WINTERS, Calif. — A protest by middle and high school students in Winters over federal immigration enforcement escalated last week when an adult counter-protester, known for refocusing public engagement to her own issues, arrived, escalating a peaceful student expression opportunity and prompting a response from the Winters police chief that has since drawn criticism over how responsibility was framed.
Everyone has the right to free speech. This is not a free speech issue.
Winters Police Chief John Miller acknowledged that students from Winters High School and Winters Middle School walked off campus Feb. 17 to protest federal immigration enforcement. The Winters Police Department coordinated with Winters Joint Unified School District personnel, and officers monitored the event as students exercised their First Amendment rights.
In a public message, Miller said, “WJUSD staff did an excellent job, and the students followed direction of staff and were well-behaved until a counter-protestor arrived at Rotary Park holding a ‘Trump Vance’ sign, exercising her First Amendment right.”
He continued, “An altercation occurred when students physically pulled the counter-protesters sign from her, then apparently pulled the counter-protestor off the platform that she was standing on. The students began converging on the counter-protestor and police personnel moved into the crowd to create a space between the counter-protestor and the students. Students then began throwing water bottles, cans, cups, and signs at the counter-protester, striking her as well as police officers.”
Miller added, “I was proud of the way the students comported themselves exercising their First Amendment rights until they failed to respect someone else’s First Amendment right. Further, falling victim to a ‘mob’ mentality and assaulting her and the police officers that were there to protect them was unacceptable. I urge all parents to have a discussion with their children about their rights and responsibilities as members of our community and to encourage them to respect other’s rights, even if their opinion differs from yours.”
The chief’s emphasis was clear: students crossed a line when they moved from protest to physical confrontation. Law enforcement officials have an obligation to maintain order, and Miller underscored the importance of respecting constitutional rights, even when views clash. Notably, Miller did not charge the youngsters in this learning environment, which could have negatively affected their futures..
But the framing of the incident has raised questions about whether equal weight is being applied to the conduct of everyone involved.
The counter-protester, identified by community members as Beth Bourne, drove into Winters from out of town and positioned herself at a youth-led demonstration focused on immigration enforcement. In video she later posted publicly, she can be heard shouting about breast amputations during the ICE protest while holding a “Trump Vance” sign, rhetoric unrelated to the students’ stated concerns. Bourne has appeared at public events to champion anti-LGBTQ and transgender standards, at one point even undressing at a Davis School Board meeting.
Her appearance at the rally was designed to be provocative and distracting, and succeeded. She has the constitutional right to her opinion and speech. No one disputes that.
The issue is not whether Bourne was legally permitted to appear at a protest and express views at odds with the crowd. The issue is whether it was wise for a grown adult to insert herself into a demonstration dominated by 13- to 18-year-olds, and whether local officials should acknowledge the foreseeable consequences of that decision.
Miller’s statement did not acknowledge the issue of the judgment of an adult who intentionally entered a youth protest and engaged in rhetoric that, by her own posted video, appeared designed to provoke. No one benefits from this, particularly not students seeking to express themselves.
Police chiefs are charged with promoting public safety and reinforcing civic norms. That includes reminding young people that physical violence and property damage are unacceptable responses to speech, even speech they find offensive.
It can also include acknowledging that adults bear responsibility for their choices, particularly when those choices involve confronting minors in emotionally charged environments.
There is an asymmetry here. The students involved were mostly minors. Bourne is an adult. Yet the chief’s public admonishment focused almost exclusively on the teenagers.
Again, this is not a free speech issue. Bourne had a First Amendment right to stand in the park and hold her sign. The students had a First Amendment right to protest immigration enforcement. Once objects were thrown and physical force was used, that conduct fell outside constitutional protection.
The law may treat these actions similarly, but community leadership does not have to treat them as morally or socially equivalent.
A police statement can condemn misconduct while still recognizing context. It can reinforce that young people must learn to channel anger into lawful forms of protest, while also acknowledging that adults who seek out confrontations with minors — and later publicize video of themselves shouting non-sequiturs about breast amputations at an immigration rally — should not be surprised when tensions flare.
