I saw the comment that got you banned by deBoar (to his credit, you can still read your comment, it was not deleted). Even if he absolutely believes that a person's brain decides what sex they are, but not what race they are, your comment was merely pointing out that allowing men to declare themselves as woman impacts actual women. No shit. Liz Warren declaring herself to be Cherokee in order to get a high paying-prestige job impacts some actual Native American who didn't get the job. Is no different than Dolezal. As long as there is an INCENTIVE to declare yourself trans, young kids are going to keep doing it.
deBoar has some interesting articles, and others of no interest to me at all, but why post something that will obviously draw comments he doesn't want made? I guess he just wants to be one of the Good White Intolerant Men.
It's not the first time I've stepped over Freddie's line against comments on "trans" issues, which is why I got banned and (for example) FionnM didn't (or at least that's what I assume).
I stepped over the line in response to Freddie's claim that any analogy of gender to race was "driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people". There was just no way I was going to let that ludicrous remark go unchallenged.
It really irks me the way he always ascribes the worst faith to anyone who disagrees with him, but expects everyone to extend extreme good faith to all his arguments. That dynamic played memorably in the Ukraine/American Foreign Policy Debates. Anyone who pushed back against the idea that America is an unequivocal force for evil in the world was a brainwashed tankie jerk and anyone who questioned his assertions about America's history was 'asking him to sit at the little kid's table.' (Whatever that means). It's why I unsubbed. He has an incredibly thin skin, and treats his readership like dirt.
Weeping for Ukraine -- what kind of accusation is that?! Because obviously, being upset by the deaths of a bunch of innocent people, including children, is characteristic of being a horrible person, I guess?
These days everything is transphobic. If you cough, sneeze, or even breathe without praising the super shiny rainbow specialness of The Trans, you are transphobic.
Well, he said “almost entirely,” but even if that’s true, and I think it’s at least partly true, he should allow for the possibility that you are in the group of people who do not share that motive.
In other words, I’m steelmanning him and he’s still wrong.
I mean, I get it - it's his blog. His rules. His decisions!
It's also a big blind spot, and eventually, I think he really needs to understand *why* this issue keeps coming up with his readers. WHY this issue isn't separable from the larger mess around identity and intersectionality.
It's a red line for him, and he's told everyone. We get it. I also think it's a big mistake on his part. Freddie has never shied away from casting a realpolitik analysis (at least) on any issue, so his dogged insistence on any taboo (while his right!, etc.! we know, man!) comes off as strange.
I think he may have just been badly rattled by idiots reflexively lumping him in with "transphobes" simply because he's already assumed to be "one of the bad ones" by certain elements of idiot activist tumblr/twitter and he's overcompensating? Unsure.
I abide by his rules on his substack, but I still think it's a blind spot for him, and any blind spot for a writer whose claim to fame is analyzing politics and culture in the real world is a serious mistake, and banning people for it (for the last time - while his prerogative!) is counterproductive, and will sour more people than it satisfies. Dunno.
FWIW, I completely agree with "his blog, his rules, his decisions", but then Freddie goes and writes that "attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people", which is just completely absurd and wrong. And what I felt compelled to push back on, despite my understanding of "his rules".
The problem for Freddie is that pretty much ANY discussion of ANY sort of identity or social justice issue is going to "invite that conversation".
And there's my concern – people aren't going to stop bringing it up if he doesn't get this sorted, so I foresee a time he just disables commenting permanently, and there goes the commenter community.
I expect this to happen eventually. It's one reason I don't participate much in the comments even though I usually read them - don't want to get emotionally invested in a community that I feel is on borrowed time. I'll still happily subscribe to Freddie's blog sans comments because I think he's a very good writer, but something of real substance will be lost.
I have been reading Freddie since he first guest-blogged for Andrew Sullivan long ago. I was a $200/year Founding Subscriber when he started his substack.
