Ireland might make its gender recognition laws looser.

If only things were this simple in *current year*

For a long time, I’ve tried my best to understand and make sense of the transgender issue, but even after all this time, I’m still no closer to doing so. It’s not that I don’t feel any sense of sympathy or compassion for what these people are going through. It’s just that after all this time, I’ve yet to see any compelling scientific evidence that a quote, unquote “sex change” actually does meet the criteria for turning people into the opposite sex. As far as I can see, all it does is take vulnerable people with severe mental health problems, irreparably mutilate their bodies, and turn them into a poor imitation of what they aspire to be.

I would say that you need to check into your local Miniluv for re-education, so we can fix those doubleplusungood thoughts of yours.

Yet despite these very real reasons that make many people, myself included, feel skeptical, the issue only seems to be getting more attention and becoming a much bigger deal, with absolutely no attempt being made to address our skepticisms . I think really since around the time that Bruce Jenner transitioned, the issue has been heavily pushed by the media and the political establishment as the next big “civil rights frontier” to overcome. We’re led to believe that the reason why we’re hearing so much more about it today is because of “greater awareness”, “greater understanding”, and that more transpeople are “finding the courage” to come forward because of this.

I personally don’t buy it myself. I am not a scientist, so I don’t have the empirical evidence to back up what I’m about to say, but this is my own personal belief, based on observation and contemplation. I personally believe that there are two different kinds of transgender people, similar in a way to how there are two different types of diabetes. Type A, are people who are born with their brain wired differently than what is typical for their biological sex. These people are naturally transgender, and make up that tiny minority who have always existed. There’s probably no way that these people will ever be able to come to terms with their biological sex, and while I don’t personally think that transitioning is a good idea in general, it’s probably the best solution for addressing their specific cases.

Type B on the other hand are a product of nurture rather than nature, and are I believe, the vast majority of cases, particularly the cases that have come in the past few years. The average human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 25 and even then, neuroplasticity, is a thing. The human brain can rewire itself based on external stimuli. Therefore, is it really that hard to consider the possibility that when the media is heavily pushing something, and SJW parents and teachers are encouraging it, that this can have an effect on how children think, and this could be what actually accounts for the massive rise in transgender kids the last few years?

The article doesn’t even attempt to answer the question in the headline at all. It does however draw attention to the fact that the number of children looking to transition increased by 1000% in just 5 years. Why isn’t this a cause for alarm exactly?
My guess, is promoting it so hard at a time when society is collapsing. When life sucks, and people don’t understand why exactly, is it really hard to believe that they might conclude that the problem is something internal rather than external? “I’m not unhappy because I live in a fucked up world. I must be unhappy because of my gender identity. If I transition, I’ll feel better.”

What a strange coincidence here. The parent is trans, and the child is too. Clearly the child came to this decision zirself, and not because of the prompting of the parent.

So if my theory is correct, and the majority of the recent transgender cases fall into the Type B category, then would it not be logical to try and prevent these kids from dealing with the mental health issues in the first place, and potentially have to undergo the highly damaging surgery, by not glamourising it so much, and by not drawing so much attention to it? If it wasn’t being pushed so heavily, there would be much less cases of the Type B, and therefore much less children having to suffer the associated problems of struggling with their gender identity. By all means, have facilities in place to try and identify and help those who fall into the Type A category, but as things stand, the media and activists conflate both the majority Type B and the minority Type A into one category, and in my opinion, this is completely wrong.

What could possibly go wrong? You know other than the possibility that they might fall into the 70-80%, who end up changing their minds and regretting their transition.

Anyway, that was a pretty long introduction to what is in fact, a very brief article that I wished to share.

From Irish Examiner

A review of Ireland’s gender recognition laws is to be brought before the Cabinet this morning.

It reportedly recommends making it easier for children to change their gender.

Sounds legit.

Commissioned by Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty, it is understood the report recommends letting children officially change their gender without going to court.

Regina Doherty, who is a high ranking member of Ireland’s Fine Gael party.

Never forget, that Fine Gael are supposed to be Ireland’s “right wing conservative party”. They brought Ireland the Gay Marriage referendum. They brought Ireland the Abortion referendum. They’ve talked about making free (ie., tax-payer funded) contraception readily available. Our current Taoiseach is best buds with that snivelling worm, Justin Trudeau. And now, we’re getting this rhetoric from them.

But yeah people are still delusional enough to think that they’re totally a right wing conservative party, because the Overton window has moved so far to the left, that full on Communists are now mainstream, and centrist parties like Fine Gael, seem far right in comparison.

Children under 16 would be allowed to register the change on documents as long as they have parental consent.

Parental consent? Oh dear that’s such an outdated attitude to have. Why should parents have any say in any life changing decisions that their children wish to make? I think maybe Leo should take some advice from how things are done in the country of his good buddy Trudeau.

“Taking children away from their parents is OK… except when Trump does it to illegal immigrants of course.”

It would take the decision out of the courts unless there is a situation where one parent does not consent to the change or if there are mental health concerns.

I’m sure we can guess which parent the court will side with in such a scenario.

There have been calls for the minister to publish the report findings, which will likely be done after it is noted by Cabinet this morning.

I look forward to seeing the report. Actually to be honest, I really don’t care.

I can’t see this situation ending well at all. I can see many vulnerable kids with mental health problems, being encouraged to do something that is not in their best interests at all. And then when they end up realising that they’ve made a mistake, as so many do, and feel as if suicide is their only option, because they’ve destroyed their bodies and ruined their lives, do you think those who encouraged them, are going to accept any responsibility for it? Do you think they’ll honestly reflect on their own behaviour and think “maybe it was a bad idea to encourage this”?

I personally don’t think they will.

US Supreme court rules in favour of baker who refused to make gay wedding cake.


I want you all to imagine a scenario. Lets say there was a gay man who owned a bakery. One day, a group of conservative Christians came in and demanded that he bake them a cake with a “Support traditional marriage” message, written on it in icing. The gay baker has no problem serving them because of their religious views, but he doesn’t feel comfortable baking a cake with that particular message because in doing so, he is being asked to participate in something that doesn’t match his own values.

He politely declines and suggests instead that the customers go to another bakery, and even recommends one that will have no problem fulfilling their request. Instead of taking their business elsewhere like normal adults, the Christians decide to sue the gay baker for discriminating against their religion, and destroy his livelihood. They do this because they specifically chose this baker knowing that he was gay, and knowing he wouldn’t be willing to make such a cake. It was never about the cake. It was about bullying the gay baker into doing something he wasn’t comfortable with, under threat of the loss of his livelihood. Does this sound morally justifiable to you? If your answer is no, then why is it morally acceptable when the reverse happens?

Well we’ve had plenty of cases of the reverse happen over the years. In fact, one of my very first posts on this blog was in relation to a similar situation that took place in Northern Ireland. However, today’s story is in relation to a case that occurred in America.

This is basically what happened.

A baker was sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, and after years in the legal system, the supreme court ruled in favour of the baker.

From Irish Independent

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, saying the decision was unlikely to have a sweeping legal impact.

The nation’s highest court said the baker’s religious rights were violated when a state Civil Rights Commission decided he had broken Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Like it or not, religious freedom is under the same legal protection as sexuality is. There was absolutely no need for this case to ever go as far as it did. It was obvious that they were just “butthurt” (and not in the way they like), that this man didn’t fawn all over them.

