Facebook page for this site is CENSORED

unpublishedDesperate, depraved autogynephiles and their enablers at Facebook could not tolerate free speech about their delusion. I have “appealed,” but would be very surprised if they restored the page.

To give some context: A high proportion of men who insist (against all biological reality and common sense) that they are somehow “women” are computer engineers of one sort or another. Many social media web sites (Facebook, Twitter and many others) are based in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region so extremely “progressive” that if you voiced any small doubts about whether male transgenderists are truly “women,” it’s quite possible you would be physically attacked, fired from your job and disowned by your family and friends. And of course, male transgenderist computer engineers play important roles in many of these companies.

As a side note, I would bet that in the United States, there are more male-to-fake-“female” fantasists working in computer engineering than in any other field. A  few well-known examples:

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Facebook page for this site is CENSORED

  1. “Depraved” over sexuality, wow. Go join your nearest fundie group and sing some praises to Mike Pence with them. (Not Trump. Trump is actually more liberal on the issue. Pence!)

    Like

    1. Trump is going to do his best to get Roe vs Wade overturned, but as long as he supports the right of males to pee where they please, he’s a liberal, right? Anyway, Trump has said he is going to undo Obama’s Title IX trans directive and push the bathroom debate down to the state/school level, so I don’t know what parallel universe you are living in. I guess it’s the same one where people born with male reproductive organs can be women, lmao.

      Yes, AGPs are depraved. I’ve read many of their posts in their own words, and as a woman, it’s disgusting to see womanhood fetishized like this and to be bullied into playing along. Forcibly involving other people in your sex life is unethical. Autogynephiles get sexually aroused by wearing women’s clothing, being referred to as female, and entering women’s-only spaces — and they campaign for their right to PUBLICLY do all three. They want to make it the law that you must (incorrectly) refer to them as if they were female. Meanwhile they’re getting a little sexual thrill out of it, and out of listening to women piss in the next stall over, too.

      AGPs are really ruining everything for gay transsexuals (the non-fetishists). The “gatekeeping” that the AGP TAs fight so hard against was set up to facilitate treatment for actual transsexuals while keeping out the AGPs, who do not actually have any problem that can be treated through transition. As a result, the rates of AGPs in trans communities have skyrocketed.

      Many women once felt fairly safe sharing space with actual transsexuals, who A. don’t have a penis B. are usually not sexually interested in women C. worked hard to “pass” and not cause trouble or distress in women’s spaces. Now 85% of MTTs are these AGPs who have no intention of actually getting the chop, and actually choose to masturbate regularly to maintain penile function while on HRT. Most of them are heterosexual (interested in women) and engage in gross predatory behavior towards lesbians, despite still having a penis. Very few of them actually “pass” as well as the transsexuals do, and those who pass in terms of appearance do not pass in terms of behavior. They act out in ways that are totally unbelievable for a woman raised in this culture, because the male entitlement of the average AGP is staggering. They feel absolutely entitled to women’s sexual attention and emotional labour as well as a totally nonsensical entitlement to womanhood as a first-order concept.

      So of course, more and more women are waking up and saying, erm, well actually, maybe we’re not OK having these “trans” folk in our spaces anymore. Because the actual transsexuals, wo’ve been around for decades, are usually pretty OK blokes. The AGPs who have recently started transitioning in droves are both disgusting and dangerous to women and women’s rights. Women who still support “identity-based” legislation are typically just those who haven’t noticed the difference yet (and I know because I was one of those women). So go ahead AGPs, keep making noise about how you want women to choke on your female penis and all that, you only open the eyes of every woman who sees it when you say such things.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. it is no more “depraved” for alleged AGPs to wear female clothing in public than it is for gay couples to hug and kiss in public. It is no more “depraved” for alleged AGPs to enter public women’s spaces than it is for gay couples to claim the public institution of marriage. It’s actually that simple – either you want people with any nonstandard sexuality to keep it strictly private or else be labeled “depraved”, or you don’t. There is no legitimate way to draw a line here,even if one accepts, for the sake of the debate, that alleged AGP is strictly a sexuality.

        As for Trump, yes, he is more for states’ rights, though he did criticize the North Carolina law (the stuff that the fundies passed, with your type as cheerleaders). I think this squares out at him being for these things decided as locally as possible, and the NC law actually overrode a Charlotte ordinance in violation of this principle. So with his views, you end up with liberal localities and conservative ones. You get to choose your location between where it’s only safe to be gay if you keep it private, and where it’s perfectly okay to be any form of trans in public. It would be fun seeing alleged feminists flock from the like of California to the likes of Tennessee even while LGBT people go the other way. There might be nice house exchanges to be had!

