Troons Will Stop at Nothing to Silence Dissent

Meet “Zoe Jane Halo,” a so-called “male-to-female” transgender formerly residing in Ohio and probably now residing in Tulsa, Oklahoma; hereinafter the individual will be referred to simply as the “troon, ” “the Ohio troon,” or some variant thereof. The troon caught wind of one essay on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, “The Psychic Toll: How Anti-Social Behaviors and Bizarre Manias Affect the Individual and Society in the Instant of the Moment.” The essay in question repudiates and criticizes what is often referred to as the “consenting adults” paradigm, through the prism of the immediate harmful effects and psychic toll that occurs in the moment. This is in contrast to the so-called secondary effects and harms emanating from the “consenting adults” paradigm, such as defining deviancy down and other, more long-term negative ramifications, as discussed in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” and later in “Malum in Se: Incest and Other Evils as Intrinsically Harmful.” In “The Psychic Toll,” particular attention is paid to how the mere sight of transgender people afflicts the senses of those that observe them in the immediate moment, repudiating the tired refrain “Why do you care, how does it affect you, personally?” In that essay, there was a gallery of three full body shots of three so-called “transgenders,” one of which was an image the Ohio troon posted on social media. Significantly, that gallery included this caption, which should render it clearly within the safe harbor of the fair use exception of copyright law:

An assortment of so-called male to female transgenders, each with a number of physical tells that scream “male.”

Criticism and above all ridicule are at the heart of fair use and more particularly First Amendment protections. It is of note that this three-image gallery and comment in the caption was followed immediately by a long, in-depth paragraph describing all the ways that so-called male-to-female transgenders afflict the senses with any number of physical tells that scream “male.”

Notwithstanding this, the Ohio troon did not much care for being made an object of ridicule, for an author pointing out that his—or its—appearance signals “male, male, male.” And so the troon filed a dubious copyright claim on the gallery. That strike was unfortunately granted by Substack, despite the obvious fair use and comment at play. Readers should note that the gallery is not visible even in edit mode, so the gallery as it existed can only be surmised from memory and reference to the images saved in the images folder prepared in writing and revising this essay.

This is fairly obvious abuse of the copyright system and the Digital Millennial Copyright Act. The caption clearly criticizes the three images, ridiculing those featured for any number of obvious male features present in each image. Beyond that, a gallery such as this is illustrative of the assertions set forth in the following paragraph: the gallery in the context of the relevant portion of the essay’s text serves an obvious journalistic and educational purpose that is at the heart of fair use and indeed the First Amendment.1

For these and other reasons, the copyright strike is hardly persuasive as evidence of wrong-doing, as most platforms approve takedown notices almost as a matter of course, taking the path of least resistance. Copyright law as it currently exists is notoriously susceptible to abuse and serves as yet another indictment of both this legal system and form of government. Such abuse has become a constant form of harassment of content creators, particularly on YouTube, who most constantly grapple not just with copyright law but Youtube’s overinclusive moderation and strike policy. Music is particularly nettlesome, as videos made of incidents as they happen can be subject to copyright strikes simply because a song is played in the background. For that reason, the police and others have adopted the tactic of blasting copyrighted songs particularly known for “scraping,” to prevent footage from being uploaded or, if they are uploaded, to ensure copyright stikres will prevent dissemination of the footage in question.

Substack does provide an option to challenge the copyright, but this requires a sworn affidavit asserting fair use or other claims as an affirmative defense. Divulging the author’s real name and address is also required. Although the success of this affirmative defense seems likely, it is easier to just let this stand and insert a new collage that is even more obviously within the confines of fair use as to render such claims far less likely to be granted going forward.

To guard against even a color of claim for copyright infringement despite obvious criticism and ridicule in the caption, a collage has been created in an external graphics editor combined with in-image commentary and annotations. This renders the work both transformative and even more firmly within the safe harbor of fair use. Readers can behold this new iteration below. Soon, a substantially similar collage will be placed in Psychic Toll switching out the Ohio troon’s image with another revolting specimen.

One imagines a troon so sensitive to criticism and ridicule would have preferred the gallery without the additional commentary and annotations.

The Ohio troon made one mistake in particular—namely Dr. Kevin MacDonald has seen fit to publish select essays of mine on a regular basis on The Occidental Observer. This relationship, in further cooperation with Ron Unz and The Unz Review in turn, in turn leads these essays to appear on The Unz Review, many of which have been front-page features. Unlike writings posted on the Substack platform, essays posted on these publications are not prone to the sort of dubious copyright strikes that the Substack copyright team made in this instance. It is for this reason that this essay will only be published on these external publications and not on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective.

There is another consideration which the Ohio troon did not consider: both The Occidental Observer and most especially The Unz Review have greater readership than The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, especially as a relatively young writing project and probably most independent publications on platforms like Substack, Medium.com, and so on. Substack has been an invaluable platform in cultivating this independent writing project, but it could not have enjoyed the success it has without both the cooperation, support of and exposure on The Occidental Observer and The Unz Review. The abuse for dubious copyright strikes only further demonstrates how vital these external publications are. Essays that seem prone to copyright abuse or other risks (such as this very essay) can be published externally only, rendering malicious tactics like these not only ineffectual but unavailable.

In the wake of this threat of the abuse of copyright strikes, an audit of images and captions in past essays is underway, with captions being written, rewritten, and revised to ensure that fair comment is so open and obvious that such erroneous decisions are far less likely in the future. Going forward, the gallery feature provided by the Substack console will not be used at all, with collages created in an external graphics editing application. In instances such as ridiculing or commenting on the appearance of transgenders and other ideological enemies, comments and annotations are more likely to be written directly in the image, as has been done for this essay. This will be done even if captions or commentary or obvious or if editorial decisions would otherwise decline such altering on a “less is more” basis.

