Is the tide beginning to turn on trans lunacy?

This year, there has been some much-needed pushback against the trans orthodoxy.

Joanna Williams

Joanna Williams

2019 may, with luck, go down as the year when the tide began to turn against the bizarre worldview of transgender activists. In the run-up to the General Election, Jo Swinson found herself flummoxed by the question ‘What is a woman?’. Days later, she was unceremoniously dumped by voters. Meanwhile, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was busy introducing himself to the crowd at the Pink News Awards: ‘My name is Jeremy Corbyn, pronouns he/him.’ That was met by a big fat ‘no’ from the electorate, too.

Despite this recent pushback, 2019 has also shown what happens when senior members of the medical, educational and legal professions not only succumb to the demands of trans activists, but use transgender ideology to shore up their own moral authority. The victims are children. Figures released this year revealed a huge increase in the number of children seeking medical help over concerns with their gender. The number of 13-year-olds referred to the NHS’s gender-identity service rose by 30 per cent on the previous year, while the number of 11-year-olds was up by 28 per cent. The youngest patients were just three years old. Three-quarters of all children seeking help to change their gender are girls.

Gender self-identification – that is, treating someone who simply says they are female as if they are female – has also had a disastrous impact on the lives of many women. One in 50 prisoners – 1,500 inmates – now identifies as transgender. This is massively more than the number in the general population. Transgender prisoners not only get perks, such as being able to shower alone or have their own cell – crucially, they can also apply to switch between male and female jails. One woman prisoner – assaulted by a transgender inmate while incarcerated in the same institution – is now taking the government to court over this policy.

Women’s sport has also suffered from acquiescence to the demands of trans activists. Maxine Blythin became Kent’s first trans-woman cricketer. Maxine had a batting average of 15 when playing on the men’s team, but averages 124 playing in the women’s team. Kelly Morgan has had similar success playing for a Welsh women’s rugby team. Concern has been expressed that, despite taking drugs to artificially lower his testosterone levels, Kelly’s superior physical strength could inadvertently injure his female opponents.

Underpinning all of this is a sense that women – adult human females – and their concerns are being quietly erased from public life at the behest of transgender activists. Fear of being labelled transphobic seems to override every other concern – including, for businesses, making money. One tweet was all it took for Flora margarine to pull its advertising from the popular parenting site, Mumsnet. Always, the manufacturer of sanitary pads, removed the female symbol from its packaging.

Tragically, women are still prevented from freely discussing the impact of gender self-identification upon their lives. In universities, debates and conferences have been shut down following threats from transgender activists. Gender-critical professors have spoken out about the threats and abuse they have received for raising concerns that sex is being conflated with gender. Posie Parker, a women’s rights activist and leading critic of the transgender movement, was permanently banned from Facebook. The social-media giant cited ‘safety and security reasons’ for kicking her off the platform and, in the process, denying thousands of people an opportunity to discuss Posie’s views.

Worse still, trans-sceptical tweets can now cost you your job. Earlier this month, an employment judge ruled that a charitable organisation was well within its rights to sack Maya Forstater, a tax expert, because she tweeted that transgender women cannot change their biological sex. Her opinions were deemed to be ‘absolutist’ and not protected in law. When author JK Rowling defended Forstater on Twitter, she was viciously attacked.

The police have got in on the act, too. In October, police in Oxford treated the appearance of stickers – stating ‘Woman: noun. Adult human female’ and ‘Women don’t have penises’ – as a serious crime. Thames Valley Police appealed for witnesses and announced that those responsible could be charged with a public-order offence. Elsewhere, a man was quizzed by police for half-an-hour after merely ‘liking’ a tweet deemed to be offensive to transgender people. The deputy chief constable of Cheshire police, Julie Cooke, took to Twitter to warn about the dangers of misgendering on ‘Pronouns Day’. Knife crime, meanwhile, hit a five-year high.

Yet, despite all the attempts to curtail debate, common sense has – on occasion – won out in 2019. Two major BBC programmes, Newsnight and Radio 4’s File on 4, reported on the experiences of people who detransition, as well as raising serious questions about the treatment of children who question their gender identity and the dangers of doctors prescribing puberty-blocker hormones. Parents raised concerns about changes to school sex and relationships classes that will mean very young children are taught that gender is how they think and feel. To challenge this, author Rachel Rooney has written an excellent book, My Body is Me, which aims to teach children to be comfortable with their bodies as they are, rather than looking to change their bodies to bring them in line with their brains. Inevitably, this benign message has been labelled ‘anti‑trans extremism’. Elsewhere, the High Court ruled that a woman who gave birth could not be named as the father on her child’s birth certificate despite having transitioned to a man post-partum.

