The Big Lie that no man has ever spied in women’s restrooms/locker rooms.

Ever since laws have been proposed against men entering women’s restrooms or locker rooms, it seems that the mainstream media has been dedicating itself to the defense of a Big Lie (an absurdly false statement which, repeated over and over, becomes true): the “fact” that no man has ever tried to spy in women’s restrooms or locker rooms by pretending to be women. It is often explicitly said that this has happened zero times.

This statement is absurdly false, and anyone should be ashamed of propagating such a lie. As a matter of fact, many men have been caught spying on women while pretending to be women, and no doubt many more have not been caught. Here are some examples.


Meanwhile, in Birmingham, England, a man posed as a mannequin and hung around in the women’s bathrooms at a shopping mall filming women, um, doing their business. MSN reports: “The 22-year-old from Edgbaston was seen sneaking into the women’s toilets ‘dressed like a mannequin with a mask and a wig’ earlier this month… He also told police he found the sound of women on the toilet sexually exciting and said: ‘It’s good you’ve caught me—maybe now I’ll stop.’ Police found three images of women’s feet taken beneath cubicle doors on his mobile phone, and an audio recording of a flushing toilet, the court was told.”

On Monday, October 4, 2010 at 9:20 p.m. and again on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. a male disguised as a female was discovered in the Recreational Sports Facility women’s locker room. On both occasions the suspect fled the scene when confronted by staff members. In one of the instances the suspect was seen using a cell phone to photograph women inside the locker room. After each occurrence UCPD searched the area but was unable to locate the suspect. No one was physically contacted during these encounters.

North Little Rock Police arrested 39 year old Scotty Vest for sexual indeceny outside a women’s bathroom, near a playground at Burns Park. Vest was arrested Monday after police say he exposed himself and masturbated in front of three children, two 11 and one 12, while trying to lure them inside the bathroom.

Those three children ran to a group of adults nearby and asked for help. “They came up to me and they were waiving at me and next thing I know they’re running down the hill you know, call the cops, call the cops, there is this man there’s this man dressed up as a woman and he’s playing with himself,” says Mary Stafford.

MATSUYAMA, Japan, Nov. 27 (UPI) — Japanese police have arrested a man who dressed as a woman so he could enter public bath houses and watch naked women, Mainichi News said Thursday.

Police in Matsuyama charged 33-year-old Eichi Yamamoto with 17 counts of illegally entering buildings and peeping for his activities that began in April.

“I wanted to see women naked,” he was quoted as telling investigators. “Dressing up as a woman was a step to do that.”

A transvestite man caught dressed as a nurse in the female washroom at a Hong Kong public hospital has been jailed, a news report said Thursday.
Chung Kai-lun, 29, was found wearing women’s clothes and a surgical mask in the hospital toilet less than a year after being given a suspended sentence for dressing as a schoolgirl in a school canteen.

Campbell Police Sgt. Dave Carmichael said Rendler was arrested after having been caught in the womens’ restroom of an unnamed store for “several minutes.”

Police were tipped off to Rendler’s whereabouts shortly before noon on Friday, when a witness called authorities to say a man was getting out of his car wearing fake breasts and a wig and carrying a purse. The witness saw the man near a bank and thought it was a little “weird” to see a man wearing what seemed to be a disguise, Carmichael said.

According to the Megan’s Law Web site, Render has been previously arrested on charges of child molestation and indecent exposure.

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Purdue University police are investigating a reported incident in which a man dressed as a woman was seen taking photographs under the wall of a women’s bathroom stall in Yue-Kong Pao Hall of Visual and Performing Arts.
The incident was reported to police about 3:30 p.m. Monday (March 31).

According to a police report, a woman was in a bathroom stall on the third floor of the building and saw a hand holding a blue flip-phone camera beneath the door. She left the restroom and then returned to confront the person. At that point, she realized the person was a man dressed as a woman.

