Author name: Josh Slocum

LGBTQ+

Trump Announces Plans to End Worst Child Abuse in History

/

President-elect Donald Trump made a historically unique and profound statement earlier this year that got overlooked. It’s about one of the worst abuses of children in American history, perhaps world history. He looked directly at the camera and told the truth—no other politician has done so—about what “gender-affirming care” for children really is: mutilation and child abuse. 

Trump promised:

  • No more federal dollars to any institution that abuses children this way
  • No participation in the process of transing children by any federal agency
  • A ban on this barbaric cruelty in all 50 states

Wokespy readers, I’m going to get a little more personal with you today than is normal for a news article; I want you to truly understand this on a human level. I was born in 1974, and grew up before it occurred to any sane person that a child could have a “sex change.” I was a stereotypical sensitive sissy boy, and took the chiding and the fights that came with that. Had I been born 25 years later, I would almost certainly have been taken to a gender clinic where my mind and body would have been permanently ruined. 

Unfortunately, mental derangement runs in my family, and child abuse shows up in every generation. I had to personally intervene in my own family to save a young boy from having his health and his manhood taken from him by abusive adults who wanted to turn him into a girl. I assure you, what sounds like a fictional nightmare is very real.

That’s what “gender-affirming care” is. It’s psychological, chemical, and physical mutilation of perfectly healthy children simply because they don’t conform to every stereotype of what “boys are” and “girls are.” The vast majority of children who end up in gender clinics have been abused at home or in other ways. They need help, not brutality. 

Many of you reading this won’t know what “gender-affirming care” really is. You can’t, because the media lies. Try it. Type that into Google. You get nothing but search results that characterize not cutting a child’s genitals off as “abuse.” I will repeat that so that you’re sure you read it right. Yes. Proponents claim that not surgically castrating children is an act of abuse. 

This comprehensive report on the problem from the UK has a summary that will help you understand the issue more clearly. 

It’s a moral reversal. 

Children who are put on “puberty blockers” are being put on the same chemicals used to chemically castrate rapists. They will never grow a natural, normal body, and their brains will not develop normally. Once they are put on cross-sex hormones, they will be permanently sterilized. Most of these children will have the ability to enjoy sexual pleasure as adults permanently taken by these nightmare interventions. 

And parents who are desperately trying to save their children from wicked social services agencies and doctors who can’t wait to perform Mengele-esque procedures are having their children taken away from them by family courts. 

Some of you reading this are shocked. You had no idea. That’s because the leftist media, and the leftist government, have lied. We should all be shocked that it took so many years for any politician to stand up and say “stop mutilating children.”

That’s what Donald Trump did, and it’s going to save innocent lives.

Let’s sample the reaction on X/Twitter. 

.

Democrats, Entertainment

All In The Family’s Rob Reiner Still a Meathead 50 Years Later

/

If you’re of a certain age, you remember watching All in the Family when it aired on primetime. The show featured a working class white family living in Queens. Archie and Edith Bunker were the parents, and their daughter Gloria and her husband Mike lived in the townhouse with them. 

When I was a kid growing up in a Democrat household (don’t worry, I got better), loudmouthed and blunt Archie was the hero we loved to hate. He was conservative and crotchety. He had little time for complaints from racial minorities about mistreatment; for Archie, it was a lot of whining from people who didn’t have it nearly as bad as they claimed they did. 

He didn’t like his son-in-law Mike, either, a long-haired, mustachioed, long-in-the-tooth hippie who banged on about vegetarianism, social justice, and those bad capitalist fat cats. There was a reason Archie called him “meathead.”

Show creator Normal Lear was, though very talented, your standard-issue Hollywood liberal. Middle-aged, working class, white Archie Bunker was supposed to be the scapegoat of the show. We were supposed to laugh at him with pity, never with him. Instead, daughter Gloria and her meathead husband were positioned as the “truly caring” people that normal and good Americans could identify with. 

