Felix

@ostrasyn

he/him ✦ mid-30s ✦ Melbourne, AU ✦ Profile pic by gabodrawings.bsky.social

2506 Siguiendo841 Seguidores2844 Publicaciones

X YouTube YouTube Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y ostrasyn.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Felix@ostrasyn· 27d

A *rainbow* lanyard? "When will the Rainbow Reich fall?"

On Twitter, J. K. Rowling (5 July 2020):

> Thank you for all you do,
@lascapigliata8 ❤️ https://twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1279760897725140992

@MechaniVal, replying to Rowling (6 July 2020):

> Does that include her comparing LGBT people to literal Nazis? I'm not sure that's something to thank her for...

In her tweet, @MechaniVal includes a screenshot of two tweets by @lascapigliata8, both posted 25 June 2020. In the first, @lascapigliata8 writes: "Here in London, I am the fucking Queen. Bow to me, peasants! 🤪🌈🦄" @lascapigliata8 is referring to a photo showing a poster with a rainbow and a message that says: "Here in London, you're free to love whoever you want to love and be whoever you want to be. Stay safe. Stay proud."

In the second tweet, @lascapigliata8 writes: "More mindless virtue signalling while people are dying of poverty, pollution and disease. A bunch of unicorn shit posters are much easier and cheaper to produce than actually tackling societal problems. When will the Rainbow Reich fall?"

Available at https://twitter.com/MechaniVal/status/1279790588683063296.

Felix@ostrasyn· Jul 12

I think @hane.bsky.social had something interesting to say regarding the use of counterfactuals here:

$An excerpt from an article by Hane Htut Maung: > ... phenotypes are not realisations of prior plans or goals, but are contingent outcomes of complex causal processes (Oyama, 2000). That is to say, there is no designer or predetermined purpose that directs how organisms evolve and develop. ... Evolutionary theory can provide a causal historical explanation of how certain phenotypes became more common than others, but such an explanation does not entail the evaluative claim that these phenotypes are the "proper" outcomes. This suggests that the modified essentialist model begs the question, insofar as it presupposes the production of either large or small gametes to be the desired goal and considers any other outcome to be a deviation from this goal rather than a phenotype in its own right. > > Nonetheless, even without the teleology, the modified essentialist model is problematic because of the way in which it relies on a counterfactual claim. ... \[It] suggests that people who do not produce gametes are ultimately either female or male based on what gametes they would have produced under different circumstances. However, this raises the question of what these different circumstances are taken to be. The answer is not simply given, but will depend on decisions about which features of people are held constant and which are allowed to vary across counterfactual scenarios. In turn, these are informed by value judgements concerning which features are deemed more salient than others. Available at https://doi.org/10.21825/digest.84674.$

Felix@ostrasyn· Jul 9

Sounds like they're reviving more of the classics.

An excerpt from a piece published in the *Kokomo Tribune* (4 May 1999):

> The Indiana Family Institute supports legislation to prevent homosexual adoptions because we believe children would be the innocent victims of the choices their parents make for personal self-gratification with homosexual relationships. We question the wisdom of endorsing a prospective parent who makes a calculated decision to deprive a child of a parent of the opposite gender. Our position has nothing to do with fund raising, fear, or stereotypes. Such allegations simply parrot the rhetoric of the American Civil Liberties Union and homosexual activists.

A piece by Bill Muehlenberg, National Secretary of the Australian Family Association, published in *The Age* (3 August 2000):

> Pandering to adult cravings.
>
> Excuse me—why is it John Howard who sparks IVF storm (*The Age*, 2/8)? The spark was set off by Ms Meldrum and Justice Sandberg.
>
> To allow, in effect, anyone to have children for any reason is a radical case of social engineering. To respond, as Mr Howard did, is simply to give voice to the concerns most Australians have about the steady disembowelment of the institutions of marriage and family.
>
> The radical ruling by Justice Sandberg is shocking to many Australians because of its view about children—it treats them as simply one more commodity in a consumer society.
>
> To want to have children should be something more than the desire to get the latest Britney Spears CD. It should include the interests and needs of the child. But that is exactly what is being overlooked in this debate.
>
> The cravings of adults are being pandered to while the fundamental right of the child—to be raised by a mother and a father—is being quashed.

