How Many Children Have To Die Before The Lying Stops?

By their fruits, you will know them. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. By their fruits, you will know them. The "gender" discussion is as poisonous as fruit can get. In 2026, it reached its obvious and self-evident conclusion: it was more important to protect the murderer's fictional self-declared identity than defend the rights of children not to be murdered.

On Tues Feb 10, an 18 year-old man murdered his 39 year-old mother (Jennifer) and 11 year-old stepbrother in Tumbler Ridge. He then traveled 1.5 km to Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, after lunch, with a handgun and a rifle. He opened fire and injured 31 people in total. Five children and a school assistant died. Then he shot himself. This young man hated his father. He had been reposting images of the 2023 Nashville school trans shooting under a YouTube account ("JesseBoy347," "jessestrangg") with a "trans" flag. He had developed a fascination with tryptamine psychedelics, was diagnosed with "ADHD," had a long history of mental illness, being on both antidepressants and antipsychotics. He also clearly had a pornography problem.

It's become clear this is not an isolated event, and every passing day makes the apologists' disgraceful position less defensible. The press are positively feverish to do damage control for damaged people, deceitfully employing per-population stats without per-capita context, while claiming reliable methodology - we see you.

In September 2018, 26-year-old Snochia Moseley shot 6 co-workers at a Rite Aid warehouse in Aberdeen city, Maryland. In May 2019, 16-year-old Maya McKinney shot 9 students at the STEM School in Highlands Ranch in Colorado. In March 2023, 28-year-old Audrey Elizabeth Hale killed 3 children at a private Christian school in Nashville. In Jan 2024, a 17-year-old so-called "gender-fluid" boy named Dylan Butler opened fire at the Perry High School in Iowa State and killed a child.

And of course, last year a murderous sodomitical "partner" of a "trans individual" murdered Charlie Kirk with bullets he had engraved "transgender" messages on.

According to the press, it's all an inexplicable mystery we will need a century to unravel with their own soporific conditions differentiating correlation and causation. The academic ledger is so filled with dishonesty it's impossible to even parse.

How many murders does it take for one to acknowledge reality? What is the figure when mass killing among a niche becomes significantly proportionate to the wider population or other demographics?

10 dead children? 100?

Within hours, the spin and apologism had started. It emerged "gender neutral language" was very important when describing horrific evil. The emergency alert, referring to an active gunman, read:

Suspect described as female in a dress with brown hair.

This was not a "female." It was an 18 year-old male. This act of "equality," wrongly describing the criminal as the other sex, put the lives of children in danger who were trying to hide and needed to know what the killer looked like to avoid him. The endless history of criminality by cross-dressing men in Vancouver is staggering.

Hours later, the murderer wasn't a gunman. He had absurdly become a "gun person."

None of those people are the gun person. That includes the deceased gun person. Okay. And then separately, do you know the gun person's relationship to the school? Not at this time. No. Same gun gun gun person? Do you know the gun person's relationship to the school at all? And um if you can just uh round out it is just to be clear, it is eight people in total including the gun person that is deceased.

This was parroted by the press. Reuters described the man as a "woman." AP referred to him as a "woman." La Presse called him "la suspecte." The incident's appalling wikipedia page reads:

She then killed five others in the school's library and fatally shot herself shortly after police arrived.

No. Not "she." That is a lie. It is not a courtesy, a kindness, a "correctness". It is a lie.

When you are prioritising the so-called "correct" titling of the perpetrator, you are engaging in further injustice to their victims. If you have more sympathy with the murderer than the murdered, you are evil. You are what you do; if you sympathise with evil, you are evil. If the "feelings" of the murderer and those who defend him are more important than those of the children, you are evil.

If this is what "civil rights" is or what "civil rights" represents – the dismissal of dead children to make way for sensitivity towards murderers and fraudulent academic nonsense, count us out.

But this isn't a Canadian problem. The news of dead children clearly hadn't reached England. Or it was too politically inconvenient to mention.

Labour's Desperation For Leftist Fashion

As children were dying in British Colombia, Bridget Phillipson was issuing "guidance" to government schools dictating when and where four year-old children could "change their gender." This is apparently good because it makes us like France but it's bad so we have to ban social media. Or something.

Four. Years. Old.

The usurper Wes Streeting, on the other hand, wants to give children £500 of vouchers to see if chemical castration drugs are bad for them as part of an "investigation."

This came 2 weeks after yet another legal challenge involving the Scottish government and its absurd attempts to oppose men being kept in male prisons so they cannot rape women in accommodations which appear much cosier than their own. So far it's cost taxpayers over a million pounds.

The Greens, naturally, were talking about legalising heroin. Their friends in the BMJ Group-owned British Journal of Sports Medicine published an article claiming there is "no evidence" men have a biological advantage over men in sport.

Hot on their cross-dressing heels was the Bank of England, who publicised their willingness to let men wear stilettos and make-up if they consider themselves female.

