IGLYO is a Brussels-based NGO that has raked in millions of euro in public money to represent the interests of a group of people it calls “queer youth”.
Outside their bubble, they’re best known as the organisation that commissioned the infamous “Denton’s document,” a how-to manual for activists that recommends secrecy and subterfuge as best practice for passing sex self-identification legislation for children in Europe.
The IGLYO/Denton’s document was a bombshell because it was the first time anyone in the movement had admitted to the centrality of stealth to the increasingly unpopular mission to replace the two human sex categories with a range of new categories based on a dissociative psychological coping mechanism known as “gender identity”.
Though the Dentons text is padded with all the standard flattening doublespeak of inclusivity and equality, the drafters were unequivocal about how activists should achieve their aims: hijack more popular ones, nurture behind-doors relationships with (young) progressive politicians, and whatever happens, keep the public in the dark.
It’s nothing like the vague mush you can find on IGLYO’s website, and it’s hard to imagine their in-house staff being so forthright about the queasy unacceptability of the de-sexing society project. But the Denton’s document wasn’t an IGLYO production; it was a freebie from media monster Thomson Reuters’ tax-diddly side gig, the (non-profit) Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Dentons law firm, the biggest in the world, was one of the companies that signed up to the Reuters scheme to provide free legal services to woke NGOs, presumably as a way of boosting their ESG score (or CSR, as it was called back then).
And unlike activists, lawyers don’t trade in vibes. They use straightforward language because words are central to legal matters: “keep press coverage to a minimum” stands in comically stark contrast to the careful NGO slop of “strategising visibility among key stakeholders.”
Self-ID stock-take
While it’s often described as an instruction manual (and it is) in terms of format, the IGLYO/Dentons document is actually an inventory of tactics that had worked in countries where sex falsification had already been passed into legislation.
Ireland features heavily.
The Irish activists who shared their tips and tricks with the Dentons lawyers, among whom the how-to-hide-your-binder lads at TENI, bragged about their ability to hoodwink society into clapping along for something they didn’t really understand. One of the guide’s most scandalous tips — to smuggle sex falsification inside something more popular — offered up Ireland’s gay marriage referendum as a case study.
The people running the Irish marriage equality campaign knew that proximity to the T — a community that, at the time, was heavy populated by male crossdressing fetishists of a certain age — was likely to put people off. So they sought to keep their association with the transvestites — and their new collaboratrices, the emerging cohort of tiny trans-identifying posh girls — to a minimum.
“We snuck it in by the back door,” said transvestite Philippa Ryder about the covert operation, during a 2024 trans love-in organised by the Irish government. Another activist, Sara “Big Dave” Phillips has also admitted, butt-hurtedly, on multiple occasions, how trans activists were silenced by the mainstream movement, and even that they stopped getting invited to coalition meetings after attending only twice.
It begs the question: if Ireland is so progressive that gay marriage was a popular decoy, why wouldn’t the population be chill about the demands of “trans rights”, too?
The shopfront slogan “legal gender recognition by self-determination” sorta-kinda fits with the gay rights demand to be left alone to “be who you are”, but only subliminally. Closer inspection reveals it actually means “let people be what they are not.” This would quickly emerge in any public debate, of the type that was a prominent feature of the marriage campaign.
I imagine that the marriage equality campaigners were concerned about optics not just in the metaphorical PR sense, but in the actual eyes sense: compared to the cute gayboys and mild-mannered lesbians who fronted the marriage effort, trans rights activists are trying to trick your brain into thinking they are the opposite sex, which results is some very oddly-proportioned people.
The Uncanny Tranny Valley causes conflicting sensory and cognitive cues that lead to a feeling of unease (don’t blame me, blame a billion years of sexual selection). Cognitive unease it the last thing you want to stimulate when you’re working on a marketing campaign. And I suspect the regularly-proportioned gays and gals knew it.
That’s why the persuasion campaign was focussed in the smoke-free backrooms of government buildings, while out in public, sex falsification was bundled in with the rest of the rainbow and drowned like a kitten in a sack of acronym and euphemism.
The marriage referendum ultimately passed with 68% of the vote. In the self-congratulatory haze of the result, pliant legislators added sex-falsification to the books with minimal fanfare. Post-church Ireland was so caught up in a frenzy of acceptance and toleration that few stopped to wonder how the slogan “love is love” related to the demands of middle-aged knickermen.
That was the level of deception required back in 2015, way before the ugly predictions about sex falsification had even come true. The “Denton’s document” gets rolled out by Irish TERFs all the time — especially in conversations with the uninitiated — to make the point that laws that have to be forged in secret are self-evidently not popular. As far as I can tell, IGLYO never officially responded to any criticism.
All the better to stop the conversation in its tracks.
“More subversive ways of implementing the work plan”
The best evidence that no-questions-no-conditions sex-falsification laws are being introduced by stealth is, of course, the fact that the average person on the street has no idea they exist. The Denton’s incident merely provided hard evidence that secrecy is a deliberate strategy.
Three years before Dentons, however, the tactic had already been revealed — only this time in relation to duping IGLYO’s funders.
In 2014, a PhD researcher called Raili Uibo shacked up with IGLYO to study how their increasingly “anti normative and radical” mission was going down with the stiff and stodgy EU bureaucrats from whom they were soliciting grants.
A bit of necessary background: the EU treaty includes protection from discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation, two categories that are (or were) understood as fixed. This is ostensibly why IGLYO — and all the other big money-sucking rainbow NGOs that make up the EU’s LGBTIQ lobby — get millions in cash installments every year from the EU budget.
In the lingo, these “framework partnerships” are made with “civil society actors” whose missions “align with EU values” and help the EU “meet their commitments” vis a vis “the community”.
But LGBTIQ rights have moved on since the drafting of the 1999 treaty. The people who man the movement now no longer advocate for protections on the basis of same-sex sexual orientation because they no longer think that attraction is based on objective sex, but on subjective gender. The movement, in other words, has done a complete 180.
Contemporary guardians of the gay rights legacy have queered sex and sexuality to a degree that they have rendered the categories of male and female, gay and straight, null and void. They merely use the vibes, colours and popular nostalgia of gay rights to promote instead a mishmash of utterly bonkers academic theories that have been combined into a confusing and stupid gloop we’ll just call queer.
Legal sex falsification is just one of queer’s manifestations.
But how is this volte-face reconciled with the requirements of fuddy duddy EU funding rules that still exist in the realm of legal texts, categories, and reality generally? According to Uibo’s observations, all the way back in 2014 already, there was a lot of dishonesty involved: “IGLYO used the discourse of LGBT in their communication with the European institutions while hoping to introduce an alternative discourse of queer,” Uibo claimed.
“One way of balancing out the conservative expectations was using general and non-controversial topics in their funding applications.”
“The wide yet mainstream topics could then serve as a disguise for more subversive ways of implementing the work plan that they received funding for.”
Uibo included a direct quote from an unnamed IGLYO staffer: “…the fact that we have thematic areas starting now in 2014 that are social inclusion and intersectionality, which are quite broad themes, which gives a lot of leeway. [---] And within that we can work with more queer issues.”
