Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds

Death penalty for these two?


  • Total voters
    169

Nykysnottrans

Repeat after me: I am beautiful.
kiwifarms.net
"You gotta have youth spies" is a literal ContraPoints quote. I think I still have the Livestream where Nyk said that, that he needed youth spies and that he wanted to use Milo Stewart as his youth spy. If John Waters is quoting Nyk, this means he's aware of Nyk's work. Remember when I posted here on the forum about Nyk saying he had once seen John Waters IRL walking down the street in Baltimore but was too shy to talk to him? People disputed that at the time, but now that Nyk is famous he might feel more confident about going up to John Waters and they might meet IRL, though I am sure Nyk will be very disappointed to learn that John Waters apparently doesn't support pediatric transition, which is what the part you quoted suggests.

In other news, academic Alice Dreger discovered that her past nemesis Andrea James is using Kickstart to fund a crowdsourced blacklisting program. She is asking people to report James' fundraiser for the blacklisting program to Kickstarter as targeted harassment of herself and other academics included in James' datacloud prototype used to visualize the blacklisting software:

OMG you cannot make this up! The crazy Andrea James who started my whole foray into "Galileo's Middle Finger" has got a kickstarter going so she can harass every journalist/scholar who outs her as a total jerk! Please RT so @kickstarter sees this!

Here's the craaaaaazy graphic made by Andrea James. I was added to it as a joke and tribute by @JamesCantorPhD, which made me laugh hysterically. (I just took this photo from a t-shirt version that James gave me as a present.)

And here's where I wrote about it in my original article on the subject -- and yes, I thought it was a joke. But apparently it is a joke over which Andrea James can rake in the bucks!
As you can see Alice Dreger immediately understood that such crowdsourced blacklisting programs are about generating blacklists of wrongthinkers that can then be sold to social media companies as plug-and-censor datasets that the likes of Google can use them to train their content cop AI to target wrongthinkers (and their extended social networks) on their platforms. We already know from the banned Project Veritas video that Google is currently training their AI to recognize and censor wrongthink.
 

Trig.Point

I wouldn't start from here.
kiwifarms.net
Delighted that this has been binned. Down side, all the shrieking trannies to deal with.

I saw the photos from Edinburgh pride and while there were one or two gay couples and lesbian couples (usually older from what I saw) pride seemed to be mostly ugly dudes in dresses and lipstick while wearing the trans flag as a cape. (Not so superheros) and straight couples with kids covered in rainbows as allies. We had more insane trannies than I first realised. Eww.
I think it would have been better if it had gone ahead. If a small 'woke' english speaking nation, that has significant social and economic problems, enacted self ID then the world could have seen what happens when the troons get their way.

This was only killed because the adults in the Scottish National Party still exercise control and they have a laser focus on independence. They're politically savvy and they were able to anticipate the problems. They were also clever enough to imply they were only bending to the will of the nasty and influential Terf movement.

I think the best outcome now would be for trans activists to get their way in some small western country, and let the world see what the outcome is. That's the only way public support for a pushback is going to develop.
 
Last edited:

Elwood P. Dowd

I am the lizard king. I can do ... anything.
kiwifarms.net
I think the best outcome now would be for trans activists to get their way in some small western country, and let the world see what the outcome is. That's the only way public support for a pushback is going to develop.
I sort of agree with this, but also wouldn't want any eleven year old girls to have to deal with Jonathan Yaniv drooling over them and offering them tampons in the ladies'.
 

ATaxingWoman

Professional Tax Investigator Princess
kiwifarms.net
I guess personal opinions matter much more.

He said this.. but he’ll still get the anti-tranny label.
He has now been expelled https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teenager-who-went-viral-after-arguing-with-his-teacher-that-there-are-only-two-genders-told-its-not-a4180816.html
Teenager who went viral after arguing with his teacher that there are only two genders barred from returning to the school to finish his education

A teenager who went viral after arguing with his teacher that there are only two genders will not be allowed to return to the school where he filmed the confrontation.

The unnamed 17-year-old secretly filmed the moment he was reprimanded by a teacher at Mearns Academy in Aberdeenshire, who said his view on gender was not in line with school policy.

The video, which was uploaded to Reddit, was shared tens of thousands of times online. It later emerged that the student was suspended after the video emerged, and his school has now confirmed that he will not be allowed to return.