The chief may well be correct that students “failed to respect someone else’s First Amendment right.” But it is also fair to ask whether the adults in this situation modeled the kind of judgment and restraint they now demand from teenagers.
In communities like Winters, where school events and civic life are tightly interwoven, the tone set by officials matters. Holding minors accountable for violence is appropriate. So is asking why an adult chose to confront them in the first place.
Free speech protects a wide range of expression, including speech many find offensive. It does not require community leaders to treat every act of expression as equally prudent.
If the goal is to reduce future altercations, that conversation should include everyone involved — not just the youngest participants.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Everyone has the right to free speech. This is not a free speech issue.”
Yes it is…
From the article: “The issue is not whether Bourne was legally permitted to appear at a protest and express views at odds with the crowd. The issue is whether it was wise for a grown adult to insert herself into a demonstration dominated by 13- to 18-year-olds, and whether local officials should acknowledge the foreseeable consequences of that decision.”
She seems to have a really difficult time staying away from youths. She has been kicked off of elementary school campuses.
I would say “Does she have nothing better to do,” but I know that she is backed by big-money right-wing organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and is now one of the stars in their culture wars.
All because she couldn’t unconditionally love her child. How utterly sad and pathetic. Especially that the community has to deal with her antics now.
The 13-18 year olds don’t have a fully-developed pre-frontal cortex yet. What is *her* excuse?
The *funny* thing is that she’s far more concerned with who is using restrooms and locker rooms than the actual students.
So David, let’s say some crazy homeless lady was shouting from the sidelines of the protest about some other issues other than what the student protesters were marching about and she got assaulted and hit with bottles and other things. Would you be saying that the homeless lady is responsible for what happened to her? It doesn’t work that way and you should know that.
The problem with trying to do these counter-narratives is that it misses the essence of intentional provocation that is at the heart of this issue. The homeless lady in your example would be shooting into a void, I’ve seen this happen at events and people simply ignore them or sometimes gently redirect the folks. There was a guy in 2020 or 2021 at the park for one of the BLM and he stood in front and was shooting, and it was obvious that he was mentally ill and no one said anything. That’s not what Beth was doing – she was trying to inflame people – and she succeeded.
And my goodness. At least there wasn’t a shooting in Winters. Even if it was into a void, use of a firearm within the Winters city limits would be both dangerous and illegal.
“Yet the chief’s public admonishment focused almost exclusively on the teenagers.”
Yeah, you think maybe because the students assaulted Beth Bourne and took her property.
Everyone can try to spin and twist it until the cows come home but bottom line: There’s never any excuse to attack someone ever unless it’s protecting yourself or someone else who’s in danger.
“Everyone has the right to free speech. This is not a free speech issue.”
It is absolutely a free speech issue. Where is your concern regarding all of the other protests that occur (e.g., AntiFa, etc.), many of which result in violence FROM the protestors, themselves?
“There is an asymmetry here. The students involved were mostly minors. Bourne is an adult. Yet the chief’s public admonishment focused almost exclusively on the teenagers.”
Not that it makes any difference, but Beth’s actions are actually focused on the adults “behind the curtain” who she believes are brainwashing kids. The same reason that the kids are out there protesting against ICE. The same reason that the “only” environmental issue that local kids know about is climate change. The same reason that the kids in Davis are more liberal, support “trans rights”, etc., more than kids do in Texas for example.
These thoughts/actions are not arising from the kids, themselves. They are planted there, by adults and the general culture at large.
She is actually correct regarding this – regardless of whether one agrees with the institutional leaders, vs. Beth.
As far as the police chief is concerned, his statement was absolutely appropriate. He’s there to enforce laws, not browbeat private citizens who are engaging in legally-protected activities.
I laugh at those who think they can “shame” Beth into changing her tactics, and are now also attempting to get authorities to do so.
The minute that some authority figure (especially one responsible for public safety) states that a private citizen shouldn’t be exercising their rights is the same minute that we start losing those rights. A statement like that would imply that he’s not interested in the responsibilities of his own job, and that people like Beth are “fair game” (more than she already is).