In other words, in order to promote (fluid, boundless, structureless) queer precepts for all, IGLYO pretend they are talking about the (fixed, named, immutable) identities of a few. And the EU, like all Western governments, are pretending that they haven’t noticed the switcheroo.
Queer in the acronym
IGYLYO added queer to their name (though not their acronym) in 2005 at a meeting in Krakow, Poland. There’s no evidence to suggest that they were doing anything other than simply catching up with a trend set by other global activists.
The reclamation of queer had begun many years before. The first time a gay rights activist group used it was in 1990: San Francisco’s Queer Nation’s manifesto is a bolshy screed about reclaiming the slur in response to straight society’s expectation for gays to be discrete about their lives and desires.
Queer had been picked up by academics — particularly in the literary criticism and feminism fields — who thought it was a good “lens” through which they could interpret other social phenomena with the same insider/outsider, normal/stigmatised dynamic. They were tickled by Michel Foucault’s view that identities related to sex and sexuality were actually just a kind of social control, self-enforced by sheep-like normies.
Homosexuality, Foucault had claimed, is not an innate identity that one has, it’s just a thing one does. Whether or not you do it (and get condemned for it) is a product of the social forces prevalent in your lifetime.
He was particularly incensed at the medical pathologisation of homosexuality, transsexuality, hermaphroditism, and paedophilia that was dominant while he was alive. But he also probably had a personal interest in absolving himself for his alleged rape of poor boys in Tunisian graveyards. It’s not that having sex with children is airquotes bad, he posited, it’s just that contemporary society has artificially labelled it so. Something something Greek and Roman pederasts.
Indeed, Foucault’s ideas appealed (and appeal) to all kinds of wrong’uns who are only too happy to “problematise” widely-held moral judgments about their own personal perversions. The year he died of AIDS, 1984, Gayle Rubin published an essay about the forces of normalisation who greedily hoard power for themselves by inorganically assigning values like “natural” and “sinful” to things like sadomasochism and “cross-generational” sex (extreme side-eye emoji).
After that, the problematising just kept coming. In 1990, the same year that Queer Nation launched its rhetorical offensive, the term queer theory was used in a university setting for the first time.
At some point, the ultimate luxury belief began to crystalise: what if it’s not just straight and gay, deviant and vanilla, child rapist and non-child rapist that are social constructs — but the very categories man and woman, too? Ur-gender goblin Judith Butler took this to the extreme, suggesting that even biology — not just behavioral norms and identity labels — is also just a phantasm invented by people trying to kill your buzz.
Women and men are performances, and they can thus simply stop performing, if they wish, said Butler et al. And many of them did wish, for all kinds of reasons, including of course, my personal faves: autogynephilic males who would swear allegiance to any batshit academic waffle if it would allow them to be the porn they wish to see in the world.
Butler wrote the worst book ever in which she tortuously revealed the theory that we have all come to know and love: woman is heels giggle giggle, man is motorbikes vroom vroom.
She thinks that the preponderance of male violence against women and girls, abundantly evidence in statistics, is simply a product of us all collectively assigning too much power to the penis. We all just have to make an agreement with each other that males are not, in fact, more likely to be murderously horny, and it shall be so.
That’s just a quick contextual background on queer’s embryonic phase. Lots of people seem to love it, to the extent that it has taken over not just the professional LGBTIQ class, but has seeped into pretty much every academic domain you can think of. Yes, even forensic science, gardening, and drone warfare.
The acronym takes off
It was also in the 1990s that the use of an acronym-as-shorthand kicked off in earnest. “Gay” was associated more with men than with lesbians, and so the alphabet soup began to bubble: from G to GL to LG to LGB. By the turn of the millennium, it was common to see the LGB with the T. By the mid-2000s, it was standard.
Adopting an acronym and gradually admitting a limited number of specific fixed sexual identities is extremely contra-queer: it’s using the master’s tools (protected categories) to dismantle the master’s house (the very concept of categories).
It is also anathema to the original sexual liberationist hope of sexual freedom for everyone. The post-1960s expectation was that all sexual preferences would eventually be allowed to be freely expressed, but the acronym actually just represents a slowly-expanding list of the individual identities that ended up being deemed okay for general public consumption.
A lot of the things that liberationists expected would be normalised — pederasty, BDSM, public sex, to name but a few — never got added to the soup.
I think trans represents a demarcation line simply because it’s not one thing. People didn’t agree to giving free rein to cross-dressing fetishists to do their weird crap out in public. But it got added to the acronym because not all transvestites are crossdressing fetishists: some of them are femme gay lads like Marsha P. Johnson of “first brick” fame — which is why that f****r is so important to the narrative of trans-rights-as-LGBT-rights.
Funky flamboyents like Johnson — a gay man who sometimes did drag — bridged us to married dads pretending to be sissy schoolgirls in supermarkets.
Anything more radical than the T is still in the sexual liberation waiting room flipping through old copies of Business Week, queuing up for their turn at acceptation and institutionalisation. But the slope is not eternally slippery. There will always be a line (please let there always be a line).
Zoophilic furries, diaper boys and other degenerates seem hopeful that they are next in the queue. But they are unlikely to ever find a Marsha P. Johnson type who can be reverse-engineered to make them more palatable.
Queer gendershite
These two different strands evolved in parallel: the highfalutin queer theory for elite funsies, and the politically necessary acceptability politics of LGBT acronymism. But something very bizarre happened: a hybrid model of the two has emerged.
While sexual orientation and sex/gender are still considered fluid and changeable, as per queer theory, one thing is fixed: the trans person, including the trans child. But if we follow the ideas of Foucault and Butler et al, a fixed inner gender identity is the opposite of queer.
You can hear Butler herself complain gently about this development in various recent appearances. She calls herself non-binary now, but she gets upset when this is taken to mean that she has an inner identity that is non-binary. Rather she’s trying to advertise to you that she has no inner identity. Nobody has one, is her point.
But the kids, she says, don’t seem to get this.
Indeed, Judith, they do not. Fourteen-year-olds don’t understand how “repetition, convergence, and rearticulation bring the question of temporality into the thinking of structure" because fourteen-year-olds are fourteen. They certainly do like the funky colours of the enby flag, though.
What did you f*****g expect?
Gender now means merely a performance of man, woman, both or neither, as well, somehow, as an innate and permanent sense of masculinity or femininity. And this sexed soul is considered natural (and not socially constructed!)? What’s more — Foucault rolls in his grave — being trans is so fixed within us that it needs medicalisation to be manifested for reals.
This is the most obvious pileup at the intersection: the contradictory demand to depathologise trans, while also making sure trans people can have their bodies corrected by surgery and hormones.
The permanence of inner gender is the reason the modern movement goes to such great lengths to pretend detransitioners don’t exist. But if they were following queer theory to the letter, detransitioners would be held up as the kings and queens of queer — even sexed souls sometimes decide to switch things up.