The refusal by baker Jack Phillips in 2012 to make a cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig became a cultural flashpoint, seen as part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing gay marriage.

It probably was, but it changes nothing. There was no need to sue over this. The free market would have sorted this problem out quite easily. If he wasn’t interested in the potentially lucrative money that could have come from baking gay wedding cakes, then some other baker would have taken the business instead. The gay couples still get their wedding cakes, the Christian bakers get to live in their little niche, and a business opportunity opens up for other bakers, who aren’t devout Christians. Everybody would have won.

But of course, it was never about this. The cake wasn’t what they wanted. Forcing the baker to do what they wanted was the real motivation. If we look at the history of the gay rights movement, it has followed a particular path. In more homophobic times, all they wanted was tolerance. They just wanted to be left to live their lives in peace, free from persecution, and most reasonable people thought this was fair enough, and tolerance was extended.

After tolerance, came the desire to be accepted. They didn’t just want to be tolerated. They wanted to be accepted as equal members of society who didn’t have to hide away from the rest of us, and once again, most reasonable people had no problem with this. What’s the harm in accepting them as equals? If things had stopped right here most people, both gay and straight would have been perfectly happy, because fairness had finally been achieved.

But there were a few who wanted more than this. It wasn’t enough for these ones to simply be equal. They wanted to be pandered to, treated as special beings, and to have the rest of society participate in their lifestyle with them. And if the rest of society refused to participate in their lifestyle with them, they would use the power of the state to force them to do so.

“State enforced homosexuality.” Comedienne Sam Hyde, predicted it in his satirical Ted Talk prank (14:40) back in 2013.

President Donald Trump’s administration intervened in support of the baker.

But the Supreme Court ruling did not address broader questions of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws or whether baking a cake is protected as free speech under the U.S. Constitution, experts said.

So we’ll be seeing more of these cases in the future then it seems. It isn’t over yet.

“The broad rule that the bakery was looking for here was that it had a license to discriminate,” said James Essex, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“They most emphatically did not get that ruling from this court today.”

If he was still willing to sell them things despite knowing they were gay, then how exactly was he looking to discriminate? He just wasn’t willing to bake a cake for a specific event that his religious views made him uncomfortable with. Would you say the same thing to a Muslim baker who refused to do the same thing?

I think we know the answer.

The decision made it clear that even if the court ultimately rules in a future case that bakers or other businesses that sell creative products such as florists and wedding photographers can avoid punishment under anti-discrimination laws, most businesses open to the public would have no such defense.

Because there is a difference between refusing to serve someone because of their sexuality, and refusing to use your labour to participate in something that you have religious objections to. The baker didn’t refuse to serve them because they were gay, so this comparison is meaningless.

Nonetheless, the couple, Mullins and Craig, said they were disappointed.

“Why did we lose?”

“No one should have to face the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced,” they said on an ACLU conference call with reporters.


He just wasn’t willing to participate in an an event that contradicted his religious views. You were perfectly free to buy a product from the store. He just wasn’t willing to bake a specific cake for you. You want to talk about the mental harm you experienced? What about the mental harm the baker experienced by being caught between his desire not to “sin” in the eyes of his God, and his desire to make a living, when you could have just had the maturity to take your business elsewhere?

Annise Parker, head of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, expressed concern it could “open the floodgates” to discrimination.

“Homophobic forces will purposefully over-interpret the ruling and challenge existing non-discrimination laws by refusing service to LGBTQ people … denying them dinner at a restaurant, lodging at a hotel, or renting an apartment,” Parker said in a statement.

Funny isn’t it how the “slippery slope” suddenly isn’t a logical fallacy anymore?

The Human Rights Coalition echoed the view that the ruling “did not change our nation’s fundamental civil rights laws.”

“Regardless of today’s decision, the fact remains that LGBTQ people face alarming levels of discrimination all across the country,” the civil rights group said.

There’s few countries on the planet right now, were “LGBTQ” people face less discrimination, than in the United States. In a country were this is acceptable (warning, NSFW), you can hardly claim to be discriminated against. This reaction is completely hysterical.

Essex added that the issue is “not about cakes.”

Which as I’ve stated above, I agree with.

“It is about access to health care.


It’s about access to education.


It’s about employment.


It’s about people being fired from jobs because their employer has a religious objection to who they are,” he said. The ACLU represented the gay couple.

People being fired from their jobs because their employer has a religious objection to who they are? What about people like this baker potentially being forced out of his job, because you have an objection to his religious views?

“There is an intentional campaign out there of people who are opposed to LGBT rights but also to equality more broadly,” he said. “I’m sure they are out there saying this is a broad victory.”

Colorado Christian University President Donald Sweeting called it “an enormous milestone victory” for “religious freedom and freedom of conscience.”

“We are grateful that the court upheld these today,” he said in a statement.

They’re so used to getting their own way in everything that they do, that they have zero ability to self-reflect, and assume that the only people who could possibly be glad about this result are homophobes, who don’t want them to have any rights. They are incapable of understanding how obnoxious they themselves have become, and to reconsider their own behaviour.

And for that reason, you can be sure that this issue is not going to die anytime soon.

My thoughts on the “suemepaddy” hashtag.

So a few days ago, I gave my thoughts on the social media backlash surrounding the verdict in the recent high profile Belfast rape trial. I mentioned that I’d never before, seen so much anger from an online lynch mob (in Ireland at least), and in the few days since, I think it has only gotten worse. One of the things I mentioned in my post was the comment made by Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin on twitter, which I believed at the time could potentially be considered defamatory in nature.

The quote again, just to remind you. To me, it seems he’s implying that they’re definitely guilty, but only got off because of their class background, rather than because of the evidence.

Well it seems that the solicitors for one of the defendants, Paddy Jackson, felt the same way, because the very next day it was announced that they would be pursuing legal action against him. So how does the online lynch mob respond? Do they stop to think that maybe an innocent man is simply trying to do everything he can to salvage his destroyed reputation, by standing up for himself against those who are defaming him? Of course they don’t. Instead, their natural conclusion is that he’s just a money hungry scumbag, looking to make a quick buck at the expense of an innocent public figure, who was simply giving his opinion on the matter. They’ve gone as far as to create a twitter hashtag, “suemepaddy”, were hundreds of them reiterate their belief that he’s definitely guilty, and dare him to try and sue them as well. Lets take a look at some of the posts that are using the hashtag.

I agree that he’s a disgusting person. The text messages speak for themselves. Unfortunately, being all the things that are mentioned here, are not evidence of being a rapist.

No. He’s not suing people who “believe the victim”. People are free to believe what they want. He’s suing people who are publicly making defamatory comments about him.

That could just mean another 8525 people to sue then. Or it could just mean more trouble for Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, as it would further prove how damaging his original comment.

It is “entitlement” to attempt to defend your reputation now apparently. He should just shut up and let everyone make defamatory comments about him.

He sure did, and for that alone, he should be called out for. It STILL doesn’t prove that he’s guilty of rape though.

It’s “factually accurate” that he only got off because he’s “well-connected” and “middle-class”.