You did the same that Keith did, pulled out a quote without context…
From the article: “The issue is not whether Bourne was legally permitted to appear at a protest and express views at odds with the crowd. The issue is whether it was wise for a grown adult to insert herself into a demonstration dominated by 13- to 18-year-olds, and whether local officials should acknowledge the foreseeable consequences of that decision.”
And then I went on to note she was yelling about amputated breasts, and holding up her phone (a la the photo) as she was screaming trying to provoke kids.
Again, my statement is that it’s not a free speech issue because I’m not questioning her right to do it, just the wisdom and probable foreseeable consequences of doing so.
Moreover, I’m questioning why the police chief is holding student to a higher standard than he is an adult.
I couldn’t care less regarding what you or anyone else “think” of Beth’s tactics. What difference does that make, anyway?
You’re asking why the police chief focused on those breaking the law? How is the chief holding the students, in this case, to a “higher standard” as you claim? The standard is the same for all.
Did you even read my comment, regarding the implication if a law enforcement officer starts suggesting that citizens should not be engaging in legally-protected activities?
If we assume the duties and responsibilities of a police chief including keeping order and protecting the public, then it seems like he might have called out the precipitating conduct. Especially when the person in question is an out of town adult who inserted herself into a protest by students on an issue that had nothing to do with said protest.
“Moreover, I’m questioning why the police chief is holding student to a higher standard than he is an adult.”
What higher standard? To not attack someone for their protected free speech?
See my answer to Ron
Again, a statement like that would simply be his opinion, and would be inappropriate (and downright dangerous) for him to make.
It would essentially be encouraging attacks on someone like Beth (more than what’s ALREADY occurring). It would shift the blame for law-breaking onto the individual who is not breaking the law in the first place.
This is ultimately the same type of thought that resulted in Charlie Kirk’s death (and the reaction to it, by those who were “glad” that it occurred).
The same people who wished that the bullet hit more than Trump’s ear. Would you suggest that the Secret Service, for example, weigh in on Trump’s inflammatory statements and actions? The guy they’re supposed to be protecting?
That’s all he offered anyway… his opinion. Just as I offered my opinion and you offered yours.
We would barely even be talking about this if the students hadn’t assaulted Beth.
Or if she hadn’t come in the first place
David: You, me, and every one on here can offer their opinion. It’s a different matter to expect an authority figure to do so, for the reasons already provided.
I would not be surprised if the chief wished that Beth stayed home, but it’s not appropriate for him to state that.
I seem to recall some authority figure previously making some kind of statement that could be construed as blaming Beth for the bomb threats. (I don’t recall exactly what the statement was, but it was not appropriate.)
“David: You, me, and every one on here can offer their opinion. It’s a different matter to expect an authority figure to do so, for the reasons already provided.”
That’s why I wrote this
“but it’s not appropriate for him to state that.”
That’s where we diverge in our opinions
“Or if she hadn’t come in the first place”
Beth going there didn’t break any laws, the students that assaulted her did.
The Winters PD needs to remedy this.
I’m not sure you are correct on that
“That’s where we diverge in our opinions”
Yes – you want law enforcement authorities to make public statements to discourage legally-protected activities (and implied lack of protection from the department that he is responsible for).
I, on the other hand, do not.
Note how I haven’t even weighed in regarding “my” or “your” opinion of Beth’s tactics, since that’s not what we’re talking about.
That’s not a fair characterization of my position which I believe I have stated clearly
Beth has posted more videos taken by a 3rd party. What I observed was Beth screaming at a student and pushing her sign into the student’s face. The student pushes the sign away from her face, defensively. Beth then turns to another student who grabs the sign and throws it to the ground. Beth tackles the student with both arms wrapped around him. Adults intervene and Beth lets go. A student hands her the sign. Another video shows Beth being escorted by police down a public sidewalk with a young woman holing a phone yelling at her about Beth elbowing her niece in the face. Beth keeps stopping to make statements about men in women’s prisons and women being raped, etc.. The officer keeps telling Beth to keep walking. The young woman finally says that Beth was wrong to come and antagonize these students and that Beth is mentally ill. Beth laughs at the woman and seems to enjoy the woman’s distress. Her post asks her followers to identify the woman so she could file a complaint with the police department. It seems to me that Beth’s behavior- using her sign as a weapon and her satisfaction in causing such distress- is disturbing and doesn’t match Beth’s and the police chief’s narrative.
