Dancing, shouting trans activists shut down parents' group meeting | Fox News
By: Peter Pinedo (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
closeVideo
Detransitioner Chloe Cole takes aim at 'irresponsible doctors' for what they have done to children
Chloe Cole, a detransitioner and activist, slammed the 'irresponsible doctors' for the 'incredible disservice' they have done to children like her, while speaking to Fox News Digital.
Several provocatively dressed, dancing transgender activists broke into an informational parents' meeting at the Vermont State House on Wednesday, disrupting the event and forcing the parents to seek another space for their event.
The activists played loud music and shouted as event organizers attempted to speak.
The Vermont State House Sergeant of Arms refused to remove the trans activists, claiming they had a right to be there, according to the Vermont Daily Chronicle.
The parents' group - the Vermont Family Alliance - was holding an event for 'Detrans Awareness Day' and was meant to highlight resources available for formerly transgender-identifying people who have been physically, mentally and emotionally harmed by sex-change treatments.
Trans activists on Wednesday disrupted an event hosted in the Vermont State House building by parents of detransitioners.(AP Photo/Lisa Rathke)
Video taken of the incident posted to X shows several transgender activists, one shirtless and wearing a purple tutu and another waving a ribbon baton, dancing around event organizer Renee McGuinness as she tries to give her presentation to parents.
Speaking with the Vermont Daily Chronicle, McGuinness said the group had reserved the room for the event for the afternoon. However, State House Sergeant at Arms Agatha Kessler made both groups vacate the room after 30 minutes of continued disruption, citing concerns about both parties' safety.
The Chronicle reported that many event attendees moved to the cafeteria to hold their event.
"Our First Amendment rights were denied in this case in favor of a group that was disruptive," said McGuinness. "That's not under the First Amendment for one group to just be able to outshout the other, and whoever outshouts the other, then they've won their First Amendment Rights at the sacrifice of the other party."
A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C.(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
McGuinness explained that the event was meant to help former transgender people who have been "denied and ostracized and bullied."
"They want to have a voice, and they want healing from their wounds and injuries because of the medical procedures," she said.
McGuiness called for the Vermont legislature, which is majority Democratic, to amend its rules regarding decorum in the state house to respect the rights of groups that have gone through proper channels to reserve an event space.
"The Sergeant of Arms essentially came down on the side of these activist disrupters."
"It's sad and unfortunate," said McGuinness. "The First Amendment is really about civil discourse, right? And not censoring one group over another."
"Our First Amendment rights of speech were not protected," Marie Tiemann, president of Speak VT, a group that was co-hosting the event, told Fox News Digital.
A parents rights supporter holds up a sign during Chino Valley Unified School District board meeting at Don Lugo High School in Chino on Thursday night July 20, 2023.(Getty Images)
"The Sergeant of Arms essentially came down on the side of these activist disrupters," she said. "We held the event to give a voice to the thousands of detransitioners who are suffering from the real-world harms caused to their emotional and physical health."
Erika Sanzi, Director of Outreach at a national parents group called Parents Defending Education, also spoke out after the incident.
"If students and staff are forced to celebrate LGBTQ awareness and Pride, they should also be made aware of the very real and increasingly acute issue of de-transition," she said.
"Vermont can't have it both ways where they preen about how inclusive they are and then deliberately exclude and even erase the stories of minors who have gone through the process of gender transition and later changed their minds and decided to detransition," she went on. "This is a big deal —medically and psychologically—and ignoring it reveals ideological bias, bias and callousness."
Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing, No MAGA BS.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
These trans activists are closed minded bigots who will not tolerate and belief that doesn't mirror their own, but i guess we can't expect people with mental illnesses to behave in a civilized way.
I agree, and shame on them for ignoring the tiny percentage of a trans persons who detransition. I mean, trans persons make up about 1% of society and those who have chosen to detransition is between 1% and 8%. So, 1% of the 1% were being callously disrespected by the trans activists and they should be ashamed of themselves.
So, now that we're done shaming those trans activists for disrespecting the 1% of the 1%,[✘]
Can you show me the last time a group of "conservatives" went into a trans meeting or gathering and disrupted it acting like an intolerant group of asses like these bigots did? any reasonable news source will be accepted.
Yet they will scream at anybody who refuses to accept them. I see why the left supports them. They're alike
Then there is this "tolerant" trans.
I can not condone pulling a gun on anybody without it being a case of self-defense. That is wrong. It was an over-reaction to being taunted. Thankfully, just that too. It does beg the point that this street "preacher" is allowed to broadcast his intolerance through a "loudspeaker" about somebody's else reality (rather than hold a sign quietly) and it illustrates how 'hot' the subject matter can become for people.
BTW, it strikes me this video is incomplete in context. . . as it seems this "preacher" who is looking back and forth to his left side is speaking (loudly through a microphone) to the 'party' which eventually pulled what appears to be a gun and pointed it at his head. Even so, to this "preacher's" credit or stupidity. . . he continued to call after the individual with a "Hey man. . . ' Dangerous.
