Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0920, 24 Feb 24

Death of Trans Kid Unrelated to Minor School Scuffle

This story has been interesting to watch unfold. The original narrative was that trans kid died after fight with other students in evil red-state Oklahoma. It was spun as an example of intolerance of trans people by redneck Republicans or something. Now we learn more… First, we learn that the trans kid was the aggressor.

In the video from the hospital the day of the altercation, Nex explains to an officer that the girls had been picking on them and their friends because of the way they dressed. Nex claims that in the bathroom the girls said “something like: why do they laugh like that,” referring to Nex and their friends.

“And so I went up there and I poured water on them, and then all three of them came at me,” Nex tells the officer while reclining in a hospital bed.

Not that a squirt of water justifies a physical attack, but Nex did transition the altercation from verbal to physical.

Next, when the mom called 911, she thought it might be a head injury from the fight that caused Nex’s eventual death. This is the narrative that the media ran with despite no other diagnosis other than raw speculation by an untrained observer.

In the 911 call on Feb. 8, Nex’s mother, Sue Benedict, expressed concern about a head injury as she described Nex’s symptoms.

The mother went on to politicize her kid’s death almost immediately and continues to politicize it to this day.

Nex’s mother told the Independent that the bullying Nex had faced came amid state legislative policies that targeted the transgender and nonbinary communities.

Later we learn that the autopsy revealed that the death was not the result of a head injury from the fight.

While the two-week-old warrant states that police were seeking evidence in a felony murder, the department has since said Benedict’s death was not a result of injuries suffered in the fight, based on the preliminary results of the autopsy.


The police department, which didn’t respond to multiple messages sent Friday, has said it won’t comment further on the teen’s cause of death until toxicology and other autopsy results are completed.

Now neither the police nor the family are commenting on the actual cause of death. The police are correct and should not comment until they know for sure. The family can be given some leeway in their grief, I suppose, but they continue to use their dead kid as part of the trans agenda.

What we do know for sure is that this kid got into a minor fight at school in which he was a mutual combatant and later died of unrelated causes. It is the adults who are elevating this kid’s tragic death to use in ideological warfare to advance trans ideology.




0920, 24 February 2024


  1. Jason

    >but Nex did transition the altercation

    Slow Clap Owen, slow clap.

  2. dad29

    It is more and more apparent that tranny children are the victims of their neurotic parent(s), and most often that neurotic is the Mommy.

  3. jonnyv

    Dad29, you managed to be bigoted and sexist in one comment!! Bravo. Couldn’t slide in a racist remark for the trifecta? You are slipping.

  4. Jason

    Jv, he did neither. Is this the state of the Lefty mind today? Just smear a person because they said something disagreeable? Regardless if there is truth or facts to it? All the things the Left blindly and speciously accuse Trump of… They are quietly doing themselves. Gross.

  5. jonnyv

    Jason, he used what is considered a derogatory term for a transgender person. And then topped it off with primarily blaming “mommy”. So yes, he hit 2 of them.

    It is too bad, because in general I think that Dad29 seems like a smart person that I just don’t agree with. But based off of his repeated use of derogatory terms (that we have discussed in the past), he is probably the type of guy who still tells racist jokes. Probably still uses the “R” word when talking about differently abled people. Because he feels like he should be able to call someone whatever HE wants. And all it does is degrade whatever discussion point he has. He sounds like one of those people who are fake Catholics. Talks the talk, but doesn’t actually walk the walk.

  6. dad29

    *Point finger, screech*

    “Derogatory terms” SCREEEEEECH!!!!


    Someday you might be a man.

  7. dad29

    Yah. During the Cultural Revolution, there were words one could NOT use.

    Looks like the Totalitarians got over here and run a little IT shop from Bayside.

    SCREEEEECH!! EEEEEEEEVILLLLL!!!! A speech crime! Time for a struggle session!!!

    Mao would be so very pleased with you.

  8. jonnyv

    Dad29, no one is saying you CAN’T say those words. You just make yourself look stupid when you do so. If you want to use de-humanizing and hateful terms, by all means. It de-legitimizes any discussion point you try to make. It just shows the type of person you are. A fake Catholic. One who doesn’t actually take the meaning of the fairy tales, and instead tries to use the bible as a bludgeoning device to try and force people into your myopic beliefs.

