Er, I just assumed that was 365 day event
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I just think a lot of these people who were aggressively pro the trans cult are losing their minds because they can’t back down and they know they’re proved wrong. Like, Jolyon, Owen, Tennant, James O’Brien, Russel T Davies. They’re all visibly crumbling, and I’m not surprised, because Cognitive Dissonance is absolutely seriously crazy making. Like, honestly. It’s a killer.
And I don’t know, maybe these people want to back down or fade away on the issue, like Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Hunt have done. But maybe they can’t because they’re scared of what all the trans anon nutters with anime avatars will do to them? I mean, trans ultras are unbalanced and can get seriously violent when crossed.
And I don’t know, maybe these people want to back down or fade away on the issue, like Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Hunt have done. But maybe they can’t because they’re scared of what all the trans anon nutters with anime avatars will do to them? I mean, trans ultras are unbalanced and can get seriously violent when crossed.
The Irish Times - never not at it. Language is important. This article is supposed to be a book review.
The US based Stryker family is enormously wealthy and influential, bankrolls the Arcus foundation which funds trans ideology around the world, involved in healthcare, influential in politics, manufacture medical devices in Cork. More than one transwoman in the extended family.
ETA
WicklowWomen4Women posted this synopsis on X
Roe McDermott in the Irish Times gushes about Susan Stryker’s new book Changing Gender, which she describes as “…determined to break open language itself…”.
As Helen Joyce and many others in this fight have noted, language is the battleground, and changing it is a political tool of destabilisation to control what can be said.
Being charitable, it is possible that Roe McDermott hasn’t ever considered what it means for society when we change language, collapse categories, and destroy meaning. She writes of Stryker: “Her language itself is exciting and convention-breaking. Every time Stryker codas political analysis with poetry, layers awe on top of academia, marries the cerebral with the sacred, she cracks open new possibilities of understanding, and encourages us to see how grammar, of all things, could be revolutionary – something we can break open and reconfigure to imagine another way for the world to be.”
Here are some explainers on a few of the uncritically accepted phrases and names from Stryker that McDermott included in her review:
‘Bathroom panics’:
Women asserting boundaries and insisting that single-sex toilets are not rendered unisex by the inclusion of men.
“Attacks on healthcare”:
Dismantling the ghoulish practice of arresting children’s development and turning them in to sterile life-long patients through the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgeries.
‘The limited view of the transphobic’:
The highly informed and evidence-based perspectives of people who understand sex is real and matters very much in some contexts, dare to say it, and refuse to capitulate to the demands of trans-identified activists and their enablers.
“Judith Butler”:
An academic who recast sex as optional linguistic performance through prize-winningly unreadable theory, while ignoring the real injustices women face.
‘John Money’:
Another academic, one who framed sex as a childhood social experiment and promoted his work on a castrated boy as proof it worked, while hiding the ruin it caused. That boy, one of a pair of twins, was put through years of coercive genital exams and forced “sexual rehearsal” with his brother, which Money defended as therapeutic.
“Gender ideology”:
McDermott writes that Stryker treats the phrase “gender ideology” as “essentially vacuous, useful primarily for signalling hostility to gender itself.”
Gender ideology is a term that names a specific, contestable set of claims e.g. that gender identity is innate and separable from biological sex, and that it should govern language, law, and medical practice. These claims are open to robust disagreement, and treating the phrase as meaningless closes down debate.
As Helen Joyce and many others in this fight have noted, language is the battleground, and changing it is a political tool of destabilisation to control what can be said.
Being charitable, it is possible that Roe McDermott hasn’t ever considered what it means for society when we change language, collapse categories, and destroy meaning. She writes of Stryker: “Her language itself is exciting and convention-breaking. Every time Stryker codas political analysis with poetry, layers awe on top of academia, marries the cerebral with the sacred, she cracks open new possibilities of understanding, and encourages us to see how grammar, of all things, could be revolutionary – something we can break open and reconfigure to imagine another way for the world to be.”
Here are some explainers on a few of the uncritically accepted phrases and names from Stryker that McDermott included in her review:
‘Bathroom panics’:
Women asserting boundaries and insisting that single-sex toilets are not rendered unisex by the inclusion of men.
“Attacks on healthcare”:
Dismantling the ghoulish practice of arresting children’s development and turning them in to sterile life-long patients through the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and mutilating surgeries.
‘The limited view of the transphobic’:
The highly informed and evidence-based perspectives of people who understand sex is real and matters very much in some contexts, dare to say it, and refuse to capitulate to the demands of trans-identified activists and their enablers.
“Judith Butler”:
An academic who recast sex as optional linguistic performance through prize-winningly unreadable theory, while ignoring the real injustices women face.
‘John Money’:
Another academic, one who framed sex as a childhood social experiment and promoted his work on a castrated boy as proof it worked, while hiding the ruin it caused. That boy, one of a pair of twins, was put through years of coercive genital exams and forced “sexual rehearsal” with his brother, which Money defended as therapeutic.
“Gender ideology”:
McDermott writes that Stryker treats the phrase “gender ideology” as “essentially vacuous, useful primarily for signalling hostility to gender itself.”
Gender ideology is a term that names a specific, contestable set of claims e.g. that gender identity is innate and separable from biological sex, and that it should govern language, law, and medical practice. These claims are open to robust disagreement, and treating the phrase as meaningless closes down debate.
Changing Gender by Susan Stryker: A work of extraordinary energy, hope and emotional force – The Irish Times
Jolyon has two daughters who are trans. I understand that he bought puberty blockers and testosterone for at least one of them. Likewise, Tennant has a non-binary or trans identifying son. So there's no way that they'll back down or acknowledge reality.
They really have set up their children for a lifetime of misery. People might say to their face that they really believe they are the sex they are claiming but that’s just bog standard politeness.
The hormones will, make no mistake, destroy their bodies but everyone else refusing to deny their reality will destroy their minds.
It’s child abuse - destroying a child’s endocrine system, future sexual function, growth pattern and even brain development for clout is unforgivable and should be a crime.
Helen Joyce put it really well when she said that if you’ve been a public trans cultist AND transed your kid, you CAN’T back down cos to do so would mean essentially admitting that you’ve abused your kid and destroyed their future and I’m not sure any parent could live with that. So yeah you kind of have to stick to the lie. To save your sanity and that of your kids.
I think that also explains Webberley desperately insisting that transing kids is fine while looking increasingly haunted with a dead thousand yard stare like a Vietnam vet.
So yeah I can understand that and I don’t envy them. Still doesn’t explain OJ tho.
it’s crazy to me that they all accuse Glinner of being mad but history will judge him as sane and them as the screaming evil nutters
Glad more and more people are loudly speaking out against this.
The chestfeeding issue continues in Ireland. Most of the Irish media are ignoring this - apart from the Irish Daily Mail.
Estradiol is one of the drugs used to induce lactation. Brazilian beef imports have been banned by the EU because the beef is contaminated with (among other things) estradiol.
Why the disturbing absurdity of the 'mansfeeding' kinkster speaker row offends me... by a mother who breastfed her three children and is a qualified lactation consultant | Daily Mail Online
View attachment 4111984
I've said before on here, but needs repeating...
Breastfeeding milk is not just milk. It is a living thing. It kills viruses and bacteria as well as nourishing your baby. The saliva from the baby is absorbed by the breast and sends signals to the mother's body to produce the right type of 'mixture' to the baby. Men's bodies simply cannot do this. It's biology, it's chemistry.
If your baby has a cold, your body makes the right mix, if they are thirsty, if they are hungrier, if they have runny poos, etc etc.
The stuff that is chemically induced by weirdo males trying to lactate doesn't even start to resemble breastmilk. It's a white liquid but there's nothing in it except the chemical crap they've put into themselves. Oh and if they're on estrogen then a female baby will have periods and both sexes of infant will have swollen genitals.
Beyond grim.
(Just to add I'm not slating formula, this isn't a breast/bottle thing. Formula is well studied and is perfectly fine for infants. You'd think that giving a bottle in absence of the lactating mother would be fine, but obviously they're doing this for their own thrill and not the good of the baby)