In 2020, we need to hold police chiefs, medical professionals, MPs and education policymakers to account for the impact of decisions they make around gender. They must not be allowed to hide behind the moral shield of the over-exposed voice of the transgender community. Thankfully, as the election showed, those unable to define what makes someone a man or a woman, or who feel the need to declare their pronouns in public, are seriously out of kilter with the rest of society. Let’s hope we hear a lot less from them next year.

Joanna Williams is associate editor at spiked. She is the director of the new think tank, Cieo. Find out more about it here.

Picture by: Getty

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Cody Bailey

12th January 2020 at 1:00 pm

The purpose of demoralization is to condition people so that they cannot think, to scramble their brains until they cannot tell up from down, day from night or man from woman. If people cannot think they cannot solve problems. If they cannot solve problems they cannot defend themselves. Everything the left pushes is calculated to increase their own power and power is a zero-sum game. The less you have, the more they have. It is as simple as that. Power.

What happens if you are arrested? Will your family pool resources and come to your defense? Of course they will. How can they counter that? Destroy the family. The tranny furries otherkin destroy the patriarchy gibberish is about destroying the family. It isn’t complicated.

Thomas Prentice

3rd January 2020 at 10:20 pm

Trans Lunacy is at its most basic level the science denialism of the liberals, equivalent to Global Heating / Climate Crisis science denialism among stiff-necked right wingers as well as the evolution denialism of the same belief-based crowd whose members are totally impervious to evidence, fact, logic and reason.

The baseline for reality in the human species starts with biological sex. Period.

And biological sex isn’t gender. Gender is merely a useful social construct about apportioning social roles in a civilization — usually rigid, male-created, belief-based and violence enforced social roles and conditioned hatreds bubbling in the water of patriarchal civilization.

Cody Bailey

12th January 2020 at 12:38 pm

My hovercraft is full of eels. Wishes are hopping and fungi are anxious.

Charles Adams

1st January 2020 at 1:16 pm

The problem seems to be that trans activists are making the rules and those rules seem to be constantly changing.

Perhaps the government ought to step in and define a woman as either a natal woman or a man who has undergone reassignment surgery and transitioned. Leave the nebulous concept of “gender” behind…it only serves to complicate matters.

Bill Willy

3rd January 2020 at 2:29 am

Let’s not suggest the government be involved in any sort of enforcement at all People are entitled to their opinions, and the government should rarely be involved in siding with them or turning them into law. And as for my opinion, I do not believe that the transgender movement is merely an extension of the Civil Rights Movement; Frederick Douglass would roll over in his grave!

Claire D

30th December 2019 at 7:04 am

These ‘ gender ‘ wars are a steaming cauldron of hate and nonsense as far as I can see.

I cannot see any way out for any of us until the protected characteristics + hate crime legislation is removed or reformed.

steve moxon

29th December 2019 at 10:11 pm

This debacle is an hilarious, delicious Trojan horse into the malicious heart of feminism.
The anti-scientific insanity of claiming sex is ‘socially constructed’, plus the mesmerisingly dumb illogicality of then claiming that men and women are irrevocably different, was always bound to lead to such as this sort of slanging match.
Feminists just hate men. Period. So they hate only male-to-female ‘trans-sexuals’ NOT female-to-male! How is this stark disparity not even mentioned, eh Joanna?
The feminists Joanna here champions are even bigger bigots than ‘trans’ activists. At least ‘trans-sexuality’ is a real (albeit far rarer than is claimed) phenomenon: nothing that the feminists claim is.
But Joanna is so scientifically illiterate she wouldn’t know.

Fred 762

30th December 2019 at 5:15 am

My thoughts: If Bruce Jenner can identify as a woman, but keep his penis, I can identify as unarmed, but keep my guns.