Felix@ostrasyn· Jun 23

Reminded me of this:

On Twitter, @RohanTheMajesty (18 October 2021):

> Fun fact for the GCs - a "lifelong patient" isn't so scary when you realize we're receiving lifelong care and a lifelong increase in wellbeing for a lifelong condition.
>
> But then again, GCs strike me as the type to take someone's insulin pump and give them essential oils instead.
>
> Once again I'm reminded that my daily life is the horror story they use for their anti trans propaganda.
>
> Being a "lifelong patient" means I have a life, idiots. A pretty decent one at tha, thanks to modern medicine.
>
> But sure, let's go back to a time where people like me just died because we didn't have care, that's more merciful than "being a lifelong patient", right?
>
> Or maybe that's just eugenics.
> Bit of a harder sell to say "I don't want this patient to receive medical care" when you admit they need it. So GCs get in their armchairs, pretend they're experts, and insist that denying us care is moral and ethical.

Available at https://twitter.com/RohanTheMajesty/status/1450072767257366531.

Felix@ostrasyn· Jun 1

Making this the national anthem.

A CD case. The cover indicates that the CD release is "I don't like it!" by Pauline Pantsdown (https://musicbrainz.org/release/4db6fec7-3ee9-4614-9d71-a91a6c9e14de).

Felix@ostrasyn· Jun 1

Reminded me of this.

First panel. "Terfy Swerfy in 'with friends like these who needs integrity?'" A person is seen saying, "Women are more than their vaginas!"

Second panel. A second person comes into the picture, "Yeah, trans women are with ya on that!" The first person starts digging a hole and says, "Uh no, I mean we need to deconstruct gender!"

Third panel. A person with a shirt that says "non-binary" responds: "Yeah, like we do!" The digging continues. "No, I mean, females face sexual oppression by the patriarchy!"

Fourth panel. A person with a shirt that says "sex workers" responds: "Yeah, sexual autonomy for all!" The digging continues. "No! Uh..."

Fifth panel. The digging continues. "Um... Uh... Ah!"

Sixth panel. The person who has been digging hears a voice. "My, my. That is quite the hole you've dug yourself into, missy."

Seventh panel. The voice comes from a person wearing a shirt that says "religious right" on it. "Looks like you could use a friend to help you out of there..."

Eight panel. From within the hole and looking upward, the person who has been digging clasps their hands together and looks to be relieved.

The comic is by Bria and is available at https://lifeofbria.com/dighole-2/.

Felix@ostrasyn· May 25

does not follow that people would not seek out what she is talking about here. I think Julian does a good job of getting at why that is the case in their comment here (dailynous.com/2025/02/10/w...).

In a reply to Moti Gorin, Julian (15 February 2025):

> I'm responding to the charge that on a broadly Ashlean account, gender identity would disappear if gender norms were to disappear. That charge rests on the assumption that gender identity is nothing more than how one responds to these norms.
>
> First, I say that the Ashlean account does not include that claim.
>
> Thus, to make the charge, one must give some reason to accept the claim.
>
> Second, therefore, I say that this claim cannot be made out by intuitions about what a world without gender norms would look like. In the absence of gendered norms, we might still observe behavior that we would (from our viewpoint) describe as transition and explain (from our viewpoint) using the terminology of gender identity. E.g. people taking exogenous hormones.
>
> Thus, to make out the claim, one would need to set up the gender-norm-less world to be one in which either (a) nobody wants to take exogenous hormones or (b) people cannot take exogenous hormones.
>
> There is no support, empirical or theoretical, for (a). And (b) is just incoherent, since, say, "males cannot take estrogen" is a gendered norm.
>
> Third, then, I am saying that this incoherence runs through the entire "GC" project. One cannot abolish gender and making sex socially relevant because the latter *just is more gender*. That's the seminal feminist point that they ignore.

Felix@ostrasyn· May 1

14 years old today.

A cocker spaniel sitting on the grass in a park.

Felix@ostrasyn· Apr 28

With leather patches?