I used to watch the show the way I was “supposed to.” And then I grew up and got into middle age and I’ll tell you, I can’t stand meathead either. To me, Archie Bunker was the real hero of the show. It may even be true that Archie Bunker was the inaugural character who launched 50 years of insult and degradation by liberals against white conservative American men. You’re hard pressed to find a single father figure or major male character in a comedy show who isn’t portrayed as a selfish, stupid oaf who can’t figure out how to run a washing machine. No, it’s his “better half,” his much more clever and with-it wife, who makes all good things happen. 

All of that is a long wind-up to point out that it looks like Normal Lear wrote Mike Stivic/Meathead to mirror the actor Rob Reiner who played him. Reiner has become one of the most deranged uber-progressive-liberals in Hollywood, and at his advanced age he continues to bedevil social media users with pious stupidity like this: 

The reader will pardon me while I steel myself against picking up the bourbon. 

What’s he on about? Democrats literally cannot and will not tell you what a woman is if you ask. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh proved that with his wildly successful documentary, “What is a Woman.”

And what does Reiner or any other liberal in Hollywood care about birthing babies? The only babies they like are those that get aborted before they have a chance at life. It’s really just too much. There are words for men like Rob Reiner—and they’re accurate—but those are too colorful for Wokespy.

Let’s see how X/Twitter reacted to Reiner’s bathos:

This one’s extra funny even if it takes a minute to get it:

https://twitter.com/TheOnlyDSC/status/1853583778486030562
Race, Race Baiting

Bombshell in Daniel Penny Subway Case: Police Detected Pulse on Jordan Neely and Refused to Provide CPR

/

No reasonable person can help but strongly suspect that the prosecution of Daniel Penny is what the Brits call a “stitch-up.”

Penny, the young former Marine with an Errol Flynn look, tried to protect NYC subway passengers from an erratic man who was threatening to hurt people on the train. In May of 2023, Jordan Neely, 30 (black), was acting erratically on the subway. According to witnesses, Neely was behaving in a threatening fashion, saying things like, “I don’t care if I die. I don’t care if I go to jail.” 

According to Penny and witnesses, Neely lunged at passengers and convinced people he was a threat to their safety (Neely was threatening to kill train riders). Penny jumped into action and subdued Neely with a chokehold. Neely later died, and the media immediately went into racism overdrive.

CNN described Neely, who was homeless and who had a rap sheet with 42 arrests, as simply a “homeless black man” who was a beloved “Michael Jackson impersonator.” All the photos used to depict him were chosen to present Neely as unthreatening. The narrative was set: Penny was a White Devil who Murdered a Poor Innocent Oppressed Black Man. 

But worse, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (famous for prosecuting Donald Trump over “hush money” payments), also black and with a chip on his shoulder, slapped Penny with manslaughter charges. Prosecutors claim Penny “went way too far,” and should have stopped trying to restrain the aggressive man.  The implication is clear: prosecutors want to convince a jury and the public that Penny was not a hero, but a racist murderer. 

And we wonder why Americans are increasingly unwilling to come to each other’s aide when in distress. Careful–if you protect your own life or someone else’s against a black person you may end up imprisoned for having the gall to want to survive.

But my, how the worm turned in court on November 1. Thank God for the Daily Mail, or most of us wouldn’t know that, lo and behold, Jordan Neely still had a pulse after police and medics arrived on the scene. Despite their efforts at CPR, Neely died later in the hospital. 

Take a look at Google’s news page: Would you have had any idea that such a crucial fact had come out in public if not for the single Daily Mail story? 

It gets worse for the prosecution when you read the testimony of the cops on scene. One unnamed NYPD Sergeant said his cops did not perform “mouth to mouth” on Neely because “he seemed to be a drug user. . .he was an apparent drug user. He was very dirty. I didn’t want [my officers] to get hepatitis.”

To quote Rugg’s commentary in full:

NEW: Jordan Neely had a pulse after being put in a chokehold by Marine veteran Daniel Penny but NYPD declined mouth-to-mouth because they were afraid of getting hepatitis.

Neely was so dirty that officers didn’t feel safe performing CPR.

Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after he defended Subway riders from Neely who was threatening to kill them.