Hugh Oxford

30th December 2019 at 10:53 am

Female to male “transsexuals” are a harmless joke (until they conceive and bear children of course).

steve moxon

30th December 2019 at 4:48 pm

So too you could argue for male-to-female TS.
The issue is that feminists hate only one of these two types of TS, in line with their hatred of anything and everything to do with men.
This deserves calling out — not to mention a symbolic swift kick in the crotch.

John Marks

30th December 2019 at 11:12 pm

You’ve got a weird definition of feminism.
Most feminists are FOR women and not against anyone, but are against prejudice which leads to women’s talents being stifled.

Wolfgang Marshep

29th December 2019 at 6:43 pm

What you’ve presented actually suggests the tide is still rising.


29th December 2019 at 5:38 pm

‘Trans orthodoxy’ — there is no ‘trans orthodoxy’. Opinions are divided over this issue, including among tg people. Most people don’t think about this at all. In a free society, if you don’t infringe anyone’s rights or interfere with their person or property, you can do what the hell you want.

brent mckeon

30th December 2019 at 7:00 am

But that is not true. People have lost their jobs for not being Trans orthodox, not to mention the many no platformed (often by violent means) ie their democratic right of speech denied, for the crime of not agreeing with the ‘Trans orthodoxy’ view, The Truth

Ariana Leah

29th December 2019 at 2:20 pm

I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy job online from home using my laptop. Everybody can now get this and start making extra dollars online by just follow instructions on this website.x.


29th December 2019 at 5:42 pm

Yes, Ariana, but are you happy?

Hugh Oxford

28th December 2019 at 11:56 pm

The legal abolition of women is the natural conclusion of the sexual revolution which has always had the death of humanity at its heart. Contraception, abortion, “equal marriage “: all these things are facets of the same demonic pathology. In the end, attacking human life itself must involve attacking the sex that creates new human life and perpetuates the human race.

Willie Penwright

23rd January 2020 at 9:50 pm

“…must involve attacking the sex that creates new human life…”
It takes two to tango.

Brandy Cluster

28th December 2019 at 11:53 pm

People here don’t seem to be able to see the woods for the trees. Ours is a culture of decadence; look up the derivation of that word; it comes from DECAY. Today it’s entropic because the decay is piling up and falling in on itself.

This is what happens when a people live with a huge, moral vacuum but these same people are hubristically claiming they’re bigger than the traditional morality we’ve had proscribed from the Ten Commandments onwards. Finding faults in that traditional morality has meant that the slippery slope to ‘anything goes’ is that much easier. Good luck finding a better society as a consequence of allowing children to determine their own gender and other first world insanity.

Christian Moon

28th December 2019 at 9:31 pm

As a psychotherapist, can I recommend having a go at honesty as the way to your best life: it’s the only way to an authentic relationship with those around you. I’m ready to bet you’ll find there’s more acceptance than you think.

Harry Daly

28th December 2019 at 9:04 pm

Next census, men register as women, women as men?

Allan Kessing

28th December 2019 at 7:51 pm

We seem to be living in yet another pivot – if there is one certainty we might take from history it is that civilisation is inherently brittle.
It doesn’t take much to bring the whole thing crashing down once the underpinnings are removed or damaged.
I’m reminded of “Last Days of Pompei” by John Buchan, sometime G/G of Canada – his trilogy based on “Greenmantle” also bears rereading.

Jonathan Swift

28th December 2019 at 7:44 pm

If you take a “He”, remove his man parts and give him artificial woman parts, you do not make a “She”. You make an “It”. Likewise, if you remove the female parts from a “She”, you also make an “It”.

Don’t let people who ware confused about their gender fool you!

Jules Hardiman

28th December 2019 at 6:30 pm

What happened to the term transvestite? If people don’t want to have the surgery then surely that makes them transvestites. Go through surgery and men are less of a threat to women.
It seems we are allowing people to have it both ways ( if you will pardon the joke), when its just a desire to game the system.

Brandy Cluster

28th December 2019 at 11:56 pm

Who cares? It’s all aberrant behaviour anyway. As my GP says to me regularly, “we’re living in the Age of the Abnormal”.

Craig King

28th December 2019 at 5:18 pm

It is a curious concept that forces virtually all young women and girls to give up any hope of prevailing in a sport that depends on strength and stamina so as to enable a vanishingly small number of contestants to win by dint of their sex at birth not being female.