I dropped down to being a regular monthly subscriber when he started censoring comments on women's rights.
And I was about to give up, let my subscription expire, and quietly disappear, but Freddie decided to ban me before that happened.
I also have read Freddie since those early days on the Dish so long ago.
Freddie is just so unwilling to look objectively at the area of women's rights in the Trans era. It seems pretty easy to see that women have valid and real concerns regarding Trans in women's spaces, whether it be prisons, women's shelters, locker rooms, athletic contests, and so forth.
I unsubscribed the first time he freaked out and shut down his comments. It was ridiculous. Yes, "his substack, his rules" but he's destroying his own product and a lot of the most thoughtful people have already left, even without being banned.
Freddie can be as lenient or stringent about comments as he wants, but I find it odd how this particular sacred cow is off limits when he's otherwise so (admirably) willing to tolerate people disagreeing with and even disparaging his views and politics in almost any other area; he doesn't claim, for instance, that his pro-capitalism subscribers want to harm or invalidate working-class laborers.
There's something in this really personal for him (not that there isn't for the rest of us; I know the gender issue pushes buttons for me based on personal experience) and it's making him act out of line with his otherwise very tolerant commenting policy. Which is a shame because I like the comment community over there very much.
Well, I broke Freddie's rules, I knew I was breaking the rules, and I figured I had about a 60% chance of getting banned for it. I was also, as I wrote above, planning to quietly disappear in five days when my current monthly subscription expires, so I didn't much care.
Freddie is an excpetionally gifted writer, and I always hoped that he would use his superpower for good.
As it is, I think he's just frittering it away. Oh well.
I respect that you acknowledge that you broke the rules but, you're MarkS! You may be responsible for a higher percentage of the interesting discussions than anyone else there. And unlike most of the regular commenters (me included), you actually stuck with it even after many of us left.
Again, his Stack, his rules, I don't begrudge the man his choices. But it's a choice that definitely makes it a less interesting place!
He does. From his response to the first kerfuffle last July: "I was lucky to be raised in an environment in which LGBTQ people were common, including trans people; I have trans friends from academia and my writing career; I have trans comrades from housing activism; I in fact have a close family member who’s trans. But even if these things were not the case, I would not tolerate the atmosphere of exclusion that I allowed to build in my comments section through neglect." https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/so-heres-how-its-gonna-be
I have to wonder about this. 20 years ago almost no people were trans. Like when I was growing up, there were approximately zero trans kids. now admittedly, that was during the late Pleistocene. but still.
Yes, of course there was gender-nonconforming behavior, tomboys, etc. But people self identifying as the opposite sex? Not so much.
I mean, this is one of Andrew Sullivan's big talking points. How many kids today who, previously, would have just identified as gay are being steered towards surgery and transitioning? If a teen age boy today feels attraction towards other men, Sullivan argues, the default today is to tell him that he's trans and suggest surgery and gender change. He writes about it better than I do, obviously, but he makes a lot of compelling points.
Yes, very compelling. And some of the most famous "transitioners", such as Jazz Jennings, clearly had homophobic parents who were trying to "trans away the gay".
Had to be. Always, always the same story. Intelligent, rational people throw their usual cynicism and logic out the window the moment their own child or a close relative announces they identify as the opposite sex.
The part I object to is the attack on anyone who disagrees as acting in bad faith: "Attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people".
Yes, Helen Joyce (author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality) makes this point: if you've transed your kid, you can never ever admit to yourself the horrible truth of what you did.
I always enjoyed watching you point out the emperor's nudity, and I'm disappointed that you won't be around the comment section anymore. I hope you will continue to share your best thoughts with us here.