        Like

      2. Aren’t you still defending the transgender orthodoxy by saying transsexuals that have their penises cut off as being ‘ok blokes’? They’re still dressing up as women. They still treat their pseudo-vaginas as real ones. And like it or not, they are still autogynephiles that took it to the next level and who started the entire transgender acceptance movement.

        You can’t make easy cuts for men like that. What, do you think that just because they’re eunuchs they’re on your side? Get a grip, Carla.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. @ramendik:
    ‘Depraved’ comes from late Middle English (15th century), with the sense ‘to pervert the meaning or intention of something.’ Before that it comes from Old French ‘depraver’ or Latin ‘depravare,’ from de- ‘down, thoroughly’ + pravus ‘crooked, perverse.’ I might instead have used ‘debauched,’ which comes from late 16th century French ‘débaucher’: ‘to turn away from one’s duty.’ Perhaps the words are too highly charged, but I consider them carefully and find them useful in my rhetorical strategy. I am a polemicist from way back, but I do in fact care about people.

    My position is informed by a concern to protect the rights and safety of women and girls; as well as by a career as a clinical epidemiologist in which a main activity has been to assess the quality (i.e. the ‘certainty’) of scientific evidence. In the present context, evidence for biological ‘gender’ has been weighed in the balance and found wanting — it’s totally crap. I maintain that the activist- and industry-driven social push and manufactured social ‘consent’ for ‘transgenderism’ — a superfluous concept — reinforces patriarchal sex role stereotypes, results in unnecessary and dangerous medical ‘treatment,’ and harms & endangers women and girls. It’s also a big step onto a slippery slope, with pedophilia likely the next taboo to be made socially acceptable. We’re already told that it’s OK to sterilize healthy young children and perform irreversible drastic surgery on healthy young teenagers. Bizarre! First, do no harm? Most of these kids ‘desist’ if left unmolested by medical intervention and often grow up to be gay or lesbian adults.

    You insist that transgenderism is no big deal, is a social justice issue parallel to gay rights and does not pose any threat to women and girls. Sorry, I disagree. We’re going to disagree strongly about some things in life, while we might strongly agree about lots of other things.

    I don’t care about self-expression or clothes. Go ahead, let your freak flag fly, to paraphrase Hendrix. I do care when this self-expression and non-compliance with sex role stereotypes is promoted heavily as based in an innate biologic reality and as a social good — despite essentially nil evidence in favor of these positions and plenty of evidence against them; and despite evidence of harms.

    Taking self-expression and ‘non-conforming’ behavior to the ‘next level’ — insisting that it’s biological, innate, inborn, inevitable — is the signature of autogynephile activism. This is how they hope to ‘take the sex out of the equation,’ in the words of a prominent transgender activist, concealing the erotic charge at the root of most male transgenderism and thus avoiding embarrassment. They have now got the whole trans bandwagon preaching this nonsense.

    Thanks for your comments here; we disagree strongly about all of this, but thank you anyway. I may not reply further in this thread.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Great linguistic analysis. So “depraved” is based on turning away from the meaning of intention of something. As the matter is sexuality, your use of “depraved” for alleged AGPs is necessarily based – in your very own analysis – on ascribing a normative meaning or intention to sexuality.

      “Debauched”, in your own analysis, is even more interesting – “to turn away from one’s duty”. It therefore presupposes that a duty exists, some particular duty that alleged AGPs turn away from. This “duty” is something ascribed to them by virtue of being male – so therefore it is gender, by the WHO definition of gender.

      So there is a normative meaning/intention to sexuality. And there is gender-based duty. All of this from your very own words, I was not the one to dig into the meanings.

      Are you saying you are not a conservative? Just how are you not a conservative? The only difference I could possibly imagine is that, perhaps, your definition of the proper meaning/intention of sexuality is broader than the traditional conservative version and encompasses certain same-sex unions.

      Like

  3. Depraved: As I say, I really don’t care how anyone dresses. I also don’t care about sexuality between or among adults or individually. I do care that the vast proportion of society is now demanded to respond to autogynephiles (and other so-called transgender people) in ways that please and ‘validate’ them – including our suspension of disbelief in what they’re saying. We are being gaslighted into total submission to an ideology, and we had damn well better shut up and like it.

