Documenting the West’s descent into Satanic receivership at the hands of the gender goblins and their allies in media and government.
Highly controversial question ‘What is a woman?’ not allowed during Pride™ month, insists Canadian MP
On June 9, Canadian MP Vincent Ho, questioning Chief Science Advisor Dr. Mona Nemer during a hearing for Canada's Standing Committee on Science and Research, posed the highly controversial and now baseline metric of sanity to the respected expert on all things science: “So, before you became Chief Science Advisor, you were a molecular geneticist by training, right? So you know a thing or two about X and Y chromosomes. So I wanted to ask you: what is the definition of a woman?”
Liberal MP John-Paul Danko then interjects with an objection to the seemingly banal question: “It is Pride month, and understanding Order 18, which prohibits personal attacks, insults, and offensive language, the accusation, where this question is going is highly offensive… I ask the member to withdraw his comments.”
“Highly offensive!”
"What is a woman"
— Ben Bartee (@BenBartee) June 10, 2026
All hell breaks loose in Canada's Standing Committee on Science and Research over "highly offensive" question! pic.twitter.com/9LWOEzJRMd
Related: Illinois Gov Launches Historic LGBTQ Hotline For Persecuted Rainbow People
The obvious and honest answer, of course, would be something like: “I have no idea what a woman is, and neither do you, bigot, because we are living in a postmodern world divorced from any tethering to reality, no matter how basic or demonstrable.”
Unfortunately, there’s still some small sliver of the Canadian population that might object to their elected representatives admitting that they subscribe to the idea of material reality and that the country is now run according to the fatwas of some delusional Women and Gender Studies professor at the University of Toronto or wherever, directing society from the shadows under the guise of “progress.”
‘Trans women don’t owe you femininity’
Here, a murderer’s row of ghastly trannies, including gigantic hairy man-beasts, some with jawlines so square that they’d make Henry Rollins blush, explains that “trans women don’t owe you femininity”:
‘Trans women don’t owe you femininity’, gruseome man-beasts explain to transphobic bigots pic.twitter.com/fSBD3PkZDG
— Ben Bartee (@BenBartee) June 11, 2026
The rhetorical trick that these people in this montage like to play, although it doesn’t work so well anymore due to overuse, is that your natural revulsion to their unsightliness, rather than their fault for being hideous, is somehow an imposition on them and an expression of some verboten bigotry.
All natural reactions to displays of trannyism in the form of womanface — no matter how grotesque, no matter how much facial hair the lady has — must be pathologized.
I think a lot of this “I’m a woman but I’m not going to make any effort to look like a woman while insisting you recognize me as such” approach to trannyism is predicated on three factors:
- Western trannies — as opposed to, for instance, ladyboys in Thailand, who make an obvious effort to feminize themselves — are encouraged to make themselves as hideous as possible in the same way that Western social engineers make everything ugly on purpose to demoralize the population. Beauty is not only not an ideal; the inverse of beauty is.
- Laziness. They want the social benefits of trannydom without any of the effort that would be required to pass as anything other than gluttonous perverts.
- Grievance politics. One of the central tenets of trannyism is that they are forever aggrieved by society in some way. If you’re not being oppressed, you’re not a real alphabet person. In the absence of actual oppression, they make do with random members of the public who don’t go out of their way to affirm their bravery and stunningness.
