💬 Off-Topic Tranny/LGBTQ Historical Revisionism - Retroactive rewriting of history by degenerates

[Gunty King]

This is one of my personal favorites. Alot of center left/center right types love to say things to the effect of, "What happened to the LGBT movement? I thought they just wanted to have sex in the privacy of their bedroom? Where did this targeting of children come from?"
However, for decades targeting children was a major plank in their platform. Back in the 1960s, gays were trying to push through trans and pedophile acceptance alongside Gay acceptance, but everyone was put off by the troon shit and REALLY put off by the kid shit so they eventually dropped the latter 2 in the 1980s and exclusively started to just focus on Homosexuality which was an easier pill for people to swallow. As late as the 1979 National March on Washington for gay and lesbian rights their platform, written by Allen Young they formally welcome "Pederasts"

Spoiler: meaning

(nice word for gay pedos)

and "Pubescents"

Spoiler: meaning

(confusing word for underage child/teen who just hit puberty)

to the march (surprisingly still up on wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_March_on_Washington_for_Lesbian_and_Gay_Rights

https://web.archive.org/web/20230603080531/https://www.cristanwilliams.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/MOWprogram-1979.pdf

Nowadays they're more open that they are in fact "coming for your children" but in the 2000s whenever conservative talking heads tried to (accurately) claim that gay rights were a slippery slope and that the movement would lead to pedophilia acceptance, gays would try to portray them as insane conspiracy theorists, even though if that same conservative said the same thing in the 1970s, gays would fully agree.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Just the fact that Dahmer was able to skate by a lot of complaints with "it's consensual, lol" meant that there was a LOT of burned bridges and degenerate shit that the police in any large city had just learned to ignore.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

What you just said, isn't that what the article more or less says too?

The article isn't really written well, and there probably were "two-spirit" Indians who genuinely believed they were women like any good troon would. They just were probably a minority.

It is not true that being the top was ever seen as "okay". Maybe less humiliating? But sodomy was looked down upon and it takes two.

Where did you get that idea? Many ancient societies didn't have a problem with a dude fucking another dude in the ass. That's pretty obvious because there are few sodomy laws that apply to everyone. Like the Romans had laws against having anal sex with a fellow citizen and laws against soldiers having sex with each other (bad for discipline and because one man was getting penetrated), but no laws against gay sex in general. These were not societies that fucked around with "tolerance" like ours--if they found something wrong or looked down on it, they punished it. If you're correct, that would make it very unusual that there aren't laws against sodomy in general.

And this isn't something like how there aren't laws against trooning out kids in many states because the idea was so obviously repulsive that no one bothered to make it a law, since homosexuality is portrayed in art and literature in these societies and often in a neutral context.

It's really only logical why ancient societies saw it as wrong. You don't have that high of a population, infant mortality is common which means all "mating pairs" as it were need to have multiple children for a family to be successful. Hygiene is something to keep in mind, there is no advance in medicine to treat or keep at bay disease. So while it was different to what we would consider being clean, cleanliness was on the mind of people in the past. Society def wanted to encourage good old hetero fucking, and a bunch of a dudes with blown out assholes pre diaper invention was probably best avoided. We really take for granted the advancement and luxuries modern society allows even the lowest of us.

Their only concern was that if you fucking a man in the ass, you better be married to a woman and having kids with her. And a lot of people who had gay sex did have a lot of kids.

 

[Paper Machete]

few sodomy laws that apply to everyone

Like I said, sodomy takes two. It doesn't just apply to being the receiver. It absolutely did apply to the shit on dick haver as well. It really doesn't make any logical sense not to. "It's not gay to top" is really just a joke. You weren't supposed to take it for reals. Also, remember that it's almost always in reference to societies were pederasty was a thing. Please think this through lol (which, if Leather Apron is right, is also something which is greatly misunderstood as it was more a basic mentorship thing and not inherently sexual just some took advantage of the obvious power imbalance which is something that happens all the time in lots of different ways even to this day)
IIRC it also use to entail any sex act that wasn't PIV within a marriage if you're talking biblical but came to mostly be associated with just the gays having butt fun.
Again a lot of this just comes down to basic cleanliness. Fucking whores and assholes indiscriminately spreads disease. Disease that wasn't easily combated back in ye olden times. I also don't imagine there was much information circulating on how to "safely" fuck an asshole without one shotting their chance at being leak free. There are reasons the most rampant degeneracy precipitated a fall or was only localized to sleazy elites. It's good to keep in mind a lot of history is biased towards what the elites where doing as their lifestyles were most often the ones considered of note. It wasn't really until literacy began to explode in the 1800s that more mundane lives were being recorded by themselves.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

what would make you think that this isn't something trannies would want?

