Ah jeez this is just sick! And confirmation of what we all suspected, and some claimed openly, that ‘queer’ theory supporters are merely a mask for child grooming and subsequent abuse. It’s PIE all over again.
A really good article in The Critic on this topic, and Mermaids cynical tactics to adopt children into their cult: https://thecritic.co.uk/gender-sirens/
I listened to James Lindsey reading in full what is considered the first Queer Theory paper to have emerged. Thinking Sex by Gayle Rubin. From the start it openly and explicitly argues for the normalisation of what it calls Cross Generational Relations. Also, it writes of ‘child molesters’ (her own scare quotes btw) in a paragraph that claims the only reason we think it is wrong is because of conditioning (not because, you know, they’re children…) and that the aim should be to break this unnecessary stigma down. So as you can see, Mermaids really are committed to their lunatic theory in every way.
We can be beaten over the head with moral positions until we bend. How many people voted for gay marriage because “it was the right thing to do”. For who? For me that was the beginning of shaming people for their instinctive understanding of issues and how they relate to their communities. When you begin pulling at a loose thread you can predict the outcome.
Who are the mothers who claim their child is trans? I don’t see a lot of fathers coming out with this. The feminisation of society has not produced anything better than what they were fighting against. I know it’s men parading as women who are the instigators of trans activism and what eventuates, but why were women, mothers, so quick to go along with it and take their kids, for instance, to trans library reading?
I might add that I feel pretty angry about this. And I think I should be.
I vote for gay marriage, because if two adults want to legalise their relationship and make an emotional commitment to each other that is part of the backbone of a strong society, I support that.
Parents of trans kids find themselves in a difficult place because of the novelty of the phenomenon in wider society. Add to that how all the official places to go for advice, including the NHS itself is captured by queer theory. One of the most heinous pieces of advice dished out to concerned parents is that if they don’t enable their child it will probably kill itself (implying it will be their fault for not giving unquestioned support). Suicide rates of trans people are effectively the same pre and post transition, implying that it wasn’t the cause of their discomfort with life and that other less damaging methods of help should have been favoured. I have no truck with trans people, I’ve known several during my life. If it makes you happy, it makes me happy. What I despise is the postmodern bullshit that has hijacked the legitimate cause of trans care, support and rights.
If a lesbian can call her partner her husband then a man can call himself a woman, and if a man can call himself a woman then we can redefine family, and if we can redefine family then we can redefine children, and if we redefine children then we can change the age of consent, which amounts to legalising paedophilia, because it’s all relative, right? Your intellectual gymnastics has enabled this abuse.
Crap! Lesbians refer to their other halves as their wives. Gay men refer to their other halves as their husbands. Transwomen are biological men who present as women.
We have not enabled any abuse. Society as a whole has. The ostriches who didn’t want to know what was happening. Those who thought to abuse the women and their male allies who were fighting against this nonsense and the others who simply said, “ain’t my fight. Won’t happen here”. Well, it did. Now what are you going to do about it?
I disagree. The LGB movement and particularly the feminist movement normalized attacking all critics viciously and equated disagreement with moral failure. Feminists in particular taught people that is isn’t worth it to challenge patently false ‘facts.’ You created modern cancel culture. It is because people are so intimidated that they have not been prepared to challenge trans activists and their increasingly bizarre claims – and their fascination with educating little children. It was not all of society that created this mess.
Get back to normality and stop promoting perversions. A man born male is a man, if he puts make up and a dress on to access womens personal spaces then he is not a woman, merely a pervert.
I remember some slogan that summed it all up and it insinuated that anyone who was had concern about ssm was a bigot-‘love is love’. It’s a big umbrella.
It seems to me you’re the one trying to perform intellectual gymnastics here, and failing. Use of “…, right?” in any discussion also suggests uncertain ground. I’d also suggest your earlier reference to “the feminisation of society” is deeply problematic for those who see it that way. Why do you think femininity shouldn’t have a greater impact on society?
Well I know you might see it as problematic. I’ve read your comments before. So all you’re saying is you disagree with me. And what does that add up to?
