Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Student Cancel Mob Comes For Harvard Law Prof. Adrian Vermeule Over Tweets Mocking Leftists

Student Cancel Mob Comes For Harvard Law Prof. Adrian Vermeule Over Tweets Mocking Leftists

Four student groups demand he be investigated, removed from first year teaching, and denounced: “Prof. Vermeule demonstrates a disdain for opposing viewpoints, such as those of communists and socialists, who are equal members of our society.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvcEHoMADOM

This story of cancel culture would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is so serious. It involves an attempt by four Harvard Law School student groups to interfere in the employment of, and damage the career of, Professor Adrian Vermeule.

This reflects an ongoing attempt by leftwing students to purge academia of viewpoints that do not perfectly align with the social justice and Black Lives Matter orthodoxy. Much like during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, students lead the way in belittling and trying to damage dissident professors, with public shaming and institutional ritualized denunciations preferred methods of intimidation.

We’ve covered so many of these cases just in the last few months, it’s almost too much to count, but includes: Cornell Chemistry Prof. David Collum, UCF Psychology Prof. Charles Negy, U. Chicago Geophysicist Prof. Dorian Abbot, McGill Univ. Anthropology Emeritus Prof. Philip Carl Salzman, U. Miami Law Prof. Dan Ravicher, USC Business Prof. Greg Patton, Princeton Classics Prof. Joshua Katz, several Skidmore College professors, University of North Texas Music Theory Prof. Gregory Jackson, Michigan State Physics Prof. Stephen Hsu, and of course, me.

Adrian Vermeule, Harvard Law School Professor And Intellectual Iconoclast

I don’t know Prof. Vermeule other than by reputation and stature, and his Twitter account. Here is a short bio from Prof. Vermeule’s Harvard Law faculty page:

Adrian Vermeule is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law. Before coming to the Law School, he was the Bernard D. Meltzer Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. The author or co-author of nine books, most recently Law’s Abnegation: From Law’s Empire to the Administrative State (2016), The Constitution of Risk (2014) and The System of the Constitution (2012). He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2012. His research focuses on administrative law, the administrative state, the design of institutions, and constitutional theory. Having grown up in Cambridge and attended Harvard College ’90 and Harvard Law School ’93, Vermeule lives in Cambridge still.

His list of publications is extensive, and reflects an intellectual breadth touching on esoteric areas of the law and major public policy issues. His personal website includes video and links to numerous lectures and appearances. He has written frequently in the non-legal popular press, including a recent article in The Atlantic that generated a lot of debate, Beyond Originalism. (see responses here and here, for example).

It’s not easy to pigeonhole Prof. Vermeule in the current political context. I’d classify him, based on what I’ve read, as a political and intellectual iconoclast. A lot of people would probably call him a conservative, though I don’t know if that’s what he’d call himself.

Agree with him or disagree with him, Prof. Vermeule is exactly the type of professor you would expect to be on the faculty of the nation’s top law school (I’m somewhat prejudiced here).

Entertaining, Irreverent, and Sarcastic Twitter Account

I follow Prof. Vermeule on Twitter, where his account is entertaining, irreverent, and sarcastic.

That account generated a ridiculous controversy in February 2020, when he tweeted about how attendees at a conference on principled conservatism would be “The very first group for the camps.” Oh, the faux outrage about how he supposedly was demeaning the Holocaust (he wasn’t, that’s a bad faith assertion). A UT-Austin law professor also took offense to Prof. Vermeule’s tweet that atheists “can’t be trusted to keep an oath” which supposedly constituted bigotry against Atheists (seriously). You get the picture – Vermeule’s Twitter account reactions shows that lefties can’t take a joke or being poked, and make up ridiculous outrageous outrage !!!

His Twitter account, by the way, is positively tame compared to that of Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe.

People’s Parity Project Leads Attack

That faux outrage, inability to detect sarcasm, and ability to turn standard Twitter fare into outrage !!! has led to a much more serious attack on Prof. Vermeule in a letter sent to HLS admnistrators demanding punitive actions (more below), as reported by Chrissy Clark at The Washington Free Beacon:

It was authored by People’s Parity Project, a group of law students and new attorneys who aim to “unf*ck the law” by ending “how the legal profession—and the law itself—enables harassment, discrimination, and other injustices.” …

Vermeule—who has written that much of First Amendment jurisprudence should “fall under the ax”—told the Washington Free Beacon that he is”confident that Harvard will uphold its longstanding moral and contractual commitments … to protecting academic freedom and free speech.”

