Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men https://t.co/9vctbORc6q

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 8, 2025

Thu Nguyen, a nonbinary city councilor for Worcester, Massachusetts with they/them pronouns, announced she is taking a month-long leave due to the unsafe and toxic culture after she was misgendered. She also filed official complaints with the city. pic.twitter.com/GHAK8CufuB

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 16, 2025

The thing is, @IndiaWilloughby, I really do enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so by the same arguments that make you a woman, I am indeed Winston Churchill.

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 19, 2024

JK Rowling is accused of cruelty as she mocks transgender football manager by comparing her to a 'straight, white, middle-aged bloke' https://t.co/1cCGfHidn4 pic.twitter.com/e2Z6k9Fuhm

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) May 11, 2024

This is really scary. Dad claims doctor asked his 3-year-old if he’s a boy or a girl at a routine check-up pic.twitter.com/rwOVNJeDHU

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 14, 2022

Breitbart:

The latest marketing campaign from Calvin Klein features a pregnant transgender man as an underwear model, with the fashion brand saying it wanted to spotlight the “realities of new families” in honor of — ironically — Mother’s Day.

The campaign includes shirtless photos of Roberto Bete, a female-to-male transgender reality TV star from Brazil who was pregnant at the time of the shoot. The photos show Bete posing with exposed stomach and top-surgery scars alongside spouse Erika Fernandes, a tattoo artist.

“We can reproduce biologically or from the heart… our place is to love and be loved,” an unattributed quote reads in the campaign.

RTWT

Amazon leadership held a session for employees dealing with the “trauma” of Matt Walsh’s book becoming a best seller and dealing with his trolling. They strategize on how to demote it on their site and claim he will get people killed. @MattWalshBlog broke them. pic.twitter.com/AKH8ihO0iV

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 26, 2022

If only Musk could buy Amazon, too.

This brave trans-species athlete just smashed Usain Bolt’s world record in the 100m.

So thrilled to see that the cheetah won. 👏🥳 pic.twitter.com/K9Mrrkj0bG

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) March 18, 2022

What you and your ilk fail to appreciate is how tediously familiar I find your tactics. I had a violent ex-husband who used to tell me life would be great if only I’d comply, but you’re making the same mistake he did. Women like me can’t be bullied out of resistance. pic.twitter.com/039pBtFtNT

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) March 9, 2022

Breitbart:

An online poll conducted by the staunchly left Guardian newspaper seeking nominations for “Person of the Year” has been turned off, sparking speculation it was shut down when author J.K. Rowling took the lead.

The poll was launched on December 15 and posed a simple question: “Who would be your 2021 person of the year, and why?” It can be found here.

As of Wednesday it was no longer live, launching conjecture from a number of sources that the fact author J.K. Rowling was such a dominating choice the outlet had no option left other than to stop accepting nominations.

It still exists but comes with the caveat This form has been deactivated and is closed to any further submissions.

Reactions online have been straight to the point.

JK Rowling was voted Guardian’s person of the year. Rather than acknowledge this, Guardian killed the competition. What utter cowardice, Guardian.

— Magdalen Berns Dr. HollydreamerXX🕸️ (@cubedreamer) December 28, 2021

BREAKING: Guardian deactivated the poll on ‘Person of the Year 2021’ because JK Rowling was in the lead.

Pathetic!

— Art TakingBack 🇺🇸 (@ArtValley818_) December 28, 2021

It was you closing your poll for Person of the Year because all the votes were for @jk_rowling https://t.co/slIKq4pdFh

— ☃️❄️Jane Frost❄️☃️ (@52degreesN) December 28, 2021

Can I just say congratulations to @jk_rowling on winning @guardian Person of the Year Award 2021! #IStandWithJKRowling

— Gordon (@bluesbroken) December 28, 2021

Funniest thing I saw on the Internet in 2021?
I’d say the Guardian deactivating their “Person of the Year” survey because JK Rowling was going to win. https://t.co/BlLYexJ1q1

— Isaac de Tormes, VII Marqués de Vichón (@Isaac_de_Tormes) December 28, 2021

Congratulations to @jk_rowling for winning the @guardian Person of the Year Award 2021. And congratulations to The Guardian for being the spineless melts that they are for not publishing it! Shameful! https://t.co/YuS0qNryKh

— Belstaffie (@Belstaffie) December 28, 2021

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, once beloved by leftists for her huge donations to the UK Labour Party and support of the European Union, is no longer tolerated, given her strong views on a range of things Guardian readers might assume to be theirs and their alone.