I actually think that it’s the people on your side who haven’t. The more of you who use this hashtag, the more attention you draw to the original defamatory tweet, and thus the more potential trouble you cause for Aodhán.

And there are countless other tweets in the hashtag, but I’ll leave it at that. The thing is, as I’ve said before, I don’t have a gut feeling on the truth of this case either way. As far as I’m concerned, it could be a case were justice was done, and innocent men were acquitted, or it could be a case were the justice system failed, and guilty men did get away. But whichever it was, I don’t have the information to confirm either way, and neither does anyone else who are commenting.

Yes, it sucks that it’s so difficult to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in these cases, but what is the alternative? Do we instead change to a default of “guilty until proven innocent” and put the burden of proof on the defendants? Or do we just automatically take accusers at their word, and skip the trial entirely? And does this new policy only apply to rape cases, or in regards to all types of crime? Do we require people to video tape all their sexual encounters, in order to prove their innocence, and if the tape gets “lost”, do we assume that they’re actually hiding the truth and automatically convict them anyway? Do we get people to sign contracts before engaging in sexual activity? If so, what happens when someone claims they were forced to sign the contract against their will and then raped? Do we then make sure to require witnesses to be around for the signing, to make sure it was entered into willingly? And do they have to sign a new contract every single time they plan to engage in sexual activity? Where does it all end? Is there an actual plan in the works to deal with these problems at all, or is it just nothing more than an excuse to get outraged and virtue signal to the world.

And in regards to the outrage, I want to ask those of you who are involved, this very simple question.

Where were you when this happened?


Or when this happened?


Or how about this?


Remember the big events from Cologne a few years back?


And of course, don’t even get me started on Sweden.


I could go on and on and on, but I think I’ve made my point. There have been countless examples over the past few years, of women and girls being victimised sexually all over Europe and in many cases, in ways far more brutal than what is alleged to have happened in Belfast. Where was the feminist outrage? Where were the twitter hashtags? When did the marches take place? The reality, is that when all these incidents took place, the current social media lynch mob were silent. They didn’t speak out against what was happening to women and girls then. In fact, in many cases, they attacked those who were.


So forgive me, if I’m a bit skeptical when I hear these people now coming out and talking about how much they want to protect women and impose justice on those who harm them. They didn’t seem to care much about all the women and girls who have been raped, tortured, and in some cases, killed, by the very real rape culture that is making its way into Europe. Quite the opposite actually. They’ve thrown their fellow females under the bus, in favour of bringing in even more of the rape culture.

I know the picture is a fake, but it’s not far off how they actually think. Or at least, how they’re acting without thinking.

The vast majority of people are easily led sheep. And the majority of those who are involved in this lynch mob, have no genuine care for the wellbeing of their fellow human beings at all. They don’t care about that woman, or what she may have gone through. They just see an outrage bandwagon to jump on, so they jump on it. When there’s no bandwagon to jump on, as there never is in regards to “oppressed groups” like Muslim rapists, they’re too damn cowardly and apathetic to say anything at all. They stay silent in those situations, but save their outrage for the easy targets, like the “smug, well-connected, middle-class” white men.

And this is why I have so little faith in humanity.


Belfast verdict causes outrage.

I’ve said it many times before, and I’m going to say it again. We live in a world that has gone completely insane. I honestly don’t know how much more of this insanity I can take. It feels like everyday, something happens that makes me lose even more faith in humanity.

Today there was a verdict given in a rather high profile court case in Belfast, regarding an alleged rape. A young woman claimed to have been raped by two men at a party, with another two men acting as accessories to the crime. The accused men claimed that the sexual encounters were consensual. Today a jury of eight men and three women, after hearing the evidence presented for the past 41 days, declared all four men “not guilty” of all crimes, and they’re free to go. But of course in a world of social media, the story doesn’t end here. This verdict has generated absolute outrage.

A politician publicly speaking out against due process? Sounds like slander to me. No wonder he deleted this tweet soon after.

Now I’m going to be quite honest. I haven’t followed the trial, so I cant really give any comment on the evidence that was presented. But that’s not the point of this post. I didn’t make this post to give my own thoughts on whether the men are  actually guilty or not because I honestly don’t know. What I wanted to discuss is the reaction on social media, and the implications for those involved in the trial.

Because of the very public nature of the trial, and the fact that all four men have had their names and faces plastered all over the media, we now have one of two possible situations. We either have a group of innocent men, who have had their reputations destroyed by a false accusation and the ensuing trial by social media that followed. Regardless of being acquitted of the crime, these men will always be thought off as “rapists who got off” by a large contingent of the public.

Or alternatively, we have a high profile situation were the justice system failed to convict guilty men, and a victimised woman has had the added trauma of having her character dragged through the mud as a “liar” and a “slut”, in addition to the trauma of her experience. This will also have the added effect of discouraging future victims from coming forward. Why would you come forward when you see that your own character is going to be assassinated, and there’s a chance that you won’t get a conviction anyway?

Whether it’s a case of innocent men being falsely accused, or a genuine victim being slandered as a liar and a slut, an innocent party has just had their reputation destroyed. I put the blame on the media circus surrounding the trial and the hysterical mobs that inhabit social media. And believe me, the mob is very hysterical today. In this country at least, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such anger and division over a criminal verdict. And of course, it’s all emotional rather than logical. Vicious arguments between friends, who have a different interpretation of who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. “Feelings” being presented as “facts”. Talks of massive public marches in opposition to the verdict. Demands that the judge overturn the jury’s decision, etc. It’s all completely nuts.

How do they know there are this many unreported rapists out there, if they’re not being reported? What is the actual evidence for these figures? Is there actual evidence at all, or is just more hysteria? Why can’t we have civil discussions anymore?

I really think we need to reassess how the media deals with cases like this. I think that because we (supposedly) operate under a system of “innocent until proven guilty” that the accused should have the right to anonymity during their trial, and this anonymity should be maintained if they’re acquitted. Now if they’re found guilty then absolutely, put their names and faces in every newspaper and every social media feed, and reveal to the world what despicable scum they are. But only if and when they’re found guilty. I also think that there should be less high profile reporting on these cases themselves while they are happening. It just creates a partisan situation, were people will take one side over the other from the beginning, and will only accept a verdict if it goes their way. With less high profile reporting on these cases, there’s less of a chance of people becoming so emotionally invested, and becoming so… well… emotionally unhinged to be quite honest.

The worst form of inequality…

“What do you mean when you say that the work of a cashier and a warehouse worker aren’t equal? They both do the same amount of hours, damn it.”

Guys, you’re not going to believe this. Apparently Tesco think that it’s OK to pay women less than men for doing the same work. I just can’t get over this. I am feeling seriously triggered right now that such blatant sexism has been going on for so long. Thankfully, some brave, heroic women, have taken a stand for their rights and are taking legal action against this sexist behemoth. Lets read on to learn more about what these women have had to deal with.

From RTE

Tesco is facing Britain’s largest ever equal pay claim and a possible compensation bill of up to £4 billion, according to a law firm which has begun legal proceedings. 

Tesco is Britain’s biggest retailer and its largest private sector employer with a staff of over 310,000. 

Wow I can’t believe this. Didn’t Tesco get the memo? It’s illegal to pay women less than men for doing the same work. How is it that they think they can get away with paying women less than men for doing the same work, in *current year*. It’s just disgraceful really that a company as large as Tesco, could possibly think it’s acceptable to pay women less than men, for doing the same work.