The beginnings of IGLYO
By the time IGLYO incorporated queer into their name, the organisation had already existed for more than 20 years. It had started life as an international gay and lesbian meetup called “Friendships and Desires” in 1984 in Amsterdam.
That event was an initiative of a Dutch gay rights organisation called COC (cock teehee) and I’m not trying to imply anything, or actually maybe I am, but when you look back through the history of pederast/paedophile inclusion in the gay rights movement, the early 1980s was its peak and the Netherlands was its HQ.
COC, which had existed since 1946, had always had a hard time separating “man-boy love” from homosexuality, but they divorced the two under public pressure in the late 1950s. However, thanks to the influence of some nonce members, they reverted course in 1980, and adopted the official position that paedophilia must be considered a gay rights issue.
It was in the midst of this paedo revival, in 1984, that COC decided the time was ripe to invite a roomful of “girls and boys” (ages 16- 27) to talk about their “friendships and desires”. The following year in Dublin, the youth gathering published a resolution calling for the abolition of age of consent laws. All age of consent laws. IGLYO currently advertise this resolution on their website.
The youth group became IGYLO (the International Gay and Lesbian Youth Organisation) at their third event in Oslo in 1986. From the very beginning, they have been funded by the Dutch government and the Council of Europe (not an EU body). It was not until the 2010s that they began to get the first regular installments of megabux for the day-to-day running of the organisation from the EU budget.
The world has moved on since 1985 and paedophile-emancipationists are back to plotting in the shadows of COC. There is zero evidence, to be clear, that IGLYO have any mission to change age of consent laws. They simply want an army of adults to go into your children’s school and talk to them about their sexual identities, behind your back, which is totally different.
I’m sure it’s nothing to worry about.
Fast forward to gender
In 2004, the year before they took on queer, IGLYO announced plans to discuss how all this newfangled gender and gender identity stuff applies to LGBT rights. According to the documentation I can find from the time, the subject seemed very new to them and they clumsily stumbled over its meaning (didn’t we all, mate).
“If I am a certain gender, will I still be regarded as part of the human/community/society I belong to?” they wondered adorably, a unsafe-spacism that could get them mass-reported on BlueSky if they wondered it out loud today. And get this: they wondered if subjective gender identities would “be recognised to the others upon whom I depend for social existence?” Ha!
All such consideration for reality and the existence of others has since vanished.
What do IGLYO do?
Nowadays, IGLYO functions as a factory for churning out activists who can lobby their domestic governments for legislative changes based on this bastardised queer gendershite philosophy, under the guise of LGBTIQ rights. They run a travelling roadshow called the Activist Academy in which they teach under-30s from all over Europe how to run these decentralised queer lobbying franchises.
Another major axis of their activities is a lobbying tool that “rates” countries on the degree to which their legislation and, in particular, education policy, has been queered.
The country-ranking gimmick is standard NGO fare, and it involves surveying members on the state-of-play in their home countries according to a bunch of set criteria. The results are used by activists to bludgeon lawmakers into doing something about their “bad grade”. It essentially allows them to generate data that says whatever they want it to say.
Like, hilariously, the UK got the same score as f*****g Moldova this year, a country where only 9% of young people in the capital (I repeat: young people in the capital) have a positive view of LGBTIQ people. On what planet is Moldova on an equal footing with the UK, a country whose state broadcaster’s incessant ball-cupping of transvestites has become a national embarrassment? It was simply IGLYO’s way of wagging their finger at the UK Supreme Court ruling that the word “woman” means “woman”.
This scoreboard, a very real reflection of reality, is faithfully rehashed by policymakers and obedient truth-seekers in the press, who love a ready-made LGBTIQ ranking story.
The multiple meanings of queer
When IGLYO adopted the word queer in their name, there is no hint that they knew they were on a slow roll towards abandoning material reality in favour of a weird, wordy French post-structuralist philosophy.
As the academic concept of queer continued to evolve, university graduates who had been exposed to it via humanities subjects began to take up policy and communication positions in European governing, funding and philanthropic institutions. The brainrot began to spread to other organs.
Throughout, queer has remained flexible enough that it can be quirked up or down according to a given audience’s sensibilities. Sometimes, it’s merely shorthand for all the letters in the acronym. Elsewhere it means all the other letters that don’t fit but that are just as Valid. Sometimes, it’s the f**k-you Queer Nation version of the word, and sometimes it’s the classic academic one.
How very queer that queer has multiple interpretations!
Queer as a catchall
This first explanation — that it’s just a handy catch-all to describe all the identities in the rainbow — seems plausible, considering the movement’s permanent expansion of who it claims to represent. After about 50 years of tacking identity groups on to the G, things got seriously unwieldy, and political messaging became a conceptual and actual mouthful.
From gay men to gay women to bisexuals, to the TS/TV/CD/AGP paraphiliacs, to the gay boys groomed into GAM girlhood by chasers on platforms like Reddit, to drag queens (those guys are really milking it), it has even expanded to include people who just don’t like having sex, and even people who were born with extremely rare genetic disorders that can affect the appearance of their genitals at birth.
As queer essentially just means “weird”, the label has also eased the adding of “generic misfit teen” to the pot, an innovation that has bulked the movement’s numbers by orders of magnitude. And it’s been a boon for heterosexuals who are eager for oppressed status but who aren’t willing to put in the required suffering. It’s especially been a hit with straight women I like to call “CV bisexuals”. You know the type.
Not only have all these new identities been added to the acronym, the meanings of the old identities have been flipped. It’s a bit like Trigger’s sweeping brush in the Only Fools and Horses joke: he won an award for saving the council money by using the same broom for twenty years. Mind you, he’s changed the head 17 times and the handle 14 times.
Queer as a reclamation
That queer is just a way of saving on ink and acronym when describing this endlessly-expanding motley assemblage is the neatest telling. The other most common claim — that it’s being taken back on behalf of the people it was originally intended to denigrate — does not stand up to scrutiny.
“Cis white gay men” have fallen out of favour in the movement they spearheaded and are now as hated as any another oppressor in the queerocracy (“genital preference” lesbians having been dumped by the roadside ages ago). They’re the in-house enemies number one, especially if they’re not immigrants/homeless and/or drug addicted, and extra-specially if they’re hot.
Bottom of the gay male heap are the men who treated equal marriage as the be-all and end-all of LGBTIQ rights. These straight-laced acceptables who garnered normie support tend to live unremarkable lives, regularly wash their balls, and put out the bins on the right day. Just like you. The freakytimes greasylocked polyeverything “sexual minorities” who neither get the bins right nor tend to their undercarriages are furious at the bourgeois arrogance of the suggestion that equal marriage changed anything for them.
It’s not a coincidence that another academic theory — intersectionality — began to be applied to sexuality around 2012 when assimilation was reaching its peak as a gay rights goal. It was a fancy way to problematise (moan about) the male, pale and stale integrationist message of mainstream organising.
