner, poured a great deal of money into the schools for "Social Emotional Learning" and the like.
Things are probably turning around faster in the UK where you are - where the Tavistock cliinic has been closed. In the US it is full steam ahead with mainstream media not even discussing Tavistock. You have to be on something like PITT or Bari Weiss's Free Press to have even heard of the name. Kids still get taken away from parents over lack of "affirmation".
And, the male athletes are still winning in girls sports. Swimmer WilLiaM Thomas cannot but I read he is suing to get back at it. We will see what happens in the courts.
Drag - Woman-face - is an abomination. And the new "family-friendly" drag, where 4 YO children are being socialized into putting money into the private areas of men, is training in pedophilic activity. Parents who bring their children to these events are doing terrible things to these children. I have no idea what kind of perverted sexual views these children will have.
This is the most repulsive part of this movement. The little kids are saying it’s fun, and that the queens are nice, and kind to them. Now picture the same event without the makeup, wigs, etc. Men touching little kids while reading stories to them, in a school or library. Sounds like pedophilia to me. Of course they’re being kind to the little kids! How else would they lure them into their crazy trap!
Absolutely right, LovingMother.
I edited an interview with Rachel Dolezal into an interview with a Trans-Identifying Man. It is eye-opening, to the say the very least:
https://twitter.com/Dizy03157088/status/1742681512473251990
This was an excellent article. Different from the usual stories we see on PITT. I didn't know Irish Dance was competitive and segregated (I would have guessed sex-integrated and competitive against other teams, but that's based on Lord of the Dance).
Given that so much of this stuff started in and is perpetuated by the left, mostly the far left, (I'm a liberal who's not as easily gaslit and manipulated by misogynists and fetishists), my suspicion is that one reason why this is so popular is because progressives are in denial of their misogyny. It really is a 'man thing' and not a left or right thing (and I don't damn ALL men on either side; you all know - and we know - which of you aren't misogynists). I suspect deep within many progressive men is a longing for a return to the good old days when women had less power and ergo less power to say no to the power of the Almighty Boner. I listened to Helen "Trans" Joyce speak about this a few weeks ago on YouTube....she made the point that there is NO force in the universe greater than the Power of the Boner. When the Penis gets engaged, nearly *nothing* will stand in its way of being satisfied, the way it wants to be.
(And again I remind you: NOT ALL LEFT/RIGHT MEN. But self-control is something many of your brethren have yet to learn.)
Yes, it's misogyny on the left that's been buried for decades but never overcome.
The modern concept of leftism is based on the revolutionary concepts of the 1960s hippy peace movement. But the hippie movement was based on the 19th-century pioneer movement, which was highly sexist.
Nobody in the 1960s really addressed that. They said, "Sure, men can caretake and women can work!" but in reality the hippie women wound up barefoot in the kitchen among the children, while the men swung hammers and drank beer around the table talking politics. Women's libbers were not in the center of the hippie movement. They were mostly considered a bit too outspoken against male supremacy and therefore not included in the mainstream movement.
Today, women's lib has to deal with the conservative misogynist influence of the 1980s on feminism, with the duplicitously named "third-wave feminism," which is neither third-wave nor feminism. Young women of the 1990s were shoved back into the male gaze and male exploitation, only now under the guise of "feminism." I remember when it began. It was truly bizarre.
And young men who had been taught that sexism is women's problem, not theirs, were suddenly released from even lip-service to feminism.
All that led to what we have today: young men on the left run amock with violent misogyny and young women handmaidens eagerly, submissively supporting them. Bernie Sanders spearheaded the blatant misogynist divide on the left. And the transgenderist lobby has used it to take over our world.
I remember 'third wave' feminism. Hell, I actually remember the hippies although I was a small child at the time.
I had a friend in CT who used to be with the Yippies - not the Abbie Hoffman/Jerry Rubin gang, but one of their 'chapters' I guess. She talked about how they were 'smashing monogamy' but I asked her (non-judgementally) if the women slept around as much as the men did and she said no...theoretically they were free to do as they liked but the men would get all passive-aggressive and just make it too difficult to be with other men so....they kinda passively let their men do what they want with other women but kept their own vadge in their pants. And I was like...with all the wisdom of someone nine years her junior, "Sounds like you weren't 'smashing monogamy' so much as preserving patriarchy. How positively Establishment of you!"
Women weren't feminist enough - *couldn't* be feminist enough - to call out the bullshit in the movement I could clearly see when it was like fifteen years behind us all. Now I look back and see how much bullshit *my* generation - I'm early X - put up with that I never would now, and many young women wouldn't either, even though they put up with a lot of shit that makes me wonder, "Have you learned *nothing* from the mistakes we made before you?"
*Now* misogynist men are being held responsible - a la Weinstein, Cosby, Louis CK, Kevin Spacey (who knew men could prey upon young men too....?) I think the proliferation of violent, largely sex-trafficked porn has done as much to ruin romance, love and sex for us as has crazy, out-of-control feminism (and feminism is partly to blame too). Tragically, now the misogyny is on full display on the left and I feel like I'm walking among the Pod People, having to explain to people I *know* are smart enough to understand why it's not okay for men to usurp women's protected status?
Who needs Trump & The Republicans when we've got the 'progressive' left working harder than their 'enemies' to destroy women's rights? With dizzy little fembabe chickie-boos helping?
I am 71. Thus, I was fully there during the "hippie age". I did the drugs - non-addictive ones. I listened to the music. I wanted to engage in free love, but this was a limited resource.
The hippie time really only lasted from about 1969-1972. After that, the drug scene got much much more brutal. Heroin took over. Most rock stars of that period went thru a heroin addiction. I read a lot about drugs, and was interested in the "drug experience", but was completely uninterested in opioids. My reasoning was that everyone seemed to get addicted, so it must be a pretty good high - I stayed far away from that. The experience of Odysseus with the sirens is the best example.
The scene by 73 was not good. Drugs had taken over many places. I went to grad school, and left hippie-dom behind.
I used to romanticize the '60s, when I was growing up in the '80s, and it was kind of a rejection of the whole Reagan Revolution and the revolting materialism of the day. Ironically, I got over it in one night the first time I dropped acid when I was 23. One of the things I did was imagine I was in the '60s while I was listening to '60s music as I thought I would be much happier there. But then I realized how fucked up it must have been to be a young person then. I already knew the '60s wasn't all sunshine and flower power, that women weren't always treated very well, and blacks weren't either, and not just by 'MCPs' and right-wingers. I was able to feel how uncertain the future must have been, especially for young men afraid of being drafted to fight a war with a highly questionable and ever-changing reason for being there, realizing you were cannon fodder for someone else's stupid war ('Platoon' captured this very well). I thought of how uncertain the future must have seemed, which I had a little inkling of from the '60s literature of the time I was reading.
The next morning, I was very glad I didn't grow up during the '60s, and while I never made peace with Reagan, I realized that, as a woman, I had a lot more opportunity now than I would have back then.
I'm full-on middle Gen X, born in 1961, the same year as Douglas Coupland, who wrote "Generation X" about his own generation. (The term Generation X was coined by Billy Idol, born in 1956, for his own generation--all of us growing up under the shadow of the Cold War, as opposed to the Boomers growing up in post-WWII prosperity.)
I was a flower child of the 1960s. My parents were older than Boomers, so they didn't quite fit in, but those were our people. All those young college students looking earnestly to children for the wisdom of the ages--it was great.
Young women my age grew up under the influence of women's lib. We were NEVER going back to the shit our mothers and grandmothers took off of men. Women's lib had changed everything!
Then suddenly I was "old" at 30 in the early 1990s, and younger women were parading around talking about the most regressive effeminate tropes as "feminism" and looking down their noses at me when I said, "For fuck's sake, that's not feminism. That's misogyny."
Misogyny has always been alive and well on the left. We feminists had our brief, shining moment. And not coincidentally, that's when Janice Raymond wrote "The Transsexual Empire--The Making of the She-Male."
Women's libbers understood.
But the Reagan-Bush Sr era brought back misogyny, just as they brought back war-mongering. And it's all snowballed into violent young men today violently harassing and attacking older women who have the nerve to speak up about women's rights right out in public.
I blame the misogyny that's always been hidden on the left. But I blame even more the misogyny that's always been blatant on the right.
Transsexualism is, after all, a conservative men's mental illness:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkIQTu7BV2nifZ3sbSFpS7spWb9od3YU/view
Ah yes, I've seen that article - I have it on my hard drive. I save stuff that's important so I don't spend a lot of time trying to Google it later or realize now it's behind a paywall. I don't know that I'd call it a 'conservative' problem based on this one article although it's clear that conservative men can be particularly fetish-y -- witness all the gay sex-loving Christian Republican conservative politicians who regularly get busted doing guys (But in the immortal words of South Park's Mr. Garrison from far off in the mountains: "But I'm not GAAAAAAAAAAY!"