Your typical Tesco executive.

Law firm Leigh Day said that thousands of Tesco employees working in its predominantly male-dominated distribution centres are paid considerably more than the largely female-staffed Tesco stores. 




“Distribution centers.

Tesco DC






In distribution centers, workers have to lift very heavy boxes and operate potentially dangerous machinery such as forklift trucks. In stores, people have to put stuff on shelves, and sit at a till scanning stuff. Call me sexist or whatever, but that doesn’t sound like doing the same work, to me.

It said distribution centre staff may earn in excess of £11 an hour whilst the most common grade for store staff sees them receive around £8 an hour. 

Maybe because the work in the distribution centers is more physically demanding and also potentially more dangerous. As a result, distribution center staff are in a position to demand better remuneration than store staff. Also, the store staff does include men, and I’m sure the distribution centers do include women (albeit a much smaller amount), so wouldn’t those men in stores also receive £8 an hour, and the women in distribution centers, also receive £11 an hour? In other words, it has nothing to do with their gender. Rather, it’s purely down to the role which they perform. If the women who work in the stores are so unhappy with the “sexism” of getting paid less than the men who work in the distribution centers, then the solution is obvious. They should apply for jobs in the distribution centers and take part in the heavy lifting and use of dangerous equipment, alongside those privileged men.

Follow this lady’s example.

This disparity could see a full time distribution worker on the same hours earning over £100 a week, or £5,000 a year, more than female based store staff

Oh but the male store staff aren’t also earning £100 less a week than the distribution staff. No, this only effects the female staff apparently.

Leigh Day said it has already started submitting claims on behalf of its clients. 

It said the underpayment could apply to in excess of 200,000 Tesco employees and with estimated pay shortfalls that could reach £20,000 the final bill for Tesco could be as high as £4 billion.

I don’t even like Tesco, but in this case, I sincerely hope they win this one. This is such a stupid claim that I really think its stupidity is completely self evident. These stupid bitches don’t seem to understand that working an equal number of hours, is not the same thing as providing “equal value” in terms of the work that they do. It would be one thing if male cashiers were getting paid more than female cashiers. If that was the case, I could completely understand their argument, because that would be a clear cut case of one group getting paid less for doing the same work. But these are two entirely different jobs, so there’s no justification for demanding the same amount of money. If something like this is actually allowed to go forward, where will it end?

“I should be getting paid the same amount of money as the doctors. We all work in the hospital so it’s not fair that janitors are paid less than them.”

“Preschools are too ‘heteronormative'”

I was always under the impression that the purpose of preschools, was to teach children how to socialise and interact with other children. Turns out I was wrong. The real purpose of them is to be a sort of “reverse conversion therapy”, where heterosexual kids are brainwashed into becoming LGBT.

From Campus Reform

A University of Michigan instructor recently claimed that preschool classrooms are rife with “heteronormativity” that perpetuates “inequalities related to gender.”

Now just watch as she fails to back this up with any actual meaningful points, instead just relying on buzzwords and personal opinions.

Heidi M. Gansen, a Ph.D. student who teaches sociology at UMich, advanced these claims in a July 14 article that examines the prevalence of “heteronormativity” in a set of nine Michigan preschool classrooms she visited.

And this is why the value of a college education keeps on declining. The fact that a deranged Marxist ideologue like this woman is actually paid to teach people, is absolutely hilarious. Or at least, it would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. To any unfortunate student who was naive enough to sign up for this class, I just want to wish you good luck trying to pay off your tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, especially while working at the one job you’re likely to get, with a qualification such as this.

“Do you want fries with that?”

Defining “heteronormativity” as a culture in which “heterosexuality is always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged,” Gansen then argues that the issue is especially important to her research because preschools contribute to the “reproduction of inequalities pertaining to gender and sexuality,” such as gender roles and gendered feelings.

Does all that sound like a bunch of nonsensical, confusing, gibberish to you? If so, then good, that’s exactly the point. It’s supposed to be confusing for the average person to comprehend what this all even means. Basically, this woman is complaining that heterosexuality is presumed to be the “norm” in society, just because the vast majority of people, happen to be heterosexual. Because most people happen to be heterosexual, most other people will naturally presume that others are heterosexual, because statistically speaking, about 96% of people, will be, unless they’re specifically told otherwise. However, she seems to think that this way of interacting with one another marginalises the remaining 4% who aren’t, and therefore, we need to change our natural behaviour, and act as if there’s a 50/50 split between gay and straight people.

“Preschool is a good place to begin this examination, because practices that facilitate heteronormativity in classrooms become more engrained in later years of schooling,” she explains.

It’s a good place to begin the examination, because the best way to brainwash people into accepting your deranged world view, is to target them when they’re young, and their brains aren’t fully developed yet. That’s what it’s really all about. She wants to perpetuate her Cultural Marxist bollocksology, and who better to promote it to than young kids who haven’t yet developed the ability to think critically?


Accordingly, Gansen spent ten months observing childhood behavior at a set of nine Michigan preschools, finding numerous ways in which heterosexuality is “produced” and “enforced” by students and teachers.

Wait, I’m confused. Heterosexuality is “produced” now? But I was under the impression that one of the leading arguments of the LGBT rights lobby, was that you’re “born with your sexuality”, and that you can’t choose or change it. So I don’t understand how she can then make the claim that these teachers are “producing heterosexuality”.

In all seriousness, I’m of the believe that sexuality is determined by a mixture of nurture and nature, rather than just one or the other. I’ve heard it suggested before that both homosexuality and transgenderism is similar to diabetes, in that there’s a “Type 1” and a “Type 2”.

No don’t worry, I’m not suggesting that we can start injecting gay people with insulin, in order to make them straight.

Much like with diabetes, someone with type 1 homosexuality or transgenderism, will be someone who was just born that way. I do believe that there are people who are just naturally born to be gay or transgender, and nothing in the environment will change that. However, just like how people get type 2 diabetes, due to their life experiences, I believe that life experiences in the time before puberty (and by extension, before sexuality has developed) can impact how a person’s sexuality develops. Just look at this study for example:

“Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. “

Look at the variance there. 46% of gay men interviewed for the study, claimed to experience homosexual molestation as a child, compared to just 7% of straight men, and there’s a similar variance between the experiences of lesbians and straight women. When looking at information like that, is it really hard to consider the possibility that having such experiences before they reached adolescence, and while their brains were still developing, could have warped their perceptions of sexuality somewhat. As I’ve said, I’m by no means suggesting that every single gay person is someone who was “turned gay from molestation” as a child, as I do believe that plenty of gay people are just born that way, but it’s still something that needs to be acknowledged.

And as for transgenderism, well consider this. In the most gender equal country on the planet, Sweden, the number of children looking to undergo sex changes is apparently doubling each year.  Supporters will claim the numbers actually aren’t any higher than they ever were before, but it’s just less taboo now to go public about it, but I’m too cynical to agree. Personally, I believe that there has always existed a very tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria (the type 1s), but what we’re now seeing is a drastic increase in the type 2s, as a result of campaigns to normalise and encourage it. The fact that a country like Sweden of all places, is seeing this increase, only convinces me more that this increase is really a result of environmental stimuli and information that children are being exposed to, while they’re still growing and their brains are still developing.