As Breitbart News reported, last year she was targeted by trans activists for warning children believed to be “trans” should not necessarily be “shunted towards hormones and surgery.”

She was previously denounced as a “TERF” — “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist” — for defending a woman’s right to decline to describe someone who is not biologically female as a woman.

Daring to suggest biological sex differences retain a degree of significance regardless of “gender identity” has also drawn ire from the left.

RTWT

Abigail Schrier, famed for having her book on the impact of the fashion for Transgenderism on children, Irreversible Damage, banned by Amazon, recently delivered a brave and inspiring talk to the undergraduates at Priceton.

Every dating app pushes us toward the same few attractive mate choices; Spotify presses us to like the same music; Amazon pushes us to purchase specific books and away from others. If you’re under the impression that the books Amazon recommends to you are based solely on a content-neutral algorithm, I can disabuse you of that fiction right now. I once asked one of my sources at Amazon, who was concerned about the ways the search results were being manipulated, whether he’d ever seen a book deliberately boosted. Yes, he said. Becoming by Michelle Obama. When that book came out – he told me – virtually every search you did led to the recommendation to buy the former First Lady’s book. And the opposite is also true. There are books that are never recommended by the Amazon algorithm, irrespective of how well they’ve sold or how likely a specific shopper is to buy them. Or, at least, there’s one such book. I’ll let you try and guess what it is.

But the larger point is, your will is being toyed with, subverted, manipulated. And in a fairly insidious manner. None of you will be shocked to hear that Google promotes certain search results in order to lead us to a certain perspective. But did you know that, for contested entries, Wikipedia assigns editors, some of whom are ideologically committed activists, many of whom have very particular views they want you to walk away with.

If you form views based on those Wikipedia articles or reports by corrupt fact-checkers, if you act based on them, are you exercising freedom of will? Given that you’ve been spun and prodded along to a pre-determined conclusion by hidden persuaders, perhaps you aren’t. Perhaps you’re left in the same sorry state as the Moor of Venice: toyed with, subverted, manipulated. Acting out someone else’s plan, pointed in the direction that he wants you to walk.

We’ve spent a lot of time in the past few years debating whether this kind of manipulation is at the root of our political divisions, but I don’t think we’ve paid enough attention to an even more basic question: how it has interfered with freedom of conscience and ultimately free will.

When polled, nearly two out of three Americans (62%) say they are afraid to express an unpopular opinion. That doesn’t sound like a free people in a free country. We are, each day, force-fed falsehoods we are all expected to take seriously, on pain of forfeiting esteem and professional opportunity:

“Some men have periods and get pregnant.” “Hard work and objectivity are hallmarks of whiteness.” “Only a child knows her own true gender.” “Transwomen don’t have an unfair advantage when playing girls’ sports.”

…

I know why students keep their heads down. They are hoping for that Goldman or New York Times internship, which they don’t want to put in jeopardy. Well, any institution that takes our brightest, most capable young people—Princeton graduates!—and tells you can only work here if you think like we tell you to and keep your mouth shut, that isn’t really Goldman Sachs and it isn’t the paper of record. It’s the husk of a once-great institution, and it’s not worth grasping for. Talk to alums at these institutions: they sound like those living under communist regimes. That’s the America that awaits you if you will not speak up.

You who are studying at one of the greatest academic institutions in the country only to be told that after graduation, you must think as we tell you and recite from this script—why were you born? What’s the point of being alive? Computers are vastly better at number crunching. They’ll soon be better at all kinds of more complex tasks. What they cannot do is stand on principle. What a computer cannot do is refuse to lend credibility to a rigged competition—to refuse to strengthen its coercion—making it that much harder for the next female athlete to speak up. What the computer cannot know is the glorious exertion of the human will when it refuses to truckle in the face of lies and instead publicly speaks the truth.

RTWT