Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
[#TopTier] [#NutWorthy] #Question - when did the term #Gays & #Blacks become acceptable in OUR community? #GAYPORN #GAYSEX #SEX #RAWPORN #RAWSEX #RAWISLAW #PORN #BLACKPORN #BLACKSEX #BLACKLOVE #GAYBLACKPORN #BLACKGAYPORN #GAY #BOYFRIENDS #SEX #RAWDICK #BIGBLACKDICK #GNX
41,015 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![Today, I'm doing something different. If you want the short version, watch the video below. Nearly five years ago, J.K. Rowling wrote an infamous tweet. It began: "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like." She continued: "Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" It took off like wildfire. At the time, Rowling's words suggested that pushback against transgender people/policies was not rooted in presentation, or even one's individual conceptualization of their identity. Her issue lie with the intersection of personal identity and policy, and was further inflamed by the cancel culture that engrossed social justice political dissenters. Perhaps she had a point. I didn't entirely know what to make of it. In some respects, I still don't. But her words made me think. After a few years, an unanswered question lingered in my mind. Is what Rowling describes a solution to growing gender identity dissent? Is there a lifestyle that a transgender individual could embody that would be 'acceptable' to these dissenters, or is their dissent just a veil for true contempt and disdain for those who cross gender boundaries? I projected that question upon myself. Was there a version of myself that—by accepting certain concessions—might pass muster and find acceptance amid dissenters? Was some give-and-take by transgender people all that was needed to de-escalate our growing dissent and toxic discourse? Many progressives, including many transgender people, told me the answer was an unequivocal 'No'. I was told that gender criticals/anti-woke/conservatives/[insert favourite polarizing label here] just hate transgender people and were wholly disingenuous in their concerns. I was told that their 'concerns' were mere dog whistles used to prop up their hate for the gender diverse. I wasn't convinced... in part because I appreciated some of their concerns. I knew I needed to learn more. So, I did the only thing I knew how to do. I followed my curiosity and spent the last two years amid the individuals who were purportedly out for my blood. I connected deeply within gender critical circles, listening, learning, and trying to make sense of the intersection of gender criticality, transgender experiences, and liberalism. I sought out solutions that might temper our ever-growing toxic discourse. I learned a lot and I had the most inspiring conversations of my life. And I made some of the most genuine friendships of my lifetime. As it turns out, it's very humanizing to know someone who thinks differently than you. Thousands of people shared with me the impact I imparted to them, as I was often the first transgender person they had ever known and befriended. These friendships were humanizing for me as well, bringing a new perspective to social conservative worldviews that I hadn't previously appreciated. For those who truly held no disdain towards transgender people, I embodied precisely what they had been preaching. In tune with Rowling's call, I called myself Julia and dressed from the women's side of Target, but I held no expectations of language, pronouns, or any form of affirmation. I steered clear of any space that might even plausibly be considered a women 's segregated space, be it a washroom, a changeroom, an association or a sports league. I embodied the model transgender person that many gender criticals profess is the solution to our unrest surrounding gender identity. I've been told thousands of times that if other transgender people were like me, then all of our issues would go away. And that is where things got interesting... because for quite a few years, gender-critical communities have been forming amid common concerns of various transgender accommodations and policies. For people in these communities who held no contempt toward a trans identity, I was a key ally. To them, I was living evidence that the balance they wished to achieve in transgender policy surrounding medical transition or education or compelled speech or spaces could be embodied by a transgender person. But I unwittingly became a wedge in gender-critical communities. As it turned out, there are plenty of gender-critical individuals whose convictions go far beyond mere policy concerns. These people hold tremendous contempt and disdain for transgender people. I faced bigotry and hatred firsthand. Until a transgender person comes into the gender critical community, those who saw might see me as an ally and those enraged by my existence were often indistinguishable, even to those within various communities. But the moment I would arrive on the scene, waves would form and the motivational divide would become evident. There's something rather unsettling about watching factions form and friendships fall apart merely because you entered a conversation. I cannot overstate the love and acceptance I found amid gender-critical individuals. Many amid these circles are just tired of being labelled anti-trans ad nauseam merely for expressing policy concerns. But I also cannot overstate how surreal it is to face individuals—in many cases with international attention upon them—reign down on you directly and personally in the most dehumanizing ways I've ever encountered. On more than a few occasions I experienced the machination of anti-trans pushback in full force. There were days I received dozens of tweets that launched personal attacks against my appearance or derided my likeness in grotesque manners. There were also days when I received thousands. Death theats, stalkers, invasions on my family's personal privacy. I encountered it all. On a few occasions I also experienced the machination