The rise of victimhood culture
Intersectionality posits that having more than one marginalised identity creates a whole new third category of combo-marginalisation (wow such theory). It really is no more complicated than that. It offers no wisdom as to what you should do about it except, perhaps, use it to get grant money to hire a black transvestite prostitute, or a wheelchair-bound gypsy with impetigo.
However, it is presented as some kind of profoundly knotty scholarly concept that requires a guru who can grift off, I mean explain, its perceived complexity. Suffice to say there’s a lot of hand-waving involved in the 1.5-hour workshop your HR manager booked to explain it.
In practice, intersectionality is a bonobo-level hierarchy-wrangle dressed up as a fancy critical social justice theory. And if you don’t have oppression, it must be you who is the oppressor. That’s why young people these days (shakes fist at the sky) are adopting labels that are as far from the hegemonic standard as possible, because it helps them rack up social capital.
Luckily for all you fat f***s out there, being unable to stop overeating is a type of oppression, imposed by man-made beauty standards (also something to do with white supremacy, I’m hearing) and it has nothing to do with human pattern recognition that helps identify healthy mates to share your genetic material with. Bon appetit!
The amalgamation and elevation of compounded victimhoods has resulted in the celebration of some of the worst things in the world: dysfunction, narcissism, self-pity, laziness, fragility, perversion, self-hatred, the traffic and sale of women’s bodies, mental illness, incivility, obesity, ugliness, and extreme racism.
It pits persecution pyramid climbers against an invisible universe of trads and chads, the people who call themselves “normal”, who terrorise and subjugate them for falling outside the rigid bounds of normalcy.
Might I speculate: all this crowing about intersectionality might explain why some elder gays are such obnoxious promoters of sex-denialist trans nonsense. They had the public at their feet for decades, relatively speaking, and now they’re getting a lot of internal flack for platforming the particularities of their own issues (AIDS funding, marriage rights) as all that mattered.
Sometime around 2012, as part of an EU funding programme called PROGRESS, IGLYO got money for anti-discrimination work which required them to incorporate intersectionality into their workplan. It was with this cash that they produced an Intersectionality Toolkit in 2013 and in October of the same year, the sidelining of beige gays intensified when they made it a strategic focus area.
TLDR: the level of scorn for the grayscale OG homosexual activist discredits the theory that the resurrection of the word queer by today’s activists is intended to restore dignity to the men who originally suffered under its contempt.
What IGLYO mean by queer
These are tame explanations for queer, the ones that are suitable for prime time. But what do IGLYO mean by the word? While they may use a subdued version in front of funders and officials, a closer look under the hood reveals that they are adhering to the bastardised fixed-yet-fluid queer/trans/intersectional patchwork of barmy beliefs as described earlier.
It’s the queer theory hypothesis favoured by sickos and scholars (identities are constructed, in flux), combined with self-indulgent, power-obsessed intersectionality theory (you are your grievance labels), all topped off with the notion of the immovable trans soul.
In other words, men are sometimes lesbian women, women are sometimes actually gay men, men and women can be neither men nor women, they can be both men and women at the same time. Penises are not male organs, if the wielder wants, and fannies are not just for females. Sexual orientation is just a vibe that changes throughout your lifetime (and is largely hair-length-preference dependent, as far as I can tell) and you’re a genital fetishist if you have a preference for a particular sexed body. Oh, and sexual dimorphism is just a tool of racist and colonialist control.
And at the same time, all people have a fixed inner sexed soul, called a gender identity, that never changes. This identity is expressed outwards using irreversible body modifications, clothes, intense cognitive self-deception, and constant external validation-seeking as well as — and this part is most crucial — hair length modification.
How we got here
This fixed/fluid hybrid model of queer emerged, I suspect, simply because of political coalition-building.
Pre-social media, queering everything was not at all a goal of the “transsexual” activists who dealt with the European institutions — the people who laid the legal groundwork in European courts that led to the rejigging of “sex” to include “gender reassignment” in equality law.
Ye old transsexuals very much believed in the primacy of the binary. There are two human sexes, they knew, and they had a deep desire to be the other one.
Starting in the 2010s, with the rise and rise of social media, girls began finding out online about transsexuals’ cool sex-escape game, and they flocked to it. They learned that courts and governments were endorsing the delusion that you could abandon the painful reality of your sex, and they spread the news of this contagious cop-out.
Meanwhile, male transvestites had long wanted permission to take their sexual fantasy public without committing to the chop (or the divorce). As such, they had an interest in challenging the existing legal and medical model that had been built up over decades. However, by doing so, they would make the long-standing TS/TV distinction defunct, much to the chagrin of the original sex mimics who were worried that their carefully crafted fiction would go down the toilet.
An odd new throuple — young women with dissociative identities, non-op transvestites, and poor gay male prostitutes larping as sex dolls (read more on those guys here) — needed a mutually coherent and broader theory of “trans” to replace the established medico-legal fiction. What origin story could they tell themselves, each other and the world?
Queer theory was right there.
But in order to accommodate the beliefs of the understandably cranky OG transsexual in the new “trans” cohort, they would have to somehow shoehorn in the idea that some women are not performances at all, but real women who somehow managed to get trapped inside men’s bodies (and vice versa). You can hear Judith Butler struggle sometimes over this corruption of queer, but she’s decided it’s not worth haggling over it.
Queering education
On the surface, IGLYO claim that their work aims to protect gay kids from being bullied, and to spread the message that being same-sex attracted (or a butch girl/feminine boy) is normal and fine, which it is. However, everything they do is underpinned by this utterly warped hodge-podge view of reality. “Bullying” and “exclusion”, as per IGLYO, refers to anything that impedes a young person’s descent into this utterly head-melting ideology.
“Inclusive education” requires not just adapting school admin policy and procedures to reflect a trans-identifying student’s newfound sexed soul i.e. their new chosen name and preferred pronouns. It also includes granting them access to school facilities that “match” their fake new identity. It requires teachers, admin and service staff to collude in the lie, and to admonish or even punish students who refuse to go along with it.
This “gender affirmation” should be done regardless of the student’s state of mental health, regardless of their parents’ opinion on the topic, and regardless of what other students think, want or need. “Achieving” inclusive education also involves embedding all this into the teaching curriculum — not just the existence of gays and lesbians, gender stereotype non-conformists, and non-traditional families — but all the Tumlbr-inspired identity wishcasting, power-knowledge queer precepts, and intersectional point-scoring.
And you don’t have to wait for teacher training to be officially queered, says IGLYO’s Jeremy Gobin — you can just go right ahead and introduce your own materials.
Turning pupils into activists
Last month, IGLYO advertised a job opening for a consultant who can help them create a programme to tackle “anti-gender discourse”. The consultant is expected to “identify strategies to empower students, including through media literacy and youth-led initiatives, to enhance their resilience against anti-gender discourse.”
“The anti-gender movement” is the Fancy Name given at an institutional level to anyone who objects to queer. The term strategically wraps rational opposition to the ideology inside opposition to unobjectionable things like women’s basic rights. Sold as one package, it’s easier to make you seem like a bad person for opposing it.