From *The Simpsons*, Season 5, Episode 22 ("Secrets of a Successful Marriage"). Homer is holding a pipe in one hand and a jacket in the other. There are two rough cut-outs in the jacket he is holding.

In the dialogue preceding this moment, he says, "Look everyone. Now that I'm a teacher I've sewed patches on my elbows."

Marge replies, "Homer, that's supposed to be leather patches on a tweed blazer, not the other way around. You've ruined a perfectly good jacket."

"Incorrect, Marge. *Two* perfectly good jackets."

Felix@ostrasyn· Apr 1

Have you heard about ROGD? That's right, Rapid Onset God Denial.

A tweet by @heterodorx (17 October 2023):

> There are some decisions that children lack the maturity to decide for themselves. I'm starting to believe atheism is one of those.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 23

"Self-appraisal harmful: 'Homosexual' a label, often in error" (web.archive.org/web/20211101...).

An article in the *Amarillo Globe-Times* (26 January 1973) titled "Self-appraisal harmful: 'Homosexual' a label, often in error." The piece is written by Lawrence Lamb, who is responding to a reader's question.

> Dear reader, there is no such thing as a homosexual, a heterosexual, or a unisexual. The world is populated by people who engage in a wide variety of heterosexual, homosexual, and unisexual acts.
>
> Labels can do great harm and often are completely wrong.
>
> Often sex impulses or acts are a symptom rather than the basic problem. People who diagnose themselves are usually wrong, and those who diagnose others with labels usually have a problem of their own—whether they recognize it at the conscious level or not. The mistake is tragic. A comparable example is the person who has a headache from a brain tumor. If the diagnosis is headache and he is given aspirin, the opportunity for cure is missed. The same is true in assuming someone or yourself is a "homosexual."

The article continues for several paragraphs. These cannot be captured here, due to the character limit.

Toward the end, the writer concludes:

> But you are a woman who needs help—maybe not at all for sex, but for the broader problem of your emotional satisfactions in life. You should see a psychiatrist and let him help you sort out and identify your real problem.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 17

Thanks for linking to this, Ethel. Lydia's piece also references another one, by @anamariecox.bsky.social, which I think puts it well in these three paragraphs.

Excerpt from an article by Ana Marie Cox in *The New Republic* (22 February 2026):

> There's a pattern to Epstein's consumption of ideas and to the kinds of people he found compatible. It wasn't a wish to brush shoulders with the famous and well-regarded—generic star-fucking. Epstein didn't collect people for status; he identified and aligned himself with the intellectual machinery now justifying our current dystopia, including the academic rationalizations and motivated reasoning that hover behind the most terrible excesses of the Trump administration: glorified phrenology, violent misogyny, genetic determinism, and elite impunity.
>
> It is not a coincidence that Epstein was also interested in crypto, in AI, in right-wing populism, in trad Cath extremists, and anti-trans ideology, in addition to creepy experiments in pain tolerance, psychopathology, and advantageous genetics. Epstein gravitated toward fields and figures that rank humans, explain away cruelty, or biologize inequality. He did not forge connections with these people: He saw they were already in alignment. And with each one of them, the question "Why them?" is almost as important as, "Did they know?" I don't believe everyone who was in Epstein's orbit is secretly and knowingly rushing us toward a patriarchal eugenicist regime. One of them, Elon Musk, certainly is. The rest simply have ideas that are useful to that project.
>
> Epstein is less the thread that connects the rich and powerful than a lens through which all of those existing connections snap into place: the common denominator for the cursed ideas—white supremacy and patriarchy, a cheapening of human life and human values and human choice—propelling the apocalypse forward.

Available at https://newrepublic.com/article/206808/jeffrey-epstein-academia-democracy-corruption.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 17

At long last, the defender is here! Hm. Bit disappointing actually.

On Twitter, Ben Appel (17 March 2026):

> "The activist organizations I once revered now champion causes that lend credence to the right-wing claim that gay marriage was the slippery slope toward the erosion of traditional social and moral values."

Included is a link to a piece on Ben's Substack, titled "Our brief moment in the sun: What happened after marriage equality."

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 15

"Be your child's first bully."

