What a terrible issue for Democrats! They can't seem to back away from it.#VAGov: Dick Uihlein-funded group Restoration of America PAC is up on TV with this spot --
— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) October 14, 2025
Female voiceover:
"Abigail Spanberger is as extreme as it gets..."
"She's apparently all in on a horrifying gender mutilation. An irreversible sterilization of children" pic.twitter.com/gD0ytXwUIn
Rahm Emanuel, who is considering a 2028 presidential bid, is one of the exceptions. The former Chicago mayor said he doesn’t think a transition is literally possible, in response to a question from conservative media host Megyn Kelly, who asked “can a man become a woman?” during a July podcast interview. No, he replied.
“Why don’t more people in your party just say that?” Kelly asked.
“Because we’re—I’m now going to go into a witness protection plan,” Emanuel, a former member of Congress and ambassador to Japan, deadpanned in response.
ADDED: Here are the 2 questions I asked Grok:
• How did this issue ever got moved to the front burner in the first place? Did progressive Democrats decide to do this? Democrats can move it back to the back burner and it's hurting them, but why wasn't this foreseeable? Why didn't they rest on the sound admirable victories achieved in gay rights and focus on heartwarming marriages?
• What is "exaggerated fears of 'men in women's bathrooms'" supposed to mean? We had just experienced the "Me Too" movement, which encouraged women to be alert to the dangers of sexual assault. If we have to keep silent about dangerous-seeming male bodies in the bathroom, that seems to be suppressing the freedom that Me Too had gained.
Read Grok's answers here.
AND: In the Wall Street Journal article Rahm Emanuel is asked by Megyn Kelly “Why don’t more people in your party just say that?” and he answers “Because we’re..." but refrains from completing the thought. He just jokes "I’m now going to go into a witness protection plan." Try to complete the sentence he failed to complete: “Because we’re..."
I've already used Grok to spit out 5 best answers, but I'm sure you can do better:
- “Because we’re too focused on ideological purity to acknowledge the political cost.”
- “Because we’re afraid of alienating our progressive base.”
- “Because we’re stuck in a cycle of avoiding tough conversations on divisive issues.”
- “Because we’re worried about being canceled or labeled as bigots.”
- “Because we’re trying to balance inclusivity with electoral pragmatism.”
PLUS: That anti-Spanberger ad does not come from the Earle-Sears campaign. It's an independent ad from the Restoration of America PAC.
পোস্টগুলি
১১৯টি মন্তব্য:
When you poll parents with children, 95% oppose men/boys playing in girls sports. So, yeah, you are going to see these ads for the indefinite future.
Hit the Dems in their weak spots. Attack!
Play to win.
Grab ‘em by the — whatever you find down there!
The House seat in Omaha is open and the Dems have a voter registration advantage in Omaha. It will be an expensive and close race.
One of the Dems running is John Cavanaugh. His sister did that trans rant on the floor of the Legislature a few years back. John is very extreme.
His campaign is all about opposing Trump. That's it.
I kind of wish Emanuel had given a straight answer to a straight question but that's my problem.
Are the Republicans pouncing again?
What a terrible issue for Democrats!
It was brought about because they thought it would be a terrible issue for Republicans.
How can they back away from it? They continue to perform "empathy for victims" and they continue to define "victim" as anyone who isn't white, male, hetero, Christian, American. If they back away, they're abandoning their principles*.
* When I say "principles," I'm referring to "performing empathy." Not feeling empathy or sympathy, and certainly not trying to solve a problem. Results-oriented Democrats are wandering in the wilderness these days; the progressive prescriptions that rule the day are invariably "harangue people into silence," "say you will tax only the rich even though you know that won't pay for what you say you will do," and "take to the streets with no actual goal."
Easier to go left on economics than right on culture
oh COME ON!
ALL girls Want to be beat by boys (that say that they're girls)!
ALL girls Want to shower as boys (that say they're girls) beat off!
i mean, Right? That's what the Democrats have told us.
Right?
Well...it's not like the Dems policies have changed at all in the past 2 years. In fact, they've gotten more ridiculous and in-your-face about it than ever.