Now then, it would behoove more of us to be conscious of others and how they live. No one wants to dress in the prescribed or perceived 'trappings' of another gender in our society. . . so, if we are being fair to the issue. . . we ought to want to understand the WHY of doing so (because of the risks). Rather than, just grandstandingly mocking and stereotyping the 'victim.'
Finally, this trans-individual came into this world and 'found' a truth. . . similar to that "preacher" coming into the world and finding his 'calling'. . . and that being the case, in a land 'sworn' to faith and separately freedom. . . why is this transperson a problem for the "Church"?
Well, as reprehensible as the activists were, the Sergeant at Arms was an order of magnitude worse and should be fired from her position. Her actions were so obviously prejudicial that she likely was in league with them.
Agree 100%, the Sergeant at Arms had 1 job which she failed to do.
Yep, a complete fail.
As a homosexual man, my pronouns are: he/him I guess, (Laughing out loud - I'm too old for this) I feel we all need a clear and better understanding of what the transgendered population is about and aiming to be, and see accomplished. Just aimlessly bashing the beauty and the beastly parts of the processes is not resolving anything.
I, even, am not fully sure what goes on with these youths and (young) adults emotionally, spiritually, mentally, or physically.
That said, I am clear about one thing: They are not mentally ill. And I, for one, will not tolerate anyone taunting them by suggesting that sexuality (which is complicated for humans) can be a mental illness.
So, pedophilia is not a mental illness?
Children cannot legally consent. Paedophilia is criminal...
And also a mental illness. Don't skirt the subject.
Thanks for the info, although I already knew that. So... back to the question?
The act is, but the desire of the adult male on what he is attracted too is what Drakkonis is referring to. is that a mental illness?
Then why does the left support transitioning children without their parent's knowledge?
The kids can't consent. Then why are the left pushing to mutilate them?
That is not up to me, but if it were those who hurt children would suffer life without parole, in state prison general population...
non-sequitur. To Wit:
Asked "pedophilia clinical definition", ChatGPT replied:
So, CB's comment had nothing to do with pedophilia, yet somehow you went there.
While i agree with you 100%, and i would extend that to rapists also. it still doesn't answer the question does it.
We are allowed to pick and choose what kids are allowed to do, Abortion good, antibiotics bad, gender change good, set a broken arm bad.
Did you read his comment?
He didn't refer to 'their sexuality', meaning trans people, he referred to human sexuality in general. Hence my question. But if such an obvious example that shows a person's sexuality can be a mental illness bothers you, how about sex addiction?
In any case, the point was to get him to admit the statement is wrong, since someone who can't recognize that there are sexual mental disorders probably doesn't have anything useful to say on the subject in the first place and may even be dangerous. After all, what would you call someone who's statement indicates there aren't any sexual mental illnesses?
Hope this clears my comment up for you.
I'm sorry. And I feel compelled to mention this: That reminds me of another 'occasion' where pedophilia was dropped into the discussion stream.
Point of clarification: This article is discussing transpeople 'issues' as broadcasted by conservatives. In context of the article, I am discussing transgenderism and giving no further consideration of an attempt to 'tilt' down into as a different topic.
Point of clarification: My response to your comment wasn't about pedophilia. It was about whether or not you would consider it a mental disorder, which relates directly to what you said in relation to trans people. That is, if you can't recognize something like pedophilia (or sex addiction, for those who are offended by the other example) why should anyone think you have anything of value to say about whether transgenderism is a mental disorder or not?
In context of what you said concerning the article, I responded to what you said. Further, your post had nothing whatsoever to do with the context of the article, as it wasn't about transgender issues. It was about a group of people (who happen, in this case, to be transgender) intruding on the rights of others. It could have been a group of open-border types intruding on a meeting of secured-border types and the issue of the seed article would have been the same. What you actually did is deflect from the article.
Over a period of at least 6 months ? So I suppose if someone's only been doing it for 4 or 5 months that's perfectly OK?
Methinks you are confusing. . . issues. Take stock of this in the "red" above and ask yourself what you mean us to understand as "it." Your comment (3.1) did not mention transgenderism, not even in passing. Conclusion: Your comment could only be about pedophilia ("it").
Moreover, since I choose not to give consideration to pedophilia (as it is not the topic), once more it is you that are carrying "it" back and forth all by yourself.
Finally, as it relates to the topic, transgenderism is not about sex, per se. It is about gender. Let's talk about it, get clarity on this. . ."it." Before we start smucking it up with oversimplified stereotypes and clichés.
I read both his comment and yours. I read the article too. Nowhere in his comment does he even allude to the issue of pedophilia, yet somehow you still seem obsessed with it.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of both the concept of gender and the separate but related concept of sexuality.
But he did not say that. You interpreted what he said to mean that. As he stated in 3.1.11 , he did not mean that, yet you continue to badger him as if he did. He was clearly discussing trans-issues.
I didn't make up the definition.
Presumably that would be a loose guideline to distinguish the more severe pedophilic disorder from the general condition of pedophilia. I do not believe that in either case it is necessary to have acted on these urges, but the risk of acting is greater with the disorder.