An NYPD Sergeant said no one wanted to give mouth-to-mouth because they didn’t want to get hepatitis and Neely was very dirty. “He seemed to be a drug user… he was an apparent drug user. He was very dirty. I didn’t want them to get hepatitis.” “If he did wake up he would have been vomiting. I didn’t want my officers to do that.” “He was filthy. He looked like a homeless individual. You have to protect your officer.” “I wouldn’t want my officer to get sick if the person throws up.”

Does any of this make sense? Who can look at this and see Daniel Penny as anything other than a sacrifice to racial narcissism and untouchability in 21st century America. No honest person believes Penny would be in the dock if he were not white, and Neely were not black. 

Here’s a sampling of the reaction from X (Twitter) users:

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 30JAN10 - Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, USA is captured during the session 'Redesign Your Cause' of the Annual Meeting 2010 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 30, 2010. Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Monika Flueckiger
Democrats, Media

NYT Writer Spins False Sob Story About Woman Who Induced Own Miscarriage

/

Let me tell you a tragic story about a woman who lost her baby due to a miscarriage. It’s every mother’s worst nightmare, the thought of losing her precious baby before it’s even born. Making it so much worse, the grieving mother was set upon by vicious right wing police who arrested her on manslaughter charges. The final insult was a prison sentence. 

Thank God for the kind heart of one lawyer who offered to help this woman for free. Her conviction was overturned, and she was released to go back to mothering her living children. 

At least – this is the kind of nightmare that Democrat voters want to prevent.

Except it didn’t happen that way. But New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, from whom I cribbed this story, thinks that it did. 

So does the Washington Post.

And so does Esquire Magazine, which used the Washington Post story about Patience Frazier, the woman in question.

If those were the only articles you read, you would think that’s what happened, too. And millions of Americans will see only these headlines and conclude that, yes, evil Republicans really do want to punish women for innocent miscarriages. How could they not think this, when the most popular news aggregator serves them this? 

But X (Twitter) has something different: community notes. Community notes is a feature added to X after Elon Musk bought the company. It allows X users to challenge the premises of a post and actually correct incorrect information with facts. Let’s take another look at Nicholas Kristof’s post with the community note included. 

That’s a horse of a different color. Not only did this “miscarriage” occur six years ago, well before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but Miss Frazier deliberately induced a miscarriage by taking illicit drugs, among other activities. When she got the stillbirth she wanted, she buried the baby in her backyard quietly. 

Reasonable people can still disagree over whether what Frazier did rises to the level of manslaughter, and over whether it’s a good idea to allow the state this much leeway to investigate circumstances like this. But facts are facts: Frazier was not “oppressed” by Republicans, or by anyone. Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with the death of her baby; Miss Frazier did it. 

Let’s sample the social media reaction. 

Nathaniel asks a question that clearly could never occur to a liberal. 

Left-wing extremism

NYC Legalizes Jaywalking for Exact Reason You’re Expecting

/

To live in 21st century America is to be pushed to believe in lies and to watch the societal infrastructure get pulled down by do-gooders. One of the biggest lies we’re expected to swallow is the idea that America is “systemically racist” against black people. Since the mid 2010s, and exacerbated by the death of George Floyd and the rise of Black Lives Matter, media and Democrat politicians have shouted at the top of their lungs that white people have their fellow black Americans under a crushing boot. 

It’s outrageous because it’s so obviously backward. Black Americans have been raised to the status of an untouchable sacred caste while white Americans have to suffer being called racists and oppressors simply for noticing or saying “ouch” when they get mugged.

Open any social media platform, and you’ll be treated to countless videos of black mobs holding up stores, engaging in organized robbery and shoplifting, and assaulting white people with zero consequences. 

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in colleges, but evidence suggest universities are still admitting black students who are demonstrably less qualified than white applicants. As predicted, Ivies like Cornell are getting around the ban by renaming the practice. 