The People’s Parity Project also was behind the petition to bar former Trump administration officials from teaching or speaking at Harvard.

I obtained a copy of the letter. It is issued on behalf of four student groups:

The Harvard Parity Project
Alliance for Reproductive Justice
La Alianza
Progressive Jewish Alliance

I’ve debated whether to post the entire letter, but since it doesn’t appear to be in the public domain yet, I’ll only excerpt it. It contains many absurd, disingenuous, contrived, false, and abusive accusations based on out-of-context reading of tweets and other writings, and an inability to detect sarcasm. This is a common tactic when non-liberal professors are targeted for cancelation, stuff the complaint letter and petitions with so much nonsense that it creates a swarm of accusations that, like other swarms, makes it difficult to respond.

The letter is three-pages single spaced, with an additional 42 pages of screenshots of tweets and excerpts from articles. It’s clear from the letter that someone or some group spent a lot of time trying to build a case against Prof. Vermeule, scouring his record to present a twisted version of reality. Prof. Vermeule was targeted, this didn’t just happen.

The letter starts with the now-standard (and false) claim that words are violence (emphasis in original):

We are writing to you because HLS Professor Adrian Vermeule has, for over a year, been making highly offensive, discriminatory, and violent statements in online posts and in the press. It has also come to our attention that Prof. Vermeule has recently been using his personal twitter account to spread election disinformation. While we understand that Prof. Vermeule speaks only for himself, and not for the law school, the administration should not ignore the harm his words cause. You will find examples of the statements at issue in the Appendix. We urge you to take action to address this issue with Prof. Vermeule directly and to mitigate the harm his interaction with students may cause through the measures detailed below.

Here’s the explanation for Prof. Vermeule supposedly spreading election disinformation, it’s laughable these people can’t detect sarcasm and obviously have a dull sense of humor (emphasis mine):

First, Prof. Vermeule’s tweets are exacerbating the harmful spread of election disinformation. While every election will highlight substantial disagreements on a wide range of issues, Prof. Vermeule’s statements cross the line of ordinary political disagreement and veer into baseless conspiracy theories which undermine the electoral process itself.

For example, as unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud spread following the election, Prof. Vermeule tweeted “ Lol the election isn’t over until Team Joe fixes up your ballot for you ” and “Kids, not sure if you knew this, but missing ballots have magical properties that make them visible only between midnight and 6am .” His post-election retweets included statements such as “ Even a Saddam Hussein had to make some pretence of not getting 100% of the vote in an Iraqi election … ‘Baghdad on the Delaware .’” And these examples only scratch the surface. Prof. Vermeule may try to play off his statements as a joke, but they amount to a pattern of promoting demonstrably false conspiracy theories. His statements are harmful to democracy and unbelievably divisive. To work at Harvard Law School is to be granted a platform and a level of legitimacy. Prof. Vermeule is abusing this platform in order to undermine democracy and delegitimize the results of the election.

Are you kidding me? This stuff is funny, and even if it’s not funny to some Harvard Law students.

They then devote half a page to the “camps” tweet discussed above, and another tweet in which Prof. Vermeule clearly joked about forced labor in facist Spain being “ The Good Society ?” (note the emojii). From this they conclude (emphasis added):

This language is not normal and it cannot be normalized. It is a language that promotes violence on the basis of political opinion and it cannot be tolerated. Prof. Vermeule demonstrates a disdain for opposing viewpoints, such as those of communists and socialists, who are equal members of our society.

Oh, the poor suffering “communists and socialists” should not be mocked, apparently. They also accuse Prof. Vermeule of calling for violence by tweeting in response to protesters in Portland (who rolled out a guillatine, something not mentioned in the letter)(footnote in original letter):

“ Time for a whiff of grapeshot ,” 1

1 Grapeshot was a form of ammunition from a cannon in Napoleonic times, and it is a quote from Napoleon describing how he dispersed crowds with cannon fire. He fired grapeshot into the crowd, and so a “ whiff of grapeshot ” refers to that incident.

