#celery apologist

[mizzlecity]

celery sticks are lowkey dog bones for humans like they’re even the same size and i feel like the crunch is equally satisfying

[celtyradicalfem]

“So you don't know how to read or check the link, i literally said "at first" her hubby abused the children with got arrested, she didn't and she kept abusing the children.”

I will do my own research

I don’t trust a single word you say about anything

“And the only reason radfems covered it is because they taught she was trans because women who don't make your guys wet must be men.”

That is a sick thing to say especially in the context of child sexual abuse to a CSA Survivor

You do not have any moral highground (in any circumstances) after making creepy sexually demeaning, lesbophobic comments about the vaginas of women you hate (isn’t that ‘cissexism’ according to your cult?)

You forfeit any (non) argument pretending to care about about bigotry

Anyway I saw the pictures and that looks like a man

We know the media is complicity and lies about trans status all the time so it is not implausible that this is another false identity story

Trans lobby has the mainstream media in their pockets

Journalists make sure to mention it was a transgender ‘woman’ when a man attacks them or they started shit and cried to the media (no one cares if the Star Wars Man is twanzphobic but we all have to hear about it)

You have to scroll down to find out the ‘woman’ who raped women and children was trans and that is incidental information that the public doesn’t need to hear

*thought

“Once again, minimizing and ignoring female on female abuse because you see women as victims of anything and never responsible for anything wrong ever”

You are taking the opportunity to make Chris Chan sexually assaulting his own mother to make this about Bad Women

Literally go fuck yourself......in hell preferably

“you are more offended at a term that offends bad women than a female child being abused by her parents.”

I saw how hard you freaks fought for pronouns over acknowledgement that pervert turned out to be a serial groper

You are more offended a sexual predator is not given the utmost respect to his special gender status than his victims

“No she is a female dead children as their biological mom, she abused the children together with her husband, he got arrested, she didn't, kept abusing her children, got a sentence doesn't include women as perpetrators so she won't even be added as stats as female predator.”

I am doing my own research because you can not be trusted with any details

“No the media reported on her as female because she is a female with a vagina and XX chromossomes with biological children she abused and a dead child registered as their biological mother in their obituary.

The media has their hands in trans lobby pockets and gives false reports about the true identity of trans identified males

“Radfems rapist in training like you”

Making actually false rape accusations is hypocritical

You can stop pretending to be defending sexual abuse victims when this how you talk to CSA Survivors

“She is a female”

I am not so sure about that

“you are unhinged rape apologist for female abusers and the sky is blue.”

You sent me this after harassing me

You are a fucked in the head freak who is an obvious danger to women

“Once again, you only care for women on women abuse when one woman has a "trans" in the front.”

Trans’women’ are men

Male violence is the problem

Obviously we want all male perpetrators to be fucking dealt with......don’t you agree?

“So even in your made up assumption that the female child rapist was only a accomplice you now move on to straight up saying that the crime doesn't exist?”

I know you aren’t smart but this is the dumbest response you have made

“That women who help men sexually abuse children and get radfems to call her a man because she not attractive...has done no crimes?”

They called that a man because that looks like a man and the story was suspicious

“Is that what you are saying Celery? That women who are accomplices in the rape of women and children aren't commiting a crime or anything wrong?”

Me: “So it was the man raping the child and a woman was an accomplice?”

Shinji you’re an idiot

“Or is it the stress you have now that you don't have a bunch of sheeple”

I can’t believe you said “sheeple” like a bad teen movie

You actually said “sheeple” after you needed to tag team because you can’t handle one woman so you need the rest of your woman hate group to come to your rescue

“validating you rape apologist mindset is gone”

You bring out the rape apologism and whataboutism basically every post about female victims (over 90% of domestic abuse and sexual abuse) and you are doing it on a post a man sexually abused his elderly mother

Just because you learned a new word does not mean you know what it means or how to use it

Rape apologist does not belong to you

That is not your language

Keep it out of your mouth

“and you have to do PR all for yourself making you just write nonsense?”

