You nailed it. Another problem is that she makes a sweeping generalization based on her experience in San Francisco in the ‘90s with a small select group of people. You can’t make a generalization from your own self selected interactions. There’s no randomization. Also, I’m having a really hard time with her focus on appearance. I wonder what she has to say about Butch Dykes, or even cis, straight farm women, who at first glance look very masculine? Nice critique.
Ooh, this was an excellent article! 👏 Very well-researched and well-stated. Good on you for calling it like it is. I can’t understand women who support the patriarchy. It’s a very sad and thoughtless place to live in.
I love waking to a new PITT article on a Saturday 🌅 Morning.
This woman is exactly what you say. Sure, a part of us may long for the nostalgic photo in her profile of daddy coming home to the family and the house. I experienced just that. But it's more complicated than that these days. It has been for decades. That 1950s image imposed on today's environment is a lie. And clearly, trans people are in the crosshairs of this dejected spinster.
She's getting what she craves -- attention & "prominence" in the anti-feminist arena. She's built a nice little career for herself with cliched "oppositional" commentary -- a WalMart Candace Owens. Like most modern grifters, she sees dollar signs in her self-proclaimed "unpopular" commentary.
But just like the keyboard warriors who follow liberal websites/podcasts/substack/et. al. on order to troll & "own the libs," she's neither clever nor intelligent enough to break through to the Mainstream Haters -- you know, where the REAL money is. She's the Guilfoyle woman of Medium -- and that's all she'll ever be.
These people are tiresome. A therapist would help her a great deal, but she's of the mindset that seeing one is an admission of failure. So she plods along, self-satisfied in her friendless ni we won't have to anymore.che, until her next opportunity to target someone who has no idea she exists. She's the anti-feminist holotype and believes THIS is her moment.
Thanks, as always, for refuting her garbage & looking forward to the day
Hey Skeleton Keys, let's unpack this step by step, because there's a lot to address here.
1. On Consent and "Dicks in Locker Rooms"
First, you ask why I'm "asserting that she's OK with breaching consent" while "insisting that you bring your dick into her locker room without her consent?"
This is what we call a false equivalence, and it's doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Let me explain:
A. *Darleen explicitly defended an article that sympathizes with sexual assault.*
The article "Coitus Interruptus" literally argues that men can't be expected to stop sexual activity immediately when consent is withdrawn because of "sensory overload." Darleen cross-posted this article and defended it, saying "There is two sides to every two-person story." That's not me putting words in their mouth - that's their actual position on actual sexual assault.
B. Trans women using women's facilities isn't a consent violation. This framing assumes that:
1. All trans women have penises (they don't)
2. Trans women are exposing themselves in locker rooms (they aren't)
3. Cis women have a right to exclude trans women from public spaces (they don't)
The research is clear: trans-inclusive bathroom policies don't increase safety risks[1]. Meanwhile, trans women face actual violence and discrimination when forced to use men's facilities[2].
2. On "Putting Words in Their Mouth"
You claim I'm putting words in Darleen's mouth. Let's review what they actually wrote:
- They called trans people "shapeshifters" and "narcissists on steroids"
- They mourned the loss of patriarchy, calling it a "fertile time"
- They defended an article sympathizing with a rapist
- They claimed acknowledging trans people's existence is "gaslighting"
I didn't make any of this up. It's all documented with citations to their own writing. So tell me again, what words did I put in her mouth?
3. On "Denying Their Right to an Opinion"
This is my favorite accusation, because it's so perfectly absurd. Criticizing someone's publicly stated opinions isn't denying their right to have them. Darleen has their own Substack, a Medium account, and has multiple podcast appearances on a variety of platforms.
They're using all these platforms to spread their views. Nobody's stopping them - I certainly cannot. But having the right to an opinion doesn't mean having the right to express it without criticism or consequences. So tell me again, how am I oppressing Darleen and denying their right to an opinion when I am directly quoting their own words, while they continue to be able to freely to write and say whatever they like?
If I'm "denying their right to an opinion" by responding to their comment on MY blog, then what exactly are they doing by coming to my space to call trans people "shapeshifters"?
So what is this really about then? I am no mind reader, but it seems like you are just mad that I had the audacity to push back against their transmisic nonsense, patriarchal stance, and exposed her hypocrisy and self-victimization for all to see. That isn't silencing, censoring, or oppressing Darleen - that is exposing what they have said and done for what it is.
That is accountability. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
4. On "Harassment"
Let's be crystal clear here about the sequence of events:
1. I wrote an article about Torrance Stephens
2. Darleen came to MY article and left transmisic comments
3. I responded once and only once.
4. They deleted their comment, blocked me, and started claiming harassment elsewhere.
That is not harassment. That is someone facing pushback for their bigotry and playing victim while making false claims against me. If they didn't want engagement, they shouldn't have engaged in the first place. So how about you show me where I demanded anything from them - particularly where I demanded they adopt my worldview?