Can you please post a link to this video? If BB was violent, that changes narrative. Thanks in advance.
It’s one of 10+ videos that she (BB) has posted about this on her Facebook page.
She has also posted these on X and are being shared.
Needless to say, videos (somehow) seem to show different things to different people.
But it seems to me that these videos would be pretty boring, if people just ignored Beth (rather than reacting). Granted, she is kind of in people’s faces quite a bit (which would be irritating, if one doesn’t want to talk with her). But she goes away pretty quickly I think, if she doesn’t generate a reaction.
I’d be friendly toward her (if I ever meet her in person), myself. I have some respect for anyone willing to put themselves on the line like that. I wouldn’t do it – regardless of the cause.
Then again – of the two of them, why aren’t people more concerned about Anoosh’s actions toward Beth?
Ignoring her doesn’t work. An example is her recent posting of the Principal of DaVinci High School. He told her that he preferred not to engage and then ignored her. She posted the video criticizing him for refusing to talk to her. His contact information was posted and followers were encouraged to contact him. She then did the same thing to the Principal of Winters Middle School a few days later. Her followers demanded that they be fired, arrested and sued.
Well, I guess she “wins”, then. Were those principals fired, as a result? (Something tells me that they weren’t, and that whatever messages that were directed at them were also ignored.)
Ignoring her doesn’t include snatching the signs out of her hand, engaging in physical confrontations, coughing in her face, screaming at her, slashing her tires, etc. And yet, all of those things have occurred, and continue to occur.
Not once have I seen Beth attack anyone – not a single time.
“Not liking” her message, or the way they deliver it doesn’t give someone the right to attack her.
I’d probably just answer her questions.
How many times have you been around her?
Not once – I sometimes post on her Facebook page, have seen some of her videos, and videos of her (and Anoosh) at council meetings, etc.
Of the two of them, I’m more concerned about Anoosh’s behavior (which includes what I’d describe as an assault).
I’m friendly with Beth on her Facebook page, even though she knows that I don’t totally agree with her.
I view her as “marginalized” (at best) in Davis. And that’s a criticism of those who attack her; not of Beth herself.
I’d probably just answer her questions (even if I had a view that was opposite of hers). Something like, “yes – I support the amputation of breasts in minors” (just kidding, sort of).
Also, I have indeed “stopped beating my wife”. But that leads to another question, doesn’t it? That is, is my “wife” a woman?
So the fact that you haven’t seen her once attack anyone isn’t dispositive, because you’ve never actually seen her in action in person.
You’re not going to make me look up another word again (dispositive), are you?
I’ve seen her videos, have communicated with her on Facebook, and am rendering “judgement” based on that.
Again, it’s Anoosh I’m more concerned about. And I HAVE seen her in person, for what that’s worth.
I recall that Anoosh and company have also interfered in Woodland (school board recall), but that’s not where I saw her. And yes, she does appear to be a woman to me. I believe that both of them are mothers, as well. If I’m correct regarding Anoosh, I’m now wondering what HER kid thinks of her, since so many criticize/speculate regarding Beth’s relationship with her own kid.
I’m confident that I could get along with Beth; not so much Anoosh. (Unrelated to my personal views.)
“It seems to me that Beth’s behavior- using her sign as a weapon and her satisfaction in causing such distress- is disturbing and doesn’t match Beth’s and the police chief’s narrative.”
In my opinion Beth never used the sign as a weapon.
“Beth laughs at the woman and seems to enjoy the woman’s distress.”
Beth was laughing because a student went up to the lady who was hollering at Beth and told her “that lady is my “f”ing hero” referring to Beth.