They are literally fighting in the streets to protect illegal immigrant gang members.
Their trans policies are exactly as they were 2 years ago. Why not remind people? If you're in favor it those policies, you can vote for them. If not, vote against them.
But they are what they are.
I really dislike ads, especially political ads, like this one, because they take a lowest-common denominator approach to voter's intelligence, and it's always an over-estimate. Spanberger is a repulsive creature of the administrative bureaucracy, a cold fish, and she doesn't appear to have any compensating personal skills. But I think this kind of ad is less effective than one that simply keeps asking the unanswered questions, because that type of ad keeps the question alive in the voter's mind, too. I'd be replaying the tape of Winsome confronting her, and Spanberger just pretending she isn't there. Voters know how that feels, too.
The purpose of insanely nonsensical policies such as forcing biological men into women's sports is to push down with the Leftist authoritarian boot on your face ever harder. The Left insists you accept such outrageous policy because if they can make you shut up and fall in line for that, heck, then anything they want or dream is possible. To hell with that, to hell with them.
And yet, Spanberger will probably win. Sears just hasn't made the case in the race. I don't know if it's from lack of financial support, or her strategists just find it too easy to to go negative. Sadly, I also fear there's still a bit of racism involved here.
Yesterday, a pack of Spanberger yard signs showed up in Mrs. Bar's mail. I haven't discussed this with her, yet.
How dare R's point out vile leftists. Media(D) - can all go fu themselves.
Spengengereger looks evil.
Limited blogger ... like Kevin said, "seizing"
I suspect it will turn out that Republicans have gone to this well once too often, just as Democrats did with abortion. We'll see.
Political suicide writ large. They've lost their minds and moral compass. A political party on acid.
The day is not far off when these ghastly mutilation operations and chemical sterilizations of children will be in the textbooks of medical ethics right next to frontal lobotomies, Dr. Mengele, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese Army. Psychology classes will teach it as a classic example of mass delusion and the madness of crowds. The surgeons and hospitals will be sued from one side of the country to the other, and many billions of dollars will be extracted from them. Some will go to prison.
Everyone who supported these atrocities will feel as ashamed as former Nazis did after the concentration camps were exposed. Politicians who voted to fund them, or even permit them, will be as toxic as Klansmen after the civil rights era. There may be a mirror-image Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd who successfully adapts to the national return to reality and manages to hang onto power in a deeply Democratic constituency, but for most politicians, it will be a career-ending mistake. It will also badly damage their employment opportunities after they are turned out of office. What company will want someone on their board of directors who was responsible for giving tax dollars to perverted sex-fetishist surgeons to mutilate children's sex organs?
And make no mistake, that's what a lot of these people are. Many of them are trannies themselves, and are mutilating children for their own sexual gratification. Most of the rest are the usual deluded, disagreeable, purple-haired women with enormous cat-eye glasses and Dolores Umbridge demeanors who are the ugly face of so much other foolishness and misery in the world. Their eagerness to chop off little boys' organs of reproduction has similarly deep and depraved psychopathological roots.
The end of this madness cannot come too soon. I hope Trump Administration steps on the accelerator and dedicates itself to the destruction of every institution of society that is responsible for it. We have to inflict punishment on them so severely that it is remembered a thousand years from now.
When the issue of gay marriage came up some raised the slippery slope argument in response. It would lead to legalized incest or pedophilia. At the time I thought the slippery slope argument as weak given the extremes presented. But in hindsight the slippery slope argument was on point. As soon as gay marriage became law the trans movement got into high gear. The dems rallied given their new found marriage victory. The problem for them is that they can’t back down for fear of losing the alphabet people.
"They can't seem to back away from it."
That the essence of a death cult, isn't it?
"How did this issue ever got moved to the front burner in the first place?" I'll save Grok some waste of energy: it was the logical next step in the progressive revolution. What marginalized identity was left to sanctify, what sexual norm left to break? Pedophilia and bestiality are still a bridge too far, so trans is it. Essential part of the transvaluation project. And it does have an iron logic: if identity is purely subjective, there is no stopping point. Therefore, progs can't keep any self-declared transmen out of locker rooms and prisons, since to question one subjective claim means questioning all. The Spanbergers are all in, of course, except they realize that normie voters still resist. Hence they can only remain silent or produce word salads. Honesty is self-defeating; progs must dissemble. Until they have the power: then they'll teach those girls, actual girls, a lesson in enforced tolerance.