    You are probably the relative at the family gathering that all the younger kids just stay away from because they know you are gonna say something racist or hateful, I have an uncle like that. Or maybe the guy who complains about the “wokeness” of the NFL at Thanksgiving when everyone is trying to just watch football.

  9. dad29

    Nice try at the motte & bailey routine. See:

    There are plenty of whiny bitches out there, you among them, pal. All this time you’ve posed as a male. Huh.

    Your fixation on ‘what’s a real Catholic,’ written from an atheist point of view is just fascinating. Someday I’ll pay attention to it.

    Whiny bitch.

  10. jonnyv

    Yes Dad29, I am a “whiny bitch” when I point out your bigotry. Must be so tough on you.

  11. Merlin

    -Is this the state of the Lefty mind today?

    Yes, it is. Cry-bully is the default mode of lefty evangelists when they meet any resistance. Failure to submit often results in the random bitchslapping of air. Dad just likes to return fire in kind… and you see where that goes. Pretty consistently.

  12. Tuerqas

    >Jason, he used what is considered a derogatory term for a transgender person. And then topped it off with primarily blaming “mommy”. So yes, he hit 2 of them.

    Problem numero uno with lefties: They can use whatever language they want and then change the dictionary to those meanings, but if you shorten or personalize any lefty label you are a bigoted racist. People who are not lefties get sick of the constant lefty labeling (and re-labeling) or don’t feel like typing out the whole word or phrase every time and any meager conversation you can get out of them turns into them name calling you and nothing else. Tranny is a slur? Who knew?…besides lefties.
    Hey, an extra note for us righties, JonnyV didn’t mention it, but apparently Tranny is specifically a slur about transgender women. Kind of hard to keep track of, though. Is that a slur for actual women who feel they are men or actual men who feel like women? JV, clear that up for us.

    Oh, and never write ‘Con’ for conservative again, it is offensive to conservatives. And one last note, ‘fake Catholic’ is pretty offensive…but you knew that when you wrote it Mr. Practice what he preaches.

  13. jonnyv

    T, it isn’t “the left” that makes these terms bigoted. It is the groups that decide on that. If transgender people decide that the specific term is derogatory, then that is what it is. We have gone round and round on this discussion in the past how language changes and evolves. You either get on board, or you look like a bigot. Pretty simple. All of us have used terms in the past that are no longer acceptable. No one persecutes you if you accidentally use the wrong term. It is pretty simple, just correct yourself and try harder next time. This isn’t some sort of “gotchya” scenario, it is common decency and respect for a group of people. But sure, push back on it like it is some sort of major hurdle for you to take on. Or maybe you just think that you should be able to use any bigoted word you want without repercussions.

    The word is a derogatory term for ANY transgender person, but it is usually used with transgender women (m to f conversion). And the only reason I know that is because a few years ago I used the term myself when talking directly to a transgender person. They politely corrected me and we moved on. Very civil and respectful. And you ask, “who knew?”… enough people that it is in Wikipedia for a few years now.

    Name calling is way different than derogatory group slurs. But sure, go ahead and bunch them all together and pretend like they are the same. Most of us here name call or demean individuals at some point, only some use known bigoted terms.

    And if you can get a large portion of conservatives to agree that the term “cons” is bigoted… sure I would stand behind you and tell others not to reference people that way. Although I don’t think that is a common reference term anyway. But sure. If you can get it into Wikipedia then I will stand behind you too. But, if I were you, I would work on getting MAGA defined as a derogatory term… I can’t imagine I would want to be called that.

  14. dad29

    While ignoring your motte-and-bailey dance…..

    Please call me a Christian Nationalist.

    A PROUD Christian Nationalist!!

    We ignore all the whiny bitchezzzz.

  15. Tuerqas

    So your greatest gift to this blog is that Wikipedia is where we should go before using any human adjective that might be considered derogatory. I will give that as much consideration as you do towards anything anybody else here writes.

