Erin Reed / Anthony Reed II / @ErinInTheMorn / @ErinInTheMorning / @ErinInTheNight / _supernovasky_ / beholderseye / realitybias / AnonymousRabbit - post-op transbian Twitter/TikTok "activist" with bad fashion, giant Reddit tattoo. Former drug dealer with felony. Married to Zooey Simone Zephyr / Zachary Todd Raasch.

[Thomas Eugene Paris]

But what the fuck are these rules? I can see why any man would just never have any idea and if you're a man in a dress mess this up all the time.

Exactly.

I guess I am somewhat a rebel.

Spoiler: That's fascinating!

 

[Geranium]

Saying that ROGD has to happen in a certain period is retarded, because it is a very new phenomenon, which is just being studied for the first time right now. And in the grand scheme of things, 3 years that only starts at adolescence and mainly involves girls is a very new phenomenon.

The thing that unifies all the pseudo-scientific opposition to the theory of ROGD is that they use a different definition to Littman's original. This alternate definition can always be gamed, as well, as it's entirely about self-reports ("I've knew I was trans for a gorillion years before I came out"), as opposed to the much cleaner "came out as trans in adolescence with no history of pre-pubertal gender dysphoria".

banging a gay man with beard stubble and razor burn

Previously

Here's the 3,000px-wide version for all your desktop background needs:

100% crop from when this was first published:

Some of that is jpeg artifacts, but some of that is just plain stubble Cannot believe Zac rushed into having his dick inverted before he'd even taken care of this stuff.

Jesus Christ, troonshine must make males age like shit. What is he, like 32 or something?

35; both Tony and Zac were born in August 1988.

The trial's finished and Tony's clinging to the "Brianna Ghey was murdered by transphobia" line:


@ErinInTheMorn, tweet 1737660855662100535 (archive; archive via Tor)

Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) · Dec 21, 2023 · 2:26 AM UTC
Do not let them pretend that transphobia had nothing to do with Brianna Ghey's murder.

She deserved better. She deserved so much more in life.

The UK anti-trans media fueled the hate that lived in her killers' hearts.

Unfortunately for both Tony and Hontra, transphobia didn't come up in the trial at all:

Why Brianna Ghey police quickly ruled out transphobia as motive | Crime | The Guardian (archive; archive via Tor)

Although transphobia did not come up in the trial, the judge, Mrs Justice Yip, may consider it to be an aggravating factor when sentencing one or both of the teenagers. But she told potential jurors on the first day of the trial to put aside any “uninformed views” about Brianna’s killing.

She also took a dim view of online commentators who pronounced that the defendants were transphobic. After the case was opened, the prosecution complained about a tweet from the barrister Jolyon Maugham, the founder of the Good Law Project, saying the teenagers had exchanged “transphobic slurs”.

Yip said the tweet was potentially in contempt of court, a serious crime that has previously resulted in short jail terms for those judged to have prejudiced a trial. Heer said the prosecution had deliberately not used such terms in the presence of the jury.

Maugham was spoken to by police and deleted the tweet, the court heard. Maugham told the Guardian: “Some weeks back I deleted several tweets about the trial. I also said to the judge I would – and I think it’s important to do this when you make a mistake – publicly apologise. I haven’t been able to do that until now, now the trial has ended. The issues I raised are very important but it was the wrong time for me to bring them up.”

(My emphases in the quote.)

These ghouls are desperate to exploit the death of a child for their fetish.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

The fact that Tony is angry about reasonable and appropriate parenting standards causes me great pause about the soundness of his judgment with his own kid. Anyone who thinks that there sexual fetish should be at the center of the holiday celebration shouldn't have kids.

 

[Haram-Habibi]

That's an interesting definition of a "good parent", Tony.

Good to know that feeding them, sheltering them, clothing them, educating them, not smacking them around and getting them legit medical help when they are ill/injured counts for fuck all if I don't affirm my daughter's trans-royal identity as "Princess Sparkle".

(Still can't believe that a judge gave him custody of his son. WTAF, Your Dis-honor???)

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

That's an interesting definition of a "good parent", Tony.

Good to know that feeding them, sheltering them, clothing them, educating them, not smacking them around and getting them legit medical help when they are ill/injured counts for fuck all if I don't affirm my daughter's trans-royal identity as "Princess Sparkle".

(Still can't believe that a judge gave him custody of his son. WTAF, Your Dis-honor???)