According to witnesses, Burnes was found in “stages of undress while on the stone floor and would do this in the presence of several young children.”

Police officers arrived to find Burnes wearing a dark woman’s suit including a short skirt and jacket, black leather coat, black high heals, red nail polish, green eye shadow and women’s jewelry. According to the witness, Burnes had been in the women’s section of the store with his skirt “kicked up showing his white girdle and dark thong underwear.”

Emory Police Department (EPD) officers arrested “Coco Dorella,” whose legal name is William Frazier, on Sept. 18 at the Dobbs University Center (DUC) for carrying a loaded weapon onto school property.

Frazier was reported by an Emory staff member, who said that a black male wearing a multicolored mini skirt and a wig had entered the women’s restroom, said Lt. Cheryl Elliott of EPD, adding that the DUC staff had asked him on many occasions not to use the restroom.

A 15-year-old male special education student reported being coerced into a shopping mall food court for a sexual encounter.
Police said Isaiah Johnson, 20, of Stamford, and “two other males dressed as females in the area of Veteran’s Park Bus stop” coerced the teenage boy into the bathroom of the food court of the Stamford mall on April 26, where a sexual encounter took place.

An investigation found that the suspect had gone into the rest room while two women were inside, according to a police report. The women were later interviewed and said they had no idea that the man was there.

When police interviewed the man, he claimed that he had gone into the bathroom to use the facilities.

But the investigating officer noted that the man was wearing a wig and bra. A search also turned up a pair of woman’s panties in his front pocket, according to the police report.

MILWAUKIE, Ore. — A registered sex offender dressed up like a woman, went into a women’s locker room at a pool and talked with several children before being chased down by a good Samaritan, according to the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office…

According to the state sex offender registry, Benson was convicted in 1994 of sex abuse and was known to target girls between 5 and 9 years old. The state considers him to be a predatory sex offender.

That afternoon, a possibly middle-aged man was reported to be wearing older women’s clothing and a face mask, pretending to be a woman, La Mesa police said Wednesday.

The dressed up man came out of a stall inside the women’s restroom at the movie theater at Reading Cinemas Grossmont Center 10, said police Lt. Dan Willis.

“At the time, the reporting person, a woman washing her hands at the sink counter, was approached by the dressed up man, who asked the woman if he could shake her hand,” Willis said.

“When the woman said ‘No,’ the subject left and was walking around the lobby of the movie theater asking to shake the hands of women.


I trust I’ve made my point. And this is only a small sample of arrests revolving around men in women’s clothing harassing women in restrooms, locker rooms, or other gender-segregated facilities. This propaganda line being pushed in the media, that no man has ever done this, is not just a lie, but an easily refuted one. Presumably, all the researchers for those shows can use Google just like I can. So how has the process failed us so miserably?

Well, I don’t think it’s in their interests to do so. It’s easy for anyone to ignore contrary evidence when their livelihood depends on it. Those talk shows that push the propaganda line are all liberal shows, and they don’t want to appear to go against the transgender lobby, which is very “hot” right now. The more they speak out, the more approval they will receive from their target audience. Why would they pass that up?

Most transwomen are not claiming to be women in order to spy on women in women’s bathrooms. However, it opens the door for violent, abusive men to claim to be women in order to access women-only spaces. They already do it right now, and if they were allowed, they would only do it more. In cases where enacting a policy may directly cause people to be severely harmed, it is better to be careful than sorry.

It’s ironic, because liberals already use this principle in other areas where freedom clashes with risk. They support gun control because the added freedom of owning guns with impunity does not erase the risk of people with bad intent getting their hands on guns and shooting innocents. They support limitations on market power because the freedom of the market does not erase the risk of corporations putting out dangerous products or mistreating workers. They oppose vouchers because the freedom of private schools does not erase the risk of children getting a bad education. So why is it that they suddenly forget this principle when it comes to women-only spaces?