To the comment about the Republicans using the anti-men in girls bathroom argument too much. That is not the case in Virginia. Leesburg Virginia is a hot spot for this issue given that a biological male molested girls in the girl’s high school bathroom. This is a big issue in Virginia because the Leesburg story was big news.
You can't have certain things, no matter how much you long for them.
That's the fine print in the social contract.
how many girls and boy did Sears trauma to make ad
Peachy+2 said...
"Spengengereger looks evil."
well? what do you Expect from a CIA operative?
for that matter,
what do you Expect from a teacher at the Islamic Saudi Academy?
People find Dem advocacy for trans issues disquieting. The disquietude arises, not just from the many flaws in the trans agenda, but also from their instinctive sense that Dems are willing to say they are in agreement with just about anything the party leadership says they should agree to. Electing such people is like writing a blank check to the party.
Transgender simulants.
All's fair in lust and abortion? Stop following progressive principles. Sequester your liberal license. Lose your Pro-Choice religion, your Twilight faith.
The Greek Democrats would sodomize their girls and boys to take a knee. Progress and a liberal litany.
They could never get away from Willie Horton either.
I think the actual truth is that the people who pay their bills insist that they support those things.
Republicans are sure pouncing on this issue.
Don’t expect Spamberger to respond with anything other than “But, but ….Trump!!! No Kings! Protect the life-time jobs of Federal bureaucrats!” It might work.
Paul Z is correct about overuse (hyperbole doesn't help either).
The transgender rights issue gained prominence in U.S. politics through a combination of grassroots activism, legal milestones, and broader cultural shifts, accelerating notably after the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
That’s from Grok, for those of you who haven’t followed Althouse’s link. Yes, of course the transgender rights issue accelerated after the Supreme Court legalized same sec marriage. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t see the dynamic of the neverending culture wars driving this? Surely Althouse always knew that the neverending culture wars she and other liberals loved so much would go too far and ignite a backlash?
I’ll have more comments for this thread based on Grok’s response to Althouse’s questions.
As Quaestor says, or at least implies, “you can be anything you want” has been drummed into well meaning ditzy folk for 60 years and they believe it. Telling them that actually there are some things you can’t be and that reality is not entirely socially constructed and so cannot be remade to order is as cruel as telling a five year old that there’s no Father Christmas. It’s not just cruel it’s wrong for there is a Father Christmas. When you’re five.
Political congruence ("=") is an inclusive, Pro-Choice principle that includes nondiscrimination for sexual orientation (e.g. pedophilia, sadomasochism, homosexuality, transvestitism, etc).
Civil unions for all consenting adults. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
I suspect it will turn out that Republicans have gone to this well once too often, just as Democrats did with abortion.
I don't know about that, abortion was much closer to a 50/50 issue that could really affect an election. This one, not so much.
Protect the life-time jobs of Federal bureaucrats!
They are sinecures, not jobs. Iron rice bowls for the most useless among us. Most of them might as well be counting paper clips in the mail room. And don't forget to mention the gold-plated defined-benefit pensions that nobody other than lazy goldbricking government slugs get these days.
The Democrats get trapped in narratives of their own creation, and then suddenly, they'll be asked a no-nonsense simple question that they cannot DARE answer because it would reveal all the other bullshit they've been saying.
For Democrats in the Willie Horton era, the question was simple: "If Willie Horton raped your wife, wouldn't you want him to get the death penalty?" Such an easy soft-ball question.
But of course, Mike Dukakis couldn't just say "yes," like literally everybody else asked such a question would say. He literally COULD NOT SAY YES. If he did, the entire artificial campaign around him would come crumbling down.
For Democrats, the "trans question" came up in Justice Ketani Jackson Five's Judiciary Committee hearing to become a Supreme Court Justice. The question was posed by Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn:
"Can you define the word woman?"