But with that said, I understand where Freddie is coming from here. He has correctly identified the transgender issue as one of the third rails of modern leftism in America and he is rightly terrified of the potential consequences from touching it. I would ask you to consider the company he keeps in the real world, under what circumstances he is likely to have met his friends, comrades, or girlfriend, and the political beliefs these people are likely to hold. It's bad enough that he regularly commits certain kinds of heresy in his writing, but that can be forgiven in the spirit of debate. But if he were seen as choosing to allow you or anyone else to question the orthodoxy when it comes to this issue in particular that would be something far, far worse - it would be aiding and abetting dangerous hate speech and it would put him beyond the pale. There is a small but very real possibility that he would (once again) become the main character on Twitter for a day and quickly find himself friendless, single, unemployable, and unwelcome in any activist group he might ever want to be a member of.
And for what? To provide a platform for people who bother him and who might not even be engaging in good faith? You put him in a spot where he had to choose between being wrong about a thing but keeping his life intact or telling the truth but exposing himself to reputational ruin, and he chose to circle the wagons and be wrong about the thing. If you can honestly say that you would choose differently under the circumstances then I applaud you and I hope you're not suffering too badly for it. For me, I can hardly think of a hill I would be less willing to die on.
Look, I can definitely see it from your side too - you did a public intellectual the favor of pointing out one of his blind spots, and by way of thanks he wronged you. 'Ungrateful' doesn't even come close! But I hope you can find some compassion in your heart for a man who, despite his faults, is doing the world a service by contributing his considerable talents to the public conversation and in doing so is out here every day playing for higher stakes than most of us realize.
My only feeling towards Freddie is one of disappointment. I can't know whether he's faking belief in trans ideology in order to keep friends, status, or (as he would put it) pussy, or if he is an honest true believer. I lean towards the latter, but I don't really care; either way, I'm not sending him any more momey.
Freddie is a coward and a phony. I used to read him, then stopped when he wrote that abject crap essay about trans ideology, AND he added insult to injury by trying to prop it up with the outrageously self-serving and gaslighting exhortation to "Be kind"!
So bonkers I don't have the words to adequately describe it.
It's obvious why he banned you. Your post has not the slightest thing to do with his.
Yes, there is a huge difference between race and gender. Gender is a phenomenon common to many species, but there is nothing except humans and ants that identifies by race.
Since you don't provide a context, it's impossible to guess what led you to your post. But it's clear that deBoer was saying something about biology and what it means to be human. You said something about legality. Between these two subjects is a bridge NOBODY wants to cross, if you get my drift.
My one-sentence comment was in direct response to Freddie's claim that "Attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people".
To put it a little less gently, this is a fucking lie.
Women's rights are a real thing, and I am defending them.
In the latest attack on women's rights, Biden's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just issued a diktat (which has the force of law) stating that women who need to shower at the workplace must allow men watch them do it, as long as the men claim to have (in that moment) a "woman identity".
Yeah, I'm against that. But I'm sure men like you and Freddie think it's just fine.
Thanks, Katrina. I found it and canceled my FdB subscription. Was only $5 a month, just noise, but I would have made the same or similar comment that Mark S made, so obviously I don't belong in his audience.
Seriously I’m rolling his sentence around in my mouth and trying to make some real sense out of it. “You don’t have to be a New Zealand flightless bird to be a kiwi.” Ummm…
I reject your "whataboutism". I've supported women's rights all my life, starting in the 70s, when I marched and protested for the Equal Rights Amendment. My professional career is in a traditionally male-dominated field, and I have strongly supported recruiting retaining and promoting women within it. I strongly support (and always have) a woman's right to abortion on demand and without apology at any time before birth, and I commented on this just yesterday: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/i-was-fired-for-supporting-womens/comment/13014152 My second post on this substack was asking for support for two women's rights organizations that are run by and for women, and which I support both morally and financially. I have volunteered to do phone banking and canvassing for a woman who was my local Democratic House member (she is now retired), and for Hilary Clinton in both 2008 and 2016, and for various Democratic women running for state and local offices, because I believe that women need and deserve a bigger and more powerful voice in politics.