“Why do you think femininity shouldn’t have a greater impact on society?” Just a brief comment on what I feel. They’ve created a culture of victimisation that’s spread into all walks of life. It seems to me, as I said, that it’s mothers who make the most noise about their children being trans. I don’t know why. Maybe you can explain that, why they would take children to a trans club? The constant harassment of men by women doesn’t help. The belittlement of young men. The portrayal of men as predators. The primacy of feelings over common sense. Society seems to have swung from one extreme to the other.
One reply is sufficient; two looks like panic.
You’ve conflated femininity with victimisation. If that’s how you see women, then i can understand your distaste with greater female agency in society.
I advocate for the same level of agency for women as for men. Thanks for noticing, even if you did misinterpret it.
You say you ‘have no truck’ with trans people. I think you mean you have no problem with them. However , to have no truck with something ‘ means exactly the opposite, i.e. that you do have a problem with something.
I do not support ‘marriage’ for anyone, but I do support legal and social recognition of gay and lesbian partnerships between adults. Being gay or lesbian is real and always has been, and people will have same sex relationships whatever anyone else thinks. Having the legal recognition as next of kin, for example, relieves a great deal of unnecessary stress for older same sex couples and is hurting absolutely no one. ‘Marriage’ is a patriarchal, feudal anachronism that should now be abolished and replaced by civil partnership for anyone who wants to legalise their relationship.
Neither ‘gender’ nor ‘trans’ do exist. Human beings are either male or female and cannot change from one to the other. Socially constructed behavioural norms around sex are exactly that and can, and should, be challenged. If a man wants to wear a dress, there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn’t, but he is still a man and should use the male lavatories.
The ‘transing’ of children is a sinister, misogynistic, homophobic development which actually erases gayness and turns children into permanent patients out of which pharmaceutical companies and other medical suppliers can make money.
Caroline – I couldn’t agree with you more, on every point. Interesting that in Iran where being gay can get you imprisoned (at best) the death penalty (at worse) offering ops to men to become ‘trans’ is the only way out, with obviously horrible detriment. Iran has one of the most advanced trans ops in the world as a result. The only other place where ‘being-trans’ is an alternative to being gay is among US evangelical communities, yes, the same ones who supported Trump.
Not quite. Gender really does exist as a social construct, originally in grammar, where English has it vestigially represented in our third person pronouns, while other languages apply it to all nouns. When the non-grammatical version of the notion was confined to academic circles, which used the term for social constructs that usually, but not always, correlated with biological sex, there was no problem.
Once an ideology decided to substitute gender for biological sex in contexts where biological sex matters, as for instance in the segregation of inmates in prisons, the provision of semi-private toilet and changing facilities in public places, fairness in sporting competitions, or even the discussions of sexual desire, and society not only did not resist the absurdities of this ideology but provided material support for it (with as you note, pharmaceutical manufactures being particularly enthusiastic supporters), severe and predictable social problems and direct harm to many particular people have resulted.
“I vote for gay marriage, because if two adults want to legalise their relationship and make an emotional commitment to each other that is part of the backbone of a strong society, I support that.” Same here. Gay marriage encourages social integration.
Gay marriage is the right thing for gay and lesbian couples who love each other in the same way marriage and now civil partnership is the right thing for heterosexual couples. Don’t put gay marriage into the same bracket as child sexual abuse. They are very very different things.
I didn’t put them in the same bracket. I suggested that they were the first to play around with language and that it moved onto what we are faced with now.
Tthe rest of us haven’t been quick enough so far in being clear about the dividing line between what is a legitimate change for the better and what is unnaceptable.
Lindsay has done the heavy work. His latest essay The Many Faces of Marxism https://newdiscourses.com/2022/10/many-faces-of-marxism/
is an informative read, although if familiar with the structure of Marx’s economic theory the best bit is towards the end under the sub heading Many Faces of Marxist Faith where he takes various ‘woke’ doctrines and lays open their marxist structure.
Thanks for that link. Very interesting and helpful, if you feel concern for the times?
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
A wonderful evisceration of both this wretched Mermaid mob, and all this absurd Trans tosh in general.
Thank you so much for having the courage and moral fibre to speak out about this when so many others remain ‘suspiciously’ silent.
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Since gender Ideology is based heavily on the tenets of ‘Queer Theory’, this development should come as absolutely no suprise.