Olivia Krolczyk retweeting a tweet by helix (@helixbase). That tweet, posted on 13 March 2026, includes a picture showing a child and their parents. The child has rainbow wings. The child's father is using scissors to cut the wings. As he does this, he directs a slur at the child. The text above this says, "Be your child's first bully."

Available at https://twitter.com/helixbase/status/2032417019035869378.

It is unclear whether helix is the author of the picture. Similar pictures have been shared online prior to helix's tweet.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 15

Of course Maia had something to say!

On Twitter, Maia Poet (14 March 2026):

> 🚨This is INSANE.
>
> Poor kid is going to destroy his skin before he hits his teens with all of these chemicals.
>
> Kids should be playing with face paint, not obsessing over moisturizers.
>
> Why are we normalizing little kids being make-up and skincare influencers?

Maia is quote-tweeting Olivia's tweet.

Available at https://twitter.com/thepeacepoet99/status/2032678739260187068.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 15

More garbage from Olivia and others.

On Twitter, Jack (14 March 2026):

> Shove this kid in a locker.
> Arrest the parents.
>
> Immediately.

Jack is referring to a video posted to Twitter by Olivia Krolczyk on 13 March 2026. The video features a boy excitedly talking about the items he's just bought from Sephora.

Jack's tweet is available at https://twitter.com/jackunheard/status/2032660124829938039.

On Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk (15 March 2026):

> BRING BACK FATHERS.

Olivia is quote-tweeting a tweet by Hannah Faulkner, also posted on 15 March 2026. In that tweet, Hannah says:

> I asked my dad what he would do if his son came home acting like this…

Included in the tweet is a video of Hannah and her father. They watch a video of a boy excitedly talking about the items he's bought from Sephora. Hannah asks, "Hey dad, what would you do if your son came home acting like this?" Having watched the video, Hannah's father responds, "My son would never do that. Because I've raised him right." Hannah then asks, "Do you have a message to fathers out there?" Her father responds, "In my opinion, and I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this, if your son turns out to like other boys, you have failed as a father."

Olivia's tweet is available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032941326941970604. Hannah's tweet, which Olivia quote-tweets, is available at https://twitter.com/hannahf1776/status/2032937251085181097.

On Twitter, Hannah Faulkner (15 March 2026):

> Children started acting like this because of social media.
>
> And because we no longer have masculine men in our society.

Hannah is quote-tweeting a tweet by Olivia Krolczyk, where Olivia says, "Bring back bullying." Olivia's tweet includes a video of a boy talking about the items he's just bought from Sephora.

Available at https://twitter.com/hannahf1776/status/2032883475309564071.

On Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk (15 March 2026):

> 100%

Olivia is quote-tweeting a tweet by Joey Salads. In that tweet, also posted 15 March 2026, Joey says:

> Fatherless behavior can only be corrected via bullying.

Joey is referring to the video that Olivia posted earlier.

Olivia's tweet is available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032885033921351793. Joey's tweet is available at https://twitter.com/JoeySalads/status/2032883962532737454.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 15

Doubling down on her awful take.

On Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk (15 March 2026):

> Bring back good parenting.

Included is a video in which Olivia elaborates on what she means. A transcript of what she says is available in the other attachment to this post.

The tweet is available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032880016120267210.

In a video posted on Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk says:

> Recently, I found out that way too many of you are okay with kids being gay. Kids. I posted this video, and I said, "Bring back bullying."

The video she is referring to plays. It features a boy excitedly talking about the items he's just bought from Sephora.

Olivia continues:

> I don't need to play the whole clip; you get the idea. But my point is that little boys don't act like this. Little boys don't wear makeup. But you guys think it's completely normal for a little boy to be acting like this, and it's not.
>
> If my little boy started putting on makeup and talking like this and having these mannerisms, I would be his first bully. He doesn't act like that. He's not a girl. That's not happening.
>
> But so many of you are gentle parenting in this generation and look where it's getting us. Children should not even know what being gay is. They should not have even heard of it at this point. But, of course, these parents are letting their children on social media, like TikTok and Instagram, at such young ages, where all that's being shoved down their throats is transgenderism and being gay. So they don't know any different.
>
> So, yeah, bring back bullying. Bring back teasing. We need to let kids make fun of each other so that they don't turn out like this, because it's not normal.

