This was my second rodeo down at Target Center to say Yay Sophie Cunningham! Yay women’s sports for women! And the second time media has characterised this as a divided reaction to, as CBS News put it, Cunningham’s “recent statements on transgender athletes,” and then printed Cunningham’s statement which does not mention trans athletes: “‘...I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn't have to go against biological men.’” That statement is 100% about protecting girls’ sports for girls. It’s about girls. Not “trans athletes.”
The same fact-bending media invariably describes these rallies as either a “clash of protesters”—both factions hurling flaming glass bottles with tear gas and burning tires for ambience—or a “divided reaction” to Cunningham’s startlingly prosaic statement, “people who say they’re pro-women” (but are they really, is the subtext) and “those who were there to support transgender athletes.” Divided reaction implies two equally valid, no doubt reasoned reactions to Cunningham’s statement that girls’ sports and locker rooms should be for girls.
In the interest of keeping their fondly held and wholly invented ”anti-trans” narrative afloat, media cannot accurately describe, verbally or pictorially, what goes on at these rallies. Let me be perfectly clear—there is no “clash” of violent hooligans as the top photo (above) demonstrates, nor are the “divided reactions” equally reasoned and valid, as the lower photo (above) illustrates. Both are mischaracterizations, and deliberately so, in service of the false narrative that the wholesale destruction of girls’ and women’s rights, which has already happened, is actually about kids with trans identities, and that they are somehow the victims when girls and women ask for their rights back.
Allow me to provide some Chacos on the ground coverage of the September 24th Sophie Cunningham rally in Minneapolis. There was a lot going on what with hundreds of people just trying for the love of god to see Caitlin Clark play, so I’d like to give an overview before I tell you about my absolutely heart-heart-heart most favorite thing that happened, that I didn’t get the full details on until yesterday. You have my permission to skip on down to that anecdote that I will label A Touching Reunion of an Absolute Cunt and a Trans Activist.
The Pro-Women Side
I will start by saying the pro women group was larger. It just seemed like the pro-trans (and I use that label guardedly because they were actively harming the trans cause, see photo above) group was larger because a couple unhinged people with bullhorns play as more than two people. But they’re not. They’re just very loud and offensive, so they take up a lot of psychic space, and occupy more than their share of media attention.
Jennifer Sey was there and Amy Sousa, and some super obvious plain clothes security people they had hired (could only one side leveling death threats and only the other side receiving them be described as “divided reactions?”), and lots of people who believe sex is real and were willing to say so in public. We stood around and held signs. See?
We did not clash. It takes two equally violent sides to clash. The pro-women side did not hold up our end of clashing. We did not shout slogans or accost passersby or get up in the other sides’ business without their consent or tell members of the other side they should have been aborted. Only the pro-RagingMentalIllness side did that, so I guess, technically, that could be considered “divided reactions.”
We responded to people giving us thumbs ups (lots) and people giving us the finger (a few) with the same chirpy Enjoy the game! It would take something that identified as reporting to characterize our actions or signs as “anti-trans,” and yet every single media outlet used that description. A syndicate of mostly middle-aged women supporting women = anti-trans.
The pro-women side included people representing XX-XY Athletics, LGB Alliance, Women’s Liberation Front, WDI, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, and others who came downtown to support a female athlete’s right to say female sports should be for females.
The only man holding a sign in this photo, that’s Mark Voth with the Stop Transing Gay Kids sign in the back. He’s a Twin Cities area resident and subscriber to The Female Category who I met in person for the first time. Quiet, polite, obviously full of hate. Many basketball fans going into the game responded positively to his sign’s message, saying they had never thought about it before. You could see the wheels turning after they read his sign, people who had been made to think that because they supported gay and lesbian people, they had to support trans. You know, LGBT. Package deal. Equally thought-provoking, could this middle-aged man who was concerned about gay kids be considered a bigot?
I’m on the left (ha) with a Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender sign. Female Sports For Females Only. Pretty straightforward. I got lots of thumbs up and other signs of agreement. Of course, they had the good taste and instincts for self preservation to agree subtly, so as not to risk assault by the kind bullhorn-armed trans supporters. Some passersby seemed puzzled, even suspicious, that anyone would stand on a sidewalk advertising something so obvious. Like I must have some hidden agenda. That’s the result, some say the entire mission, of gender ideology—it’s not necessarily to make people believe men can be women, but rather to erode people’s trust in everything such that they believe nothing. So, some people’s reaction to Female Sports For Females Only was to wonder what my game was, to dismiss the statement as some kind of sales come-on. A gotcha.
As impossible as it seems that anyone would disagree or be offended by Female Sports For Females Only, it did happen. I got some thumbs down, some middle fingers up, some boos, and some Get a lifes from those going into the game. No one stopped to discuss why she (and they were women) felt this way. I’m guessing these people think “trans women” are women, and since gender identity trumps sex, female (biological sex) is an outdated, bigoted and exclusive (as opposed to inclusive, which is good and right and modern) standard for women’s sports eligibility. They’ve gotten lots of approval from their peers, media, and the likes of Cheryl Reeve for being kind and loving and inclusive (as they flip me off), so there’s no reason for them to ever doubt the self-loathing idiocy they spout. And they do not question that, as a member of the Be Kind group, it’s acceptable, even laudable, to be unkind, hateful, disrespectful, even violent to women asking for things that belong to them.