For one of the foundational texts in this ‘field of study’ is Gayle Rubin’s ‘Thinking Sex’ – where in typically overcomplicated and intentionally obscurist language, pedophilia and the ‘unjust’ treatment’ of its perpetrators is compared directly to homosexuality and historic treatment of gay people; intentionally blurring the boundary between a sexual orientation and an extremely dangerous parphillia.
More people need to understand that the intellectual muscle behind this movement, if deployed effectively, will be catastrophic and just how many folk in postions of influence and power are determined to plough on with it.
These people must be stopped.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
Richard Craven
1 year ago
“the intention is to ally those who identify as “MAPs” — who others would rightly label as adults that desire sex with children …” *the intention is to ally those who identify as “MAPs” — who others would rightly label as paedophiles …
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
Who benefits from legally & socially blurring the moral & practical boundaries between men & women & adults & children? Not women & children.
It’s an indication of how far we’ve come, or sunk, that, one: someone would make such a public statement and, two: that we’ve tolerated it. Our tolerance has been used against us and our children. There was a period I remember where we were scolded for our tolerance, not by those who thought like us, but by those who deemed tolerance the act of a privileged group who regarded themselves superior. Well, we were fools. How did we let this happen? Why did we? It can only be the shattering of a set of cultural moral principles that were the foundation of what we’d built. We obviously weren’t good enough.
‘A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note — North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)’ Kirk and Madison –The Overhauling of Straight America
Last edited 1 year ago by Gregory Cox
Huw Parker
1 year ago
Queer theory still dictates the mission of far too many charities and institutions that are supposed to protect children.
Indeed it does. Today Mermaids, tomorrow Stonewall. Once it was an organisation looking after the interests of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Now it is anything but.
Erich Manning
1 year ago
In the general population it is well known that men sexually abuse children 250 times to 1 woman. Trans women who abuse children (note: who are abusers, not all transwomen) are something like 500 times more likely to have abused children than natal men. In the UK prison population where at present 173 mtf trans are incarcerated, over 80% are imprisoned for sexual abuse against children or rape against women and are held in women’s prisons. Recognised as crimes committed by women! The issue is a serious one, not just for children but for adult women who, in the prison system have high incidents of being formerly abused as children. I think this says a lot about the fetish of men who seek ‘to become women’ particularly those who are heterosexual and seek to call themselves ‘lesbian’, How many warning signs does society need before it stops funding this dangerous nonsense?
Stewart Dixon
1 year ago
Julie thank you. Terrific writing, so much clarity and force of argument. Thanks.
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
There’s a parody page in the Babylon Bee right now that strikes me as apt applied to this outfit as well. Search for it with the title: “Joseph Mengele accepts new role as AMA president”.
(I’m assuming Unherd doesn’t allow links to other sites)
Thanks Jeff. Here’s the actual text of the Babylon Bee parody:-
“CHICAGO, IL — To help support its recent efforts to conduct grotesque gender experiments on young children, the American Medical Association has appointed famed Nazi doctor Josef Mengele as its new president.
“We can think of no one better to represent our prestigious organization than Dr. Mengele,” said an AMA spokesman. “His incredible skill at performing gruesome amputations and mutilations on children has earned him a stellar reputation in the gender-affirming surgery community. Welcome to our community, Dr. Mengele!”
The AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to helping its members make millions by grooming, drugging, chemically castrating, and dismembering children. In addition, they are calling on the DOJ to investigate anyone who disagrees with what they’re doing. “We will never stop protecting a doctor’s fundamental right to get rich by acting out his sick kinks on children, er… I mean, provide gender-affirming healthcare,” said the spokesperson.
Doctors are being warned that any opposition to Mengele’s experiments on children will have their AMA membership revoked.”
I’ve posted a lot of links from thelocal.se, an English language newspaper with a focus on helping immigrants to Sweden here. Here is the low-down on Cinnamon Buns (kanelbullar). Yesterday was national Cinnamon Buns Day. https://www.thelocal.se/20181004/swedish-word-of-the-day-kanelbulle/
Some of the output from the BB is work if genius. Some other times they are a bit too much “on the nose”.
The article you mention I feel falls in the latter category.
