We, The Babylon Bee, have decided to issue an apology. After being caught in a culture-war whirlwind of hatred and bigotry, we published an article naming Rachel Levine our "Man of the Year." Sometimes, even satirists make mistakes.

Our misgendering headline was hateful, insensitive, and cruel. Rachel Levine is 100% a real, actual woman. We were absolutely wrong to say otherwise. We understand now that our attempt at comedy was really "punching down" at a wealthy and powerful government trans woman official, and we have no excuse. We went too far.

We apologize to the trans community. We apologize to the women community, of whom Rachel Levine is clearly a part—and has been since her birth. We hope to take this opportunity to learn, grow, and be better as satirists—and as human beings.

So we invite our readers to say it with us, loudly and proudly, and with all the strength and goodness of 1000 kindergarten teachers in Florida trying to teach 5-year-olds about sex:

Rachel Levine is a powerful, beautiful woman.

Whatever that is.

if you are a hot babe, you get HEAPS of attention.
(just go to instagram).

but if you are a bit of a scrubber.
if you have no friends
if you are sad and a bit jealous of those hot babes with blokes blowing up their DM's, then how can you get attention


and remember attention IS currency
attention IS a dopamine hit

well , lets face it, those people in franks picture of a bunch of awkward looking people in white undies with a dob of blood, arent going to be getting a lot of attention any other way. the football jocks arent blowing up their instagrams


gender confusion is attention confusion.

and only the very extremes get most of the attention.

its "revenge of the nerds"
shame on the woke leftie intellectuals for using these people just to irritate their political enemies.

of course big tech love it because it deflects attention from their main mission (making the cash)

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2022 at 1:17pm:



Got him by the balls - anyone who says he's not a woman can suck his dick.....

I like aqua's 'attention confusion' concept........ anyone can get attention by being weird.... pity they got rid of the traveling circuses...... freaks of nature earned a good living there... like drawf throwing - banned because someone figured it was demeaning to short people....

mothra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2022 at 8:10am:



Are you a woman, mother?

mothra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2022 at 8:10am:



Have you thought about creating a thread about the subject?
It's free to do you know.
You're the smartest person you've ever met so it can't be that hard.... 

Bring on the Asteroid to make this species extinct like the Dinosaur

I am over it.

A woman is a human designed to conceive and bear children.... sometimes the apparatus is faulty, but there are no factory returns or recalls for correction of problems in intent and operation of the mechanism. 

Universal Creator Inc has the very best self-serving policy there.  No warranties, no factory recalls, and no refunds.  Cheap surgical knock-offs are nothing but cardboard cut-outs of women and have none of the accessories necessary for an enjoyable ride.

Would YOU buy a used cardboard car from that man?  What about a cardboard box?



There are reasons why some are excluded from the proper breeding process ..... including those who self-exclude ..... how dare anyone set about forcing them to be included!!! What happened to their personal sovereignty and personal authority to choose their own way for themselves without harming others?

Bloody disgraceful the way the poofs and lessos are shoe-horned into parenthood .... then, of course, there are reasons why some can't conceive the natural way .... go - tell it to their parents etc.

Frank wrote on Apr 8^th, 2022 at 8:54pm:


She meant Robindaughter Crusoe.... riding on my comments to every feminist whine that they are not Robertadaughter Crusoe or similar...

Anyway - was looking at the basis on which the comparative hours worked women/men works, and the interesting outcome was that far more men work contract than women.  Well, you say - so what?  Well - I respond that means that:-

1. many of the hours contracted are not recorded (cash jobs),

2  that the income level for contractors working 6-7 days a week on double rate is invariably going to come in at a higher level (ergo men will 'average' earn more than women),

3.  that many men are working nowhere near average hours and the imbalance between men at the top and men at the bottom is more pronounced than with women top/bottom (from whom I exclude the Inlesos - the Involuntary Lesbians - brrrrr)  ...(even though the claim is made that women work more part-time ( ???? ... anomaly found),

4.  that while some men are earning very well, with contracting skewing the figures, most are not, and their position is clearly far worse than similar women,

5.  that when it comes to wages/salary work and even part-time casual (the choice of many women), women are doing better than men on average while contractors are skewing the figures.

Just thought I'd throw that little analysis into the pot for your consumption... probably give some of you consumption or heart congestion....

How d'ya reckon the comparative figures on 'wage gaps' would work out if contractors were excluded... they are, after all, businesses.... and not plain old wage and salary earners.  Trust the ABS?  I used to work there collecting boring figures on traffic movements, industrial relations issues, farm produce, and such (you'll find a reference to that in some British movie)... clearly including contractors in Average Weekly Earnings is skewing the figures and providing a platform of falsehood for the self interesteds screeching about 'wage gaps'.