Neither a “clash” nor ”divided,” there were at least two instances of real connection.
A Touching Reunion of an Absolute Cunt and a Trans Activist
This is my all-time favorite, that I would give a million heart emojis if I could, that I think perfectly illustrates the pro-woman ethos and the pro-…oh crap, I give up. Okay, let’s go with pro-CuntCalling, the pro-CuntCalling zeitgeist. At the August Minneapolis rally, the female version of Bullhorn Man, Bullhorn Woman (oh how binary), spent her time screeching protect trans women and ensuring passersby that Sophie Cunningham didn’t give a shit about them, amplified by her bullhorn to eardrum-bursting levels. I took this video of a brief exchange between Bullhorn Woman and a pro-women, sex realist, retired RN, fearless straight shooter, and now, absolute cunt. This woman had asked Bullhorn Woman how standing on the sidewalk saying Yay Sophie harmed trans people. This was the result:
If you didn’t click on the video you won’t know that this kind trans activist called the retired RN an “absolute cunt” for standing there. Go back and click on it.
Brief, but, I think you’ll agree, a very human connection. The retired RN described what happened when the two met again on September 24th:
I went over to her. (Why do I feel this need to connect with these people?)
I said, Hi, I’m the absolute cunt. She said yeah, she remembers me, and she reiterated that I am a cunt. I said that makes sense, because I have a cunt, because I’m a woman. (It fit together so well, circular to the issue at hand…) She said “You’re weird.” I agreed and moved on. There was a lot going on around us.
Later, before I left, I went over to say good-bye to her (!?! See?), told her I looked forward to seeing her next time. She said she didn’t feel the same. As I started walking away, she called after, to say that she’ll look forward to seeing me when I’ve changed my mind, then she’ll look forward to seeing me.
See what I mean? Is this not your new favorite let’s-try-talking-to-trans-advocates-face-to-face episode ever?! Hey New York Times, why aren’t you reporting this? Anti-trans? I don’t think so. This is one woman reaching across the divide. And getting called a cunt for her trouble. This is trans, my friends.
The retired RN reflected on her motivation for what we all know is not going to be, shall we say, a rewarding enterprise:
“Connecting” with them - I think I’m so sick of us being tagged by these people as christian, Republican, hateful, not even truly concerned about women - all of this to support their vilifying of us. I don’t like being misrepresented. I’m trying to seem human to them. To what end? Naught, nada, bupkis, I expect. But It keeps me entertained.
Another connection, across the divide, with only slightly less offensive result, Jen Sey and Amy Sousa had a long discussion with a 5’4”-ish, bearded, red-haired woman wearing a keffiyeh. Which is unusual and very much to her credit. The willingness to converse, not the keffiyeh. Amy Sousa has posted several videos of their conversation. Here’s one:
In this particular clip, she either doesn’t know or pretends not to know why the demographic called women have been oppressed historically, such as before Title IX. Amy tries to get this woman to think about how society knew which humans deserved sports and which did not. Unsuccessfully. It’s frustrating that everyone knows the answer is “sex” and this person doesn’t get it. This red-haired person originally posited that sports eligibility should be based on gender identity but then got stumped by the many professional female athletes who are, by their choice, not competing on men’s teams that align with their man identity. Should they be banned from women’s sports? Because they don’t have a woman identity? Red Beard had to pivot and say, okay, eligibility for sports should be based on ability. That idea got about as far as Leisha Clarendon trying out for the NBA. Red Beard also had a go at Olympic boxer Imane Khelif’s chromosomes, which was again way out of her depth, and it became imminently, tragically clear that it was not a desire for good faith discussion that led Red Beard to engage with Jen and Amy, but rather, not knowing any better. Or not knowing anything. This person lacked knowledge of anything, self-awareness and the instinct for self-preservation, to the point of being vulnerable. Huh. Haven’t we heard vulnerable kids are the ones most likely to fall for gender ideology?
Either Amy or Jen must have referred to Red Beard as “she,” because she said something to the effect that if they wouldn’t respect her gender, she wasn’t going to talk to them anymore. And walked away.
Let me end the coverage of the pro-women side by saying that in no other realm are experts in the field expected to feel lucky to talk with complete idiots. Are the top cartologists and geoscientists expected to defend round earth with random flat earthers and feel lucky for the chance? For decades? No. That would be considered an insulting waste of time. Because it is an insulting waste of time. And yet, Jen Sey, who has been involved in elite athletics for decades, and Amy Sousa, an author, educator, and women’s rights activist, and every other feminist and sport scientist and sport policy expert with decades of expertise are expected to gratefully exhaust themselves telling the likes of Red Beard over and over again that if you do away with sex categories in sports, young males will dominate sports. Because people whose job it is to know this stuff have worked it all out before. What’s different about women’s sports from the whole round earth/flat earth debate is that the experts were ignored and shockingly stupid trans activists were listened to. And policy made accordingly.