Jackson Five literally could not do it, even though any 4-year-old can. Because if she did, all the Democrats other lies would become evident.
So she committed perjury instead and said No.
A baby "=" fetus a technical term-of-art when deemed a "burden".
A male "=" feminine gender is homosexual with a heterosexual kink.
Diversity is an umbrella doctrine for class-disordered ideologies.
There are precedents.
A handmade tale without benefits, it seems. Abort, sequester, and bray no more.
The trans issue in politics makes me think of the Van Halen “No Brown M&Ms” contract clause.
___
From AI:
The "No Brown M&Ms" Clause Explained
The Contract: Van Halen's touring contract rider was extremely long and technical, filled with details about stage equipment, power requirements, and safety protocols.
The Test: David Lee Roth included a seemingly trivial "no brown M&Ms" rule, buried within the extensive technical specifications, as a "tripwire".
The Purpose: If Roth found a brown M&M, it served as a quick indicator that the promoter had not carefully read the entire contract.
The Consequence: A failure to read the contract risked dangerous errors, such as faulty stage setups or improper electrical connections, which could be life-threatening. When the clause was violated, Roth would demand a full "line check" of the production to find potential technical errors that had been ignored…
___
With this in mind, for a cursory initial evaluation of a politician, the trans issue is a quick shorthand: no need for additional details on stances about tariffs, immigration, crime, etc.
If I ask the politician for a bowl of female M&Ms, and I reach into that bowl and happen to grab an M&M that has a penis, I now know what I need to know.
Also: if I ask this same politician for a bowl with no brown M&Ms, I can assume they will accuse me of being a racist.
Goddam it lady, you know I ain't lying to ya — I’m only gonna tell you one time.
I am Laslo.
Whatever it takes to keep her, Hashemi and Jones from winning is ok by me. Always hard to get past the Fairfax/Arlington/Alexandria axis of evil, though.
As Quaestor says, or at least implies, “you can be anything you want” has been drummed into well meaning ditzy folk for 60 years and they believe it.
Oh Lord, this tracks - I'm not quite 60 and this is exactly what my (very normie, Midwestern, college-educated) parents used to tell my siblings and me. Never mind that by the time I was 8, I needed glasses: I could still be an astronaut. Never mind that I had no aptitude for science: I could still be a doctor. (I eventually became a geologist because I was also seduced by the "girls can do anything, and SHOULD do science, for fairness!" message - but I only got a BS, and everything I was good at in that field was descriptive. So, not really science.)
It's the Disney, G-rated version of Do What Thou Wilt. Your whims have the force of iron laws; your actions have no negative consequences - even for you, much less for anyone else or the world; your feelings are paramount; and everybody deserves a trophy.
My mother in law, of the same generation as my parents (as you'd expect), insists on writing on every birthday card to everyone to whom she sends her meticulously chosen greetings, "Have a great day - you deserve it!" without regard to anyone's actual deserts. A generational culture of grievance, based on life's seldom giving anyone what she feels she deserves.
The phrase "exaggerated fears of 'men in women's bathrooms'" refers to a narrative often used in political and cultural debates, particularly by opponents of transgender-inclusive policies, to argue that allowing transgender women (who were assigned male at birth but identify as women) to use women's restrooms poses a significant safety risk to cisgender women and girls. The "exaggeration" lies in the way this argument amplifies the risk of sexual assault or predation, often implying that transgender women—or men pretending to be transgender—are inherently dangerous, despite limited evidence supporting such claims.
Althouse asked Grok what is meant by “exaggerated fears of 'men in women's bathrooms'" and this was the start of a lengthy response. I immediately took issue with Grok’s application of the lefty phrase “assigned at birth.” If they’re “assigned” implies that the individuals could have been wrongly assigned by whichever person did the assigning. In the fall of 1964 I stayed awake in freshman biology class, so I understood that a zygote becomes male at the instant of conception if the plucky little sperm cell that fertilized the ovum carried a Y chromosome instead of an X.
Grok’s LLM needs more biology textbooks.
Abortion sustained democrats for decades.
"...can't seem to back away from it..."
No, they have been eagerly and gleefully forcing it on us, and calling anyone who raised objections "haters." It's their message and part of their brand.