A fundraising page has also been set up for the boy, in an effort to raise up to $10,000 to cover getting him into new education and his living costs.

The boy has claimed staff told him not to return to the school in the wake of the incident.

A man claiming to be the teenager has given a recorded phone interview to the YouTuber who initially shared the story, explaining why he decided to film it and what happened afterwards.

The YouTuber who first highlighted the boy's story said the money will go to him "to help him with whatever he needs, which may include finishing his diploma at a private institution, tuition for college, or even rent and other basic expenses.”

The page has raised more than $2,000 of a $10,000 goal since it was set up on Monday.

In the interview, the boy said the issue first came up in class when they had been asked to sign up for a website and the teacher pointed out there were only two gender options.

“He basically started going off on a tangent about how bad that was and how old fashioned it was and I said: ‘But sir there’s only two genders,’” he said.

“He instantly snapped back and said ‘are you really going to go there’ and I was like yeah there's two genders and he said ‘Murray if you want to have this discussion we can have it outside.’”

The teenager said he was waiting outside feeling “shocked and angry” for 30 minutes before the teacher came out to speak with him, during which he decided to hit record on his phone to "capture his explanation".

The video shows the teacher telling Murray the opinion that there are only two genders is “not acceptable” to the school.

He also says to the teenager: "You're entitled to your opinion", to which the boy responds: "If I am, then why did you kick me out of class? It's not very inclusive."

The teacher replies: "No, I'm sorry, what you were saying is not very inclusive. This is an inclusive school."

The teacher later asks: "Could you please keep that opinion to your own house? Not in this school."

Murray said that, after the exchange went viral, his mum called to say the school had been in contact and “they were not happy”.

During a meeting with Murray and his mum he said the school “emphasised that I wasn’t getting into trouble for what I said but for recording a teacher, which is fair enough because its a known rule not to record your teacher.”

He said they suspended him for one week and told him he would have “strict rules on his phone use” from that point on.

He said they later extended the suspension by another two weeks and told him he could return after the summer break.

“We got called back in for another meeting and they said after having lots of talks with people higher up they said it's not ok for me to finish my education at that school effectively and they told me there’s no chance I can return,” he said.

An Aberdeenshire council spokesperson said Murray was not permanently excluded from the school, but that he had reached the end of his time in compulsory education.

Students cannot be permanently excluded when no longer in compulsory education, which ends at the age of 16 in Scotland.

“The young man in question has not been permanently excluded from Mearns Academy, but rather at the age of 17, has reached the end of his time in compulsory education," they said.

“Staff from the school are working hard to ensure that the young man has a positive future placement either in further education or in an area that he chooses."

It is understood that he was suspended for recording his teacher, rather than the initial conversation.

Murray said he is not sure what he will do now because if he applies for a new school he is worried they will first speak to his old school for a reference.

"This won’t just affect me in this school this could affect me in getting into another school as well," he said.

“(I’m) in limbo, I’m either going to have to find a new school or go to college but it's definitely a big speed bump in my life at the moment."
 

The Vicar

Why yes, I will have some more tea.
kiwifarms.net
Some women have penises. If you won’t sleep with them you’re transphobic

An article by James Kirkup, in The Spectator:

I’m bored with writing about politicians and Brexit so this is an article about genitals instead.


Feel free to make your own jokes about the sentence above, but I promise what follows is not funny. You could not, as the old phrase goes, make it up.


Most of us, I think, like to see ourselves as tolerant and open-minded. Live and let live is the prevailing social attitude of our times. For all the division and acrimony in political debate and online, British society is, by international and historical standards, strikingly liberal and tolerant.


This is a good thing. People should not face abuse or exclusion or hostility because of who or what they are; we all should be judged on what we do.




The eternal question of tolerance is how far it extends. We are all familiar with the old debates about whether toleration requires accepting acts of intolerance that you find distasteful, but that’s not what this article is about. It’s about whether toleration requires accepting genitals that you don’t fancy.


And yes, this relates to transgender people and the notion of transphobia.


A lot of institutions, companies and organisations are terrified of being seen to be transphobic. Even the allegation, however baseless, that someone discriminates against others on the grounds of their gender can cause enormous harm to a reputation.


