The Insidious Transphobia of “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” by Megan Phelps-Roper

The Insidious Transphobia of “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” by Megan Phelps-Roper

Episode 6: Natalie and Noah

After what Evan Urquhart describes as a “master class in transmisogyny,” episode 6 is like a short, restless nap of a break in the nightmare that is this podcast.


While the podcast as a whole is by no means balanced, it was refreshing to hear Megan talking with Natalie Wynn, also known as ContraPoints, whose video on Rowling I quoted earlier. Megan’s aim in talking to Wynn was to “embrace humility” and to “really [listen] to people and where they’re coming from.”

Wynn explains for a while her experience of being a trans YouTuber, and before long she’s telling Megan how she, like Rowling, has been at the receiving end of a trans “Twitter mob.” Her tweet in question is nothing compared to some others we’ve seen; it simply calls out how uncomfortable it can be when a group of cis people all state their pronouns simply because there’s a single trans person there and they feel they need to. She’s not most trans people’s favorite person, but it doesn’t seem that that many trans people online are still angry with her.

(They also discuss trans teens online using canceling celebrities as a scapegoat for the pain that they face in their lives, but do not acknowledge that trans people are Rowling’s scapegoat for her own pain of abuse at the hands of cis men.)

And this experience that Natalie had, which she used to make one of my favorite of her videos called Cancel Culture [sic], gave her a deeper insight into why it is that speaking about trans identity and gender issues online so often leads to these vicious public shaming, even towards allies to the trans rights movement.

Megan Phelps-Roper, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, Episode 6: Natalie and Noah

Is she implying that Rowling is similarly an ally to the trans rights movement? I can’t tell anymore.

Speaking of Rowling, Megan then plays sound clips from Wynn’s video about her—including one where Wynn articulates how Rowling sees herself as the victim of a witch hunt, no less. But Wynn may have also predicted this podcast when she used the Westboro Baptist Church as her example of what direct bigotry looked like. Direct bigotry, Megan understood to be bad. Indirect, not so much.

A screenshot of ContraPoint's video entitled J.K. Rowling. It has a list of direct bigotry which says "open contempt, slurs, discrimination, demonizing, shunning, subordination, violence." It also has a list of indirect bigotry, which says "concern, debate of proxy issues, defending x, activists gone too far, law and order, free speech, political correctness, cancel culture." There are quotes around each individual listing under indirect bigotry to signify that people don't mean them genuinely.

Indirect bigotry

Following an audio clip from the video, Megan asks, “When it comes to those ideas of direct and indirect bigotry, when it comes to Rowling and her views about, you know, prisons or childhood transition, is your claim that Rowling was being transphobic indirectly and maybe even unknowingly?” Natalie replies that she would engage with someone who is merely skeptical about trans women in sports, but that “My willingness to engage with that is going to decrease if it’s with someone who I think doesn’t really believe in trans acceptance at a much more fundamental level, which is kind of the feeling that I get from Jo Rowling.”

They play a clip from Natalie’s video:

So J.K. Rowling frames her position, as “I’m just saying, the fact that sex is real, it’s not hateful to say a fact. Why is everyone so mad at me? A fact can’t be bigoted.” And I agree that a fact cannot be bigoted. But a fact on its own doesn’t mean very much. Usually when we discuss facts, we’re using those facts to tell a story and facts can be used to tell a bigoted story.

Natalie Wynn, J.K. Rowling

To this, Megan responses in the most critical way she’s responded to anyone in the whole series, saying, “This was, I think, one of the hardest parts of your critique to consume.” She elaborates:

I just wanted to ask you to help me understand where you’re coming from. So one critique you made clear in the video, seeing it as the coded language of indirect bigotry is the danger of people who say that they’re just asking questions. And I totally see what you’re talking about, because there are, for sure, bad actors and also just people with really bad ideas and all these people online who make their whole careers out of using the “just asking questions” idea as a smokescreen, essentially. Right. But there are a lot of people and I’ve met many of them while working on this project who just genuinely have a lot of questions. And sometimes they’re afraid to ask them. And I think asking tough questions and pulling apart arguments is obviously a cornerstone of reasoning and it’s actually a thing that you do so well on your YouTube channel. So I just wonder, why is it that you see Rowling and other people in this debate… Why do you see that as if they’re just clearly trying to disguise bad intentions?

