These bearded, angry, mentally-ill weirdoes would never, ever make a woman feel uncomfortable in a private vulnerable place.
Videos below. Before that, the NYT wrote an article wondering if transgender activists will back off their maximalist, confrontational approach to making other people live with their sickness.
I objected to this article, as the NYT was attempting to blame trans activists for trans extremism.
Are they part of it? Of course. But you know who actually enforces trans extremism on us? The leftwing propaganda media like the New York Times, which targets anyone pushing back against trans extremism and bullies and shames and deplatforms them, and of course, the Democrat Party itself.
The NYT didn't ask if the Democrat Party would moderate on the trans issue.
It's just those darned trans activists! This tiny group of nobodies has all the power! Not the leftwing civilization-razing media and its Democrat politician front-men!
JK Rowling responded to the piece. Her objection was that the Times pretended that the great sin of trans activists was merely being too outspoken.
They were guilty of nothing more than (checks notes) "unsparing criticism."
She points out: the real problem is the never-ending attempts to deprive people of their income and, of course, the constant death-threats.
The New York Times won't mention those, of course, because it protects the trans activists as it pushes their agenda.
Opponents of gender ideology haven't merely 'endured unsparing criticism'. I haven't simply been told I 'betrayed real feminism' or received a few book-burning videos.
I've been sent thousands of threats of murder, rape and violence. A trans woman posted my family's home address with a bomb-making guide. My eldest child was targeted by a prominent trans activist who attempted to doxx her and ended up doxxing the wrong young woman. I could write a twenty thousand word essay on what the consequences have been to me and my family, and what we've endured is NOTHING compared to the harm done to others.
By standing up to a movement that relies on threats of violence, ostracisation and guilt-by-association, all of us have been smeared and defamed, but many have lost their livelihoods. Some have been physically assaulted by trans activists. Female politicians have been forced to hire personal security on the advice of police. The news that one of the UK's leading endocrinologists, Dr Hillary Cass, was advised not to travel by public transport for her own safety should shame everyone who let this insanity run amok.
Lest we forget, gender apostates have been targeted for crimes such as doubting the evidential basis for transitioning children, for arguing for fair sport for women and girls, for wanting to retain single sex spaces and services, especially for the most vulnerable, and for thinking it barbaric to lock in female prisoners with convicted male sex offenders.
Now the political landscape has shifted, and some who've been riding high on their own supply are waking up with a hell of a hangover. They've started wondering whether calling left-wing feminists who wanted all-female rape centres 'Nazis' was such a smart strategy. Maybe parents arguing that boys ought not to be robbing their daughters of sporting opportunities might, sort of, have a point? Possibly letting any man who says 'I'm a woman' into the locker room with twelve-year-old girls could have a downside, after all?
Mealy-mouthed retconning of what has actually happened over the past ten years is predictable but will not stand. I don't doubt those who've turned a blind eye to the purges of non-believers, or even applauded and encouraged them, would rather minimise what the true cost of speaking out was, but 'yes, maybe trans activists went a little over the top at times' takes are frankly insulting. A full reckoning on the effects of gender ideology on individuals, society and politics is still a long way off, but I know this: the receipts will make very ugly reading when that time comes, and there are far too many of them to sweep politely under the carpet.
Here's what transgenderism is in reality: It's locking in mentally-unstable children into an inescapable hell of body mutilation.
An update about Ron Rowe pushing aside the actual Secret Service protective details so he could stand next to Biden for a picture he will no doubt use in his inevitable Congressional run:
Susan Crabtree
@susancrabtree
SCOOP: Secret Service sources are incensed over this chaotic screaming match between Acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe and Rep. Pat Fallon.
They are telling me that they view Rowe's angry repsonse as a pure deflection - Rowe is saying that he had a right to move the top agents assigned to protect Pres. Biden and VP Harris out of the protection line of duty because he worked either on or after 9/11 helping sift through the debris of the World Trade Center.
This makes absolutely no sense, these sources say.
While that work is honorable, and the nation owes him a debt of gratitude because it likely involved trying to find any survivors and body parts, I'm told hundreds of Secret Service agents were called in to do that work in the weeks after 9/11. That work involved going to what is called the FreshKills landfill -- it was not at the World Trade Center itself.
I have several questions into the Secret Service press office to clarify exactly what 9/11 work Rowe was referring to and when it occurred.
Also, being assigned to work on or after 9/11 has nothing to do with why he chose to be in 9/11 the photo op and change protective protocol by moving the top protective agents farther away from Biden and Harris so he could be prominently seen.
Fallon rightly asked if he was jeopardizing Biden's and Harris's lives by doing so, and whether he had a gun or a radio on him.
During the screaming match, Rowe said he had a gun and a radio and claimed the protective mission wasn't compromised.
Sources say it's hard to tell if he had a gun on him during the 9/11 ceremony photograph that Fallon showed, but he's not wearing an earpiece, and that means he was not in a protective posture and likely did not have radio on him.
T. Becket Adams says that Ron Rowe's fake outrage, and fake Stolen Valor about being there on 9/11 -- he was not there on 9/11, he was barely there in Fresh Kills in October -- reminds him a Norm MacDonald bit, which I never saw but which I can imagine. It features Norm MacDonald pretending to take offense and doing a How Dare You Question Me bit.
Oh -- here's the bit.
That's you, Ron Rowe. That's exactly what you sound like.
"I WAS THERE, IN FRESH KILL, STATEN ISLAND, SEARCHING THROUGH THE ASHES! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY COMPETENCY TO PROTECT PRESIDENTS FROM ASSASSINATIONS!"