It is not my fault that the left (including almost all Democrats) have now turned against women's rights. I am deeply saddened and frustrated by that, and I will do what I can to fight it.
I saw the comment that got you banned by deBoar (to his credit, you can still read your comment, it was not deleted). Even if he absolutely believes that a person's brain decides what sex they are, but not what race they are, your comment was merely pointing out that allowing men to declare themselves as woman impacts actual women. No shit. Liz Warren declaring herself to be Cherokee in order to get a high paying-prestige job impacts some actual Native American who didn't get the job. Is no different than Dolezal. As long as there is an INCENTIVE to declare yourself trans, young kids are going to keep doing it.
deBoar has some interesting articles, and others of no interest to me at all, but why post something that will obviously draw comments he doesn't want made? I guess he just wants to be one of the Good White Intolerant Men.
It's not the first time I've stepped over Freddie's line against comments on "trans" issues, which is why I got banned and (for example) FionnM didn't (or at least that's what I assume).
I stepped over the line in response to Freddie's claim that any analogy of gender to race was "driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people". There was just no way I was going to let that ludicrous remark go unchallenged.
It really irks me the way he always ascribes the worst faith to anyone who disagrees with him, but expects everyone to extend extreme good faith to all his arguments. That dynamic played memorably in the Ukraine/American Foreign Policy Debates. Anyone who pushed back against the idea that America is an unequivocal force for evil in the world was a brainwashed tankie jerk and anyone who questioned his assertions about America's history was 'asking him to sit at the little kid's table.' (Whatever that means). It's why I unsubbed. He has an incredibly thin skin, and treats his readership like dirt.
"It's why I unsubbed. He has an incredibly thin skin, and treats his readership like dirt."
Same.
that was the time he accused me of weeping for Ukraine.
Wow, I missed that one!
Weeping for Ukraine -- what kind of accusation is that?! Because obviously, being upset by the deaths of a bunch of innocent people, including children, is characteristic of being a horrible person, I guess?
I think he felt I was insufficiently sad about American war crimes, which was not the case.
Well, in his defense, as we all know, it's blatantly impossible to be sad about more than one thing.
These days everything is transphobic. If you cough, sneeze, or even breathe without praising the super shiny rainbow specialness of The Trans, you are transphobic.
Now do Climate Change
And White Supremacy ...
"Freddie's claim that any analogy of gender to race was "driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people"
That's the narrative. And he's sticking to it. No dissent is tolerated. Move on to brighter pastures!
Well, he said “almost entirely,” but even if that’s true, and I think it’s at least partly true, he should allow for the possibility that you are in the group of people who do not share that motive.
In other words, I’m steelmanning him and he’s still wrong.
I mean, I get it - it's his blog. His rules. His decisions!
It's also a big blind spot, and eventually, I think he really needs to understand *why* this issue keeps coming up with his readers. WHY this issue isn't separable from the larger mess around identity and intersectionality.
It's a red line for him, and he's told everyone. We get it. I also think it's a big mistake on his part. Freddie has never shied away from casting a realpolitik analysis (at least) on any issue, so his dogged insistence on any taboo (while his right!, etc.! we know, man!) comes off as strange.
I think he may have just been badly rattled by idiots reflexively lumping him in with "transphobes" simply because he's already assumed to be "one of the bad ones" by certain elements of idiot activist tumblr/twitter and he's overcompensating? Unsure.
I abide by his rules on his substack, but I still think it's a blind spot for him, and any blind spot for a writer whose claim to fame is analyzing politics and culture in the real world is a serious mistake, and banning people for it (for the last time - while his prerogative!) is counterproductive, and will sour more people than it satisfies. Dunno.
If he wants to have this issue remain a third rail for comments, he needs to stop posting on topics that basically invite that conversation.
FWIW, I completely agree with "his blog, his rules, his decisions", but then Freddie goes and writes that "attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people", which is just completely absurd and wrong. And what I felt compelled to push back on, despite my understanding of "his rules".