of trans-activist pushback. I came to realize something: on the extremity of this polarizing issue, both sides can behave just as poorly. It was enlightening to watch the extent to which people would mischaracterize me, selectively crafting what I would write to frame me in the worst possible light imaginable. It was even more enlightening to watch opposing sides do this simultaneously—each fixated on casting me as a demon of the enemy they had come to fixate upon. I suppose that's what extremism does. To the vocal extreme of the transgender activist camp, I was a gender critical: a grifter uncancelling gender criticals by lending transgender credibility. To the vocal extreme of the gender critical camp, I was no different than any other transgender activist. Regardless of my position on social transition in school, compelled speech or space usage, nothing could undo that I unapologetically defy sex-role norms which—for many—was always the underlying issue. I observed that both 'sides' cast me as their 'other', while neither side embraced a member. I suspect that's in part because the 'side' I align with are the views that resonate with mostly everyone who isn't in the trenches of these politics. The side my views represent aligned most closely with the 90% of our population who are not beholden to either extreme on gender politics. My major takeaway from my past two years: that the vast majority of people want a world where transgender people can exist and thrive, where language isn't compelled but people are kind to one another, and where the intersections of gender norms and physical reality are thoughtfully balanced. They want an education system that recognizes the role of the parent as an ideological steward but also holds good safeguards both to intervene in truly abusive situations and provides adequate psychological support for any child experiencing psychological distress. That sounds hard, and it's near impossible when your sounding board is the groupthink at either extreme. I feel incredibly fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to hold so many powerful friendships amid the liberal-loving middle that espouses the center-end of both factions. So what am I doing now? I am doing a new video series—possibly my last. In Gender for the Rest of Us, I'll be laying out what I've learned over the past two years about the solutions that bring us to a place of de-escalated discourse on gender. I'll attempt to be moderate through and through, though I should clarify that I don't mean 'Twitter moderate' or 'gender critical moderate' or 'trans activist moderate'. I mean regular, run-of-the-mill, moderate that resonates with those who truly want to balance transgender rights with those of everyone else. What I'll be putting forward in this series is my best attempt at finding solutions—real solutions—that maintain all tenets of liberalism: equality, individual liberty, individual rights, pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity and consent. If you find yourself on either extreme of this divide, you probably won't like much of what I have to say. That's probably for the best because solutions don't like on the extremes. In a nutshell: This series is the essay I've promised to more than a few politicians outlining how we might de-escalate gender matters. Sorry it's taken so long. Politics are exhausting. Thank you to everyone (on both sides of this complex conversation) who has engaged with me in thoughtful conversation over the past months and years. I've learned a lot and grown tremendously from the challenges people have put in front of me. Please keep the messages coming—I want to keep learning and growing! All the best, Julia](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1797807540056608873/ext_tw_video_thumb/1797803952387305472/pu/img/WFnk2HP-JmR0Z6Fl.jpg)
![CRITICAL: Joe Rogan connects the dots between the AIDS and Covid scams (my term): "Maybe [AIDS was] the same as what happened during Covid, but maybe back then, there's no internet, and... they could just get away with it... [and it's Fauci who pushed] the vaccine during... [AIDS and] during the Covid crisis." Rogan (Joe Rogan), who's talking with stand-up comic Brian Redban here, goes on to highlight several key points: 1. The fact that Peter Duesberg, a genius German-American molecular biologist and professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, known for his early research into the genetic aspects of cancer, said that AIDS was not due to HIV, but rather namely heavy drug usage among the gay community. 2. AZT (zidovudine), a drug—supposedly—used to treat HIV infection by inhibiting the virus from replicating, was actually doing immense harm. 3. Tony Fauci was the face of both the AIDS and Covid scams (again, my term). Rogan even notes that Fauci pushed both the Covid injections and AZT as quote-unquote "safe and effective." 4. Reading an article in Spin Magazine written by Bob Guccione, Jr., Rogan even highlights the fact that AIDS journalist Cecilia Farber (Celia Farber) had "unearthed hard evidence of the cold-bloodedness of the AIDS establishment pushing a drug [AZT] that was worse than the disease and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated." Regarding Covid, note that there are parallels between AZT and Remdesivir, the deadly drug physicians and nurses used to kill "Covid patients" in hospitals. (See tweets 4 and 5.) Critically, note that Rogan's conclusions in this clip almost perfectly parallel those of cancer and AIDS research titan Dr. David Rasnick, who has said that the "bogus" HIV pandemic established the "playbook" for the bogus Covid "pandemic." (See tweet 2.) Also note that a documentary film was made about the possibility AIDS was a scam, dubbed House of Numbers. In the film, Nobel Prize winner and inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis noted that there was no link (that he could find) between HIV and AIDS. (See tweet 3.) ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Suge Knight was on— I think he was on Jimmy Kimmel show, talking about how you just inject somebody with AIDS. You can inject them with AIDS. What was my question? Oh, Peter Duesberg, Spin Magazine. "So he wrote this article about it, and then he— I believe he wrote a book about it. But he's fucked. Like, his career completely stalled out after that. He couldn't get funding for things and, you know, widely dismissed by all— most all other scientists. And back then, I used to think it doesn't make sense that this one guy has figured things out and that nobody else does. But now I'm like, maybe it's the same as what happened during COVID but maybe back then, there's no Internet, and maybe back then they could just get away with it. "Maybe back then they got used to getting away with it, which is why they tried it again in 2020. That's why they did the exact same thing to all those, like, legitimate professors, legitimate doctors. They shamed them and banned them. They didn't want anybody deviating. And that's, I think, what they might have done to this guy. "That's crazy to think that the the whole AIDS crisis might have really been about people destroying their immune system through hardcore drug use. That was his contention. People were saying, it's very homophobic. It's like, okay, let's. Let's not. Let's say a bunch of nice things about gay people. Let's. We love them. We appreciate. You know, I have no problem with gay. Let's say it. Like, if you're. If we're talking about this. If you were a doctor back then, gay people are amazing. However, all these gay people are doing drugs. All these gay people that are getting AIDS, like, something like 90% of them were hardcore drug users. This was his contention. "And you would say, 'Well, that's what opens them to the type of behavior that you get AIDS with.' Like, oh, okay, right. But Sam Kinison had a bit about that. Do you remember his bit? He was like, they say, 'Sam, AIDS is a communicable disease. Straight people get it too.' He goes, 'Name one. Name one fucking guy. Name one. It's not our fucking dance.' He didn't write the article, but he's definitely in the article. Right, there was an article about him... No, he didn't write the article. Did I say he wrote it? "Bob Guccione, Spin Magazine. Isn't he the guy that owns Penthouse? I think so. Right? Bob Guccione, Jr. Founder of Spin. "Okay, listen to this. So this is what he wrote, what Bob Guccione Jr. wrote. Scroll up a little higher. At the end of 1989, two years after we started the highly controversial AIDS column, in Spin, we published an article by Cecilia Farber called the Sins of Omission about the truly bad and corrupt science surrounding promoting AZT as a treatment for the syndrome of diseases. Celia was the editor and frequent writer of the column, and unearthed hard evidence of the coldbloodedness of the AIDS establishment, pushing a drug that was worse than the disease and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated. "AZT had been an abandoned cancer drug, discarded because of its fatal toxicity, resurrected in the cynical belief that AIDS patients were going to die anyway. So trying it out was sort of like playing with the house's money, because the drug didn't require the usual massive expensive research and trial processes. Having gone through that years earlier, it was insanely profitable for its maker, Burroughs Wellcome. "It was a tragically perfect storm of windfall profits, something to pacify AIDS activists and the media, and a convenient boom to the patient holders for HIV testing. Patent. Excuse me, patent owners, patent holders for HIV testing. Celia, who should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for her brave and relentless reporting here and throughout the 10 years we ran the column, exposed the worthlessness of the drug, the shady studies and deals to suppress the negative findings and its awful and final consequences. "This piece very literally changed the media's view of AIDS and sharpened their discerning and skeptical eye. And soon after, AZT was once again shelved, hopefully this time forever. Many times over the years since, people have come up to me and said that reading this article saved their lives, that they either stopped taking the drug and their health improved vastly, or they never took it because of what we reported. Nothing ever made me prouder. Bob Guccione, Jr. Founder of Spin October 3, 2015. So this is all— This article is all about Peter Duesberg's perspective on this. And, it's very complicated. And it's certainly not for me, a guy like me, to figure out, if he's telling the truth or if he's correct. But what they said about AZT and chemotherapy and pushing AZT through and how they made a bunch of money, that's all true. "Not only that, but they were giving AZT to people that showed no symptoms like Arthur Ashe. Arthur Ash tested positive. They gave him AZT. There's a bunch of people died from taking AZT that probably didn't have to die. That's scary shit, man. If it's the same guy that pushed the vaccine during the AIDS crisis, during the COVID crisis, it's kind of fucked that he got to do it twice. "And if he didn't do it twice, nobody probably would be aware that it was the same guy. Because, even if you know about AZT, nobody was going Anthony Fauci. Nobody was saying that guy's name. You know, you weren't saying when you would talk about the AIDS crisis even. They even made a movie about it, right? Dallas Buyers Club. That's the movie. That's what it's about. The bad guy in Dallas Buyers Club is Anthony Fauci. "That's the guy keeping them from getting other medications and pushing AZT. They do the same thing. We— We played a video the other day where Fauci's talking about AZT. The reason why they use it is because it's both safe and effective. He used the exact same terminology. Fucking wild."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1988623425074872737/amplify_video_thumb/1988527132335857664/img/-viLeapIiXd9sicP.jpg)