Damn dude you are a new level of stupid

Obviously you don’t understand these scenarios because fuck up hypotheticals you make up in your head in ‘debate’ but I expect more than this

“Pick your poison”

I chose Nidorina because she’s a girl

“Protesters also didn't write labour laws you don't see anyone saying we have the weekends thanks to the government and corporations, feminists fought for rape and sexual assault laws based solely on gender and not punishing abusers”

Those laws are about punishing abusers who abuse on the basis of gender (male violence against women)

That is why you are so frightened by them because it is eventually gonna get your ass

“both rads and libs fight tooth and nail to keep them gendered no matter how much harm it causes”

Good

“once again like a good handmaiden does best, you blame everything on men”

You don’t what that means....do you?

“when you can't take responsibility for the harm you caused for women.”

No women were harmed in the production of these posts

“I didn't know being CSA survivor made you a female rapist apologist? I must be the exception i guess lol.”

That isn’t a thing

Victims of abuse have a sixth sense about some lying to them

“It’s so funny seeing you scramble and run around losing your mind because you don't have people defending you anymore,”

I talked to my friends and they think you are a freak

We are laughing at you

You freaks act so crazy that you scare women into silence but you will never shut me up

“look at you,”

Look at yourself

Your mother should see how you act online

Disappointing manchild

Waste of her life

“literally not even reading a link”

I am not reading woman haters trying to spin the story

I will do my own research

“because seeing radfems making PR for females rapists as long they arent attractive doesn't fit your narrative”

That makes no sense unless you think the only reason feminists care about sexual violence issues is because whatever this deranged ranting is whatever deranged shit you fake up with in this paragraph

If you didn’t have something to hide you would not be this grotesque and personally talk about our forbidden to mention female genitalia

Only sick bastards talk about women like this

“that your movement loves minimizing female on female rape, child rape at that,”

Your movement houses child rapists with women in prison because you hate women so much

There were no issue with ‘female on female rape’ until they housed trans identified males in the women’s prison now ‘women with penises’ are free to rape female prisoners

Now female inmates are pregnant and the prison’s ‘solution’ is to give them condoms

“you are so desperate to keep your degenerate mindset alive”

Your projection tactics are revealing

“you are literally running from evidence, you have completely lost it,

You wrote like ten paragraphs because I didn’t give you what you want

You need to control your roid rage

“Lars Von Trier wishes he could break a woman in the way you've done it to yourself,”

I don’t know who that is but you sound like a rapist

I googled him and he is a misogynist director obsessed with punishing women on film

You really need to be investigated

I am deadly serious you are deranged and need to be stopped before you attack a woman

“a literal cockroach running around looking for anything to protect itself from the crushing reality that she is a horrible person”

Silence you filthy, fucking woman hater

You are not worth stomping on because you would only get gunk on my shoe

Scumfuckers like you will get what they deserve

“and no one, not even other radfems, like her, like a trainwreck, you just can't look away.”

Why are you under the impression that you know anything about radblr?

You don’t even understand the slang and terminology we use

I kept getting followers during the original flame war even with a handful of dumbasses most radfems agreed with me

BTW: I have seen your intra community drama and damn your community is fucked up

I didn’t even know the shit you get up to on discord until one of kids groomed by your community leaked screenshots

How many pedophiles and perverts are there in your community?

In conclusion:

You wrote that all that and you still don’t have shit on me

How fucking crazy are you to be this invested?

I already know you are friends with a known pedophile and other perverts

I can’t wait until the dirt on you is exposed

I’ll bring the popcorn

CWC JAILED OH MY GOD

[nogoodmox]

this is a celery apologist blog

[waxeight06-blog]

The Killer Argument Against Salt

Many bloggers known for their contrarian arguments on everything related to nutrition, which they brandish without a shred of evidence, are now claiming that eating a low-salt diet is unhealthy and leads to “increased mortality.”

They also claim that it’s not the quantity of salt that matters, but the quality. For this reason, they recommend particular types of salt like Himalayan salt.

The arguments used to redeem salt are even weaker than those used to endorse saturated fats. But unfortunately, too many people have fallen for them and will die an early death as a result.

What’s even stranger is when those bloggers are otherwise recommending a sort of Paleo Diet or “return to unadulterated foods.” When they claim that “no tribe has ever lived on a vegan diet,” are they aware that those very tribes, which they use as dietary models, didn’t consume salt — a recent addition to humanity’s diet?