Megan Phelps-Roper, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling, Episode 6: Natalie and Noah

Bad faith

Considering the kind of person that Bari Weiss is and who Rowling is, it is very hard for me to see Megan’s question here as genuine. She and her publisher are the epitome of bad faith, of “bad actors.” But Wynn’s answer was admirable: “I’m less concerned with the intentions than I am with the consequences.” She emphasizes that Rowling posed “loaded questions” which were “beyond any question” “harmful to trans people.” Notably, I don’t recall Rowling actually asking any questions in her tweets other than “Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” and those don’t sound very good faith to me.

But Megan still doesn’t see it, asking, “Is it that you believe that it’s dangerous to ask the questions or just that you don’t trust that she’s actually engaging in good faith?” To which Wynn has to essentially spell out that what Rowling and Megan are doing is the exact definition of indirect bigotry that Wynn had given.

I’m glad, however, that Wynn got the opportunity to correct some of the misinformation that Rowling and others had propagated in earlier episodes, such as that trans kids get rushed care, that Self ID allows “men into women’s spaces,” or that trans people can somehow be authoritarian when they don’t even have a position of authority or power. She even calls out how hard it is for her to “politely answer every question [you] have about isn’t giving you health care dangerous for children, isn’t allowing you into bathrooms, is going to leave women vulnerable to rape, like, it takes patience to answer these questions and to not feel insulted or attacked.” But for so many Harry Potter fans like Wynn, “There’s part of me that still cares what she thinks, you know?”


Other than the fact that Natalie Wynn is one of the most popular trans people on the internet, I do not doubt at all that Megan reached out to her because she truly did love her video titled Canceling. One theme that stuck out to me in the video was Wynn’s emphasis on trying to reach across and understand people in good faith conversation:

The point is that sometimes people who seem ignorant or hateful just need to be given a non-judgmental space to learn and grow and think. 

And to just condemn them as hopeless bigots actually prevents that growth from happening. […] 

I guess the moral is to never talk to people you disagree with, because it will only lead to pain. […]

What I’m trying to say is I really do believe in conversation, which means hearing out multiple perspectives. I don’t want my audience to get all their information about trans people from me, and I think it’s important to listen to criticism. 

Natalie Wynn, Canceling

So she was the perfect choice to interview in a podcast that claims to do this. The problem is that Wynn expected a good faith conversation with Megan, and that’s not what she got.

Natalie’s tweets

In Wynn’s own words, going on the podcast was a “serious lapse in judgment,” in which she endured a “miserable three-hour conversation” with Megan whom she told not to “frame the conflict as a debate between two equally legitimate sides.” She writes, “The fundamental problem is that Megan only understands bigotry from the bigot’s point of view,” and “She needs above all else to believe that bigots are misunderstood & redeemable.”

Of course, when asked about this, all Megan really said was that Wynn would probably feel differently once she’d listened to the whole series, and Wynn had just been “responding to an understandable misreading of the show’s title.” But when pitching the idea to Wynn, it was Megan’s responsibility to accurately explain what the podcast aimed to do.


In the second half of episode 6, Megan is interviewing a 17-year-old transmasc kid named Noah. “Interviewing” might be too generous, though; it played out more as an interrogation into a specimen whose otherworldly transition story and trauma were utterly fascinating for her. He was “the embodiment of one of Rowling’s concerns.”

Noah is by far the most genuine, well-meaning person on the entire podcast. He is young enough to still have faith in both Megan and Rowling; he engages earnestly with Megan’s inappropriate questions and expresses hope that Rowling will come around to be the person he’s always imagined she is. She asks him whether he was seeing a therapist when he discovered he was trans, what mental issues he had, how his parents reacted, why his coming out made them uncomfortable, why they allowed him to transition, whether he was familiar with detransitioners, and how his experience was different from “people [who] like to break with social norms, like, you know, women who shave their heads or guys who wear eyeliner” or Megan’s own initial disgust when she learned about female puberty at age seven.

By the way, no one ever asks Rowling whether she’s seeing a therapist, but it’s clear she needs one.

Noah answers every single question with undeserved grace, sharing his stories of depression and of finding himself, of his parents accepting who he is, to the dozens of doctors he had to see and hoops he had to jump through in order to finally get the gender-affirming care he needed.

18 thoughts on “The Insidious Transphobia of “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” by Megan Phelps-Roper

  • April 17, 2023 at 6:47 am

    You keep using the word “equivocating”, I do not think it means what you think it means. What I think you mean is “equate”.

