Troons Are Not Step-Parents

Men in Skirts Are Just Delusional

Readers, some of you may be aware of an idiotic argument making the rounds on X (still Twitter to some), impressing some midwits because it appears that there are many people out there who do not understand how logic, biological reality, and legal relationships work.

This is a tired tranny talking point from 2018, when a cross-dressing male named Timothy who calls himself “Sophie Grace Chappell” argued that adoptive parents are comparable to pervy men in dresses calling themselves women due to their fetishes.

 Here is the stunning Professor Timothy, an absolute belter who likes bad wigs and fluffy skirts.

Timothy, who works as a philosophy professor at Open University (he could answer “what’s a woman?” logically!) trooned out when he was 50 years old, after he fathered four children with his wife.

How did he manage to produce the small gamete (sperm) and fertilize his wife’s large gametes (eggs) with the knowledge that he was actually a woman? Maybe we should ask Bruce Jenner, though he fathered six children with three ex-wives while knowing he was actually a woman. What a clown world we live in.

This irrational non-argument was regurgitated by a male University of Michigan student on X named Matthew Adelstein, pictured below, who comically calls himself “Bentham’s Bulldog” and an “Effective altruist theist philosophy blogger.”

                                     What's with these woman-hating philosophy bros?

Matthew Adelstein debated this topic with a man named Chris Date and published an article so hilariously juvenile and unsophisticated it makes one wonder how he managed to obtain acceptance to any college.

A commenter on X noted that he put “trans women” as the headliners in the much larger title, towering over “trans men.” That is because everyone knows that these are actually men being referred to here, so they take priority, and women are second-class. Women on testosterone aren’t destroying men’s sports.

Everyone knows who the men are and who the women are, even the dolts trying to defend this fraud as we are supposed to pretend the opposite.

Below is an image of a relevant portion of the article, linked here.

This is not a joke. A “philosophy blogger”" actually listed long hair, painted nails, and a high voice as something that makes a woman.

Oh, and being female is last, as an afterthought of course.

Then we wonder how and why universities essentially produce unemployable idiots nowadays.

He uses every porn addict’s favorite example of totally valid woman—diminutive twink Robert Ryan White. This is a mentally unstable man who makes YouTube videos about his penis and testicles. Intuitive, you say?

In the video above, he is speaking through his nose as likely taught via voice classes, even with his cold, though he still sounds like an effeminate man to me. I wonder if he likes things instead of people? He probably likes the duct tape he puts on his testicles every day!

But wait, he has long, fake nails and long, fake hair—that means he’s a woman then. Combined with the pounds of makeup and obviously fake chest implants, he’d probably impress all the girls in Afghanistan with his brave existence.

Robert Ryan White likes to present himself as one of the good troons because he is actually a transsexual (man in a wig) and not a transgender (man in a wig). My previous post on this phenomenon addresses this idiotic assertion and why inconsistent men like him are worse than full-on loons like William “Lia” Thomas. You can read that here.

Another relevant portion of the article covers the tired point that step-parents are parents like “trans” women are women, plagiarizing the previous point about adoptive parents from Professor Timothy’s seven-year-old ramblings.

It is fairly easy to disprove this nonsense. Please read carefully.

This Is a Word Game

First, everyone must understand that the “trans” lie is essentially pilpul. This consists of splitting hairs and engaging in semantics.

Yes, the “trans” agenda is a medical scandal fueled by subversive globalist billionaires in search of big pharma profits, as Jennifer Bilek has extensively reported. I’m sure Matthew Adelstein, as well-educated on this topic as he is, has researched her invaluable work (when he’s not playing Call of Duty).

However, at its core, this consists of a linguistic battle which involves forcing people to tell lies by using false words to validate a delusion. That’s what calling a man a type of woman is—a lie.

If the words are taken away, they have nothing. The proponents of this fraud know that. That is why they fight so hard to compel others to use this ridiculous terms, and they cloak it in “politeness” as a way to feign virtue as they bully opponents and create chaos in society.

Subsequently, that is why I go out of my way to not use any of these falsities. When correct terms are used, the game is over. It is that simple.

“Trans” Does Not Exist

There is no such thing as “trans” because the entire concept is a fraud, and doctors have known that from the beginning.

Transitions from male to female or vice versa do not occur, even if someone “passes” and almost none do. An imitation of something is not that thing. Fool’s gold is not gold, even if everyone thinks that it is. It appears that Matthew Adelstein is trying to argue that a man passing as a woman makes him a woman. It does not.

There is no special category for those who want to reject the reality of their sexed body because no one can refuse or rewrite their body’s chromosomes since sex is binary and immutable, in every one of our cells. Males who do not want to be male are still male.