Much better on the same page is the story about the Californian couple relocating to Texas (although it is a bit too long). Production values are always excellent. I wonder who is behind it.
Agreed. A few months ago there was one along the lines of “Judge asks Kyle Rittenhouse to defend court house from angry mob furious at ‘Not Guilty’ verdict”
John Dellingby
1 year ago
There is no way in hell that I am ever going to accept a movement that calls paedophiles “allies”. I’m sure 99.99% of people would be with me on this, but if the main leaders and organisations of the LGBTQ873784jdsakjd movement does, they’ll end up undoing all the sacrifices previous generations made to ensure they can love and exist freely in the West.
Miriam Cotton
1 year ago
This is what was always meant by ‘inclusion’, why us TERFs had to be accused of ‘exclusion’.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
“Mock goes on to explain how they “idolised” the prostituted trans women in the area. “These women were the first trans women I met and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work,” says Mock, explaining that they came to understand the role of the sex trade as a “rite of passage” for “trans girls”.
*Mock goes on to explain how he “idolised” the prostituted trans women in the area. “These women were the first trans women I met and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work,” says Mock, explaining that he came to understand the role of the sex trade as a “rite of passage” for “trans girls”.
Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
Being a trans-identifying male & being a paedophile are NOT the same. But nor are they mutually exclusive & irrespective of motivation both groups share a common goal; males having female levels of access to infants in Law.
michael stanwick
1 year ago
a male-to-female transgender activist, What type of process did this individual undergo? One cannot go from male-to-female since both male and female are categories denoting an immutable feature of biology. I think a more appropriate term would be a ‘trans-identifying male’ since it denotes a male person who identifies as trans [whatever they consider ‘trans’ to be].
Transvestite is not useful for me, It doesn’t differentiate between male and female and also doesn’t highlight the psychology of the process – that a person claims to have an identity of another sex.
This nonsense will stop when we stop tolerating it.
Geoff Mould
1 year ago
The similarity between the current Left’s embrace of transgenderism and the ideology that goes with it and support of the PIE in the 80s occurred to me a while ago. Depressing to read this confirmation.
Andrew D
1 year ago
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Timing dear boy, nothing more. I removed my original comment before seeing your reply.
For those who might conceivably be interested, I was raising a pedantic point about whether the ‘for’ after ‘advocating’ in the first line of the article might be redundant. I’m curious to know how such an off topic and irrelevant comment should have confirmed your thoughts on this mess.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it turns out, but very real.
Douglas H
1 year ago
Great article, Julie. Thanks.
Davy Humerme
1 year ago
It’s likely that an academic who wrote about the immutability of sex in biology would be challenged either by student zealots or academy bureaucrats to amend the paper.. Yet this twisted Dahmeresque monster with his desire to promote sex with children get his own position at a leading university.. Even after sickly objectifying children as “instruments” for his wanking episodes, no one in this field saw anything wring. The fact that lottery money disproportionately spent by working and lower mc people was funding these proselytisers of perversion makes it even worse. They are literally taking the piss.
Andrew Vavuris
1 year ago
Social order follows sexual order.
Jeanie K
1 year ago
Why is this evil, mad marxist group still allowed the status of a charity?
Because the evil, mad groups control the public discourse and are protected by politicians. Did you notice?
Jeanie K
1 year ago
We are definitely approaching the ‘end times’
Kat L
1 year ago
Just where did you think it would all end up? Civil partnerships would have been the best solution and compromise, but no….
Don Lightband
1 year ago
Bindel kicks off with the reckless and maximally tendentious presupposition that any and all adult><child attraction/involvement can ipso facto only ever be abuse. Thus the entire sentiment motivating and informing this hitpiece is fatuous, null, and void.
Well, if you’re talking about sexual attraction/involvement (which is what we mean by paedophilia) – that’s correct. It can only be abuse. This is the case both legally and morally. You disagree?
Ah jeez this is just sick! And confirmation of what we all suspected, and some claimed openly, that ‘queer’ theory supporters are merely a mask for child grooming and subsequent abuse. It’s PIE all over again.