[Image from Appendix to Complaint Letter]

So they literally think that Prof. Vermeule called for use of a cannon from Napoleonic times in Portland? They didn’t get the context of grapeshot and a guillatine?

42-Page Appendix of Tweets and Retweets

There more of this type of thing in the letter in which tweets and retweets are taken out of context and exaggerated. Here is just a sample from the Appendix, with the original category headings:

They Want Him Punished, Denounced, and Diminished

More dangerously, they try to tag Prof. Vermeule with violating HLS’s anti-discrimination policies in his writing by taking positions on a variety of social and cultural issues that are not in the mainstream among students at HLS. But not once do they claim that Prof. Vermeule ever has discriminated against a student. Instead, they simply cannot stand having someone on the faculty who disagrees with them, and claim having such a faculty member on staff puts them at risk and makes them unsafe:

Even if Prof. Vermeule does not bring these opinions into class, the public nature of these statements mean that they will inevitably impact students’ ability to learn or trust what he says. Students are less likely to feel comfortable going to office hours, discussing class topics, or engaging with Prof. Vermeule at all, as they justifiably believe he has disdain for them. This is not a question of academic freedom, nor is it one of censorship. This is an issue of student safety, of discrimination, and of student dignity. We must be able to exist in a classroom without feeling trauma if we are to effectively learn, and Harvard must ensure that its professors are not discriminating against their own students on the basis of religion, race, political opinion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

While they don’t call for Prof. Vermeule to be fired, they want him publicly shamed by the law school and humiliated by stripping him of key teaching assignments, including banning him from teaching first year law students:

We ask that Harvard Law School take the following steps:

1. Release a statement condemning Prof. Vermeule’s spread of inaccurate conspiracy theories about the election, violent rhetoric, and intolerant statements.
2. Conduct an investigation into whether Prof. Vermeule is spreading misinformation or discriminatory content in his classes or discriminating against students on the basis of characteristics protected by HLS’s Policy Against Discrimination, and take appropriate action until the investigation is completed.
3. Create at least two sections of Administrative Law per semester, so that no student is forced to take a class with Prof. Vermeule.
4. Commit that going forward, Prof. Vermeule will not teach 1Ls.

I reached out to the Harvard Law School Dean John Manning, but received no response. I also reached out to the student groups, and also received no response. Prof. Vermeule declined to comment beyond what he told the Free Beacon.

We are at a very dangerous place. The push to homogenize the intellectual life at our top universities is being driven by intolerant students and student groups who are so self-absorbed they think nothing of destroying careers to satisfy their own political and personal agenda.

Dean Manning should issue an unequivocal defense of Prof. Vermeule’s academic freedom, without watering it down with the personal pejoratives so many other Deans and Presidents use when addressing attacks on faculty academic freedom.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Katy L. Stamper | December 6, 2020 at 8:49 pm

So, the Ivies are eating their own.

Delish.

Yet again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich (2003), historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).

Today’s fascists call themselves “anti-fascists.” Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.

    I have that book on my To Read list.

    Right now I am slogging my way through “Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death” (1960 Roger Manvell & Heinrich Fraenkel). The parallels between the American media and Goebbels’ sinister lie machine are chilling – including the growing in-your-face antisemitism (disguised as concern for the “Palestinians”).

      Except Goebbels had the entire machinery of the state to force the media to fall into line. People who resisted were harassed, beaten, fired, sent to camps, or openly murdered.

      Goebbels could say a word to Himmler and the Gestapo would kick in someone’s door, drag them into the street, accuse them of being a Jew or of being too friendly to Jews. They could be tortured and killed as could their entire families.

      In America today, the media fall all over themselves to contribute to the lies and hide the crimes of the party. No Goebbels or Himmler are needed.

        henrybowman in reply to irv. | December 6, 2020 at 10:26 pm

        In fact, you could say that today’s totalitarians have the entire machinery of the media to force the state to fall into line.

        The American media is increasingly bold and open about calling for the power of the State to be used against “racists” and encouraging violence against dissidents. It will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between the Harris administration and the media, at least in terms of crushing opposition to Communism.