“The issue is not whether Bourne was legally permitted to appear at a protest and express views at odds with the crowd. The issue is whether it was wise for a grown adult to insert herself into a demonstration dominated by 13- to 18-year-olds . . . ”
Those are two different issues, and neither is “the” issue. As to the first, YES. As to the second, NO
” . . . and whether local officials should acknowledge the foreseeable consequences of that decision.”
John Miller’s summary is one of the most measured and level descriptions of a situation I have ever read. If the Mayor or City Council of Winters want to issue a statement condemning our local BB, they can have at it. The police chief should remain politically neutral and state the law and the actions of those involved relative to the law, nothing more, nothing less.
Major kudos to Chief Miller!
“John Miller’s summary is one of the most measured and level descriptions of a situation I have ever read. If the Mayor or City Council of Winters want to issue a statement condemning our local BB, they can have at it. The police chief should remain politically neutral and state the law and the actions of those involved relative to the law, nothing more, nothing less.
Major kudos to Chief Miller!”
Well said Alan, I totally agree.
I actually have observed Beth assaulting people with one of her signs — specifically at the ICE protest in Central Park after Renee Good was murdered in Minneapolis. And I know one of the people she hit with her sign, on the stage, who nevertheless doesn’t want to file charges and engage with her further. She also regularly harasses young people, students at various schools, getting in their faces, filming them without their consent or their parents’ consent, and yelling at them and questionning them about their genitals, about menstruation, bathroom use, etc. etc. There are actually Calif. penal code sections relating to such harassment of minors, and Beth is lucky that she has not yet been arrested, cited or otherwise charged for her ongoing criminal misbehavior. It appears she is actually hoping she does get arrested, and seems certain that her right-wing affiliates will back her up, and sue a Yolo County city or the county itself once again, on her behalf. The prior incident at the library resulted in her engaging with Libs of Tictoc and Riley Gaines, both of whom called out our library and schools to their right-wing fans, which resulted in bomb threats against our library, several of our schools, including elementary and the high school, that then had to close and evacuate students. There were also threats against some of our teachers who were doxxed and had bomb and death threats issued against them and their residences in Davis. Beth was ultimately laid off from UC Davis, and has admitted that she receives funds now from posting content online, which she engages in constantly. Adults can easily ignore her, which most of us do, but for children it is more difficult. She is dangerous, not with respect to her physical self, but with regard to what she posts online, claims she makes (mostly falsely) against residents of Davis, which place others in our city and county in danger as a result.
She need to be kept away from children, that’s for danged sure.
She’s trying to protect children, that’s for danged sure.
Screaming in children’s faces is not “protecting them.” Asking them private questions about their genitals and menstruation is not “protecting them.” Taking photos of young teens’ breasts to make sure they weren’t “chopped off” is not “protecting them.” Inciting outrage to get a big payday by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom is not “protecting them.”
You’re not fooling anyone.
People like Beth Bourne need to keep their snouts out of other people’s crotches, fullstop.
Advocating for girls from being forced to compete against biological boys in girl’s sports is protecting children, trying to stop gender surgeries before a child becomes of adult age is protecting children, etc. The list is long.
Really Keith – she has a strange way of showing it.
Let’s set the stage – Winters high is 65 percent Latino, many of them come from farming families and many of have been intimately impacted by the policies that you support and by the policies that Trump/ Vance, whose sign she carried. Why did she do that? Clearly she was trying to incite. That’s not protecting children, if anything that’s re-traumatizing them.
But then let’s take this a step further. She’s not there for that issue. She starts yelling and screaming and videoing. She is talking about breast amputations.
I would consider inappropriate around school age kids, but again, this is an event that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ISSUE.
So again, what is she doing in that situation that is protecting children?
I’ve seen all of these comments on Facebook, probably into the thousands by now, and people are asking why the kids are protesting as though they are unaware of what is happening in the communities where these kids are coming from.
Why is Beth inserting herself into this on an issue that has nothing to do with it and why is she being so in their face and antagonistic. As I wrote in this piece, she has the legal right to do that, I question the wisdom of it.