So keen are public bodies to avoid this fate that they overstep the relevant laws. The Equality Act 2010 says you can’t discriminate against someone because of either their sex (whether they are anatomically male or female) or their ‘gender reassignment’ (such as when a person born male decides to ‘live as a woman’). But quite a lot of councils and other public bodies routinely ignore physical sex and base their work solely on questions of the social concept of ‘gender’.


That’s a problem, and not just because it ignores the law. It’s a problem because it overlooks the physical differences between people born male and people born female. Those differences exist and they matter, for reasons that I hope don’t need setting out here.


After all, most people instinctively understand those differences, because those physical differences are not just a foundation of how societies have organised themselves, they are the basis of sexuality and sexual attraction.


This is, again, something I hope I don’t have to spell out too clearly, but I think most people would accept that when it comes to sexual attraction and activity, anatomy matters: heterosexual people are sexually attracted to people who have different bodies and genitals to their own; homosexual people to those with the same.


But in the looking-glass world of transgender rights, the proposition I’ve just set out is contested and even controversial. For some people, reducing sexuality to a simple question of ‘genital preference’ is reductive, exclusionary and yes, transphobic.


How so? Well, consider the trans-rights mantra that ‘transwomen are women’. It means that someone who feels themselves to be a woman, who says they are a woman, is a woman, full stop. That person’s biology is irrelevant, because the idea of gender trumps the fact of sex. It’s not necessary or even common for transwomen to have sexual reassignment surgery. Some women have penises: get over it.


That raises many questions, including about sexual attraction. If you’re a heterosexual woman attracted to men with male bodies and genitals, would you consider sex with a person who did not have such a body or such genitals? If you’re a man who is sexually excited by women with breasts and vaginas, would you be aroused by someone who had neither?


These aren’t quite the questions asked in a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, but that’s what it boils down to. In the study, people were asked to imagine they were ‘single and looking’ and then to say which of the following they would consider as a ‘potential dating partner’: a cisgender woman; a cisgender man; a transgender woman; a transgender man; or a person with a non-binary gender identification. (‘cis’ means ‘not trans’. The simple fact that the study used the term is telling, since not everyone accepts the term.)


You might not be completely flabbergasted to learn that 87.5 per cent of the respondents said they would only consider ‘cis’ people as potential sexual partners.


And if that was all the study and its authors had to say, I wouldn’t be writing about it: ‘dog bites man’ isn’t a story.


But one of the authors of that study wasn’t willing to confine herself to accurately and fairly reporting the results of that study.


That author is Karen Blair. To give her full bio, she is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.


In a blog, Blair has been pondering her findings and what they tell us about how tolerant we are. She doesn’t seem happy that most people wouldn’t consider dating a trans person, or, as she puts it, would ‘exclude’ them from their pool of potential romantic partners.


Refusing to consider dating trans people, Blair suggests, contributes to trans people suffering mental and physical harm:


‘What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities.’
Why might people be reluctant to consider dating trans people? Blair doesn’t know, because her study didn’t ask them. But that doesn’t stop her speculating. It’s because of prejudice and ignorance, she says:


‘…exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman.’
And what does Blair suggest we all do about this? The — delicately implied — answer might not surprise you:


‘Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating, and thus the article does not suggest that any single individual must include trans people within their dating pool. However, the article does suggest that examining and following the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people.
In other words, it is one thing to make space for trans people within our workplaces, schools, washrooms, and public spaces, but it is another to see them included within our families and most intimate of spaces, our romantic relationships. We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools; at the very least, on a hypothetical basis.’
Got that? Toleration doesn’t just mean treating transgender people fairly and equally, ensuring they have the same rights, freedoms and entitlements as anyone else. It means being willing to have sex with people, not on the basis of the body and genitals they have, but because of the gender they say they are.


It means that straight men who exclusively seek sexual partners with vaginas should instead expand their ‘prospective dating pool’ to include people who describe themselves as women and just happen to have penises. It means that lesbians who incline towards sex with people who have vaginas, also need to widen their horizons and be open to sex with women who have penises.


And if you’re not prepared to have sex with a transgender person, you’re contributing to a transphobic social climate that causes real mental and physical harm to trans people. If you want to be really progressive and inclusive, you know what to do.


Here, a thought experiment is in order. Try to imagine this line of argument being pursued in a different context, away from the transgender debate.


Imagine someone making a serious and sustained argument of the following sort:


‘Here is a group of people. You say you aren’t willing to consider having sex with them. That means you are causing those people real harm and you are a bad person. You should put aside your reservations and reconsider having sex with them.’
What would we think about that argument? What words would we use to describe these notions and the people who promote them? I leave it to others to answer that question.