...What would make her think this is something gay men wouldn't want?

it's always been deviant

Some people are incapable of accepting that and do constant mental loop-de-loops trying to suppose that somehow "this time, it's different.". 'No, the rampant gay pedophilia that used to be in the catholic church is not indicative of the rampant gay pedophilia literally everywhere else!' Those are gay catholic priests, which have nothing to do with gay people!

 

[Irregardless]

National socialists hated homos so much they would rather create mass rape camps with slavs, who they saw as animals, than entertain the possibility of faggotry spreading in the military. Even creating a special departament for combating homosexuality too.
The crossdressing part is because nowdays the revisionists are such deviants they can only see it as sexual.

If I was going to give the best faith interpretation of what I think it was supposed to be is that German eugenics lead to a culture of hedonism where the beautiful embraced sexual promiscuity. That being said, I never read the books, and I'm just trying to think of what kind of creative idea could a writer make that would be bastardize in such a way.

I think for most retarded pozzed writers though they inherently know that the troon lifestyle is inherently degenerate and disgusting and they use it as a way to portray historical figures in a way they know would be offensive to them. I also think another reason is that these people have 0 knowledge about history and just look everything up on wikipedia, or at best hire a historian to guide them on a general outline, but that ultimately they don't give a fuck about anything that isn't related to their world view.

Gone are the days where good stories were written by niggas who were autistically obsessed with something like a small 50 year period during the byzantine empire where they real liked the specific texture of stone that was used for statues, so they just knew everything abou the period and were able to craft a very well researched story.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Nowadays they're more open that they are in fact "coming for your children" but in the 2000s whenever conservative talking heads tried to (accurately) claim that gay rights were a slippery slope and that the movement would lead to pedophilia acceptance, gays would try to portray them as insane conspiracy theorists, even though if that same conservative said the same thing in the 1970s, gays would fully agree

I do know the LGBT scene attempted to clean house in the 1990’s after the AIDS crisis and told NAMBLA to fuck off when the organization wanted to be associated with the gay movement.

The 1970’s in general were very open to paedophilic behavior. Playboy had special editions featuring nude kids. Brooke Shields got her start modeling in the magazine. CSAM wasn’t made illegal until 1978. It was a very weird and degenerate time.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

I’ll research it later, but there was a whole group of Babylonian priests who, in their worship a particular goddess, were set apart and only allowed to receive anal sex. (The first example of gay4pay in history???)

Sorry for the double-post; I assume you’re talking about the Gala priests of Sumeria, who were men dressed as women who served the goddess Inanna. They spoke a dialect that was meant for women and the cuneiform signs used for spelling their titles as priests and dancers for Inanna translate to “feminine man” and “penis anus”. They pretty much existed to sing lamentations and get sodomized by temple-goers.

There was also the Galli priests of Cybele in Greece and Rome, who were men dressed as women who castrated themselves. It’s possible that the Gala were eunuchs as well, considering they are only referenced as being on the receiving end of sexual intercourse. It’s difficult to say whether they were meant to be interpreted as homosexuals, hermaphrodites, or women, but cross-dressing/castrated priests were not uncommon in ancient cultures.

Edit: I deleted the original comment I made regarding gender non-conformity in the ancient world and the modern concept of transgenderism because some of my information was incorrect, I plan on doing a full post about it eventually.

 

[Bioniclelover]

Heliogabalus becoming a 'transgender' emperor is one of the most bizarre and comical attempts at historical tranny revisionism that come to my mind. The man was painted as a complete and utter degenerate and a lunatic by the contemporaries and was widely named as one of the absolute worst roman emperors in history.
I suppose that's 100% accurate depiction of a real tranny (whether it was true or just propaganda against him) but one would think that at least one of these people would stop to think for a moment about how this is a bad look (then again they are too mentally handicapped to comprehend how asking people to respect rapists' pronouns is reprehensible to overwhelming majority of a population).

 

[800 Chupacabras]

Sorry for the double-post; I assume you’re talking about the Gala priests of Sumeria, who were men dressed as women who served the goddess Inanna. They spoke a dialect that was meant for women and the cuneiform signs used for spelling their titles as priests and dancers for Inanna translate to “feminine man” and “penis anus”. They pretty much existed to sing lamentations and get sodomized by temple-goers.

There was also the Galli priests of Cybele in Greece and Rome, who were men dressed as women who castrated themselves. It’s possible that the Gala were eunuchs as well, considering they are only referenced as being on the receiving end of sexual intercourse. It’s difficult to say whether they were meant to be interpreted as homosexuals, hermaphrodites, or women, but cross-dressing/castrated priests were not uncommon in ancient cultures.

Edit: I deleted the original comment I made regarding gender non-conformity in the ancient world and the modern concept of transgenderism because some of my information was incorrect, I plan on doing a full post about it eventually.