The obvious answer is that they’re misogynists. Gun control, market power and vouchers do not disproportionately affect women, but women-only spaces do. It is also an attack against butch lesbians, who already have a lot of trouble with bathroom checking.

However, I doubt that they even think that far. I think that their motive is probably a combination of pure ignorance with a desire to appeal to their target audience. Seeing through the transgender dogma takes a lot of savvy, and I doubt they have the time to concentrate on any issue that much, given that transgender issues are generally a very small part of their scripts.

Culture in Decline | Episode #5 “Baby Go Boom!” by Peter Joseph

Adam Wallace of WCR arguing against antinatalism.

WCR is an alt-right (which generally means the American equivalent of neo-nazis) blog which discusses white nationalist issues and an armchair pseudo-philosophy that promotes elitism and hierarchy. Why in the hell would I go to such a place? Because Adam Wallace, one of the writers for that blog, has decided to debunk antinatalism, or at least, what he thinks antinatalism is.

Before his actual debunking, there is a considerable slew of quotes taken from the writings of some historical reactionaries and racists. I will waste no time analyzing that nonsense, as I am only interested in what he has to say about antinatalism. The analysis starts here:

The logical process for the antinatalist is this:

1. Having children is immoral because there is suffering existent in the world.
2. Subjecting someone — or even potentially subjecting someone — to suffering is bad.
3. This is because suffering is always bad.
4. Suffering is what pain induces; the longing for comfort or happiness.
5. Pain exists at the physical, mental and spiritual level.

I shudder to think what Wallace thinks a “logical process” is, because this is not a logical progression, just a disorganized list of points. The only thing in here that looks like an argument is point 1, but alone it makes little sense. You could make some kind of argument by combining points 1, 2 and 3, but it’s not an argument I’ve ever heard from antinatalists. It looks similar to some actual arguments (like the duty argument or the Asymmetry), but in itself it doesn’t make much sense.

Of these five points, the points that would be agreed upon by antinatalists would be points 2, 4 and 5. Point 1 is not logical because the existence of suffering, in itself, does not lead to the conclusion of antinatalism. Point 3 is an arbitrary statement: antinatalists do not necessarily believe that all suffering is bad (at least, based on Wallace’s idiosyncratic definition of “suffering”), merely that suffering only exists because of the existence of human needs.

So let’s start with point 1:

One could say, regarding this claim, that the opposite is true on exactly equal logical grounds. Not having children is immoral because there is happiness in the world, and the wilful (sic), conscious decision not to introduce this scenario to someone — the experience of pleasure, happiness, knowledge, et cetera — is bad.

Despite pretenses of this argument being “logical,” it makes no sense at all. If one does not have a child, who is harmed by the absence of pleasure, happiness, knowledge that this hypothetical child would have had? And if no one is harmed, then how can it be bad? Bad for who? Bad how? This is the extent of Wallace’s “explanation,” so no answer is given.

In the case of suffering, it is very clear who is harmed: the human being who exists and is subject to suffering. We have a moral duty not to inflict suffering on others, and bringing a new human being into this world means inflicting suffering on them. But we have no moral duty to give pleasure to others, therefore the existence of pleasure does not create any moral obligation on our part.

Now to point 2:

Always? Truly? Such a claim depends entirely upon why suffering is bad, which we will address in the next point. We can right now, however, address this notion that the very subjecting of another to something — suffering or no — is not always avoidable. Life has its ways of pushing situations into our experiences whether wanted — intended — or otherwise… The moments of conversation I suffered with a couple of antinatalists are indeed the fault of them for speaking to me and me for listening; but should, by their own logic, the antinatalists not even bothered trying to speak for me for fear of inducing my annoyance or discomfort at the event?

As I already pointed out, suffering (as defined by Wallace as the desire for comfort from pain) is not necessarily bad. However, one may note some hypocrisy on his part here: if he “suffers” so much from dialoguing about antinatalism, then why write an entire (mostly irrelevant) article about it?