Anyway, you might be wondering why I went off on that tangent about type 1 and type 2 LGBT people. Well, it connects back to this woman’s comments about schools “producing heterosexuality”. You see, despite the claims they make that all LGBT people are just “born that way”, I believe that they actually know damn well that this isn’t always the case. This woman is angry at schools for “producing heterosexuality”, because she knows that in some cases at least, it is possible to produce homosexuality and transgenderism, and for her own reasons, she wants to encourage that to happen. What her reasons are, I can only speculate. One thing I am certain of however, is that when she complains about “heteronormativity”, it isn’t because she cares about the well-being of any LGBT children.

Playing “house,” for instance, is one area in which Gansen observed “heteronormativity” in the in the preschool setting, noting that only girls would imitate mothers while only boys would play fathers.

Wow. Can you even begin to comprehend? That’s so sick and twisted. Girls role-playing as mothers and boys role-playing as fathers. This is so unfair, because it denies the existence of the millions of girls who become fathers, and the millions of boys who become mothers. Oh wait, I forgot. In real life, “father” is an exclusively male term, and “mother” is an exclusively female term, so that never actually happens.

A little girl pretending to be a mother, and a little boy pretending to be a father. Remember when this would have been considered cute and innocent, rather than something to be attacked?

If a girl asked to be the husband of the household, she would be quickly rebuffed by her peers, Gansen observed, lamenting that “children did not allow cross-gender roles.”

Girls can’t be husbands in real life. Get over it. Besides, while you’re complaining about this, did it ever once occur to you, to consider the feelings of the boy in this scenario? Maybe he doesn’t want to play the wife, and why should he be forced to?

Gansen also cited the reading of “traditional fairy tales,”

Which generations of children grew up hearing, and turned out fine…

engaging in “heteronormative play,”

Which generations of children grew up playing, and turned out fine…

and teachers suggesting that a boy has a “crush” on a girl as other ways in which gender-roles are perpetuated.

Maybe the boy does have a crush on the girl. Seriously, what’s the fucking problem here? These people are obsessed. I can guarantee that if the boy had a crush on another boy, this woman would be celebrating it. It’s just like with their weird desire to completely reverse all  gender norms. If a woman chooses the role of a housewife, she’s attacked for doing so. If a man becomes a househusband, it’s celebrated. If a man is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, he has “toxic masculinity”. If a woman is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, she’s a “strong, confident woman”. Essentially, men are pathologised for acting like traditional men, women are pathologised for acting like traditional women, but both men and women are celebrated for acting like the traditional version of the opposite gender.


Meanwhile, teachers apparently make similar mistakes when they refer to “same-gender signs of affection or homosocial behaviors as friendly” as opposed to romantic, with Gansen arguing that  the teacher’s interpretation of the friendship makes no concession for the fact that some students might be gay or queer.

See what I mean? It’s wrong for a teacher to think that a boy has a crush on a girl, but if the teacher fails to assume that a boy has a crush on his male friend, that’s also wrong.

As a solution, Gansen concludes by outlining “disruptive” approaches teachers can take, which include talking about the legality of gay marriage and showing “acceptance” when students participate in “actions that interrupt heteronormativity.”

A “solution” to a problem nobody ever asked to be solved.

Gansen finishes by complaining that even in the preschools with the most progressive teachers of all the ones she observed, “children still engaged in heteronormative practices with peers,” adding that “these findings demonstrate the importance of teachers actively working to disrupt heteronormativity, which is already ingrained in children by ages 3 to 5.”

Wow if that’s really the case, then how are there any gay people in the world at all?

Campus Reform reached out to Gansen for additional comment on her research, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Of course not. People like this want to “talk at” us, rather than “talk to”. There’s no point even engaging with her. She should just be ridiculed.

It’s offensive now to say breastfeeding is natural.

It’s honestly impossible to tell anymore.

Just when I think there is nothing in this world that is ridiculous enough to leave me feeling dumbfounded anymore, a story like this comes out and manages to prove me wrong.

From Heatstreet

It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles, claims a new study in Pediatrics.

I just… I can’t even… just what the fuck have I just read here?

This poor woman has no idea just how oppressed she is by doing this. Breastfeeding was actually invented by the patriarchy (white men specifically) in order to enforce oppressive gender roles. 

“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.

No you fucking moron, people say that “breastfeeding is natural”, because it’s one of the most natural things in the world. All female mammals (humans included) have mammary glands that produce milk which they use to feed their young. Male mammals (again, humans included) don’t have this ability. If it’s natural for every other mammal to do this, then what makes humans the exception? Where did this arrogant view come from, that somehow nature doesn’t apply to humans?

The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”


“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.

Yeah, could you imagine? It might offend certain people to make statements like this.

You evil hate filled bigots. This woman here doesn’t have the ability to breastfeed, because she was “assigned male” at birth. By saying that breastfeeding is natural, you run the risk of hurting her feelings, and as we all know, the feelings of a tiny insignificant minority, are more important than “facts” or “truth”.

Unless such public-service announcements “make transparent the ‘values and beliefs that underlie them,’” they should quit describing breastfeeding as “natural.”

“You should do this thing because WE say so. If you don’t do as we say, we will call you names like ‘sexist’ or ‘transphobic’, or whatever other word we think of, until we get our way. Then when you prove your weakness and cowardice by giving in to our initial demands, we’ll start making even more outrageous demands, and force you to do as we say again.”

But the study’s authors, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, clearly have in mind an alternative set of “values and beliefs,” about which which they are not transparent.

The fact that these two fools each have a PhD, is a testament to how much the Academic system in the West has declined.

According to this article, they actually first published this lunacy over a year ago. When called out on it, they just screeched about “misogyny”, claiming people were just attacking them for being outspoken women, rather than the fact that their ideas were being ridiculed for their obvious stupidity.

It’s unclear whether they’re worried about how traditional female gender roles may limit women’s progress in the workforce, or whether this is part of the discussion about whether conventional views about motherhood exclude transgender people.

Who cares what their motivation was? Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that breastfeeding IS natural. There’s no justification for what they are claiming.

Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study.

Yeah that’s probably the most likely explanation.

This is what they actually believe happens in real life.

Regardless, Martucci and Barnhill mask their agenda by also making the unconvincing secondary argument that describing breastfeeding as “natural” fuels the anti-vaccine movement.

When public-service announcements praise breastfeeding as “natural,” Martucci and Barnhill argue, the implication is that manufactured or mass-produced products are questionable or dangerous—so these promotions may unintentionally encourage parents to reject scientific progress elsewhere.

*Claims breastfeeding shouldn’t be described as “natural”*

*Accuses others of rejecting scientific progress*

You know what, that’s good enough to become a “College liberal” meme. So I’m going to go to the generator, and make one right now.


“If doing what is ‘natural’ is ‘best’ in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination?” they write.

Because they are two different things and have absolutely no connection, you idiot. Doing one, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not they’ll do the other.

There’s certainly an assertive worldview woven throughout this paper, though we find it neither powerful nor deeply persuasive.

Yeah, I doubt most sane people would.


Male feminist whines about how sexist Mario is.

