Some People Are Not Fighting To Win
They are actual impediments to success against gender ideology
Dr. James Cantor is controversial, for he holds controversial views. He is also a sexologist, but I repeat myself.
Problematically, the science needed most of all in order to confront transgender ideology belongs to the scientists who study sexual behavior, so controversy is always certain. As they are the only people creating academic citations in their subject area, anyone else discussing these issues in any way must use their language and acknowledge their authority.
For example, sexologist Dr. Ray Blanchard is also controversial. He coined the term autogynephila (AGP). Anyone who ever mentions AGP on Twitter/X is citing Blanchard. Thus any person who tweets “you are a bad person who supports AGPs because you cited Blanchard” is a hypocrite, for they themselves are citing Blanchard in order to denounce an enemy over some small, usually contrived, invariably stupid, difference.
Dr. Cantor does not follow me on the app. He likely has me muted because I have disagreed with his most problematic views. I don’t mind it, and he is a busy man, anyway, because there are active lawsuits and court cases that will create real changes I want to see, in which his testimony is critical.
For some reason, Cantor’s most vituperative social media critics never go after his legal work, though. They never harass Amy Hamm or Steve Marshall, the Alabama attorney general, about his involvement in their cases. Instead, they reserve their Cantor-related vitriol for movement infighting. They use his name as a cudgel against perceived power rivals in the “gender critical movement.” They are sore losers, so they are not in this fight to win. They are fighting instead to be the winners. Their hunger game is a zero-sum contest of character assassination.
They are GC Bolsheviks, interested only in coercive control of the counter-revolution against gender ideology. They do not want to slay the dragon that eats children. They want to own it as a pet issue that they can milk for power and resources forever. They are jealous of anyone with greater prominence than themselves, becoming dysregulated by the slightest dispute. Many of them came from “woke” and still harbor a measure of wokeness, namely cancel culture.
Dr. James Lindsay is not a sexologist, but he does court controversy. He likes to say that for the radical activist, the real issue is not “the issue,” but the revolution itself — that is, the radical wants to control the revolution, and justifies this crisis of control through struggle.
The revolution cannot possibly succeed without them and their personal pet program. All who disagree with them, even over minute details, must be destroyed. Because there are too many would-be leaders, the successful leaders who will not submit to their control must be destroyed to make room for new leaders who will submit. Otherwise, the wrong people will win. The bad people. If the bad people win, they will just make the already-bad things worse.
In fact, the bad people are secretly working for even worse people who want the bad things to continue in secret! Why, a whole conspiracy of silence surrounds the bad things their enemies in the movement are doing, so their enemies definitely need to be exposed as bad people, 24/7, without a break. This exposure requires countless tweets, endless hours of opinionated, half-informed ranting livestreams, and a willingess to lie freely, with malice.
Consider the sad example of Karen Davis, alcoholic and fragile narcissist. Her content stream is just non-stop personal diatribes filled with falsehoods and innuendos. It is merely a matter of time before someone has enough of her smears and ends them with litigation. I have seen the type before in online movement politics. Their “influencer” careers never end well, nor are they ever effective at achieving their ostensible goals. Quite the opposite, really. They are always barriers to real progress.
“Stealth transition is not recommended as it can be troubling for the school body,” reads the draft Gender Framework, a 288-page policy document created by Genspect. A new version in 2025 will provide a bridge away from “affirmation” policies, which is supposed to be Karen Davis’s goal, too.
Objectively, in the real world, Genspect opposes secret transitions because “the child will inevitably tell someone, which can create conflict,” because that is what the Gender Framework says about it. “Children with additional needs may not feel equipped to tackle these issues and other children may feel deceived; honesty is the best policy and schools should not recommend children accept stealth trans identification.”
I was at the Genspect conference in Lisbon last weekend for a presentation by Alex Capo, Executive Director of The Charlton School, which responded to the surge in transgender identification among its small student body by following Genspect’s advice to stop using pronouns or new names. Charlton is focused on a population of vulnerable young women at high risk for rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). Nearly a quarter of the class “identified” as non-female when they started; now there is only one student using pronouns, and she has not medicalized.