Why Salt is a Poison

Dr. Lewis Dahl was one of the first scientists who researched the effects of salt on blood pressure. When he found that a low salt intake lowers blood pressure, his natural question was “does a high salt intake cause increased blood pressure?”

In the 60s, he bred two strains of rats with different sensitivity to salt in developing hypertension. His experiments started building the case against salt.

Opponents will claim that this was insufficient to prove that salt is a major cause of hypertension in humans, and have often trashed Dr. Dahl’s work on that basis. However, they have failed to examine the rest of the evidence against salt. And since 1954,  the science has added up.

Here are the arguments against salt, none of which have ever been considered by salt apologists:

      1) Human beings are adapted to a very low sodium diet, through millions of years of evolution (from pre-human species to modern humans). We ate natural foods that were low in sodium. Breast milk is low in sodium. (Cow’s milk contains much more sodium, by comparison). Because of this, we are genetically programmed to function on a low-sodium diet and eliminate excess sodium in the urine.

      2) When Europeans discovered isolated tribes and communities that did not use salt, they found that they also never experienced hypertension in their lifetime.  On the other hand, modern humans on modern diets have a 60-80% chance of developing hypertension in their lifetime.

           3) There were exceptions to this rule, and a few isolated tribes and communities used salt. For example, scientists studied the Lau tribe in the Solomon Islands between 1966 and 1970. They had the highest blood pressure readings in the region, and also happened to cook all of their fish, sweet potatoes and greens in seawater – so they had a high salt intake.

     4) Scientists discovered that the sodium requirement for humans is only 300-500 mg a day. Most people consume over 4000 mg. a day, sometimes up to 6000 or 8000 mg. 

       5) Chimpanzees are 98% genetically similar to human beings. That noted, scientists tested the salt theory on a group of chimpanzees. Salt intake was progressively increased to 5800 mg a day. Their blood pressure rose by 33/10 mmHg. Even on just 1900 mg. of sodium a day, their systolic blood pressure increased 12 mm. When the scientists removed salt from their diet, their blood pressure slowly came down to their pre-experiment levels.

      6) Human experiments showed the same thing. 

      7) The Rice-Fruit Diet by Dr. William Kemptner was one of the first diets ever used to treat hypertension before drugs were available. It contained 150 mg. of sodium per day. This diet was extremely efficient in treating the most severe case of hypertension — in most but not all people. Later studies found that it was the low-sodium content that gave the results. Blood pressure went up with added salt, but not with added protein. They were able to add 500 mg. of sodium a day without an increase in blood pressure, but not more than that. *10

     8) We know that Thiazide medicines lower blood pressure, probably by increasing sodium excretion.   

What’s Normal Blood Pressure?

Normal blood pressure is not 120/80. That is simply the cutoff at which your doctor will start worrying about high blood pressure. They’ll probably not worry until you hit 140/90, the point at which the benefits of hypertension medications begin to outweigh the risks.

Normal blood pressure is UNDER 110/70. Few people in Western societies achieve such blood pressure over a lifetime because of our diet and high-salt intake.

How Salt Increases Blood Pressure

Humans evolved on a low-sodium diet. Our requirements are very low, under 600 mg — a day. When we start introducing more and more sodium to our diet, our body must work harder to get rid of this extra sodium.

The blood becomes saltier, and the body must dilute this salt. That means more water and more pressure.

Get too much sodium,  and your kidneys will work overtime to do their job.

To suck out all of this sodium and remove it in the urine, kidneys become the best reverse osmosis machine in the world. They’ll draw extra water from your blood. But when there’s extra pressure, it puts a strain on them. High-sodium diets damage the kidneys over time.

Because of all of this extra pressure, the walls of our arteries become thicker. Eventually, small arteries can become so narrow that they clog up completely, or burst entirely because of the pressure. There goes a stroke.

The Salt Skeptics

It would take too long to go through all of the arguments of salt skeptics. But we can point out a few things:

 Some studies have shown that people consuming less salt are living shorter. Explanation: This is due to a problem called “reverse causation.” In Western societies, the only people that tend to cut out sodium are those suffering from major illnesses. Therefore, it is normal to find an association between illness and low-salt intake.

In a few cases, a low-sodium diet can be deadly for people with acute heart failure, taking drugs that flush out their sodium reserves. Explanation: Those are rare cases and can’t extend to the rest of the population.