A really good article in The Critic on this topic, and Mermaids cynical tactics to adopt children into their cult:
https://thecritic.co.uk/gender-sirens/
Q
I listened to James Lindsey reading in full what is considered the first Queer Theory paper to have emerged. Thinking Sex by Gayle Rubin. From the start it openly and explicitly argues for the normalisation of what it calls Cross Generational Relations. Also, it writes of ‘child molesters’ (her own scare quotes btw) in a paragraph that claims the only reason we think it is wrong is because of conditioning (not because, you know, they’re children…) and that the aim should be to break this unnecessary stigma down. So as you can see, Mermaids really are committed to their lunatic theory in every way.
Mull that over for a bit….
We can be beaten over the head with moral positions until we bend. How many people voted for gay marriage because “it was the right thing to do”. For who? For me that was the beginning of shaming people for their instinctive understanding of issues and how they relate to their communities. When you begin pulling at a loose thread you can predict the outcome.
Who are the mothers who claim their child is trans? I don’t see a lot of fathers coming out with this. The feminisation of society has not produced anything better than what they were fighting against. I know it’s men parading as women who are the instigators of trans activism and what eventuates, but why were women, mothers, so quick to go along with it and take their kids, for instance, to trans library reading?
I might add that I feel pretty angry about this. And I think I should be.
I vote for gay marriage, because if two adults want to legalise their relationship and make an emotional commitment to each other that is part of the backbone of a strong society, I support that.
Parents of trans kids find themselves in a difficult place because of the novelty of the phenomenon in wider society. Add to that how all the official places to go for advice, including the NHS itself is captured by queer theory. One of the most heinous pieces of advice dished out to concerned parents is that if they don’t enable their child it will probably kill itself (implying it will be their fault for not giving unquestioned support). Suicide rates of trans people are effectively the same pre and post transition, implying that it wasn’t the cause of their discomfort with life and that other less damaging methods of help should have been favoured. I have no truck with trans people, I’ve known several during my life. If it makes you happy, it makes me happy. What I despise is the postmodern bullshit that has hijacked the legitimate cause of trans care, support and rights.
If a lesbian can call her partner her husband then a man can call himself a woman, and if a man can call himself a woman then we can redefine family, and if we can redefine family then we can redefine children, and if we redefine children then we can change the age of consent, which amounts to legalising paedophilia, because it’s all relative, right? Your intellectual gymnastics has enabled this abuse.
Crap! Lesbians refer to their other halves as their wives. Gay men refer to their other halves as their husbands. Transwomen are biological men who present as women.
We have not enabled any abuse. Society as a whole has. The ostriches who didn’t want to know what was happening. Those who thought to abuse the women and their male allies who were fighting against this nonsense and the others who simply said, “ain’t my fight. Won’t happen here”. Well, it did. Now what are you going to do about it?
“Society as a whole has. “
Id go along with that.
“Lesbians refer to their other halves as their wives.”
Yes, In retrospect I may be have interpreted what I’ve seen incorrectly.
I disagree. The LGB movement and particularly the feminist movement normalized attacking all critics viciously and equated disagreement with moral failure. Feminists in particular taught people that is isn’t worth it to challenge patently false ‘facts.’ You created modern cancel culture. It is because people are so intimidated that they have not been prepared to challenge trans activists and their increasingly bizarre claims – and their fascination with educating little children. It was not all of society that created this mess.
Get back to normality and stop promoting perversions. A man born male is a man, if he puts make up and a dress on to access womens personal spaces then he is not a woman, merely a pervert.
I remember some slogan that summed it all up and it insinuated that anyone who was had concern about ssm was a bigot-‘love is love’. It’s a big umbrella.
It seems to me you’re the one trying to perform intellectual gymnastics here, and failing. Use of “…, right?” in any discussion also suggests uncertain ground. I’d also suggest your earlier reference to “the feminisation of society” is deeply problematic for those who see it that way. Why do you think femininity shouldn’t have a greater impact on society?
Well I know you might see it as problematic. I’ve read your comments before. So all you’re saying is you disagree with me. And what does that add up to?
“Why do you think femininity shouldn’t have a greater impact on society?”
Just a brief comment on what I feel. They’ve created a culture of victimisation that’s spread into all walks of life. It seems to me, as I said, that it’s mothers who make the most noise about their children being trans. I don’t know why. Maybe you can explain that, why they would take children to a trans club? The constant harassment of men by women doesn’t help. The belittlement of young men. The portrayal of men as predators. The primacy of feelings over common sense. Society seems to have swung from one extreme to the other.
