This is an interesting Twitter thread from a lesbian on the sinister direction the trans rights movement is taking us in. But I fear she might be reaping what her own movement has sown. Take this for example:

The idea that you can go about modern life in the west without voicing moral agreement with gays is laughable. Every single major corporation has subscribed to the Pride political doctrine to the point all employees are expected to embrace and celebrate the sexual preferences of their homosexual and bisexual colleagues. “Demanding you live as though you share their beliefs” is precisely what gay rights activists do, and they now have the force of law behind them.

Unless you’re a baker who objects to making a cake for a gay wedding, of course.

Which sounds exactly like the gay rights movement.

But if anyone opposes gay marriage or expresses their religious views on homosexuality they’re declared bigots and hounded from their jobs. This hasn’t been about equality and tolerance for a very long time.

In the US they couldn’t get a gay marriage vote passed so they rammed it through the Supreme Court and now use “brute social and political force” to maintain it. What’s the difference?

Well, yes. This is pretty much how it’s been for a while, but the trans lot didn’t start it.

Now it may be that the author is a liberal sort who genuinely wanted only to be left alone, but she must realise the gay rights movement switched from demanding equality to wielding power some time ago. She must also realise that all this was done under the LGBT umbrella, joining homosexuals and trans people together in a way I always thought was stupid. Everything she describes is simply a case of trans activists getting hold of the political power their gay allies have been wielding for years, only with mental illness thrown in.

I’ve said before that gays are going to end up chucked under the bus when progressives move onto other victim groups, and I also said this:

By moving away from the principle that consenting adults ought to do as they please towards one of forcing moral acceptance of their choices onto a reluctant public via the legal system, the gays have lost a lot of natural allies in the process, those people who may or may not have approved of what they do but on the principles of freedom and liberty believed they should have been allowed to get on with it. The question they ought to now be asking is who will they turn to when they are stripped of their victim status and chucked under the bus. They’re not going to find a lot of sympathy among those who didn’t care who shagged who but cared very much that the proprietors of pizza restaurants in Indiana were being crucified by the media, politicians, and gay lobby after being goaded into uttering the wrong opinions. The mainstream, in other words.

And when the gay marriage decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court I said this:

The gay lobby has got what it wanted, but I fear the means in which it has achieved it may come back to haunt them.  A large part of the gay rights campaign was not about gay rights at all, but this was simply an issue on which juvenile, middle-class social justice warriors hooked their bandwagon in order to bash what they perceive to be the Establishment (but more often than not, turned out to be ordinary people trying to get on quietly with their lives).  With this new ruling by the Supreme Court, homosexuals have taken a giant stride towards being part of the establishment and an equally large stride away from being a persecuted minority worthy of the backing of a baying mob of self-appointed professional outrage-mongers.  As the last hold-outs against gay marriage recognition slowly die or get legislated away, new battlefronts will be drawn and the mob will move onto something else: in fact we’re already seeing that transsexuals have become the homosexuals de nos jours, and it remains to be seen whether gay men living otherwise normal, professional lives will enjoy immunity from the increasingly hate-driven and vitriolic modern feminist movement.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying I’m not picking up the cudgels on behalf of the author of that Twitter thread. The LGB lot can deal with the T-monsters they helped create on their own.


26 thoughts on “LGB v T

  1. I (unfortunately) get dragged into conversations with feminists in reasonably powerful positions about this. They’re outraged that they feel that suddenly they have no power over the trans issue, and that trans activists are calling the shots and they have to sit by helplessly (to which I say “You reap what you sowed”).

    The extra amusing thing is that they’re blaming it all on sexism. They see it as another plot by men (dressed as women) to take over their power and their athletic glory in order to repress them. Because they see everything through the lens of sexism. Whenever things don’t go their way, it’s sexism. Didn’t get the promotion you wanted? Sexism. Didn’t get the man you wanted? Sexism. Beaten by a big bloke with a wig to the trophy? Sexism. The idea that they had anything to do with the current state of things they don’t see. To them, nothing’s changed, and it’s just dinosaur sexism all over again.

  2. @Hector in re feminists vs the Trans lot

    I have a certain (limited) sympathy for the feminists. I think women’s sport is going to be completely fucked if transwomen are allowed to compete with regular ones. In contact sports it’s actually dangerous, in the rest it just means the trans player/team will win almost all of the time.

    Outside of sports, the feminists have indeed reaped what they sowed. Tough.

  3. This struck me in one of the tweets above:
    …that we can marry the (adult, consenting, unrelated) person of our choosing…

    Leaving aside for one moment what one might have traditionally understood by marriage, why stipulate “unrelated” in the context of homsexual relationships?

    If the underlying premise of marriage is to be discarded why insist on any of the laws and cultural mores that underpin it?

