Rape is sex without consent.

I knew this day would come. I kept my mouth shut hoping that it would not. Hoping that if I didn’t say anything, it would just not come to be, but I watched, and I knew that this was likely.

Then I saw this headline today, and I knew that day had come. In fact it had come last year when the article was first published. Damnit!

trans 1.jpg

And of course you all know where this leads. Firstly this is homosexual rape – no one has the right to have sex with you under a fake identity (and especially when that fake identity would cause you to commit a mortal sin in the eyes of God). This is non consensual sex – this is rape. Tragically this also leads to this:

vile sin.jpg

This trans person, who clearly expects all the tolerance and understanding in the world, cannot see how someone might feel raped if they had unwittingly had homosexual sex???? It’s rape, plain and simple – it’s a total misrepresentation of who a person is.

If you don’t know what “cis” gendered is, by the way, it means natural (as God intended). Yes, they’re even trying to label and marginalise us now!

So whilst I do not condone violence in any shape or form, I do believe that this is a vile sin against a person and rape indeed if the gender has been changed (because your birth sex and chromosomes can NEVER be changed!).

The writer goes on:

“Thus, not being attracted to trans people is deeply transphobic. The entire notion that someone isn’t attracted to a group of very physically diverse group of people because they are trans is built on fear and disgust of trans people. None of this means it is transphobic to not be attracted to individual trans people. Nor is it transphobic to not be attracted to specific genitals. But it is transphobic to claim to not be attracted to all trans, people. For example, there is a difference between saying you won’t go out with someone for having a penis and saying you won’t go out with someone because they’re trans.

So when a cis person argues that a trans person has an obligation to come out to someone before dating them, they are saying trans people have an obligation to accommodate their transphobia. Plus, claiming that trans people are obligated to come out reinforces the idea that not being attracted to trans people is reasonable. But as I’ve pointed out, not being attracted to trans people supports the idea that transness is disgusting which is the basis for transphobic oppression.”

[…] The one scenario in which I would say a trans person should disclose their trans status is if they are going to have sex with someone and are unsure if their partner is attracted to whatever genitals they may have. In that case, I think it’s courteous for a trans person to come out to avoid any awkwardness during sex. But even then, a trans person isn’t “lying” if they don’t come out and their partner is certainly not being “raped.” [Really?!]

It is easy to look at the story of Jennifer Laude and claim that her death was due to the actions of one bigot. But it’s more complicated than that. Pemberton was the product of a society that told him that disgust towards trans people was reasonable and natural. So when he found out that he accidentally slept with a trans woman, he killed her. (Link)

First of all the writer makes the mistake of thinking that attraction is the basis for a sexual relationship. Attraction is one basis, but the primary basis is CONSENT! You do not have that persons consent to have homosexual sex with them! Tell me how would a lesbian feel if they found out they’s just had sex with a trans woman? Might they say this was wrong and they didn’t consent to have sex with someone who is genetically MALE!?

The rights of the trans person to privacy DO NOT and can NEVER trump the rights of their partner to CONSENT to a homosexual act – which is what this is (or a heterosexual encounter, as described above).

I warn you now that the day will come when Trans people will demand this right mooted in the article – they will demand the right to not reveal who they are. And sadly this will lead to more terrible crimes of violence, and worse – people will be condemned by God for the sin of homosexuality which is a sin unto death.


God Bless you



The state as parent – the ‘con’ of ‘consent’

You’ve allowed your children to be educated by the state (and if you haven’t, well I admire you immensely). Your 15 year old believes the lie of global over-population – they have been indoctrinated to believe this lie, and that of anthropogenic global ‘warming’ – they are full of pangs of guilt about what YOU, their parents generation, have done. They are too young to have any perspective on this, on how the world is run, and think they know better than you.

I remember being 15 – yes I thought I knew better than my parents! The older you get the more you know you don’t know. The certainty of youth is being played on to marginalise adult conversation, adult ideas. The government is making capital out of providing Bamstercare to you and your family – offering women free sterilisations. From age 15, in Oregon (Oregonetothedogs!), WITHOUT parents needing to be informed or consenting.

“The Oregon Health Authority has created a special consent form called “Ages 15-20 Consent to Sterilization.”

“When I first asked for the information, I was told that the decision to be sterilized is completely up to me,” says this Oregon form for 15-year-old children. “I was told that I could decide not to be sterilized.”

“I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible,” says this consent form. “I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.”

The consent form even includes a section that can be signed by an interpreter, in case a 15-year-old child being sterilized by their own consent in Oregon is incapable of understanding English.

This section says: “If an interpreter is provided to assist the individual to be sterilized: I have translated the information and advice presented orally to the individual to be sterilized by the person obtaining this consent.” After specifying what language the interpreter used to explain the sterilization to the child, the form asks the interpreter to stipulate: “To the best of my knowledge and belief he/she understood this explanation.”” Read more here: Link

Now get this – what does it mean to consent? Let’s look at the dictionary (you know how I love to do this!):

consentPermit? Comply? Yield? Acquiesce? I don’t like the look of this! What is the 15 year old complying with? I don’t even need to say it – a state plan to sterilise 15 year olds. They are going to push this agenda throughout the school years so that people will give up their right, ability or choice to have children – all based on the lies of global warming and overpopulation. This is horrifying.

Just in case you were curious, here’s Black’s Law dictionary second edition on consent:

Blacks law

Yes, ‘a concurrence of wills’ – in other words, this is not simply that your child has had a decision of their own accord to get sterilised, it is that the state has provided a mechanism to do this, educated the child to WANT to do this, and provided doctors who are WILLING to do this.

The enemy comes to steal and destroy, so, it seems does the state, the medical profession and the lawyers who drew up the forms for youngsters to sign (with help if needed!).

Go hug your kids, and make them promised to NEVER to interfere with God’s plan for them to raise a family.

God Bless you