This sacrifice by naturally born females, who make up 50% or so of the human population, seems out of all proportion. What is it that gives such a very small subset of females such privilege that even the trans males, a slightly larger subset, don’t get?

Jim Lawrie

28th December 2019 at 7:24 pm

“a very small subset of females” – they are not females, they are not women.

Lesbians are a subset of females. Lesbains are being told that they are “transphobic” because they refuse to have sexual or social intercourse with these transmen. These men who identify as women do not try to force other men to have sex with them because the consequences would be violence, and because such men do not want to have sex with other men, they want to have sex with women. They ought to be treated like any other sexual aggressors. They are perpetrators, not victims.

Danny Rees

28th December 2019 at 4:01 pm

Feminists created a scenario where any criticism of their ideology and viewpoints was met with deranged rantings and censorship and now it’s coming right back on them.

The hilarious thing is Spiked is backing those feminists who’ve created that which they decry.

Christopher Tyson

28th December 2019 at 11:50 pm

You do have something in common with the purveyors of identity politics. You seem to be taking ‘feminism’ as an identity and then tautologically assuming that feminist subscribe to. You also seem to be taking ‘spiked’ as an identity, when you say ‘The hilarious thing is Spiked is backing those feminists who’ve created that which they decry’. Spiked does not speak with one voice, this article was written by one writer, who you are correct in saying is a representative of spiked, but is also a person in her own right. Feminist come in many varieties, shapes and sizes, they don’t all subscribe to fixed set of beliefs or dogmas. Indeed this article refers to one woman who is a ‘women rights activist’ but makes no other mention of feminism. The other women discussed are not described as feminists, unless you presume that all women are feminists. Many women resist the term feminist, others simple do not consider themselves feminists, yet they may or may not share some of the concerns associated with feminism. So we can make a distinction between ‘feminists’ and the ideology of ‘feminism’ as there is not 1:1 correspondence with the terms. Similarly a writer from spiked is not ‘spiked’, does not embody the ideology of ‘spiked’. There is also not an exact correspondence between feminism and the turn towards identity that has come into all kinds of ideas and politics today. The campaign for women’s suffrage for example was more like a development in liberalism than identity politics. It is within spiked’s remit to support liberation campaigns, it is also within spiked’s remit to support Reason and the idea of ‘truth’. spiked does not have a personal grudge against feminists, indeed spiked would or should be delighted to get them on board.

steve moxon

29th December 2019 at 10:26 pm

Evidently you don’t understand that contemporary feminism is the core of ‘identity politics’, having its root in Engels’ false notion that capitalism created the family, leading to Marxists idiotically taking capitalism to be agentic and psychogenic, in men being the conduit of capitalism to somehow ‘oppress’ women. This nonsense, aided by ‘post-modernist’ denial of any legitimacy to debate, was added to in the late 1960s by the co-option of the USA civil rights and Stonewall movements to provide the notion of blacks and gays also being oppressed, to produce the triumvirate of victim groups (‘protected characteristics’) that after 1970 was dubbed ‘identity politics’. All feminism today stems from this hogwash. [As for the suffragettes: they were upper and upper-middle class numpties, who were as illiberal as you could have got: they wanted an education qualification to deny the vote to most people, women and men, when almost all people wanted universal male but not female suffrage, in recognition that the national vote was about ‘imperial’ issues — wars and taxing to pay for them, which directly impacted on men, not on women.]

steve moxon

29th December 2019 at 10:13 pm

To hit the nail on the head.

Ma Har

28th December 2019 at 2:56 pm

Does anyone really believe Corbyn and Swinson’s drubbing was the result of their treacly pandering to the Trans lobby?

The Trans community are merely the most recent wave of cultural sappers tasked with continuing the Left’s counter hegemony against the West.

Whether they are successful in blurring the lines between the sexes is irrelevant.

There is an unending supply of disaffected “communities” eager to continue the cultural assault after the Trans have retired.

Danny Rees

28th December 2019 at 4:01 pm

Not at all. It was not even an election issue.