One of the most spurious assertions has been the notion that these students are not originating the protests themselves, that they are being led or encouraged by teachers and counselors and administrators. “They just want to get out of class.”
These are not children. They are adolescents, young adults; they are aware of current events and may even have personal stake in what’s happening in their communities.
When I was in school, the US was in the Vietnam war. Student walkouts were common and were entirely instigated and led by students. These topics are relevant and are discussed in social studies and history classes. Students do have the right to protest. Our campuses were closed so leaving campus was against the rule — so students left class and gathered on the lawns to protest. If it’s an open campus, they are free to leave.
The school does have an obligation to provide for their safety, so the administrators do observe and try to maintain safety.
What you saw in one video is the Davis counterprotestor interfering with an administrator’s attempt to monitor the students and provide for their safety. After specifically stating he did not want to answer questions, you can see him walking alongside the students and urging them back onto the sidewalk. Meanwhile she is interfering with his attempts at maintaining order.
So no, she is not “protecting kids” in this instance, nor is she arguably protecting any kids in any other instance. The notion that trans youth are inherently dangerous is highly offensive.
There’s a difference between what people have a right to do and what people ought to do. The zeal of a convert is a dangerous thing.
I agree with Don wholeheartedly, especially the point that she was not “protecting kids” in this instance. She willfully and purposefully put kids in harm’s way by her action, instigating a dangerous situation where many kids could have been seriously been hurt by a passing vehicle.
She got the reaction she craved … a physical response and group altercation. That response and altercation could have happened anywhere on the route of the march, much of which was adjacent to a motor vehicle right of way (and occasionally actually in that right of way).
She is getting paid to create these confrontations and melees.
Ann Block said … “There are actually Calif. penal code sections relating to such harassment of minors, and Beth is lucky that she has not yet been arrested, cited or otherwise charged for her ongoing criminal misbehavior. It appears she is actually hoping she does get arrested,”
I agree with Ann that Beth is actively hoping she gets arrested. That will allow her to formalize her victimhood in the theater of a courtroom … garnering additional media attention, which will please her sponsors.
So, did all of the vulnerable kids (that Don refers to as adolescents/young adults) survive that “ordeal”?
Honestly, the school district should take this opportunity to discuss free speech, and what it means. Encourage discussion of it in some kind of civics class, and ask them if that one kid should have taken her sign, etc. Ask those kids if they think Beth should have been banned from attending a public event. (I suspect it might cause them to think a little more.)
There was one kid in that group who gave Beth her sign back. I saw some kind of comment that he’s supportive of Turning Point USA. Beth clearly did not know who he was – since she was still in a defensive posture at that point, filming that kid. (She later thanked him on her Facebook page.)
Seems to me that the bigger lesson here is not related to gender studies or illegal immigration. The incident itself is probably the most-interesting thing that’s ever occurred for those kids at a school event.
“The notion that trans youth are inherently dangerous is highly offensive.”
100%.
And also the notion that any school teachers, counselors, or other adults are “indoctrinating” young people in the “trans lifestyle” to sign up for the kind of hatred and discrimination they face is just ludicrous and flies in the face of all empirical evidence.
“She is getting paid to create these confrontations and melees.”
Who is paying her, how much, and why?
The prior incident at the library resulted in her engaging with Libs of Tictoc and Riley Gaines, both of whom called out our library and schools to their right-wing fans, which resulted in bomb threats against our library, several of our schools, including elementary and the high school, that then had to close and evacuate students
Interesting conclusion. I viewed it as an illegal attempt by a library official to shut down the word “men”.
“Who is paying her, how much, and why?”
Content creators are paid by the click by social media companies.
It seemed like Matt was referring to something else.
I believe you have to get quite a few views to make any real money on social media platforms. I doubt that Matt or anyone knows if Beth has reached that level (or if she has, how much she might be getting – e.g., pennies?)
I understand that it’s generally becoming more difficult to do so, since artificial intelligence is now involved in creating those videos. (You can sometimes tell by a slightly “non-human” voice, I think.)