The real irony here? Your accusing me of being a "patriarch" for... criticizing someone who literally wrote "A Requiem for the Patriarchy" mourning its loss. Criticizing me for the person who wants to bring forth a new patriarchal era. So the person actively advocating for patriarchal structures is the victim of patriarchy now?
Make it make sense!
You also call me a "narcissist" for responding to someone who called an entire marginalized group "narcissists on steroids." The projection is strong with this one.
Finally, you say Darleen "isn't bothering" me. They came to my blog to spread transmisia on their own volition. They are now going around lying about being harassed and making false accusations against me. They're defending sexual assault while claiming trans women are dangerous. They are actively advocating for the return of an era where women didn't have nearly as many rights and freedoms as they do today.
That bothers me. It should bother you too.
But what's really telling is that neither you nor Darleen can refute any of the facts I've presented. Instead, you're trying to make this about me being mean to someone who defends rapists and mourns the patriarchy.
That's not the winning argument you think it is.
---
[1] Hasenbush, A., Flores, A. R., & Herman, J. L. (2019). Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations: A review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(1), 70-83.
[2] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
Skeleton Keys (https://substack.com/@thekeytotheskeleton) came in hot with accusations of harassment, narcissism, and oppression. They demanded answers to their questions. And when they got comprehensive, well-cited responses?
Delete.
It's almost like there's a pattern here:
1. Show up to defend someone's indefensible positions
2. Make wild accusations
3. Demand explanations
4. Get thorough, fact-based response
5. Delete and run
The Darleen Lev playbook strikes again! Wanted to know what the comment was that they deleted? Me too - Good thing I kept a copy!
Skeleton Keys
4m
Edited
Could you please explain why you're asserting that she's OK with breaching consent, while simultaneously insisting that you bring your dick into her locker room without her consent?
She never says that she's sanguine about breaching consent, either. In true narcissistic fashion, you put words in her mouth that she didn't say, in order to maintain narcissistic "control" over her.
Then you're all upbraided over her opinions on the patriarchy, while simultaneously oppressing her by denying her right to an opinion -- in true patriarchal oppressive fashion.
This piece basically proves her point. You come across as a "narcissist on steroids." The purpose of this piece is to harass her. Why? Because she says she doesn't see what you demand she sees? Because she won't suck up to the gas lighting?
(Like some maligned evil authoritarian patriarch...the irony!)
This is exactly what a sick lonely deluded narcissist would do. Invest weeks in writing something designed to hurt someone who isn't bothering you.
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YttD!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YttD!,w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
You nailed it. Another problem is that she makes a sweeping generalization based on her experience in San Francisco in the ‘90s with a small select group of people. You can’t make a generalization from your own self selected interactions. There’s no randomization. Also, I’m having a really hard time with her focus on appearance. I wonder what she has to say about Butch Dykes, or even cis, straight farm women, who at first glance look very masculine? Nice critique.
Ooh, this was an excellent article! 👏 Very well-researched and well-stated. Good on you for calling it like it is. I can’t understand women who support the patriarchy. It’s a very sad and thoughtless place to live in.
I love waking to a new PITT article on a Saturday 🌅 Morning.
This woman is exactly what you say. Sure, a part of us may long for the nostalgic photo in her profile of daddy coming home to the family and the house. I experienced just that. But it's more complicated than that these days. It has been for decades. That 1950s image imposed on today's environment is a lie. And clearly, trans people are in the crosshairs of this dejected spinster.
*we won't have to anymore.
She's getting what she craves -- attention & "prominence" in the anti-feminist arena. She's built a nice little career for herself with cliched "oppositional" commentary -- a WalMart Candace Owens. Like most modern grifters, she sees dollar signs in her self-proclaimed "unpopular" commentary.
But just like the keyboard warriors who follow liberal websites/podcasts/substack/et. al. on order to troll & "own the libs," she's neither clever nor intelligent enough to break through to the Mainstream Haters -- you know, where the REAL money is. She's the Guilfoyle woman of Medium -- and that's all she'll ever be.
These people are tiresome. A therapist would help her a great deal, but she's of the mindset that seeing one is an admission of failure. So she plods along, self-satisfied in her friendless ni we won't have to anymore.che, until her next opportunity to target someone who has no idea she exists. She's the anti-feminist holotype and believes THIS is her moment.
Thanks, as always, for refuting her garbage & looking forward to the day
A incisive commentary to be sure, wow. And "a WalMart Candace Owens" - almost lost some tea to that one!
They always tell on themselves.
We can see them doing it from a mile away.
Hey Skeleton Keys, let's unpack this step by step, because there's a lot to address here.
1. On Consent and "Dicks in Locker Rooms"
First, you ask why I'm "asserting that she's OK with breaching consent" while "insisting that you bring your dick into her locker room without her consent?"
This is what we call a false equivalence, and it's doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Let me explain:
A. *Darleen explicitly defended an article that sympathizes with sexual assault.*
The article "Coitus Interruptus" literally argues that men can't be expected to stop sexual activity immediately when consent is withdrawn because of "sensory overload." Darleen cross-posted this article and defended it, saying "There is two sides to every two-person story." That's not me putting words in their mouth - that's their actual position on actual sexual assault.
