Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds
- Thread starter trannyfucker
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Matt Greonig followed a career path that insured he would never ever have to put his Alma Matter on a resume or Job Application.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2019
It's Univ. of Michigan, he's going to have a bad time.
Y I K E S :
Frances_Larina on Twitter
“Yikes! Stephen Gliske's GD theory is NOT actually backed by neurobiology, only his own, "hear me out, what if we could retrain the brain to not feel gender dysphoria" free-association exercise to try to refute 25 yrs of neurology, genetics, endo & fetal dev studies.”
twitter.com
S E K I Y :
Removeddit
^- total ignorance. Most men who troon out are heterosexual.
They are going to tear into every aspect of Gliske's life and shit all over it. Poor guy. Countdown until he retracts and apologizes?
Xiphias
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2019
An article on trans lobbyist tactics:
The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists
A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?
People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.
Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.
How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.
So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?
Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.
The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.
The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.
As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and ‘advocacy’ across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares ‘best practice’ in ‘lobbying’ to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.
In the words of the report:
Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’
In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.
And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?
I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.
Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:
What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:
Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’
For example:
‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’
I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.
Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’
According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:
‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.
In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’ (Emphasis added).
Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.
I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.
A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.
I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a ‘veil’ and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.
I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.
A great deal of the transgender debate is unexplained. One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?
People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.
Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.
How did we get here? I think we can discount the idea that this is a simple question of organisations following a changing society. Bluntly, society still doesn’t know very much about transgenderism. If you work in central London in certain sectors, live in a university town (or at a university) or have children attending a (probably middle-class) school, you might have some direct acquaintance. But my bet is that most people don’t know any trans people and don’t have developed views about how the law should evolve with regards to their status.
So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?
Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.
The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.
The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.
As you’d expect of a report co-written by the staff of a major law firm, it’s a comprehensive and solid document, summarising law, policy and ‘advocacy’ across several countries. Based on the contributions of trans groups from around the world (including two in the UK, one of which is not named), it collects and shares ‘best practice’ in ‘lobbying’ to change the law so that parents no longer have a say on their child’s legal gender.
In the words of the report:
You might think that the very purpose of parenting is, in part, to ‘restrict’ the choices of children who cannot, by definition, make fully-informed adult choices on their own. But that is not the stance of the report.
Indeed, it suggests that ‘states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’
In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.
And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?
I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.
Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:
Among those techniques: ‘Get ahead of the Government agenda.’
What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:
That will sound familiar to anyone who knows how a Commons select committee report in 2016, which adopted several positions from trans groups, was followed in 2017 by a UK government plan to adopt self-identification of legal gender. To a lot of people, that proposal, which emerged from Whitehall looking quite well-developed, came out of the blue.
Anyway, here’s another tip from the document: ‘Tie your campaign to more popular reform.’
For example:
‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’
I’ve added my bold there, because I think those are very telling phrases indeed. This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. Again, anyone who has even glanced at the UK transgender debate will recognise this description.
Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’
According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:
‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result. ….Against this background, many believe that public campaigning has been detrimental to progress, as much of the general public is not well informed about trans issues, and therefore misinterpretation can arise.
In Ireland, activists have directly lobbied individual politicians and tried to keep press coverage to a minimum in order to avoid this issue.’ (Emphasis added).
Although it offers extensive advice about the need to keep the trans-rights agenda out of the public’s gaze, the report has rather less to say about the possibility that advocates might just try doing what everyone else in politics does and make a persuasive argument for their cause. Actually convincing people that this stuff is a good idea doesn’t feature much in the report, which runs to 65 pages.
I’m not going to tell you what I think of the report, or the agenda it sets out. I’m not going to pass comment on it or its authors. I’m just going to try to summarise its nature and contents.