There we go, the priests of Inanna (I didn’t know that about the cult of Cybele).

 

[John Shedletsky]

This has always been an interesting topic of discussion for me, because I've always been interested in history & its preservation. More importantly, it frustrates me when people just flat out try to revise it to fit with modern sensibilities. It's like how the Romans would lie about Emperors & political opponents, except its more egregious and motivated by a desire to manipulate the impressionable.

Cheers to OP and everyone in this thread for documenting this. I really hate how this has been festering for quite some time, with no real pushback.

 

[aidoneus]

It's completely unsurprising the alphabet gang are unafraid to revise and rewrite ancient historical events despite all their bitching and whining about "muh winners write the history books." Look at their own interpretation of Stonewall.

Historical accuracy and integrity come second to creating a political mythos around the suffering and martyrdom of degenerates. Of course they cannot get basic high school history knowledge correct without having a meltdown about the truth considering they can't even help spreading lies and conjecture about the very major event that was a catalyst for the lifestyles they get to enjoy today.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

It's completely unsurprising the alphabet gang are unafraid to revise and rewrite ancient historical events despite all their bitching and whining about "muh winners write the history books." Look at their own interpretation of Stonewall.
Ver archivo adjunto 6210500
Historical accuracy and integrity come second to creating a political mythos around the suffering and martyrdom of degenerates. Of course they cannot get basic high school history knowledge correct without having a meltdown about the truth considering they can't even help spreading lies and conjecture about the very major event that was a catalyst for the lifestyles they get to enjoy today.

A gay man who elaborately chronicled his life in 1960's/70's/80's New York spent a good portion talking about the Stonewall riots. He was there the night it occurred. This is what he had to say:

Over the years since the Stonewall riots occurred those events have been embellished with many fictions, among them that it was a gathering place for gay men and lesbians, that it was a bar for drag queens, and a place whose main clientele was black and Hispanic. From what I saw in the Stonewall none of these things were true. But despite the availability of reliable contemporary reports and interviews and the publication of an excellent book by David Carter, the Internet continues to proliferate invented Stonewalls tailored to present-day standards of Political Correctness.

An example of this was the now much-revised article in 2007 Wikipedia, Stonewall Riots, which contained in its introductory section the following claim.:

The Stonewall bar was heavily frequented by blacks and Hispanics. The decision by the police to raid the bar in the manner they did may have been influenced by the fact that most of the "homosexuals" they would encounter were of color, and therefore even more objectionable. A large percentage of the rioters were also men of color.

Dawn Hampton, a black employee at the Stonewall, is quoted in David Carter's book as saying that the bar's customers were Spanish, whites and blacks, but she added a qualifying emphasis: "...there were more whites than the others." Many other people familiar with the place have indicated the same in interviews, and the few photos taken outside at the time of the events show a majority of white faces, though undoubtedly some of these are Hispanic.

The Wikipedia phrase "heavily frequented" suggests to me something meaning a good deal more than half, perhaps two-thirds or even more. If the phrase was intended to mean that by the person who put it in the article, based on my observations as a customer, it is dead wrong. Like the Candlelight Lounge customers on the Upper West Side, the Stonewall crowd was somewhat racially mixed, though much more ethnically mixed. My recollection, like those of others who went there, is that blacks were always the smallest percentage of the crowd, by far most customers were Hispanic or white and to the extent that one could tell from appearances the majority were non-Hispanic whites.

Significantly, I think, I never heard the Stonewall characterized by white gay men as being "black" or "Hispanic." In an era when bars were usually given capsule descriptions that characterized their patrons, I think this should dispel any lingering doubt. To comment as the Wikipedia article does that "most of the "homosexuals" they [the police] would encounter were of color" is completely and wildly at odds with the facts.

And the remark about "raid the bar in the manner they did" (emphasis added) is puzzling. The descriptions in the two books about the Stonewall riots and in other accounts don't indicate that there was anything out of the ordinary about the manner in which the raid was initiated (though the results were certainly out of the ordinary!) The author(s) of this earlier Wiki article would seem to have been unfamiliar with NYC gay bar raids in the Fifties or Sixties. Raids on the Snake Pit and the Zodiac, two other unlicensed gay places, were conducted in the same manner. Granted, most bar raids did not always scoop up customers and cart them off in the Paddy wagon, usually only the staff got that treat. Serious police raids, however, were something else again, and they had not turned into love-ins, despite the Summer of Love and Woodstock.

The Stonewall events are fine as they really were. It was not a politically correct theater piece just waiting for opening night.