Similarly, the word “gender” has no application to humans, and that is why no one can define it logically. Gender is a linguistics term for words only, John Money knew that, and he used it in reference to humans to cause confusion…and it worked, as we can see.

Consequently, there is no such thing as “gender identity” or “gender dysphoria” since no one is in the wrong body. We are our bodies. All experiences we have in life are in our bodies, and the opposite sex’s experiences are not available to us. Developmental disorders do not change this.

These fundamental truths are the foundation of why Professor Timothy’s and Matthew Adelstein’s tired talking points are illogical and false.

Step-Parents and Adoptive Parents Exist

This analogy is tragically wrong largely due to the simple facts that step-parents and adoptive parents exist.

It is possible for someone to adopt a child, get divorced, or remarry. These are logistically possible things to accomplish.

When someone marries someone with a child or adopts that child, that is based on truth and a legal relationship that can occur in reality. Furthermore, giving a child up for adoption does not change biological reality.

No one is pretending that the step-parent or adoptive parent literally conceived the child because that would be a lie.

It is impossible for a male to transition to female. It has never occurred because sex is binary and immutable. “Trans” is a lie because males cannot become female.

When we refer to a man as a woman, we are pretending that he is a woman because he demands it due to his delusions, perversions, or fetishes. We are not pretending that a step-parents or adoptive parents are anything but what they are.

Step-parents or adoptive parents are not delusional.

More Apt Analogies

There are much more comparable situations when compared the nonsensical dreck proposed first by Professor Timothy and then Matthew Adelstein, who is unaware TERFs already addressed this years ago.

The “trans” fraud is like forcing others to lie and pretend that the step-parents or adoptive parents literally conceived or gave birth to the child. It would be a lie, but wouldn’t it be polite?

No, it wouldn’t. Lies are not polite, and as the great Magdalen Berns once said, I’d rather be rude than a liar.

Additionally, pretending that a man in a dress is a woman is much more similar to pretending that a father actually carried and gave birth to the children rather than the mother.

For example, after Professor Timothy trooned out at 50 years old, what if he insisted that he actually produced eggs, carried the four children, and gave birth to them because he was now a woman? What if everybody had to go along and affirm that lie because to refuse to do so would be impolite and cause him distress since he really believed it?

What if we were hectored, bullied, and fired for refusing to go along with this lie? What if women in prisons were being attacked by men, injured in women’s sports, and fired from employment for refusing to go along with this lie?

It wouldn’t matter if he really believed it or if it upset him if we didn’t go along with it. He didn’t carry those children and he didn’t give birth because he’s a man. He is the father. He isn’t the mother because he’s not a woman, and he never will be.

That applies to all situations, everywhere.

Conclusion

A great deal of this nonsense is fueled by misogyny, and that is plainly evident from the men who defend this fraud. A significant portion of them are lying or simply too dumb to realize how dumb they are, and that applies to men like Richard Hanania, a chaser who appeared on John Walker Flynt/Brianna Wu’s podcast, and Tom Harwood, a presenter on the British channel GB News.

Men like Professor Timothy and Matthew Adelstein do not care about the reality that women live every day because womanhood to them is a fetish, a perversion, a porn-influenced costume to wear, something to give away because to men like them being a woman is worth so little that they can describe it with a list of sexist stereotypes, which is what the “trans” lie must inevitably be based on.

This type of stupidity might be something to laugh at if men weren’t being put into women’s prisons for these lies, if women weren’t being fired and attacked for these lies, if women athletes weren’t being silenced for these lies.

These aren’t just philosophical exercises for ugly, old males and younger, extremely online coomers. There are real world consequences for women.

A woman is a human female. There is no other definition, and any attempts otherwise lead to descriptions of clothing and nails or assertions of personality tendencies.

We’re not a thought in some man’s head.

The girls in Afghanistan aren’t being kept out of school because they have long hair and speak in high voices. They aren’t even allowed to speak in public and are forced to wear body bags, not just a headscarf over their assuredly long hair.

Do these girls look like Robert Ryan White? I wonder if they’re nurturing and caring? Do they like people rather than things? How about the men who treat them like garbage—do they like those men?

The meaning of the word “woman” never changed because we’re still female.

Women and girls were always identified and oppressed based upon our sex, not because we don’t like things and we’re nurturing (we should be less so).

Since all oppression is sex-based, all of our rights are sex-based.

There is no other way to explain this.

As such, being a woman is a biological reality no one can opt out of or into.

Men will never be women.

There’s nothing they can do about it.