    • April 17, 2023 at 8:46 am

      Oh my gosh!!! Thanks for telling me. Well they definitely equivocate too! 😅

      • April 19, 2023 at 11:54 am

        Yes they do 🙂

  • April 25, 2023 at 5:40 pm

    It seems like your review of the podcast is mainly about Barry Weiss’s connections to problematic people. I can see why that might lead you to dismiss the podcast as a waste of time, but you say you listened to the whole thing. I’m curious what you found a chance phobic exactly about the podcast itself?

  • May 9, 2023 at 2:36 pm

    Hi Rebekah,
    Thanks for this post. It led me to actually listen to the podcast and move beyond the limited perspective I had received from the Sam Harris’ interview with Megan. It also led me to listen to the Contrapoints response, which was very helpful. I recognize the significant effort that goes into putting together a lengthy post like this. It was clearly a labor of love and you offer many good observations on how the podcast does not live up to the fair-handed intentions espoused by Megan. That said, some aspects of the post caught my attention for less noble reasons, so I want to offer what I hope is received as friendly, constructive criticism. I really don’t want to misrepresent you in any way, so if I have misunderstood something then please let me know.

    To start, I want to note that your many valid points are more likely to be summarily dismissed by readers who think that you are acting in bad faith – which I assume you don’t want. Your passion comes through loud and clear, but it appears to come with a serving of hyperbole and speculation which can be easily interpreted as a less severe version of the bad faith activism that the podcast is critiquing. To clarify what I’m referring to, some examples that caught my attention are:
    1. On the first page, you (drawing from Caelan) accuse Megan of selfishly using people as mere plot devices in her story, then go on to impugn her knowledge of how to counter bad ideas and equate it to what the rest of us figure out in kindergarten (more on this below – she may know more about this than you think).
    2. For Episode 1, you speculate that Megan was coached by the Free Press on what to say and then question her honesty about the “highly, highly” doubtful origins of the letter for which you’re “almost positive” you know the origins. The dot joining which you use to reach that speculation is reminiscent of conspiratorial thinking.
    3. For Episode 4, you reinterpret Rowling’s statement that biological women “require certain protections” into an assertion that trans women don’t need protections (I believe she acknowledged this need at some point), and interpret the discussion of Karen White instead of cis men’s crimes as evidence that “they’re not concerned about women’s safety” (rather than just the consequence of focused discussion), and take Goldberg citing the need for clear delineations as evidence that she “doesn’t care” “that trans people are fighting for their lives”. These do not read as fair and accurate interpretations. Beyond that, the listing of advertisers in this episode is, whether you intended it or not, going to be interpreted as an endorsement of “cancel culture” by virtue of being read as a suggestion to boycott them.
    4. On the last page you claim that they (presumably Megan and Rowling) prefer a world in which “trans people stay at the bottom if they are there at all“. Regardless of your intention, this reads as if you think they might actually want to eliminate trans people altogether.

    Again, you’ve made a lot of good points in this post, but I raise these observations because I assume you want those points to be received without being seen as misrepresenting people and acting in bad faith. Which leads me to my second critique…

    I may very well be wrong, but it also felt to me like you were not only criticizing Megan’s approach in the context of the podcast, but were also leaning toward skepticism of the open dialogue strategy in the context of social justice issues in general. I infer this from the observations above, in the quotes you select from Caelan, and in your handling of Megan’s response to Natalie’s “indirect bigotry”. Though Natalie’s video shows how antagonistic activism isn’t anything new (contrary to many claims), the mere presence of that behavior in past successful movements does not infer that it was necessary for their success.

    More practically, there has been a fair bit of work to study persuasion, in both the individual and larger social contexts. If you are not already familiar with David McRaney and his “You are not so smart” podcast, I recommend taking a look. If you want your activism to be effective then I suggest that he is a voice worth listening to. In case you haven’t already guessed it, the most effective strategies have a lot in common with Megan’s idealism and stand in opposition to more antagonistic methods. While it is important for a movement to grab the public’s attention, not all attention is good for the success of the movement.