Recently, our favorite "parent of the year" has latched onto the bizarre idea that the publication of the DSM V somehow invalidates troon critical research that was performed or published under earlier versions of the text. Tough to tell if he believes this with any degree of sincerity or if its just his latest ad hoc excuse for dismissing anything critical of his fetish.

I would also note that Tony is being less than truthful when he grovels about "listening to medical professionals." Many of the people voting for these bans are medical professionals themselves.

"Sen. Terry Johnson (R-McDermott), a now-retired doctor, was among the GOP senators who said they question the science of gender-affirming care. “You have to work as a team in collaboration with patients, but you have to give them good medical advice, and if you don't know if something you're doing is going to hurt someone 10, 15, 20 years down the road, or maybe even one year down the road, don't do it,” Johnson said. “I stand here today and say I am not comfortable with what's going on with the scientific evidence.”

Bill that bans Ohio trans youth from gender-affirming care headed to governor's desk

On a related note, Jack Turban has staked out the bizarre position that we should cherry pick entire journals when reviewing the science of troonery. Under this view, only journals that agree with and affirm Turban's fringe views contain "real science."

 

[glioblastoma multiforme]

There are basically two camps under the big rubric "Philosophy of Science", and the two camps never the twain shall meet. The first camp is what I consider "Proper Philosophy" -- examining definitions, assumptions, cause and effects, and essential nature of reality, which can often veer into Metaphysics (e.g. Do objects move through space in such manner because of the geometry of spacetime is inherently that way, or do we formulate the geometry of spacetime to be that way because we observe how objects move?). The second camp is what I'd call "Genealogy of Science", which observe how science progress and how scientists behave. The Genealogy camp have its important figures, such as Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour, but it is also filled with quacks whose sole intention is to take Science down.

I'd say that's a fair, if broad-brushed, way of conceptualising it. Though I would distinguish much of the subject-matter you've put under the heading of "Proper philosphy" in terms of the sciences that they are examining. For example, the philosophy of physics, biology, whatever. Practicioners in those fields often (and should) have a very strong understanding of the subject matter they philosophise about, so a philosopher of physics will specialise in, say, the interpretation of probability under the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics and have an extremely strong grasp of the maths and physics involved.

These are sufficiently distinct from general Philosophy of Science to be regarded their own subjects. Whereas philosophers studying say, the Duhem-Quine thesis or the role of Bayesian inference, fall under the remit of Philosophy of Science.

Power is the ability to determine what other scientists / people can and cannot legitimately say

Fair enough, that is a completely different concpetualisation of "power" to what I was thinking. I still think their whole thesis is ridiculous under that definition. Galileo's claims were perfectly legitimate despite being punished severely by those in power for saying it. The underlings I mentioned in my previous post were legitimate to state whatever it was that got their PIs knickers in a twist and their PIs were not able to silence them.

Real power, in science and tech at least, isn't based on what people say but what they achieve. Saying you can build an atomic bomb, whether true or false, is pretty meaningless. Fucking building one is an entire different matter, and evidence is integral to that, not cowtowing to the leaders in the project.

The funny thing is that they did, one of the bigger books involved the sociologist following some scientists around for a year or something. It just confirmed his theories that it's all power.

Rarely did the critiques I've seen of this ask whether the notion that everything is based on social power and the truth is irrelevant is projection based on how those people go about their own scholarship.

That is actually hilarious. I'd love to know what the book is but tbh I'm not going to rot my brain by reading sociology.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

"I knew I was a troon when I was twelve. Then I forgot when I graduated high school. Then I remembered again when I was nearly 30."

View attachment 5583072

View attachment 5583076View attachment 5583220

Why are all troons without any exception whatsoever such bad liars? You’d think they’ve had enough practice.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Outclassed and owned again!

 

[behindyourightnow]

But what the fuck are these rules? I can see why any man would just never have any idea and if you're a man in a dress mess this up all the time.

There's "rules" for men too (probably not nearly as many, but still) that you probably follow without even noticing it. Like, you wouldn't wear a dark suit and black shoes with white sports socks. You wouldn't go to your business-casual office IT job wearing a thick gold chain dangling down across your chest (unless your boss was Persian, I guess). You would expect people to look askance at you if you broke these rules, even though they often aren't written down and no one really thinks about them explicitly until they're broken.