"How did this issue ever get moved to the front burner in the first place? "
Do you even read your own posts? You have been blogging about the incessant "fronting" of transgender issues by the NYT and WaPo for at least 5 years.
@Jamie: I only got a BS, and everything I was good at in that field was descriptive. So, not really science.)
Yes it is, and you should be proud of your achievement. It's far more scientific than a lot of what gets passed off as such in the sociology and climatology departments, even if it might include some fancy equations and MATLAB analysis.
Feynman once said that all of science is either physics, or stamp collecting. There is much truth in what he said, but the dismissive tone is misplaced. The stamp collecting (i.e. taxonomy, categorization, etc.) is important too. We need descriptions that match reality and are agreed upon by all parties. It goes back to Confucius and the Rectification of Names.
The D will win. I love the ad, because it is true. Doesn't Span's black and white photo look the ultimate Cold R from the past?
The "exaggeration" lies in the way this argument amplifies the risk of sexual assault or predation, often implying that transgender women—or men pretending to be transgender—are inherently dangerous, despite limited evidence supporting such claims.
This particular part bothers me as well - as if, so long as our daughters are not getting raped and assaulted (or at least only a little bit of the time), we should have no objection to the government forcing our daughters to a complete loss of privacy and dignity from the opposite (or whatever you choose to call it) sex.
I've seen a surprising number of Sears yard signs around northern Virginia. It's a heavily Democratic area, but it says something that the few Republicans are not being cowed.
"*implying* that transgender women—or men pretending to be transgender—are inherently dangerous"
Yes, they must be condemned based on our mind reading of their real intentions and meanings. And yes, "men pretending to be transgender" are inherently dangerous.
Spanberger: It’s ‘Horrifying’ that Crossing the Border Illegally is ‘Considered a Criminal Act’.
I am a little suspicious of this clip; it's cut awfully tight. I'd like to see of the discussion about this point, but still…
It's always three card monte with these guys and there disquisitions on the evil of their political opposition.
mikee said...
The purpose of insanely nonsensical policies such as forcing biological men into women's sports is to push down with the Leftist authoritarian boot on your face ever harder. The Left insists you accept such outrageous policy because if they can make you shut up and fall in line for that, heck, then anything they want or dream is possible.
True, this.
Joe Bar said...
And yet, Spanberger will probably win.
Also likely true. *sigh*
“revives”
I'd like to see more of the discussion …
Here is a longer quote, purported by ChatGPT to be from Legal Insurrection
"And what we’ve seen recently, the really, I think, horrifying thing is that now under the new administration, or the Trump administration, where every cross into the United States is considered a criminal act.”
So I would put the summary down as "fake, but accurate," since, based on her other positions on not prosecuting criminal aliens, she almost certainly means "illegal cross." I have crossed the Canadian border several times this year, without incident, but I had a guest who refused my invitation to take him and his wife out to dinner at a very nice restaurant in Quebec because he was sure that the border was going to be staffed by Nazis. I just shrugged.
Laslo is back
On the other hand, proponents of transgender-inclusive policies argue that these fears are "exaggerated" because there’s little to no data showing an increase in bathroom-related assaults due to transgender access. A 2015 study by the Williams Institute …. [My emphasis]
2015 is a decade ago, and by Grok’s own admission the study predates the “acceleration” of the biological males in women’s restrooms and locker rooms issue. Whenever I read the phrase “little to no data showing” (or any of its variants) my first question is along the lines of “is anybody really looking”? Grok anticipates this question by pointing to an out of date* study by the Williams Institute, as though everyone should know who this think tank is.
So my follow-on question, given that LLM AI engines are not above making things up, is whether the Williams Institute actually exists. It does exist, it calls itself a think tank and it’s affiliated with UCLA. But if one actually looks at the Williams Institute, it quickly becomes obvious that this is absolutely the last outfit that one would trust to do a fair and even-handed survey of risks to women from transgendered males sharing what should be safe spaces for females.