One reply is sufficient; two looks like panic.
You’ve conflated femininity with victimisation. If that’s how you see women, then i can understand your distaste with greater female agency in society.
I advocate for the same level of agency for women as for men. Thanks for noticing, even if you did misinterpret it.
You sound like a Postmodernist, my friend.
You’ll likely find that lesbians use the word Husband somewhat tongue in cheek, seeing as how being a lesbian infers attraction between females…
I also don’t see a connection between gay marriage and paedophillia. They are, I am certain, mutually exclusive.
As you do verbal backflips from marriage to molestation in one run-on sentence
You say you ‘have no truck’ with trans people. I think you mean you have no problem with them. However , to have no truck with something ‘ means exactly the opposite, i.e. that you do have a problem with something.
I appreciate the correction, thankyou
I do not support ‘marriage’ for anyone, but I do support legal and social recognition of gay and lesbian partnerships between adults. Being gay or lesbian is real and always has been, and people will have same sex relationships whatever anyone else thinks. Having the legal recognition as next of kin, for example, relieves a great deal of unnecessary stress for older same sex couples and is hurting absolutely no one. ‘Marriage’ is a patriarchal, feudal anachronism that should now be abolished and replaced by civil partnership for anyone who wants to legalise their relationship.
Neither ‘gender’ nor ‘trans’ do exist. Human beings are either male or female and cannot change from one to the other. Socially constructed behavioural norms around sex are exactly that and can, and should, be challenged. If a man wants to wear a dress, there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn’t, but he is still a man and should use the male lavatories.
The ‘transing’ of children is a sinister, misogynistic, homophobic development which actually erases gayness and turns children into permanent patients out of which pharmaceutical companies and other medical suppliers can make money.
Caroline – I couldn’t agree with you more, on every point. Interesting that in Iran where being gay can get you imprisoned (at best) the death penalty (at worse) offering ops to men to become ‘trans’ is the only way out, with obviously horrible detriment. Iran has one of the most advanced trans ops in the world as a result. The only other place where ‘being-trans’ is an alternative to being gay is among US evangelical communities, yes, the same ones who supported Trump.
Oh nonsense. No Bible believers think that’s acceptable.
Not quite. Gender really does exist as a social construct, originally in grammar, where English has it vestigially represented in our third person pronouns, while other languages apply it to all nouns. When the non-grammatical version of the notion was confined to academic circles, which used the term for social constructs that usually, but not always, correlated with biological sex, there was no problem.
Once an ideology decided to substitute gender for biological sex in contexts where biological sex matters, as for instance in the segregation of inmates in prisons, the provision of semi-private toilet and changing facilities in public places, fairness in sporting competitions, or even the discussions of sexual desire, and society not only did not resist the absurdities of this ideology but provided material support for it (with as you note, pharmaceutical manufactures being particularly enthusiastic supporters), severe and predictable social problems and direct harm to many particular people have resulted.
“I vote for gay marriage, because if two adults want to legalise their relationship and make an emotional commitment to each other that is part of the backbone of a strong society, I support that.”
Same here. Gay marriage encourages social integration.
So does civil partnership. But the latter is more honest
In what way is marriage, gay or straight, less honest than civil partnership?
Gay marriage is the right thing for gay and lesbian couples who love each other in the same way marriage and now civil partnership is the right thing for heterosexual couples. Don’t put gay marriage into the same bracket as child sexual abuse. They are very very different things.
I didn’t put them in the same bracket. I suggested that they were the first to play around with language and that it moved onto what we are faced with now.
Tthe rest of us haven’t been quick enough so far in being clear about the dividing line between what is a legitimate change for the better and what is unnaceptable.
Lindsay has done the heavy work. His latest essay The Many Faces of Marxism
https://newdiscourses.com/2022/10/many-faces-of-marxism/
is an informative read, although if familiar with the structure of Marx’s economic theory the best bit is towards the end under the sub heading Many Faces of Marxist Faith where he takes various ‘woke’ doctrines and lays open their marxist structure.
Thanks for that link. Very interesting and helpful, if you feel concern for the times?
