What happened to him is the one thing that makes men suddenly give a damn about the reality of this ideology. He was personally inconvenienced or put at a disadvantage in some way. Because men don't generally care about any of the dangers to women's rights until the groups responsible somehow mess with their ego or "freedom" (to make money, or masturbate, or win twitter fights, etc.).

[–] Nediljka_Orwell PITA crone 14 points

Nothing “happened” to GG. He’s the same guy he’s always been: principled, thoughtful, curious and honest.

He just won’t bend the knee, speak the approved slogans, and do his work the way they want. TRAs meddling with his desire to make a film about Martina Navratilova a few years ago didn’t endear them to him either. He gave up, mystified and exasperated.

As in many cases, GG didn’t move right. The Left just went to Crazy Town. The moderate lefty zone he used to be in shifted underneath him, placing him in a new “right” zone. GG never was, and never will be, a “right winger” by any standard. The Left changed, not GG.

[–] Women2Women 13 points Edited

What makes me the maddest about this stupid article is the continuation of the lie that it is only the right wing that questions the concept of "gender identity." The author probably knows that it is left leaning women in the UK, US and all over the western world where this privileged bullshit "trans" has invaded, it is us TERFS that began all the resistance and protest against this misogynist ideology. It is us, the radical feminists who saw the threat to women's rights who began the GC movement at sometimes great personal cost.

The tra's know this, but want to smear us all as right wing, to dismiss us, to silence us. But strangely we are just getting louder and bolder and growing in numbers. The GI/trans ideology is built on lies, illusion and fantasy. They make up shit as they go along, all of it a fabrication, a house of cards. Just like this article: no truth in it at all.

And good for Greenwald for listening to us and using his intelligence and investigative abilities to find the truth.

I'm left-leaning as well and can't stand when anything gender critical is labeled as right wing rhetoric. It's completely misleading. Critics of GC just want to be able to wrap their opponents up in a nice little box that they can deem as hateful and quickly dismiss. They don't want to accept that people on all parts of the political spectrum feel this way.

it makes sense if you acknowledge that "right wing" is rhetorically equivalent to "TERF"

I'm not a Greenwald fan, although I'm sometimes sympathetic to his causes. Dude goes overboard on zealousness, and did everything he could to push the Tara Reade story accusing Joe Biden of sexual assault. (I found Reade unbelievable.)

My guess is he is wise to how this issue can be used against Democrats and is all in.

I also found Reade unbelievable, she seemed like a grifter who was annoyed that she wasn't catapaulted into a powerful position just for being an intern in a political office.

[–] ProxyMusic 17 points Edited

The writer, Eoin Higgins, is a bald, bearded white American guy freelance writer based in/near Boston, MA who works for various establishment "left wing" outlets like WaPo, Salon, VICE and The Intercept - the website that Greenwald founded and then was ousted from several years ago for not totally toeing the party line.

When he was criticized for writing an article accusing The Guardian of being transphobic, slagging off British women for being "Terfs" and slandering the writer Susanna Rustin by name, Higgins responded to his detractors by posting a photo showing his macho beardy bro self aiming a gun at them: https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1456653558816911363/photo/1

He's also a or the main culprit in making up and spreading TRA lies claiming the WiSpa sex offender indecent exposure episode was a "transphobic hoax." Ovarit thread about him started by pissedwitch 9 months ago:


This guy, Eoin Higgins, was the main person on twitter who disseminated the false narrative that the WiSpa incident was a transphobic hoax. That narrative was later picked up by Salon, The Guardian, and other media outlets, but Higgins was the one who spread that lie first and most widely.

If that weren't bad enough, Higgins was also the main person on twitter who spread the narrative that the Guardian (which blatantly LIED about the WiSpa facts numerous times) was in fact "transphobic" and had engaged in "censorship" for editing the Judith Butler interview they did last month. For those who don't remember, the author of the interview with Butler, Jules Gleeson, originally had a question to Butler about the 'transphobic hoax' at the WiSpa. It was in response to this question with its flawed premise that Butler compared GCs to fascists. Right after the Butler interview came out, an arrest was made in the WiSpa case, and so the Guardian contacted Gleeson about editing the original question to reflect the actual facts in the WiSpa case, rather than spreading a debunked lie. Gleeson refused to edit the question or add a note reflecting the fact that the WiSpa case was NOT a hoax, so the Guardian had no choice but to remove both the question and the answer from Butler. (A decision that many GCs in fact opposed, because they wanted the world to see how insane Butler's comments were.) But Higgins and others immediately pointed to this editorial decision as "transphobic censorship," even though Gleeson was the one who opted against a correction to the facts -- probably because Gleeson (a TIM) didn't want people knowing about the very inconvenient WiSpa case. Higgins was the one who published an interview with Gleeson making the allegation that the Guardian's editorial decision to remove the question and answer was rooted in "transphobia."