    Lastly, though I have no stake in being a Megan Phelps-Roper apologist I thought it would be interesting to try and steelman her approach with this podcast:
    1. If she is in fact aware of the research noted above (as I would guess) then the grace she extends to the gender critical viewpoint can also be seen as her engaging in the kind of dialogue which is necessary to gain the trust of those who hold that perspective, which makes them more open to the alternative viewpoints that are shared.
    2. While the series title does lend itself more to the implication that Rowling is the witch than the witch hunter, let’s not forget that (a) Rowling’s fame is based on witchcraft, (b) Megan’s background was deep in the anti-witchcraft era of Harry Potter, (c) witch trials are classic examples of mob justice, which is a prominent theme of the series, and (d) a catchy title is important to downloads. She has said the title was intended to be open to interpretation, including directly stating this in the first episode. In the absence of unambiguous indications to the contrary, we should not assume that is a lie.
    3. As far as I know, Megan doesn’t have any kind of history that puts her in the same camp as Rowling on gender issues. Guilt-by-association is a precarious criteria for pigeonholing somebody, especially when the association is in a context where she explicitly tells us that she is trying to not take a side. Even if you think she failed in that goal, your perspective on that is not a reliable insight into her intentions.
    4. Megan’s history of being heavily focused on the promotion of open, civilized conversation regardless of ideological differences is good reason to believe her when she says that her goal in this case is no different, even if the end result does not appear to be as balanced as she thinks it was. As noted previously, to say that she is the “epitome of bad faith” is mind-reading her intentions.
    5. Rowling is the centerpiece of the project and its success is likely dependent on Rowling’s approval. If she pulled her support, it may not have ever been released. That’s a tough line to walk and will inevitably bias the result in favor of not alienating her.
    6. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I read you as saying that Megan’s past has given her a “dangerous lens” because it causes her to mistake the expressions of pain and hurt in the more aggressive interactions as equivalent to the expression of hateful dogma from her time at Westboro. The distinction between emotional responses and hateful dogma is fair, but it also does not mean that there is no dogmatic rhetoric to be found on the trans-activist side. I think Natalie did a good job of acknowledging this, and we shouldn’t assume that Megan is also not aware of this distinction even if it was not overtly addressed in the podcast (though perhaps it was and I just don’t recall).
    7. While episode 7 does not feature Megan confronting Rowling with vigor, the questioning of Rowling was such that – in my opinion – Rowling was cast in a far less flattering light than she was in the first 5 episodes. If that’s a legitimate observation then that is a telling way to end the series.

    Sorry for the length of this comment. I hope you can appreciate that I’m not trying to be adversarial and why I would think it was worth sharing these observations.

    • June 15, 2023 at 11:46 am

      Hi Travis, thanks for your comment and for waiting for my reply! I’ll do my best to address your points below.

      1. While I did speculate about the podcast’s origins, I don’t think it’s wrong or conspiratorial to do so. I laid out the clues that led me to that (tentative) conclusion because Megan’s alleged letter was never released, or even described in detail, and so I don’t think my hypothesis is a great stretch. But at the end of the day we don’t know for sure, and I wish we had more information.
      2. Rowling does acknowledge in her essay discussed in chapter 5 that “Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk.” Barring the obvious implication here that “trans people” are not women, she follows this whole section with “At the same time,…” leading into fear mongering about men in women’s restrooms. So that contradicts what she said here which is that “[our sex class] is the basis for our oppression” during a discussion about domestic violence. She implies that trans women cannot suffer the same oppression as cis women, which is based in their “sex class.” Regarding the listing of advertisers, you can interpret that as cancel culture if you want to. Brands should suffer consequences for being featured in transphobic podcasts. Finally, I disagree that the interpretation of correctional officers causing more harm than Karen White was not fair and accurate. I believe it was more than fair, and wholly accurate.
      3. Yes, I believe that they “might actually want to eliminate trans people altogether.”
        (Next numbered list!)
      4. Sorry but I don’t buy this explanation of the title as ubiquitous. Overall in your analysis I think you are taking Megan at her word too much. Maybe it’s not a scientifically provable fact, but I don’t think she is genuine—that’s probably the biggest difference between your view and mine. (a) I think HP being about witchcraft ties to the idea of Rowling being a witch even more (b) Megan said her family didn’t have anything to do with the anti-HP mania, and she was allowed to read it (c) I think this point also lends itself to Rowling being the witch, that’s why it’s a prominent theme (d) I agree. To your description of “the absence of unambiguous indications to the contrary” what frustrates me about the podcast as a whole is that there isn’t really anything unambiguous. It’s all open to interpretation, so this is my best educated attempt to interpret it.
      5. You might be interested in Caelan’s video. They list some transphobic or transphobic-ish tweets Megan’s liked in the past. I don’t think that proves anything, but it starts to raise a little red flag.
      6. I think that takes us back to the problem of making a podcast that is featuring J.K. Rowling in the first place.
      7. Of course, everyone has biases and their own dogma. Whether Megan is aware of the distinction or not, she really goes out of her way to exaggerate similarities between WBC and trans people/allies, which is not fair.
      8. I didn’t find episode 7 particularly interesting, but instead pretty predictable. I was surprised that Natalie was featured in ep 6 and that her good points were platformed here at all, so maybe there was no going back after her segment as seeing Rowling as positively as we might have in earlier episodes. My biggest problem with episode 7 is the way it was advertised as “Rowling’s opponents will feel they’ve been vindicated after hearing this!” which was not at all the case.
      • July 24, 2023 at 1:01 pm