I understand that the Vanguard also makes pennies, if you click on one of the annoying pop-up ads. (Maybe Beth should look into that for herself.)
“Facebook Payments for Video Views:
➤ 1,000 Views:
To start earning money on Facebook videos, you need at least 1,000 views. For this amount, Facebook pays between $8.75 and $10. This requirement helps ensure that only videos that attract a good number of viewers can make money.
➤ 10,000 Views:
At 10,000 views, you can earn about $48. This figure is based on the average payment for ads shown in the videos, where advertisers pay roughly $8.75 for every 1,000 views, and content creators keep 55% of that.”
https://theenterpriseworld.com/how-much-does-facebook-pay-for-views/
All of that is peanuts compared to the money that sponsors of the ideology she represents are willing to pay.
In addition, the Trump campaign is probably very happy with the woke left getting bad exposure and possibly is kicking in for her as well.
And I’m sure you’re aware of paid protestors as well. Just wanting to both-sides it before KO did.
There is no evidence that any of the protestors in Winters were paid. Evidence for such assertions elsewhere has been lacking.
There is no evidence that any of the protestors in Winters were paid. Evidence for such assertions elsewhere has been lacking.
Evidence is missing regarding Beth Bourne getting paid, as well (beyond perhaps $500 – assuming she went through whatever hoops are required to get that).
Beth Bourne is not driven by money, from what I can tell.
But if there actually is money to be made (at all), that would presumably demonstrate some interest beyond the local anti-Beth “mob”, so to speak.
Davis is in the overall minority regarding this issue. Even in Europe, I understand.
Anyone reading or participating in this already knows the arguments (e.g., “cutting off breasts” vs. not discriminating against those who do – in a nutshell so to speak).
The sports/bathroom issue seems less-compelling to me, at least. There aren’t very many “Eric Cartmans” (from South Park) who are faking it.
I don’t pretend to know why some people think they were born as the “wrong sex”. (I generally don’t use the word gender, when there’s medical interventions involved.)
AJ was implying at the CC meeting that BB was making money as a content creator. No idea if her volume is known so no idea if she is at the money making level, but if so the concern of purposeful creating conflict for clicks is not invalid. This is a very real societal problem.
“No idea if her volume is known”
Per the site I posted: “At 10,000 views, you can earn about $48.”
Each of the 10+ videos she has posted from this event has more than 10K views on Facebook. So based on the numbers I found and posted, she could hypothetically have gained $500 or so from that one event.
Thanks DS, that’s helpful rough numbers. Maybe UCD could hire her back to keep her off the street.
Beth is advocating for issues she believes in and if getting the word out online results in a few extra dollars good for her.
Keith, I wish I believed that was the case for Beth, but I believe the reason is actually an huge need for admiration, a near complete lack of empathy, and a pervasive pattern of grandiosity … all of which come across as arrogance, entitlement, and manipulation. She clearly has an inflated sense of self-importance and believes she is superior or special.
Matt, you’re entitled to your own opinion and “beliefs”. I would never deny you that.
Thank you Keith. As they say in Texas, right back attcha!
Ron asked … “ Who is paying her, how much, and why?”
I think the answer to that question is obvious. Charlie Kirk is paying her.
Well, if so – that would explain the vitriol against her.
I wonder how many people (e.g., in Davis) are glad that guy was shot (but would never openly say so).
Same thing with Trump – “missed him by that much” (except for his ear).
And to a lesser degree, the United Healthcare CEO (by Mr. Handsome). (Actually, both Beth and the anti-Beths probably aren’t too happy with anyone at the top in the health care industry.)
By the way, the kid who took Beth’s sign appeared to be smiling as he started to run off. As such, he didn’t look particularly traumatized (or angry) to me. Looked like he was having some fun with it.
But I was impressed that Beth immediately reacted and wrapped her arms around the guy, preventing his escape and causing him to drop the sign.
Who says women can’t play football? And is Beth undermining her own argument, regarding her own capabilities? :-)