That being said, we definitely agree that suffering is unavoidable, but that’s an argument for our side, so I’m not sure why he even brought it up. Perhaps this was a failed attempt at invoking the “life is suffering, so live with it” argument. But antinatalists have an easy answer to such rhetoric: don’t procreate and there’s no need for the suffering to exist. Whatever propaganda line Wallace wants to push about life is irrelevant because antinatalists are against life (a fact which seems to make the neo-nazi foam at the mouth every time he writes about it).

Point 3 is, as he wrote, connected to point 2, but it’s even more easily refuted:

No it is not. Suffering can be extremely valuable.

Of course suffering can be extremely valuable. No one is denying that fact. Antinatalists do not deny that fact, either. So what? Suffering can only be valuable for people who exist. It has no bearing whatsoever on the ethical status of procreation.

Antinatalists declare that suffering is a bad thing within the context of procreation: that a world in which there is less suffering is better than a world in which there is more suffering. From the point of view of a person who already exists, suffering can be very valuable indeed, but no one who exists can face the decision of existing or not existing.

On to point 4, which is basically a word-salad. If you don’t believe me, here is his full answer:

Indeed, but for what end? The antinatalists and other assorted pussies get to this point and claim “Ha! I’ve got you now, breeder scum!” (interesting definition…) without going forth with it. Suffering is a longing for another state, the desire for something else and that something else not yet being attained. It is a doing word, a verb, much like running or speaking. It requires context; a direction. It implies motion, moving, becoming, changing, evolving, mutating, transmuting, et cetera; in short, it implies the living — something is dead, by scientific measure, when the body ceases to change; when cells cease replacing themselves, when chemical reactions in the body which contribute to life such as the process of food digestion in the stomach and gut stop, or when neurons in the brain are no longer active. The physical life is a continuous process of change and moving from one thing to another — and not just on the microcosm of the individual body, but on the macrocosm of ecosystems and foodchains (sic) all over the world, or, to go further still, the ebb and flow of civilisations (sic) and cultures which rise and fall and violently clash with one-another in stunning displays of virility and force. Suffering, change, motion; all this is a part of life.

All of this nonsense to say: living things can suffer, dead things can’t. Great, but that doesn’t prove anything even remotely related to antinatalism. I can state obvious basic biological facts all day too, but that wouldn’t be related to antinatalism either. I could paste the entire Wikipedia entry for “biology,” and that wouldn’t disprove natalism any more than this word-salad disproves antinatalism.

One notes that Wallace outright states that he agrees with the premise in the very first word of his answer, so his answer is of absolutely no use in refuting the “logical process” he lists at the beginning of his analysis.

And finally, point 5:

Again; indeed. In fact pain exists, and it cannot cease to exist. And this is where the fundamental essence of the antinatalist position falls asunder…

To conceive of a world where there is zero suffering we must conceive of a world where there is no longing for differing emotional states. As long as we can consciously distinguish one emotional state from another there could potentially emerge a longing for this state or that. This fits the definition of mental or emotional suffering. In fact, if we are to exist in a world where there is no pain we would indeed have to be unconscious as to not experience anything at all, for if we could distinguish between one emotional state or another — or, further still — one day or another, we would of course introduce the potential of suffering.

I spared you the quote from a prominent proto-nazi that goes between these two parts, but I think the point is still clear: a world without suffering is basically impossible. Again, I fail to see how this is supposed to make some kind of point against antinatalism. The “fundamental essence” of the antinatalist position is that procreation is wrong, and no part of his argument concerns procreation. Antinatalists are not concerned with having a “world with zero suffering,” since such a thing is, as he rightly points out, impossible.

But even if there somehow was zero suffering in the world, antinatalism would not thereby be refuted or fulfilled, if only because two of the four branches of antinatalism, teleological and ecological, would still be completely true (I assume that Wallace, as a reactionary, is referring only to human suffering). Fundamentally, antinatalism is concerned with procreation, not with suffering, a point which he simply does not seem to understand.