A wonderful evisceration of both this wretched Mermaid mob, and all this absurd Trans tosh in general.
Thank you so much for having the courage and moral fibre to speak out about this when so many others remain ‘suspiciously’ silent.
Since gender Ideology is based heavily on the tenets of ‘Queer Theory’, this development should come as absolutely no suprise.
For one of the foundational texts in this ‘field of study’ is Gayle Rubin’s ‘Thinking Sex’ – where in typically overcomplicated and intentionally obscurist language, pedophilia and the ‘unjust’ treatment’ of its perpetrators is compared directly to homosexuality and historic treatment of gay people; intentionally blurring the boundary between a sexual orientation and an extremely dangerous parphillia.
More people need to understand that the intellectual muscle behind this movement, if deployed effectively, will be catastrophic and just how many folk in postions of influence and power are determined to plough on with it.
These people must be stopped.
“the intention is to ally those who identify as “MAPs” — who others would rightly label as adults that desire sex with children …”
*the intention is to ally those who identify as “MAPs” — who others would rightly label as paedophiles …
Who benefits from legally & socially blurring the moral & practical boundaries between men & women & adults & children? Not women & children.
It makes old fashioned, conservative men look pretty good, don’t you think?
Yes.
It’s an indication of how far we’ve come, or sunk, that, one: someone would make such a public statement and, two: that we’ve tolerated it. Our tolerance has been used against us and our children. There was a period I remember where we were scolded for our tolerance, not by those who thought like us, but by those who deemed tolerance the act of a privileged group who regarded themselves superior. Well, we were fools. How did we let this happen? Why did we? It can only be the shattering of a set of cultural moral principles that were the foundation of what we’d built. We obviously weren’t good enough.
‘A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note — North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)’ Kirk and Madison –The Overhauling of Straight America
Indeed it does. Today Mermaids, tomorrow Stonewall. Once it was an organisation looking after the interests of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Now it is anything but.
In the general population it is well known that men sexually abuse children 250 times to 1 woman. Trans women who abuse children (note: who are abusers, not all transwomen) are something like 500 times more likely to have abused children than natal men. In the UK prison population where at present 173 mtf trans are incarcerated, over 80% are imprisoned for sexual abuse against children or rape against women and are held in women’s prisons. Recognised as crimes committed by women! The issue is a serious one, not just for children but for adult women who, in the prison system have high incidents of being formerly abused as children. I think this says a lot about the fetish of men who seek ‘to become women’ particularly those who are heterosexual and seek to call themselves ‘lesbian’, How many warning signs does society need before it stops funding this dangerous nonsense?
Julie thank you. Terrific writing, so much clarity and force of argument. Thanks.
There’s a parody page in the Babylon Bee right now that strikes me as apt applied to this outfit as well. Search for it with the title: “Joseph Mengele accepts new role as AMA president”.
(I’m assuming Unherd doesn’t allow links to other sites)
Thanks Jeff. Here’s the actual text of the Babylon Bee parody:-
“CHICAGO, IL — To help support its recent efforts to conduct grotesque gender experiments on young children, the American Medical Association has appointed famed Nazi doctor Josef Mengele as its new president.
“We can think of no one better to represent our prestigious organization than Dr. Mengele,” said an AMA spokesman. “His incredible skill at performing gruesome amputations and mutilations on children has earned him a stellar reputation in the gender-affirming surgery community. Welcome to our community, Dr. Mengele!”
The AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to helping its members make millions by grooming, drugging, chemically castrating, and dismembering children. In addition, they are calling on the DOJ to investigate anyone who disagrees with what they’re doing. “We will never stop protecting a doctor’s fundamental right to get rich by acting out his sick kinks on children, er… I mean, provide gender-affirming healthcare,” said the spokesperson.
Doctors are being warned that any opposition to Mengele’s experiments on children will have their AMA membership revoked.”
It does 😉
I’ve posted a lot of links from thelocal.se, an English language newspaper with a focus on helping immigrants to Sweden here. Here is the low-down on Cinnamon Buns (kanelbullar). Yesterday was national Cinnamon Buns Day. https://www.thelocal.se/20181004/swedish-word-of-the-day-kanelbulle/
Some of the output from the BB is work if genius. Some other times they are a bit too much “on the nose”.
