Gillette Strikes Again: Is This the Best a ‘Transitioning Man’ Can Get?

Robert Bridge — Strategic Review June 7, 2019

A Fortune 500 Company is promoting a lifestyle that is not just potentially hazardous to children; it could potentially be categorized as child abuse.

Before consumers had time to process the collateral damage from Gillette’s last piece of social-justice propaganda, devoted to combating so-called ‘toxic masculinity,’ the company has broken ground on another controversial theme, this time portraying a gender-bending adolescent, whose full name is Samson Bonkeabantu Brown, wielding the almighty blade for the first time.

In the video, entitled ‘First Shave, the Story of Samson,’ the transitioning male opens by saying, “Growing up I was always trying to figure out what kind of man I wanted to become, and I’m still trying to figure out what kind of man I want to become.”

Before considering the ramifications of that statement, it’s important to understand some terms and definitions first. In the wild world of gender studies, when an individual is described as being a ‘transitioning male,’ this is a person who was born a biological female, yet is now in the process of ‘transitioning’ to become a male. Conversely, a ‘transitioning female’ is a biological male transitioning to become female. For those who believe that ‘transitioning’ is feasible proposition, they argue a difference between the term ‘sex,’ which is what a boy or a girl is assigned at birth based upon genitalia, and ‘gender’ which is a more culturally determined status determined by what an individual believes himself or herself to be.

In other words, from the holy gospel according to Liberals, a person may essentially act as God by playing Creator with their own bodies, and heaven help the heathen who believes otherwise. Thus we hear ‘Samson’ in the Gillette commercial saying that she is “trying to figure out what kind of man I want to become” as if this were even a legitimate choice. Society is going to great pains to convince us that it is. Meanwhile, as far as shaving goes, which I suppose could be called a rite of passage to manhood for young males, this comes about as the result of a natural process known as puberty, which affects boys and girls in entirely different ways, of course.

Apologies for the Biology 101 briefer, but it seems necessary. In males, the changes associated with the onset of puberty involve the lowering of the voice, hormonal signals sent from the brain to the testes and the growth of facial hair, a natural phenomenon from which Gillette has profited handsomely over the years. In females, you have the onset of menstruation, the development of breasts, and so on. One need not be an investigative journalist to know that the growth of facial hair does not normally figure into the female puberty cycle.

This leads us to a question that Gillette fails to consider in its latest controversial advert: How exactly did it come to be that a young biological female found the need to shave her face in the first place? After all, in the past such spectacles were more commonplace to traveling circuses, where village folk paid a few cents to peek behind a curtain to view some ‘bearded lady.’ Now the rare phenomenon is being flaunted on television screens, in full view of impressionable children, as some sort of a natural occurrence. And that is exactly the point – it is not a natural occurrence.

The reason ‘Samson’ must have that first shave in the first place is due to the hormonal treatment – heavy doses of male testosterone for life – she is being administered on behalf of a medical community that is condoning such outrageous methods. That’s right. Adolescents who are just entering puberty – an extremely sensitive and emotional time of life that is filled with its own sort of physical and psychological discomforts – are no longer being offered psychotherapy if they admit to confusion about their sexuality. Instead, medical practitioners are now required to abide by the rules of so-called ‘affirmative care’ community, which demands that doctors essentially place children on the rough road to sexual transition. In other words, the doctor must accept the child’s ‘gender identity’ without suggesting psychotherapy as an alternative.

At this point, perhaps there are readers who feel that a middle-aged journalist is unqualified to discuss a subject that involves so much intense personal involvement on the part of the subjects. That is why I would encourage the reader to view the video below in its entirety. It provides the shocking first-hand insights and experiences of Walt Heyer, who underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1983, only to ‘de-transition’ in 1990 after many years of successful psychotherapy – exactly what is being denied the youth of today in order to cope with their feelings.

Heyer, who has written the book ‘Trans Life Survivors,’ which deals with the stories of 30 individuals and their personal stories of transitioning hell, says it is “child abuse” to affirm to a child that he or she is the opposite sex.

“We are manufacturing transgender kids,” Heyer says in the video. “We are manufacturing their depression, their anxiety, and it has turned into a huge industry that people are profiting from after kids’ lives are completely torn apart.”

“Why do we abuse [children] with hormone blockers and cut their bodies apart as a way to affect treatment. It’s insane, actually.”

