Kindness is not superior to integrity. atheist/not conservative/I respect people who respect reality-we all live here Prosocial shame: it's what's for dinner.
clowns to the left, jokers...
Joined December 2024
- Tweets6K
- Following197
- Followers232
- Likes14.8K
annah retweeted
Nobody is arguing that men should be arrested BEFORE they commit a sexual offence. That's not how safeguarding works. Safeguarding is predicated on proven statistical risk from one group to another group. Safeguarding's the reason adults don't play rugby against infants. It's the reason I don't get to wander around intensive care wards and fiddle with the machinery. It's the reason men and women are separated in contexts where women and girls are vulnerable to assault or voyeurism. Not because all men are rapists or flashers or voyeurs, but because enough are to justify their exclusion from those spaces. I've asked you if you understand safeguarding and you keep ignoring the question in preference for 'you want to arrest people because of how they look.' You seem incapable of engaging with facts.
All these transerpants talking about makeup in the last couple of days triggered a question I've had, but never asked:
When did the trend of lipsticking out the Cupid's bow start? It ends up looking as if you've got one regular bottom lip and one upside down one.
annah retweeted
I’ve never told any trans person what they ‘should be.’ As far as I’m concerned, trans people can call themselves whatever they like and believe whatever they like about themselves. What trans people aren’t entitled to is universal agreement that they’ve changed sex, acclaim for their embodiment of sex stereotypes, the reconfiguration of laws around an objective untruth or women’s surrender of their sex-based rights.
JFC. Behold--Hunter Schafer, the posterchild and pinnacle of trans.
And some people act so surprised that "transphobia" is a thing.
Yeah.
OK, going live at 21:30! See you in the chat! 😀
youtu.be/8yxev3CHiWE
I would be completely fine with this.
Here's my compromise with the trans lobby:
1) Stay out of all women's spaces, sports, roles etc.
2) No drugs/surgeries until age 25. If, after that you still feel like pretending to be opposite sex, go ahead but-
3) You pay for all drugs/surgeries yourself
4) You are no longer allowed to try and sneakily change legislation in order to promote egregious trans ideology
5) All teaching that promotes your misogynist, homophobic, and damaging trans ideology must be strictly prohibited in schools, colleges, universities
6) Trans Pride lasts ONE DAY
annah retweeted
No controlled clinical trials on the nipple secretion chemically induced in men and intended to be fed to infants has ever been done.
More information below.
It's a long 3 parter, and I make no apology for that.
What is being done to innocent, wholly dependent babies in the name of trans is abhorrent, and cannot be addressed in 1 short post.
This person thinks it's a great idea to use babies as lab rats with the demented and degenerate goal of providing more men with infants to suck on their nipples, under the false premise that they are 'lactating' and that it is therefore a good thing. Good for who they do not say.
I won't bother refuting all the creepy justifications people use for the practice. I've done that enough, and everybody who isn't a creepy fucker should instinctively understand why it is wrong to encourage infants to suck on men's nipples.
It is not a healthy individual who does not recoil at the thought.
I want to discuss the published literature on drug-induced lactation in males. What do we know about the fluid produced by men after ingesting chemicals not intended to produce food and sustenance for infants, but as a side effect?
What are people like this person enthusiastically supporting as sustenance for newborns and infants?
The studies and reports into this fluid almost entirely consist of single-case reports involving men who had received long-term eostrogen and anti-androgen treatment (producing breast tissue development) plus a galactagogue such as domperidone and mechanical stimulation. No controlled clinical trials exist.
I repeat - No controlled clinical trials exist.
The best-known report is that of Reisman and Goldstein (2018) in Transgender Health.
That report describes a 30-year-old man who had been on feminising hormones for six years and, with added domperidone, oestradiol, progesterone, and pumping, produced roughly 8 ounces of fluid per day near the time of delivery and was reported to exclusively feed an infant for six weeks. The infant’s paediatrician was said to have described growth and development as appropriate during that short period.
Later case reports in males on similar hormone regimens have appeared; some include limited milk composition data showing presence of proteins, lactose, and other components, though volumes remain modest and exclusive feeding is rare.
Criticisms of the Reisman and Goldstein 2018 report: -
* Unverified drug source and samples: The male obtained domperidone himself (reportedly from Canada or online), and no clinicians involved independently verify the substance’s authenticity, purity, or dose. There is also no record of laboratory-controlled sample collection or chain-of-custody for any fluid produced. Critics have noted the absence of steps confirming that any samples were produced by the male rather than substituted by a lactating mother (he lived with the infant’s biological mother).
* Insufficient volume and unverified intake: The reported output (~8 oz/day near birth) is well below a typical newborn's requirements (often 14–17+ oz/day initially, rising further by six weeks). The paper provides no objective measurements of actual infant intake, weigh-feed-weigh data, or independent volume confirmation. Claims of exclusive feeding rely on the man's self-reporting and a brief second-hand paediatrician statement rather than detailed clinical monitoring.