  4. I also have some sympathy with the gays – they only ask people to accept what is.

    The tranny madness is literally madness. They demand we accept what is clearly not the case. Whether it is the loons who think they have a ladypenis or the PC lawmakers who want to force the rest of us to accept that delusion, it is 100% insanity.

    The enemy of trans-lunacy is my friend in this regard.

    BTW – you spawny Welsh bastards…

  5. Francis, yes it will ruin female sports.

    The feminists are in a bind, as usually they just demand things and they happen. For the first time in fifty years that’s not working. Now they don’t know what to do. Do they go all our batshit crazy against the transis like its 1968 again? They can’t bring themselves to do that at the moment because then they’ll be cast as the oppressors by the left, and they can’t handle that. So they just bitch and whine to each other as female sports and their whole gender gets trashed.

  6. @MC:“I also have some sympathy with the gays – they only ask people to accept what is.”

    ‘The gays’ as a norm in society, yes. And I’m happy to do so.

    ‘The gays’ meaning that tiny, unrepresentative but loud clique of fanatics that seeming have the ears of ministers? They do not want acceptance. They want celebration. Or else.

    And they can fuck off.

  7. @JuliaM.

    It’s what the commentator Douglas Murray has taken to calling “gay” versus “queer”. “Gays” being people who simply happen to be attracted to those of the same sex who, rightly, want to be accepted as themselves without being persecuted for who they are and who they love, and who understandably want to have the same rights (like marriage) as everyone else. “Queers” believe all of that, but wish to use it as a battering ram, pushing ever more extreme ideology onto a public which doesn’t want it, in an attempt to fundamentally re-order society. The danger for gay people is that much of the stuff being peddled by the “queers” (child drag-queens, anyone?) is SO outrageous and so appalling, that the inevitable backlash against it runs the risk of undoing the vast majority of the progress achieved over the last fifty years or so.

  8. You may have seen in the news, a trans bloke is suing a porn producer for having second thoughts after discovering his ‘recruit’ had a penis. In current year, I’m not even certain that the case will be thrown out. This says a lot about current year.

  9. The recent protests at Chick-fil-a in Reading come to mind. They are having their licence removed at the 6 month point by the Oracle centre due to the owners of CFA being against gay marriage. Sane people would just raise awareness and boycott, but current activists close it down. The thing is that like the recent XR tube incident shows, it’s not wise to piss off the ‘normies’ you are supposed to be persuading.

    As for feminists. Sorry ladies. As you sow etc,. The last 40 years of throwing men under the bus has been nothing less than a sin to all the men that came before us and built western civilisation – by your own definition of the patriarchy. It’s good to see you stripped of your victim status finally. Looks like ‘your turn’ isn’t lasting very long!

  10. If this tranny sport thing does take off, how long before Russia or China start to take it seriously for the Olympics?

  11. “Gay marriage is just about being left alone” has always struck me as a fallacy. Pre-[insert relevant date for your jurisdiction], if two gay men wanted to live together and call themselves married, there was nothing stopping them. If they could find a minister willing to perform a wedding ceremony for them, they were free to do that, as well. In other words, gays were being left alone. The whole push for gay marriage was about getting access to a raft of positive rights.

    As for the transgender sports issue, I personally find it very hard to get worked up about it. The idea of legitimate male-only spaces (social clubs, educational institutions, etc.) has been under attack for the last fifty years or so, in everywhere except sports (i.e., in everywhere except where sexual integration would harm women). Now women are losing one of their spaces, my first reaction is just to shrug and say, “Well, we men have had to deal with this sort of thing, so I guess you can as well.”

  12. I dunno. These movements aren’t all monolithic. Every point of those controversies mentioned – gay marriage, suing bakeries for not baking gay wedding cakes, etc – would have bought out support and opposition from different gay/lesbian activists.

    What we are seeing, in part, is a generational shift. The younger crowd, mostly zealous enthusiasts and extremists for the trans community, want to assert their superiority over the older crowd.

    Check out this example – power struggle amongst the Clintons!


  13. @Captain Nemo,

    Yes, Murray is very articulate on these issues. There’s some excellent, if repetitive, podcast interviews with him promoting the new book.

    I await my copy with anticipation, it’s being pitched as the definitive piece on the modern madness.

  14. And in related news I think I have the designated victim for the next twitter pile-on


    PEOPLE don’t get periods. Women do. PEOPLE don’t get pregnant. Women do. PEOPLE don’t breastfeed. Women do. Being FEMALE is not a “feeling”. It isn’t frilly dresses, high heels, long hair & make up. I’m sick of seeing my sex erased & trivialized to accommodate everyone else.