Pro-CuntCalling?
Amy Sousa’s video clip above is illustrative of many things aside from the conversation they were attempting to have. Play it again. It was very hard to carry on a conversation, and very unpleasant, due to Bullhorn Man blaring protect trans women, announcing that Amy and various other women “should have been aborted,” and whacking his fans. This photo is from the August rally, but it’s the same deeply unwell man, same message, same bullhorn:
As I mentioned, this man and his equally offensive female equivalent, Bullhorn Woman, were so universally repellant, so determined to simply be vile, it’s difficult to say they were pro- anything. His goal seemed to be Compleat Repugnant. And he succeeded. He shrieked protect trans women over and over, suggested Amy and whoever caught his eye should have been aborted, brayed that passersby hated trans people, following them and accosting them with whatever disgusting thought came to mind. It was impossible to hear, to talk. People covered their ears and hurried by. Still, and I want to emphasize this, some people gave him a thumbs up. What exactly were they agreeing with? Does pro-trans require screeching at people? Is holding a sign that reads CUNT simply what pro-trans supporters do? In what way does that sign argue for trans inclusion in sports? Does Cheryl Reeve approve of this statement? Though Red Beard often had to stop her conversation with Amy and Jen because they couldn’t be heard over Bullhorn Man, Red Beard did not seem embarrassed or irritated by this extremely offensive representation of their shared cause. Why wasn’t she? The few other pink and blue flag wavers and unidentified trans supporters likewise showed no discomfort with Bullhorn Man’s behavior, no discomfort in being associated with him, or that his behavior was at all counterproductive to their cause. Was their cause to offend everyone? They seemed to think this was perfectly normal pro-trans behavior.
Reporters that then ran stories that characterized the goings-on as “clashes,” “divided reactions,” and “opposed to trans inclusion” saw, could not have missed, Bullhorn Man’s antics. Why did they disregard something so obviously wrong/mentally ill/offensive? Why did they not report accurately? Why did they not report that Bullhorn Man called women cunts and hollered that specific people should have been aborted?
It’s not a grey area, my friends. It was clear from the other pro-CuntCalling protesters who were there and from passersby who gave him the thumbs up that Bullhorn Man is the face of “pro-trans.” No one renounced his behavior. Cheryl Reeve no doubt saw him. He stands for trans.
Go back to the top of this post. Those photos? They accurately describe the September 24th rally, and this decades long battle for women’s rights.
I asked Gemini to explain crude name-calling...
What you are picking up on is a performance of virtue masking aggression—a dynamic where someone uses a socially approved cause to grant themselves permission to engage in abusive behavior.
When someone uses extreme, misogynistic slurs against women while claiming to champion a marginalized group (like trans women), it often reveals a contradiction in motivation. A few key psychological and social mechanisms explain why this happens:
1. "Moral Licensing" and Permissible Hostility
In psychology, moral licensing occurs when a person feels that doing something "good" or holding a "virtuous" stance gives them a license or cover to act badly in another area.
* By aligning with a protected or progressive cause, the individual constructs a self-image (and a public image) of being morally superior.
* They then convince themselves that because they are "fighting for the right team," their hostility isn't misogyny—it's "justified anger."
* The slur provides the outlet for aggression, while the cause provides the shield against social consequences.
2. Instrumentalizing a Cause
When a person's primary focus in a debate is hurling severe insults rather than engaging in reasoned defense or constructive support, the group they claim to represent often becomes a prop.
If someone truly cared about the safety, dignity, and acceptance of trans women, they would generally recognize that using severe, dehumanizing language against women actively undermines their cause. It alienates allies, lowers the standard of discourse, and replaces genuine advocacy with personal cruelty. When the cruelty dominates the message, the cause is being used as a weapon rather than an end in itself.
3. The Thrill of "Sanctioned" Bullying
Many people carry underlying antisocial or aggressive tendencies, but social norms usually restrain them from calling people names. However, when an ideology or public discourse identifies a specific target as "the enemy" or "unforgivable," it creates a venue where bad behavior is not only tolerated by peers but celebrated.
For someone looking for an excuse to vent hostility toward women, attaching that hostility to a righteous-sounding banner allows them to engage in classic bullying while convincing themselves they are doing good.
Ultimately, genuine compassion or commitment to justice doesn't rely on dehumanizing others to make its point. When the language used is identical to standard misogyny, it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying drive is the desire to attack, not the desire to protect.
Nothing associated with this ideology is honest or truthful. Nothing. It is lies built upon a lie. And once you align yourself with this movement, you can only lie. And you're not lying to "support" some mythical cohort of people. You're only lying for yourself. This is a movement for idiots and narcissists.