A major international law firm has helped write a lobbying manual for people who want to change the law to prevent parents having the final say about significant changes in the status of their own children. That manual advises those lobbying for that change to hide their plans behind a ‘veil’ and to make sure that neither the media nor the wider public know much about the changes affecting children that they are seeking to make. Because if the public find out about those changes, they might well object to them.
I started my first job as a researcher in the Commons in 1994. I’ve been studying and writing about politics and policy ever since. And in my experience of how changes in the law are brought about, the approach described in that report is simply not normal or usual. In a democracy, we are all free to argue for whatever policy or position we wish. But normally, anyone who wants to change the law accepts that to do so they need to win the support or, at least, the consent of the people whose authority ultimately gives the law its force. The approach outlined, in detail, in the Dentons report amounts to a very different way of lobbying to get the laws and policies you want. Even more notably, it suggests that in several countries people have been quite successful in lobbying behind a ‘veil’ and in a way that deliberately avoids the attention of the public. That, I think, should interest anyone who cares about how politics and policy are conducted, whether or not they care about the transgender issue.
I’m going to conclude with an observation I’ve made here before, but which I think bears repeating in the context of that report and the things it might tell people about other aspects of the trans issue: no policy made in the shadows can survive in sunlight.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
This is setting a precedent- once children can consent to life altering, non essential medical treatment, other things start to look trivial. From there the wedge is driven in - they will start to try to scrap or change the age of consent. It also sets a precedent for parental alienation, removal of children from parents if the views of those parents are deemed problematic.
In short it sets the scene for a free for all on what adults and groups can do to children and for stripping the parents of any ability to protect their children. If the public realised this they’d be wielding flaming pitchforks. Hence the deals being done in the shadows.
PIE tried this in the seventies. I think in the USA you had nambla?
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
As an atheist, I’m starting to believe in like, actual demons.
You would think that left-wingers with any knowledge of world history would be vary wary of anything that removes parental control and rights. It was only a few decades ago that the right wing Junta in Argentina removed kids from problematic left leaning parents and put them up for adoption to right-thinking parents. As is usual with a lot of these clowns they actually have not one idea of history and how things can backfire causing them misery, about the sum of their history is Hitler bad Stalin no angel but OK, idiots the lot of them.
Ironically this sort of play book was suggested by a right wing economist; Milton Friedman to bring in unpalatable reforms at times when people were in a state of shock, I have said that this is a play by some perhaps not all to get rid of the age of consent, if you put into law that a 12 year old can decide to take puberty blockers or have their genitals remodelled then the trivial thing of arguing that they are mature enough to have sex becomes a lot lot easier, it is a paedophiles dream and personally I have felt that they are behind this.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
It blew my mind when the wheelchair troon (who honestly looks like a rejected design of a Sonic the Hedgehog robot boss) said that their precious Seattle suburb wasn't woke or progressive enough. Bitch go move in with the enlightened tolerant Africans or Muslims who have been freed of the shackles of European colonialism then, see how many ramps they build for you.That was like watching a circus freak show
I would not have been able to hold in my laughter at these mentally ill weirdos. Especially the tranny cripple.
How do these people still pretend that European/white western societies are not the only societies on earth that are willing to give them anything?
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2018
This bears a lot more discussion imo because if any of you have been unfortunate/morbidly curious enough to have encountered the paedophile manifesto it does actually mention things in a very similar vein to this. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the original post itself, but if someone has it the last iteration I saw was a 4chan post, most likely archived at this point. I'm almost certain that it mentions hiding or veiling support for pedophilia within other movements as a way to push creeping normalization. This legal document has some eerily similar parallels to the pedophile manifesto if I'm remembering it right. It's been a while and I could be wrong, someone's going to have to dig it up and post it so we can dive deeper into comparing the two.