    Debauched: Everyone has duties in this world. You may disagree, but I feel that it is our duty to help others when we can. As adults, it is also our duty to ensure, to the extent we are able, that vulnerable populations are safe and have adequate resources. It’s not a duty, but if we have enough wits we should be discerning in what we do. There are huge global and local inequalities in terms of human rights, civil rights, the environment, poverty, exposure to violence and so much more. As a social class comprising half the world’s population, females nevertheless are lower in patriarchal society’s class hierarchy and are at much higher risk than males for any of those inequalities, to put it mildly. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are splurged every day on the rich world’s entertainment & frivolity and billions more are blown in fucking shit up worse. Resources are scarce and are yielded grudgingly for improving people’s lives – women’s lives – in substantive ways.

    In this chaotic, over-stimulated arena, a small number of men who purport to care about women so much that they want to be women – and convince themselves that they really are women – demand that society make immediate, enormous changes that will help them to feel validated. They insist that millions of public dollars, maybe billions before long, be allocated for their ‘hormone’ drugs and shit like ‘facial feminization surgery,’ voice lessons and other ‘essential health care they need to survive.’ Huge funding is required to surgically mangle confused men and women, boys and girls; prescribe dangerous lifelong pharmaceutical regimens and promote self-confirming academic ‘research’ about transgenderism. In the USA context alone, there is no approved funding for lots of necessary medical interventions and supplies for high-burden health conditions, nor is research being funded for many conditions. The media, academia and government talk incessantly about transgenderism and not, for example, about the oil pipeline in North Dakota and the violent militarized police response to Indigenous and other protestors. You may have seen on Google today something about “National Transgender Awareness Week.” Why? Aren’t there more important things we should be aware of than the sad musings of a sad alleged ‘community’ who have bought the lie? How about an awareness week about the problem of men who are not doing their duty as fathers, like lots of these guys?

    The whole system is an insane echo chamber of narcissism, greed and frivolity and autogynephiles are currently high on the list of noise makers. They didn’t used to be. This is why I suggest that they are not doing their duty – they are mostly males, and mostly straight white males at that, making themselves the center of attention. Bruce Jenner is truly their patron saint. Instead of just putting on a wig or a dress and doing whatever made them happy, by themselves, or consciously out in the world as men, stretching the boundaries of what it means to be male, they try instead to make ‘female’ an optional category, i.e. ‘non-male.’ They require so much more from everyone. In a world with pandemic suffering and inequality, much of which could actually be eased, they demand full attention, compliance and enormous funding. Who benefits? No one. Nothing is resolved; nobody changes sex; it’s a huge wasteful charade. There is a lot of whistling in the dark. The high suicide rates of post-op trans people suggest that many come to realize how they have ruined their bodies and become permanent patients; and are not actually happier. They are harmed; but far more women are harmed. If any man can now just say he’s a woman, beard and all, and be given all necessary protections for women, then what IS a woman? Are women’s lives any different from men’s? Is being female just a ‘feeling’? Why must women bear the burden of dealing with these confused men and their ‘feminine feelings’?

    Anyway, they are not doing their duty.

    I don’t ‘identify as’ conservative, liberal or any other political category.

    Have a good night.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “If any man can now just say he’s a woman, beard and all, and be given all necessary protections for women, then what IS a woman?”

      “We can’t just have equality, women require special protection” logic. The stuff that killed the ERA.

      In reality, this just means society can’t tell anyone, that’s ANYONE, that they are “a woman and must be this” or “a man and must be that”.

      As for “validation” of people’s sexuality – after marriage itself was changed to validate people’s sexuality, there is really no argument about changing mere pronouns, which are just an incident of language.

      Mentioning of other social causes is a typical deflection tactic for right-wingers. “Ah these f***ts want marriage/antidiscrimination/whatever, why don’t they help us instead against the Muslims who actually want to chop their heads off”. Well, perhaps they should help about certain Jihadi regimes, but this does not mean they have to lay everything aside in their own country. Applies to your deflection just as well. Also there actually are trans people involved in social justice for many of the cases you mention, and your energy, too, might be spent on them more productively than trying to control people’s alleged sexuality.

      “Women” don’t “have to bear the burden”, this is just outright baloney. Just like the redefinition of marriage did not actually make any married people non-married, the transgender redefinition of womanhood dos not make any women less women. It’s actually the very same Obergefell “choice of intimate identity and beliefs” redefinition. But you do have some hope now if Trump appoints judges who might overturn Obergefell, though he seems to say he does not care about that one.