Somehow, the country fell asleep at the wheel and forgot everything it claimed to learn from civil rights leader Martin Luther King, who said character, not color, was what mattered. Today, our politicians and policy wonks follow the prescription of low-brow-but-popular “thinkers” like woke black radical Ibram X. Kendi, who says “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”

Police departments have been gutted in cities across the country, and states like California have essentially legalized shoplifting unless it gets up to about $1,000 in value. 

New York City appears to be giving up on civic law and order completely. I can barely believe I’m writing this, but I am: New York City just legalized jaywalking. Why? Because of “racial disparities.” What does that mean? It means that because black people got caught jaywalking more than other groups, that New York was “doing a racism” to them. 

It’s necessary to spell it right out: you are not allowed to notice or react to black people displaying disproportionate criminality. If you do, you’re a racist. Black people are not allowed to be thought of as criminals, called criminals, or punished for criminal behavior.

The standards get lowered until they’re gone. 

You read that right. As per CBS:

Your average New Yorker is no stranger to jaywalking, which has been illegal since 1958. That’s about to change.  Starting in February, New Yorkers will no longer be breaking the law when crossing the street in between traffic, and will no longer receive a fine for jaywalking. 

The City Council has been working to decriminalize jaywalking, which is something nearly every New Yorker does. 

“In 2023, over 92% of jaywalking citations went to Black and Latino New Yorkers, highlighting an unacceptable disparity. The bill changes that by removing criminal penalties, ensuring everyone is treated fairly, regardless of race or backgroud,” said Councilmember Mercedes Narcisse, who sponsored the legislation. “Police officers have shared with me they prefer to focus on true public safety efforts, not issuing tickets for crossing the street.” 

Let’s see the reaction from X users. First up, Elon Musk himself. 

Woke

Researchers Find Dumb Fake Word “Latinx” Makes Hispanics Vote Republican

/

Remember, it’s “intellectually challenged,” not “retarded.” It’s “unhoused,” not “homeless.” It’s “person experiencing homelessness,” not “homeless person.” It’s “person of color,” not “black man.” It’s “food insecurity,” not “hunger.” It’s “person of transgender experience” not “sex-change freak.” It’s “person experiencing diabetes,” not “a diabetic.” It’s “mental health challenges,” not “insane.” 

Are you irritated at being lectured to about language for a paragraph? You’re in good company with Hispanics and Latinos, then; more on that below. The euphemism treadmill is an endless cycle of substituting newer and vaguer words for old and well-known things. Or, “old wine in new bottles.” Linguist Steven Pinker first pointed out how terms go through phases, and as soon as the unpleasant meaning behind the term catches up with the word, we throw out the word and insert a new one for the same damned thing. 

Most people find the ever-shifting linguistic carousel impossible to keep up with and annoying. But while it’s bad enough to risk social and professional censure for using the wrong word to describe hungry people, it’s entirely another to have the word for your own ethnicity doctored and replaced by woke liberals. 

That’s what the sainted left has been trying to do for years with the word “Latino.” Woke blue hairs are convinced that men are bad, and that we in the west live in a “patriarchy.” For anyone who can believe that nonsense, it’s a short step to re-engineering the very names of ethnic groups, whether they like it or not. And they do not. 

Have you heard the term “Latinx”? No one is sure how it’s pronounced (“la-tinks”? “la-teen-ex”?) because it’s not a real word. But the woke left has been trying to make it one for years. Why? Because Spanish is a gendered language, and they really-super-don’t-like that the collective noun for a group of Spanish speakers has a masculine “o” ending. It’s the same henpecking that took away “waitress” and gave us “server,” and that insists on calling women in show business “actors” instead of “actresses.”

Did any of the societal saviors think to ask actual Spanish speakers what they thought? Nope. But they’re telling us what they think through their votes, according to this paper co-written by scholars from Georgetown University and Harvard titled “The X Factor: How Group Labels Shape Politics.”

To quote from the study’s abstract:

We present an Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory and posit politicians who use inclusive group labels may experience backlash among relevant group members predisposed against newly included or salient group members. Latinos’ relationship with “Latinx,” a gender-inclusive label, is a theoretical test case. 