Children’s Stories Made Horrific: Curious George

The Toast is a wonderful satirical feminist web site, if you don’t know about it. It’s absolutely creative and wonderful. I especially liked this horrifying reworking of the Curious George story.

George tumbled and fell.
The sailors looked and looked. (Men help other men recover what is theirs. If you belong to a man, other men will help him find you, if you go missing. You will always be found. Does that make you feel safe?)
At last they saw him
struggling in the water,
and tired.
George no longer minded being Caught. Which meant he was as caught as caught could be.

“Man overboard!” the sailors cried
as they threw him a life belt.
George caught it and held on. George had to catch it to hold on. George had to hold on to be caught. George was caught and held on. George held and was held, caught and was caught. George was safe on board.
The opposite of Good is drowning.
After that, George was more careful
to be a good monkey, until at last
the long trip was over. Being a good monkey meant:
not moving, not leaving, not going away. Being good meant listening, and staying where he was put. Being good meant quiet. Being good felt tired.

Marriage has always been a tool of control- don’t fool yourselves.

In Organizing Upgrade, Dean Spade and Craig Willse have written an entry about marriage, trying to remind everyone that marriage is a tool of control and that we shouldn’t associate being against marriage with homophobia. That’s an uphill battle if I’ve ever seen one, although I agree completely with their analysis.

Marriage is a tool of gendered social control.

Feminists have long understood marriage as a tool of social control and labor exploitation. This is why feminists have worked to dismantle the mystique around romance, marriage, child rearing and care–exposing these as cultural fantasies that coerce women into unpaid labor and cultivate sexual violence. They have also worked to change laws to make it easier to get out of marriages, and to de-link marital status from essential things people need (like immigration and health care) because those links trap women and children in violent family relationships.

Marriage is about protecting private property and ensuring maldistribution.

Marriage has always been about who is whose property (women, slaves, children) and who gets what property. Inheritance, employee benefits, insurance claims, taxation, wrongful death claims–all of the benefits associated with marriage are benefits that keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Those with no property are less likely to marry, and have less to protect using marriage law. Movements for economic justice are about dismantling property systems that keep people poor—not tinkering with them so that people with wealth can use them more effectively to protect their wealth.

Today’s same-sex marriage advocates argue in courts and in the media that marriage is the bedrock of our society, that children need and deserve married parents, and that marriage is the most important relationship people can have. These arguments are the exact opposite of what feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial movements have been saying for hundreds of years as they sought to dismantle state marriage because of its role in maldistributing life chances and controlling marginalized populations.

Local Creep Enthusiastically Sex-Positive

From The Hard Times: Local Creep Enthusiastically Sex-Positive

“If two girls want to make out right in front of me then they should have the right to,” said Finkle while erasing his browser history. “This sex-negative western culture that shames and controls our bodies is archaic and fucked up to no end. If two women decide to express their sexual desires by oiling each other up in slow motion and totally going at it on top of a muscle car right there in front of me then who am I — or any other man — to say they’re wrong?”

A BONRS rally scheduled for next month is slated to have upwards of a dozen attendees comprised exclusively of young men.

“While we haven’t sold any tickets to any women yet, we’re confident our sex toy raffle and co-ed Jell-o wrestling pit will bring the ladies out in droves,” said Finkle. “Chicks love that stuff.”

Pushing more of the antinatalist buttons.

Many antinatalists will already be familiar with the “red button” hypothetical, which asks a person if they would push a red button that would instantly kill every single human being on Earth. Some have also proposed another button which instantly sterilizes every person on Earth. But no one knows that there are many other buttons available for antinatalist hypotheticals. Thanks to my pandimensional sources, I’ve been able to compile a list of other existential buttons for everyone to ponder. Which of these would you push? Which would you not push?