      There are no “immediate enormous” changes. At least not compared to changes in marriage, anyway, and if you add changes in parenthood, like the idea that one can have two mothers – a word previously even more biology-linked than “woman” – then any trans-related changes are dwarfed. Google Miller v Jenkins, when a female former civil partner won a lawsuit against a child’s own mother for custody of the child – and compare to the little matter of enforced name/pronoun recognition in official parlance.

      And transgender research is just one bit on a very, very long list.

      None of this makes much sense on its own. But it does make sense when it joins the general reactionary program. They want to cut funding for lots of research that they see as inappropriate – from gender studies to climate change – transgender fits right in,and the total savings would really amount to something serious. They want to restore gender-based duty systems – your logic fits right in. And of course they do want to protect women, whom the see as delicate creatures in need of constant special protection. Especially from depraved men – that is,those who don’t keep their sexuality to its true meaning, a decent life in marriage. (I would suspect some conservatives can agreewith including same-sex marriage here).

      You don’t have to identify as a conservative. That’s true. I think they will welcome you even more warmly as a feminist who “gets it”.

      Like

      1. Damn, I can’t decide if feminists or transgenders are more retarded.

        “In reality, this just means society can’t tell anyone, that’s ANYONE, that they are “a woman and must be this” or “a man and must be that”. – You can’t change biology. And if women want equal rights based on them being born women, they aren’t going to get it if their alleged enemies – the patriarchal males – are allowed to get sex changes and usurp the definition. A woman can only be a woman if she is BORN ONE, and a man is a man if he is born one. Society is now saying biological determinism doesn’t exist unless you are gay or transgender. You can be born straight or gay, but not male or female. Chromosomes, what are those?

        “As for “validation” of people’s sexuality – after marriage itself was changed to validate people’s sexuality, there is really no argument about changing mere pronouns, which are just an incident of language.” – That’s what the Bolsheviks said when they destroyed the churches. You change the language, you change how people think. I wasn’t aware Nazi-like ideology was alright so long as you’re doing it in the name of tolerance.

        “Mentioning of other social causes is a typical deflection tactic for right-wingers. “Ah these f***ts want marriage/antidiscrimination/whatever, why don’t they help us instead against the Muslims who actually want to chop their heads off”. – That IS true. But we are more concerned about a vocal minority that wants free stuff and validation for their delusion. But hey, let the changing demographics sort them out. Only white people have time for them, remember.

        “Well, perhaps they should help about certain Jihadi regimes, but this does not mean they have to lay everything aside in their own country.” – Allahu Akbar. Guess you’ll be wearing a hijab now.

        “Applies to your deflection just as well. Also there actually are trans people involved in social justice for many of the cases you mention, and your energy, too, might be spent on them more productively than trying to control people’s alleged sexuality.” – You’re fine with changing language and societal standards based on the demands of a mentally ill minority that refuses to debate anyone and demands that those who question them be put in jail. A single dime shouldn’t be spent on them, but hey, the lunatics are running the asylum.

        “Women” don’t “have to bear the burden”, this is just outright baloney. Just like the redefinition of marriage did not actually make any married people non-married, the transgender redefinition of womanhood dos not make any women less women.” – HAHAHAHAHAHA OH WOW.

        Men who get surgery to remove their penises and take estrogen are not women. They desire to change the definitions so they can IDENTIFY as women because by them saying so. Yes, it WILL demean women, because biology will not matter and people cannot make proper distinctions as men in drag will believe they aren’t getting the same treatment as real women. Women can’t even be referred to as mothers, because that offends both MtF and FtM transgenders, as motherhood is not exclusive to women.

        And yes, the redefinition of marriage did make changes. The logic of ‘it doesn’t affect you’ only belongs to those living in a glass house. It certainly does affect people. More so since GAY AND LESBIANS DO NOT MARRY. They had civil unions beforehand. But then they decided they wanted marriage and threatened that if they didn’t get it they’d kill themselves. We are now seeing the same thing with transgenders.

        The transgender redefinition of womanhood separates real, biological women from reality, because a few men hate what women have.

        “It’s actually the very same Obergefell “choice of intimate identity and beliefs” redefinition. But you do have some hope now if Trump appoints judges who might overturn Obergefell, though he seems to say he does not care about that one.” – He said he’d leave it up to the States, and Obergefell was based on the loud demands of another vocal minority that doesn’t even marry in the first place.