Available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032880016120267210.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 14

"Let kids be kids!" "No, not like that! What I meant is bully them."

On Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk (14 March 2026):

> "You wouldn't want your own kid to be bullied."
>
> If my son puts on makeup I'll be the first one to bully him. Boys don't wear makeup. Boys don't act like this.
>
> Stop gentle parenting.

Olivia is quote-tweeting an earlier tweet of hers, where she says "Bring back bullying." That tweet includes a video of a boy excitedly talking about the items he's just bought from Sephora.

Available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032676632738013273.

On Twitter, Olivia Krolczyk (13 March 2026):

> Bring back bullying.

The tweet includes a video of a boy excitedly talking about the items he's just bought from Sephora.

On 14 March 2026, Olivia added:

> For everyone saying I'm a horrible person….let me explain.
>
> A little bit of teasing helps kids stay normal even when they don't have strong father figures at home. It reinforces what's normal and socially acceptable.
>
> The reason we have kids like this is because A.) social media B.) lack of fathers in the house C.) everyone started gentle parenting and you're not allowed to say the slightest thing that's considered teasing without the world exploding.

Available at https://twitter.com/oliviakrolczyk_/status/2032453906911867091.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 12

"Look at them all through the darkness I'm bringing. They're not sad at all; they're actually singing."

On Twitter, Julie Bindel (12 March 2026):

> #TransMission

Included in the tweet is a photo of Julie at the Trans Mission concert.

Available at https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/2031880310250451354.

Four shots of Mr Burns from *The Simpsons*, Season 4, Episode 17 ("Last Exit to Springfield"). In one of the shots, Smithers is standing next to him. The shots show Burns' exasperated reaction to the striking workers who, despite his efforts to break their spirit, continue their strike, joining together in a protest song.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 5

In addition to complaining about coverage on issues relating to oligarchy, he also isn't happy that they've described Karp, Musk, and Trump as dangerous.

On Twitter, Trae Stephens (4 March 2026):

> 1/ During college and early in my career, I would absorb @Wired cover-to-cover on my commute. It is such a bummer that in just a decade, a once-great newsroom has deteriorated into publishing speciously-sourced gossip columns that feel like Gawker 2.0. Why is the tech community still interacting with these people?
>
> 2/ You'd think a technology-first publication that bills itself as "obsessed with what comes next" would have more interesting (and important, *and* accurate) reporting to do than about Elon & Lord of the Rings, the immorality of certain kinds of family formation, or whatever *this* is.
>
> 3/ The worst part is that Wired used to be filled with incredible pieces that framed my thinking around the future, like this one from April 2011 about new birth control methods for men that eventually led (nearly a decade later) to @foundersfund making an investment in a company commercializing the tech @contraline.
>
> 4/ There are no doubt still good guys there. I've had great experiences with Wired OG's like Steven Levy and Will Knight. But a handful of solid reporters cannot make up for an editorial team that thinks the most "dangerous" people of the last year include Karp, Elon, the President (and *not* Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin)!
>
> 5/ We have no reason to think things are going to get better under current conditions. Their reportage rewards outrage. Plus, their takes on the state of tech & government that people previously wanted to pay a premium to read are often either factually inaccurate, horribly wrong, or insanely politicized.
>
> 6/ Even in the last year or so, Wired has doubled down on this content strategy: they want to boost their "oligarch" coverage, engage in more polarizing so-called "reporting," and write about topics very few people seem to care about. This is a pretty bleak future for a once-great magazine.
>
> 7/ We've reached an inflection point: @Wired is irreparably broken in its curr…

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 4

And the supposed recruiting must be working, if the "burgeoning number of teenagers who are calling themselves 'gay' or 'bi'" is anything to go by, right?