Social justice has no end in sight. There’ll never be a point were its advocates will feel that enough is enough. They’ll always find some new “problem” to have a hissy fit over. You can just tell at this point that we’ve long gotten past the point of actual real problems, when they’re starting to complain about stupid shit like this.

From The Sun

VIDEO game critics have claimed the family-friendly Super Mario video games series is unsuitable for children because it’s SEXIST.

Mario, a video game series that has been enjoyed by millions of children, girls and boys alike, over the past three decades, the majority of whom have grown up to be perfectly normal, well-adjusted adults, is suddenly unsuitable for children, because some dickhead on the internet says so.

The Japanese games firm Nintendo recently released an iPhone game called Super Mario Run which is the first smartphone title to feature its much-loved character.

But feminists have rounded upon the game, with one writer suggesting it was time Mario was rescued BY his love interest Princess Peach, rather than going on missions to save her.

That has already happened. The game is called Super Princess Peach, and it came out about ten years ago.

Would you look at that. Mario is tied up, and the Princess has to rescue him for a change.

The game sold relatively poorly in comparison to the regular Mario series by the way, which is probably why they haven’t made another. Point is, at least they tried to do something like this, and a full decade before this dickhead started whining on the internet about it.

Chris Suellentrop, a top games reviewers at the New York Times, said the recent iPhone Super Mario Game was “inappropriate for children”.

It’s just incredible how arrogant this comes off. 30 years worth of children have been playing this series without being negatively impacted by it, but apparently it’s inappropriate for children because this guy says so.

“In an era where we can watch Frozen or Moana…this is not okay,” he said on his podcast, Shall We Play, according to Heat Street.

“Different options are not OK. Because the Princesses in Frozen and Moana are strong characters who aren’t in need of being rescued, no Princess can ever be portrayed like that again.”

I guess going by the same logic, we can’t allow children to watch any of the older Disney animated films like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Cinderella, because they have outdated portrayals of princesses, which will somehow mess up young girls today, even though they didn’t mess up young girls from previous generations.


“People give Nintendo a pass because they’re family-friendly, you know what? This is not family-friendly.”

How is it not family friendly? What exactly isn’t family friendly about a man going to great lengths to save the woman he loves from danger? Are we just going to deny the basic biological drives of our species, in order to promote ideological nonsense? In harsher time periods, while our species was still evolving, women tended to choose a strong man, who could protect them from danger, and provide for them, as a mate. In the same way, men have a natural, biological drive to protect women because it is through women, that we are able to pass on our own genes.

In our current social environment, this kind of dynamic is less of a necessity because of the way civilisation is set up. In the modern world, in which we aren’t at war with nature and rival tribes for resources, women are quite capable of providing for themselves, and they don’t need a strong man to protect them, because we have law and order to do that instead. However, absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, as civilisation has developed quicker than our biological evolution.

As a result, despite how much our lifestyles may have changed in the last few thousand years, ultimately, we still have the same animal instincts now that our stone age ancestors had when women instinctively sought out strong men to protect and provide for them, and men had a biological drive to want to protect from harm, the women who would potentially bear their offspring. Therefore, I would contend that because our biological instincts haven’t changed, that most males will naturally identify with the male power fantasy of rescuing a princess, and most females will identify with the fantasy of being rescued and protected by a brave hero, rather than being the hero themselves. I’m not saying every single person will conform to these gender stereotypes, and for those who don’t, their preferences are perfectly valid as well, but a lot of people will identify with the gender stereotypes, so having games that cater to these perfectly natural fantasies is hardly “inappropriate for children”.

I regard these things as being inappropriate for children. Therefore, they’re inappropriate for children, because I’m the authority on these things, because I say so”.

“How dare they have fictional video game woman bake a cake for the man she loves? This sends such a horrible message to young girls somehow, even the ones who just happen to enjoy baking.”

Most Mario games involve saving Princess Peach, who has inevitably been kidnapped by the plumber’s arch enemy, Bowser.

Ina Fried, a respected technology journalist, said these old-school storylines do not reflect the modern world.

“It’s *current year*, therefore everything has to change. We won’t give any reasons why this is suddenly necessary, other than the fact that we now think the old way is outdated because of the current year.”

“We can’t allow certain types of stories to be told anymore because we consider them outdated now. Only stories that we personally approve of can be told now.”

In an article for Re/Code, she wrote: “It has been 30 years since Mario first rescued the princess back in 1985. Since that time, more than 50 women have gone into space, more than two dozen have been elected to the U.S. Senate and several hundred have climbed Mount Everest.

Wait, you mean these women managed to accomplish all those incredible things, despite such a “sexist” video game series existing? Wow, that almost makes me think that capable women are capable no matter what, and the existence of a video game series that utilises an “outdated” story, is not going to stop them from achieving. I’d also bet that statistically speaking, with how popular the Mario series is, that at least a few of these highly accomplished women have played at least one Mario game in their lifetime and yet all that “sexism” didn’t harm them in any way.

This all goes back to the point I made in my article about the campaign to convince parents to buy their sons a Barbie doll. I don’t believe for a second that there is actually any real problem here at all, but what is happening, is a bunch of insecure adults are projecting their own insecurities and failures onto children, and are finding a scapegoat to blame for these insecurities and failures, rather than taking responsibility instead.

“It’s not fair. I was well on my way to studying law at Harvard, curing the HIV virus, and becoming President. However, when I was 8 years old, I played a Super Mario game, and the sexism traumatised me so much, that I gave up on all my dreams, started living on benefits, gained about 500 pounds, and am not motivated to clean up the mess around me. None of this is my fault. It’s all Nintendo’s fault for being so sexist.

I mean come on, lets really be honest with ourselves here. How many people (and this question is for both men and women) played Mario games in their youth and started thinking that women were worth less than men because of it? Obviously, I can only cite anecdotal evidence which in the grand scheme of things, means nothing, but I will say that I certainly wasn’t thinking about gender stereotypes when I played these games. I just enjoyed them for what they were, and I’ve known plenty of female gamers who played the series, enjoyed it, and are now perfectly normal, well-adjusted young women, who haven’t been negatively affected in any way from doing so. They didn’t feel insecure as females playing a game in which the male hero has to rescue the princess. They just had fun playing the game and didn’t think any deeper than that.

“More importantly, the next generation of girls and boys are learning gender norms from, among other things, games like Super Mario Run. Personally, I think it is about time for a game where Peach rescues Mario.”

Just in case you missed it the first time.

^See the problem here. These idiots don’t even have any understanding of what they’re even complaining about. They just take a quick, superficial glance at things, think they’re suddenly well informed on the topic, and start complaining and demanding changes to things they aren’t really interested in. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, while this uninformed moron is complaining about the Mario series and acting as if it’s the be-all, and end-all of the video game industry, he’s ignoring the existence of the many strong female video game characters that already exist, some of whom have existed almost as long as the “sexist” Princess Peach character.

Samus Aran, first seen in “Metroid”, 1986.
Tyris Flare, first seen in “Golden Axe”, 1989.
Blaze Fielding, first seen in “Streets of Rage”, 1991.
Sonya Blade, first seen in “Mortal Kombat”, 1993
Lara Croft, first seen in “Tomb Raider”, 1996.
Jill Valentine, first seen in “Resident Evil”, 1996.
Alexandra Roivas, first seen in “Eternal Darkness”, 2002.
Bayonetta, first seen in “Bayonetta”, 2009.