        First time reader here, and I think Travis R made an excellent point about:

        “To ostart, I want to note that your many valid points are more likely to be summarily dismissed by readers who think that you are acting in bad faith – which I assume you don’t want. Your passion comes through loud and clear, but it appears to come with a serving of hyperbole and speculation which can be easily interpreted as a less severe version of the bad faith activism that the podcast is critiquing.”

        What kind of blog is this? I found it on a top list of best skeptics blogs, but it reads more like bad faith activism to me. What I’ve read so far isn’t true skepticism, which makes me worried, because bad faith activism is dangerous to me and my feelings, in fact it is hate speech towards my feelings. I would like you to stop it if you would please.

  • May 12, 2023 at 3:06 pm

    I left a comment here a few days ago that included a couple links and so was held for moderation. Wanted to alert you in case it slipped your attention.

    • May 12, 2023 at 5:41 pm

      WordPress had flagged it, so I didn’t see it. Thank you for taking the time to write it! I look forward to reading it when I have a little time 🙂

  • June 16, 2023 at 6:21 pm

    Thank you for responding even after all this time. I honestly never intended to spur any kind of debate with those numbered points. The first list was just an attempt to backup the claim that you were sometimes characterizing people with uncharitable attributions that go beyond the information we have, and which can therefore appear to be the kind of “bad faith” engagement that the podcast was in part critiquing. The second list was an attempt to show an example of how one could offer a more charitable interpretation of Megan’s position.

    Regardless, I want to highlight the part of the comment that was between those lists. If I could have a redo, I would drop the lists because those clearly were not helpful. I should take my own advice. The larger goal was to encourage you to become familiar with the research around persuasion and how people’s minds change because I sensed you leaning into a more antagonistic approach which I understand to be counterproductive to effective activism. You are welcome to disagree with that assessment, but I thought it was worth sharing that perspective. If nothing else, I recommend looking at adding David McRaney’s most recent book to your non-fiction reading list, and\or his podcast to your rotation.

    • July 11, 2023 at 10:23 pm

      I understand you think you know a lot about this subject matter because you listened to a podcast, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that your tone is very condescending and dismissive.

      It is certain that, at the very least, Phelps-Roper lacks the expertise or journalistic ability to provide a thorough portrayal of Rowling and the people who oppose her (VERY OBVIOUSLY) transmisist agenda. It is even more certain that Rowling herself hates trans people. I do not consider this language to be too strong. She is funding Posey Parker, a genocidal transmisist who is very open about her desire to force trans people to detransition, and if they won’t do that, throw them in prison. Or worse. And she is willing to throw absolutely everything else under the bus in pursuit of this goal, including women’s reproductive rights. She’s also willing to associate with a woman who started a sexual relationship with a minor (who could not consent under the law in many places) and got pregnant by that child, simply because that woman is as openly hateful of trans people as she is. Rowling is long past the “a few concerns” stage of things, and we should not allow her to pretend her motives are pure.

  • July 5, 2023 at 7:44 pm

    I think it’s important to critique ideas where important matters of justice are concerned, but to use the inflammatory words “insidious” and “transphobic” is so clearly hyperbolic that it makes you appear unserious. It gives off the aroma of click bait and performative outrage that is such a turn off to anyone not already convinced. If you are preaching to your own choir, I hope it’s gratifying.

  • September 1, 2023 at 6:11 pm

    I recently listened to the podcast. In many ways I was disappointed with it (and pissed off by it), as well as with Megan, considering her past. While she seeks to avoid repeating the sins of her past, she wound up in the opposite extreme doing the exact same thing. I’m also working my way through the series to analyze them deeper.