A piece by Mona Charen in the *Burlington Free Press* (18 July 1993):

> "Being bisexual seems to be the thing. I just wish they wouldn't push it on everybody else." So says a Washington-area 18-year-old who just finished high school.
>
> She's referring not to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or ACT UP. She's talking about her own high school class-mates. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality have become the "in" thing among the high school and junior high school set. They sport pink ribbons, kiss members of the same sex in the hallways ("to see what people will say") and tell reporters, "Everyone is
bisexual, if you ask me."
>
> For many non-bigoted, non-homophobic heterosexuals, this is the heart of the debate over homosexuality. No one wants homosexuals to be hounded or harassed in any way. But is there a risk that by acquiescing to demands for acceptance and equality, we will miss the mark and wind up encouraging homosexuality as a fashion?
>
> The Post account of the burgeoning number of teenagers who are calling themselves "gay" or "bi" suggests the overwhelming power of fashion in human affairs—particularly when the humans are between the ages of 13 and 20. Confused and overwhelmed by sex in any case, and now bombarded by talk of homosexuality in the press, in school sex-education classes and in entertainment, lots of kids are calling themselves "gay" to be trendy or rebellious.
>
> In some cases, the very absence of a taboo is sufficient to sow confusion. Adrian Banard, an 18-year-old from suburban Virginia, said "Someone asked me what my sexual orientation was, and I found myself rather unable to tell them. I had just gone along assuming I'm heterosexual. Then I sat down to think about it and realized I could go either way."
>
> Key to the argument of homosexual activists is the idea that homosexuality is an innate, immutable characteristic. You are born straight or you are born gay. No one in his right mind, they asse…

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 4

Some examples of this, collated by @implausiblegrrl.fyi.

A piece Roseanne Talbot in the *Hartford Courant* (14 June 1997):

> Homosexual activists are scheming to gain a legal foothold in our schools by trying to change a state education statute to include no discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The proposed change passed the legislature and is now before Gov. John Rowland.
>
> However, state education laws already provide adequate protection.
>
> Part of the activists' propaganda strategy is claiming that students who may have a gender identity conflict are being discriminated against and are suffering emotional abuse. The reality is that homosexual activists are manipulating confused students to label themselves as gay or lesbian by soliciting students to establish gay and lesbian clubs at their schools and to identify themselves as homosexual early in life.
>
> Gender confusion in young people is a psychological disorder that requires clinical intervention with parental involvement. Vulnerable students must not be influenced to label themselves as homosexual or be routed into school-based gay and lesbian clubs.
>
> Another false report being circulated gives the statistic that homosexual students are at a high risk for suicide. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute says there is no evidence that suicide is a common characteristic of homosexual youths.
>
> Mr. Cameron refutes the claim that sexual orientation emerges during adolescence without a conscious choice.
>
> His research confirms that cultural influences are most significant in homosexual behaviors.
>
> This ominous change to education law must be taken out before Gov. Rowland signs this bill.

The piece includes a note stating "the writer is a member of the White Ribbon Coalition, which says it opposes attempts by homosexual activists to legitimize their lifestyle."

An excerpt from a piece in the *Red Deer Advocate* (17 June 2002):

> From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
>
> Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps.
>
> Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
>
> Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

A letter to the editor published in *The Signal* (13 August 1996). It includes a claim that "They want to indoctrinate your children with their philosophy and lifestyle."

The full text of the letter:

> Editor:
>
> In regards to the letter, "We're here, We're queer," there is a lot of misinformation the letter had.
>
> Because someone says something is so does not make it so. It must be substantiated by objective reality. The concept of marriage did not come from a judge or the court system. In our society the courts have gotten involved but marriage did not start in the courts. Marriage was started by God and he laid down the rules rooted in love, commitment, understanding and honor. He set the boundaries of who was to marry by putting a man with a woman. One of the primary purposes of marriage is to provide a place for offspring to grow up protected, loved and trained in God's ways. Another purpose is that it is to reflect the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church.
>
> Now we have, as usual, messed up what God intended marriage to be and accomplish. We have as a nation thrown out the marriage handbook—the Bible—and gone to Hollywood for their concept of marriage. Doing it as Hollywood has taught us has resulted in selfish adultery and high divorces.
>
> Homosexuals want to add to their present commitment to each other the sanctity of marriage. This would give their lifestyle legal status and would legitimatize the decision to follow this lifestyle.
>
> Misinformation like it "is genetic" is a technique to justify the lifestyle. The truth is there is no objective scientific research that conclusively has found it to be genetic. We are still man (XY) and woman (XX). They have found no chromosome for homosexuality. In the medical field, there is no consensus of opinion that agrees with the homosexual claims. It is not so because they say it.
>
> The commitment of the homosexual community to fight is a real thing. They have with physical violence, in…

An excerpt from a piece by George Pell, published in *The Age* (28 May 1999). Part of the text has been highlighted. In that part, Pell writes:

> It is grossly unfair and misleading for those who work to win recruits to homosexual practice to blame those who discourage such recruiting for the suicide of homosexuals.

Felix@ostrasyn· Mar 1

I think Jennifer Saul said it well (theconversation.com/why-the-word...).

Excerpt from a piece by Jennifer Saul in *The Conversation* (6 March 2020):

> All feminism is "gender critical."
>
> Those who deny trans rights while claiming feminism would prefer to be called gender-critical feminists. But that term too is terribly misleading. By definition, feminists are critical of gender.
>
> Of course, within feminism there are disagreements over whether we should be working to eliminate gender, expand our range of gender categories, and/or reform society so that gender does not carry the same weight that it currently does. But no feminist at all thinks gender is just fine as it is.
>
> Calling people gender-critical feminists suggests that people like me—and, indeed, trans feminists—are not making critical points about gender. Instead, a clearer term is called for: anti-trans activists.
>
> Using TERF leads to misguided battles over what counts as a slur, and, more importantly, obscures the truth about the nature of the real battle at hand. At the core, it’s a contest over the rights of trans people. That is what needs to be understood and foregrounded. The words we use can help to determine how those rights are shaped and protected, or not.

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 22

It's also dishonest to pretend that, in dismissing what *you* say, we are dismissing feminists, when it's often feminists dismissing you. theconversation.com/why-the-word....

Excerpt from a piece by Jennifer Saul:

> Those who deny trans rights while claiming feminism would prefer to be called gender-critical feminists. But that term too is terribly misleading. By definition, feminists are critical of gender.
>
> Of course, within feminism there are disagreements over whether we should be working to eliminate gender, expand our range of gender categories, and/or reform society so that gender does not carry the same weight that it currently does. But no feminist at all thinks gender is just fine as it is.
>
> Calling people gender-critical feminists suggests that people like me — and, indeed, trans feminists — are not making critical points about gender. Instead, a clearer term is called for: anti-trans activists.
>
> Using TERF leads to misguided battles over what counts as a slur, and, more importantly, obscures the truth about the nature of the real battle at hand. At the core, it’s a contest over the rights of trans people. That is what needs to be understood and foregrounded. The words we use can help to determine how those rights are shaped and protected, or not.

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 22

This seems relevant as a reply to Bindel's garbage. From www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/...

Excerpt from Chilliwack Teachers' Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49:

> Calling transness "gender ideology" allows anti-trans activists to hide behind a veneer of reasonableness. It allows them to say ... that they are not attacking human beings. They are simply opposing a set of ideas. But behind this insidious veneer is the proposition that transness is not real. Such phrasing can make it easier to ignore that trans people are human beings. Referring to "gender ideology" or "transgenderism"—"-ism" denoting a belief or ideology such as capitalism or communism—pushes the idea that trans people have an agenda rather than being just another demographic group. As this decision illustrates, such terms can create the conditions for discrimination and hatred to flourish.

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 22

Screenshot.

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 20

Reminds me of something @/dynamic_proxy (on Twitter) said a while ago. (I can't find their Bluesky account; they might not have one.)

On Twitter, @_ClairQuentin (27 September 2021):

> For reasons nothing to do with goings on on TERF island I am currently reading a lot of pop science / philosophy of science from the late 20th century (SJ Gould, Dawkins, Dennett &c) - and those guys simply cannot stop explaining how socially constructed biological categries are!

@dynamic_proxy quote-tweets this tweet and adds (27 September 2021):

> A point I've occasionally made - the most mainstream of sensible pop-science accounts of evolutionary biology really, really drum this home, and the fact that many of them were explicitly pitched against creationism/"intelligent design" may be part of the reason for this
>
> Like, if Dennett and Dawkin has one lesson they really want to get through people's heads, it's that teleology has no place in the scientific description of nature, that it brings with it all kinds of idealisations which cloud our ability to see the actual
>
> Functional descriptions of systems are at best heuristic - Dennett even extends this to the point that intentionality in conscious organisms is best seen as an interpretative/predictive stance we take towards their behaviour
>
> No skyhooks allowed - everything has to be scaffolded up out of brute contingency, and kludges and exaptations are everywhere. You think that doodad is "for" X? Look at all the other things it's got roped into doing!

Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20210927090146/https://twitter.com/dynamic_proxy/status/1442414096230592520.

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 15

Very much in keeping with how Davies-Arai argues against "affirmation policies in schools." It's not clear how they'd be able to implement this without aggressively enforcing traditionalist expectations, where not conforming is perceived as a precursor to (or even as amounting to) social transition.

On Twitter, @Transgendertrd (5 December 2020):

> Affirmation policies in schools must end. Social transition is a strong predictor of persistence of gender dysphoria, the first step on the path towards blockers. This has been a big experiment in schools, in the absence of evidence that it does no harm.

The tweet links to an article in *The Telegraph* (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education-and-careers/2020/12/04/light-keira-bell-case-schools-need-look-approach-transgender/).

Tweet available at https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1334923365765836802.

$On Twitter, @Transgendertrd (27 May 2022): > Children are not 'LGBT', that is an adult movement that conflates 2 protected characteristics and 2 very different things. > @educationgovuk must separate the categories and for the 'T' follow only @thecassreview. This is a #safeguarding issue. Excellent thread by @AlisonTunley 👇 The tweet by @Transgendertrd references a series of tweets by Alison Tunley. The first tweet in that series (27 May 2022): > The updated 2022 @educationgovuk policy "Keeping children safe in education" conflates a child's attested trans identity with sexual orientation & thus fails to recognise potential safeguarding concerns that may apply for these children. #edutwitter 🧵 1/14 Alison's tweet includes a screenshot of text from the document that Alison is referring to. This document states: > 202. The fact that a child or a young person may be LGBT is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm. However, children who are LGBT can be targeted by other children. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be LGBT (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who identify as LGBT. > 203. Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced, and provide a safe space for them to speak out or share their concers \[sic] with members of staff. > 204. LGBT inclusion is part of the statutory Relationships Education, Relationship and Sex Education and Health Education curriculum and there is a range of support available to help schools counter homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying and abuse. Tweet available at https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1529954940738842624.$

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 14

It's amazing how little conservative rhetoric has changed since this was published.

Synopsis for *The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on our Culture and Values*:

> If you believe children should be seduced into warped sexual behavior by the Gay Elite, if you think confessed murderers should be set free by defense attorneys who know how to wield the race card, if you feel promiscuous gay men should be empowered to spread AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, don't read this book.
>
> But if you've always suspected that factions on the Left are trying to destroy the values that define our civilization, this book proves it. Through the pages of *The Death of Right and Wrong*, author, activist, and pundit Tammy Bruce takes you inside the chilling world of the Left—a place where morals and decency have been turned on their heads and the crisp distinction between Right and Wrong has been blurred into a mushy, gray mess.
>
> In this world, the Gay Elite exploit our children—under the guise of tolerance and education—to satisfy their sexual obsessions.
>
> In this world, the Black Elite laud convicted murderers as community heroes and award-winning "artists."
>
> In this world, the Feminist Elite fawn over a woman who mercilessly killed all five of her children.
>
> And much more that will offend your sense of decency and threaten your basic values.
>
> Ms. Bruce smashes the facades of "Tolerance," "Understanding," and other Leftist slogans to reveal the ugly truth of their agenda. As a gay activist and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women, she witnessed firsthand the Left's attempts to undermine our millennia-old code of morals and values, aided by politically biased media and academia. And if the news headlines of today are any indication, they're winning the culture war. Unless we act now, we are doomed at the hands of special interest groups on the Left who want nothing more than to undermine our ability to judge right from wrong in order to foist their own selfish, anyth…

Felix@ostrasyn· Feb 13

This little guy.