Humans should be able to decide whatever sex category they belong to, including psychopaths, criminals and perverts (aka exactly the types of people you don’t want “living their lives as their true authentic selves”), and if you oppose this, you are anti-gender. This is the message the consultant’s work will transmit to children, though they probably won’t put it like that.
Toryn Glavin, a particularly vindictive Irish transvestite, is a comms officer for IGLYO. He has been giving activist training sessions on defeating the anti-gender movement and transphobes like me.
It’s a topic about which he can be considered a subject matter expert.
Glavin, a Disney Adult and Star Trek AGP, whose girlfriend is also pretending to be the opposite sex, doxxed female mental health professionals who questioned the wisdom of banning exploratory therapy for gender-confused kids. He helped animate a major smear campaign against them that, one of the women said, badly derailed her personal and professional life.
I wonder if doxxing will be part of the anti-gender “resilience” school resource?
The best practice database
IGLYO has also created a database of best practices for teachers and schools.
Bear in mind as you read this partial list that these resources are being presented as appropriate for children going through the most intense period of identity formation of their lives. Also remember that the children most receptive to the ideas contained within are often suffering from mental illnesses and other vulnerabilities: children referred to the disgraced Tavistock gender identity clinic were ten times more likely than the national average to have a parent who was a registered sex offender. 97.5% of them had been diagnosed with either autism, depression or some other mental health issue.
The Dutch best practice resource, to which IGLYO points, addresses kids directly. It not only states outright that some people are born in the wrong body, but that they can “stop/and or delay” their puberty if they wish. Horrifyingly, it links straight to the infamous Amsterdam “Dutch protocol” gender clinic.
Belgium’s teacher guide for 12-14-year-olds claims that “it is necessary for (the children) to have knowledge of the possibilities of voluntary body modifications in the event that they are planning to undertake a gender transition”, among many, many other horrors.
The most recent article on the website of a recommended UK resource, Diversity Role Models, talks up the importance of chosen families for kids who “feel misunderstood or become estranged” from their actual families. It links to an article on the topic that claims that, in such a context, “those who fill this void (are) even more special”.
I actually agree with IGLYO that this is a brilliant resource — for groomers.
Diversity Role Models also offer teachers a library of inspiring videos, including one of Petra, the Women’s Institute troon, a man who gave in to his fetish at 68 after a bad bout of colitis (many such cases). Petra has deemed it necessary in multiple interviews to insist, without being asked, that he’s not pretending to be a woman for the sexual thrill. Weird thing to keep bringing up, Dave!
The French best practice sends us to SOS Homophobie, the organisation that orchestrated a complaint against a gynecologist for refusing to see a male patient pretending to be a woman. The gynecologist told the man he only treats real women and not men who have shaved their beards (lol), a reasonable reaction to a bad review left by one of the SOS Homophobie activists. The doctor was suspended for a month with no pay, and a criminal complaint is pending.
SOS Homophobie also organised exhibitions this summer in Paris and Lyon about “genital preference” within the LGBTIQ movement. The ad for the event shows a naked woman covered in thick hair from synthetic testosterone treatment, with her breasts surgically cut off, and her legs spread open. Under her mastectomy scars are the words “not a man without a zizi?” — zizi being the word children use for penis.
One of the lesson plans promoted by the German NGO, Queer Format, involves sitting the kids in a circle and throwing a ball to each other. When each kid gets the ball, they have to announce the name they want to be known as in class. The same organisation has a module on queering the biology curriculum.
IGLYO staff and statements
A number of the school guides, like this Portuguese one, strongly imply that transition should be kept from parents if the child requests. This is also the position of IGLYO, as subtly suggested in the material they created for teachers.
Last year, they were one of the signatories of a letter condemning the UK for putting the brakes on the prescription of puberty blockers. The letter cites WPATH, an activist NGO larping as an evidence-based medical association, whose most recent standards of care recommend the castration of men and boys who identify as eunuchs. Feminist writer Genevieve Gluck later discovered that WPATH was working with a fetish website for self-identified eunuchs that features pornographic stories about castrating children.
In 2022, IGLYO hosted a workshop on BDSM to “look into the wide array of fetishes and discuss common misconceptions …. and explore if BDSM can be categorised as an orientation in and of itself.” The IGLYO member association that made the presentation once invited a BDSM group into a secondary school where they had a “munch”.
Current IGLYO deputy director, Ru Ávila Rodríguez, once wrote a research paper called “Bareback Sex Sexualities” in which he claimed that safe sex is a social construct (how very Foucauldian). The person who managed the organisation before the current director took over runs a literal BDSM sex dungeon about an hour’s drive from Brussels. She’s also pretending to be a man, of course.
IGLYO are also great mates with the European pimp lobby, ESWA, naturally.
The public comments of the current executive director, Bella Fitzgerald, also give a good idea of IGLYO’s ideological direction of travel. She issued a personal statement on their website in 2023 saying children should not be “outed” to their parents if they are socially transitioning in school (the fact that it wasn’t signed off by IGLYO is perhaps a reflection of how their sponsors might feel about promoting such obvious safeguarding risks).
She wants schools to be places of radical change and thinks that the world — a broken place — should be “child-led”. When giving a talk at Google (the marginalisation!) she said she liked being referred to as she/her because she wants you to perceive her as a woman, suggesting that it is a role that she is performing.
(The thought of such retrograde ideas being presented to children as progressive makes me so angry I could launch a thousand plates at a wall.)
Fitzpatrick also wants everyone to stop using words like brother and sister because they imply that old oppressive binary. “The younger you get them, the more cool they are with everything,” she has said about children, who “have a completely fluid sense of gender. They are obsessed with it.”
You don’t say?
Bring your hole self to work
More worryingly, I looked into the organisation she ran in Ireland for years, an NGO called ShoutOut, who have given workshops to 84,000 secondary school children to date.
ShoutOut’s volunteers emphasise bringing their own personal stories into the classroom. The person who currently runs it is the newly-trooned Ruadhán Ó’Críodáin (translating your name into Irish is like a pheromone that helps the Irish gentry recognise each other). She’s the one who retweeted Toryn Glavin’s doxxing screenshots (see photo above) and she’s now an IGLYO board member.
Ó’Críodáin wears the pink triangle of 1980s AIDS activism because she thinks her funky moveable identity feast is related to that tragedy in some way. In this photo, it looks like she’s even put a fake penis-shaped thing down her trousers for extra LARPery. This woman has been going into Irish secondary schools in her Freddie Mercury Halloween costume telling teenage girls that she is actually a man, and that they might be too.
And she’s not even the most mentally ill posh woman giving these workshops, some of whom have claimed that volunteering for ShoutOut helps them feel better about their maladaptive identity fantasies.
I managed to get in touch with someone who participated in one of their volunteer training sessions. This person told me: “There was not much about LGB. We were told we can use whatever acronym we want but make sure we don’t cut it off before the T,” and “The overall opinion was that there are not enough labels.”
“Everyone (at the training) was queer. Lots of them were what we used to call DFM (desperate for mates), people looking for a community and are using labels to make friends. Arrested development, neurodiversity and rumination were all prevalent.