    I kind of lost interest when Indian (you would call them Native Americans) names and mascots were targeted by the left as slurs. Not one Indian I knew gave a fuck and the only ones who cared at all were pissed that Marquette changed its team name and mascot. They thought it was erasing their Indian heritage. But Wikipedia is still quite adamant that Indian should only be used on people from India. No, I believe you are wrong on that. Slurs are very (most?) often decided by liberal groups trying to champion minorities who don’t always even want the help.

    Blacks are the same. Nigger is definitely a slur, though Blacks still use it on each other all the time. Are they bigots towards each other or do they just not care, don’t know. In my lifetime they went to Negroes to Blacks to Afro-Americans to African Americans and I think now they are people of color, but I am sure you will correct me on that. None of the newer terms are considered slurs as far as I know, but you keep changing it anyway. Why? To keep righties ‘offending’? I am sure you have a liberal explanation for it, but it will simply be what you are told to believe. Heck, you believe the slang in Wikipedia is fact, how could we take you seriously?

  16. jonnyv

    You asked “who knew”… I pointed you to a high quality website that has had that definition up for quite a while. A site that has multiple sources and references posted as to the history and reasoning behind the term and change. Unless you think Wikipedia is too “left wing” big media for you.

    And is your argument really, “well THEY use the word…” I am sure you know that many minorities will use slurs as a way to dis-empower the phrases. Personally, I don’t agree with that mentality and would rather have words just not used if we consider them slurs. And FWIW, I think the generic term that is appropriate is just “black”. “African American” isn’t a slur, but it is a generic term used that can be incorrect as not all black people have African roots that can be traced.

    Who exactly is telling me what to believe? Are they the same people who tell you what to believe? And the terms you are so concerned about. It isn’t like these decisions are made in an instant. It is YEARS of change, and many times it is debated internally inside their own cultures.

    Your reluctance to change is just asinine. If you know a group of people find something offensive… stop doing it. Stop saying it. It is honestly the easiest common courtesy and respect to someone. You see it as “liberals” forcing change. I would see it as liberals more easily going along with the wishes of people and supporting them and championing their causes. But I guess we all have a different perspective based on who you want the “bad guy” to be.

    You are correct that there is a fine line when it comes to historical changes, especially with sports teams lately (Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Redskins). There is no argument that some of the historical MU mascots were racist caricatures that needed changing (Willie Wampum & First Warrior), a simple google image search shows you that. I think they could have kept the name and adjusted the logos & mascots and been fine with it. I do remember some groups being fine with the name and others saying it could be offensive and it being difficult to separate it without a full change.

    We can make the same discussion with confederate statues. Personally, I have no issue with them being removed from public, but I would like to see them moved to a museum where people can still learn about the history. But we also don’t need to publicly celebrate and honor southern generals who fought for slavery.

  17. dad29

    Motte: an edgy position, often but not always calling someone out for a real or imagined “hurt.”

    Bailey: a retreat from the edge, ‘clarifying’ as in “….that’s not what I really meant when I said…..”

    Motte: you managed to be bigoted and sexist in one comment! or A fake Catholic

    Bailey: no one is saying you CAN’T say those words

    T: Yes, it IS ‘the Left’ who declares certain terms “hurtful” or “mean”, usually because the terms are truthful or in common use.

    No conservative/rightist gives a flying damn about “name-calling” nor do they declare certain terms “off-limits.” But it’s not ONLY the Left. Sometimes it’s a group of grifters who are very happy to take large money to STFU. Many of the Indians who fake-raged at Marquette (and many other outfits) fall into that category.

  18. Tuerqas

    >The word is a derogatory term for ANY transgender person, but it is usually used with transgender women (m to f conversion).
    Used by whom? Do you really believe that there is any group of people who know that Tranny is meant to be offensive primarily to M to F transgender people and would actually use the slur correctly? I don’t care about its origin or exact application. I have never used it nor plan to, but i am so sick of babies crying that they have been hurt by words used in ignorance or not meant to hurt anyone (and WAY more often than not it is people like you, white liberals, not the minority in question who cry and take offense). If I was going to insult any of the LGBTQXYZ community, I can come up with something a lot more hurtful than Tranny. I know there are plenty of idiots in the world, but i doubt very many people in the world that ‘hate’ transgender people could not come up with something a little more pointed than that. People shorten all names, adjectives that describe people or groups of people etc all the time. To say that the word transgender is correct, but shortening it is offensive…just fuck off. You/they are looking for offense and trying for attention.