Many have raised doubts about the famous “Intersalt study,” which initially did not find a significant link between blood pressure and sodium. Explanation: The results were revised in 1996 after the authors had realized they had not corrected the numbers for a “regression dilution problem.” Salt intake was then found to correlate with blood pressure strongly. Many of those studies are flawed and paid for by the salt industry. Dr. Greger has a series of videos on this salt controversy. 

Heavily controlled and rigorous human trials have shown that moderately lowering sodium to 1600 mg. a day significantly reduces blood pressure.

Because some people don’t react to sodium restriction, the average drop can appear small. But remember that every 1 point drop in systolic blood pressure leads to a 1% reduction in overall death.

Remember: the salt and processed food industries need salt to stay alive. They will put out research to try to confuse the public about salt. Meanwhile, the scientific consensus is clear: too much salt is deadly.

How to Tell If Food Has Too much Salt?

If it comes from a restaurant, it has too much salt. If your friend prepared it, it has too much salt. If it’s packaged, it has too much salt. There’s no need to even count mg. of sodium. Eat unprocessed foods that you prepare yourself. If you eat any amount of restaurant food, you’re consuming too much salt.

What About Gourmet Salts?

I can’t end this article without answering a question that will inevitably come up. What about Himalayan salt? Celtic salt? Braggs Liquid Aminos?

The truth is that it doesn’t matter. Yes, some of these salts contain an array of minerals. But most of what’s in it is sodium chloride.

It’s not about salt per se — it’s about sodium. Too much sodium is the problem. And all of those products and more contain a lot of sodium. Because many gourmet salts are moist, one teaspoon of it might contain less sodium. But it still contains mostly sodium — which is a lot.

Braggs, which isn’t as popular nowadays, contains just as much sodium as soy sauce. It looks like it holds less on the label because they play with the serving size.

Even if you used dried celery juice as a powder, you could still get too much sodium if you ate enough of it. The source doesn’t matter. The quantity does.

The Killer Argument Against Salt

Some people may say, “I eat a lot of salt and my blood pressure is fine!”

In reality, salt raises blood pressure in almost EVERY individual, although it may take a lifetime for the problem to become apparent. Only 30% of the population does not have hypertension by age 65. And out of those people, 90% will develop it by the end of their lives. If those individuals lived even longer, they would also get hypertension.

In societies where salt is unknown, the percentage of the population that develops hypertension with age is zero, even when they smoke, drink alcohol or eat meat.

In other words, it’s just a question of time before salt causes hypertension. If you’re lucky, it will just take more time.

However, salt intake affects you in other ways!

Even if you don’t have high blood pressure, salt damages your body in other ways. Salt intake causes kidney damage, stomach cancer, kidney stones, and has recently been linked to autoimmune diseases. But this is only the beginning.

“High sodium intake results in massive albumin excretion, oxidative stress, severe renal arteriolar damage, interstitial fibrosis, increased glomerular hydrostatic pressure, glomerular hyalinization, fibrosis, and end-stage renal disease independently of increased BP.”

The Pledge to Eliminate Salt

All my life I tried to reduce salt, and I concluded that it’s not possible to restrict such an addictive substance. The only method that works is to eliminate it 100%.

We don’t need more sodium than what’s in natural foods! US guidelines for RDA (Required Daily Amounts) states that “the minimum average requirement for adults … [is]… 115 mg of Sodium…per day. In consideration of the wide variation of patterns of physical activity and climate exposure, a safe minimum intake might be set at 500 mg/day.”

Human beings evolved on a low-sodium diet. Therefore our kidneys are adapted to conserve sodium. Salt is NOT paleo! Most humans never had any access to salt up to relatively recently in history.

99.4% of the population consumes more than the 1500 mg. limit of sodium set by the American Heart Association. But the actual ideal intake for optimal health is less than 1000 mg, probably around 500 mg. So the argument that “many people run into health problems by not consuming enough salt” does not hold water!

Remember that optimal blood pressure is under 115/75. Any improvement you can make in your blood pressure numbers will vastly improve your health outcomes!

Even if you consume salt and have an optimal blood pressure of under 115/75, it does not mean that you should keep using salt. 95-99% of people develop essential hypertension if they eat salt, as long as they live long enough. Some people develop it at 35, while others at 85.