Actually, I take it back about there being fewer rules for men, I just looked up "rules for wearing a suit" and what the fuck, men





The thing is, we humans are social and mimetic by nature, so it's usually pretty easy to "learn" most of these rules either from direct observation of others or (for more autistic types) just sitting down and memorizing them. Which is why HSTS usually do fine dressing as women. AGP types don't for various reasons, such as:

1) They are autistic, or semi-autistic

2) They view "being a woman" as an engineering project that they can embrace and perform superiorly, so they don't need any advice from actual women, who aren't as smart and logical as they are (this is often combined with Reason 1)

3) They are dressing as a woman purely for fetish reasons and don't care about any "rules," in fact, breaking rules about appropriate clothing is a bonus because it displays their own power over others and allows them to make strangers (especially women) uncomfortable. Powerful people get to break rules, and breaking rules makes them feel powerful and fuels their fetish.


Tony mostly fits Reason 2, and Zach is probably a combination of 1 and 2.

 

[scathefire]

What's the point of having more than one button if you're never supposed to button it? This is like a way more autistic version of how to set a table.

 

[behindyourightnow]

What's the point of having more than one button if you're never supposed to button it? This is like a way more autistic version of how to set a table.

I mean, a tie has absolutely no purpose either except to show people you know how to tie it in an appropriate knot for the occasion. I guess the bottom button is there to signal to people that you know not to fasten it.

Most of these "rules" just exist to signal the right things to people. "I have the status and background knowledge to be aware of and follow these rules, and therefore I am a member of the same social class as you (or a higher one), so you can trust me to act appropriately and normally. I am worthy of your trust and confidence."

Which is why when people say "A woman would never wear earrings like that!" they don't really mean that women never commit fashion faux pas, or that there's some special essence in women that allows them to pick appropriate earrings. They mean that a real woman would not be able to wear earrings like that and keep her status.

An actual woman who consistently signals that she doesn't know basic clothing/jewelry rules, who fails to even style her hair or groom her eyebrows, would never rise to the level of being elected a state representative in Montana, because people subconsciously wouldn't trust her to hold that social power.

But AGPs like Zach are treated like retarded children who don't have to follow the rules. But they refuse to see this blatantly obvious proof that no one, not even their supporters, sees them as women; rather, they are a special class of men who must be applauded for trying their best.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Are they not American pediatricians Snaggle Tooth? Am I missing something? Or are you just fussing because they are critical of your pervert cult?

Meet Our Board

Tony is fairly dense, but the whole EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE part should have been a dead giveaway.

 

[Surfin Terf]

I mean, a tie has absolutely no purpose either except to show people you know how to tie it in an appropriate knot for the occasion. I guess the bottom button is there to signal to people that you know not to fasten it.

A tie looks good. Even if you don't like ties, at least you have to admit that ties are clearly a fashion choice, like a hat or a shawl or any number of items that people wear because they think they look good.

Unlike a second button that you will never ever use. And if the top button of a three-button jacket is optional, who the hell is choosing to button/unbutton it every time they stand up or sit down?

As a man who wears a suit a lot, I've never heard of these button rules. In very formal settings I will button/unbutton my blazer because it bunches up when you sit and looks better buttoned, but that's not exactly a rule, it's just common sense. Like taking your napkin off your lap when you stand up.

 

[Thomas Eugene Paris]

There's "rules" for men too (probably not nearly as many, but still) that you probably follow without even noticing it. Like, you wouldn't wear a dark suit and black shoes with white sports socks. You wouldn't go to your business-casual office IT job wearing a thick gold chain dangling down across your chest (unless your boss was Persian, I guess). You would expect people to look askance at you if you broke these rules, even though they often aren't written down and no one really thinks about them explicitly until they're broken.

Actually, I take it back about there being fewer rules for men, I just looked up "rules for wearing a suit" and what the fuck, men

I bet the difference is that most of the women here know these rules for men, whereas one couldn't say the same of the opposite.

 

[AnOminous]

I always love when they make etiquette or fashion mistakes like this because it serves as proof that despite their claims, they were socialized male.

They want absolutely everything they imagine real females get, but are absolutely enraged when they have to cope with the kind of criticism real females deal out to each other.

They want male privilege and female privilege at the same time.

This is why we need to beat them into a coma. These men do not deserve either privilege.

 

[Positron]

What's the point of having more than one button if you're never supposed to button it? This is like a way more autistic version of how to set a table.

Markers of cultural capital, like all signifiers, are arbitrary.

Edit to add re: suit. If somebody tells you there's a heaven-and-earth difference between “bespoke" and "made to measure", call him a fag.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

"I knew I was a troon when I was twelve. Then I forgot when I graduated high school. Then I remembered again when I was nearly 30."