The Stonewall was a sleazy slice of New York underworld life. In the Flower Power Sixties, behind the Stonewall's front door there was still a bit of Gotham in the Fifties: the crowd and the atmosphere a blend of old dance bars like the Grapevine and the 415, a mixture that must have had Lee Mortimer spinning in his grave like a windmill. It was a New York crowd, replete with Mafia lightweights and a closet gay, ex-con blackmailer – and it's a New York story that could have inspired a gay Damon Runyon or provided some of the real-life New York material for a novel in Lawrence Block's Scudder series.

But it was the Sixties, the end of the Sixties at that. Freedom fever was loose, and by this time even gay people understood: their enemies were not invulnerable.

Here's the source link. He talks about it more on his website, he's incredibly thorough and unfiltered about the gay lifestyle of NYC during the period. It's so interesting to read--though be warned. It's not for the pearl-clutchers or the faint of heart.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

Susan Stryker, whom they use to as the “reference”, is a tranny professor of queer and women’s studies at University of Arizona and is obsessed with trans shit.
Ver archivo adjunto 6209155
He’s even got that classic creepy AGP smirk.

Oh that's not Jack Plotnick in drag?!

 

[Pecano]

Thanks for this thread. I couldn't ever refute their claims because I'm not even close to being that interested in history, but it's nice to see people refute this stuff. I've always been a bit suspect.

 

[Surfin Terf]

If they threw coffee in the face of a cop, it's weird to me that this cop hasn't been named or come forward to corroborate the story. You'd think, also, that there'd be police reports on this sort of thing.

But no, the cop in question, who they can't name, but was apparently known to be abusive to the transgender community, apparently just exists like some sort of NPC in this story, with no life outside of this incident. Curious.

Record keeping wasn't so good in the 60s and I've read that a lot of SFPD records from the time were destroyed by a water leak. And maybe that particular cop didn't feel like talking about a drag queen throwing coffee in his face.

But this was a 10 minute walk from San Francisco's two largest and oldest newspapers,The Chronicle and Examiner.

In one of the most densely populated parts of a major American city, a block away from the main street. And yet no one took a single picture? Why are there no eyewitness accounts? Why is the only cop who claims to have been there attention whore Elliot Blackstone? Why is there absolutely no mention of it anywhere until 6 years later, in 1972?

And now San Francisco has officially designated this area as the Compton's Transgender district. While this may seem like a W for the trannies, it's actually a massive L because a) Compton's was the one who wanted the trannies out and now he owns the trannies b) it's literally the worst neighborhood in San Francisco.

 

[SomeSpook]

I think I could remember reading the "Band of Brothers" and how these soldiers who went all the way to Germany would be close to each other in a sort of familial way. But it never occurred to me that these men had a homosexual attraction to each other despite their affections. I think there may have been a lot of moments in history where it was common for men to show affection to each other and it not be seen as homosexual, but rather an act of brotherly bonding. I have no clue where these people get the idea that everyone in history is suddenly gay or a transvestite. I would imagine that being a homosexual would be extremely stigmatized to the point of your family essentially disowning you or people calling you a faggot, queer or homo.

 

[Miriam Margoyles]

Record keeping wasn't so good in the 60s and I've read that a lot of SFPD records from the time were destroyed by a water leak. And maybe that particular cop didn't feel like talking about a drag queen throwing coffee in his face.

Even if we play devil's advocate like that, if this guy had a history of bullying and unfair treatment towards trans people, surely someone would be able to give us his name, at least? That's the sort of thing that would get around, right?

We all know who Mark Fuhrman and Derek Chauvin are.

 

[Niggolash]

Entire reddit threads like this [archive].

Isaac Newton in particular tends to get this treatment a lot, despite the fact that he had a childhood crush on the daughter of one of his mentors. That, and, it wasn't unheard of for men back then to use flowery language with each other like signing their letters with "your most faithful and affectionate servant". Newton even did this with his most hated rivals, as nothing more than a formality.

Thankfully not everyone is buying this bullshit.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Even if we play devil's advocate like that, if this guy had a history of bullying and unfair treatment towards trans people, surely someone would be able to give us his name, at least? That's the sort of thing that would get around, right?

We all know who Mark Fuhrman and Derek Chauvin are.

The article should be completely scrubbed off Wikipedia and more thoroughly researched because there is no evidence that such an event happened, or if it did happen was at the scale the article claims. There’s only one source used, and the source is completely anecdotal and coming from a TiM professor with their fingers in multiple transgender organizations.

Are we really expected to believe that cops frequently raided transgender bars in San Francisco in the 1960’s and nobody kept good enough records to have the names of any of the “victims” or cops?? We have recollections from multiple people about the gay bar raids in New York during the 1960ms (the proof is in the link I supplied in my previous post regarding Stonewall), and yet nobody has any details or names surrounding this incident? What a fucking joke.

Everything about this is 100% manufactured or hyperbolized to earn oppression points for trannies because they need to show they’re just as, if not more, historically oppressed than gays.