I know it's a cliche to say "ThE pEdOs ArE uSiNg ThE gAyS" but when you read a 20 page long manifesto about how the way to normalize kid fucking is by trojan horsing it as a progressive movement within another progressive movement that is actually fairly innocuous when it comes to personal impact, it's hard not to be shocked when the official troon logic document says pretty much the same thing with a more concise objective AND is written by some of the top lawyers in the western world.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
Study of "gender dysphoria" in the brain has long missed one possible cause
A new paper argues the causes of gender dysphoria don't lie in anatomy, but in brain networks.www.inverse.com
Bad news for troons - no ladybrains.
View attachment 1033976
Summary: When troons say something makes them feel unsafe they mean that they feel insecure and things should change to make them feel
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2016
Kim Petras vs. Westboro Baptist Church. Along with a shot of Kim's ass. 
www.insider.com
Transgender pop star Kim Petras boldly posed in front of conservative Christian protesters outside her concert
"Hoes still mad," the "Hillside Boys" singer captioned a photo of herself in front of Westboro Baptist church members.
www.insider.com
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2018
Wow. On top of the Literally Who troon "pop star" this guy is very bad at hiding his bald head.Kim Petras vs. Westboro Baptist Church. Along with a shot of Kim's ass.
Transgender pop star Kim Petras boldly posed in front of conservative Christian protesters outside her concert
"Hoes still mad," the "Hillside Boys" singer captioned a photo of herself in front of Westboro Baptist church members.
Got the jawline of an angel, sir. You could build a shed with that brick. The wig is disgustingly obvious too, on top of being gaudy it's parted way too high on his forehead. The quality of this image makes it look more like a weirdly hairy latex or soup-like substance than real hair.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
Where's a smart bomb when you need one? Could have taken out the troon and the Westboro loonies at the same time. A real opportunity was missed here.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2016
It's probably a SPD for people like Chris, but for fags like Blair White, it seems purely psychological. I'm still partial to Jung and Freud's beliefs about contrasexual archetypes.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2015
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2018
Oh my sweet lord. What the fuck is that?
Thanks for reminding me that with troons, it always gets worse.
Also, what's with the most vocal of troons being balding to the point of having an oval for a face with hair somewhere behind it? Is this really the middle-aged mens' rights movement? They all fucking look like this, it's unbelievably funny. Not sure if it's the lighting in the photo or if the top of that microphone is covered in lipstick markings. I'm not about to look up how this weird porker sings, I'm quite content leaving that out of my hearing and my imagination.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2016
Just a random image from a Google Images search. The uncanny valley gets deeper. What the hell is going on with that head?
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
If these people had any connection to observable reality, they would be something substantially different from what they are.
queue-anon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
Parental rights used to be a bipartisan issue.
Conservatives support it because they want to raise their kids according to their values, and they know that, if libs had their way, cons would lose their kids for not being woke enough. Liberals used to support it because there's a long history of poor parents and minority parents losing their children for bullshit reasons. This was done essentially as a social engineering project: "fix" the poors and minorities by raising their kids "properly" in white adoptive homes or in orphanages.
Libs abandoning basic liberal values such as free speech and parental rights is the main reason why I'm fed up with their bullshit. That they're mostly doing it for trannies of all fucking things is enraging. Way to undermine basic liberal values on behalf of a bunch of ugly old men in drag.
All trannies, when they go out in public, are lying to the world, so it makes sense that the most delusional of them are walking heaps of anxiety. About the only ones who aren't accept, on some level, that they'll never actually be the opposite sex, and they have something of a sense of humor about being trans. At this point, I'd wager that they make up a tiny percentage of their community, like less than 10 percent.
Except in the UK it was the so called Conservatives that were pushing this rubbish through with support of all parties apart from the Communists and UKIP/Brexit. So GC feminists the faith communities and rational people on this have effectively no place to go, the parties that object have as much chance of getting into the UK parliament by popular vote as a dead rat on the NY Subway. I do think that since most of the Gay rights issues have been politically resolved to a large extent a lot of organizations like Stonewall need something to exist for, to keep those sweet sweet donations coming in, so they latched on the next thing.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
The reason why god has abandoned us.