The Real Story Behind Drag Queen Story Hour

Drag Queen Story Hour—in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores—has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.

Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.

These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

Start with queer theory, the academic discipline born in 1984 with the publication of Gayle S. Rubin’s essay “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Beginning in the late 1970’s, Rubin, a lesbian writer and activist, had immersed herself in the subcultures of leather, bondage, orgies, fisting, and sado-masochism in San Francisco, migrating through an ephemeral network of BDSM (bondage, domination, sadomasochism) clubs, literary societies, and New Age spiritualist gatherings. In “Thinking Sex,” Rubin sought to reconcile her experiences in the sexual underworld with the broader forces of American society. Following the work of the French theorist Michel Foucault, Rubin sought to expose the power dynamics that shaped and repressed human sexual experience.

“Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value,” Rubin wrote. “Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals. . . . Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.”

Rubin’s project—and, by extension, that of queer theory—was to interrogate, deconstruct, and subvert this sexual hierarchy and usher in a world beyond limits, much like the one she had experienced in San Francisco. The key mechanism for achieving this turn was the thesis of social construction. “The new scholarship on sexual behaviour has given sex a history and created a constructivist alternative to” the view that sex is a natural and pre-political phenomenon, Rubin wrote. “Underlying this body of work is an assumption that sexuality is constituted in society and history, not biologically ordained. This does not mean the biological capacities are not prerequisites for human sexuality. It does mean that human sexuality is not comprehensible in purely biological terms.” In other words, traditional conceptions of sex, regarding it as a natural behavior that reflects an unchanging order, are pure mythology, designed to rationalize and justify systems of oppression. For Rubin and later queer theorists, sex and gender were infinitely malleable. There was nothing permanent about human sexuality, which was, after all, “political.” Through a revolution of values, they believed, the sexual hierarchy could be torn down and rebuilt in their image.

There was some reason to believe that Rubin might be right. The sexual revolution had been conquering territory for two decades: the birth-control pill, the liberalization of laws surrounding marriage and abortion, the intellectual movements of feminism and sex liberation, the culture that had emerged around Playboy magazine. By 1984, as Rubin acknowledged, stable homosexual couples had achieved a certain amount of respectability in society. But Rubin, the queer theorists, and the fetishists of the BDSM subculture wanted more. They believed that they were on the cusp of fundamentally transforming sexual norms. “There [are] historical periods in which sexuality is more sharply contested and more overtly politicized,” Rubin wrote. “In such periods, the domain of erotic life is, in effect, renegotiated.” And, following the practice of any good negotiator, they laid out their theory of the case and their maximum demands. As Rubin explained: “A radical theory of sex must identify, describe, explain, and denounce erotic injustice and sexual oppression. Such a theory needs refined conceptual tools which can grasp the subject and hold it in view. It must build rich descriptions of sexuality as it exists in society and history. It requires a convincing critical language that can convey the barbarity of sexual persecution.” Once the ground is softened and the conventions are demystified, the sexual revolutionaries could do the work of rehabilitating the figures at the bottom of the hierarchy—“transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers.”

Where does this process end? At its logical conclusion: the abolition of restrictions on the behavior at the bottom end of the moral spectrum—pedophilia. Though she uses euphemisms such as “boy-lovers” and “men who love underaged youth,” Rubin makes her case clearly and emphatically. In long passages throughout “Thinking Sex,” Rubin denounces fears of child sex abuse as “erotic hysteria,” rails against anti–child pornography laws, and argues for legalizing and normalizing the behavior of “those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.” These men are not deviants, but victims, in Rubin’s telling. “Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950’s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation,” she explains. “Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt.” Rubin wrote fondly of those primitive hunter-gatherer tribes in New Guinea in which “boy-love” was practiced freely.

Such positions are hardly idiosyncratic within the discipline of queer theory. The father figure of the ideology, Foucault, whom Rubin relies upon for her philosophical grounding, was a notorious sadomasochist who once joined scores of other prominent intellectuals to sign a petition to legalize adult–child sexual relationships in France. Like Rubin, Foucault haunted the underground sex scene in the Western capitals and reveled in transgressive sexuality. “It could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves,” Foucault once told an interviewer on the question of sex between adults and minors. “And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.”

French philosopher Michel Foucault, the father figure of queer theory, an academic discipline that seeks to subvert sexual hierarchies

Rubin’s American compatriots made the same argument even more explicitly. Longtime Rubin collaborator Pat Califia, who would later become a transgender man, claimed that American society had turned pedophiles into “the new communists, the new niggers, the new witches.” For Califia, age-of-consent laws, religious sexual mores, and families who police the sexuality of their children represented a thousand-pound bulwark against sexual freedom. “You can’t liberate children and adolescents without disrupting the entire hierarchy of adult power and coercion and challenging the hegemony of antisex fundamentalist religious values,” she lamented. All of it—the family, the law, the religion, the culture—was a vector of oppression, and all of it had to go.

The second prerequisite for understanding Drag Queen Story Hour is to understand the historical development of the art of drag. It begins with a freed slave named William Dorsey Swann, who dressed in elaborate silk and satin women’s costumes, called himself the “queen of drag,” and organized sexually charged soirées in his home in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his life, Swann was convicted of petty larceny—he had stolen books from a library and dinnerware from a private residence—and then, in 1896, was charged with “keeping a disorderly house,” a euphemism for running a brothel, and sentenced to 300 days in jail. From the viewpoint of modern sexual politics, the story has all the elements of the perfect left-wing archetype: Swann was a man who liberated himself from chattel slavery and then from a repressive sexual culture, despite the best efforts of the oppressors, the puritans, and the police.

Drag became explicitly political seven decades later, during the Stonewall riots of 1969, in which patrons of a gay bar in New York City rioted against police and began a wave of gay and lesbian political activism. As writer Daniel Harris explained in the counterculture journal Salmagundi, traditional drag performances from William Dorsey Swann until the mid-1960’s were sensual experiences, “an innocuous camp pastime,” but with the onset of the sexual revolution, they became forms of resistance and revolution. “After the 1960’s,” Harris wrote, “ideology [tightened] its grip on the aesthetic of drag when gay men began to use their costumes to reevaluate the whole concept of normality and thus carry out a crucial part of the cross-dresser’s agenda: revenge.” Drag performers increasingly saw their vocation as political and started street organizations such as Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries in order to join the wave of activism rising through their communities in New York, San Francisco, and other hubs.

Suddenly, drag was not a private performance but a statement of public rebellion. The queens began using costume and performance to mock the fashion, manners, and mores of Middle America. In time, the need to shock required the performers to push the limits. “Men now wear such sexually explicit outfits as ball gowns with prosthetic breasts sewn on to the outside of the dresses, black nighties with gigantic strap-on dildos, and transparent vinyl mini-skirts that reveal lacy panties with strategic rips and telltale stains suggestive of deflowerment,” Harris noted. “The less drag is meant to allure, the bawdier it becomes, with men openly massaging their breasts, squeezing the bulges of their g-strings, sticking out their asses and tongues like porn stars in heat, and lying spread-eagle on their backs on parade routes with their helium heels flung into the air and their virginal prom dresses thrown over their heads.”

