At this point, I’m just tired of even bothering to report this stuff.
We were reporting all this stuff back when the site was launched in 2013, and no one believed that it was real. It was all these people on Tumblr promoting this gibberish, and people would say “oh, that is just a lunatic fringe.” And we were like: “no, actually these people have a whole lot of energy, and they are increasingly being endorsed by the mainstream – this is going to be mainstream soon.”
People didn’t believe it, they didn’t bother to fight against it because they said it was irrelevant, now here we are. It’s way too late to stop any of it, because you’re not even allowed to complain about it. Breitbart itself – which to their credit, does cover this stuff a lot more than most other sites – will not even say “trannies aren’t real.”
In the latest example of historical revisionism being used to erase women by the woke LGBTQ+ movement, a scholar has claimed that Queen Elizabeth I of England was “non-binary”.
Along with the announcement from Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre that they have cast St Joan of Arc as a “gender-neutral” character in an upcoming play, Dr Kit Heyam penned a blog post for the theatre’s website earlier this month defending why “it was necessary” to use modern gender theory when looking at the past.
As far as I can tell, this is a woman who mutilated herself into becoming a parody of a man
Dr Heyam, who describes himself as a “trans awareness trainer” with (they/them or he/him) pronouns, said St Joan was not the only historical example of LGBTQ+ figures, claiming that 10th-century ruler Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, and Queen Elizabeth I of England were both transgender.
“Æthelflæd, who governed Mercia after the death of their [sic] husband, was later described as ‘conducting…Armies, as if she had changed her sex’: to take on a male-coded military role was, in some sense, for Æthelflæd to become male,” Heyam wrote.
“Elizabeth I, similarly, described themself [sic] regularly in speeches as ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’, choosing strategically to emphasise their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points,” he added. “Inhabiting that social role and dressing in the clothes associated with it, while living and working among men, may not just have felt like gendered defiance: it may have had a profound impact on their sense of self.”
Born in 1533, Elizabeth I was one of the longest-serving rulers in British history, behind only Queen Victoria and her namesake Queen Elizabeth II, the current reigning monarch.
There have long been conspiracy theories surrounding her gender, such as the one promoted by 19th-century Dracula author Bram Stoker, which posited that Queen Elizabeth I cut such a masculine figure because she was in fact a man and that the real Elizabeth had died as a child and was replaced by a boy with similar features.
See? Intelligent people have always endorsed “tinfoil hat” type conspiracy theories.
I don’t believe Stoker’s theory, but it just goes to show that smart people have always been willing to entertain ideas that are on par with “Sandy Hook was a hoax” or “Joe Biden is a clone or Jim Carrey or something.”
The “Bisley Boy” theory attempted to explain why she remained a virgin throughout her life and was able to command such respect militarily. However, the theory was based on merely circumstantial evidence, with many counterfactuals, such as her having been inspected by doctors to determine if she could bear children.
Ironically, some gender-critical feminists have noted that the woke LGBTQ+ view of history is actually “gender conservative” in that it assumes that women cannot do “manly” things.
Philosopher Dr Jane Clare Jones told The Telegraph: “This is a really great example of the inherent gender conservatism in gender identity ideology. Traditional gender conservatism says that men must do ‘manly’ things, and women must do ‘womanly’ things.
“Gender identity ideology reverses that and then we end up with the idea that anyone who does ‘manly’ things must be a man, and anyone who does ‘womanly’ things must be a woman.
“This is how we end up in a situation in which historical women who have performed traditionally ‘masculine’ roles end up being re-categorised as ‘trans men’ or ‘non-binary’ or ‘not-women’ in some way. This is a really regressive message to be sending out, especially to young women.”
No one has explained what the point of any of this is.
They don’t really try to explain that it is good for society, and instead focus on the individuals, claiming it is good for them to mutilate their hormone systems and genitals. But they also admit that these people have the highest suicide rate, by a lot, and they can’t argue that making it illegal to be a tranny would not solve this suicide issue and make the trannies themselves much happier.
They say that the reason that there weren’t any trannies in history was because they were suppressed, but if that is the case, it also prevented suicide. So logically, if you cared about the individuals, you would suppress them.
This is all about Jews destroying society. That is all that is happening here with all of this weird tranny satanism.
Remember when the BBC had non-trannies on it? It wasn’t even that long ago.