Four years ago there was a pretty well-publicized case of a transgendered female high school student in nearby (to me) Loudoun County, Virginia, who raped a female student in a girls’ rest room, and as part of the official cover up “she” was assigned to a different high school —- where “she” raped another girl. The officials of the Loudoun County Public Schools, especially including the school board, went to great lengths to cover this up, including having the father of one of the rape victims handcuffed and taken away by police officers.
And before I leave this issue I want to know whether or not Grok, or the Williams Institute, or even Abigail Spanberger, would ever count a rape of a woman in a female rest room by a biological male as a rape by a transgendered individual, no matter how loudly “she” declared “herself” to be trans. Why wouldn’t a researcher assert that the fact of penile penetration means thst the individual wasn’t really trans after all?
At any rate, I can imagine that to a woman being raped in a rest room or locker room by a person who justified his presence by saying “I’m trans” the risk is 100%, and not negligibly small at all,
__________________
* For instance it leaves out the case of the transgender female raping two girls in different Loudoun County high schools and the subsequent cover up in 2021.
If they’re “assigned” implies that the individuals could have been wrongly assigned by whichever person did the assigning.
For the progressive atheists, just **who** is doing the assigning?
Thanks, Jaq, so it is as bad as it looked. (I agree with you, she must mean illegal crossing, because "every" crossing being a criminal act is just nonsense.)
Her statement is appalling. She apparently believes the United States should exert no control over who enters the country.
For the progressive atheists, just **who** is doing the assigning?
Q. "Doctor, is our new baby a boy or a girl?"
A. "Hold on now, not so fast! We'll have to let the kindergarten teacher decide."
Especially with those droopy eyelids, Spanberger looks like a drugged-out, hippy death cult member sent by central casting.
They could have just used the Lia Thomas photo. No need to create anything.
"Oh Lord, this tracks - I'm not quite 60 and this is exactly what my (very normie, Midwestern, college-educated) parents used to tell my siblings and me."
I'm 71 and if I had a dollar for every time my parents (west coast, no college) told me or my siblings "Get over it. Life's not fair", I'd be rich.
Let's talk reality instead of Grok-babble. More than 15% of inmates in female federal prisons are men who claim to be women, though Trump is changing this as I write. The majority of men requesting transfers to female facilities are sex offenders. Several states also allow men to choose to be housed with women. But states don't have to report the same statistics as the feds. None of these states require such men to have gone through hormone or surgical alterations, though some are deemed incompatible. How many get in? Who? Which crimes? Good luck finding out.
Now try to find reliable information on the internet. It has been disappeared. The leftist Marshall Project numbers, by the way, are just incorrect. States just refuse FOIA and media requests to tally female-identifying men in female facilities.
Do any internet search and you will not receive this data, only dozens and dozens of NIH reports validating and justifying the positive impact of placing men in women's prisons. These "scientific studies" are paid by us -- though Trump has cut funding to them too. But we fund other trans prison activism through nonprofit grants and universities. Women's Studies Programs and feminist groups almost unanimously endorse jailing men in women's prisons. SAGE Journals and books, the largest publishing house of its kind, including more than 1000 academic feminist, psychology, and social science publications, are especially activist about this.
That's more than 1,000 journals published by SAGE, all of them pro-trans rights to women's prisons. It's one of the hottest topics in law schools too.
"despite limited evidence supporting such claims."
"Limited evidence" would seem to imply that there is actual evidence supporting such claims. What happened to the "If it saves only one life"? argument leftists love to employ when it's convenient for their purposes?
’If I ask the politician for a bowl of female M&Ms, and I reach into that bowl and happen to grab an M&M that has a penis…’
We are not worthy.
What a terrible issue for Democrats! They can't seem to back away from it.... How did this issue ever got moved to the front burner in the first place?
I attribute it to feminism and the womens' movement, which, inter alia, conflated sex and gender, and promoted the notions women can be just like men, and there are no differences between the sexes.
I've never understood the "boys in the girls bathroom" issue to be only or even mostly about sexual assault.
Rather, it's about a girl's intimate privacy protection from men.
Dwshelf: see Big Mike, 12:15.
This was a litmus test for many Americans. If you can’t get on the right side of this issue you aren’t a serious person. The Democrats are on the wrong side of a couple of these issues and Trump won because of them.