On planet earth, those are sound, scientific results that herald a breakthrough in methodology for halting, or at least delaying, medicalization of transgender identification in minors. For in the real world, we have to respect choice. We have to respect that other adults will make choices, and that we won’t like all their choices, nor will they like ours.
On planet Karen Davis, this argumentation is proof that Genspect secretly supports stealth transitions, keeping secrets from parents, and transitioning kids under the radar, meaning her radar, for Karen has perfect radar. She can sniff out the stealth operatives of the gender-industrial-transhumanist-billionare complex because she has preternatural powers of observation.
She is an expert at everything needed to know what is really going on, here.
Karen Davis does not have to read long documents to know what she knows; she knows enough already. Rather than street epistemology, she knows what she knows because she knew it all along. She can feel truth, for she has always known what is true, being a perfect genius since birth.
Davis is dysregulated by Genspect’s acknowledgement that some people seem to benefit from medical transition, according to the scientific literature. Aside from this very select paragraph, the other 287 pages of the Gender Framework are a systematic, evidence-based debunking of the “affirmative” model. In scientific debates, this is called “good faith argumentation.” In Karen Davis debates, this is called “true trans.” She says that Genspect secretly supports gender identity ideology because they are secretly true believers in gender identity. She knows what truly lurks in their hearts. She knows the secret meaning of all those words on all those pages. She can explain it all for you.
She is of course not going to quote the part of the draft Gender Framework in which Genspect explains what the concept of “gender identity” actually means. Anyone who talks about “gender identity,” and isn’t Karen Davis, is a fake expert. Also an actual tool of the global trans kids conspiracy, which is very much like the infamous QAnon conspiracy, except that it somehow ends up in a gender clinic rather than a pizza parlor in Washington, DC.
Ask Davis for citations and she will never provide one unless she can remove all context and incorporate it into her smears. This is called fabrication or fabulation, the conscious invention of untruths. Karen Davis largely relies on her audience to provide these talking points for her, as she has no research skills and does not enjoy reading long policy documents. While I am no psychologist, this slothful behavior also seems consistent with the denial phase of grief.
If she does not already have a lie prepared, Karen Davis accuses. This is consistent with the anger phase of grieving. In my case, the instant I asked for a receipt in her Substack comments, she accused me of being a Graham Linehan sock puppet account. Karen Davis grieves her own ignorance and laziness. Accusing people of terrible, even criminal intentions feels good. Wrath absolves her of psychic responsibility for her other sins.
As for bargaining: I have it on good authority that, when engaged in the real world, face to face, on the topic of her bullshit, Karen Davis always folds like a cheap pillowcase. Her disinhibition only takes place online, in cyberspace. In meatspace, she is terrified of consequences. She is reportedly an utter coward. If served with a cease and desist letter, or a letter of intent to take legal action, via a litigator’s office, I expect she will start deleting content to order, quickly. Victims of her defamation are numerous enough already that I consider this outcome inevitable, and once any one of them begins, others may pile on.
Among her constant targets is Dr. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. Published in 2003, its frank and open explanation of AGP infuriated AGP men so much that they spent years harassing Bailey and his family, a story chronicled by Alice Dreger in her 2016 book Galileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and One Scholar's Search for Justice. Davis is at risk of experiencing the justice of a court at the insistence of someone like Dr. Bailey. I have no idea what Bailey intends and I am not suggesting he sue anyone. I am not a lawyer, either. This is not legal advice.
I am an historian. This is about Karen’s history. History shows that people who are immune to evidence and incapable of changing their minds will invariably find themselves excluded from control of any given social movement, resulting in cognitive dissonance. They think that they rule the tribe, but they do not rule the tribe, so they form a new tribe and set out to exclude the new outgroup from its ranks. Lies are just one service they offer in this pursuit.