Here’s another question. So what? Is one short, silly blog by a non-famous junior academic worthy of attention? I think so. Blair’s blog was published by Cambridge University Press, an offshoot of one of the world’s great universities. Blair has made similar points in Psychology Today too.


Like it or not, that matters. It lends weight, legitimacy. If it’s OK to say this stuff at Cambridge University Press or in Psychology Today, it’s OK to say it in other places too. This is how the window of what is acceptable to discuss moves. This is normalisation.


I recently spoke to a lesbian friend who is active in the Labour party who said that she routinely comes under social, and sometimes quite explicit, pressure from ‘progressive’ friends to sleep with transwomen. ‘I’m sick of being told I should like penis. I don’t like penis. That’s why I’m a lesbian. That’s the whole point,’ she said.


Since I started writing about sex and gender last year, I’ve had a lot of conversations with women – and a few men – who say they worry that some of the people promoting transgenderism are advocates of ‘queer theory’, and are engaged in a quite deliberate attempt to break down societal norms and barriers in order to make it a lot easier for people with penises to put those penises into a much greater range of people than is currently permitted.


I generally view that worry with a fair bit of scepticism; it all sounds a bit far-fetched and even conspiratorial. But then I read things like Karen Blair’s blog, and I wonder.
 

Elwood P. Dowd

I am the lizard king. I can do ... anything.
kiwifarms.net
Since I started writing about sex and gender last year, I’ve had a lot of conversations with women – and a few men – who say they worry that some of the people promoting transgenderism are advocates of ‘queer theory’, and are engaged in a quite deliberate attempt to break down societal norms and barriers in order to make it a lot easier for people with penises to put those penises into a much greater range of people than is currently permitted.
"Currently permitted?" What strange language. The only permission you lack to stick your penis anywhere in 2019 is the consent of the other party, the one where said penis would be stuck.
 

Safir

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
"Currently permitted?" What strange language. The only permission you lack to stick your penis anywhere in 2019 is the consent of the other party, the one where said penis would be stuck.
Yes, and they want to make it so that autogynephiles can get "permissions" from women under duress. "Fuck me or you get fired. Fuck me or you go on a mass harassment list. Fuck me or your children are taken away. Fuck me or else."
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
kiwifarms.net
Didn't someone on here do the math and you're like.... 100x or something astronomically high LESS likely to be murdered if you're trans
I think it may have been me and others have too. The numbers are on this long but good read:http://archive.li/Jh7Im



Fuck me or you go on a mass harassment list. Fuck me or your children are taken away. Fuck me or else."
The usual public service announcement that anyone trying to break down the boundaries that protect us and our children from sexually inappropriate situations should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

James Kirkup is one of the few people writing in the UK mainstream about this issue. He’s done some great work but even he has to parse his words very carefully.

The real Pulitzer Prize winning article will be the one that pulls apart the web of influence that stretches from the UN (the dude who got gender identity into article 8 of the rights of the child and was later done for being a pedo) through the NHS, police and government. And how that has begun to erode good boundaries (because many boundaries ARE good) that protect children, and women, from perverts.

Basically, a trello board of the Rat King in the UK.
 

Abortions4All

"You're on Kiwi Farms? How often do you go there?"
kiwifarms.net
"Currently permitted?" What strange language. The only permission you lack to stick your penis anywhere in 2019 is the consent of the other party, the one where said penis would be stuck.
The sly reference there is to pedophilia. A lot of queer theory is about breaking down boundaries and being able to freely identify into and out of categories, and a focus on a consistent-since-birth sense of identity that must be discovered through sexual exploration. You don't have to dig too deep to find pedophiles and pedo apologists among queer theorists. Grownups telling little kids "puberty is optional" should be looked at with alarm.

In the UK, a multitude of safeguarding provisions have been eliminated in order to keep trans people from crying discrimination. Among the new rules, the Girl Guides (UK Girl Scouts) aren't allowed to tell parents or kids if a trans troop member or leader will be housed with their little girls at overnight camps. One of the men working at their main safeguarding charities for children links to his puppy play fetish from his public LinkedIn profile, and anyone criticizing the appropriateness of this has been told they're homophobic prudes.