        The American media has the morals of Joseph Goebbels and vastly more tools than he did. What they have lacked (so far) is the crushing power of totalitarian government to carry out their genicidal hopes and dreams. But their ability to destroy the lives and careers of innocent Americans has already reached terrifying proportions.

    And like in the days of the Weimar Republic, people were in denial, and didn’t want to rock the boat.

    Result: Hitler was elected. You know the rest.

    Modernly: Biden just stole an election – he was NOT elected. An absolutely talentless hack and common tramp named Kamala Harris is poised to become president of the United States.

    This common tramp is wholly owned by the most malignant forces situated against the survival of our country.

      I know it’s not popular at the moment to say this here, but I don’t think Biden will be inaugurated either.

      When everyone knows you didn’t win the election and you’re relying on technicalities like intentionally blind (to say the least) state certifications and various procedural deadlines to force the process to a conclusion, I think something or many things could stop it.

        MarkS in reply to artichoke. | December 7, 2020 at 8:21 am

        Not to be ad hominem, but me thinks you are in fantasy land. Whom or what do you suppose will prevent Biden from taking office?

          artichoke in reply to MarkS. | December 9, 2020 at 3:14 pm

          That wasn’t ad-hominem. Don’t you know the difference? You just disagreed with me, which is OK even if you’re wrong.

          What will stop it? I don’t know the details, obviously, but stuff related to the foreign election interference with Biden’s team’s full cooperation could stop it, even if the Texas et al vs. PA et al lawsuit doesn’t.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to artichoke. | December 7, 2020 at 11:37 am

        Tens of millions of new gun owners and the rest did not stock up to the roof just to have collectibles you mean??????????

      As a point of interest. Hitler was never elected to political office. In the March, 1932 multi-party election for president Hilter received about one-third of the vote; Hindenburg received a plurality of votes, but not a majority, necessitating a two-man run-off. The April, 1932 run-off saw Hinderburg narrowly prevail over Hitler.

      The NAZI party (with Hitler as its leader), while the largest party in the Reichstag, never had a clear majority. By its size and influence it was able to throw its weight around and cause lots of political trouble. Its backstabbing and general duplicity made sure that Hinderburg’s appointments to the Office of Chancellor (NB: an appointed office, not an elected one) could never form a coalition government. The purpose in all of this trouble-making was to force Hinderburg into appointing Hilter chancellor, which happened in January, 1933.

These people are becoming a parody of themselves. It’d be funny, if they weren’t part a movement with Brownshirts, looking to loot the nation and enslave the rest of us.

“Vermeule—who has written that much of First Amendment jurisprudence should “fall under the ax”—told the Washington Free Beacon that he is”confident that Harvard will uphold its longstanding moral and contractual commitments … to protecting academic freedom and free speech.””

Maybe. But I wouldn’t count on it.

Adrian Vermeule is currently serving on the Administrative Conference of the United States. He is a quality academic. If HLS chases him out, I would hope that Cornell Law School would actively recruit him.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to lawgrad. | December 6, 2020 at 10:27 pm

    Is Cornell going to be significantly better?

      That remains to be seen. Our Dean has accepted a post as the first non-Jesuit President of Seattle College, a Jesuit school that traditionally has been led by Jesuits. There will be a national search for a new Dean. I hope that the new Dean will be as committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom as were prior Deans. It is very hard to build and maintain a quality faculty.

Students need to have their “station in life” explained to them.

Issue C’s, or less, to the miscreants and let them own the cost of their educational misadventures.

There is no short supply of applicants to name-brand colleges. Refresh the admission mistakes from a pool of intellectually curious potential

“Dean Manning should issue an unequivocal defense of Prof. Vermeule’s academic freedom, without watering it down”

Yes, he should.

But I’m so used to seeing our leaders (so-called) behaving in the oh-so-predictable way that Miss Cleo and I, looking into the future, foretell that the dean will be another Profile in Putty.

“He shows a disdain for opposing viewpoints”. What is it they think they’re doing?