    I don’t care how people identify. Or what they choose to do with their own money, behind closed doors. But stop telling FEMALES that all the things that are unique and special to us can apply to everyone. They CAN’T and they DON’T. It’s offensive and demeaning.

  15. When the idea of civil partnerships was mooted Dearly Beloved and I had a major disagreement over the issue. He was in favour, I was vehemently opposed and argued that the activists would want more and more. It seemed obvious to me that it would inevitably lead to a particularly slippery and vertiginous slope. It gives me no pleasure to say “I told you so”. For what it’s worth, I’m a happy well-adjusted homo of the non-whinging variety.

  16. The whole push for gay marriage was about getting access to a raft of positive rights.

    Yep, marriage is now just welfare for live-in lovers. Unmerited welfare at that (much as pretty much all other forms). If two (or more) people (in any combination of sexes and/or degrees of consanguinity) want to live together and diddle one another, why should the rest of us be expected to subsidize them? I could see it if the relationship served a useful social function (say by ensuring equal parental status for men, and thus giving men an emotional stake in the future of their own communities and nations), but as children and paternity are no longer considered a necessary component of marriage, why keep the state involved at all? Repeal all marriage laws and let the chips fall where they may! Love wins!

    And men with no assurance that they’re fathers will, *of course*, still work themselves into early graves and higher tax brackets to keep the civilization they inherited from their forefathers working and secure for the bastard spawn of their casual hook-ups…

  17. I’m totally & completely in agreement with our Blog Host.
    I’m not lifting a finger in this one, except to hoist popcorn into my mouth, or an ice-cold beer to the lips.

    … and watching with extreme schadenfreude.

  18. I must admit that I don’t understand why long term pair bonding between 2 males has the same name as long term pair bonding between 2 women which also has the same name as long term pair bonding between a male and a female.

    To be honest, I don’t believe those relationships are the same at anything other than the most superficial level.

  19. The issue is not the issue.
    There are people who want to make a fuss, and are constantly in search of something to make a fuss about. And since they keep getting rewarded we keep getting more of them

  20. Douglas Murray has made many excellent interviews online in relation to issues raised within his book.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jBr7m4lFE6I Lengthy but always interesting interview.
    One of is suggestions is that because the working class in the west never joined arms to overthrow capitalism, the left looked to minorities to man the barricades and toss the bombs. First women, then ethnic minorities, then the alphabet brigade. This explains why once the legitimate equalities are achieved there is a racheting of more extreme demands. I would add those cynically driven mad by the apocalyptic cult of climate change. Is there a tipping point at which their momentum overwhelms society?

  21. @Ljh

    I’ve been saying that for a while now. Not my original idea by the way. But the pre-Blair marxists never forgave some of the British working class for voting Tory. So they decided to replace them using Blair’s government to accelerate the process. Import workers willing to work for low pay, push down wages, push the working class into the benefit class (so they are reliant on govt) and build the coalition. But at least now the enemy is starting to take shape and we are now starting to see what we are up against. Let’s not forget that this isn’t some union led grass roots movement. This is backed by people with deep pockets and massive influence over our media and politicians. The battle (what I call 4th generation war) is for the complete control of western civilisation. And if western civilisation falls, then freedom fails globally. Boot meet neck. My more recent argument is that this is not about nationalism and ‘bloody foreigners’ but about freedom, global freedom.

    To add, when people accuse the right of being Nazis, I just counter with ‘devil worshiping marxists’. When questioned I point out that Saul Alinskey’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ was dedicated to Satan, and Antifa have been recorded doing ‘hail Satan’ rituals prior to their protests. We need to counter ‘Nazi’ with ‘devil worshiper’ more often. I think normies would begin to get that one.

  22. ” Is there a tipping point at which their momentum overwhelms society?”

    I would suggest not: rather the contrary. The vast and silent majority is only silent whilst it’s not a big issue. The morons do not therefore appreciate just how vast the silent majority is.

    When someone starts seriously to impinge on said vast majority, a crucial, probably unwashed…, element thereof stops being silent and the rest of the vast majority suddenly realises how vast it is. Morons are put back in their box, safely or otherwise

  23. The whole push for gay marriage was about getting access to a raft of positive rights.

    It has been pointed out that prior to gay marriage being The Thing, gay men wanted nothing to do with marriage and other ‘straight’ social institutiuons, preferring to revel in their iconoclastic status.

    I can’t find the references right now, but there’s ample evidence that the legalization of gay marriage – marriage, under the law, not civil unions or whatnot – was cooked up explicitly as a wedge issue to use against the Catholic church for tis opposition to homosexuality. Make gay marriage legally indistinguishable from the real thing, then go after churches and ordained ministers who refuse to perform them under civil rights laws.

    It does explain why it suddenly became an issue almost overnight, and attracted huge amounts of funding from the usual suspects.

Comments are closed.