    >You asked “who knew”… I pointed you to a high quality website that has had that definition up for quite a while. A site that has multiple sources and references posted as to the history and reasoning behind the term and change. Unless you think Wikipedia is too “left wing” big media for you.
    As liberals are the kings and queens of social media and Wikipedia is basically a social media site in most respects when the info concerns liberal touchpoints, I am okay with your characterization of me there. My point, however, was that I will not now, nor in the future, stop talking to people who turn out to be a minority of some sort so i can go on Wikipedia and find out potential slurs so I can avoid them more meticulously. I will use respect and common sense until/unless they show me the opposite.

    >Your reluctance to change is just asinine.
    And so is the liberal eagerness to change things that do not need changing. I am perfectly willing to change on word definitions and many other things, but changing names and definitions just to fit a political view point, again, just fuck off. Name a word that was changed in the dictionary or on social media to fit a conservative agenda in the 21st century. If you can give a few, I will apologize and back off of my stance that it is part of the liberal agenda to change the English language for the purpose of minimizing, relegating, diminishing and isolating any and all non-liberals. They use it as a weapon, the liberal ‘intelligentsia’ run by Democrats.

    >I would see it as liberals more easily going along with the wishes of people and supporting them and championing their causes.
    Sure, the LGBTQ community have enough monetary and political clout and population to make the changes that have happened to their community in recent years. Liberals just sat back and accepted the changes, they had nothing to do with fomenting them. Heh, now THAT is asinine.

    On the issue of Native Americans, of course some characterizations have been offensive and should be removed, but it is the liberal machine that push through all changes that both negatively and positively affect them as opposed to just making things better. Some of our founding fathers had slaves because it was part of their time and circumstance. Many pushed for freedom for all, but southern greed could not be de-railed. So today liberal schoolers (I hesitate to call many of them ‘teachers’ these days) and politicians decide to demonize them all, change public building names and teach our children to disapprove of them (to put it mildly). Yeah, we know, you will partially agree with another FWIW comment, but overall you are good with it.

    >I do remember some groups being fine with the name and others saying it could be offensive and it being difficult to separate it without a full change.
    Yeah, but most of them were not Indian groups, they were white liberal groups eager to be offended for them.

    >If you know a group of people find something offensive… stop doing it. Stop saying it.

    >Who exactly is telling me what to believe?
    Liberal only news sites, social media, pretty much any information site that skews their news for political gain and of course, every political news source or politician that you read about or listen to. If you only listen to one side of the truth, you hear half of the truth, which is also half a lie. Again, duh.

  19. jonnyv

    T, if I only got my news from liberal sites, I wouldn’t be here. I attempt to take in a lot of info on the web from differing sources.

    Regardless of why the term is offensive or how it became offensive… IT IS A SLUR. You can argue all you want how you think it shouldn’t be. It does nothing for you, nor does defending people who knowingly use it as a slur.

    Was it liberals that made the R word derogatory? No. It was a concerted effort by families on both sides. Supporters and champions.

    Go ahead and use the shortened version of Hispanic that is also a slur. I mean… same thing. Right??? It’s just a shortened version!!! It’s natural.

    And if Dad29 didn’t know, fine just say so, move on, and refrain from using it. But my guess is… not gonna happen and he probably knows.

    Nothing makes me smile more than when idiots on the right continue to use derogatory terms because I know they are just driving away the youth and independents. Including being dismissive of LGBTQ+ by throwing all the extra letters behind it. Please keep it up. It’s why the right keeps having to move left and the left keeps pushing more left.

    Conservatives now are close to liberals 25 years ago. Most support gay marriage and adoption, support some sort of abortion allowments, and they have no fiscal responsibility. And they have completely lost the “family values” arguments.

    Oh, and they are NOT ruling out the fight as to the possible cause of the kids death.

  20. dad29

    “Dismissive” of 5% of the population. Now THAT is a concern!