And all the above are just a small example, specifically limited to strong playable female characters. There are plenty of other strong female characters in games, both playable and those in a supporting role, as well as games which allow the player to create a blank avatar from scratch of either gender.

The point I’m trying to close on, is this. The Mario series has existed for decades and has been popular with generations of children (including girls) the entire time. Women who have grown up in a post-Mario world have still managed to accomplish amazing things, despite its apparent “sexism”. Acting as if Mario’s traditional “hero rescues a princess” storyline, is somehow damaging little girls, without presenting any supporting evidence to back up this claim, is completely idiotic and intellectually dishonest. However, if you still feel that Mario is not suitable for girls because Princess Peach is a bad role model, then that’s your choice, and there are plenty of alternative games out there with strong female characters to play instead. Not every game needs to have a badass female protagonist though. There is plenty of room in the gaming industry for different options, and Mario just fills one of many. You don’t like it, then don’t play it. It’s really that simple.

Campaign to encourage parents to buy their sons a Barbie for Christmas.

I’m sure we’re all well aware of the fact that certain career fields are dominated by men and that there is a big push to get more women into them. For a long time it has remained a mystery as to why this is. Finally, I am happy to report, that we now know the reason why there are so few women on average entering STEM fields. There aren’t enough little boys playing with Barbie dolls, and somehow this is causing women to not pursue careers in STEM.


PARENTS are being urged to buy their little boys a Barbie for Christmas this year as part of No Gender December.

Good Education Group chief executive officer Chris Lester is supporting the grassroots campaign, which is encouraging parents to avoid buying their children gender-marketed gifts.

Except that’s not what they’re doing at all. On the contrary, they’re outright encouraging parents to buy gender-marketed gifts, only for children of the opposite gender of that which they are marketed to.

Merry Christmas Happy Holidays son. Here’s your “holiday” present. And you better fucking like it or else…”

Look, if a little boy chooses to play with Barbie dolls because that’s the toy he wants to play with, I really do not care. Let him play with them if he wants. However, this stupid ideology of trying to force them to play with them whether they have an interest in them or not, is just fucking dumb. Why do insecure adults feel this need to project their own insecurities onto innocent children? Why not just leave the kids alone, and let them play with the toys they want to play with? If they want to play with toys that are specifically marketed towards their gender, then just let them do it, rather than forcing them to play with toys marketed towards the opposite gender.

“Kids should be free to decide which toys interest them, without being informed by gendered marketing that something is ‘for them’ or ‘not for them’,” a statement on the No Gender December website says.

This statement just comes off as incredibly hypocritical when you’re running a campaign to encourage parents to buy specific toys for their children, without taking into consideration if the child is interested or not.

In a blog post, Mr Lester said the movement correlated with the perception that STEM (Science, technology, engineering and maths) fields were dominated by men and avoided by women.

Maybe because at large, they are. There are no legal barriers that prevent women from pursuing careers in these fields. They have the same rights and opportunities available to them to pursue the career of their choice as men do. Many women do pursue careers in STEM, and perform just as well as any of their male colleagues. Others pursue it and don’t do so well. Then there are other women (the majority) who choose to go into other areas which are dominated by their gender, such as nursing, teaching, social work, etc.

The real reason for the gender gap in STEM.

The point is, all of these women (economic background aside) have the same freedom to pursue the career they want as men do. If they simply choose a non-STEM related career, then what’s the problem? Why not respect their right to choose? Isn’t it funny, how feminists are always talking about a “woman’s right to choose” but if a women at large are making choices they don’t approve of, it suddenly becomes a problem and “something needs to be done”?

“Just as toy stores typically separate ‘girls’ from ‘boys’ toys, workplaces tend to be sharply divided between ‘pink’ and ‘blue’ jobs,” he wrote.

You know what else are “blue” jobs? Mining, waste management, sewer pipe cleaners, lumberjacking, etc. Why isn’t there a big campaign to “end the gender discrimination” in all of these sexist jobs as well? Why are they only talking about the gender imbalance in the STEM fields, but not in these areas too?

We need more women miners. It isn’t fair that there are more men in the mining industry. The mining industry must be discriminating against women somehow.

Earlier this month, the Institution for Engineering and Technology warned that gendered gifts could be turning young girls away from careers in technology and engineering.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The toys that little girls play with is discouraging them from pursuing certain careers when they get older. So the solution to this, is to force little boys to play with these same toys instead, and this will somehow solve the problem? Call me a sexist bigot or whatever the current buzzword is, but isn’t the logical conclusion to this scenario, that making boys play with these toys will only discourage them as well? Surely, if the toys have that much of an impact on a child’s future career choices, then the solution is to encourage little girls to play with toys that are marketed towards boys, so that they’ll develop the same confidence as boys to pursue these careers, rather than encouraging little boys to play with girl’s toys, and ending up turning them away from these careers as well. If I didn’t know better, I’d guess that the real purpose of this campaign isn’t about helping little girls, but rather about psychologically harming little boys.

The IET found boys were almost three times as likely as girls to receive science and maths toys for Christmas.

Maybe they just have more of an interest in these things on average. Unless you can cite evidence that these things are forced upon boys against their will, and deprived from girls who are interested in them, you can’t say for certain that this is a problem. I can only speak from anecdotal experience, but when I was a child, I would have much preferred a children’s Chemistry set to a tea party set, and it isn’t because I was brainwashed by marketing. It’s because that sort of thing genuinely would have appealed to me more.

Mr Lester said there was a new wave of toys specifically being marketed as gender-neutral to encourage more girls to explore their interest in STEM.

“It might not be a quick fix but getting behind No Gender December is a good start to redressing this imbalance,” he said in his blog post.

“That means that the best present for your daughter this Christmas may not necessarily be a nerf gun, but rather a ‘Jewelbot’, a ‘Roominate set’ or ‘Goldieblox’,” he wrote.

I have absolutely no issue with this. If a little girl finds these gender-neutral, STEM related toys appealing, then more power to them. It certainly seems like a fairer solution than forcing little boys to play with Barbie dolls against their will.

The No Gender December campaign started in 2014 by advocacy group Play Unlimited.

Sweden did this whole “Gender-neutral toys” thing first…


…And anyone who is a regular reader will know what a great success Sweden is right now.





Good luck Australia.

The attempted normalisation of paedophilia.

Seriously, just look at this guy. Even if you didn’t know he was a paedophile, you could still tell there was something “off” about him.

A little over a year ago, published an article by a self professed paedophile under the title “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster.” At the time I remember thinking to myself “Oh here we go, they’re trying to normalise paedophilia now, and we’re going to see more of this soon”, but fortunately, most of them tend to prefer to avoid the spotlight rather than embracing it. However, the aim of normalising it still stands, so if they can’t get more paedophiles to go public about their sickness, they’ll do the next best thing, and get that same paedophile to go public again. Gotta keep the message fresh in everyone’s minds.

From Metro (UK)

A ‘non-offending’ paedophile is on a mission to change society’s understanding of underage attraction.

You see everyone, there’s nothing inherently wrong with paedophilia apparently. We’re all just stupid and need to be educated better so that we can understand it properly.