In the US, we've got "drag queen story hours" that (even after being found in some cities to have been places for actual pedos to groom kids) are being treated as good clean fun while parents let a clown-makeup man in a dress lay down and invite children to climb on his groin. Anyone who's against it must be a homophobe, and even bringing up the possibility of pedophilia in an adult acting like this is bigotry. Pride parades and fairs in both the US and UK involve BDSM promotion for kids, with one notable example this year hosting kids' toys and a ball pit in a tent while dressed in leather dog costumes and spiked collars, playing with kids with a full erection visible. Again, anyone mentioning the insane inappropriateness of this was tarred immediately as a conservative.

It's sexual abuse to show a child images of this kind of thing, but take them to what amounts to a live gay fetish sex show and as long as everyone keeps some fabric over their genitals, we're supposed to cheer about how progressive it is.

The narrative these adults want to paint is that children are naturally sexually curious and kinky. The next step in this argument is that they should be given agency to explore sexual relationships with adults. This is exactly the argument pedophiles used in the 1970s. These are people who want to use children's natural curiosity about anything unknown to abuse kids, and pretend that the abuse is love and worldliness.
 

Lissamine Green

kiwifarms.net
Pride parades and fairs in both the US and UK involve BDSM promotion for kids, with one notable example this year hosting kids' toys and a ball pit in a tent while dressed in leather dog costumes and spiked collars, playing with kids with a full erection visible. Again, anyone mentioning the insane inappropriateness of this was tarred immediately as a conservative.
I heard about almost everything in your post except this one. What city did that abomination happen in?
 

Malagor the dank omen

Reikland's Official Cattle Molester
kiwifarms.net
One of the men working at their main safeguarding charities for children links to his puppy play fetish from his public LinkedIn profile
bringing up the possibility of pedophilia in an adult acting like this is bigotry
playing with kids with a full erection visible
These are people who want to use children's natural curiosity about anything unknown to abuse kids
Can we say now that reliying on public schooling or living in a city is detrimental for children? Because what are the odds that eventually they will make mandatory for all parents to make kids participate in this kind of horrible shit?
I've said it many times before and i'll say it again: Pedophilia is a problem only fire and bullets can solve.
 

s0mbra

Cheers love, the cavalry is queer!
kiwifarms.net
The sly reference there is to pedophilia. A lot of queer theory is about breaking down boundaries and being able to freely identify into and out of categories, and a focus on a consistent-since-birth sense of identity that must be discovered through sexual exploration. You don't have to dig too deep to find pedophiles and pedo apologists among queer theorists. Grownups telling little kids "puberty is optional" should be looked at with alarm.

In the UK, a multitude of safeguarding provisions have been eliminated in order to keep trans people from crying discrimination. Among the new rules, the Girl Guides (UK Girl Scouts) aren't allowed to tell parents or kids if a trans troop member or leader will be housed with their little girls at overnight camps. One of the men working at their main safeguarding charities for children links to his puppy play fetish from his public LinkedIn profile, and anyone criticizing the appropriateness of this has been told they're homophobic prudes.

In the US, we've got "drag queen story hours" that (even after being found in some cities to have been places for actual pedos to groom kids) are being treated as good clean fun while parents let a clown-makeup man in a dress lay down and invite children to climb on his groin. Anyone who's against it must be a homophobe, and even bringing up the possibility of pedophilia in an adult acting like this is bigotry. Pride parades and fairs in both the US and UK involve BDSM promotion for kids, with one notable example this year hosting kids' toys and a ball pit in a tent while dressed in leather dog costumes and spiked collars, playing with kids with a full erection visible. Again, anyone mentioning the insane inappropriateness of this was tarred immediately as a conservative.

It's sexual abuse to show a child images of this kind of thing, but take them to what amounts to a live gay fetish sex show and as long as everyone keeps some fabric over their genitals, we're supposed to cheer about how progressive it is.

The narrative these adults want to paint is that children are naturally sexually curious and kinky. The next step in this argument is that they should be given agency to explore sexual relationships with adults. This is exactly the argument pedophiles used in the 1970s. These are people who want to use children's natural curiosity about anything unknown to abuse kids, and pretend that the abuse is love and worldliness.
Got any sauce for all these claims?
Legit curious and wanna read some horror
 

Abortions4All

"You're on Kiwi Farms? How often do you go there?"
kiwifarms.net
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino