LGBTQ+

Click on the video below to watch 38 seconds of an apparently legless person with a sing-song and manic affect tell you all about the latest uglification of what’s being called the “progress pride flag.” We’re going to assume that this is a man, but nothing is certain these days. 

In case you don’t want to subject yourself to that much leftie audio, Wokespy will break it down for you!

This is the original gay pride flag. It was never known as the “LGBT” flag until recently. 

Around 2015, a new set of deviants calling themselves “trans” and “queer” somehow climbed to the top of the privilege hierarchy among sexual minorities, displacing plain old-fashioned gay people with those who claimed to have different “genders.” “Abimegender,” for example, is a “gender” that is “profound, deep, and infinite.”

And that’s when the rainbow clown crew started jam-packing the old flag with all sorts of clashing colors and aesthetically baffling symbols to depict the alleged existence of ever-weirder micro-categories of sexuality. 

Our friend in the video above gives us a brief tour. After introducing the “classic” rainbow flag, he points out that the black and brown bands are to “represent people of color,” who, presumably, were not represented by the literal rainbow. Or something. The baby pink and blue stripes are there for “trans folx,” a yellow triangle for “intersex folx,” and the two feathers in what looks like a donut stand for “indigenous folks that identify as two-spirit.”

On that last one: For a group of people who say they’re concerned about being inclusive, it seems strange to represent American Indians with feathers, considering that only some tribes used them in headdresses. And that whole “two-spirit” thing? It’s not some ancient tribal tradition. The idea was coined at some gay and lesbian conference in 1990. 

Social media users are reacting as you would expect them to. 

Well, Natalia, neither can they!

User Fahrenheit533 simplifies the taxonomy for us:

There’s always at least one who says something that’s funny because it’s unkind but true:

What’s your favorite neo-gender? Tell us in the comments!

Is there anything that “trans” has not contaminated? From movies to television to school curricula to (mostly female) church preachers to children’s programming, it’s all trans, all the time. Time was it was considered, well, weird to be a grown man in makeup and girlie clothes. Now the transvestites of yesterday’s daytime talk shows, presented as the studies in human oddity that they were, are pushed in our faces as “real women.”

But wait-there’s more! Wildly popular Youtube video maker “Mr. Beast,” known for elaborate video pranks and philanthropic give-aways, has a trans sidekick. MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, boasts a relatively young audience base of over 300 million subscribers on YouTube, and is known for his elaborate and often philanthropic videos. He’s gained widespread recognition for his attention-grabbing stunts, large-scale challenges, and generous donations, often giving away large sums of money, cars, and even houses to strangers and fans.

This has been known for a while since viewers started noticing that co-host Chris Tyson had started to look and act a little more effeminate.

Well now Chris, who abandoned his wife and child, is “Kris”, and “she” is telling everyone that female hormones “saved” “her” life. 

“I am a woman! She/her. I’ve never said that publicly, but I’ve been fully confident in that decision for over a year now,” he said in a recent interview.

But wait—there’s even more! Kris Tyson isn’t just any trans woman; it appears Tyson may be interested in children for reasons other than paternal. The campaign group Gays Against Groomers, made up of homosexuals fighting against the encroachment of child abusers and pedophiles into what used to be simply called the “gay community” has this:

The trans community, amazingly, was more concerned with his bad it made them look, rather than express any concern for the minors involved.

Now, these are all still just allegations, but talk around Chris Tyson’s sexual interests potentially veering into the “inappropriately aged” category has been going on for some time. This video makes additional allegations:

Social media users seem unsurprised at the accusations, and why shouldn’t they be? We’ve been screamed at for years that “trans women” are real women, normal in every way, even when these lady men are caught perving in women’s bathrooms and worse. 

Some parents caught on earlier (maybe it was the suspicious use of the “trans colors” of baby pink and baby blue on the wrappers for Mr. Beast snack bars. 

Normal people are tired of being quiet and told they’re bigots for noticing depravity and saying “no thanks.”

More is sure to come out over time. What do you think about all this? Tell us in the comments!

Like with every issue, the Biden White House cannot figure out its position on so-called “gender affirming care” (also known as “genital mutilation”) for children and minors. First they’re all for it, then they’re for some parts of it but not others, and then they’re back to supporting the most extreme medical interventions. At issue now is whether the White House supports sex-change surgery for kids.

The reason for this waffling appears to be that neither Biden nor anyone in the administration is actually making these decisions. Instead, radical campaigning groups are doing it for them. Sleuths on Twitter/X have put together a chain of rapidly “evolving” statements from the White House after apparent interference from the Human Rights Campaign. HRC began as a gay rights organization but has transformed into a pressure group that endorses the chemical poisoning of children and surgical sex-changes.

It would have us believe there are 2 million people living in the U.S. who are “transgender” and born in the wrong body. And even more unbelievable, we’re to believe that this population somehow sprung up out of nowhere in the past two decades or so.

Let’s walk through the recent White House statements.

Noah Pollak points to evidence that the White House is updating its positions based on feedback from HRC.

This leads to a chain of posts from Jennifer Block, who has “the receipts”:

The White House starts out surprisingly taking the morally sane position, that it’s wrong to give children sex-change hormones and surgeries.

But wait, there’s more:

At first glance, it doesn’t look like a big change, but it is. In the original, the White House opposes surgeries on children, and it keeps that statement of opposition in the update. But it also changes some key phrases, perhaps in order to give itself plausible deniability and wiggle room with activists who definitely want to see child surgeries.

The original statement (emphasis added): “We continue to support gender-affirming care for minors like mental health care and respect the role of parents, families, and doctors in these decisions.”

The updated statement (emphasis added): “We continue to support gender-affirming care for minors, which represents a continuum of care, and respect for the role of parents, families, and doctors in these decisions.”

Would that “continuum” of care include removing the breasts of healthy minor girls?

Jennifer Block shows us the emails from HRC taking pride in their successful push to get the White House to change its statement in mere hours:

“Pressure is working. This would not have happened without all of us.”

Indeed.

Almost half of U.S. states have banned most or all medical interventions for so-called “trans kids”. It’s the conservative states protecting children while liberal states like Vermont and Minnesota create themselves as “sanctuary states” for “trans kids” and facilitate their medical abuse.

When did protecting children from mutilation become a partisan affair?