View attachment 5583072

View attachment 5583076View attachment 5583220

"In the 90's it was impossible to transition as a kid. You were bullied relentlessly for displaying the slightest femininity. Gender affirming care wasn't allowed. It was hell. My 'desistance' wasn't me finding peace with my gender. It was coercion ... I fight for trans youth so that they are not coerced into desisting like me, because I know what that means. It's hell. It's death. .... in my online friend groups ... Nobody judged back then, the hate wasn't near what it is today online."

Alright. I started to go into this because of Tony's absolutely insane notion of coercion but his lies distracted me so I need to address those first. Gender affirming care for children effectively did not exist in the 1990's when Tony was "online" at ten years old or whatever the fuck experiencing the lack of hate for being "trans" even though none of this happened because he's making it up and combining a bunch of unrelated things from different points in linear time he'll point to as "proof" of his lies.

But more importantly, this isn't coercion and if he wants it outlawed he's an absolute totalitarian. For one thing, this is his perception of the past and if it's true (unlikely, he's a liar) it's only his own personal perception. Not only is he interpreting that what he was bullied for as "femininity" but he's interpreting the reason for his bullying as his lack of masculinity. At no point does he say what this "femininity" was and any lack of masculinity is his own interpretation of what it means to be a man. Physical strength is typically regarded as a masculine trait (transphobic, science has disproved that male bodies are stronger if they don't want to be) but Tony being a weak male is not necessarily femininity because men vary in strength. You know another "strength" typically ascribed to men? An ability to be stoic and not controlled by their emotions. If Tony was emotional and couldn't control himself that must be feminine right? Well, what if Tony was rage-filled and constantly angry at others for not worshipping him and giving him the masculine respect he deserves, especially girls that rejected him. Oh, that's toxic masculinity not femininity. So maybe Tony, in his toxic masculinity, was bullied because he flew off the handle instantly and that was pretty fucking funny to the bullies. Of course that could never happen, you'll never see that in any group of males, so it must be because Tony was a girl and the bullies were angry at his being a girl, it couldn't be because he was an easy target for bullies to work out their own insecurities and theories of masculinity on.

So clearly none of this can be personal it must be the transphobic system of society and that's why we need the state to monitor all children everywhere and if one boy picks on another we take the boy being picked on and ruin his bones and slice off his junk. Now he can be free and uncoerced in his true feminine nature. (As long as nobody is allowed to pick on him for the way he's far more different now after we confirmed that he's a failed male and the bullies were right to pick on him for his deviance from our culture. That's why we need to monitor everyone at all times and coerce help them to always affirm everyone no matter what they really think.)

The trial's finished and Tony's clinging to the "Brianna Ghey was murdered by transphobia" line:

And what about the UK media that fueled the hate that lived in her killers hearts by telling people about other killers and violence?!? If they had never known they could kill Brianna she'd still be alive today! She deserved better.

"Love them when their parents wont."

Tony believes that you should never tell your child "no" or you don't love them. Your five year old wants to jump the Grand Canyon in an RV tricked out with space shuttle rockets? You love him don't you? And if he's not your five year old but someone else in your family? Love him when his parents wont.

Recently, our favorite "parent of the year" has latched onto the bizarre idea that the publication of the DSM V somehow invalidates troon critical research that was performed or published under earlier versions of the text. Tough to tell if he believes this with any degree of sincerity or if its just his latest ad hoc excuse for dismissing anything critical of his fetish.

I would also note that Tony is being less than truthful when he grovels about "listening to medical professionals." Many of the people voting for these bans are medical professionals themselves.

But Tony, what if listened to the medical organizations that created the DSM IV? We might have thought gender dysphoria is a medical condition that needs to be treated! Are you sure we should use the DSM V when it's still clinging to these backwards fascist transmedicalist views?

That is actually hilarious. I'd love to know what the book is but tbh I'm not going to rot my brain by reading sociology.

There's been a bunch of them and it spread into other fields. History had it even for a bit, where they advocated that history can be whatever you want eventually leading to Black Athena, but now if any of those famous names are mentioned that work is just skipped over like it never happened and wasn't a big part of the field for a few years.