Meanwhile, vice-chancellor of City St George’s University, the quangocrat Anthony Finkelstein, explained the artificial, aggressive sitgmatisation of biological sex in academia was comparable to a "Stalin-era purge." That is to say, Lysenkoism.

When the British people have told you no, where does it end?

Lies, Folly, Fraud, Fiction

Sex is not complicated: it is the basic binary of mammals. Males make sperm; females make eggs. That's it. It is irrelevant what clothes they wear; what genitals they have; or even what chromosomes they have. Is your anatomy organised to produce sperm? You're male. Is it organised to make eggs? You're female. Do you prefer or naturally lean towards certain behaviours? It's because you make sperm or eggs.

Cross-dressing is not new. It's so old it's dealt with in Deuteronomy 22:5, which refers to Near Eastern fertility cults, especially those associated with Ishtar (Akkadian, or Inanna in Sumerian) and her West Semitic counterpart Astarte. Cross-dressing and gender inversion in these fertility cults symbolised the deity’s power to transcend and manipulate the boundaries of nature, and priests enacted this symbolically as part of ritual mediation and fertility ceremonies by dressing as women and prostituting themselves on pagan altars.

To turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man are yours, Inanna

The concept of "gender" was erroneously divided from biology in 1945 by American psychologist Issac Madison Bentley as the "socialized obverse of sex." It was promoted by french communist Simone de Beauvoir (who was struck off as a teacher for abusing female teenage students); "developed" by New Zealand psychologist John Money (a paedophile who ultimately caused the death of children he experimented on); expanded through the insane ideas of French sociologist Michel Foucault (a chronic and serial paedophile); and laundered by American sociologist Judith Butler, a lesbian communist who won the worst writing award.

No matter how charitably you try; no matter how you slice it; "gender" is not merely unfalsifiable pablum, it is fraud – straight out intellectual fraud. Born out of an eccentric desire to explain why some women are androgynous, and some men are effeminate, it settled on the preposterous Scientology-esque notion humans are born with a magic "gender soul" which is suppressed by capitalism, Christianity, and social customs around words. If that sounds insane, just wait until you read their academic papers.

The notion cross-dressing melancholic teenagers kill themselves when they don't get their way is blatant, obvious academic fraud. The fact cross-dressing is correlated with autogynephilia (i.e. narcissism) and/or habituation to hardcore pornography is willfully ignored to steer the debate is academic malpractice. But most worryingly, the suppression of studies which indicate a link between maternal borderline personality disorder and the intake of young male children at "gender clinics," like human dolls for their Munchhausen parents, now prompts dismissal on account of ideology.

Gender, such as it is, is more accurately described as tertiary (i.e. third level) sexual characteristics, or sex-based preferences. Men and women prefer different things because of their sex. A small percentage of men are effeminate, and a small percentage of women are androgynous, because nature produces variations and variety. Why? Because that's what it does.

Identity is not asserted or declared. It is bestowed and recognised. You cannot "identity as" something without the negotiated agreement with others to recognise you as it.

Social conventions aren't mindless social tumours producing "stigma" requiring excision, because, capitalism. They are collective, negotiated, ancient guardrails which have evolved over thousands of years to detect, protect, and regulate. If they were tyrannical or purposeless, they would have dissolved a long time ago. Women are the more beautiful version of out dimorphic species of ape mammal, and the most deadly. Female beauty is a proxy for physical health and maternal fertility, i.e. reproductive viability. Male attractiveness is fundamentally determined by status dominance and resource provision.

Words describe objective reality. They do not prescribe subjective perception of reality at population level. Words are not magical incantations, spells, or causal agents. The list of logical fallacies found in this low-IQ imagination doctrine is catastrophic: category error, causation/correlation, post hoc, reification, it never ends.

These questions – insofar as they can be characterised as such – are soluble by GCSE evolutionary biology.

That's it. None of this is complicated. It has been known and recognised for tens of thousands of years. It is a manufactured, fraudulent "debate."

You cannot "transition" between sexes. There are no "trans women." There are no "trans men." There are certainly no such thing as "trans kids." Gender fraud is, ironically, a social "construct" – a "construct" of the social sciences. It does not exist outside the daydreaming of the faculty lounge.

Government-Sponsored Moral Hazard

We never needed forty years of pointless, timewasting discussion about the obvious so the press could have another moral vanity civil rights campaign to write about. And we never needed a constitution-violating "supreme court" to waste tax funds explaining it.

No-one should have to bury their children because of it.

We do not need studies to "investigate" whether children are harmed by chemical castration, or whether four year-olds should be able to use "pronouns" as part of a nonsense "transition" into cross-dressing fueled by false emotional blackmail they might kill themselves if they don't get their way.

This is moral hazard at civilisational level and it is being perpetrated by politicians across the Western spectrum in the name of proven fashionable nonsense. fictionalised by people who historically took pleasure in sexualising children and those in the present who think pornography has no correlation with the grotesque sexual fetish described in Silence of the Lambs.

This runaway Boomer madness from the 1960s has to stop. Now.