The problem for Freddie is that pretty much ANY discussion of ANY sort of identity or social justice issue is going to "invite that conversation".
And there's my concern – people aren't going to stop bringing it up if he doesn't get this sorted, so I foresee a time he just disables commenting permanently, and there goes the commenter community.
That could well happen. Freddie's choice.
I expect this to happen eventually. It's one reason I don't participate much in the comments even though I usually read them - don't want to get emotionally invested in a community that I feel is on borrowed time. I'll still happily subscribe to Freddie's blog sans comments because I think he's a very good writer, but something of real substance will be lost.
Exactly.
consider me soured.
It is bizarre. He’s all about nuance and taking the unpopular position. except here, where he’s textbook woke
Spot on.
This banning was pretty stupid of Freddie. Blind spots are blind spots and Freddie has huge ones.
I have been reading Freddie since he first guest-blogged for Andrew Sullivan long ago. I was a $200/year Founding Subscriber when he started his substack.
I dropped down to being a regular monthly subscriber when he started censoring comments on women's rights.
And I was about to give up, let my subscription expire, and quietly disappear, but Freddie decided to ban me before that happened.
I also have read Freddie since those early days on the Dish so long ago.
Freddie is just so unwilling to look objectively at the area of women's rights in the Trans era. It seems pretty easy to see that women have valid and real concerns regarding Trans in women's spaces, whether it be prisons, women's shelters, locker rooms, athletic contests, and so forth.
I can’t imagine why it would upset women in a rape crisis center if there were someone with a penis there. that’s really a tough one.
I unsubscribed the first time he freaked out and shut down his comments. It was ridiculous. Yes, "his substack, his rules" but he's destroying his own product and a lot of the most thoughtful people have already left, even without being banned.
Freddie can be as lenient or stringent about comments as he wants, but I find it odd how this particular sacred cow is off limits when he's otherwise so (admirably) willing to tolerate people disagreeing with and even disparaging his views and politics in almost any other area; he doesn't claim, for instance, that his pro-capitalism subscribers want to harm or invalidate working-class laborers.
There's something in this really personal for him (not that there isn't for the rest of us; I know the gender issue pushes buttons for me based on personal experience) and it's making him act out of line with his otherwise very tolerant commenting policy. Which is a shame because I like the comment community over there very much.
You got a raw deal, Mark.
Well, I broke Freddie's rules, I knew I was breaking the rules, and I figured I had about a 60% chance of getting banned for it. I was also, as I wrote above, planning to quietly disappear in five days when my current monthly subscription expires, so I didn't much care.
Freddie is an excpetionally gifted writer, and I always hoped that he would use his superpower for good.
As it is, I think he's just frittering it away. Oh well.
I respect that you acknowledge that you broke the rules but, you're MarkS! You may be responsible for a higher percentage of the interesting discussions than anyone else there. And unlike most of the regular commenters (me included), you actually stuck with it even after many of us left.
Again, his Stack, his rules, I don't begrudge the man his choices. But it's a choice that definitely makes it a less interesting place!
That's a high compliment, thank you!
But there is definitely a big group of Freddie's readers that finds me merely annoying (or worse).
Note that Freddie got 429 likes for his post "Once Again, I Will Have to Take a Heavier Hand with the Comments" https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/once-again-i-will-have-to-take-a
I find you merely annoying and that's never stopped me from liking you, or making the tees!
I want a tee that says "MarkS: merely annoying"
sure thing, pal
I mean if you knew Daniel that might affect your opinion on how high a compliment it is but hey, different strokes. 😜
I'm making tshirts.
"MarkS Did Nothing Wrong!"
I will buy one! Put them on etsy!
But no, you'll likely get shut down there for "hate speech", as Colin Wright was: https://nypost.com/2022/10/08/how-trans-activists-got-me-deplatformed-by-paypal-and-etsy/
MarkS Was Framed!
