Lesbians and transgender activists: a growing schism based in reality not insanity

Lesbians are finally figuring out that men who claim to be women are in fact inherently hostile to real women, whether those women are straight or lesbian.

For the past twenty, maybe even thirty, years, I have been telling the following absolutely true story:

My sister has a friend — we’ll call her Abby Doe — who, while not exactly estranged from her parents, certainly wasn’t close to them. Some time after Abby’s mother died, she was in her home town, so she decided to visit her father.

When Abby arrived at the apartment building in which he lived, she was confused to see that the nameplate on the apartment’s front door bell, rather than saying “John Doe,” said “Jane Doe.” Still, this was the apartment in which her parents had lived and it was the same last name, so Abby rang the bell.

To Abby’s surprise, her father answered the door in full drag, complete with wig, make-up, nice dress, and platform shoes. He explained to her that he had always been a transvestite, something that he and his wife had kept secret from Abby.

Once his wife died, though, Abby’s father had started dressing in women’s clothes full-time. By doing so, he came to realize that he wasn’t a man at all. Instead, he was a woman trapped in a man’s body. After living with this concept for a while, Abby’s father had decided to take make it official: he was going to take hormones and have surgery. His first step was to change his name, hence the door bell information.

Abby is an open-minded woman so she considered her father’s lifestyle choice more amusing than shocking. Also, as I said, while she wasn’t estranged from her parents, she wasn’t close to them, so her father’s decision had no impact on her.

About a year later, a year during which she never spoke with her father, Abby once again found herself in her home town. Yet again, surprises awaited her.

Now, the door bell name tag had reverted to “John Doe,” rather than “Jane Doe.” Moreover, when Abby’s father answered the door, he was dressed in traditional male attire, which meant no make-up, no wig, no dress, and no fabulous shoes.

“What’s going on, Dad?” Abby asked.

“It’s like this,” her father answered. “Even though I know I’m a woman, I’m still sexually attracted to women. That means I’m a lesbian. And I’ve learned that I have much more success as a lesbian if I look like a man.”

Again, the above is a true story that happened 20-30 years ago. The following is also true and comes from today’s news (and please note the language I emphasized):

A prominent lesbian lawyer who identifies as a ‘radical feminist’ has claimed that transgender activism and ideology is actually a ‘men’s rights movement’.

Lawyer Kara Dansky, a spokeswoman for the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), condemned the transgender rights movement on Monday.

‘This is a men’s rights movement, this is really a men’s rights movement,’ Dansky declared as she spoke at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy think tank, in Washington DC.


Dansky spoke specifically of her belief that the term ‘gender identity’ would cause women’s rights to ‘utterly disappear’.

WoLF sued the Obama administration in 2016 after it issued a recommendation stating that Title IX protected the rights of transgender students to use restrooms that match the gender they identify with.

Under Title IX, schools that receive federal funding cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. The Obama administration ruled that sex also includes ‘gender identity’.

Dansky claims this was an ‘unmitigated disaster’ for women and girls and would mean they ‘no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protection’.

‘Title IX’s intention is specifically to protect women and girls in the educational arena,’ she said.

‘Feminists and other women fought very hard to get Title IX enacted into law in 1972. It’s specifically to protect women and girls.’


‘If sex is construed to mean “gender identity”, what that means is nearly all sex-segregated spaces – colleges, sports, dormitories – and women’s rights in general will utterly disappear,’ she claimed.

‘It is not possible to both enshrine gender identity in civil rights law and protect women and girls as a distinct legal category.’


Monday’s panel also featured Julia Beck, a lesbian who claimed she had been kicked off Baltimore’s LGBTQ commission for ‘stating biological facts’.

Beck was removed from the commission because she used male pronouns while referring to a transgender woman.

‘I got kicked off the Baltimore mayor’s LGBTQ commission – as the only lesbian – simply for stating biological facts,’ she said.

‘I was found guilty of “violence”. My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns.’


Beck also hit out at the president of the Baltimore Transgender Alliance, a transgender woman that she repeatedly referred to as a ‘man’.

‘The man who led my inquisition also identifies as “transgender,”‘ she said mockingly.

‘He is the president of the Baltimore Transgender Alliance and claims to be a lesbian. I find that almost funny because everything he does makes life for women, girls, and lesbians worse.’ (Emphasis mine.)

Twenty or thirty years ago, we all understood that Abby’s dad was both mentally ill and, in his own peculiar way, both opportunistic and dishonest. At the time, all of us who heard the story, responded as Abby did: With compassion (and yes, a bit of humor). Her wasn’t making demands on us or society; he was just a sadly confused person trying to cope within the boundaries of his own mental issues.

In the last few years, however, the Left has been trying to integrate this sad mental illness and opportunism into the forefront of our politics and social institutions. It’s high time women push back.  I’m glad to see that thinking lesbians and feminists are tired of being exploited by a movement that has nothing to do with women and confers no benefits whatsoever on women, whether they are straight or lesbian.

I’m also delighted to see that lesbians are actually talking to conservatives, whether than fighting straw men. They will see that the majority of conservatives are live-and-let-live humanists who believe in the promise of the Constitution, but reject wholesale changes to our institutions that deny reality and that wage war on biology and the traditional values that spring from that biological reality.

Holocaust Remembrance Day Is Meaningless

Yesterday was Holocaust Remembrance Day. And much as I hate to say it, it’s meaningless. Almost to the point of farce. Because it has no meaning. Let’s look at few of today’s cartoons.

Let’s look at Germany’s Angela Merkel first. She made the usual poignant speech about how it is so horrible that Jews are being attacked in Germany. Regarding Germany’s role in commemorating the Holocaust, Merkel said that “Nazism and the Holocaust that followed are part of our history, and therefore we are committed to preserving its memory in order to prevent the recurrence of such terrible things in the future.

My, my.

Prior to 2015,Germany was one of the safest countries in Europe for Jews. Germany was one of the only countries in Europe to face up honestly to the hideous atrocities that had been committed while the majority of Germans were happy to look the other way. And honestly facing that and admitting it took an incredible amount of forthrightness and courage, courage many European countries who took part in the carnage and the wholesale theft of Jewish property lacked… and still lack.

But now, it’s one of the least safe countries for Jews to live in. Goodness, Mutti Merkel, what changed? Could it be your bringing in thousands of Muslim ‘migrants’ into Germany who imbibed Jew hatred with their mother’s milk and their first Qur’an lessons? And what exactly are you doing to stop it, aside from issuing reports every now and then? For all the nonsense from former examples of honest journalism like Der Spiegel about how this is all coming from the ‘radical right,’ any honest German knows where almost all of it comes from. And trust me, although she’ll never admit it publicly, so does Angela Merkel.

And if, as she said, nothing like the Holocaust should ever happen again, riddle me this…why are she and other EU leaders supporting Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, considering Iran’s openly stated goal of genocide for Israel’s Jews?

And it’s not just Germany. It’s the same story in France. Lots of declarations, but no going after the real cause of the Jew hatred and hate crimes, not when Emanuel Macron’s victory was heavily dependent on the Muslim vote. Not too long ago, France had a population of over 600,000 Jews. Now, it’s around 450,000 and dropping, especially since Muslims are driving the Jews out of their traditional neighborhood in North Paris. Does anyone really care about whatever faux sympathetic nonsense Macron says at this point?

Here’s another laugher. Poland’s Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said this today, on the anniversary that marked 74 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp.:

“Hitler’s Germany fed on fascist ideology… But all the evil came from this (German) state and we cannot forget that, because otherwise we relativise evil,” said Morawiecki at an official ceremony at Auschwitz.

“The Polish state acts as the guardian of the truth, which must not be relativised in any way,” he said.

What’s behind this was former President Obama’s idiotic remark about ‘Polish concentration camps.’

The Poles were legitimately insulted, and passed a law making it illegal to accuse the Polish nation or state of complicity in Nazi German crimes. But evil?

It was two courageous Polish officers who escaped Poland to bring evidence of the Holocaust to people like FDR, who ignored it. And if you go to Israel and visit the Holocaust memorial of Yad Vashem, you will see the name of plenty of Polish Catholics who risked their lives to save Poland’s Jews. But it’s not the whole story, unfortunately.