Using several datasets, we find: Latinos are less likely to support politicians who use “Latinx”; Latinos who oppose “Latinx” are less likely to support politicians who used or are associated with “Latinx”; Latinos in areas where “Latinx” is more salient are more likely to switch their vote toward Trump between 2016-2020.

While Republican Latinos were the most likely to be turned off by the woke language, even Democrat Latinos were less likely to support candidates who used it:

Isn’t it amazing? The researchers correctly noted that Hispanics don’t like “Latinx,” and that it seems to push them to vote Trump (Republican). But they still recommend trying to indoctrinate Latinos further to force them to accept this ugly neologism being applied to themselves. 

Let’s see what X users had to say. 

Kamala Harris
Big Government, Democrats

Gun-Grabbin’ Kam Kam Claims It Is Trump Who’s Going to Take Your Guns

/

If you’re a black American, especially a black American male, you’re probably used to being lectured by your “betters” about who you vote for. Prominent Democrats have a history of believing they own the black vote. President Joe Biden famously said that if you didn’t vote for him, you “ain’t black.”

Earlier this month, Barack Obama was caught on tape lecturing young black men and implying that they were sexists for being reluctant to vote for Kamala Harris. (Check out this report where black men push back against Obama’s paternal patronization). 

It doesn’t look like the pushback is making much difference for the Dems. Down to the electoral wire, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris—she’s actually talking to the media!—is saying she just can’t understand why any black person wouldn’t vote for her. As the current headmistress of what’s informally known among conservative blacks as the “Democrat Plantation,” Harris wants to convince black voters that a vote for Trump is a vote to have their constitutional freedoms taken away. 

Podcast host Shannon Sharpe put the question to Harris: why do some blacks “revere” Donald Trump? Harris affected to be perplexed (or maybe it was not an act) at how any African American could cast their ballot for a man she says, without evidence, will “terminate your constitutional rights.”

She really does say that Trump has claimed, in his own words, that he will “terminate the constitution.” That is a lie. Trump has never said any such thing. It’s also a good example of the phenomenon of projection and reversal, where the evil-doer accuses her targets of the very things she herself is doing. 

And she said, without a hint of irony, “But the First Amendment [will be gone]. The Second Amendment. I’m in favor of the Second Amendment. I don’t believe we should be taking anybody’s guns away.

It’s hard to explain or understand. Shannon Sharpe vigorously agrees with Harris’ claims, jumping in to say he’s worried that a Trump victory would take away the first amendment’s freedom of speech protections. How is it possible for any conscious adult to fail to see that it’s the Democrats who are cracking down on political expression and freedom? 

The irony of Harris portraying herself as a second-amendment hero couldn’t be funnier. As the NRA documented:

At a September 2019 campaign event, Harris told reporters that confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, Harris added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”

She also supports gun confiscation via buybacks;

On the September 16, 2019 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?” She responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.”

On October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC “gun safety forum.” During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin. She told him; We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets.

On October 31, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation at a public television candidates forum in Ankeny, Iowa. Responding to a question about gun control, Harris answered, “I support buybacks.” 

Lots of people on Twitter are asking the same question. 

Adam Coleman asks another very obvious question. 

Some people remember Kamala’s past gun-grabbing rhetoric:

Ouch:

Democrats

Democrat Strategist Thinks Kamala Harris Talks Like a “Nuanced Intellectual”

/

What would you do if we were having lunch and talking about immigration policy, and I said to you, “Let me be very clear. I’m aware of what we need to do in order to do the things we need to do around the important issue of immigration, in America, which is to listen to the American people about their hopes, and dreams, and aspirations, and ambitions, around what we need to do to fix the broken border”?

Or, try this. Say we were riding on a commuter train together talking about mortgage rates, and you asked me what interest rate I paid on my first mortgage. In response, pretend I said, “Look. I grew up in a middle class family. I know small businesses and their hopes and dreams. My mother worked very hard–we knew all the small businesses and how much they meant.”

You might pick up your phone and search out the signs of a stroke and ask me to tell you what day and year it was. Or, you might wonder if I’d been spiking my Diet Coke from a flask of Smirnoff. 