I think the most famous one was Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life and he argued in this way for a bit. But I seem to recall him backing off some of the stronger claims in it later on, although the Wiki for his next book suggests he did not immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_Action_(book). ("Olga Amsterdamska's highly critical book review concluded with the following sentence: 'Somehow, the ideal of a social science whose only goal is to tell inconsistent, false, and incoherent stories about nothing in particular does not strike me as very appealing or sufficiently ambitious.'") I seem to remember Barry Barnes as one of the main "lifers" who kept getting discovered by morons in other fields but at the moment I can't recall the names of the people who seriously argued about this at length in the late 1970's and 1980's. Barnes and Latour may have been some of them but it may have also been follower "footsoldiers" who never earned Wiki pages (or whose names I just forget if they're mentioned and so don't recognize) as I'm sure you're familiar with that phenomenon in academia where some famous guy says something stupid, somebody else says "that's stupid, here's why" and then there's a bunch of responses from marginal followers while the original guy pretends he's too above it all to tussle with his ignorant critics who don't understand his genius.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Only a serious fucking wacko would celebrate sexualizing children and think it makes them the good guy! You are such a sicko Snaggle Tooth. You should be on a watch list.

 

[Jacques1194]

"In the 90's it was impossible to transition as a kid. You were bullied relentlessly for displaying the slightest femininity. Gender affirming care wasn't allowed. It was hell. My 'desistance' wasn't me finding peace with my gender. It was coercion ... I fight for trans youth so that they are not coerced into desisting like me, because I know what that means. It's hell. It's death. .... in my online friend groups ... Nobody judged back then, the hate wasn't near what it is today online."

He contradicted himself here.How could he claim to be bullied relentlessly for being slightly feminine, but some how(at least in his online friend group) nobody judged him back then?Also how could the hate today be a lot worse than back then?That sounds like the trans community has done a poor job at making people think they're sane individuals.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Alright. I started to go into this because of Tony's absolutely insane notion of coercion but his lies distracted me so I need to address those first. Gender affirming care for children effectively did not exist in the 1990's when Tony was "online" at ten years old or whatever the fuck experiencing the lack of hate for being "trans" even though none of this happened because he's making it up and combining a bunch of unrelated things from different points in linear time he'll point to as "proof" of his lies.

I have a much different idea about the source of Tony's so called "femininity."

Borderline personality disorder is a mental health disorder that impacts the way you think and feel about yourself and others, causing problems functioning in everyday life. It includes self-image issues, difficulty managing emotions and behavior, and a pattern of unstable relationships.

With borderline personality disorder, you have an intense fear of abandonment or instability, and you may have difficulty tolerating being alone. Yet inappropriate anger, impulsiveness and frequent mood swings may push others away, even though you want to have loving and lasting relationships.

Borderline personality disorder usually begins by early adulthood. The condition seems to be worse in young adulthood and may gradually get better with age.

Borderline personality disorder

Abstract​

The study aims to explore the personality patterns of a group of transgender individuals who accessed an Italian gender clinic to undergo gender affirming treatments, by evaluating both dimensional personality domains proposed by the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders and categorical DSM-IV personality disorder (PD) diagnoses. Eighty-seven participants (40 transgender women and 47 transgender men) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders. Scores obtained were compared to those of the normative samples of cisgender women and men. Results indicated that transgender women scored lower than cisgender women on two main domains (Negative Affectivity and Psychoticism) and on seven facets. As for transgender men, lower scores than cisgender men were found on Antagonism and on five facets. Transgender men scored higher than cisgender men on Depressivity. Nearly 50% of participants showed at least one PD diagnosis, with no gender differences in prevalence. Borderline PD was the most frequent diagnosis in the overall sample. Self-report measures provide a less maladaptive profile of personality functioning than the clinician-based categorical assessment. Results are interpreted in the light of the Minority Stress Model and support the need for a multi-method assessment of personality in medicalized transgender people. Personality Disorders and Personality Profiles in a Sample of Transgender Individuals Requesting Gender-Affirming Treatments

Background: Sexual and gender minority persons (ie, those reporting sexual orientation other than heterosexual and gender identity other than cisgender, respectively) experience high rates of various forms of psychopathology. However, discussions of sexual minority populations are often focused on aspects of mental health associated with sexual orientation, with relatively less emphasis placed on transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals’ mental health. No prior studies have compared psychiatric diagnoses between TGD and cisgender patients presenting for psychiatric treatment in a systematic way using semistructured diagnostic interviews assessing a broad range of disorders.​

Results: TGD patients had on average more diagnoses than cisgender patients (3.54 ± 1.88 vs 3.04 ± 1.72, t = 2.37, P = .02). After controlling for age, TGD patients were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder than cisgender patients (P < .05).