Karen Davis is unable to admit being mistaken. To admit a mistake would be to admit her imperfections. Performative outrage (“poutrage”) soothes the pain of cognitive dissonance. This is called ego-dystonic arousal, the same psychological phenomenon in which AGP men show up to Let Women Speak events fondling their naked hormone-and-silicone breasts, spitting invective at the evil TERFs and mocking their looks.
Yes, I am absolutely saying that Karen Davis and her fan club are pro-AGP, at least according to her own logic. They behave like screaming AGPs, and stigmatize anyone who might destigmatize AGP for the purpose of open and honest discussion, because they are actively pro-AGP. They don’t want to fight AGPs, they want to control the discussion of autogynephilia. No one else is as purely committed to this spiritual war as they are. No one else can be trusted to tell the truth about the Luciferian enemy. No one else can say the words right while standing in the temple of belief.
Cross rhetorical swords with a Karenite, a believer in the globalist TruAnon conspiracy to continue the transing of kids in a secret pizzeria basement, and you will discover that like AGPs, they are, in their own eyes, history’s greatest victims. This justifies their war on women, on detransitioners, on parents of ROGD kids, on transwidows, whenever these victims of gender ideology are inconvenient to them. Just like AGPs.
Ute Heggen, author of a memoir of her experiences as the wife of an AGP man, gave Karen $2,400 to cover her rent, with $2,000 agreed to be in exchange for promoting Ute’s book. This arduous ask was too much for Karen, who does not like to read, and whose fan club pretends to be literate.
Conveniently, someone with a grudge against Ute offered Karen a way out: she could denounce Ute instead as a fake Jew and keep her money. Which was a weird take, since Ute’s divorce from her AGP husband required an extensive rabbinical consultation that is a matter of record. The point is that Karen glommed on to the nearest excuse to bite the hand that fed, even if the excuse was noxious, even if it advanced the interests of an AGP against his ex-wife, because that was easier than reading a whole book.
Karen has a long history of turning on people who outgrow her, or are simply better people than herself. New excuses for these new rivalries become new lore of the TruTrans stealth trans kids project. It is a Katamari Damacy conspiracy theory, a constantly-growing body of lies about other people, about what other people say, about what other people mean with their words, about what other people do, in order to maintain her audience, hoping to achieve critical mass. They invest themselves in her and the story she tells them. To admit being wrong would be to dispel the magic that holds her cult of personality, which is to say her entire personality, together.
If this analysis seems harsh, yesterday Karen spent most of her time rage-tweeting. It was her twelfth day in a row being angry that two women, one of whom used to be her friend, are friends with one another and took a photo together. She was encouraging her followers to report me, as well as other people, to crime reporting agencies based on her projected fantasies of a sinister pizzagate ring. This is another pattern in Karen’s toxic fandom: known incidents include SWATing, calls to child protective services, contact with family members of opponents, physical stalking, and other forms of harassment. I know far more than I am saying here.
Unlike Karen Davis, I would gladly write an affidavit, swear an oath, and testify. Also, because I am not an expert witness like James Cantor, I would not charge a plaintiff who asked me to do so. I do not expect this scenario to happen, of course, but it would not even be my first time on the witness stand, or my first time surviving litigious online “scenes” without a scratch. Karen does not have the same willingness to wage legal war, let alone the money to retain a lawyer.
Last November, I wrote about Karen Davis using the pseudonym “Karma.” I described her associates as “Agents of C.H.A.O.S.,” also using pseudonyms. I also wrote that “if anyone out there says that any of this essay is really all about them, or that I have somehow targeted them for ridicule and/or abuse, they are telling on themselves. Treat them accordingly.”
Karen’s response to the article was to go on her YouTube livestream and complain that I had written an essay that was really all about her and her audience. Her audience agreed with her that it was really all about her and them. Treat these people accordingly: they are telling you who they really are, so believe them.
She's raging in a Twitter space trying to convince people that Genspect telling schools not to automatically transition kids is their secret plan to get schools to transition kids lol.
Meagan Murphy once called her an unhinged asshole and I was there for it!