“Oh and literally everything is fluid.”
“Overall I came out entirely confused, and thought how the f**k are they allowed near children who are going through the most confusing developmental time in their lives. If a child latches on to it, there is no off-ramp for them unless they are willing to lose friendships.”
When discussing objections or incoherencies at the ShoutOut training, the volunteers are told to always bring it back to accepting people as whatever they say they are. You can see this in Bella Fitzpatrick’s response to a skeptical-sounding questioner during at a talk she gave to a roomful of people from the organisation TIGALA, who work with extremely vulnerable children going through the Irish courts system (for f***s saaake!!!)
“Who assigns it?” asks an off-camera TERFy questioner, referring to Fitzpatrick’s assertion that sex is assigned at birth. Fitzpatrick waffles and quips about midwives and vaginas for a bit before ultimately settling on: just Be Kind.
The person who attended the ShoutOut training also told me that the trainer was bullied in school for being a nerd. The impression they got was that this was “a way to vent and get paid for it.” Indeed: claiming to be queer has given a lot of status-obsessed nerdy faulx a way to get their own back on their bullies in the uncoolest way possible: they’re here, they’re queer, and they’re betting on a high-status human rights career.
I was so alarmed at what I found out about ShoutOut that I wrote to the Irish ministry for education and asked if they were aware of what’s going on. Do they know that ShoutOut don’t even police vet their volunteers? They just passed the buck back to the schools.
The receipts pile grows higher.
Focussing inward
This franken ideology, and its dubious adherents, have no place in a school environment because it plunges children into a dangerous sense of unreality. It also celebrates transgression, destabilises identities, and deligitilimises boundaries that are required to keep kids safe.
IGLYO’s recommendation to teach kids critical theory concepts about power systems invites kids to laser-focus inwards and find characteristics about themselves that become central to their developing idea of who they are. If they identify a disadvantage, something counter to the norm, or an advantage, something that puts them in the majority, this influences their feelings of worth and incentivises victimhood.
Fitzpatrick, for example, is obsessed with her body size and thinks fat people should be considered as attractive as thin people (in this video she calls people who are not overweight “straight-sized” people lol). She is also angry that bisexuals don’t get enough attention and recognition for their speshulness.
This narcissism is being passed off to children as virtue.
It’s so dumb and dangerous. Consider the concept of “queering consent” in sex education, featured at a recent IGLYO conference: it suggests that consent should be seen through the prism of power relations. According to the workshop facilitator, consent is “the absolute antithesis to ideologies of mastery, of imperialism, to the police, to punishment, to surveillance and oppression.”
What?
Sure, some people submit to sex due to a power dynamic that makes them feel unable to say no. But the last thing you want your daughter to be thinking of when she’s being subjected to unwanted sexual advances is where she sits in the power pyramid of privilege. She could be thee Queen of f*****g Sheba and it should still play no part in the decision to tell a creep to f**k off.
This is all utterly confusing tosh for teenage girls, who are both intensely eager to Be Kind and the target of a level of sexual objectification that they are not yet habituated to.
Whether or not a child gets exposed to this kind of derangement depends entirely on the luck of the draw i.e. the ideological positioning of an individual teacher or administration. TERFs have long been knowin’ this. IGLYO know it too, which is why they are trying to make it compulsory in education at all levels.
I went to the conference
I’ve always wanted to know how they tiptoe around the horror of what they are actually advocating for in real life. So when I learned that they were having an in-person "queering education” conference in Barcelona, called Proud Pupils, and that some EU and local government officials were on the programme, I nearly smashed my phone screen booking a ticket (thanks for your support!)
I’ve worked in Brussels for nearly 20 years, so I am aware that conferences and seminars hosted by government-funded NGOs (an oxymoron) exist for their own sake, not because there is an urgency for their contents. It’s just what NGOs do in a Potemkin participatory democracy. The requirement to throw some sort of a regular shindig fits into the “dissemination” section of the grant application, and you’ve got a full-time events officer to feed. Gather all ye stakeholders.
My intention was to find out how the conceptual and linguistic straitjacket would be maintained in situ over three whole days plus networking parties in front of normie officials. It’s easy to spoof your way through your “About us” page. But what if someone asks for specifics?
I recently met up with a devastated mother who found out her daughter was going by a different name at school — and the teachers were in on it. She told me that she suspected, but couldn’t be sure, that there was some level of coordination between the staff.
Would there be a workshop at the Proud Pupils event about what this behind-the-scenes coordination between teachers should entail?
Would anyone share their favourite transable historical heroines, women we can tell children were actually men-after-all, because they were smart and strong and brave? Would anyone explain how, exactly, one should go about weaving polyamorous family setups into the geography curriculum? What about “undoing” the concepts of mother, father, sister, brother in the brains of kids, who had been exposed since birth to these oppressive concepts?
Or how should one counter religious objections to teaching 14-year-olds about “transactional sex” as my kids will be subjected to in the Belgian public school system?
How cardboard would the conversations at this conference be, if we’re avoiding details? How wooden the panel discussions, how painful the pauses? Would anyone actually admit what we’re really talking about?
Almost inside Dentons Den
I never got to find out, because I was thrown out of the conference before it even started.
I had managed to make it to the opening ceremony, which was a bizarre mix of formal PowerPoint presentations interspersed with awkward jokes from the host, a horrifically unfunny local sex-clown.
I was with my friend Annette, a Barcelona-based kiwi TERF who has a really good podcast on Iberico-troonism (subscribe now!) She managed to evade detection, and made it to the conference for the entire three days. We talked about it in a podcast episode we recorded shortly after the event. You can listen to the episode here.
The morning after the opening ceremony, as I was entering the plenary, I was approached by Bella Fitzpatrick, who was replete in the uniform of the queer elite (technicolored clothes, lanyard, posh accent, obese, zany tattoos). I had registered under a different name, but Fitzpatrick had figured out who I am. She asked: have I no concern for “their humanity”? It was a question that was easily returned to sender.
I was very happy to talk to Fitzpatrick because people like her never agree to talk to me. But during our short conversation, I did some wrongspeaks, using words that go against IGLYO’s code of conduct. This was the excuse to throw me out — but I suspect the whole thing was a setup, judging by the gotcha expression on Fitzpatrick’s face when I used the word “cult” to describe the cult she’s in.
The last thing a cult wants, of course, is someone wandering around accurately observing what’s being said and done, so I was led out by Fitzpatrick and a cute young guy who I later found out is one of IGLYO’s in-house racists (European NGOs are still burning through those George Floyd-era race-bait grants).
On the walk to the exit, Fitzpatrick said something like: you don’t get any money to host your own conferences (the nee-naw nee-naw nee-naw was implied, but unspoken).
Later, the more I thought about it, the more I thought about it: what an incredible admission of the David and Goliath-nature of the situation. I suspect it was intended to remind me of the completeness of the dominance of the queer lobby over the levers of European government. And this coming from the oppressor-oppressed-obsessed!