But no! I wouldn’t be having a stroke, and I wouldn’t have been nipping vodka on the train. Instead, I was speaking to you in a new language called “Kamalese.” It’s the native tongue of the current vice president and the Democrat party’s nominee for the White House. Kamalese is a modern creole language that one woman has fashioned from the PowerPoint decks in San Francisco office towers (and, some say, with a little chemical help). 

It’s a variation on corporate and academic-speak. Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing, Kamalese is composed mainly of filler words that do not refer to specific subjects. Instead, the speaker aims to leave the listener somewhere between confused and uncomfortable so they won’t ask any too-specific questions. 

For a gourmand’s sampling of Kamalese, check out this collection from The Conservateur. 

We all know academic and policy-wonk-speak. You don’t say, “Children are going hungry,” you say, “Youth in the United States of America don’t have access to nutritional resources.” You don’t talk about homeless people who die of exposure from sleeping on the streets in winter, you speak of “Unfortunate outcomes of those experiencing homelessness and lack of weather-abatement resources.”

The thing about corporate-speak and Kamalese is that everyone knows it’s a bunch of bullshit. Except Ally Sammarco.

Sammarco is a Democrat strategist and political consultant at ARS Media. And according to her, Miss Kam-Kam actually sounds like a super-smart lady, and we’re all just stupid for hearing word salad.

No. Really:

Oh, dear. Let’s see what other X users had to say. Here’s Mollie Hemmingway:

Aaaaaand here comes Miss Sammarco face-planting even harder:

Carmelita here is just straight-trolling. 

Ha!

Left-wing extremism, LGBTQ+, Uncategorized

Surrounded by Fools: Bearded Lady Tells Ben Shapiro She’s a Man

/

It’s hard to say whether the fever of “gender ideology” may finally be breaking. Ever since Time Magazine declared in 2014 on its cover that America is reaching a “Transgender tipping point,” Americans have been bombarded with gender ideology. It seems there may be some cracks forming in this lunatic consensus, but if so, it’s going to take a while for the left to abandon the ideas. More on this below. 

But what is “gender ideology?” It is a constellation of ideas about sex, sexuality, humans, and “identities”, including:

  • The belief that biological sex is not real, but an arbitrary “choice.” No, it does not make sense, but yes, people do claim this. 
  • The belief that every person has a “gender identity,” and that “gender identity” is completely separate from their actual sexed body. For example, a man will be said to have a “female” “gender identity.” That means that he asserts that he believes he is a woman despite the factual reality. 
  • That a person’s “gender identity” controls whether they are male or female, with no regard to the person’s actual anatomy. 
  • Worst, the belief that children who do not conform to sex-role expectations (e.g., “boys play rough” and “girls like pretty things”) are born in the wrong body. Therefore, a little boy who likes sparkly princess stories is “really” a girl, and he should be chemically castrated and perhaps surgically, too. 

You can see what major medical institutions like the Cleveland Clinic say about “gender identity,” but be warned that allegedly scientific medical organizations are all completely captured by these magical beliefs. 

Until very recently, it has been socially forbidden to observe the obvious: a person who believes they were born in the wrong body and is actually the opposite sex has mental difficulties. Refusing to call men who claim to be women “she” has resulted in countless people being fired from their jobs and called bigots, and worse. 

But conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has  never been afraid to speak the truth. He walked right into the lion’s den recently, participating in a Youtube show called “Surrounded.” The conceit is that a speaker sits in the middle of a room surrounded by a circle of people who get a few minutes each to debate him on issues. 

That’s when this happened. 

The person on the right is not a man. She very much wants you to believe she is. She’s angry that Ben Shapiro won’t tell her that she’s a man. (It’s not clear from the video what her name is). But in reality, she is a woman on testosterone who has been “living as a man.” The picture above? That’s her swaggering over and turning the chair around to plunk down in a “manly” way (note the “manspread” sitting posture). 

In this short clip below, Shapiro and “Barb” debate the idea that someone can change their sex. Barb acts like a caricature of a macho bro-dude, hamming up the “masculine” mannerisms and speaking to Shapiro in a tone that sounds like she wants a fist fight. 