Todd Nickerson, from Tennessee, who sees paedophilia as a sexual orientation, wants to encourage other paedophiles to seek help and support for their sexual inclinations.

This much at least, I can agree with. I acknowledge the fact that this is just how these people are wired, and they can’t choose not to be attracted to children, anymore than a gay person can choose not to attracted to people of the same sex, or a straight person to people of the opposite sex. However, I think the kind of help  and support made available to these people should be limited to a counselling service of some kind, and chemical castration, and it should be kept private. They shouldn’t be looking for sympathy and acceptance from the general public for their sickness, because once we start tolerating his sickness, who knows what the next step could be.

It starts off with tolerance, but soon they’ll be pushing for acceptance, and then eventually, for the “right” to pursue their desires.

The 43-year-old is a moderator for the online forum ‘VirPed’, short for ‘virtuous paedophiles’, which already has a few thousand users.

Scary to think just how many of these people are out there.

‘Virtuous paedophiles’ is a term given to people who are attracted to prepubescent children but control their urges and refrain from watching child pornography or seeking sexual contact with minors.

Nickerson said: ‘I am a paedophile. I’m not a monster. I have the attraction but I don’t act on it.

Does this guy want a medal or something for being good enough to not molest children? Just really think about what’s happening here. He knows damn well that his desires are wrong, and claims to be a good person because he doesn’t act upon them. Yet at the same time, instead of just going about his life as a “virtuous paedophile” in silence, he’s going public about his desires, trying to illicit sympathy from the public about it, with the aim of changing how people think of paedophiles. Why would he be bothered trying to change how people view paedophiles, unless he wanted to make it something that was seen as normal and acceptable?

‘I have never ever sexually abused a child and I never will. I do not look at child porn, I never will. I obey the laws, I respect the laws, I respect society’s position on this. I understand it and agree with it.’

Interesting. So he claims he will never abuse a child or look at child porn, then at the same time specifically mentions that he obeys and respects the laws on the matter. I can’t help but worry, that the only reason he doesn’t act upon his desires is because he fears punishment under the law, and that if those laws were to change, and society’s attitude towards paedophiles was to become more tolerant (the latter of which he is actively working towards), would he still  refuse to ever do those things? They way I’m interpreting this is that he only doesn’t do them because it’s forbidden to do so and he fears the consequences.

Nickerson describes himself as a non-offending minor attracted person (MAP) and says paedophiles are capable of living a happy, productive, law-abiding life.

I’m sure they are, but that doesn’t mean they should go public about their attraction and try to change how the rest of society views them. They should just keep quiet, not harm children, and just get on with things.

He said: ‘Not all paedophiles are child molesters not all child molesters are paedophiles.

‘A paedophile is strictly speaking just somebody who has sexual attraction to children – they may act on it they may not.

‘A lot of people think that if you are attracted to kids, you have some kind of unusual degree of urge to go out and attack kids and it’s not like that.


He’s right when he says that it doesn’t mean they’ll actually do it. However, all paedophiles, whether they act upon it or not, literally have an “unusual degree of urge” to do sexual things with children, which would be classified as an attack, because children don’t have the maturity to give informed consent to those acts.

‘The people that struggle with it have self control issues and we just try to encourage them – sometimes we have to use tough love because one problem with paedophiles at times is that they are very good at deluding themselves.’

Nickerson went public as a paedophile in a blog for American liberal news site Salon in September 2015, and by doing so, received dozens of hostile replies on social media.

Yes, and we all know what a great source for top notch journalism, Salon is.

They are…
…easily as…
…bad as the…
…Huffington Post.

But that’s liberalism in general these days. It’s always about finding something new to liberate. After making so many strides in achieving equal rights for racial minorities, gay people, women, etc., they have to look further and further afield for new “victims” to liberate, so we inevitably see far left publications like Salon trying to liberate groups like paedophiles from all the “oppression”, “intolerance”, and “bigotry” they experience.

However, he also received a large amount of positive feedback – including messages from people who had suffered at the hands of paedophiles.

This is how it’s going to go.

Step 1: “We’re not monsters. We just have desires to engage in sexual acts with children, but we never act on them. Please tolerate us.”

Step 2: “We need to lower the age of consent. Children are sexual beings too, and should have the right to explore their sexuality.”

Step 3: Age of consent is already lowered, and those “virtuous paedophiles” obviously care about the well-being of kids seeing as they’ve never hurt them. Maybe we should trust them, and allow sex between adults and children.

Step 4: Anyone who objects is shamed and ridiculed as a “paedophobe” with backwards ideas that have no place in modern society. How dare they object to adults having sex with children. It is *current year* after all.

This is honestly how I see it going. I think we just need to look at the history behind the normalisation of homosexuality to see this. I’m not saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are comparable, but there was a time when homosexuality was as opposed by the majority of society as paedophilia is today. Yet today, homosexuality is accepted by almost everybody and we are amazed that there was ever a time when people thought differently.

It was only after decades of campaigning and a relentless push for mainstream approval (starting with just looking for tolerance and to be left alone in peace, followed by acceptance, eventually reaching today were we practically see gay people being celebrated as superior), that we reached the point were we’re at today. I do genuinely worry that we could see a similar “Paedo-rights” movement in the near future, modeled on the tactics used by gay rights activists in the past.

I only hope that people will keep in mind that there is a very big difference between two consenting adults of the same sex looking for equal rights as two of the opposite sex, and paedophiles looking for the same rights to engage in such acts with children. However, most people tend to think emotionally rather than logically, so I really wouldn’t be surprised if people could be manipulated into accepting paedophilia eventually, if they’re persistent enough, and the right emotional appeals are made.

Just look at those eyes? You wouldn’t want to break his heart by telling him he’s not allowed to touch children, would you?

He said: ‘Publicly, there was a lot of backlash but privately it’s been very different. I got hundreds and hundreds emails from people who were very supportive, a lot of which were from people who were survivors of abuse.’

That’s disturbing if true.

Nickerson has admitted that he is attracted to children as young as 3 or 4, but that his attraction peaks with children aged around 9 or 10 years old.

Although he is adamant he has never offended, he says he did have a moment of temptation when he was 18 while babysitting a five-year-old girl.

This is also disturbing.

Nickerson says his goals are twofold now – to end the demonisation of paedophiles and to encourage other offenders to seek support.

And that first goal is something I can’t ever approve of.

He said: ‘I’m a pioneer, I’m out here doing something that really needs to be done, raising awareness and letting people what people like me deal with and struggle with.

‘I am neither proud nor ashamed of being a paedophile, at this point I just accept it – it’s who I am.’

That’s fine, accept yourself if you want. Just don’t go expecting the rest of us to accept you in the same way.

You  might wonder to yourself, what could possibly be behind the push to normalise paedophilia? Well it’s quite simple really. There are a lot of very powerful and influential people in the world who have this perversion, and would like to see it normalised.

This isn’t about compassion for the “poor non-offending paedophiles who can’t help being attracted to  children”. This is purely an attempt by powerful figures with sick urges towards children, to use their influence and that of the media to manipulate the masses into accepting, and eventually legalising their perversions. I only hope that people remain steadfast in their convictions that this is something we should never show even the slightest amount of tolerance for.