One problem with a lot of the research done on sodium restriction is that they focus only on the short-term effect of going from a high-salt intake to moderate salt intake.

According to Dr. James Kenney, Ph. D., author of a fascinating paper or salt toxicity:

Unfortunately, the long-term effects of a low-salt diet have received little attention. After an initial drop in BP, which can be quite noticeable in some individuals, the decline in BP often continues for many months or years, provided the salt restriction is maintained. For example, one group of researchers found that BP was still trending downwards after two years on a diet with about 70 mEq (1600 mg of sodium). Given that the BP raising effects of excessive dietary salt take many years to develop it is surprising that most clinicians expect to see the full impact of a low-salt diet within just a few weeks. In my clinical experience, it may take as long as 5 to 7 years to see the full BP lowering impact of a low-salt diet.

I hope I have convinced some of you to try ditching the salt habit!

REFERENCE 1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002870372902992

REFERENCE 2: Blood pressure in four remote populations in the INTERSALT Study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2767757

REFERENCE 3: Antecedents of Cardiovascular Disease in Six Solomon Islands Societies http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/49/6/1132.short

REFERENCE 4: The effect of increased salt intake on blood pressure of chimpanzees. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7489355

REFERENCE 5-Moderate sodium restriction and diuretics in the treatment of hypertension. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4564947

Reference 6: Hypertension treated by sodium restriction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7033744

Reference 7: Double-blind randomised crossover trial of moderate sodium restriction in essential hypertension. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6120346

Reference 8: Double-blind study of three sodium intakes and long-term effects of sodium restriction in essential hypertension. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2573761

Reference 9: An overview of randomized trials of sodium reduction and blood pressure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1987008

REFERENCE 10: DIETARY TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION. CLINICAL AND METABOLIC STUDIES OF PATIENTS ON THE RICE-FRUIT DIET. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC436162/pdf/jcinvest00410-0077.pdf

Reference 11: TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION WITH CHLOROTHIAZIDE, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=325216

REFERENCE 12: Intersalt revisited: further analyses of 24 hour sodium excretion and blood pressure within and across populations. Intersalt Cooperative Research Group. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634612

Related Posts

The Big Picture On Salt Problems with a High-Sodium Diet: An Important Diet Tip The Truth On High Blood Pressure Explained How I Beat My Salt and Dinnertime Cooked Cravings

Frederic Patenaude

Frederic Patenaude has been an important influence in the raw food and natural health movement since he started writing and publishing in 1998, first by being the editor of Just Eat an Apple magazine. He is the author of over 20 books, including The Raw Secrets, the Sunfood Cuisine and Raw Food Controversies. Since 2013 he’s been the Editor-in-Chief of Renegade Health.

Frederic loves to relentlessly debunk nutritional myths. He advocates a low-fat, plant-based diet and has had over 10 years of experience with raw vegan diets. He lives in Montreal, Canada.

GET YOUR FREE REPORT:

"The Myth of Diabetes on a Fruit Diet"

Source: http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=4819

[stevejehovahbible]

Genesis 2

1  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. An all powerful being shouldn’t need to rest. Especially after only 7 days. Lots of mortal men and women work more than 7 days without a break.It’s just kind of weird that God would need time off.

4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6  But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Because tilling the ground and rain are how plants grow. Most grow without the ground being tilled for them. Remember that God also supposedly created plants before he created the sun, and plants need sunlight to grow. More evidence that the authors here had no idea what they were talking about.

7  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. God creates a literal golem and blows into it’s nose to bring it to life. This sentence belongs in something like Grimm's Fairy Tales, not a supposed literal account of creation.    

8  And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9  And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10  And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11  The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12  And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13  And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14  And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15  And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. This is a SEPARATE account from the one found in Genesis 1. This seems to suggest a singular man created AFTER the events of creation and placed in a special garden by himself, away from the rest of creation. Why would God do such a thing? Why is this garden special? Why does God need a man to “dress and keep it”? Is he incapable of doing it himself? Why are there magic trees with special powers in their fruit? Does god really think this is the best way to transmit knowledge and life? Via produce? So many questions, and no good answers. How very biblical.  