Prime Minister Moraweicki conveniently forgets that when the Germans invaded, there were Catholic clergy who actually told their congregations that the Germans had only come to Poland because of the Jews and that when the Jews were ‘dealt with’ they would leave. He conveniently forgot that Catholic Poland was a deeply anti-semitic country. He forgot that the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto desperately asked the Polish resistance for help and were refused. And he forgets that the last Jews murdered in the Holocaust were murdered not by Nazis, but by Poles in a place called Keilce. You see, after surviving the death camps, they actually had the nerve to try to reclaim their old homes from the Poles who moved in. And nothing was ever really done about it.

I have nothing against Poles or Poland whatsoever, rather the reverse in fact. But to put it all on the Germans like PM Morwiecki does?

This is just another example of how meaningless Holocaust memorial Day is. Because the thinking behind the Holocaust never changes.

This week, the UN, of all places there was a report on Jewish owned art stolen in the Holocaust that urged museums and private owners who ‘acquired’ the paintings somehow to return them to their rightful owners or their descendants. This was in response to the Netherlands and other countries passing laws allowing the new ‘owners’ to keep the stolen paintings. The Netherlands literally has a commission that decides whether to return the stolen art based on on how valuable it is. The expensive stuff, they just keep. It’s to be expected in a country where, like Belgium, Jews are advised not to wear yarmulkes or anything else that might suggest that they’re Jewish.

And in the UK of course, one of the major parties, Labour is openly anti-semitic, something they mask as ‘anti-Zionism.’A recent poll says that 5% of the British people, 2.6 million, say that the Holocaust is a myth. And another 8% says that the death toll is ‘exaggerated.’ Most of the UK’s public schools have a policy of no longer teaching anything about the Holocaust because it would not jibe with what their many Muslim students ‘are being taught at home.’ Maybe that’s why so many of its citizens think it never happened.

Even the United States has become prey to this kind of thinking. Did anyone say much about almost every Democrat presidential hopeful nuzzling up to the openly anti-semitic Al Sharpton? Or the Jew hating rhetoric of a number of new Democrat congress members? What would happen to a white congress member calling blacks ‘termites’ which is how Rep. Hank Johnson referred to Jews, just like Louis Farrakhan?

Here’s a good example of how this kind of thinking works, courtesy of one Robin Abcarian, who writes for the LA Times. She is basically defending the anti-Trump Women’s March from the open anti-semitism of some of the participants like Linda Sarsour and their embrace of Louis Farrakhan.

Her basic point is that even if Louis Farrakhan is a racist and anti-Semite, “I think it is possible to be repulsed by his hateful rhetoric about white people, especially Jews, and still appreciate some of the empowerment work that he has done in the black community, including leading the 1995 Million Man March to promote African American family unity.”

I laughed out loud at that one. I still have a video of the entire million man march, recorded as it happened from C-SPAN. While the alphabet networks carefully showed edited clips to America and the print media concentrated on how ‘powerful’ it was, the Million Man March was actually one of the worst public exhibitions of Jew hatred in America since Father Coughlin and the Silver Shirts back in the 1930’s. And black family unity? 75% of black births still happen out of wedlock, and most of the little ‘customers’ Planned Parenthood kills just happen to be black.

But let’s see how this same kind of thinking can be applied in another direction. Based on her last name, Ms. Abcarian is likely either Armenian or married to an Armenian. Would she write something like this?

“Hey, I don’t agree with the Turkish leader’s statements about Greeks and Armenians, and I just deplore the massacring of 1.5 million Armenians, but you still have to admire how the Turks who led the massacre made a modern country out of Turkey and empowered Turks.”

Or perhaps this. I could just see her writing for the German press in 1936, couldn’t you? “Look, I find a lot of Hitler’s hateful rhetoric repulsive, but you have to admire how he solved Germany’s unemployment problem, put on the Olympics and really empowered Germany and German families, right?”

That kind of thinking is exactly why Holocaust Remembrance Day is meaningless. The thinking behind it (and the way Jews are thought of in far too many places) hasn’t changed one bit. And one reason is because people like Robin Abcarian are more than willing to give it a pass. Another is because deep down, a lot of people would just as soon not give a damn, or be reminded of what happened and their country’s complicity in it.

Rob Miller







Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications.

Follow him on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

And connect with him on Linked In.

Anti-Semitism in the Democrat party: how we got here *UPDATED*

Anti-Semitism in the Democrat party represents a pragmatic confluence of socialism, African-American anti-Semitism, and Islamic anti-Semitism.

My sister, who is fairly apolitical, asked me why the Democrat Party is becoming openly anti-Semitic. I’ll give you the same primer I gave her:

Antisemitism is baked into the socialist cake because (a) Karl Marx, who come from a family of converts, was a self-loathing Jew and (b) Marx’s writings permanently connected Jews with the capitalism that socialism seeks to overthrow. It did not matter to him that the vast majority of the world’s Jews were not capitalists. There were visible Jewish capitalists and that was sufficient.

Antisemitism is also baked into the socialist cake because socialism is all about collectivism, not about the individual. The Bible, however, is about individualism: Each human is important because each is made in God’s image. That viewpoint is the antithesis of collectivism. That’s another reason to hate both Jews, who are the people of the book and started the whole Bible thing, as well as to hate Christians.

The Democrat party started as a racist party. It has always been about race. No matter the political winds, it obsesses about race. It just substitutes different races at different times for liking and loathing.

The Democrat party, first under Wilson and then with increasing enthusiasm under FDR, became a socialist party. Initially, though, it was a soft socialism, one that did not affect the ordinary voter’s deep love for America. This was a soft socialism that promised, not to destroy America, but to speed the working classes’ assimilation into the American dream.

The Democrat party learned to “love” Jews in during the 20th century because Jews associated the Democrats with (a) beating the genocidal Nazis and (b) recognizing the state of Israel. In the 20th century, this Jewish fealty still mattered to Democrat victories in key states.

Jewish allegiance to the Democrat Party became locked in from the 1960s forward because Jews almost always go on to higher education. As we know, colleges and universities since the 1960s have been staffed almost entirely by Democrats at both the administrative and faculty levels. Moreover, these colleges and universities have become petri dishes for increasingly radical socialism, always under the umbrella of the Democrat party. As a result, Jews will vote for Democrats even if the Democrats go full bore national socialism and march them into the gas chambers. For a smart people, Jews are appallingly stupid.

There are 6.8 million Jews in America, 70% of whom vote Democrat. There are 47.4 million blacks in America, 90% of whom vote Democrat. Do the math.

Blacks became wedded to the Democrat party — the party of slavery — thanks to Roosevelt’s New Deal, which gave them money during the Depression.

Sadly, Blacks are more anti-Semitic than any other Americans except for Muslims, something Jews can never understand because Jews have always fought for black quality. Old Baby Boomers will go to their graves boasting about how they went down South in the 1960s to fight with blacks against Jim Crow. Jews also remember that the great Martin Luther King supported both Jews and Israel.

Black anti-Semitism arises from a combination of things: (a) the historic association blacks see, rightly or wrongly, between slumlords and Jews; (b) Farrakhan’s deeply anti-Semitic Nation of Islam; and, last and most importantly, (c) the hard Leftism that is becoming embedded in blacks (especially college educated blacks who are corporate, political, and community leaders).

(Note: I hope no one takes what I’m saying as a racist screed against blacks because it’s not. It is, instead, an analysis about black political loyalty and its recognized anti-Semitism.)

Unlike Jews, blacks are becoming disenchanted with the Democrat party, the policies of which have consigned generations of blacks to poverty and dysfunction. Blacks who understand that socialism is behind the troubles have become conservatives. They are a very small number, incredibly brave, and I admire them greatly. The rest of those blacks disenchanted with the Democrat party are doubling down on even harder socialism.

The Democrat party needs black votes more than it needs Jewish votes and will do anything to reach out to those blacks leaving the Democrat party for an even harder Leftist ideology.

The Democrat party is also actively reaching out to Islam. Because Muslim voters are not yet a significant American demographic, the Democrat party seems to be operating on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Both socialists and Muslims are hostile to (a) America, (b) Israel, and (c) believing Christians and Jews. Socialists and Muslims each assume that, once they’ve destroyed America, Israel, and believing Christians and Jews, they will prevail against their opposite number: That is, socialists believe they’ll subsume Muslims and Muslims believe they’ll subsume socialists. Also, Muslim women, notwithstanding Planned Parenthood, have lots of babies.

The psychological need to ally with Islam means that the Democrat party must buy into Islam’s pathological, genocidal hatred for Israel, the world’s only Jewish nation. While Muslims who have always been as open about their doctrinally-mandated hatred for Jews as they have been in their hatred for the Jewish state, Democrats initially tried to split the baby: “We don’t hate Jews; we just hate Israel.” The cognitive dissonance, though, has overwhelmed Democrats and, rather than rejecting both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, they’ve embraced both fervently.

In sum, (1) the Democrat Party does not need and will not court Jews who are dumb enough to vote for it no matter what; (2) the Democrat party desperately needs blacks who are openly anti-Semitic and increasingly disenchanted with Democrats; and (3) the Democrat party has made common cause with Islam, along with its anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist tropes. Factors (2) and (3) are driving the Democrat party to become openly anti-Semitic to get votes. Meanwhile, factor (1) means that Democrat-voting Jews will do nothing to stop this drive to hard-core, activist anti-Semitism.

And that is why the Democrat Party is becoming openly and proudly anti-Semitic.

I’m proud too: proudly Jewish.

UPDATES: Two of my friends weighed in with important information about Jewish American fealty to the Democrat Party. I knew this stuff, but totally forgot about it when I wrote my post. I’m so lucky I have such smart, informed blog friends:

From Danny Lemieux:

Also, the great shift in Jewish support for Democrats over Republicans happened because of the migration patterns of the early 1900s. Before then, Jews were overwhelmingly Republican, in large part because of the Civil War and Reconstruction (with a few notable exceptions, such as the Charleston community). In the early 1900s, these Jews were overwhelmed with migrants from Eastern Europe and Russia, where Marxism was ascendent. The Jews that arrived were largely communist/Marxist sympathizers, in part because their ideologies squared well with shtetl /kibbutz collectivization and the promise (never kept) that Marxism would eliminate the class and religious distinctions that kept the Jews oppressed. The Jewish immigrants of that time simply applied these ideas to their New World experiences in the East Coast tenement slums.

And from David Foster:

Many Jews believe, based on perceptions of history, that Christians have historically been a threat, whereas the Democrats have been their defenders. Mary Antin, a Jewish immigrant who came to the US from Russia in the early 1900s, wrote that pogroms in her home country had sometimes been led by priests carrying crucifixes and it took her several years to get past an instinctual aversive reaction when passing by a Christian church. (She later became acquainted with several American priests and came to respect them for the work they were doing among the poor.)

I think I have previously posted the story the Polish town of Eishyshok. At the time of the German invasion in 1941 (the town was then part of Poland), many of the local Jews viewed the coming of the German troops with equanimity. The town had been occupied during the earlier war, and the German officers and troops of that time had been very well-behaved and even helpful, and those residents who had been POWs in Germany during WWI spoke highly of their good treatment. Too many of the town’s Jews failed to realize that “German soldier” meant something different in 1941 than it had in 1914.

Analogously, “Democratic politician” means something very different in 2018 than it did in 1960. There is an inertia in historical memory, and it can be dangerous.

See my post The Phobia(s) That May Destroy America


Vassar Bushmills

By God!

I sat up with a start this morning, around 2:04.

It hit me, “Why are we all pretending this is politics…when it’s revolution?”

Their media, our media, their talk-show people, our talk show people, all have to pretend to be matter-of-fact about a situation that is probably the most significant series of events in American history since the southern states seceded in 1860…

…all because a solitary man was elected with a solitary purpose, but which had to be postponed until he could complete the new mission his election forced on him, to win a civil war and restore the Union.

Out of the mouths of babes Beto O’Rourke, three term congressman from Texas, near-miss (by some accounts) senator from Texas, and sure fire presidential candidate for 2020, (assuming there will be a contested one) let it slip this week the dirty little secret that every one but the most self-delusional on his side knows to be true:

“The Constitution of the United States is no longer a fit foundation for a modern government. It is no longer relevant.”

For what it’s worth, I first heard this same concept in the classroom in 1968, as a lecture by a political science professor, his argument being that the structure of our society and economy was too complex for a ham-fisted Congress to manage or, or for the general population to have anything more than a ceremonial say in it.

He was of course echoing the thoughts of Wilsonian Progressivism from around 1910, and slashed me a letter grade for disagreeing with him on the final exam.

In other words, all the elements of disavowing the Rights of Man on the one hand, and keeping academic students in line on the other, were fully in place in the academy 50 years ago. Had I wanted to go on to pursue a masters and PhD, he would have insured I couldn’t. I’d been tagged[…]

Continue Reading