Sharon Stone Reveals Why She Lost Custody—But It’s Not What She Thinks

Sharon Stone revealed for the first time Tuesday on iHeart’s Table for Two podcast why she lost custody of her young son—or, rather, why she believes she lost custody.

What she doesn’t realize is that the judge’s stated reasoning for his ruling was just a pretext.

Sharon’s case is unusual in that she was not found to be lying, alienating or mentally ill. Just too sexy. Actually, having acted too sexy.

The judge asked my child—my tiny, little, tiny boy, “Do you know your mother makes sex movies?”

The movie the judge was referring to, Basic Instinct, had come out 12 years before the custody battle even began. Stone became famous for this role, in which she plays a sociopathic, bisexual woman who is a murder suspect.

To think that a judge would take custody away from a loving mother due to an acting role that has no bearing on parenting is incomprehensible. It harkens back to the old witch trials.

But what many Coalition moms know is that is not really why Sharon lost custody. Sure, the misogynistic judge may have disapproved of her acting, but it’s crucial to not be fooled and misdirected by superficial judicial machinations.

Sharon’s case supports the Coalition’s position that the Custody Crisis is not essentially about abuse. She did not claim her ex was abusive to her son or her. In fact, there are plenty of women who’ve lost custody who did not report any abuse by their ex.

As every mom knows, it is the cruelest form of torture to be deprived of your child. Not to mention the trauma a child experiences being deprived of his mother. Sharon was restricted to just one brief visit a month with Roan.

The take away here is that Sharon would have lost custody anyway, whether she had played a too-sexy role or not. The truth is, the system is rigged so women do not have the power to maintain custody. So, women like Sharon, and millions of others around the world, should not feel it was their fault for having lost custody.

The problem is women do not know the Family Court system is rigged until it is too late. And many do not ever realize the real reason they lost custody. Sharon correctly states she experienced “abuse by the system” but does not appear to realize that abuse was a result of systemic male entitlement and it’s counterpart: systemic discrimination against women.

Source: Sharon Stone Reveals Why She Lost Custody—But It’s Not What She Thinks

Melbourne judge tells breastfeeding woman to leave courtroom

A judge has kicked out a breastfeeding mother and her child from a Melbourne court, raising concerns about the mother feeding her baby being a ‘distraction’ to jurors.

On Thursday, the mother was feeding her child and observing a matter in the Victorian County Court when judge Mark Gamble addressed her directly saying, “Madam you will not be permitted to breastfeed a baby in court.”

“It will be a distraction and I’ll have to ask you to leave,” the judge said, according to The Age.

While the woman did what the judge asked and left the courtroom, doctors and advocates have spoken out against the incident, calling it unacceptable.

The Herald Sun reported that the woman did not wish to be identified, but was deeply upset by being told to leave and said she felt “humiliated”. She had been in the courtroom to support the alleged victims during the case being heard.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are protected by anti-discrimination laws in public areas including work, schools, universities, shops or rental properties.

However, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s website isn’t clear on whether the anti-discrimination laws apply to courts.

Judges are immune from civil liability on the basis of promoting independence and the County Court declined to comment.

Source: Melbourne judge tells breastfeeding woman to leave courtroom

‘Only Women Can Have Periods,’ Tampon-Maker Founder Says

Defying the pro-transgender narrative among woke tampon makers, Garnuu is telling anyone who will listen that “periods are for women only.”

At around the time of Garnuu’s founding, several prominent feminine hygiene brands voiced support for the transgender movement.

In 2020, the tampon company Tampax tweeted, “Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women. Let’s celebrate the diversity of all people who bleed!”

Instead of joining the pro-transgender narrative being furthered by brands such as Tampax and Always, Maxson is telling anyone who will listen that “periods are for women only.”

Maxson promises her company will never refer to women as a “menstruator or bleeder, chest feeder … [or] a pregnant person. … We’re keeping women, and we’re keeping periods to be a girls-only club,” she said.

Source: ‘Only Women Can Have Periods,’ Tampon-Maker Founder Says

Qld agrees to allow donor-conceived people the right to know the identity of their donor.

Since 2004, ethical guidelines by Australia’s peak medical and health research body have prohibited the anonymous donation of sperm and eggs. However, these guidelines don’t have the legal force of legislation and don’t have an impact on those conceived before 2004.

Research with donor-conceived people, and evidence provided to parliamentary inquiries, has shown fertility clinics are often unable and/or unwilling to provide accurate information. This might include, for example, denying donor-conceived people access to donor conception records even when donors have consented, and giving incorrect information about siblings.