16  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Then why put the tree there? It’s like a parent putting some celery sticks and carrots and apple slices on a table with a bowl of M&M’s and then telling their kids, “I’m going to go out for an hour or so. Eat whatever you want on the table, but not the M&M’s.” Why? Seems like you’re purposefully tempting your kids. If you REALLY didn’t want them to eat the candy, you wouldn’t put it out on the table. Logic 101.  

18  And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19  And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. God, creator of the universe, master of life and death, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful... tried to match Adam up with animals? You can’t be serious. This would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. God’s creative power appears to be dwindling. First he speaks things into existence. Then he needs to use the dust of the ground -which he previously created- to make a man. THEN he needs to Bill Cosby the man with a date rape drug, preform surgery on him while he’s passed out, and create a woman from his rib. Seems legit.

23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This ties back in to verses 18-20. The ultimate goal of God’s primitive version of The Batchelor was to find Adam a wife. That’s what to woman becomes. If you apply a fraction of the amount of reading between the lines that apologists for this book regularly do, these passages together would seem to kind of suggest that Adam might have had marital relations, or at least tried to form a romantic bond with the animals God brought to him. This is more than a little disturbing.

[shoujoboy-restart]

> so it was the man raping the child and a woman was an accomplice?

So you don't know how to read or check the link, i literally said "at first" her hubby abused the children with got arrested, she didn't and she kept abusing the children. And the only reason radfems covered it is because they taught she was trans because women who don't make your guys wet must be men.

Once again, minimizing and ignoring female on female abuse because you see women as victims of anything and never responsible for anything wrong ever, you are more offended at a term that offends bad women than a female child being abused by her parents.

> Scenario One: person was an actual female who was convicted despite male as default language laws and you have nothing to complain about because the laws already punish women so you calm your dick

No she is a female dead children as their biological mom, she abused the children together with her husband, he got arrested, she didn't, kept abusing her children, got a sentence doesn't include women as perpetrators so she won't even be added as stats as female predator.

> Scenario Two: this was person actually a trans identified male during legal proceedings the authorities acknowledged his sex but not his gender identity in court but the media reported this person as female resulting in gender confusion for the public reading this story

No the media reported on her as female because she is a female with a vagina and XX chromossomes with biological children she abused and a dead child registered as their biological mother in their obituary. Radfems rapist in training like you didn't see her as female because you hate masculine women and hide it behind targeting trans women. She is a female, you are unhinged rape apologist for female abusers and the sky is blue. Once again, you only care for women on women abuse when one woman has a "trans" in the front.

> Now that it turns out the law covers both sexes after you accused us of aiding women committing imaginary crimes you move onto women didn’t invent anything anti feminist trope unprompted

So even in your made up assumption that the female child rapist was only a accomplice you now move on to straight up saying that the crime doesn't exist? That women who help men sexually abuse children and get radfems to call her a man because she not attractive...has done no crimes? Is that what you are saying Celery? That women who are accomplices in the rape of women and children aren't commiting a crime or anything wrong? Or is it the stress you have now that you don't have a bunch of sheeple validating you rape apologist mindset is gone and you have to do PR all for yourself making you just write nonsense? Pick your poison

Protesters also didn't write labour laws you don't see anyone saying we have the weekends thanks to the government and corporations, feminists fought for rape and sexual assault laws based solely on gender and not punishing abusers, both rads and libs fight tooth and nail to keep them gendered no matter how much harm it causes, once again like a good handmaiden does best, you blame everything on men when you can't take responsibility for the harm you caused for women.

I didn't know being CSA survivor made you a female rapist apologist? I must be the exception i guess lol.

Is so funny seeing you scramble and run around losing your mind because you don't have people defending you anymore, look at you, literally not even reading a link because seeing radfems making PR for females rapists as long they arent attractive doesn't fit your narrative that your movement loves minimizing female on female rape, child rape at that, you are so desperate to keep your degenerate mindset alive you are literally running from evidence, you have completely lost it, Lars Von Trier wishes he could break a woman in the way you've done it to yourself, a literal cockroach running around looking for anything to protect itself from the crushing reality that she is a horrible person and no one, not even other radfems, like her, like a trainwreck, you just can't look away.

@siryouarebeingmocked add this one to the celty tag cringe collection, exquisite

CWC JAILED OH MY GOD