Jim Lawrie

29th December 2019 at 12:29 am

Both Corbyn and Swinson tried to make it so because they thought they could gain votes and make Boris look bad.

reality lite

28th December 2019 at 12:53 pm

@ Philip Humphrey
“We need a new culture of genuine tolerance, free speech, and give and take …”
Why? Tolerance has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is the freedom to say anything you like. And also to disagree with anything that’s said. There’s nothing wrong in being intolerant of opinions you don’t share., Tolerance is not an unalloyed good. It’s a descriptor, like weight. The word weight doesn’t tell you whether a thing is light or heavy. It just tells you that something is being weighed.
Tolerance & intolerance are two sides of the same coin. Tolerance & intolerance are how a society defines itself. The consensus of the people within it. Without both, you don’t have a society, just a collection of individuals incapable of acting in the common interest. Because you have to define what’s generally acceptable & what isn’t. The process of doing so is tolerance & intolerance.

Mark Houghton

28th December 2019 at 1:28 pm

I’m quite an easy going guy but there’s lots of stuff I won’t tolerate – male circumcision, paternity fraud, the bonkers end of Islam.

Connie D

30th December 2019 at 12:55 am

You specify male circumcision, does that mean you think removal of the foreskin is more harmful than removal of the clitoris?

Jonathan Swift

28th December 2019 at 7:50 pm

Neville Chamberlain tolerated Adolf Hitler until it was too late, then he had to admit that Winston Churchill’s intolerance of Hitler was correct!

Michael Lynch

28th December 2019 at 9:05 pm

Neat comparison.

Brandy Cluster

28th December 2019 at 11:58 pm

The take-home message from all that was that the Left were and are still gulls.

Peter Spurrier

29th December 2019 at 1:28 pm

Of course we shouldn’t tolerate things that should be illegal. However, I think the link between free speech and tolerance is that, if you believe in free speech, you tolerate ( i.e. allow ) speech that you disagree with and dislike. Arguably, the principle of tolerance is only important, when it comes to things you dislike. It doesn’t stop you expressing your dislike.

J Chilton

28th December 2019 at 11:00 am

Joanna Williams’ belief that the tide might be turning is wishful thinking. When the “insights” of postmodernist thinking and the prescriptions of political correctness have been repudiated by the ruling elites, there might be grounds for hope.

Korina Wood

28th December 2019 at 10:10 am

I do not care who identifies as what, I care when it is money that has been stolen from me by a State that I do not support and spent/wasted on rubbish. It is time for people to wake up and see that they are capable of running their own lives, they do not need the state to do it badly for them.
This mess is a creation of the Governments own making, do not allow them to continue to screw up this nation.

Mark Houghton

28th December 2019 at 10:37 am

I also care that some confused young people are being fed into the system of puberty blockers, hormones and surgery. They are the real victims in all this.

Terry Ryan

28th December 2019 at 9:47 am

I admit to being confused about the whole debate of gender and sex, probably because of my agricultural background. Rams are males for breeding purposes, wethers are desexed males who are kept for production purposes, in my knowledge for their wool clip and ewes for their breeding and wool clip production.

Where does this modern classification of gender/sex fit in with long-term agricultural practices.

Claire D

28th December 2019 at 10:26 am

Sex and ‘ gender ‘ are two different things. Sex is real, gender is imaginary.

Claire D

28th December 2019 at 10:30 am

You are supposed to be confused, the more the proponents of ‘ gender issues ‘ can confuse you the better for them. Hold fast to what you know to be true from your experience of reality.

Brandy Cluster

28th December 2019 at 11:59 pm

Where does that leave gender politics (as if we don’t know!)?

bf bf

29th December 2019 at 5:47 pm

B.S gender describes your sex.

Claire D

30th December 2019 at 7:17 am


No ‘ gender ‘ is NOT interchangeable with ‘ sex ‘.

The idea of Gender from Gender Role Theory is only a hypothesis. At best it describes a spectrum of male and feminine characteristics generally associated with men and women, often stereotypical. If anything it undermines human freedom of expression.

Mark Houghton

28th December 2019 at 9:40 am

I suspect that many of those who refer children to specialist trans services simply want to pass the buck because if they refuse to accede to the demand of a person who claims they’re trans then they can be castigated as a bigor – far easier to pass the buck to those who are happy to give people the hormones and other treatment they demand.
This is not going to end well.

Brandy Cluster

29th December 2019 at 12:00 am

It’s child abuse. Nothing more, nothing less.