Over the years, many donor conception records have been modified or destroyed. This has often occurred to protect anonymity, but is also due to questionable past practices such as sperm mixing, donors’ identities not being verified, and recruitment of medical students in exchange for course credits.

Establishing a centralised, government-held register would bring Queensland in line with other jurisdictions that already recognise the rights of donor-conceived people. This includes Victoria, South Australia, NSW (for those born after 2010), and Western Australia (for those born after 2004).

Source: Qld agrees to allow donor-conceived people the right to know the identity of their donor. Here’s why it’s important

Animal Study Found Puberty Blockers May Cause Depression — Decades After Doctors Began Administering To Children | The Daily Wire

A 2020 study was the first of its kind to use an animal model to examine the potential neurological and psychiatric effects of puberty-blocking drugs — 22 years after doctors began prescribing them to gender dysphoric adolescents on an experimental basis.

The results found that treatment with leuprolide, the drug used to suppress puberty, had “profound effects” of increased depression in female mice; in male mice, increased stress and a loss of interest in female mice were reported.

In 1998, Dutch clinicians began using leuprolide (GnRH agonists) to suppress puberty as an intervention for pediatric gender dysphoria, and over the years published two studies on their use in this context. The problematic “Dutch protocol,” as it became known, was later adopted by the United States to form the bedrock of the “gender-affirming” model of care, which deploys the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to “affirm” minors in their chosen trans-identity.

Far from “completely safe and reversible” and “a pause button on puberty,” as proponents of “gender-affirming care” claim, the children who begin taking puberty blockers during the first signs of puberty and go on to take cross-sex hormones, which constitute the vast majority, will become sterilized and may never be able to achieve orgasm.

The New York Times investigated the deleterious effects that puberty blockers have on bone health, and published an article after reviewing the scientific literature and interviewing over 50 doctors and academic experts around the world.

Source: Animal Study Found Puberty Blockers May Cause Depression — Decades After Doctors Began Administering To Children | The Daily Wire

Uterus transplant a first for Australia, giving hope for future of infertility treatment

A Coffs Harbour woman has become the first Australian to receive a transplanted uterus in a medical breakthrough at the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney.

The organ was donated by Bryant’s 54-year-old mother, Michelle Hayton, who endured an 11-hour operation to remove her womb.

Hayton met all the relevant criteria for a donor, including being fit, premenopausal and, crucially, willing to hand over her womb without expecting anything in return.

The Swedish surgeon who performed the world’s first uterine transplant in 2012, Professor Mats Brannstrom, led the operations on Bryant and Hayton, sharing his expertise with the team at the Royal.

The donor surgery to remove Hayton’s uterus, which began at 7am, was by far the longer and riskier of the two operations, Brannstrom said.

“There are small blood vessels going out, and we try to isolate those. The problematic thing is that there is a ureter on each side. And the ureter goes from the kidney to the bladder, and we cannot injure that.”

While the operations were free of major complications, the recovery for both patients has not been easy. Bryant experienced significant blood loss 24 hours after the surgery and required transfusions, while Hayton suffered a serious infection and is yet to feel any sensation in her bladder.

However, a month on from the biggest day of their lives, Bryant and Hayton said they have no regrets – even though there is no guarantee of the reward of a baby.

Source: 12ft | Uterus transplant a first for Australia, giving hope for future of infertility treatment

Why is social media pushing young women to donate our eggs? | The Spectator

The Egg Bank was offering me egg extraction and two years of storage for free, in exchange for donating half of the collected eggs for use in its IVF clinic. It’s presented as an altruistic project – though in 2021 (the last year for which data is available) the London Egg Bank registered £784,603 in profit. Couples struggling for a child will pay almost anything for a chance at a family.

It’s not just the London Egg Bank that’s on the hunt for donors. Almost all my young female friends have noticed a rise in the number of egg donation adverts they’re being served across many social media sites, from places such as Altrui, Care Fertility, Manchester Donors and many more.

It’s all presented so breezily as if this is an entirely uncomplicated business, but it’s not. Young women are asked to give their eggs (an invasive procedure not without risk) without having any of the downsides flagged to them. Here, everyone is #inspirational, but these egg banks make little reference to the fact that a child may be born sharing your DNA – and that child, your biological son or daughter, may well be in touch in later life. None of the adverts immediately mention the psychological impact of becoming a mother to a child who won’t be yours. Legally, egg banks have to offer donors counselling – but that’s only once they’ve started the process of donation, and not everyone accepts it.

Source: Why is social media pushing young women to donate our eggs? | The Spectator

Mum who had ‘top surgery’ while identifying as transgender shares pain of being unable to breastfeed | Daily Mail Online

A  woman who removed her breasts at age 20 when she identified as transgender has shared her grief over not being able to breastfeed her baby.