Progressives are Trump’s not so secret weapon.
For a large cohort, they only need to know what Trump is against so they can be passionately for it.
"Because we're pro-choice and our base is hysterical about the right to control our bodies."
If you tell them oxygen is toxic they will hold their breath till they pass out
"Because we're anti-reproduction and anti-child and we can't say the words pro-life out loud."
Or dont drink the water because of all those accountants deloitte dumped in the river (joke)
They had drag queens reading to 6-year-olds in my public library. And they were proud of it, they had a big ad on their website. Drag Queen Story Hour. And it didn't seem to occur to anybody that a man dressing as a woman was a sexual thing, that might lead to sexual confusion in children. Nobody asked, why didn't the drag queens want to read in the senior citizen centers?
It was almost like they wanted to confuse the sexual identities of children. It was trans sex education. And then, when boys started "identifying" as girls, the doctors said, "I have drugs that will help with that. I have surgeries that can fix your bodies." And they would give the little boy estrogen and castrate him.
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
I agree with dwshelf @1:49pm: rape is not the sole reason to oppose boys and men in girls' and women's spaces. It's the most urgent reason, but not the only one, nor the one that, factually, occurs most frequently.
That said, I have lots of reasons not to want to ride public transportation in many cities, and the unavoidable smell of proximate unwashed bodies is the presenting one most of the time - but given what we've seen just this year alone, fear of being brutally murdered is certainly a consideration for me no matter how infrequently it happens per capita. So yes, seeing a man in a women's restroom (let's say in a restaurant, where we're unlikely to undress) does raise my hackles as much as it plain old irritates me.
I still find it incredible this is the hill on which the left wants to die.
But die on it, they will.
’The Democrats are on the wrong side of a couple of these issues and Trump won because of them.’
You are correct, Kak. The problem for the left, as a few have noted above, is how do they retreat from those positions without alienating the rabid, motivated, and vocal twenty percent of their base which they can’t afford to lose?
And remember, that twenty percent didn’t adopt those positions via reason. They arrived at them through pure emotion, which they’ve internalized to the point of self-identity and status. The necessary escape can’t be avoided and won’t be painless. Just sayin’…
Democrats don’t care about unpopular issues. As C. Leavitt points out their constituencies are terrorists, illegals and criminals. Also pedophiles, tranny child mutilation mongers, drag queens and baby killers. Their voters think it’s all okay. If they take the House look for Schlicter’s prophecy to come true; President Jeffries and the end of the republic.
Humanity, civilization, society, have compelling causes to normalize a favorable juxtaposition of the sexes.
It's the nature of authority to never admit that you were wrong. If you do so, people will lose confidence in your authority. And you will ultimately lose your authority. So these authorities keep doubling-down on wrong until disaster.
See slavery, socialism, abortion, jihad, any number of things.
Grok doesn't mention the controversies over child mutilation, social contagion aspects of the new flood of transgender identification among girls and boys, the controversies over "gender-affirming care", the difficulties in obtaining informed consent for such treatment from both children and parents, and the social dynamics that may have influenced what is pretty obviously a mental health issue.
The GOP position is at heart an appeal to reason and common sense.
"how do they retreat from those positions without alienating the rabid, motivated, and vocal twenty percent of their base which they can’t afford to lose"
They need to shed the radicals while building a new base of voters. Which they can do by coming out massively against public corruption and a new group of leaders willing to burn Ds and Rs alike. The current D leadership can't and won't do this because they are all in on the corruption. They need a Trump like outsider. But young or aging influential people wont because doing so would mean willing to put up with being completely attacked by the establishment. But anti corruption is the ultimate working class issue and honestly Pelosi and Newsome make for extremely easy targets.
Scamburger is rather robotic, no?
"If Willie Horton raped your wife, wouldn't you want him to get the death penalty?"
Dukakis was a bad politician.
"Obviously I would, Bernard. My anger would be extreme. And that's why I shouldn't be on the jury. I shouldn't be the prosecutor or the judge. Of course I would want to kill him. But my emotional reaction might cause me to kill an innocent man. And that's the danger of the death penalty. It was the state that killed Jesus Christ. If my opponent went to Bible study, he would know that."