Now, Higgins is playing the victim because the Guardian has demanded he retract claims that "transphobes" are the "dominant faction" in the leadership of the Guardian newsroom.

Seriously, fuck this fucking guy. This man is such a misogynist that he has managed to get deep in the weeds of this issue without ever considering the positions of any actual female people besides Judith Butler, and has no compunctions about spreading misinformation, covering up for a sexual predator, and slandering actual journalists.

Thread about him on Mumsnet from last summer:


Stupid man. Hope the Guardian never publish him again. Why do these types think they can threaten their employers and colleagues and get away with it - expect praised for it even? He's a bully and a moron - yes, calling Susanna Rustin what you did is defamation, you complete and utter tool. Be a professional. Take the fucking note.

So, he defames someone, determines that as a US citizen he can scoff at UK laws, reiterates his point with a gun and expects to be taken seriously?!

A man with a gun hating on a woman for speaking up about women's rights? Commonplace. We see it regularly.

I tend to agree with Greenwald on this point:

"Greenwald pegged the beginning of the trans rights movement to the end of the same-sex marriage fight, saying that the push for trans civil rights was a byproduct of winning that battle. Faced with either going home victorious but unemployed or pivoting to a new fight... equality activists chose to keep the spigot of cash flowing. "Instead, they immediately switched to the trans movement, which they barely had talked about before, because there was nothing else for them to do," Greenwald said"

When I first read this theory a few years ago, everything made sense about the current form of this ideology.

Is that author a secret TERF or something? I mean I don't actually think so, my best guess is that he is quite sincerely stupid.

But he's giving rather a lot of space to coherent and intelligent statements from Greenwald, while his own editorialising is nothing but meaningless waffle - this legitimises violence against trans people! Uh, mechanism? The mechanism via which Greenwald causes violence is thetans a thing called a permission structure! You'll have to listen to my podcast if you want to know what that is, but trust me bro, Greenwald is wrong, and also bad, and most especially, wrongbad, and look I don't have to explain myself to you when there's an epidemic of street violence no of course I don't have a source asking for sources is transphobic.

The author, Eoin Higgins, is a major TRA with no ability to grasp the meaning of his own words. He's the bald white beardy bro who last year wrote an article claiming The Guardian is transphobic. He also played a major role in concocting and spreading the story that the crime in which a convicted sex offender was waving his erect dick around and perving on a little girl in the women's section at the WiSpa was a "transphobic hoax." I just posted a longer comment about who Higgins is.

I was thinking this exactly....the author describes the opposing side's argument with great clarity, whilst responding with what amounts to "gosh he's so MEAN" to each point. I can almost hear the feet-stamping in the background. You called it perfect....wrongbad.

[–] ProxyMusic 18 points Edited

By expressing concern about all the people subjected to inhumane experimental medical interventions that have left them with lifelong injuries and health problems thanks to the greedy gender vendors who are peddling and prescribing the snake oil of sexual lobotomies in the guise of "trans health care," Greenwald is supposedly inciting "violence," "attacks" and "assaults" against "marginalized communities."

At times, Greenwald affects concern for transitioning people who, he contended in May 2021, were at risk from "life-altering hormones and surgeries." Yet Greenwald's brand of anti-trans activist journalism could well lead to violence, even if that's not his intent. Media Matters LGBTQ program director Ari Drennen described on my podcast a "permission structure" created by major media and political figures for violence against marginalized communities. We saw the results of that permission structure as attacks on Pride events around the country increased in number and ferocity this year. An ongoing legislative assault at the state level, particularly though not exclusively in Florida, has added to the siege.

But Greenwald doesn't seem to care about the consequences of his rhetoric about trans people — commentaries that have become a hateful refrain aimed at a marginalized community under increasing attack.

I am so sick of verbal disagreements and words that some people find hurtful, unpleasant or offensive being equated with physical violence.

[–] GCRadFem 36 points

"The minute you declare yourself nonbinary or trans," Greenwald declared, "you catapult up the ladder of oppression that absolutely confers concrete benefits."

Bingo, encapsulates the trans cult ideology.

Interesting that Greenwald still doesn’t address the repercussions of gender ideology on gay men.

Greenwald questioned "this new agenda of trans issues like, you know, demanding everybody say trans women are women."

During his congenial, unchallenging discussion with Rufo, Greenwald pegged the beginning of the trans rights movement to the end of the same-sex marriage fight, saying that the push for trans civil rights was a byproduct of winning that battle. Faced with either going home victorious but unemployed or pivoting to a new fight, according to Greenwald's version of events, equality activists chose to keep the spigot of cash flowing. "Instead, they immediately switched to the trans movement, which they barely had talked about before, because there was nothing else for them to do," Greenwald said — connecting to the zero-sum civil rights argument he made with Herzog over a year earlier.

Archive: https://archive.ph/hJX2k