    Yeah, I’d love for some prankster (because Harvard will never do it) to release an official declaration such as:

    From Harvard
    To various news media
    RE: Professor Adrian Vermeule

    We have reviewed the accusations that the four student groups have leveled against Professor Vermeule, and frankly we’re shocked. We at Harvard have seldom seen such contempt, such blatant and near-criminal disregard for established US law before. So immediately, we are doing the following:
    – As of today, the four student groups are disbanded.
    – All four groups will remain disbanded until each of their members have completed a course on the US Constitution, with special emphasis on the First Amendment. Since Harvard has no such class at the present, we will be hiring Hillsdale College for this task.
    – Each student of these four groups will have this disgraceful element entered into their permanent record.
    – As a condition of the four student groups being reinstated, they each will have to include in their charter a statement on their support for First Amendment freedoms, as well as submit a twenty-page report on why they were wrong to do what they did, and how they intend on composing themselves as civilized people in the future.

    Yours truly,
    Harvard

    drednicolson in reply to allenb611. | December 6, 2020 at 11:49 pm

    “That’s different because shut up, racist!” 😐

    DaveGinOly in reply to allenb611. | December 7, 2020 at 5:13 pm

    I’ll say it again:

    Progressives lack three common traits possessed by most normal people:

    A sense of humor
    A sense of irony
    Self-awareness

    Most of their actions and declarations feature one or more of these lacunae in their collective character. The instant story evidences at least two, and possibly all three.

The Friendly Grizzly | December 6, 2020 at 10:19 pm

What the cancel crowd needs is curb stomping. And other crippling nasty things. The Brown Shirts needed it but no one stood up.

    I’ve said the same thing repeatedly. This crowd of bullies who hide behind institutional protections and their “intersectionality” need to have the ever living s kicked out of them.

“Prof. Vermeule demonstrates a disdain for opposing viewpoints, such as those of communists and socialists, who are equal members of our society.”

Of course, when the communists and socialists gain control, they’ll be the ONLY equal members of society…

    DaveGinOly in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 7, 2020 at 5:15 pm

    In that regard they are very much like Muslims, who are extremely concerned with minority rights unless or until they are a majority.

I always wonder why those who feel “unsafe” when they are confronted by ideas that differ from their own preconceived notions should feel that a university is a good place for them.

    MarkS in reply to chaswjd. | December 7, 2020 at 8:23 am

    Because universities is where they go to have their preconceived notions validated

      lawgrad in reply to MarkS. | December 7, 2020 at 11:50 am

      This is a very interesting point. Presumably, all of the members of all four organizations are Harvard Law students. It takes a certain skill and intelligence to be admitted to Harvard Law School. I guess they manipulated the current “system” successfully, and are now applying that same skillset to the Adrian Vermeule situation. The calculus might be: “Do I butter up Prof. Vermeule to get a summer internship at the Administrative Conference of the US or do I try to torpedo his career to earn virtue signaling credits?” They are smarter than us and realize the best tactic is to do both, hiding behind anonymous membership in the four HLS student organizations. Brilliant!

Cancellation, [elective] abortion, diversity, chauvinism, political congruence… wicked solutions. Liberalism is divergence. Coonservativism is moderating. Progress (i.e. unqualified monotonic change) is one step forward, two steps backward. Ethics is quasi-religious (i.e selective, opportunistic, relativistic) philosophy dictated by mortal gods and goddesses. Principles matter.

Vomitous

So fragile, yet so vindictive.

They view his sarcastic comments as “Violence“ — but if they were to attack him with physical violence, they’d make excuses that it was actually freedom of speech. ironic.

caseoftheblues | December 7, 2020 at 4:09 am

Law students appear to be the worst of the worst of the upcoming generation of totalitarian fascists so if we think the judges we have now are bad we haven’t seen anything yet!

    That is d–d scary.

    artichoke in reply to caseoftheblues. | December 9, 2020 at 3:26 pm

    They’ve been the worst of the worst for my whole adult life, from my own observation. They go in mediocre, and they come out mediocre and soulless. They didn’t necessarily start soulless; that was a transformation that happened in law school.

    I’ve had lawyers tell me how their job kills their souls. Some lawyers take the “social justice” approach, which therefore probably means they reinterpret or dress up soullessness as something positive.

Oh, please. Poor little offended communists. It’s not like he was posting memes advertising free helicopter rides.