  21. jonnyv

    What percent of the population is it OK to be dismissive of? Less than 1% of the population has Down Syndrome, is it ok to be dismissive of their needs and requests? And you are ignorant if you think that being dismissive of a “small percentage” of people doesn’t ripple outward to surrounding friends, family, & supporters.

    Hey, you do you. Please continue to offend and be dismissive of people. It only helps the other side.

  22. Tuerqas

    >T, if I only got my news from liberal sites, I wouldn’t be here.
    And yet all of your commentary defends, apologizes or downright champions only the liberal side. It doesn’t matter one whit if you actually do look up both sides of an argument on the net if you only believe one side in the first place. Nothing makes me smile more than when idiots on the left continue to say they listen to all sides of an argument, but then only support one side and are utterly dismissive of the rest virtually EVERY time on virtually EVERY issue.

    FWIW, I do not support or defend anyone who knowingly slurs a group of people based on stereotypes, race or any other traits they were born with, (heh, irony there). Nor was I arguing that it should not be considered a slur, just that it is not a slur known by the mainstream. The majority of people in the US or the world don’t even know an LGBTQ person well enough to have conversations with them. I believe I am the only person in my family of six that knows one at the long term personal level.

    Also, I do not know what the R word is (more irony), ooh is it retarded? If so, it is a weird one to me. Personally, I think I would prefer it to mentally challenged or intellectually disabled. The problem is that the term was primarily hijacked to insult people who are not actually retarded. Mentally challenged and intellectually disabled are used now, but then those terms are also just used instead for the unfavorable mental comparisons so what was gained? If I call you mentally challenged, do you feel more insulted or less so than if I had just called you retarded? Comparing intelligence to a less intelligent person or other species won’t go away regardless of the ‘proper’ term as long as insults are legal. I think it should only be frowned upon when actually talking to or about a mentally challenged person. We could use it as an insult on each other and not then have to hijack the new term for intellectually disabled people. Sorry if it wasn’t retarded.

    Once I am made aware that a certain slang or shortening is considered a slur, I do not use it if I ever did in the first place. I show respect as long as I am not disrespected and that includes using proper terminology. It is the computer age people that shorten everything and no longer use proper English regardless of slurrage.

    I do not know if Dad29 knew it was slur or not, but more assumptions from you is not surprising. If you were LGBTQ you may deserve an apology, if not, thanks for pointing it out and shut up about things you want to assume. As a simpleton liberal calling other kettles black YOU do not deserve the apology. Of course if you are a flaming liberal (never actually listening to a conservative viewpoint regardless of what you say), then we know you can’t help yourself. You are what you write, man, you are what you write.

    And yes, I added the XYZ just to bait you personally, not disrespect any of that community’s members. (Just like I sometimes feel like calling you the R word knowing that you are not. Literally speaking, there is no difference between retarded and idiot that you just used above. Mental slurs happen, you say them too, Mr self righteous liberal, but you used idiot. Is that a liberal approved mental slur while retarded, meaning precisely the same thing is not?) Of course, there are multiple levels of irony, not to mention cynicism, in using initialism and just adding more letters as you claim a new group, but approved liberal shortenings are never insults, right? ‘T’ is perfectly acceptable, tran less so and if you add a Y it is a grave insult…whatevs. In 10 years I guarantee libs will have added at least one new letter to that group. It started as LGB, then it was LGBT for a few years before the Q was added. And it is a non-inclusive insult to use any of the older versions, I am sure.

  23. jonnyv

    T, I never claimed to NOT insult people, as I said earlier… we all do it here. I just don’t use slurs to do it. And go ahead and look at my first comment after Dad29 make that, all I said was congrats on using 2 derogatory terms. I didn’t demean him directly. And if he didn’t know it was a slur… he does now. And based off of the comments he has made here, as well as reading his personal blog, I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of his position on this subject.

    As far as MY beliefs. I am very much socially on the liberal side. Fiscally I fall much closer to the center, even leaning conservative a little at times. But the fiscally conservative republicans I grew up with are all gone. Instead we have mostly culture warriors now fighting some fake “woke” agenda.