I believe the only explanation for Freddie's blind spot on self ID and gender issues is that he must have a trans family member.
He does. From his response to the first kerfuffle last July: "I was lucky to be raised in an environment in which LGBTQ people were common, including trans people; I have trans friends from academia and my writing career; I have trans comrades from housing activism; I in fact have a close family member who’s trans. But even if these things were not the case, I would not tolerate the atmosphere of exclusion that I allowed to build in my comments section through neglect." https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/so-heres-how-its-gonna-be
I have to wonder about this. 20 years ago almost no people were trans. Like when I was growing up, there were approximately zero trans kids. now admittedly, that was during the late Pleistocene. but still.
Yes, of course there was gender-nonconforming behavior, tomboys, etc. But people self identifying as the opposite sex? Not so much.
I mean, this is one of Andrew Sullivan's big talking points. How many kids today who, previously, would have just identified as gay are being steered towards surgery and transitioning? If a teen age boy today feels attraction towards other men, Sullivan argues, the default today is to tell him that he's trans and suggest surgery and gender change. He writes about it better than I do, obviously, but he makes a lot of compelling points.
Yes, very compelling. And some of the most famous "transitioners", such as Jazz Jennings, clearly had homophobic parents who were trying to "trans away the gay".
Had to be. Always, always the same story. Intelligent, rational people throw their usual cynicism and logic out the window the moment their own child or a close relative announces they identify as the opposite sex.
To be fair, discourse what it is, it's highly possible toeing the line is part and parcel of keeping the family.
The part I object to is the attack on anyone who disagrees as acting in bad faith: "Attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people".
that was bullshit
But I think Freddie really believes it.
Yes, Helen Joyce (author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality) makes this point: if you've transed your kid, you can never ever admit to yourself the horrible truth of what you did.
Yeah, I just posted a new screed in response. But Freddie's clearly unreachable.
I always enjoyed watching you point out the emperor's nudity, and I'm disappointed that you won't be around the comment section anymore. I hope you will continue to share your best thoughts with us here.
But with that said, I understand where Freddie is coming from here. He has correctly identified the transgender issue as one of the third rails of modern leftism in America and he is rightly terrified of the potential consequences from touching it. I would ask you to consider the company he keeps in the real world, under what circumstances he is likely to have met his friends, comrades, or girlfriend, and the political beliefs these people are likely to hold. It's bad enough that he regularly commits certain kinds of heresy in his writing, but that can be forgiven in the spirit of debate. But if he were seen as choosing to allow you or anyone else to question the orthodoxy when it comes to this issue in particular that would be something far, far worse - it would be aiding and abetting dangerous hate speech and it would put him beyond the pale. There is a small but very real possibility that he would (once again) become the main character on Twitter for a day and quickly find himself friendless, single, unemployable, and unwelcome in any activist group he might ever want to be a member of.
And for what? To provide a platform for people who bother him and who might not even be engaging in good faith? You put him in a spot where he had to choose between being wrong about a thing but keeping his life intact or telling the truth but exposing himself to reputational ruin, and he chose to circle the wagons and be wrong about the thing. If you can honestly say that you would choose differently under the circumstances then I applaud you and I hope you're not suffering too badly for it. For me, I can hardly think of a hill I would be less willing to die on.
Look, I can definitely see it from your side too - you did a public intellectual the favor of pointing out one of his blind spots, and by way of thanks he wronged you. 'Ungrateful' doesn't even come close! But I hope you can find some compassion in your heart for a man who, despite his faults, is doing the world a service by contributing his considerable talents to the public conversation and in doing so is out here every day playing for higher stakes than most of us realize.
My only feeling towards Freddie is one of disappointment. I can't know whether he's faking belief in trans ideology in order to keep friends, status, or (as he would put it) pussy, or if he is an honest true believer. I lean towards the latter, but I don't really care; either way, I'm not sending him any more momey.