She was absolutely correct. Despite how dirt-common my opinions are (women are real, perverts are too, and children are not mature enough to decide to sterilise or permanently modify their bodies), people like me have been completely shut out of the decision-making process.
Last year, the bolts got twisted even tighter when EU financial rules changed to exclude anyone for consideration for financial support if they “incite hatred” against a group, which is how criticism of queer gendershite is always framed. If ever there was a chance of a grant for e.g., LGB Alliance Germany, Voorzij, or Isomer getting support for their work with gender-questioning gay people, that’s probably all over now.
Out on the streets
Once I had been thrun out on the street, I went to the police to report this breech of muh rights on the advice of Feministes de Catalunya. I went up to the tourist-friendly copshop at Las Ramblas where people go to report getting mugged, shot, stabbed and raped. “Um, I was forced to leave a conference because of my opinions,” I told the heavily-armed police woman at the barricaded entrance of the station. She was like ñah.
Feministes de Catalunya immediately put together a press release to lament — yet again — the lack of protections for women who speak up against the queer lobby in Spain. They were particularly incensed because the event was attended and sponsored by the regional government.
I emailed Fitzpatrick to ask if we could go have a chat together to hash out our different worldviews, perhaps over a beer when we were both back in Brussels. No response. I later found out from Annette that she said I am “right-wing” and “funded by a Hungarian think-tank,” and “very fascist.”
This idea that women can’t come to our own conclusions about gendershite without Daddy Orban offers a neat peek into the misogyny of this ideology — critical thinking and opinion-having are male traits that people with the gender identity “woman” have no access to.
I’m very fond of Frank Furedi who runs MCC Brussels, aka “Orban’s think tank” (he has a good Substack). I’ve been to his organisation’s events when they pertain to women’s rights, not just because it’s the only GC game in town but because Furedi is a very interesting person and the staff there are an all-round lovely bunch of chaps (lots of chaps!) They’re far too conservative for my personal politics, though.
My attendance at MCC Brussels events is supposed to discredit me, or perhaps prove that women do, in fact, have dicks. But it’s entirely unnecessary to spread the lie that I am working for the Hungarian government. The respectability larp that applies to IGLYO doesn’t apply to me because I’m free. I’m not running a multi-million euro scam that requires lying about my objectives. I can say it loud and say it clear: ultra-conservative opinions are welcome (and carefully considered, and politely declined) here.
But I did write to Fitzpatrick again to ask her to tone down the defamation — not only did she imply that I’m some sort of paid-up Putinista, she also said I was aggressive during our conversation at the conference. I told her my secret recording of the incident disproves that. I never heard back.
Misrepresenting the interests of the public
What should get on your tits is that IGLYO is very generously funded with EU money on the basis that they represent the interests of the public. All of the big queer NGOs that get operational money from the EU budget — IGLYO, ILGA-Europe, ILGA-World, TGEU, ELC, and OII — claim to act as “civil society” bulwarks against corporate influence and institutional indifference that would otherwise tilt laws and policies too far in the direction of profit maximisation.
But riddle me this: what claim do they have to represent the interests of the public if they have to go to great lengths to keep said public from finding out what they do?
They’re no different from corporate lobbyists who represent a niche special interest that serves only a small number of stakeholders — one that is heavily weighted towards its own self-perpetuation.
The tobacco industry went to great lengths to keep the public from finding out the consequences of using their products. They pretended for decades that sucking on burning cancer sticks was a harmless fun thing that hot people do. Likewise, producers of forever chemicals don’t get into the details of their wares. They sell innovation, a strong economy, and eggs that don’t stick to the pan.
Gender vendors do the same thing. They are selling a world in which nobody bullies the sissies anymore, and the word f****t is relegated to the same disgraced place in history as the word nigger (yeah, I typed it). Who would be against that? Their actual agenda only emerges in the finer amendments of legislative drafts and in private meetings with EU officials that they keep failing to list in the transparency register.
People chose freely to smoke, but what happened when they were told in plain language (and plain images) what these products actually contain?
An unearned halo
The thing that fundamentally differentiates IGLYO from corporate lobbyists is not their salary ranges or their governance structures, but their halo. IGLYO has a halo. ILGA-Europe has a halo. TGEU, ELC, OII — all of them have unearned halos so nobody looks closely at what they’re up to.
But it’s not goodness that’s emanating from their heads. It’s an anti-scrutiny forcefield.
No other “minority group” has the level of influence and cashflow that the queer lobby has. No other “underrepresented community” gets as much money for project grants, operational grants, and salaries for full-time pronoun w*****s to put their fingers in every legislative and policy pie, including those with nothing to do with social issues.
The dependency of queer NGOs on Brussels has intensified since the shuttering of USAID at the beginning of the Second Trumpocene. In private meetings and undeclared drinkypoos, EU officials are currently being lobbied pick up the slack now that the bizarre, 14-year American GloboHomo project is over. The announcement for the next operational grants are out soon. Watch this space.
The courts coercion
The most frighteningly effective way that this weirdo ideology is being coercively enforced in the EU is via court cases brought before two supranational court systems: the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, and the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg.
As of the end of 2024, there were 10 pending cases (and 7 closed) that concerned gender identity.
Gender identity didn’t appear in any EU text of any type until 2011 and it’s still not a grounds of discrimination in any law. It would never get through because the final stop in the life of an EU law is via ministries of the EU countries (called the Council of Ministers) which includes, of course, all the homo-skeptic brutes from the churchy East.
That’s why it’s up to activists in the courts to coax gender identity into being as a real thing that really exists, and legal sex falsification as a European value or even a right, via downlow legal shenanigans.
You’ll hear very little about these cases in the press, but their consequences are huge because some of the outcomes are enforceable by law.
The photo below show reps from ILGA-Europe and Transgender Europe celebrating the outcome of the Mirin case in late 2024. The complainant in the case, Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi, is the bearded lady second from your left. To woman in the middle is her lawyer from the (EU-funded) ELN legal network, Iustina Ionescu.
The Mirin ruling essentially means that Romania, and all EU countries, have to grant legal sex falsification to any EU citizen who has had it falsified in another EU member state. Effectively, it forces sex self-identification even on countries that haggled over it and decided against it. So does the outcome of the Shipov case, also ruled this year. Since those rulings, an Austrian woman whose legal sex was falsified as “X” or “non-binary” in Germany has since been able to force the Austrian admin to fake her documents there, too.
The money for this “strategic litigation” also comes from the EU budget through NGOs and legal networks, and it is justified as “holding member states to account” for upholding EU law.
But EU law says absolutely nothing about sex falsification. Such matters have always been left to member states. The laws upon which these recent victories have been won are: free movement (your documents issued in one place must be accepted in another — Mirin and Shipov), data privacy (the right to have incorrect information about you corrected — Deldits) and again, data law (not to have to choose between Mr. and Mrs. because it’s discriminatory against something called “non-binary people” — Mousse).
The last one, the Mousse case, is bananas: the very reasonable-sounding Trojan Horse (rail companies don’t need to know your sex to sell you a train ticket) hides the army within (“non-binary people”, who definitely exist, are discriminated against by the lack of a third option, according to the judgement).