    I think people should be left alone to their beliefs. I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment with some restrictions on some weapons and believe in red-flag laws and registration. A very short leash. I think we should cut back on federal spending, but also significantly increase taxes on corporations. I think we should pull soldiers out of many foreign locations and restrict the president’s abilities in that area. I think we should secure the border with Mexico, but not with a worthless wall in most places. But also make legal immigration MUCH easier, cheaper, and quicker. At this point we should give the DREAMers citizenship assuming they have no felonies. I think we should have term limits. I think Israel is purposefully murdering civilians and we should cut off all funding. And I think Ukraine has already lost the war and that if we want to continue defending it… go ALL IN.

    But I have no problem with gay marriage. I have no problem with gay adoption. I have no problem sharing bathrooms with transgender people. I believe in abortion up to about 20-24 weeks, then longer in some instances. I think we should have universal health care. I think all public universities should be publicly funded for students. I have no problems with inheritance taxes. I think we should defund the military by about 20%. I think we should allow swearing on the public airwaves. I believe in getting rid of qualified immunity for police officers. I believe in net neutrality and section 230 for social media sites and letting them block or remove anyone they want, it’s their platform. I think Trump is a worthless POS narcissist and scam artist who surrounds himself with other grifters and would NEVER vote for him.

    There is WAY more information than you asked for about my “beliefs”. I am sure some people will attack me on them. Whatever.

    And in case you need to know. The current correct term is “person with disabilities”. The key is putting the person first and not identity-first. I am fortunate that my wife keeps me up to date on this stuff, as she works in this field. And if I read that correctly, I believe the exact opposite in that IF I were to use the R word, using it directly referring to a person with disabilities is the lesser offensive thing. Using it on someone without disabilities infers that people who have them are inferior and you are purposefully trying to insult someone by comparing them to someone they may not want to be. I am 45 now, and that word was never in my vocabulary anyway as I grew up with 2 close cousins who had CP.

  24. Tuerqas

    I have no problem with your beliefs, I disagree with some and think that on some you listen to only one of the polarized news sources, but opinions are individual and one thing I still greatly respect about conservatives is that individuality is still superior to group think for them. Whether you admit or not, you believe the opposite. What is best is one size fits all in a society and live with it.

    I actually looked up the ‘proper’ terminology for persons with mental retardation and what came up were the two I stated above. Again I say who knew? The answer is liberals who stay up on these things, I guess. To not separate a physical from a mental disability is a great example of one size fits all. Persons with mental disabilities need an entirely different range of help than those with physical ones. More language disagreements:). A physical disability is not a retardation, so to use the same term for everyone seems inadequate to me. A workplace that has been made disability friendly by the definition 3 years ago is now out of compliance if all disabilities of every type must be accounted for or face legal consequences under the new definition. And like you asked earlier, how small does the group have to be to be excluded from special treatment? One person in the US has an extremely rare problem or combination of problems and every place they may ever go needs to follow compliance legislation to have the capabilities to service them? No one could afford those kinds of upgrades with box store businesses doing nothing but closing doors these days already.

    The people that actually offend me on the subject are the relatively few (hopefully) people who actually insult people with real disabilities. Calling a person with disabilities names like retarded as an attack is reprehensible to the pale for me. Someone calling me a retard because either I did or they thought I did/said something stupid is a simple insult, like idiot. Those two words have the same pejorative connotations and the same denotation, one is just older. Someone just thought the word retard is more of an insult than idiot and I don’t really see why one is fine and one is taboo for insults which we agree is part of life. It is another liberal mystery to me, and I tend to take many grains of salt with inexplicable things like that. If it is not insults that you are concerned about then the distinction seems more like a reason for gotchas to me than anything else. After all, those families of both sides don’t use the word retarded or idiot for their family members anymore either but unlike idiot, retardation must fall into complete disuse and become defunct? Idiot was the late nineteenth to mid twentieth century term for a retarded person, then the word retardation came into use. If we are to stop using it for real mental retardation, how is it in any way different than idiot, an outdated term for retardation? Yet we all use one and not usually the other because of someone’s guidelines on political correctness.

Pin It on Pinterest