“What universities can and must resist are deliberate, overt attempts to impose orthodoxy and suppress dissent. In recent years, the threat of orthodoxy has come primarily from within rather than from outside the university. Derek Bok, former Harvard Univ. president.

Thanks for this informative post. It would enhance the quality of the discussion, I think, if the entire letter from the Harvard Parity Project, et al., were available. Is there any possibility of including it in a follow up post?

Words are violence …. I was a corrections officer for the state of Texas for a few years … Someone should demonstrate what real violence looks and sounds like …. Just so they are no longer confused on that issue

The complaint should be dismissed immediately for misrepresentation. The complaint says that allegations of election misconduct are “unsubstantiated”.

The allegations of election misconduct are not unsubstantiated. The complaint is wrong and arguably lying. Everybody can see the large and increasing amounts of evidence being made public.

It ain’t defamation if it’s true. Likewise here, truth is an adequate defense, especially in the evaluation of an academic whose job is to promote truth.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 7, 2020 at 8:32 am

>> Dean Manning should issue an unequivocal defense of Prof. Vermeule’s academic freedom, without watering it down with the personal pejoratives so many other Deans and Presidents use when addressing attacks on faculty academic freedom. <<

Fine. That works for Vermeule.

But the administration also must address the "safety concerns" raised by the students.

I suggest Dean Manning begin by asking the students why they are choosing to pay $100,000 a year to attend an unsafe school?

Then note that with their safety as his primary concern he strongly suggests they pack their bags and relocate to a place where they will feel safer.

Of course, Dean Manning will likely do no such thing. He'll probably play along with their nonsense and pretend their grievances are legitimate – rather than the phony contrived horsesh!t that all normal people see as.

Me thinks we all should learn a Chinese language.

Vermeule is an iconoclast. That is the right word for him. He takes somewhat unusual views on things, then tries to back them up. I have disregarded many of his positions, such as Catholic integralism, where he believes the Church must be integrated into the state and sort of rule above it. But his argument is a good one, well thought out. It ultimately fails, because it cannot work in practice. Vermeule is a bit of a baby on social media, simply blocking anyone who disagrees with him. But he is precisely the kind of guy who should be a professor. He will challenge his students to think, and think hard, and be prepared to bring their A game when confronting him. No wonder the creepy fascist student groups want him silenced.

When you take the law out of law school, can the demise of the rule of law in the country be far behind?

Vermeule sounds like a guy I could have a productive and entertaining conversation with. His humorless, maleducated snowflakes critics should stay out of the legal profession.

We are over half the country not counting illegals, dead voters, out and out fraud and we need to start acting like it. I am fed up and am going to work very hard not to give a penny to any company/Etc that supports Leftist BS.

My alma maters want money while squeeing on about human rights while at the same time abolishing women’s rights they can go bleep themselves.

I have not shopped at Target since their CEO went on his women are sexist BS rant for not wanting to dress and pee in front of any random male that claims he is female for that minute (I am not talking about true transgenders but any unaltered bearded male pervert with his bleep hanging out that wants a free show). I have not bought Pepsi, cut my cable, and the list goes on.

This professors dean needs to stand by him and rightfully expel the fascists trying to harass him. If not then the school does not get a dime and any chance to defund from tax payer money should be pushed.

    Katy L. Stamper in reply to Sunlight78. | December 7, 2020 at 12:39 pm

    Sunlight, most of these folks were traumatized as children, suffered some kind of abuse, neglect, etc.

    So these people are not products of an assembly line, thus they are all unique. Granted, they have similarities, but they are all unique and at different points in experiencing the mental fallout from their trauma.

    So while “true transsexuals” are out there more, trust me when I say there are many wannabe transsexuals who simply were not abused at the age to make it full-on, or had other cultural influences that render them not full-on transsexuals, but who nonetheless have elements of this in their psyche.

    If you or someone you know has suffered such trauma, it wasn’t your fault, and you can improve. http://www.MaleSurvivor.Org has resources to help.

The Professor has just as much right to his opinion as the snowflake anarchists’, domestic terrorists, communists, socialists who want to destroy the greatest Country the world has ever known!

Katy – however there are many more predators looking for opportunity and loopholes to find victims. This has been documented. This is a serious issue for abused women and children. VS all you like but it does not change the facts or the situation.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend