more importantly he peddled neo-Nazi conspiracies and claimed Jews control the media, education, non-profits, etc. and are pushing "cultural Marxism"
this guy was pushing neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories - it's so much worse than comparing abortions to the Holocaust, lol
yes, she's involved in the production and will definitely profit from it
Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said "a term of endearment for trans women". The only reason he didn't is because he's anti-trans, and maybe he doesn't even understand that "dolls" is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don't get the same attention.
The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men's restrooms, but they aren't thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men into women's restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:

So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women's restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.
I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.
So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not "woke", and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.
The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.
For example, Matt Walsh's anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.
wow, that's really out there for being bee movie erotica
they're no longer following the Constitution, in case anyone has noticed ...
According to screenshots shared on Imgur, it appears a hacker gained shell access to 4chan's hosting server. They then went on to post images of the site's phpmyadmin page, and appear to have doxed the entire moderation team alongside many of the site's registered users. While it seems some users took steps to protect their identities, many appear to have used their primary email address to register for the forum, with .edu and even .gov addresses reportedly appearing in the list leaked emails.
It's unclear what this means for the future of 4chan, but some social media and Reddit users are speculating this could be the end of the internet's most infamous forum. In addition to doxing much of 4chan's userbase, the hacker also appears to have leaked the site's source code, revealing security holes that have existed since around the time Hiroyuki Nishimura bought the forum from creator Christoper Poole. It may take months to rebuild a more secure version of 4chan.
If this is the end of 4chan, it would be the most significant de-platforming of extreme right-wing internet users since Kiwi Farms temporarily went down in 2022.
Read the actual Watchlist entry instead of Time magazine: https://monitor.civicus.org/watchlist-march-2025/
The United States of America (USA) has been added to our Watchlist as the country faces increasing undue restrictions on civic freedoms under President Donald Trump’s second term. Gross abuses of executive power raise serious concerns over the freedoms of peaceful assembly, expression and association.
Following his inauguration on 20 January 2025, Donald Trump has issued at least 125 executive orders, dismantling federal policies with profound implications for human rights and the rule of law. Some of these orders have eliminated federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, falsely framing them as discriminatory, and have introduced measures targeting undocumented migrants and transgender and non-conforming people.
Since mid-January, many civil society organisations, both in the US and abroad, have been forced to terminate or scale back essential human rights and humanitarian programmes due to growing uncertainty caused by the arbitrary suspension of foreign aid and a broad freeze on federal funding. The lack of clear guidelines has sparked legal challenges at the national level.
The administration has taken steps to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a decades-old institution, and laid off thousands of its employees. It has also withdrawn from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Human Rights Council, exited the Paris Climate Agreement, rejected the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, and announced sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), targeting its personnel as well as individuals and entities that cooperate with it. These actions could further undermine global efforts for climate justice, human rights, and civic freedoms.
These measures come amid a broader potential curb on the freedom of association. On 21 November 2024, the US House of Representatives passed a bill allowing the Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profits it deems to be supporting terrorism, without due process guarantees. This would grant the executive branch sweeping authority to financially cripple civil society organisations based on broad and vague criteria.
The sustained onslaught on peaceful pro-Palestine solidarity at university campuses has seen students and faculty members increasingly subjected to harsh sanctions without justification. On 30 January 2025, President Donald Trump, signed an executive order purportedly aimed at combating antisemitism, which calls for the cancellation of visas and the deportation of non-citizen college students and others who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests. On the same day, reports alleged that a far-right group was compiling a list of pro-Palestine protesters for potential deportation.
Authorities have also targeted climate justice activists protesting the Mountain Valley Pipeline project in Virginia and financial institutions supporting fossil fuel expansion. Another concern is the growing role of private corporations in suppressing environmental activism. Two key developments exemplify this: the USD 300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace by the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline; and research exposing the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving the proliferation of anti-protest laws.
The first months of 2025 have seen an alarming legislative push in multiple states, further threatening restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly. At least 12 state-level bills introduced between January and February 2025 would impose new restrictions on protests. Notably, bills in Indiana (SB 286), Iowa (HF 25), Missouri (HB 601), New York (S 723), and North Dakota (HB 1240) seek to criminalise the use of masks during protests. They could also expose protesters to heightened surveillance technologies and intimidation tactics, as evidenced by the doxingattempts over the past year against pro-Palestine protesters.