        “There are no “immediate enormous” changes. At least not compared to changes in marriage, anyway, and if you add changes in parenthood, like the idea that one can have two mothers – a word previously even more biology-linked than “woman” – then any trans-related changes are dwarfed. Google Miller v Jenkins, when a female former civil partner won a lawsuit against a child’s own mother for custody of the child – and compare to the little matter of enforced name/pronoun recognition in official parlance.”

        Lots of double-speak here. No, a child cannot have two mothers. Every child needs a mother and father. Those who do not have fathers tend to have more emotional and violence problems as they enter adulthood. See the African-American community for a good example.

        It’s certainly not biology linked and you making the excuse that transgenders won’t affect anyone is a tired old card that needs to be thrown out. OF COURSE it’ll affect everyone. They are MEN that say they are WOMEN because they feel they are, and real women are thrown under the bus. You can’t have transgender rights and women’s rights. You can only have one.

        “And transgender research is just one bit on a very, very long list.” – Anything that proves transgenderism is harmful and does not belong in any society is banned. Any research that shows surgery does not work is banned. Only research that says it’s normal, fine, and completely in line with evolution get published. Do not tell me otherwise. You are looking for things that validate your view.

        “None of this makes much sense on its own. But it does make sense when it joins the general reactionary program.” – You’re right. Things are changing. You must pick a side.

        “They want to cut funding for lots of research that they see as inappropriate – from gender studies to climate change – transgender fits right in,and the total savings would really amount to something serious.” – Both of those ‘research’ fields really are useless. Gender and Transgender studies both need to go because they produce people like you: disassociated with reality, wanting change yet not aware of the consequences, and firmly denying biological roles.

        “They want to restore gender-based duty systems – your logic fits right in. And of course they do want to protect women, whom the see as delicate creatures in need of constant special protection.” – Not if they’re men dressing as women who statistically have higher rates of violent crime. Why, one just killed a lesbian couple and their son while burning the house down. No major charges because the dude is transgender. Transgenders are the ones that need to be coddled and protected. Why? Because after gay marriage was said and done, the smaller, more depraved minority had to be satiated.

        “Especially from depraved men – that is,those who don’t keep their sexuality to its true meaning, a decent life in marriage. (I would suspect some conservatives can agreewith including same-sex marriage here).” – They don’t have decent lives in marriage. They have some of the most unstable marriages there are, not forgetting the domestic violence. No Cinderella dreams here.

        “You don’t have to identify as a conservative. That’s true. I think they will welcome you even more warmly as a feminist who “gets it”. – They’re both in the same bed together. At the end of the day, only one is going to be right. It’s not the transgenders who want to redefine womanhood and claim it for themselves. It’s not for the feminists who, for the longest time, denied biological differences.

        It’ll be for the right-wingers. You better be ready.

        Like

      2. Yay, you’re right-wing. I step aside, I’m not the one to poop a party between new friends (especially since you’re partying anyway, you have Pence as VP-elect, you have Sessions in the mix as well).

        I was basically arguing that the OP is on your team now and she appeared somewhat unsure. Thanks for proving my point. Have fun.

        Starting a big “social conservative vs social libertarian” battle is probably useless at this place and time. But if you want, I can help you out on a major weakness in your position. You seem to describe “feminists” as a unified movement. I’m not sure that even existed any time post female suffrage, and it certainly does not exist now. They have quite a few strands in there. Taking some feminist’s statement and extrapolating them to all feminists (whether smart, dumb or whatever) is a semi-automatic round in your foot.

        Like

  4. ”You may have seen on Google today something about “National Transgender Awareness Week.” Why? Aren’t there more important things we should be aware of than the sad musings of a sad alleged ‘community’ who have bought the lie? How about an awareness week about the problem of men who are not doing their duty as fathers, like lots of these guys?”

    How wonderful that would be, Awesome Cat. I have spent the last week speaking with my child’s teachers, who have raised a lot of concerns, and will be speaking to a child psychologist next week. I don’t pretend to be a perfect parent myself; my ex, however, was invited to address our local LGBTQ society on the joys and sorrows of being a trans-parent. Too bad he didn’t take into account the actual children involved; his own. ….Depraved means morally bad according to the OED. It fits.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Obviously he was more concerned playing dress up and cosplaying as a woman than being a father to his own child.

        Yes, I believe that qualifies as shitty behaviour.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.