* No composition or safety analysis in the original report: The 2018 paper contains no laboratory analysis of the fluid’s macronutrients, micronutrients, immunologic factors, or residual drug levels. Domperidone is not FDA-approved for lactation induction; the agency has warned against its use because of unknown risks to infants via milk and the cardiac risks to the adult. Spironolactone (used for androgen suppression) and high-dose hormones also transfer into milk and there is very limited data on the effects of that on infant.
* Methodological and ethical limitations of a single case report: The paper had no control, no standardised protocol verification, limited hormone-level optimization data, and no long-term infant outcome tracking beyond the first weeks. There was also an absence of clear ethics-committee oversight documentation for an experimental off-label regimen involving an unapproved drug and an infant. Infant sex, detailed growth charts, and bloodwork were also not provided.
There have been subsequent reports that address composition in a few cases, but they continue to rely on small numbers, self-reported or minimally verified data, and short follow-up.
Historical experimental work (e.g., Huggins & Dao 1954) induced small amounts of secretion in males treated with eostrogen for prostate cancer by giving prolactin, but this was not for infant feeding and volumes were minimal.
Pathological galactorrhea in untreated males (from tumors, drugs, or metabolic conditions) is documented, and one 1981 analysis of fluid from a man with hyperprolactinemia found lactose and proteins in ranges overlapping colostrum, but again without intentional infant consumption or controlled induction.
Overall, the evidence that males can produce a nutritionally adequate, safely verified secretion sufficient for sustained exclusive infant feeding remains extremely limited to poorly controlled case reports with significant methodological gaps.
It all smacks of perverted men looking for justification to encourage infants to suck on their nipples with no regard for the safety and sustenance of the infant, the effect on a nursing mother trying to feed her infant while her partner mucks up her routine with his creepy attempts, or the ongoing (and justified) stigma and suspicion attached to any man who wants to use a baby like that.
In the next 2 replies I have listed just a few of the studies into mother's milk and formula. The differences are stark, and very telling.
This is just past where all the ideologically captured stop asking questions.
That’s where the truth actually starts.
The quoted reposts and replies to Maia here expose the disturbing beliefs that young people and the left have been indoctrinated into believing. It is pure misogyny from people who claim supposedly "progressive" attitudes toward women and feminism.
Instead of addressing her claim that being a woman is an innate human condition, not a medical procedure, thousands of "trans allies" and fans of men who claim to be women applaud attacks on her appearance, body, haircut, conformity to man-made femininity, and attractiveness. Her disagreement is dismissed as jealousy.
This is textbook misogyny: reducing a woman's credibility and worth to her appearance, then portraying her protests as insecurity or sexual jealousy.
We're told repearedly by trans activists that femininity doesn't define women, and thatnwome don't owe anyone femininity -z yet when they show up to defend their claim that some men are actually women, their only arguments amount to weaponzing feminine beauty standards to mock an actual woman for being gender nonconforming.
We're told that body-shaming and sexism are unacceptable, yet hundreds of thousands of trans "allies" celebrate both body-shaming and appearance based standards of womanhood when attacking women who assert the material reality of women as somethi g that matters to women.
And we're supposed to consider this progress?
The problem is that trans activists can't seem to make a coherent argument or have a debate without attacking a woman's body or appearance.
Women do not owe anyone beauty, femininity, desirability, or ideological conformity. So, why do trans activists and the ideologically captured left act like they believe women owe them conformity to gender stereotypes and servitude to an ideology that humiliates and mocks women in an obscenely sexist way?
When your opposition to misogyny disappears the moment a gender nonconforming woman challenges your sexist world view, you're not defending against hatred of women. You're deciding which women deserve to be hated on the basis of their appearance and being an actual female human being.
That is not progressive. It is regressive sexism, violent hatred of women, policing of women's appearance and weaponization of capitalist beauty standards dressed up as moral righteousness. It is viciously anti-woman and obviously anti-feminist.
And these beliefs and the massive hypocrisy underlying them are being swallowed whole and internalized by children and naive activists.
This is being taught in schools, it is the dominant position on the left, and it is promoted by governement and public institutions. It is setting women and girls back after decades of actual progress. We are paying taxes being used to fuel hate against us and undo legislation that protects women from hate and we paid taxes to enact. How does any woman or girl come to believe that is a good idea?
It is an obscene and complete failure of society that it has been allowed to dominate our culture. I will never trust nor forgive the mid wits who championed this obvious attack on the rights and humanity of women and girls.
Any self-respecting woman, feminist or actual progressive person should have no tolerance or patience for these fools, their enablers and their overwhelming misogyny.
annah retweeted
"Trans" activism is when you demand to be treated the same as everyone else, but get really angry if you are treated the same as everyone else.
I’ve never considered that. You’re completely right.
Amazing illustrative powers. It shows the depth of absurdity of the whole thing.
Every word.
I didn’t really get the problem with gender ideology at first.
I’m liberal-minded about most things. 'Live and let' live has generally been my motto. I believed inclusion mattered. I believed in being kind. In not using language that might upset people unnecessarily.
I knew people who identified as transgender. I knew some adults chose medical treatments or surgery to resemble the opposite sex. That seemed to me a matter of personal autonomy. Adults can do what they wish with their own bodies.
What I hadn’t realised - and I feel slightly embarrassed admitting this - was that I’d misunderstood what was being claimed.
I thought “transgender” meant a form of self-expression. A man who liked wearing women’s clothes. Someone changing their name. Gender non-conformity.
What I hadn’t grasped was that some activists weren’t just asking for tolerance. They were asserting that declaring yourself the opposite sex made you the opposite sex. Not metaphorically. Literally.
And that this wasn’t just cultural. It had legal consequences.
- It meant men who said they were women were demanding access to women’s sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters and hospital wards
- It meant the rewriting of healthcare language - “pregnant people”, “bodies with cervixes” - to avoid saying “women”
- It meant children struggling with identity being affirmed onto medical pathways with lifelong implications
And also redefining same-sex attraction. Lesbians called 'bigoted' for not wanting relationships with men who identify as women. Gay men accused of prejudice for saying they're not attracted to female bodies. None of which made any sense.
But I'd also overlooked how far this had travelled - into HR policies, professional bodies, schools, political parties and public institutions.
And how easily disagreement was framed as cruelty. Speaking up felt risky - because others were being publicly humiliated for doing so.
None of this is abstract.
Because sex is the basis on which safeguarding works. On which data is collected. On which cancer screening programmes run. On which fair sport and single-sex spaces depend. It’s written into law - including the Equality Act - because material differences matter.
If sex becomes a 'feeling' rather than a biological category, those protections become unstable.
And once reality becomes negotiable, everything does.
Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it.
But I needed to be sure.
So I read. Books, research papers, policy documents. When I finally spoke publicly, there was backlash from all directions.
Many women thanked me - both quietly and publicly.
But some feminists criticised me for speaking too late.
Others were angry about a past interview I’d done with the parent of a transgender person, accusing me of promoting harm.
It takes courage to change your mind publicly.
It takes courage to speak when you know your reputation, friendships or livelihood may be on the line - when you know raising your voice could strain, or even end, relationships you value.
Once I understood what was at stake, staying silent was no longer an option. I lost my livelihood simply for saying I didn’t like the phrase “pregnant people”. That alone tells you something is deeply wrong. It shouldn’t be this way.
I will never judge any woman for when she finds her voice.
Because every voice adds value - whenever it is raised.
And I know how persuasive this ideology can be. I know how easily it bypassed me. And I know how much courage it takes to admit, publicly, that you got something wrong.
I’m also a lifelong Democrat and am horrified that we’ve left it to the likes of the current administration to be steering toward sense on this issue.
It didn’t have to be this way.
This is why I, a life-long Democrat, worked on an amicus brief to SCOTUS, re Skrmetti.
This Big Lie went through with zero scrutiny. The AAP adopted a policy that was totally ginned up - based on no evidence. The concept of being born with an identity, let alone a false-sex one, is developmentally "flat earth." The approach reflects adult transsexuals' projections, not medical facts. "Id be happier if I passed better, so we need to trans kids before puberty."
Lying to kids about reality is abusive.
Foreclosing their development (especially when normal development is the cure for distress for 9/10) is abusive.
Making other kids parrot 2+2=5 is abusive.
Taking space from girls is abusive.
Putting tween and teen boys in girls' private spaces is abusive.
Letting a young, pre-gay boy arrive at age 20 with a micropenis is abusive.
This is fantastic
Your dog spends about 20% of the night awake and its sleep quality doesn't drop at all. In the bed-sharing arrangement, you were always the fragile one.
Dogs are polyphasic sleepers. Their sleep comes in short bouts stacked across the whole day, and their brains are built to surface, check the room, and sink back under in seconds. Humans run on 90 minute cycles where a single bad 3am wake-up can cost an hour. Same mattress, two completely different operating systems.
A Mayo Clinic study put activity trackers on 40 owner-dog pairs for a week. The dogs hit 85% sleep efficiency whether they slept on the bed or the floor. The humans managed 81%, and their number moved depending on where the dog was. Dog sleep was bulletproof. Human sleep bent around the dog.
Then wearables blew up the sample sizes. A 2026 analysis of 11,733 WHOOP users across 1.6 million nights found that on dog-in-the-room nights, people slept about 10 minutes longer, resting heart rate dropped about 1 beat per minute, and heart rate variability rose. There were a few extra micro-wakeups, around 0.4 per night. The nervous system downshifted anyway. It read the dog as safety.
A 2025 study ran sleep EEG on family dogs and found the inversion. Dogs sleep measurably worse when their owners aren't in the room. You are your dog's sleep aid, and apparently its main sleep disruption too.
The evolutionary read is that this deal is tens of thousands of years old. Humans who slept near dogs could afford deeper, more vulnerable sleep because something with better hearing was handling the night watch. Co-sleeping researchers think dogs literally expanded how much uninterrupted sleep early humans could get.
The dog takes the broken sleep so you don't have to. The trade predates agriculture, and your heart rate still drops a beat the moment one curls up at your feet.