I tried to see which European media covered the non-binary train ticket story and found nothing outside legal or Brussels press. There was zero reporting on Mirin, even in Brussels media, and even the right-wing, Eurosceptic Brussels Signal pooh-poohed my insistence that the ruling matters.
The utterly cowed mainstream media has not only shied away from reporting on the duplicitous legal maneuvering around the most contentious social issue of our time, they have also kept the most egregious (and utterly predictable) consequences of legal sex falsification out of mainstream consciousness. I’m talking about the prison attacks, sports cheats, children taken from non-affirming parents’ homes, European refugee status granted to a TERF for misgendering a man in Brazil, or the reported 700% rise in penetrative rapes committed by “women” in Spain.
Here’s how the intrepid reporters at Investigate Europe (finally, finally, finally) tackled the trans issue: stunning and brave trans people were forcefully sterilised for decades, and may be entitled to compensation. Nowhere in the report, which came out last week, does the truth-seeking journalist mention that the practice of castration didn’t arise originally because of oppressive regimes, but because these “poor victims” were men with such deep genital dysphoria (castration fetishes?) that they threatened to resort to DIY de-bollocking in the bath so desperate were they to remove their junk.
Instead, the writer is trying to pretend it’s a similar kind of scandal to the one in which Irish women were subjected to symphysiotomies. I can’t tell if the journalist, Ella Joyner, is just advertising her status-boosting Kindness credentials, or if she actually didn’t do enough research to know about it. The beclowning of the field of journalism continues.
It all makes sense when you remember that the media is just another part of the corporate sector, and the corporate sector is completely trooned out and DEIified. Combine that with the fact that the editor’s sister’s best friend’s daughter is now a boy called Noah and you will all bow to the adolescent angst of this quirky chungus or your future on the news team is in question.
Things can only get worse
It wouldn’t matter to me what the guiding philosophy of all the rainbow NGOs is, or how the influence saucisse is made, if the result was that young gender non-conforming people were doing well.
It’s difficult to get data on this because the people in charge of generating it, like IGLYO, have every interest in convincing their funders that their constituency is in a bad state. That’s just an unfortunate feature of the donor-dependent NGOcracy.
This doom-loop will intensify now that the EU is embarking on a mental health strategy because, as with every new initiative, funding opportunities follow. This will incentivise IGLYO to insist that everything is going very very badly for LGBTIQ kids so that they can get their hands on them grants.
But if your central claim is that sex is a phantasm, and that disagreeing with that statement constitutes a hate crime, then of course things are getting worse and are unlikely to ever get better. The marginalisation is limitless if those are your terms. Even the EU admits that their strategy (due to be renewed any day now) has been a bit of a flop, acknowledging in 2023 that there had been a rise in “anti-gender” rhetoric since it launched.
The young people who need gay rights advocacy the most — those who live in deeply conservative cultures in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia — are suffering the worst fallout of the queering of the movement. Their societies were not very receptive to even basic civil rights for gays to begin with, even less so now that it’s been bundled up with queer gendershite.
The backlash is directed against the whole package, and even the EU itself, is forcing activists have to adhere ever more closely to Denton’s advice.
Resistance to all-the-things
The specifics of what IGLYO want would fit on a banner. But while “trans rights are human rights” is a message everyone can get behind, “block sexual and brain development at Tanner Stage 2” is not. Compare the information-density of even just the name of British charity Sex Matters and IGLYO, the forgettable acronym-with-hidden-extras. Sex Matters put their entire philosophy right there in the name. Or check out the difference between the concrete statements of TERFs versus the Stepfordisms of the “LGBTIQ+ community” and their “allies” who responded to the EU’s public consultation on an upcoming strategy.
Vague niceties like “inclusive education for all learners” are essential for giving EU officials cover to support this bedlamic woke crap. It gives them permission to accept invitations to their events. It allows them to pretend that they don’t know that under the tower of “anti-bullying” mattresses lies the pea that (hopefully) keeps them all awake at night: activist doctors are blocking little boys’ puberty so that when they grow up, chasers will find them more f******e.
They won’t tweet the hashtag that most closely corresponds with IGLYO’s mission, #TransitionWithoutParentalConsent or #PubertyIsAChoice. They’ll tweet #TransRightsForAll instead and in, oh I don’t know, ten years from now? they can plausibly say that they had no idea when they keynoted all those events and signed off on all those grants that what they were really supporting was the destruction of the minds and bodies of a few generations of tomboys.
If only IGYLO would rename themselves Sex Doesn’t Matter perhaps everyone might realise they are not Gay Rights Two Point Oh.
This is not what anyone thought they were getting
All this delusion and grievance dressed up as peace-n-love acceptance is not what anyone thought was meant by “equal rights”. Equal rights means the right not to be beaten up, fired, not-hired, harassed, bullied, excluded from services, or denied benefits on on the basis of particular characteristics. Most people who go to Pride think that’s what the party is about. The straight women in rainbow cowboy hats sipping 2pm Caipirinhas don’t know that they’re celebrating, inter alia, the right of an autistic lesbian teenager, gruesomely disguised as a boy, to force her school mates not to perceive her as female, under threat of sanction.
Public skepticism is forcing queer NGOs like IGLYO to camouflage themselves behind not just gay rights, but also women’s rights, children’s rights, and even democracy as a whole, risking backlash against all. The next step, which is already well underway, is criminalisation of dissent.
How real can any social change be if it has to be snuck in like a nighttime hostage transfer?
Hillary Clinton sort-of kind-of promoted the strategy when she introduced Obama’s GloboHomo project in Geneva in 2011. She advised activists to win hearts and minds by changing the law first. “Laws have a teaching effect,” she told the Borg. That was back when everyone still thought we were talking about gay rights, and particularly, the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
But Clinton was suggesting that legislation was a first step in the process of winning over the public. If IGLYO thought their ideas were capable of ever garnering public support, they would come out and clearly state what they are. They don’t, so they don’t. They obfuscate, lie, dilute, and emotionally manipulate instead.
GloboHomo is over (for now)
Trump’s people bulldozed through the stock phrases. They dismantled the bureaucratic deep state (it’s real, folks) that had been conjuring, encouraging, and channeling cash and status to increasingly warped queer gendershite operations all around the globe.
When I was in the U.S. earlier this year for a family holiday, I snuck out of my D.C. hotel at 5am one morning as my children were sleeping, and I went to watch USAID staffers for the Europe programme get the chop. I sat in the cold with a coffee and looked on as stunned-looking office monkeys got saluted by performative street-libs as they deserted their cubicles. I wondered if they even knew how far '“gay rights” had mission-creeped, or if they were the creeps who made it so.
Whatever. Trump mercifully turned the tap off.
It’s time for Europe to follow suit, and get real about what LGBTIQ really means. It’s time to pull these weirdos’ noses out of the trough.
TERFing aint free, nor is it cheap. Should you be feeling generous, please take out a paid subscription to this newsletter. Peace.