Yet companies like Gillette, more interested in selling a crippling agenda than razor blades, has turned reality on its head, while the medical and advertising companies are only too happy to pander to this insanity.

“Powerful,” “heartwarming,” “beautiful” and “profound” are the adjectives that Adweek uses to describe the commercial. Other major media piled on with the accolades without ever mentioning the very real hazards associated with such life-altering transitions.

With powerful and influential companies like Gillette advocating on behalf of not simply a close shave, but irreversible life-altering operations, they should be held legally responsible for any children in the future who are led astray by their incredibly irresponsible messages.



6 responses to “Gillette Strikes Again: Is This the Best a ‘Transitioning Man’ Can Get?”

  1. ” For those who believe that ‘transitioning’ is feasible proposition, they argue a difference between the term ‘sex,’ which is what a boy or a girl is assigned at birth based upon genitalia, and ‘gender’ which is a more culturally determined status determined by what an individual believes himself or herself to be. ”

    Contrary to the belief that a person is born with a ‘sexual orientation’, the truth is that a person acquires his sexual orientation, after he is born, at the time when he loses his sense of identity, and becomes a natural person. This means that it is possible for a ‘homosexual’ to restore his sense of reality, by means of conversion. To say that a person is born with a sexual orientation is a contradiction in terms, the word “orientation” can only be meaningful, if it takes place after the person is born.

    In the real world there can be no such thing as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’, any individual is what he is, male or female. It is not a matter of choice, you are what you are. If a male should have a female orientation, it can only mean one thing; the person is still deluded.

    The faithful witness

    Source: “Believers Information Network”

  2. Its not just gillette
    The insurance co money
    Received more complaints for its advert showing a half man half woman creature walking down the road than any other TV advert
    Any psychologist will tell you this was an attempt to blur the dictinction between the sexes
    Their lastest advert shows a talking Goat of Mendes
    the satanic beast epitomised at Bilderberg ceremonies.
    Baphomet is its name and sorcerers claim this beast can be conjured to appear
    the Authors Dennis Wheatley and Abe Solomons claimed that 33rd degree masons
    Aleister Crowley and Winston Churchill, were present when satanic sacrifices were made to win the war on Germany
    Churchills secretary Lord Boothby, was a serial abuser of small boys, and told the Krays
    so was Churchill, Boothby claimed they both attended satainic meetings run by Leon Britten, who claimed to be a grand master

  3. I have a distant cousin with a family of mental illness (thank God on the marriage side — not the genetically related one). His grandfather spent the last decades of his life in a state mental hospital. Another family member of his used to try to mow her front lawn with a plastic lawn chair on the regular. So, we are talking some actual mental illness here — not a little mild depression or anxiety kind of thing. One day, he decides that he is really a woman trapped in a man’s body. His mom took him to a psychiatrist, because she knew — given her dad — that mental illness was a real probability. The counselor told her she was just going to have to accept that her son was really her daughter. He didn’t care about the family history. He told her she needed to get over her prejudice. And she needed to support his “transition”.

    So, she tried to. But one night, my cousin decided that he would take matters into his own hand. He took a knife and sliced off his own penis in an attempt to become a woman. Fortunately, the ER docs were able to reattach his penis and they also checked him in to the psych ward. He got on medication and, unsurprisingly, he no longer thought he was a woman trapped in a man’s body. That was just a delusion he was suffering during an acute phase of his mental illness. He actually went on to get married and father 2 kids (which, honestly, he probably shouldn’t have given his mental illness — but whatever). He has never wanted to live as a woman since.

    So, who did him more harm? The mother who was accused of being trans-phobic or the doctor who refused to consider a family history of mental illness and instead encouraged a delusion and refused to give actual medical treatment (medication) that he desperately needed? And why is it wrong to ask that kids who think they are trans first be screened for actual mental illness? Can’t doctors tell the difference between the two? And if not, shouldn’t that make us pause if being trans and being mentally ill are so similar that you can’t tell them apart?

  4. Why does veryone hate jews ?

  5. @little joe

    Instead of doing introspection and realizing that the problem is within, they project their hatred to the so called ‘jews’, which they regard as the enemy and the cause of everything that is wrong in the world. It is known as scapegoating.

    The faithful witness

  6. And once AGAIN, ADOS is being used as STALKING Horse for the gay agenda.