See 3.1.11.
Methinks you are being intentionally obtuse about what the issue is, which is your claim that there are no sexual mental disorders of any kind.
I don't need to ask myself. Anyone with reading comprehension and an understanding of the workings of grammar understands what the 'it' you underlined refers to.
Wrong. The subject of the 'it' you are referring to in the referenced sentence is pedophilia. The subject of the comment concerns whether or not such constitutes a mental disorder. Rather than address the subject of the comments, you are attempting to make a straw man out of my comments in order to avoid the question.
And since this is all you're going to continue to do...
Depression, anxiety and narcissism are mental disorders.
Gluttony, Envy and Lust are sins. But, they are not illegal...
I'll deal with this, first.
He is not talking about the sexuality of transgender people in the highlighted portion of the sentence. He is speaking about the sexuality of all humanity in general, whatever their proclivities may be. We can be sure of this with the parenthetical statement. The underlined ' can ' is emphatic, meaning that human sexuality, whatever form it takes, cannot be a mental illness. It can only be 'complicated'.
Yes, because, grammatically, that's what it says.
He stated no such thing. Whatever he is saying about trans people is completely divorced from what he said about sexual mental illness because he applied it to all of humanity. It's right there, Thomas.
now..
I'm completely baffled by this. He made a statement that literally reads there are no sexuality related mental illnesses, which I think is untrue. To illustrate that point I used a reference that would be universally agreed upon (in our culture anyway) as a sexual mental illness. And somehow that constitutes obsession on my part with pedophilia. I even indicated that it doesn't have to be pedophilia. We can use sex addiction if it makes you happier.
About the only thing I can think of to explain your attitude towards what I'm saying is that, somewhere in your mind, you might have some idea that if anyone answers the question " So, pedophilia is not a mental illness ?" with a yes, then it somehow translates to " therefore transgenderism is a mental illness " or something. If so, that's your own imagination working against you. I think anyone who knows me knows I would never make such a logically unsupported claim. No, this is just about the ridiculousness of claiming there's no mental illness associated with sexuality.
Lastly, he could have, still could, clear all of this up simply by stating, " I misspoke. I meant I won't tolerate anyone referring to transgenderism as a mental illness ". He hasn't done anything like that.
Well since this is "much ado" about pedophilia. . . and not the topic. . . perhaps you have something interesting to 'consider' about the topic of transsexualism?
To that end, it bears repeating: Not all transgendered individuals are gender dysphoric.
Which is all great information to have, if the subject was the morality of something. It's not.
I am, can-not, and must not be the topic of discussion. Do move on now as it is stalling-out the discussion of transgendered people, parents, and civil protests on account of it.
Homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder.
Neither is transgender(ism).
Pedophilia is considered a psychological disorder
That is the current state of medical science regarding these terms.
I suspect you disagree and consider anything other than adult heterosexuality to be a psychological disorder.
Feel free to be clear.
I don't and no one I know personally on the left do. In fact, I don't think even with parental consent that any child should be allowed to make permanent physical or chemical modifications including tattoo's and body piercing.
There is no collective left "pushing" mutilation on kids. Are there some whackos? Yes, they exist on both sides.
They can be labeled as mentally ill or emotionally confused by pretending to be something they are not. It's not their sexuality which might be gay or straight.....they picture themselves to be of a gender they were not born as. Rather than aiding and abetting this faulty thinking, medical professionals should attempt counseling as a first step rather than putting these young people on medications and attempting surgery while hiding these "affirming" actions from parents.
I believe Gender dysphoria is still in the DSM 5.
Terminology
Important terms related to Gender Dysphoria: 18
As defined above, "Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience gender dysphoria. " this is a complicated subject (with many steps needing comprehension). . . so let's get at that instead of labeling transgendered people collectively as mentally ill.
See 3.2.2.
You are sneaking in a basis premise that (I assume you mean) phycological professionals 'evals' and parents are not a part of the "discussion" - care to point us to where you acquired this understanding: That medications and surgeries are performed on these youths without counseling and parental advisements of any kind.
They are not pretending anything. It is their reality, not yours. You can go on all day about how they are deranged and confused, make them sit in hours and weeks of therapy, and they will still have the same orientation.
Crazy people doing crazy things. The Sergeant at Arms shouldn't indulge them.
The whole thing in a paragraph.
Sergeant at Arms:
an official of a legislative assembly whose duty includes maintaining order and security.
Here’s your sign …..
Vermont Sgt at Arms orders room cleared of EVERYONE after trans group disrupts VT detransition event
Observation. The Sergeant at Arms does state (plainly and by way of explanation for shutting down the proceeding):
1. She is alone in providing security services (that day?).
2. Safety for the facility and its overall occupancy is her most important function.
So your excuse is it was easier to remove everyone, and not just the group of bigots who were disrupting the meeting of people who had put the effort into reserving the room. Weird that there were no state police available in the entire state she could have called for back-up.
[✘]