Elizabeth – not her real name – underwent a chest masculinisation mastectomy (commonly known as top surgery) after being formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria as a teenager.

But four years after getting the controversial procedure done, Elizabeth decided to detransition before falling pregnant at 30.

Researcher Professor Karleen Gribble told Daily Mail Australia Elizabeth’s story ‘may be the tip of the iceberg’ and should serve as an early warning signal to others.

‘There needs to be greater respect for breastfeeding and its significance for women and children.

‘Once you have a mastectomy there is no such thing as a reversal. This is irreversible surgery it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.’

Elizabeth attributed her gender dysphoria to developing breasts at the age of 10, which led to her being sexually harassed by men.

The surgery on Elizabeth was a disaster, leaving her with extensive scarring.

Simply wearing clothes was painful.

Elizabeth’s right nipple graft chronically leaked fluid and voids in her scarred left nipple graft caused even greater problems.

Her transgender friends didn’t like her talking negatively about her experience and refused to support her.

Testosterone-induced vaginal atrophy and a rejection by her transgender friends led to a psychological crisis and de-transitioning at 24-years-old.

When her son was born by caesarean, he was placed on her chest.

‘He tried to suck on my chin and spent so much time in his early life trying to find my breasts.’

The Gender Clinic within Victoria’s Royal Children’s Hospital treats children up to their 16th birthday before referring them to adult services at the Monash Gender Clinic, which does perform top surgery.

The Royal Children’s Hospital would not say how many children it treated each year.

Source: Mum who had ‘top surgery’ while identifying as transgender shares pain of being unable to breastfeed | Daily Mail Online

YoU cAn JuSt rEpLaCe tHeM – is medically detransitioning as easy as they say? | GenderCritical

No. Because some bells can’t be unrung. You should never trust anyone who will suggest surgery in such a blasé manner. They are disregarding your life and are either not informed or being dishonest about the risks.

Here are differences in choosing a mastectomy over a breast reduction:

Breast reduction focuses on removing excess skin, fat and some fatty tissue to reshape and lift the breast. The breast overall in mostly intact, so breastfeeding is possible. Scarring depends a lot on genetics and aftercare.

While mastectomy removes majority of the milk glands and fatty tissue. With majority of the milk glands and fatty tissue gone your chest becomes concaved, in top surgery they are trying to replicate a masculine chest so they remove the excess skin and generally the the nipples are kept. Again, scarring can be visible depending on the surgeon technique but also relies on genetics and following aftercare.

I have seen a few people get top surgery and no nipples, so they would have to get their breasts reconstructed then later tattoo on nipples but they definitely have no ability to breastfeed should later they wish to reverse this procedure.

ThEY cAn jUsT gEt ImPLaNTs

Just like you can get toxicity for having a tampon in too long, guess what they discovered about breast implants that took years before it entered medical literature?




There is also fat transfer breast augmentations.. It is also known as fat grafting, while it seems less invasive it is still a surgery and carries the risk of death.

I have seen some innovative ideas being created within breast implant technology. This 3D printed scaffold to reconstruct breasts (more info here and here) but it is in early development.


  • Balding anyone? Now you need to pay for your Minoxidil or for a quality wig. $$$
  • Voice lowered? Cough up that cash for a trans friendly vocal coach or speech therapist to help you learn to speak in a more feminine pitch. $$$
  • Excessive and unwanted facial or body hair? Laser or electrolysis in the next few years for you to remove. Better have some $$$

I will end this with most ironic thing I have found as a detransitioner. The trans community will beg the wider community for compassion, empathy and understanding for them and their existence.

However when a detransitioner turns around and ask that exact thing for themselves, the trans community uses the exact talking points that is used against them to the detransitioner. “You are a fraction of the population, you don’t represent us, it’s not my problem, you made a mistake, I don’t get it, I don’t care” and so forth.

I see you. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Source: YoU cAn JuSt rEpLaCe tHeM – is medically detransitioning as easy as they say? | GenderCritical

WATCH: Pfizer director admits COVID vaccines affect women’s fertility | News |

Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations Planning Dr. Jordon Trishton Walker said COVID-19 vaccines are making women’s menstrual cycles irregular.

“The vaccine shouldn’t be interfering with that,” said Walker in a Thursday video.

The director went on to say he hopes Pfizer does not “find out that somehow this mRNA lingers in the body because it has to be affecting something hormonal to impact menstrual cycles.” He said the next generation will be screwed up if the vaccines change menstrual cycles.

Source: WATCH: Pfizer director admits COVID vaccines affect women’s fertility | News |