’Which they can do by coming out massively against public corruption and a new group of leaders willing to burn Ds and Rs alike.’
They had one of those: a very impressive young lady from Hawaii.
"but given what we've seen just this year alone, fear of being brutally murdered is certainly a consideration for me no matter how infrequently it happens per capita."
Somebody eventually wins the billion dollar Powerball lottery, but it's always someone who plays the game. Being murdered isn't what people are hoping for when they play the "riding mass transit" game, but it's one of the prizes.
"They had one of those"
They've had a number of them. It's not too far to argue that even Trump was one of those.
That's why it's not impossible just very unlikely. But it was unlikely for Republicans too.
"They had one of those"
Tulsi's problem was her lack of influence/funding to take on the status quo. She was dependent on the powers to help her fight the powers.
’That's why it's not impossible just very unlikely.’
And I agree with you - not arguing, per se. I think threading the needle between holding the base plus gaining enough independents is a much taller order for the left because their base has truly jumped the shark.
Another case that was highlighted in the past month or so, was an adult man using the school's swimming pools and changing in the girls' locker room, while leering and them, and, some say, masturbating. In that county, the school swimming poo!s are open to all when school is not in session, and this man claimed female identity to do this. IIRC, he was also a previously convicted sex offender, and the police and county government claimed they were powerless to stop him. I haven't heard about this for a couple of weeks, so, perhaps the problem has been solved, but the intransigence of the county government and school board made them look coolish.
What Tina Trent wrote at 12:43 should be major news. I believe Tina Trent. I'm sure she has her numbers right.
Large Language Model AI inherently suffers because it is based on material written by humans. More emotional investment on a topic generates more 'literature.' More writing supporting emotional positions biases statistics to extreme positions and the machine is just looking at statistical analysis to string words together.
It reminds me a lot of the Tower of Babel; build something to emulate God and invest it with your belief that is uniquely valid in it's pronouncements and it becomes divisive. Guess what? God lets you, abandoning you to your own devices and conceits - see Romans 1.
Abigail Spanberger is low key fine.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/10/18/pink-haired-protestor-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-about-no-kings-n4945016
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1980024807895998774
Are we sure Spanberger isn't actually Edgar Winter? That might explain why she can't back away from her position.
https://x.com/i/status/1979979485832495416
Shouldn't she be wearing a monocle?
Victor Davis Hanson explains MAGA is a Counter Revolution.
Obama and Biden was the Revolution.
https://x.com/farmgirlcarrie/status/1979709835827638777?s=42
Dig In.
Nice Laslo.
Anyone who thinks Spanberger should be retired from politics should consider contributing to her Republican opponent here.
Thanks, Dave Begley. Coming from you, that means a lot.
I've been tracking and lobbying on crime, sentencing, and incarceration for 25 years. What I have seen in the last few months in terms of disappearing previously available datasets and right-of-center articles (I'm talking City Journal here), and flooding every search with literally hundreds of left-wing bias pieces (aka academic studies), no matter which platform you use or how you phrase your question, makes me wonder if they are using IA to erase all evidence of viewpoints that differ from the hard left on justice and policing. It's terrifying censorship, as bad as any in the Soviet Union.
Luckily, I make hard copy of nearly everything. I'm going to re-do some searches I have preserved in hard copy from a few years ago. But this transformation is so obvious it just smacks one in the face.
St Croix: "why didn't the drag queens want to read in the senior citizen centers?"
Because they'd get attacked by dirty old men, obviously! CC, JSM
Argh: AI, not IA. If anyone has suggestions for me to try different ways to access information online, I would appreciate it. I'm very familiar with federal and select state systems, and I find WorldCat, Lexis-Nexus and Guidestar helpful. But I have some FOIAs for which I have been waiting decades.
I wonder if certain books are getting similarly disappeared from research libraries. I've seen that before, especially in government archives. I know the OG of FOIAs, but I want to explore possible internet options first.
You have to talk to me as if I am from the 19th Century, when the favored futurist technology was Pneumatic Tubes.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.