The article you mention I feel falls in the latter category.
Much better on the same page is the story about the Californian couple relocating to Texas (although it is a bit too long). Production values are always excellent. I wonder who is behind it.
Agreed. A few months ago there was one along the lines of “Judge asks Kyle Rittenhouse to defend court house from angry mob furious at ‘Not Guilty’ verdict”
There is no way in hell that I am ever going to accept a movement that calls paedophiles “allies”. I’m sure 99.99% of people would be with me on this, but if the main leaders and organisations of the LGBTQ873784jdsakjd movement does, they’ll end up undoing all the sacrifices previous generations made to ensure they can love and exist freely in the West.
This is what was always meant by ‘inclusion’, why us TERFs had to be accused of ‘exclusion’.
“Mock goes on to explain how they “idolised” the prostituted trans women in the area. “These women were the first trans women I met and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work,” says Mock, explaining that they came to understand the role of the sex trade as a “rite of passage” for “trans girls”.
*Mock goes on to explain how he “idolised” the prostituted trans women in the area. “These women were the first trans women I met and I quickly correlated trans womanhood and sex work,” says Mock, explaining that he came to understand the role of the sex trade as a “rite of passage” for “trans girls”.
Being a trans-identifying male & being a paedophile are NOT the same. But nor are they mutually exclusive & irrespective of motivation both groups share a common goal; males having female levels of access to infants in Law.
a male-to-female transgender activist,
What type of process did this individual undergo? One cannot go from male-to-female since both male and female are categories denoting an immutable feature of biology.
I think a more appropriate term would be a ‘trans-identifying male’ since it denotes a male person who identifies as trans [whatever they consider ‘trans’ to be].
The most appropriate term is “transvestite”.
Transvestite is not useful for me, It doesn’t differentiate between male and female and also doesn’t highlight the psychology of the process – that a person claims to have an identity of another sex.
He is a female impersonator, since no man can ever become female.
Exactly. He’s a transvestite.
This nonsense will stop when we stop paying for it.
This nonsense will stop when we stop tolerating it.
The similarity between the current Left’s embrace of transgenderism and the ideology that goes with it and support of the PIE in the 80s occurred to me a while ago. Depressing to read this confirmation.
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
That’s it? That’s what you take from the story? You just confirm my thoughts on this mess.
Andrew, you went and rewrote your comment so that my comment seems absurd, Why?
Timing dear boy, nothing more. I removed my original comment before seeing your reply.
For those who might conceivably be interested, I was raising a pedantic point about whether the ‘for’ after ‘advocating’ in the first line of the article might be redundant. I’m curious to know how such an off topic and irrelevant comment should have confirmed your thoughts on this mess.
im sure you’re smart enough to work it out.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it turns out, but very real.
Great article, Julie. Thanks.
It’s likely that an academic who wrote about the immutability of sex in biology would be challenged either by student zealots or academy bureaucrats to amend the paper.. Yet this twisted Dahmeresque monster with his desire to promote sex with children get his own position at a leading university.. Even after sickly objectifying children as “instruments” for his wanking episodes, no one in this field saw anything wring. The fact that lottery money disproportionately spent by working and lower mc people was funding these proselytisers of perversion makes it even worse. They are literally taking the piss.
Social order follows sexual order.
Why is this evil, mad marxist group still allowed the status of a charity?
Because the evil, mad groups control the public discourse and are protected by politicians. Did you notice?
We are definitely approaching the ‘end times’
Just where did you think it would all end up? Civil partnerships would have been the best solution and compromise, but no….
Bindel kicks off with the reckless and maximally tendentious presupposition that any and all adult><child attraction/involvement can ipso facto only ever be abuse. Thus the entire sentiment motivating and informing this hitpiece is fatuous, null, and void.
She is clearly referring to SEXUAL attraction or involvement. I am sure you agree that that is criminal, don’t you?.
Well, if you’re talking about sexual attraction/involvement (which is what we mean by paedophilia) – that’s correct. It can only be abuse. This is the case both legally and morally. You disagree?
She is absolutely right. Your motives seem extremely questionable, however.
Dirty old man.
Fatuous comment.