Here’s a sample of the dialogue:

Barb: First question-can men get pregnant? 

Ben: Men cannot get pregnant. 

Barb: So, I’m a transgender man, I’ve experienced SA (sexual abuse), and abortion rights affect me directly. So, if we’re talking about the American dream you live, why don’t I have access to that? Because there’s no legislation in the history of America that legislates a man’s body, so why does mine have to be legislated? I have a vagina.”

No, there isn’t more context that makes the above suddenly make sense. Here’s the whole clip. 

Barb wasn’t the only debate opponent who seemed, to put it generously, naïve. Here’s Ben speaking with a woman who asks, “Why does the definition of abortion have to include the death of a fetus?” Looking momentarily confused, Ben shoots back, “Because that’s literally the definition of ‘abortion’.”

You won’t be surprised to learn that his opponent does not agree. 

Click below to watch the entire hour-and-forty-minute-long video, if you’re so inclined. But be prepared, the liberal stupidity truly is off the charts.

Let’s see how X users reacted to Barb-n-Ben. 

LGBTQ+

Gender Ideology Doctors Cover Up Damning Data to Ensure More Kids Get Transed

/

We’ve been told that “gender affirming care” is lifesaving. We’ve been told it’s “medically necessary.” We’ve been emotionally blackmailed into accepting that loving parents should consent to the chemical and surgical mutilation of their children, lest those same children kill themselves (this is an abuse tactic commonly used by those with borderline personality disorder). 

But how many people know exactly what “gender-affirming care” actually means? It sounds nice, doesn’t it? Safe. Warm. Compassionate. But is it? 

“Gender-affirming care” is, in fact:

  • Lying to a child and telling that child that he or she can become the other sex
  • Validating this delusion in a child, and concretizing their mental distress into permanent illness
  • Blocking natural puberty with the same drugs used to chemically castrate rapists
  • Amputating breasts, removing testicles and penises, and much more

Would the millions of adult Americans who tell pollsters that they “support” “gender-affirming care” for children maintain that position if they really knew exactly what it was? It’s impossible to know. But what’s worse is the fact that the mainstream, establishment media has been actively covering up the truth, and actively campaigning for this child abuse to continue. 

It is impossible for any sane, skeptical people, including pediatricians, to get a hearing in the legacy media without being called “transphobes” who want children so distressed that they kill themselves. If that sounds insane to you, reader, that’s because it is insane. Remember, we now live in a country where it is considered a  prestige opinion  that there are children “born in the wrong body” who “need” sex-mutilating medical treatments.

That may be starting to change, just a smidge. Surprisingly, one of the worst purveyors of transgender nonsense, The New York Times, has published a story about the reluctance of gender medicine researchers to tell the truth. Doctor Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a big advocate for child sex changes, told the Times that she has not published her own study on the effects of puberty blockers on the mental health of children who take them. 

Why? Because she’s worried that her results will be “weaponized” against trans people.

According to the Washington Examiner:

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” Olson-Kennedy told the publication.

The nearly $10 million study followed the development of 95 children from across the country to see if their mental health improved following treatment with puberty blockers.

Olson-Kennedy said that treatment with puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements. The unpublished findings contradict preliminary research released by Olson-Kennedy and colleagues in 2022, which found approximately a quarter of adolescents were depressed or suicidal before starting either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

It also contradicts the seminal Dutch study that has become the foundation for most gender clinics worldwide, which concluded that puberty blockers significantly improve the mental well-being of children with gender dysphoria.

In plain, honest terms, she decided not to tell the world that she found that puberty blockers did not improve “trans” children’s mental health because she’s politically committed to gender medicine, the harm to children be damned. She explicitly told the paper that she worries her findings would help more states ban “gender affirming care” for children. It appears that she wants children mutilated, and she wants no legal barriers that would save them. 

Here’s how X/Twitter reacted. 


Subscribe Form

© 2025 WokeSpy All Rights Reserved

Scroll to Top