As some hostile or ambivalent readers may decry this essay as little more than venting about a copyright strike by the troon, it should be noted that this incident is a small microcosm–a case study—in how transgender “people” have behaved and conducted themselves since society made the grave error of tolerating this scourge to any extent whatsoever. The word “people” is of course used quite loosely, for those who have destroyed their very sex have negated the very mammalian essence that defines the human condition, thus rendering themselves something far below man or woman and utterly undeserving of any humanity. It is hard to imagine how an individual could be more dehumanized than the deliberate mutilation of one’s sex organs, including the castration of a man’s penis and testicles to feign a very poor counterfeit of a vagina, or, in the instance of so-called “female-to-male” transgenders, lopping off breasts or ripping out the uterus and ovaries in some mad, desperate plea to become a “man,” replete with the horror of the neo-penis, also known as a “rot-dog” in Internet parlance. These and many other considerations besides reveal that the very notion of transgender “people” is but an oxymoron, as such individuals are not people at all, but subhuman vermin.

Such a disclaimer aside, filing dubious copyright strikes is part and parcel of a familiar but also odious modus operandi that transgenders have exhibited time and time again. Transgender “people” are all too determined to make a spectacle of themselves in both real life and social media, while demanding that each and every person affirm their mad delusions that they (or anyone) could possibly change sex—or gender.2 This is especially grating with the Ohio troon in question, who is one of the more “clockable” troons on the Internet. A brief perusal of video content reveals a deep voice along with any number of physical tells signalling this individual is male, and could never be a woman. In some TikTok appearances, he (or it) even appears with notable wounds on the face, cheeks, and chin. Is it acne? Evidence of using meth? Some horrible side-effect or pharmaceuticals consumed in conjunction with so-called “gender affirming care?” Whatever it is, this and many other aspects of this creature’s physical appearance are ripe for both criticism and ridicule. To post such content and not expect a wide-range of negative reactions is the very epitome of what our Kosher adversaries call “chutzpah.”

At the moment, abuse of the copyright strike system is one of the last resorts to censor ridicule and criticism available to the transgender menace. Before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, this demand to affirm the most insane delusion was expressed by way of Vijaye Gadde’s absurd terms of service which would infract any account that referred to Bruce Jenner as such (rather than “Caitlynn”) or that stated he (or it) is not a woman. Users would also be at risk for infractions of terms of service for simply contradicting assertions by those like the Ohio troon insisting that “transgender women” are women.

The acquisition of Twitter (now increasingly known as “X”) by Elon Musk and the reelection of Donald Trump has curbed the tide of the transgender menace to some appreciable degree. However, as this and many other episodes readily demonstrate, the transgender menace is far from defeated. Rather, it is most likely in a period of temporary regression. Many periodicals, including somewhat right-of center publications like The Daily Mail and The New York Post continue to engage in customizable pronouns, in contravention of basic principles of grammar and biology. Linkedin and other professional venues still display customized pronouns in profiles, as do email signatures, although this is somewhat less common. As far as this author is aware, the London Tube and other public venues have not returned to using “ladies and gentlemen” in announcements addressed to the public, just as Deutsche Bahn and Lufthansa have not yet resurrected the centuries old salutation of “meine Damen und Herren,” one of many quaint charms of Goethe’s mother tongue. Finally, as this episode demonstrates, transgender “people” are abusing the DMCA to silence anyone who criticizes or ridicules their appearance, a harmful trend which fits comfortably in this overall societal pattern characterized by far too much tolerance of the transgender menace.

That the transgender menace has not yet been defeated demonstrates yet again the vital importance of efforts like The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective and above all independent publications like The Occidental Observer and The Unz Review. The message against transgender lunacy must be unrelenting and uncompromising, especially as it has not, in fact, been defeated, but is simply in regression, as stated above. Transgenders still seem so entitled as to expect to make themselves public spectacles—in real life and in social media—before using any and all means available to silence those who rightly criticize and even ridicule their insane delusion. This tireless effort begins with writing, videos, and other content that present the images like those at issue in this episode (namely presenting images of transgender people) and offering sharp criticism and ridicule as fair use. Then there are of course other, simple statements like this; neither “Zoe Jane Halo” nor any man can ever become a woman, just as Ellen Page and no woman can ever become a man. These and other truths must be emphasized time and time again until the mad delusion of transgenderisn is broken and defeated at last, joined together with a mandate to eradicate so-called transgenderism from public life entirely.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls. Readers particularly concerned about the transgender menace are particularly encourage to peruse writings featured in the section “Against Transgenderism.”

LIST OF THE TROON’S KNOWN SOCIAL MEDIA:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@zoejanexy

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@zoejanexy

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zoejanexy/

Threads: https://www.threads.com/@zoejanexy

Substack: https://substack.com/@zoejanexy

Twitter: https://x.com/zoejanexy

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zoejanexy

Notes

1 Courts consider four factors to determine fair use. 1) Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2 Nature of the copyrighted work (creative works like fictional movies, books and the like are afforded more protection; 3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 4). Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. All of these weigh in favor of fair use in this instance. Readers should note the recent result in Lolcow LLC v. Fong-Jones, which resulting in a bench ruling upholding. posting of images in forum posts to be fair use.

2 As set forth in “This Mockery of Language II: Gender Redefined: Exposing the Redefinition of Gender for Transgender Ideology,” the distinction between sex and gender insisted upon by radical theory and the transgender menace is dubious at best. The supposed distinction has largely been prescribed for ideological and political reasons. This is especially ironic given how the left has strongly favored descriptivism in most other contexts.