“The goal of drag, following Butler and Rubin, is to obliterate conceptions of gender through performativity.”

The next critical turn occurred in 1990, with the publication of Gender Trouble, by the queer theorist Judith Butler. Gender Trouble was a bombshell: it elevated the discourse around queer sexuality from the blunt rhetoric of Gayle Rubin to a realm of highly abstract, and sometimes impenetrable, intellectualism. Butler’s essential contribution was twofold: first, she saturated queer theory with postmodernism; second, she provided a theory of social change, based on the concept of “performativity,” which offered a more sophisticated conceptual ground than simple carnal transgression. Gender Trouble’s basic argument is that Western society has created a regime of “compulsory heterosexuality and phallogocentrism,” which has sought to enforce a singular, unitary notion of “sex” that crushes and obscures the true complexity and variation of biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and human desire. Butler argues that even the word “woman,” though it relates to a biological reality, is a social construction and cannot be defined with any stable meaning or categorization. There is nothing essential about “man,” “woman,” or “sex”: they are all created and re-created through historically contingent human culture; or, as Butler puts it, they are all defined through their performance, which can change, shift, and adapt across time and space.

Butler’s theory of social change is that once the premise is established that gender is malleable and used as an instrument of power, currently in favor of “heterosexual normativity,” then the work of social reconstruction can begin. And the drag queen embodies Butler’s theory of gender deconstruction. “The performance of drag plays upon the distinction between the anatomy of the performer and the gender that is being performed. But we are actually in the presence of three contingent dimensions of significant corporeality: anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance,” Butler writes. “When such categories come into question, the reality of gender is also put into crisis: it becomes unclear how to distinguish the real from the unreal. And this is the occasion in which we come to understand that what we take to be ‘real,’ what we invoke as the naturalized knowledge of gender is, in fact, a changeable and revisable reality. Call it subversive or call it something else. Although this insight does not in itself constitute a political revolution, no political revolution is possible without a radical shift in one’s notion of the possible and the real.”

By the 2000’s, the performance of drag had absorbed all these elements—the social-justice origin story of William Dorsey Swann, the carnal shock-and-awe of Gayle Rubin, the ethereal postmodernism of Judith Butler—and brought them together onto the stage. The queer theorist Sarah Hankins, who performed extensive field research in drag bars in the Northeast, captured the spirit of this subculture and its ideology in a study for the academic journal Signs. Drawing on the work of Rubin and Butler, Hankins describes three genres of drag—straight-ahead, burlesque, and genderfuck—that range from stripteases and lap dances to simulations of necrophilia, bestiality, and race fetishism. Hankins describes the world of drag as a “sociosexual economy,” in which the members of “queerdom” can titillate, gratify, and reward one another with cash tips and money exchanges. “As an audience member, I have always experienced the tip exchange as payment for sexual gratification,” Hankins writes. “And I am aware that by holding up dollar bills, I can satisfy my arousal, at least partially: I can bring performers’ bodies close to mine and induce them to touch me or to let me touch them.” Or, as one of her research subjects, the drag queen Katya Zamolodchikova, puts it: “I’m literally out there peddling my pussy for dollar bills.”

The goal of drag, following the themes of Butler and Rubin, is to obliterate stable conceptions of gender through performativity and to rehabilitate the bottom of the sexual hierarchy through the elevation of the marginal. “The act of paying a dominant/domineering woman, a male supplicant, a hapless wage slave, or a boy allows the audience member to temporarily embody one or more of a number of ‘bad/unnatural’ social positions, for instance the pedophile, the closeted gay chickenhawk, the predatory female cougar, the sugar daddy or momma, even the sexualized youth/child themselves,” Hankins writes. And the discipline of “genderfuck” takes it a step even beyond adult–child sex. As Hankins describes, this style of performance “foregrounds tropes of primitivism and degeneracy as tools of protest and liberation” and seeks to subvert taboos against “pedophilia, necrophilia, erotic object fetishism, and human–animal sex.” These performances constitute the end of the line: the culmination of more than a century’s work, from the silk-and-satin drag balls to the hyper-cerebral politics of deconstruction to the annihilation of traditional notions of sex.

The final turn in the story of drag is, in some ways, the most surprising. As the dark side of drag pushed transgression to the limits, another faction began moving from the margins to the mainstream. Some drag queens—most notably, the drag performer RuPaul—toned down the routines, pushed the ideology deep into the background, and presented drag as good old-fashioned, glamorous American fun. Television producers packaged this new form of drag as reality programming, softening the image of the drag queen and assimilating the genre into mass media and consumer culture.

This provided an opportunity. As the queer theorists’ vanguard intellectual project was running aground on incest and bestiality fantasies, the most enterprising among them took a different tack: using the commercialization of drag and the goodwill associated with the gay and lesbian rights movement as a means of transforming drag performances into “family-friendly” events that could transmit a simplified version of queer theory to children. The key figure in this transition was a “genderqueer” college professor and drag queen named Harris Kornstein—stage name Lil Miss Hot Mess—who hosted some of the original readings in public libraries and wrote the children’s book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish. Kornstein sits on the board of Drag Queen Story Hour, the nonprofit organization that was founded by Michelle Tea in 2015 to promote “family-friendly” drag performances and has since expanded to 40 local chapters that have organized hundreds of performances across the United States.

College professor Harris Kornstein, aka Lil Miss Hot Mess, a key figure in transforming drag performances into “family-friendly” events

Kornstein also published the manifesto for the movement, “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood,” with coauthor Harper Keenan, a female-to-male transgender queer theorist at the University of British Columbia. With citations to Foucault and Butler, the essay begins by applying queer theory’s basic premise of social constructivism and heteronormativity to the education system. “The professional vision of educators is often shaped to reproduce the state’s normative vision of its ideal citizenry. In effect, schooling functions as a way to straighten the child into a kind of captive alignment with the current parameters of that vision,” Kornstein and Keenan write. “To state it plainly, within the historical context of the USA and Western Europe, the institutional management of gender has been used as a way of maintaining racist and capitalist modes of (re)production.”

To disrupt this dynamic, the authors propose a new teaching method, “drag pedagogy,” as a way of stimulating the “queer imagination,” teaching kids “how to live queerly,” and “bringing queer ways of knowing and being into the education of young children.” As Kornstein and Keenan explain, this is an intellectual and political project that requires drag queens and activists to work toward undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family, and arousing transgressive sexual desires in young children. “Building in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education,” they write. “This is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of school and society.”

For the drag pedagogists, the traditional life path—growing up, getting married, working 40 hours a week, and raising a family—is an oppressive bourgeois norm that must be deconstructed and subverted. As the drag queens take the stage in their sexually suggestive costumes, Kornstein and Keenan argue, their task is to disrupt the “binary between womanhood and manhood,” seed the room with “gender-transgressive themes,” and break the “reproductive futurity” of the “nuclear family” and the “sexually monogamous marriage”—all of which are considered mechanisms of heterosexual, capitalist oppression. The books selected in many Drag Queen Story Hour performances—CinderelliotIf You’re a Drag Queen and You Know ItThe Gender WheelBye Bye, Binary, and They, She, He, Easy as ABC—promote this basic narrative. Though Drag Queen Story Hour events are often billed as “family-friendly,” Kornstein and Keenan explain that this is a form of code: “It may be that DQSH is ‘family friendly,’ in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is ‘family friendly’ in the sense of ‘family’ as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.” That is, the goal is not to reinforce the biological family but to facilitate the child’s transition into the ideological family.

After the norms of gender, sexuality, marriage, and family are called into question, the drag queen can begin replacing this system of values with “queer ways of knowing and being.” Kornstein and Keenan make no bones about it: the purpose of what they call drag pedagogy, or the “pedagogy of desire,” is about reformulating children’s relationship with sex, sexuality, and eroticism. They describe drag as a “site of queer pleasure” that promises to “turn rejection into desire” and “[transform] the labour of performance into the pleasure of participation,” and DQSH as offering a “queer relationality” between adult and child. They litter their paper with sexualized language and double entendres, blurring the lines between adult sexuality and childhood innocence. In fact, as the queer pedagogist Hannah Dyer has written, queer pedagogy and, by extension, drag pedagogy seek to expose the very concept of “childhood innocence” as an oppressive heteropatriarchal illusion. “Applying queer methods of analysis to studies of childhood can help to queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains all children and help to refuse attempts to calculate the child’s future before it has the opportunity to explore desire,” Dyer writes.

The purpose, then, is to subvert the system of heteronormativity, which includes childhood innocence, and re-engineer childhood sexuality from the ground up. And drag performances provide a visual, symbolic, and erotic method for achieving this. Kornstein and Keenan’s language of the discipline—“pleasure,” “desire,” “bodies,” “girls,” “boys,” “glitter,” “sequins,” “wigs,” and “heels”—gives it away.

Of course, the organizers of Drag Queen Story Hour understand that they must manage their public image to continue enjoying access to public libraries and public schools. They have learned how to speak in code to NGO’s and to appease the anxieties of parents, while subtly promoting the ideology of queer theory to children. While many of Drag Queen Story Hour’s defenders claim that these programs are designed to foster LGBTQ “acceptance” and “inclusion,” Kornstein and Keenan explicitly dismiss those objectives as mere “marketing language” that provides cover for their real agenda. “Though DQSH publicly positions its impact in ‘help[ing] children develop empathy, learn about gender diversity and difference, and tap into their own creativity,’ we argue that its contributions can run deeper than morals and role models,” they write. “As an organization, DQSH may be incentivized to recite lines about alignment with curricular standards and social-emotional learning in order to be legible within public education and philanthropic institutions. Drag itself ultimately does not take these utilitarian aims too seriously (but it is quite good at looking the part when necessary).” In other words, as a movement, Drag Queen Story Hour has learned the dance of operating a cash-flow-positive activist organization, winning government contracts, and securing access to audiences, while providing a plausible rhetorical defense against parents who might question the wisdom of adult men creating “site[s] of queer pleasure” with their children.

This gambit has been remarkably successful. Drag Queen Story Hour began with voluntary programs at public libraries, which are required by law to provide equal access to organizations regardless of political affiliation or ideology. But within a few years, those state-neutral events have turned into state-subsidized drag performances for children. The New York City Council and New York Public Library have provided taxpayer funding directly to the Drag Queen Story Hour nonprofit, sparking a trend of state-subsidized drag readings, dances, and performances across the country. Next, the New York City Public Schools, with more than $200,000 in funding from the municipal government, began hosting dozens of drag performances in elementary, middle, and high schools in all five boroughs. Other political figures seem to want to go even further. The attorney general of Michigan has called for a “drag queen for every school.” California state senator Scott Wiener has suggested in a tweet that he might propose legislation to offer “Drag Queen 101 as part of the K–12 curriculum” and mandate that students attend Drag Queen Story Time as a way to “satisfy the requirement.” Both might have said this tongue in cheek—but in any case, these things have a way of going from joke to reality at the speed of light.

“New York City began hosting dozens of drag performances in public schools in all five boroughs.”

Though the spread of sexually charged drag performances has an aura of inevitability, one should keep in mind that transgressive ideologies always contain the seeds of their own destruction.

As the movement behind drag shows for children has gained notoriety and expanded its reach, some drag performers have let the mask slip: in Minneapolis, a drag queen in heels and a pink miniskirt spread his legs open in front of children; in Portland, a large male transvestite allowed toddlers to climb on top of him, grab at his fake breasts, and press themselves against his body; and in England, a drag queen taught a group of preschoolers how to perform a sexually suggestive dance.

Scenes from drag events hosted across the United States in bars, clubs, and outdoor festivals have been even more shocking and disturbing: in Miami, a man with enormous fake breasts and dollar bills stuffed into his G-string grabs the hand of a preschool-aged girl and struts her in front of the crowd; in Washington, D.C., a drag queen wearing leather and chains teaches a young child how to dance for cash tips; in Dallas, hulking male figures with makeup smeared across their faces strip down to undergarments, simulate a female orgasm, and perform lap dances on members of a roaring audience of adults and children. Newspaper headlines have also announced abuses: “Tucson High School Counselor Behind Teen Drag Show Arrested for Relationship with Minor”; “Houston Public Library Admits Registered Child Sex Offender Read to Kids in Drag Queen Storytime”; “Drag Queen Charged with 25 Counts of Felony Child Sexual Abuse Material Possession”; “Second ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ Reader in Houston Exposed as Convicted Child Sex Offender”; “Drag Queen Story Hour Activist Arrested for Child Porn, Still Living with His Adopted Kids.”

Advocates of Drag Queen Story Hour might reply that these are outlier cases and that many of the child-oriented events feature drag queens reading books and talking about gender, not engaging in sexualized performances. But the spirit of drag is predicated on the transgressive sexual element and the ideology of queer theory, which cannot be erased by switching the context and softening the language. The philosophical and political project of queer theory has always been to dethrone traditional heterosexual culture and elevate what Rubin called the “sexual caste” at the bottom of the hierarchy: the transsexual, the transvestite, the fetishist, the sadomasochist, the prostitute, the porn star, and the pedophile. Drag Queen Story Hour can attempt to sanitize the routines and run criminal background checks on its performers, but the subculture of queer theory will always attract men who want to follow the ideology to its conclusions.

When parents, voters, and political leaders understand the true nature of Drag Queen Story Hour and the ideology that drives it, they will work quickly to restore the limits that have been temporarily—and recklessly—abandoned. They will draw a bright line between adult sexuality and childhood innocence, and send the perversions of “genderfuck,” “primitivism,” and “degeneracy” back to the margins, where they belong.

https://www.city-journal.org/magazine?issue=348

Fauci Paid $453K To Make Primates Transgender

Anthony Fauci recently announced he would be stepping down as director of the NIAID after holding the position for nearly forty years. Throughout this decades-long reign, the infamous doctor transformed the public health sector. Despite having never seen a patient since his 1968 residency, he served as the chief medical advisor to seven US presidents.

fauci paid $453k to make primates transgender

Other accomplishments include killing 300,000 men with the toxic AIDS drug AZT, torturing beagle puppies, and illegally kidnapping orphans to use as human lab rats. Fauci’s antics grew increasingly apparent amid the COVID era. While America was supposedly experiencing the worst pandemic of all time, Tony’s agency spent over $450,000 in an attempt to turn monkeys transgender.

Chemically-Induced Transgenderism

Since joining the NIH, Fauci has hemorrhaged money into both frivolous and diabolical projects alike. Last year the federal institution conducted bizarre experiments on primates. Officials claimed the study’s purpose was to determine why transgender women have higher rates of HIV. Researchers took male rhesus monkeys and administered feminizing hormone therapy treatments. Each test subject was forced to live in a tiny metal box while technicians constantly prodded the helpless creatures.

According to neuroscientist Dr. Katherine Roe, we are witnessing “yet another pointless, wasteful monkey torture experiment.” Kathy Guillermo, senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, says these barbaric trials have killed tens of thousands of monkeys and cost the taxpayers billions.

As with most things in life, there is always more than what appears on the surface. One has to wonder why scientists utilized monkeys for an HIV study when monkeys cannot contract HIV. Interestingly, Big Pharma is making a fortune when it comes to the LGBTQ movement. An estimated $1.3 million in revenue is generated per transgender child.

From hormone-altering prescriptions to sessions with therapists and numerous ‘gender-affirming’ surgeries, a lucrative new business has been forged. It’s no wonder why major brands jumped on the ‘pride’ bandwagon. Some of the world’s largest corporations have changed their logos to include colorful rainbows. Well, other than those trying to sell products in China, Russia, and the Middle East

https://downthechupacabrahole.com/

CA School District Textbook Claims There Are EIGHT Genders

Schools in California are teaching children that there are not just two genders, but that there are eight or nine, according to a report highlighting the claims made in a textbook.

ca school district textbook claims there are eight genders

Fox News Digital Screenshot

Fox News reports that the textbook titled “Comprehensive Health Skills for High School,” which also makes reference to ten sexual preferences, was ordered by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District.

The different ‘genders’ that the book lists include agender, androgynous, bigender, cisgender, gender fluid, gender non-conforming and gender questioning.

The book also lists sexual preferences as hetero, homo, and bisexual as well as androsexual, polysexual, skoliosexual, demisexual, pansexual, gynesexual, and asexual.

health skills text

Fox News Digital Screenshot

Responding to the findings, one mother of a child in the district, who is also a credentialed school psychologist, charged that the education system with sexualizing children.

“We are placing them in a situation where they think that this is safe, that this is healthy, this is how we show love,” Alicia Beget said, adding “And so they are being exploited by very evil people.”

“This is part of a larger agenda that those at the very top are well aware of what they’re doing,” she further asserted.

The report also notes that the same school district uses the so called ‘genderbread person’ project to push transgender ‘education’ on children.

The same school district also made headlines last year when a teacher posted a TikTok video admitting that she encouraged children to pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag after she removed the American flag from her classroom.

Newport-Mesa Unified School District responded to the report, stating “We follow the state-adopted standards for health education, which includes sexual health. We use a state-approved health curriculum with select modules, taught by credentialed teachers.”

The statement continued, “Parents can opt out their child from participating in comprehensive sex education. Parents also have the ability to review all curriculum taught in our schools so that they can be well-informed and make the best decisions for their child. We understand that there are varying viewpoints and beliefs and we follow California State Standards for curriculum, while also supporting parent choice.”

The Predatory Male Behavior Of So-Called Transgender Women…

William Thomas AKA Lia Thomas

By Eleanor Dashwood

How do you know so-called transgender women aren’t real women? Because they act just like predatory men who, rather than having sympathy for women concerned when physically intact men invade their territory, revel in the ability to impose their will on these women.

I once had a conversation with a strapping, athletic, and tall young man I was dating about how I, and women in general, feel vulnerable walking or traveling alone in many situations he took for granted. He had never thought about that wary anxiety women feel walking through a dimly lit parking lot at night, or turning around at footsteps, assessing the environment, noticing men eying them and, in response, feeling vulnerable and unprepared and instantly calculating how to respond if things go south.

The man wasn’t naïve or insensitive, but the emotions I described were unfamiliar to him. He had never pondered how different women’s day-to-day experiences were from his own. He enjoyed unthinking confidence due to his strength, size, and sex.

Of course, men can be vulnerable, but it should go without saying that their reality is different than women’s. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker than most men, so savvy women learn to be careful.

Women also rely on the traditional social contract ensuring single-sex privacy in places in which they may be naked or exposed, such as dressing rooms, bathrooms, or locker rooms. She expects that, in these spaces, she’ll be in the company of women and free from voyeurs or exhibitionists.

Sadly, this social contract has been broken because mixed-up or opportunistic men claiming to be women are allowed to invade these private spaces. These men’s insensitivity to women’s fear and discomfort is additional proof that they are not women.

They don’t understand women’s fear, vulnerability, and discomfort because they come from the same perspective as my male friend. It has never been a part of their experience because their point of view is male.

Ironically, my male friend would never have tried to invade a female space and would have respected women’s feelings, unlike many trans activists. Rather than respecting women’s feelings of vulnerability, many of these men in dresses enjoy the power of being in those settings, where they can view exposed women and show their male genitalia with impunity (something other cannot do legally), all because they claim to be women. They behave exactly like predatory men, overtly pressuring women with their power and dominance, and leaving the women unable to fight back. Examples abound.

Julie Jaman, an 80-year-old liberal feminist in Port Townsend, Washington, became uncomfortable while naked in a locker room at her local YMCA when she heard a male voice. She observed a man in a woman’s swimsuit assisting little girls who were changing into their bathing suits. When she complained that this was inappropriate, she was punished.

Instead of the Y addressing and respecting her reasonable feelings, Jaman was labeled a “transphobe,” booted from the pool, and permanently barred from the Y where she had swum without incident for 30 years. When she protested publicly, trans activists stormed the stage, physically intimidating her to disrupt her speech.

The mayor and city council rewarded the activists and announced the city’s “allyship” with the trans community. The message to Jaman and other women was that trans rights supersede women’s rights and that women must take it and shut up about their discomfort.

A guy who has been wearing a dress for about a year has more rights in a women’s locker room than an 80-year-old lifelong female. The alliance between the government and a trans guy with no compassion for women, despite claiming to be one, will create a chilling denial of privacy for women.

Riley Gaines a swimmer from the University of Kentucky, described the shock and discomfort she and other women swimmers felt when having to change clothes in a locker room in front of a male swimmer, Will Thomas, who claims to be female. Women coming in from a pool have no choice but to become naked as they change clothes. The only privacy they can seek is toilet stalls.

Will Thomas, who identifies as “Lia Thomas,” has male genitalia, is tall and broad-shouldered, and is built like a male swimmer. Oh, and he’s sexually attracted to women. By calling himself female, he was empowered to stroll around a female locker room despite the women made uncomfortable as he looked at them and strolled about naked, his “female” penis in full view.

When women complained, they were told to accept the situation or not swim at all—and they were offered counseling. As with Port Townsend, Thomas behaved like a classic predatory male, insensitive to women’s feelings and discomfort, while the universities helped enforce their humiliation and abuse.

At Wi Spa in Los Angeles, a man claiming to be a woman entered the female-only areas where women are completely nude. A mother with her young daughter was horrified to see a man sitting with his legs spread in front of all the women. He seemed to be enjoying their discomfort. (Turns out he’s a serial sexual offender.) The helpless spa had to comply with California law requiring facilities to accommodate people’s “gender identity.  Antifa responded to women’s complaints with rioting.

In New Jersey, a so-called transwoman in prison for manslaughter was sent to a women’s prison and, despite being “female,” magically impregnated two other inmates with his external vagina, which looked and functioned just like a penis. In prison, predatory men who claim to be female are allowed unfettered access to completely helpless women.

There are many travesties in the trans movement, from the deranged parents eager to be the parent of a trans child to the corrupt doctors and mental health professionals now claiming that children can know they are trans in utero (even though, simultaneously, they’re just a clump of cells), to the teachers lying to parents and manipulating confused children, to Big Pharma creating a lifetime of misery for huge profits. This is a hideous war on reality, but it is also a hideous attack on the safety and sanctity of women’s spaces, and politicians, universities, and activists, spurred by ideology and profit, are telling women to shut up and take it.

When my daughter was in high school, she participated in a wonderful program that took teenage girls on a wilderness backpacking trip. It was a life-changing experience for her. It gave her personal confidence and was the first step in many more possibilities for her.

Recently, I thought about this same program for a lovely young woman I know who could benefit from an empowering experience. Sadly, when I went online to find the link for her, I discovered (unsurprisingly) that this all-girls program now emphasizes nonbinary and trans girls.

Gone is the safe space my daughter enjoyed. It has been highjacked by boys who call themselves girls and girls who have no idea what they are. It is no longer a female-only space. I couldn’t recommend it to this young woman as I felt it would harm her. One by one, women are being bullied out of their own spaces by dudes in dresses and their misguided enablers. We must fight back.

Tranny Insanity is Exploding Among Youths. Why? 

JUNE 13, 2022

NY Times: 
Report Reveals Sharp Rise in Transgender Young People in the U.S.

No one saw this one coming, eh? — A “sharp rise” in gender-bending and even genital-mutilating insanity among our young people. Choke down this heart-breaking / stomach-churning / blood-boiling excerpt from the evidently approving “paper of record” —

“About 1.6 million people in the United States are transgender, and 43 percent of them are young adults or teenagers, according to a new report.”

Those figures revealed a significant rise among younger people: The estimate of transgender people 13 to 25 nearly doubled since the researchers’ previous report, published in 2017.” (emphasis added)
*

Though it’s probable that the demonic researchers padded the numbers of freaks to suit their demented desires, the sharp increase does indeed correlate with my own anecdotal observations made while out and about in once “normal” public places such as suburban malls, restaurants, convenience stores, beaches etc. Though not exactly ubiquitous, there are more and more of these faggoty-ass dolled up boy-girls popping up like the first dandelions of spring now. Whatever the precise numbers may be, there can be no doubt that the cancerous phenomenon is spreading.

Now that full “normalization” has been achieved, the children of worthless “millennial” parents have been left defenseless.
“Drag Queen Story Hour” readings for kids are occurring more and more frequently.

The article trots out a deranged “doctor” to deliver the “good news.” Dr. Angela Goepferd — a self-identified “non-binary” who is the medical director of the “Gender Health Program” at Children’s Minnesota Hospital:

“It’s developmentally appropriate for teenagers to explore all facets of their identity — that is what teenagers do. And, generationally, gender has become a part of someone’s identity that is more socially acceptable to explore.”

“We as a culture just need to lean into the fact that there is gender diversity among us. And that it doesn’t mean that we need to treat it medically in all cases, but it does mean that we as a society need to make space for that.”

You see, boys and girls, because these mentally confused queers can’t actually produce their own children — they need to groom and corrupt yours! That’s what this is all about. But of course, were it only the 1% of boy-girls and girl-boys that we had to worry about, there actually wouldn’t be much to be concerned over. Low level sickos can be contained and the “tolerant” non-queers who enable them can be re-conditioned. It’s the “elite” cultural assassins injecting this poison into the nation’s veins while protecting and exalting the demon-possessed trannies and “non-binaries” who need to be called out for this abomination — and then beaten to death in packed sports arenas across America.

1. 
Dr. “Angela” Goepferd (and Satan) want your kids. //  2. & 3. And more and more brainwashed unfit parents — who actually fancy themselves as virtuous now — are willing to hand them over.

Poking fun at these misfits is all well and good — as is HATING them when they take it a step further and try to corrupt innocent children. But unless and until more FOXtard “conservative” types start pointing the finger upwards, toward the real culprits, this cultural cancer will never abate. We’ll wrap this up with a pair of power-packed quotes — from two high historical personages who were in a position to know the game — which tell us in a 2+2 manner all we need to know about the LGBT mass mania now afflicting so many young people.

* Edward Bernays — Nephew of Sigmund Fraud and anti-German propaganda specialist during World War I, from his book, Propaganda:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.

In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Vice President Joe Biden — In 2013, speaking at a Jewish Heritage event held by the Demonrat National Convention:

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace gay marriage. I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense — the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.”

The truth is that Jewish heritage is American heritage. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you.”

*
Now we know who to thank for trannie-mania — specifically, the (((overlords))) of Fake News and Hollyweird.  Thanks for the tip, Edward — and thanks, Joe. …… Under. Every. Rock.

“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

Forbidden Truth not allowed by Conservative Inc: Without the power, money, media, big mouths and organizational activism of “the usual suspects” behind it, the “LGBT” abomination would never have amounted to anything for us lowly goyim to really worry about.

Who Murdered the Walt Disney Company? 

By Mike King

APRIL 27, 2022

NY Times:


Disney to Lose Special Tax Status in Florida Amid ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Clash
*

DeSantis’s Attack on Disney Is  an Assault on Democracy

*
What We Know About the DeSantis-Disney Rift

The once untouchable Walt Disney Co. Empire has had a very rough month of April. Bad publicity, a dying streaming service, sinking stock price, and White Hat Governor’s Ron DeSantis unexpected revocation of a 55-year-old arrangement which gave Disney special tax status and allowed it to self-govern its 25,000-acre Disney World complex. The loss of that designation is the latest battle in an ongoing war between DeSantis and the largest private employer in Florida.

The cosmetic cause of DeSantis / Disney fight is described in the article:

“In March, the governor signed a bill that prohibits classroom instruction and discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity.

The “Parental Rights in Education” law, referred to by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill … has been heralded by conservatives and scorned by L.G.B.T.Q. activists and many school teachers. Although initially silent, Disney joined the debate when its chief executive, Bob Chapek, criticized the bill.

Mr. DeSantis was not happy with Disney’s response. “If Disney wants to pick a fight, they chose the wrong guy,” he wrote.”

In reality, DeSantis was just using Chapek’s forced and timid comments as a pretext to attack Disney because that Evil Empire is loaded with child rapists and promotes filth to children in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. More power to Governor DeSantis … and death to Disney!

Satan’s sodomite brigades pressured Disney into denouncing the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Stuck between a cock and a hard place, Disney’s CEO finally caved into the rainbow retards. Governor DeSantis then used the opportunity to pounce upon the company.

The real power above Chapek is Disney Chairbitch Susan Arnold(cough cough), and the six largest shareholders —  BlackrockVanguard, State Street former Chairman Bob IgerAllen Braverman and Christine McCarthy. With a list of “usual suspects” like that (and many more in the top ranks of the company), regular readers of The Anti-New York Times certainly don’t need to be told why the Walt Disney Co. (of Florida and California) now pumps out degeneracy and is infested with child rapists. It’s simply what (((they))) do.

But enough about the usual suspects and their usual dirty deeds. Let’s learn a bit about Walt Disney — the good man who, with his brother, Roy — built the company and is surely turning over in his grave as his family name is now inextricably linked with this evil institution which got Judaized after the Disney brothers were gone.

Walter E. Disney was born in Chicago in 1901. He studied art as a boy and went on to work as a commercial illustrator before moving to California to set up the Disney Brothers Studio with his elder brother, Roy. Disney developed the character “Mickey Mouse” in 1928. As his studio grew, he introduced unique feature-length cartoons such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Cinderella and Bambi. During the 1950s & 60s, live action films followed, including the successful Mary Poppins. Disney also expanded into the amusement park industry, and opened Disneyland in Anaheim, California. After he died of lung cancer in 1966, Roy  then took over and would also oversee the establishment of another resort in Florida. He died in 1971. The Brothers Disney  ran a clean film and resort operation which many millions of children enjoyed. They were patriotic, anti-Communist, (Walt was rumored to be “anti-Semitic”) and decent men of business — true American originals. So, what the heck happened to their company?

Following the death of Walt Disney in 1966, the company narrowly survived several takeover attempts by the usual suspects. Years after Roy’s death, in 1984 to be exact, his son and major shareholder, Roy E. Disney, brought in Michael Eisner as CEO and Chairman of the Board to strengthen the company. Eisner then brought in Jeffrey Katzenberg as Walt Disney Studios chairman. Eisner soon became the king and the self-promoting public face of the company, and was very recognized by the children who visited the parks and often asked him for autographs. In a financial sense, Eisner and Katzenberg, and later on, Iger, did succeed in strengthening and expanding Walt Disney Company into a monstrous conglomerate which acquired ABC, The History Channel (50%), ESPN, Touchstone Pictures, Marvel, Lifetime (50%), A&E (50%) and more. But with respects to the cultural and moral elements of the multi-media operation — well, you know.

Walt Disney’s Horrifying Background & Heinous Agenda

In recent weeks the Sunshine State has garnered global attention yet again. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis made headlines after unveiling HB 1557. Titled Parental Rights in Education, the legislation seeks to ban discussing explicit adult subjects with kindergarten and elementary school students.

walt disney’s horrifying background & heinous agenda 2

Critics insist this proposal is an attack on the LGBTQ community. The most vehement opposition came from outspoken Disney representatives who dubbed the bill ‘Don’t Say Gay’. They insist teachers should instruct children on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Conservative-leaning publications produced countless articles stating Disney’s founder would be horrified by his successors’ current stance. In reality, the iconic entrepreneur is not ‘rolling in his grave’ — he’s salivating.

“If the world only had the eyes to see the fibers which lay under the surface of Walt Disney’s image, they’d tar and feather him, and drag him through the streets. If only they knew what Disney’s primary goal is.”

Walter Elias Disney was born on December 5, 1901, in Chicago, Illinois. According to documents from the Central Intelligence Agency archives, he belonged to a very influential Illuminati bloodline. Walt’s father was an outspoken affiliate of the socialist party and a New World Order advocate. Behind closed doors, the strict patriarch physically abused his son.

Longtime companions of the esteemed animator claim that he coped by secretly cross-dressing in his mother’s clothing and makeup. Upon hitting puberty he realized women did not arouse him. Instead, he grew increasingly attracted to little boys. The young man kept these feelings hidden from his religious parents. Nevertheless, he was determined to find a way to live his deepest and darkest fantasies while maintaining an impeccable reputation. Disney would ultimately create a covert child sex trafficking operation insidiously concealed as the ‘happiest place on Earth’.

Child Abusing Pedophile

Early on in the imagineer’s career, colleagues began noticing his blatant affection and inappropriate behavior towards minors. Fellow cartoonists disclosed the executive owned a secluded Los Angeles apartment where he met with underage boys [that were being prostituted].

walt disney satanist pedophile

One victim named Ralph Ferguson testified that Walt paid him $100 for despicable sexual acts on multiple occasions. Another juvenile preyed upon by the predatory producer was Bobby Driscoll. In 1946 the nine-year-old landed a lucrative contract with Disney. He starred in dozens of films and TV shows but is best remembered for his lead role in Peter Pan. Other cast members on set witnessed Walt’s advances firsthand and the disturbing affair was common knowledge amongst industry insiders. Enduring such horrific assaults lead the traumatized actor to self-medicate with various drugs as a teen. After threatening to publicly come forward at the age of 31, Driscoll died under suspicious circumstances.

Federal Government Agent

During the late 1930s, Disney was recruited by high-ranking FBI officials. Dossiers obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he worked as a Special Correspondent informant for the United States government. Intriguingly, the seemingly wholesome director produced motion pictures for public schools, military personnel, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administrators.

Another federal branch interested in the studio kingpin’s unique talents was the CIA. They sought the mogul for his specialty in mind control and programming techniques. Disney flicks are infamous for rampant subliminal messaging. Since the organization’s inception, innumerable scenes flash split-second images that subconsciously affect viewers. Many of these stills portray perverse erotic content or play suggestive audio recordings intentionally obscured by background noise.

disney satanism 2
disney satanism 3
disney satanism 4

A Racist & Supporter Of Nazis

Illustrator Arthur Babbitt, creator of the anthropomorphic dog Goofy, encountered Walt Disney at numerous events celebrating Adolf Hilter’s regime. He stated:

“On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney at Nazi meetings, along with a lot of other prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time.”

A Mickey Mouse comic strip from June of 1940 featured swastika-laden drawings. As the budding brand grew, non-caucasian characters were frequently sketched in exaggerated and often grotesque depictions. The unsuspecting CEO was a radical eugenist who believed in racial superiority. During the mustached magnate’s lifelong reign, he only hired one full-time African American employee. His position: Walt’s personal shoeshiner.

For nearly a century Disney has meticulously orchestrated the perceptual hijacking of rapidly developing brains. Their target audience is deliberately selected for a nefarious purpose. Formative years, from birth to the age of eight, are critical in establishing our cognitive foundation. It is no coincidence why the corporation’s former stars frequently suffer from substance abuse and experience mental breakdowns.

The Billionaires Behind The LGBTQ & Transgender Agenda: George Soros, Peter Buffett, Tim Gill and the Stryker Dynasty Have Donated HUNDREDS of Millions to the Cause.

Unsettlingly, these instances show no signs of slowing down. Today the conglomerate is worth over $100 billion and owns dozens of broadcasting networks. For this reason, mainstream media outlets parroting identical sentiments rarely equates to the truth. Walt was a depraved individual— not the patron saint ‘journalists’ dotingly idolize.

For further reading material, check out ‘Trance Formation of America: the True Life Story of a CIA Mind Control Slave’ by Cathy O’Brien.

Source: DownTheChupacabraHole.com

Orwellian Trans Takeover: Banned From Using The Word ‘Mother’

‘My job is to help women give birth, but I was banned from using the word “mother”’.

With gender-neutral language becoming obligatory for midwives, RT speaks to one home birthing attendant who has had enough of the “Orwellian trans takeover” and believes it’s time to confront it.orwellian trans takeover banned from using the word 'mother'

“Dissociating from your body and denying what it is, and then framing it as some kind of enlightened state… it’s really twisted.”

Strong words that will chime with many from home birth attendant Isabella Malbin, who is one of an increasing number of midwives, doulas, and nurses speaking out about what they see as a trans takeover of the birthing world.

A recently launched UK-based Twitter account, Sex Not Gender Nurses and Midwives, has provided a forum to get their point across. But the reality for many health professionals is that talking publicly is difficult, because of a fear of either being ostracised or going against their training.

To get an idea of the pressures they face, RT spoke to Isabella, who is a firm believer that trans ideology has to be countered. Ironically, her views have gone through quite a transformation since she began her doula training in 2016 in her home town, New York City.

She said, “Like most women getting into birth work and women’s health, I have a very sincere desire to improve the lives of women, girls and children. Not anyone goes into such a politicised space where there is so much work that needs to be done. I went into that space with the intention to make the lives of women and children better, starting at birth.”

Aged 24 and keen to embrace modernity, Malbin was unsurprised that the first part of her training was not focused on medical matters, and instead was called ‘Cultural Competency’. That meant she and her fellow students were taught to erase the words ‘mother’ and ‘woman’ from their professional vocabulary. The replacements were: ‘birthing bodies’, ‘birthing people’, ‘menstruater’, ‘people who bleed’, and ‘chestfeeder’.

Malbin reflected, “I’m from New York City, I went to art school… you didn’t have to say much more; I was on board. I couldn’t at the time understand how it would hurt anyone. I really couldn’t come up with any reasoning or examples why it would take anything away from me as a woman or women [in general] to use that language.”

As she was so intent on trying to be as good a doula as possible, Malbin didn’t question these instructions. In fact, the tone made it clear how objections would be framed. “It was delivered as: ‘if you’re not on board, you have some inner work to do’,” she said. “Around that time some elder midwives wrote a letter about the danger of gender-neutral languageMy trainer brought it up as this horrible, shameful thing that had gone on in the birth world, that there was this group of midwives opposing this ‘new speak’. Immediately I learned any opposition… was frowned upon.”

Malbin gained her qualification and began delivering training sessions to couples expecting children, using the language that she had been told to use. Her website and professional materials didn’t contain the words ‘mother’ or ‘woman’.

Now she reflects upon what her clients must have felt as she avoided those words in the classes. “I would be in a room with 12 couples coming to me for childbirth education and not a single woman in the room thought she was a man – yet I would continue to use language like ‘birthing people’. It was really unbelievable and I did that for three years,” she explained.

“If they felt it was strange – as I am sure most of them did – no one ever said anything to me. I imagine if they did think this was weird, they didn’t want to offend me or create a discord within the relationship.”

Finally, there was a crack in the dam and Malbin questioned the language politics when a Caesarean section was referred to as a ‘belly birth’.

She said, “It’s Orwellian and it doesn’t make sense; everybody knows a C-section is not just a belly birth. Who are we trying to protect here? That is a marketing thing that I see only benefits the hospitals who are selling these belly births.”

“Any women who has had a C-section knows it is a major abdominal surgery, and any women who has gone to have a vaginal birth after a C-section knows they are not the same. So why are we pretending that they are? Who does it serve to constantly make these concessions with our language?”

From then on, Malbin decided to revert to using the language that she personally felt was right and abandoned the ‘Cultural Competency’ of her training. That has come at a cost, as at a later training course she was kicked out for refusing to ignore the terms ‘mother’ and ‘woman’, despite explaining that she accepted if other students felt differently.

She said, “I was reported as ‘unsafe’ to the leader of a program who called for a gender forum. [Then] A psychologist did a role-play of a man who thinks he is a woman begging me to let him into my women’s circle.”

“I said, ‘I’m really sorry to hear you’re dealing with all these things, but you are not a woman and this is a ‘women only’ space, so get the help you need but you are not welcome here’. That sounds very harsh to a lot of people and it’s insane that is the case.”

According to Malbin, this is a common situation – where female health professionals involved in births can’t voice an opinion that disagrees with trans ideology. Colleagues and others online describe it as like having nowhere to turn.

“They are not free to speak, they are not given an open forum, they are plucked out quicker than you can say ‘trans ideology’,” said Malbin.

“I get messages and emails from women all over the world regularly telling me that they can’t speak out or they were ostracised. There is no kind of democratic space or nuanced space where women can talk about these issues. This ideology is authoritarian and if you even question one part, you are instantly deemed transphobic.”

Alongside the midwives, doulas, and home birth attendants, mothers (and fathers) are also impacted by the use of gender-neutral language. Most arrive at hospitals or birthing centres happy to take their lead from the professionals. So it is likely to cause an issue if they are struck by being referred as to as a ‘menstruater’ or ‘chestfeeder’.

“I’ve had women come to me and say, ‘I don’t feel a connection with my midwife because she believes in this ideology’,” said Malbin.

“What we are already dealing with in birth is a very deindividualised experience where the woman is one of many. It’s like a conveyor belt… she comes in, she comes out. Then you are unable to name your parts or to feel embarrassed or hesitant to claim your body as a woman out of fear of triggering someone.”

The Billionaires Behind the LGBTQ & Transgender Agenda: George Soros, Peter Buffett, Tim Gill and the Stryker Dynasty Have Donated HUNDREDS of Millions to the Cause.

There’s also the reality that some women may feel uncomfortable being examined by a man. They may be surprised when someone with a female name arrives at their bedside but is in a fact a man identifying as a woman.

Malbin continued, “l also think it’s an issue to have medical professionals who are male pretending to be women, inserting themselves literally into the inside of women’s bodies.

“I already take issue with male OB-GYNs and men who call themselves midwives and doulas, but on top of that if you add a man who is convinced he is a woman and has breast implants and has been on estrogen for 10 years, that is a whole other level.

“I have had women who’ve shown up to gynecological and obstetric appointments thinking they are going to see a woman and it’s a man. Imagine being in a room alone with this man, and you don’t want to offend, and you’ve already taken off your pants. This is happening.”

Putin: Wokeness is ‘Reversed Discrimination’ and a ‘Crime Against Humanity.’

The momentum is definitely with those who subscribe to trans ideology. And Malbin believes that is a concern for any future midwives or doulas, as they have to swallow any opposing personal views or potentially find a new career.

She said, “If you want to learn from a college of midwives and they’re pretending to not know what a woman is, is that really someone you want to learn from? What else are they promoting? Chances are they are also promoting double speak in other ways.

“Ask yourself: Do you want to be part of an organisation that is being bullied? Whether they believe in what they are doing or not, do you want to be led by someone who has succumbed to bullying by the mob? There are a couple of programs still out there that have stayed strong and refused to comply with this nonsense, but they are far and few between.

Outrageous! Here’s a Look at the Shocking White Privilege, Gender Equity Lesson Plans Used To Indoctrinate Your Kids

Parents may not be able to vet or opt out of the social justice, ideologically skewed educational regimen being taught nationwide in K-12 classrooms.

But thousands of lesson plans designed to instill students with a gender-fluid, racist, anti-American ideology are available for review at TeachersPayTeachers.com,  a site allowing teachers to sell and share educational programs.

According to the Teachers Pay Teachers website, TpT “is the go-to place for over 85% of U.S. educators to find teacher-created, teacher-tested classroom resources” and “has grown to reach over 5 million educators.”

The site contains 5,552 lesson plans to nurture students on the tenets of Black Lives Matter, 3,712 on critical race, 166 on white privilege, and dozens of gender equity lesson plans.

A 2-week lesson plan available on TpT, titled “Social Justice and Racial Equity Unit in Kindergarten,” implores young learners in pre-K to first grade to become race-conscious and mindful of different skin tones.

“With your partner, who has lighter skin and whose is darker?” students are asked in the 10-day unit.

Gender equity is incorporated in the racial equity unit for kindergarteners in a lesson called “Pink Is For Boys- Lesson on Gender Equality.”  The lesson asks students to create pictures of objects that have different colors “to focus on color and gender equality.”

Another 2 week-long lesson plan designed for students in kindergarten to third grade called “Gender Equality Activities,” features 10 lessons that focus on “acceptance, challenging gender stereotypes, positive self-image and understanding.”

“This unit offers an extensive book list that will help teachers to gather a wide range of quality books that help to challenge gender stereotypes,” a description of the lesson plan states.

Assignments included in the unit include “Ballerino Nate,” “Household Tasks” and “Accepting Me For Me.”

An assignment titled “Be YOUnique” instructs teachers to ” read “My Princess Boy,” a story about a boy that prefers to wear a pink dress in dresses and pretend he is a princess” aloud then “ask students how this makes them feel.”

A lesson plan called “The Woke Classroom” covers topics including gender pronouns and how to use them, how to make your classroom more inclusive, guidelines for establishing a safe space, how to reduce transphobia in schools and an explanation of non-binary genders.

Another lesson plan designed to teach gender equity to young students, “Transgender Education Social Story” provides “a base knowledge of what being transgender means” and “different ways a person’s gender identity could be expressed.”

Black Lives Matter Lessons and Activities unit, designed for students in kindergarten to sixth grade, reviews BLM vocabulary words, BLM badges and “O.R.E.O writing.”

cial studies unit called “Social Justice Activities: Racism, Stereotypes, Privilege, Black Lives Matter” created to teach racial and gender  equity to middle schoolers and highschoolers contains 11 books including “What is a Microaggression,” “What is Toxic Masculinity?” and “Understanding Privilege.”

Thirteen posters for the classroom touting far left slogans on climate change and “diversity” are included in the social justice lesson plan bundle.

Teachers can find a “social justice word wall” on TpT, a resource that encourages students to use key terms for discussing social justice in the classroom.

What is White Privilege,” geared towards elementary school students with disabilities uses clipart and photography to aid children in understanding the problems with racism and explains the concept of white privilege.

White Like Me, Reflections From A Privileged Son” teaches students in grades 6-12 about George Floyd, black lives matter, white privilege, white fragility and “takes a look at the politics of race and racism through the anti-racist author’s viewpoint.”

While students are inundated with distorted views of reality in public schools across America, parents are beginning to realize the institutions they fund and entrust with their children are indoctrination centers.

The effort to use schools as political activist training camps is deeply unpopular among the majority of U.S. voters, Republicans and Democrats alike. A survey conducted in May by Competitive Edge Research found that 74 percent of respondents are “somewhat or strongly opposed” to white privilege training in schools.

Voters are similarly opposed to the gender equity curriculum. Seventy-five percent of respondents oppose communicating to students that biological sex does not exist, while just 18 percent of respondents supported such ideology.