Transsexualism is also learned, and I strongly suspect porn has a lot to do with this - transgender porn remains one of the most popular porn searches on porn sites everywhere, and I remember the 'shemale' porn you could get on computer BBS's right before the world went Internet. A lot of these middle-aged sudden onset transbabes got it from porn, and esp 'sissy porn'.
Porn is non-partisan and it encourages misogyny regardless of how truly progressive one might be when it starts. It encourages the belief that women exist to satisfy male desire how they want it and when they want it, to be taken by force if necessary (rape porn is also quite popular, esp since a lot of it features genuine rape).
This current iteration of 'feminism' is clearly designed, like much of human society always has been, by men, for men, to serve men, and fuzzy-headed liberal women are going along with it. We really are all baby feminists; 150-160 years of feminism is just a blink of an eye, really, and I see the traditional weak spots in women's psychology and upbringing going unchallenged for much of today's feminists. The ones who support all this trans crap are the ones most easily gaslit and manipulated; and that's directly rooted in the female's evolved ability, and also nurtured ability, to be 'nice' and 'accommodating' which we've had to be to survive historical misogyny, but now it's putting us in danger again.
it's time to re-evaluate the "sexual revolution". There are all kinds of problems with it.
Whenever I hear about "polyamory", which is the new name for "smashing monogamy", it does not sound successful. That's because it's impossible to separate sex from affection. If you have sex with someone, unless you are a complete piece of crap, you form an affectionate bond with them. The idea of "polyamory" is sex-without-guilt, and that's just not possible. Every story about "open marriages" seems to break down when one party falls prey to human bonds of affection.
Monogamy is the worst form of relationship, except for every other type that has ever been tried.
Sex without affection? It’s sex without consequences.
"That's because it's impossible to separate sex from affection. If you have sex with someone, unless you are a complete piece of crap, you form an affectionate bond with them." <sigh>
George, I wish I could believe you. I wish it were true. It hasn't been my experience for the last two decades with men. That silly-ass thing dangling between many men's legs is so *all-fired important* to them that it's the first thing they want to talk about. I tell them, "I don't want to talk about sex initially. It comes later." "Well okay but...." and the sex crap starts pouring out of their mouths, and they're planning when we're gonna do it and I'm like, dude...we're *never* gonna 'do it'. I am *so so tired* of men even my age obsessed with their next lay. I agree with you about 'open marriage' - although I do know couples who seem to be happy doing it years later, even as I remember a smirking, self-satisfied poly woman many, many years ago bragging about how she and her husband had an 'open' marriage and it was soooo much better than those traditionalist monogamists. And a few years later they got divorced...he fell in love with someone else, I think.
I also know of lots and lots of marriages that failed miserably. In the olden days that conservatives yearn for, it was better for the men because they could do whatever they wanted and the wives pretty much had no power to leave. They could beat their wives, and rape them, and it was considered a 'family matter', not a criminal one. I don't want those days back again either.
I wonder what a healthier compromise might be? Something that brings marriage back in vogue (but it *must* include affection for the wives--that has ALWAYS been lacking in many) and maybe less dumb-ass porno crap too.
Marriage - for those who really are monogamous and who want kids (I do think monogamy is best for kids, although some are probably gonna disagree with me on that)
Polyamory - for them's that really can't settle down and want to tomcat around
Less judgement against women who want to do that too
More recognition (mostly from the left) that we ARE creatures of evolution and we haven't shaken off 'traditionalist' pair bonding the way many like to think we have (the whole LGBTQ rainbow tribe/experimenting with different identities was actually kind of interesting until it went too far, as pretty much all social movements are wont to do)
Marriage actually *is* better for most couples, IF they have chosen wisely and know how to work out their differences and problems and not go running for the divorce court the first time they have a big fight about something.
There's a compromise in there, somewhere. There *has* to be. Because not everyone can fit in the same holes. That's the big mistake conservatism has always made.
I find it interesting that your story about the polyamorous couple that divorced because you think he might have fallen in love with someone else inadvertently bolsters George Q's assertion that sex generally involves some degree of affection.....
It does, I think. That's the sticky wicket...are we more designed for monogamy than we know? Are some truly not designed for it? I know a poly couple here in Toronto who's been together for many years, longer than the 5 or less that I think the gal in Ohio was many years ago. I used to have a wandering eye myself when I was younger...eventually I outgrew it. So I don't know. I know the human brain is complex and we never really know ourselves as well as we think we do.
Wow. Yet another sport that is putting boy's feelings and "identity" above actual female athletes who have worked for years to get where they are. I'm sick of the Trans agenda and these males who conveniently identify into the opposite sex category to steal competitions. They have won nothing, its pure theft. Their delusional parents are complicit too.