    I literally stopped episode 1 within about 15 seconds to investigate the sponsor. Fire ( The first red flag for me was the free speech absolutism. This is often an indicator of an agenda-driven mission that claims high ideals, but is limited in it’s scope to just being anti-woke. I read the article on their lawsuit against CA. I picked a single quote to investigate, “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.”, and followed it down a rabbit hole. The first thing I noticed was Fire is extremely loath to link to outside sources. This tells me that seek to maintain control over the narrative, via echo chamber. The quote I picked was cut down from a much longer sentence (which is why I left the period in their quote):
    “Persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial of the inequities and racial problems that exist.” (Taken from I. X. Kendi’s book “How to be Antiracist”)

    Fire’s misquote means people who claims to not be a racist are denying that they are. The real quote means they’re denying the existence of inequities and racial problems. Those are two vastly different things. I don’t agree with the full sentence either, but Fire changing the context is outright lying and manipulation. (I don’t agree that saying your not a racist is denial of the problems. Racism, at it’s core, is literally the belief in the superiority of one’s race, everything else is a manifestation of that belief. One can simultaneously believe their race is not superior and know that inequality and racism exists. People who aren’t racist can also be infected with racist ideologies that permeate our society repeated ad nauseum – think “Affirmative Action is reverse racism” – and not even realize the origin or full context of these ideologies.)

    One shouldn’t be surprised about the lopsided presentation of the podcast given it’s sponsorship. Megan literally sold out. It’s funny how quickly she went down the “dark web” hole. It does have a tempting message that seems shiny and logical on the surface. Until one begins to ask certain questions and doesn’t take them at face value. Smart people are very intelligent at rationalizing their irrationality.

    I do believe that JKR doesn’t intend harm, but her extreme focus driven by her horrific past blinds her to the suffering of others (rather than enhancing empathy) and limits her “research” to only that which confirms her biases. Along with the huge array of logical fallacies she commits, she is incapable of understanding that the people who once vilified her didn’t become her allies, they’re using her to justify their hatred of LGBTQ people. If conservatives can separate the T from the rest (a tactic that has taken hold in recent years), then they can separate the rest and regain the ground they “lost” and usher back the pre-Stonewall era of bigotry and hatred that they enjoy so much. Many conservatives and christians don’t even realize that there are eugenicists hiding within their ranks. They play the long game and keep their messages of hatred alive. JKR doesn’t seem to even be aware how she continues to feed this insipid infection of society. I am in no way excusing JKR, ultimately, she made the choices that have hurt a lot of people and has continues to remain willfully blind to broader reality.

  • September 9, 2023 at 10:43 pm

    “The Free Press is an anti-trans publication with a record of distorting and excluding information that doesn’t fit their harmful narrative”

    The amount of projection in this diatribe is something to behold. Even more ironic, considering the latest blog titled, “On Writing White” is coming from a privileged white who regurgitates white talking points in the most white way possible.

    You came in with a conclusion, then perused through The Free Press looking for “evidence” to support your conclusion.

    Bari Weiss didn’t leave NYT because it was “not conservative—or centrist—enough for her” — she said she left because NYT did not defend her against alleged bullying by colleagues and caving into Twitter critics. This folks, is the self-described “critical thinker” and “skeptic,” who couldn’t bother to spend a few minutes to fact-check — but that of course, wouldn’t fit her narrative. She needs to smear her opponents (how dare someone be critical of my religion?) Then she goes on ranting about FIRE because, gasp, they support free speech! You know free speech — the thing that’s part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, little Miss whitey here doesn’t like free speech or Universal Declaration of Human Rights — it hurts her narrative when people can talk back and criticize her ideology. She prefers to go back to the 19th century when fanatic whites like her were free to proselytize and force her religion on others without resistance. Ah, the good ‘ol days!

    You know what is “harmful?” A “movement” where its members harass women, who regularly send death and rape threats to women, who use emotional blackmailing, who try to silence critics and get them fired. It’s not surprising that depression among girls and women has skyrocketed, and now white liberal women are the most unhappy group in the country. Congrats — this is the accomplishment of your “movement.”

    The rest of the non-WHITE Western world completely rejects your gender ideology — perhaps should stop excluding this information that doesn’t fit your backward narrative.

  • December 7, 2023 at 5:36 am

    I note that Rebekah Kohlhepp is a Middle Class, Heterosexual, CIS, White Woman. Need any more be said?


What do you think?