Meanwhile, Minnesota’s new bill (SF 1363) introduces new civil and criminal liabilities for those supporting protesters who engage peacefully in demonstrations on a critical public service facility, pipelines or other utility property. These restrictions show a broader trend since 2017 of escalating constraints on protests and could trigger a new wave of repression against those expressing dissenting views.
There are also serious concerns about freedom of expression and access to information, particularly for journalists covering politically sensitive issues. On 11 February 2025, two journalists from the Associated Press (AP) were banned access to White House-related press briefings due to the agency’s editorial policy to continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its internationally recognised denomination rather than the presidentially decreed “Gulf of America.” AP filed a lawsuit against administration officials, but a federal judge denied the agency’s request for the immediate restoration of full access to presidential events for its journalists, ruling that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.
Moreover, on 25 February, the White House press secretary announced that the administration will decide which media outlets can access the presidential press pool. These recent decisions raised concerns about unprecedented restrictions on public access to independent reporting on government affairs.
Trans bathroom bans are ultimately just a means of driving trans people from public life entirely.
This is not an exaggeration, the anti-trans movement literally aims to "eradicate [trans people] from public life entirely", those are their words.
Here are some citations, numbers, and evidence to back up what you're saying and why we should view trans bathroom bans as genocidal rather than about safety, like anti-trans activists claim:
When laws permit transgender people to access sex-segregated spaces in accordance with their gender identities, crime rates do not increase. There is no association between trans-inclusive policies and more crime. As one of us wrote in a recent paper, this is likely because, just like cisgender folks, “transgender people use locker rooms and restrooms to change clothes and go to the bathroom,” not for sexual gratification or predatory reasons.
Conversely, when trans people are forced by law to use sex-segregated spaces that align with the sex assigned to them at birth instead of their gender identity, two important facts should be noted.
First, no studies show that violent crime rates against cisgender women and girls in such spaces decrease. In other words, cisgender women and girls are no safer than they would be in the absence of anti-trans laws. Certainly, the possibility exists that a cisgender man might pose as a woman to go into certain spaces under false pretenses. But that same possibility remains regardless of whether transgender people are lawfully permitted in those spaces.
Second, trans people are significantly more likely to be victimized in sex-segregated spaces than are cisgender people. For instance, while incarcerated in facilities designated for men, trans women are nine to 13 times as likely to be sexually assaulted as the men with whom they are boarded.
...
In society at large, between 84% and 90% of all crimes of sexual violence are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, not a stranger lurking in the shadows – or the showers or restroom stalls. But trans and nonbinary people feel very unsafe in bathrooms and locker rooms, though others experience relative safety there. In fact, the largest study of its kind found that upward of 75% of trans men and 64% of trans women reported that they routinely avoid public restrooms to minimize their chances of being harassed or assaulted.
These laws aren't designed to protect cis women, they are designed to police gender (this impacts cis people too!) and eliminate trans people.
Relevant facts:
- she self identifies as a "moderate conservative", also identifying as a "centrist" who cares about "family values"
- she is a devout Catholic
- she lives in Illinois and traveled to Florida just to do this
- before going to Florida, she sent letters to lawmakers stating her intention to break the law, including when and where she would and a photo of herself (police were thus posted at the location and time she indicated, hence why she was arrested)
- she explicitly identifies as not a "political activist"
- she is breaking the law because she thinks it is wrong (she is engaging in civil disobedience), though she did not expect to actually be arrested
- she didn't consult any legal or advocacy groups before doing this
- she was arrested upon going into the restroom and washing her hands, after cops posted at the bathroom told her not to; she was held in the men's ward of the Leon County Detention Facility overnight, and she faces 60 days of incarceration if convicted
- she is back in Illinois but will have to fly back to Florida for hearings
- she didn't expect to be arrested and regrets doing it
source: Tampa Bay Times (archive.ph link)
This article is written by James Hayton, a professor at a business school focused on "innovation" and "entrepreneurship", and who received funding from the Nuffield Foundation, founded by William Morris, one of the largest financiers of the British fascist movement.
Just to be clear about the ideological commitments of the author and his financiers. I would suggest taking this article with a lot of skepticism.