Freddie is a coward and a phony. I used to read him, then stopped when he wrote that abject crap essay about trans ideology, AND he added insult to injury by trying to prop it up with the outrageously self-serving and gaslighting exhortation to "Be kind"!
So bonkers I don't have the words to adequately describe it.
Maybe Women’s rights are no longer human rights, having been supplanted by”trans women”? ..thus erasing women.
I hope he has a daughter and when she’s a teen she’s running track against boys who identify as female. Just for fun.
I doubt Freddie would care. Being "kind" to the boy who thinks he's a girl would be more important to Freddie.
But of course it's not kind:
https://artymorty.substack.com/p/youre-facing-the-wrong-way-freddie
It's obvious why he banned you. Your post has not the slightest thing to do with his.
Yes, there is a huge difference between race and gender. Gender is a phenomenon common to many species, but there is nothing except humans and ants that identifies by race.
Since you don't provide a context, it's impossible to guess what led you to your post. But it's clear that deBoer was saying something about biology and what it means to be human. You said something about legality. Between these two subjects is a bridge NOBODY wants to cross, if you get my drift.
My one-sentence comment was in direct response to Freddie's claim that "Attempts to analogize [race and gender] are almost entirely driven by a desire to insult and delegitimize trans people".
To put it a little less gently, this is a fucking lie.
Women's rights are a real thing, and I am defending them.
In the latest attack on women's rights, Biden's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just issued a diktat (which has the force of law) stating that women who need to shower at the workplace must allow men watch them do it, as long as the men claim to have (in that moment) a "woman identity".
Yeah, I'm against that. But I'm sure men like you and Freddie think it's just fine.
By the way, how does one cancel a substack subscription (without canceling all of them)?
Anyone?
On the android app, tap the three dots at top right and go "manage subscription". You can also do it from desktop under your account.
Thanks, Katrina. I found it and canceled my FdB subscription. Was only $5 a month, just noise, but I would have made the same or similar comment that Mark S made, so obviously I don't belong in his audience.
I've followed Freddie's work since blogspot days. I was determined to support him forever. But the other day I'd just had it, and unsubbed.
He once wrote that he did not believe a person had to be born with a vagina to be a woman or experience misogyny.
Spoken like a true penis-haver.
In real life, penis has you.
Seriously I’m rolling his sentence around in my mouth and trying to make some real sense out of it. “You don’t have to be a New Zealand flightless bird to be a kiwi.” Ummm…
Wow, I missed that remark of Freddie's too ...
It was a long time ago. Carina brought it to my attention.
Feel free to subscribe to mine lol
So many Substacks, so little time.
I reject your "whataboutism". I've supported women's rights all my life, starting in the 70s, when I marched and protested for the Equal Rights Amendment. My professional career is in a traditionally male-dominated field, and I have strongly supported recruiting retaining and promoting women within it. I strongly support (and always have) a woman's right to abortion on demand and without apology at any time before birth, and I commented on this just yesterday: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/i-was-fired-for-supporting-womens/comment/13014152 My second post on this substack was asking for support for two women's rights organizations that are run by and for women, and which I support both morally and financially. I have volunteered to do phone banking and canvassing for a woman who was my local Democratic House member (she is now retired), and for Hilary Clinton in both 2008 and 2016, and for various Democratic women running for state and local offices, because I believe that women need and deserve a bigger and more powerful voice in politics.
It is not my fault that the left (including almost all Democrats) have now turned against women's rights. I am deeply saddened and frustrated by that, and I will do what I can to fight it.
TBD
I feel like the world needs MarkS Uncensored
LOL! Maybe not! I could end up being like the Bing/Sydney chatbot!
I hope you keep it up. I always liked your posts, back in the days before the site went to hell.
Maybe it will become “MarkS Responds to Fred Uncensored”
I would read that!
I would watch it. In Madison Square Garden.