B. Trans women using women's facilities isn't a consent violation. This framing assumes that:
1. All trans women have penises (they don't)
2. Trans women are exposing themselves in locker rooms (they aren't)
3. Cis women have a right to exclude trans women from public spaces (they don't)
The research is clear: trans-inclusive bathroom policies don't increase safety risks[1]. Meanwhile, trans women face actual violence and discrimination when forced to use men's facilities[2].
2. On "Putting Words in Their Mouth"
You claim I'm putting words in Darleen's mouth. Let's review what they actually wrote:
- They called trans people "shapeshifters" and "narcissists on steroids"
- They mourned the loss of patriarchy, calling it a "fertile time"
- They defended an article sympathizing with a rapist
- They claimed acknowledging trans people's existence is "gaslighting"
I didn't make any of this up. It's all documented with citations to their own writing. So tell me again, what words did I put in her mouth?
3. On "Denying Their Right to an Opinion"
This is my favorite accusation, because it's so perfectly absurd. Criticizing someone's publicly stated opinions isn't denying their right to have them. Darleen has their own Substack, a Medium account, and has multiple podcast appearances on a variety of platforms.
They're using all these platforms to spread their views. Nobody's stopping them - I certainly cannot. But having the right to an opinion doesn't mean having the right to express it without criticism or consequences. So tell me again, how am I oppressing Darleen and denying their right to an opinion when I am directly quoting their own words, while they continue to be able to freely to write and say whatever they like?
If I'm "denying their right to an opinion" by responding to their comment on MY blog, then what exactly are they doing by coming to my space to call trans people "shapeshifters"?
So what is this really about then? I am no mind reader, but it seems like you are just mad that I had the audacity to push back against their transmisic nonsense, patriarchal stance, and exposed her hypocrisy and self-victimization for all to see. That isn't silencing, censoring, or oppressing Darleen - that is exposing what they have said and done for what it is.
That is accountability. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.
4. On "Harassment"
Let's be crystal clear here about the sequence of events:
1. I wrote an article about Torrance Stephens
2. Darleen came to MY article and left transmisic comments
3. I responded once and only once.
4. They deleted their comment, blocked me, and started claiming harassment elsewhere.
That is not harassment. That is someone facing pushback for their bigotry and playing victim while making false claims against me. If they didn't want engagement, they shouldn't have engaged in the first place. So how about you show me where I demanded anything from them - particularly where I demanded they adopt my worldview?
The real irony here? Your accusing me of being a "patriarch" for... criticizing someone who literally wrote "A Requiem for the Patriarchy" mourning its loss. Criticizing me for the person who wants to bring forth a new patriarchal era. So the person actively advocating for patriarchal structures is the victim of patriarchy now?
Make it make sense!
You also call me a "narcissist" for responding to someone who called an entire marginalized group "narcissists on steroids." The projection is strong with this one.
Finally, you say Darleen "isn't bothering" me. They came to my blog to spread transmisia on their own volition. They are now going around lying about being harassed and making false accusations against me. They're defending sexual assault while claiming trans women are dangerous. They are actively advocating for the return of an era where women didn't have nearly as many rights and freedoms as they do today.
That bothers me. It should bother you too.
But what's really telling is that neither you nor Darleen can refute any of the facts I've presented. Instead, you're trying to make this about me being mean to someone who defends rapists and mourns the patriarchy.
That's not the winning argument you think it is.
---
[1] Hasenbush, A., Flores, A. R., & Herman, J. L. (2019). Gender identity nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations: A review of evidence regarding safety and privacy in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(1), 70-83.
[2] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
Well, would you look at that.
Skeleton Keys (https://substack.com/@thekeytotheskeleton) came in hot with accusations of harassment, narcissism, and oppression. They demanded answers to their questions. And when they got comprehensive, well-cited responses?
Delete.
It's almost like there's a pattern here:
1. Show up to defend someone's indefensible positions
2. Make wild accusations
3. Demand explanations
4. Get thorough, fact-based response
5. Delete and run
The Darleen Lev playbook strikes again! Wanted to know what the comment was that they deleted? Me too - Good thing I kept a copy!
Skeleton Keys
4m
Edited
Could you please explain why you're asserting that she's OK with breaching consent, while simultaneously insisting that you bring your dick into her locker room without her consent?
She never says that she's sanguine about breaching consent, either. In true narcissistic fashion, you put words in her mouth that she didn't say, in order to maintain narcissistic "control" over her.
Then you're all upbraided over her opinions on the patriarchy, while simultaneously oppressing her by denying her right to an opinion -- in true patriarchal oppressive fashion.
This piece basically proves her point. You come across as a "narcissist on steroids." The purpose of this piece is to harass her. Why? Because she says she doesn't see what you demand she sees? Because she won't suck up to the gas lighting?
(Like some maligned evil authoritarian patriarch...the irony!)
This is exactly what a sick lonely deluded narcissist would do. Invest weeks in writing something designed to hurt someone who isn't bothering you.