Wine colored button- When pressed, every single sentient being in the world is erased from existence. Politicians still remain to roam the land, grazing on low-hanging bills.

Black button- When pressed, any person who clearly expresses an honest desire to die three times is immediately erased from the timeline, with no one remembering their existence. Also called the Free Disposal Button.

Green button- When pressed, every single person who is not vegan is erased from existence. Having no one left to feel superior to, the remaining population falls into a state of despondence. On the plus side, factory farming is definitely over.

Brown button- When pressed, every single sentient being in the world no longer feels physical pain. All signals of pain are redirected to a visual stimuli, similar to those used in video games. All sentient beings are instinctively aware of what this visual stimuli means and act accordingly.

Black and white button- When pressed, every single person in the world is erased from existence except for one man named Henry Bemis. There is time now.

Wheat color button- When pressed, every single person in the world is erased from existence except Trump supporters. They shoot each other to death within two months.

Blue button- When pressed, every single person in the world has their mind replaced by a global hive-mind whose immediate goals are world peace, a sustainable population, and saving the environment from industrial capitalism.

Powder blue button- When pressed, every single person in the world has their mind replaced by a hive-mind whose goal is to make an exponentially greater number of cat memes.

Electric blue button- When pressed, every single person in the world, with the exception of people living in communities that explicitly repudiate computer technology, is immediately plugged into a virtual version of Earth that is near-indistinguishable from the real Earth, and lives the rest of their life there. Also called the Amish Paradise Button.

Ultraviolet button- When pressed, every single person in the world is permanently turned into an atheist. The entire world population’s fanaticism realigns itself into secular groups: regular atheism, atheism+, atheism++, feminism, MRAs, secular white supremacists. Anita Sarkeesian wins the next American election against Sam Harris and Paul Elam. Gary Mosher’s Efilist Party polls at 0.03%.

Big red button- When pressed, this button makes a satisfying “shhhhffffffff” sound which very slightly, but absolutely permanently, raises the baseline happiness level of the person who pressed the button.

Highlighter yellow button- When pressed, every single person who has ever mixed up there use of “their” and “there,” or ever used unnecessary apostrophe’s, is erased from existence.

Beige button- There is a train without a driver going down the tracks. Ahead, there are four people tied up and unable to move. One of them is a single mother of five children, one of which may grow up to discover a cure for cancer and another will almost definitely grow up to be an antinatalist. One of them is a sociopath who has already killed three dogs and will probably be in jail for most of his life. One of them is a high-ranking bureaucrat in the IMF. And one of them is a young nurse who helps save lives, but will probably have at least two children. When the button is pressed, the train will switch to a different track, where one person is tied up. This person is a firefighter who takes care of shelter puppies in his free time, counsels young people in using contraception effectively, and there is a good chance that he will help save a specific person who will end up being an influential figure in a successful anti-war movement, saving tens of thousands of lives. If you do not press the button, you will not be held legally responsible for the death of the four people, but if you do press the button, you will be held partially (say, 5%) legally responsible for the death of the one person. The nurse is engaged to one of your friends, and you would feel a moderate amount of guilt if you saw her die, especially around your friend. Furthermore, while the train is driverless, a person has been tied up in the driver’s compartment and will see everything that happens, and will be far more traumatized if they see four people get killed than if they see one person get killed.

Puce button- When a person’s finger comes within 4.2 microns of the surface of this button, that person will, from that point forward, no longer be capable of pushing any buttons, including the puce button. This button was invented by a race of aliens who were tired of seeing their dimension getting constantly and massively changed by people pressing existential buttons.

Serenity colored button- When pressed, no one will ever ask an antinatalist “if you hate life so much, why don’t you just kill yourself?” ever again.

Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules – October 16, 2015 (HBO)

Bill Maher is an anti-vaxxer and certainly an asshole, but this is good.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 466 other followers