Matt Ryan

29th December 2019 at 10:14 am

Yep, Dr Mengele would be proud of some of the achievements of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

Richard Cooper

3rd January 2020 at 8:33 pm

The trouble will start when the children come of age and sue the hell out of their parents and the medical profession.

steven brook

28th December 2019 at 9:24 am

2020 Wish list
Freedom of speech laws, including no protection from offence.
The law should not require that biological men must be treated as women, or vice versa.
Abolish the BBC
Make it illegal to collect race information (medical exemptions obviously)
Acknowledge that all religions are not equal, some are harmless some are nasty.
Repeal all hate speech laws.
A body overseeing teachers/lecturers ensuring they respect diversity (of thought the only meaningful kind)
Make Mars bars to the old recipe and size.

Ven Oods

28th December 2019 at 9:54 am

Haven’t eaten a Mars bar in many years, but that’s a good list you have there.

Claire D

28th December 2019 at 10:13 am

Excellent list, I’m with you on all that.
(Though sadly my Mars bar eating days are over, nevertheless for the sake of those who still can I’m with you there too.)

Jerry Owen

28th December 2019 at 10:46 am

I think the Mars bar recipe is still the same but yes, they are smaller than they were.. or is it that I am bigger now so making the Mars bar seem smaller ?
Curly wurlys are definitely smaller than they were.

steven brook

28th December 2019 at 11:58 am

The chocolate was definitely thicker, the inside bit was also much more substantial. And as for stopping production of Riley Toffee Rolls there is a place in hell along with Beeching and Blair for that cultural vandal.

Emma Olivia

28th December 2019 at 8:11 am

I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy job online from home using my laptop. Everybody can now get this and start making extra dollars online by just follow instructions on this website..

K Tojo

28th December 2019 at 2:09 am

Trans orthodoxy?! How can a quirky fringe movement achieve the status of orthodoxy in such a short time? I suppose the internet will be blamed as usual but behind our lightning fast system of 21st century social chatter lies the unchallenged principle of “inclusivity”. To ensure that this principle is respected our ever vigilant force of do-gooders sleeplessly scan the moral horizon their radar ever alert to any hint of discrimination and failure of social justice. Rest assured – no disadvantaged minority (however minor) will be denied recognition.

Philip Humphrey

28th December 2019 at 8:36 am

In this case I don’t think the Internet and social media are to blame. We saw the rise of PC decades ago with small groups being remarkably effective at enforcing a new orthodoxy by howling down and vilifying anyone who dared challenge it. And that all happened before the internet. It’s ironic that the feminists, one of the main groups behind PC now find themselves getting a dose of their own medicine, under attack from the trans activists who are in turn trying to enforce their orthodoxy. I don’t think anything good comes of this, it’s a bit like the aftermath of the Reformation when hundreds of small sects started asserting that they alone had the truth and that anyone else was going to damnation. We need a new culture of genuine tolerance, free speech, and give and take and not the narrow intolerance of PC. But I can’t see it happening any time soon.

Ven Oods

28th December 2019 at 9:57 am

“But I can’t see it happening any time soon.”
I think you’re right, unfortunately. That would take the majority to howl down the minorities, but they only take the opportunity during a general election, so the effect is somewhat diluted.

Claire D

28th December 2019 at 10:22 am

That’s a good point about the Reformation Philip; I keep seeing parallels, including the ex officio oath used to force people to incriminate themselves from around 1570 to 1640 approx, with The Equality Act 2010.

Claire D

28th December 2019 at 4:41 pm

Just to explain the ” ex officio oath ” for anyone who is interested :

This was a form of coercion, persecution and forcible self-incrimination in the religious trials of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It was a religious oath made by the accused prior to questioning by the Star Chamber, ” to answer truthfully all questions that might be asked.”

This gave rise to what became known as the ‘ cruel trilemma ‘. The accused would be trapped between a breach of religious oath (important at the time), contempt of court for silence, and self incrimination.

An outcry led to the establishment of the right NOT to incriminate oneself in common law and the Star Chamber was abolished by Parliament as part of the Habaeus Corpus Act 1640.

Claire D

29th December 2019 at 11:03 am

Should be * Habaes *.


29th December 2019 at 5:41 pm

Damn the Internet and social media for allowing minorities to organise and communicate with each other! How dare they! The views of the ‘majority’ must be imposed on everyone!

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.