UPDATE 5/24/15: A key piece of evidence is a video interview that Sandra Bullock gave in 1989, way before she was famous, in which she looks disturbingly like a man in drag, and where she uses flamingly gay theater kid mannerisms and facial expressions. The original webpage that I linked to, at ET Online, has been removed in its entirety, not just the video clip. Thankfully there is a copy of it at YouTube: watch it here.
Perhaps the original was just one of those webpages that the hosts decide to remove after awhile to free up space, or perhaps Sandra Bullock's publicists are doing their damnedest to erase all evidence of her man-in-drag identity from the internet. [End of update]
While investigating the gay rumors about Ryan Reynolds on Google Images, I stumbled across a number in which he's shown with Sandra Bullock. Not being much of a contempo movie fan, my image of her is somewhat hazy -- more from 1994, when my friends and I saw Speed about 40 times that summer. Something looked a bit off about her, so I did a separate image search for her...
Holy shit, dudes, those pictures demolished my gaydar, like there's no "11" high enough on the dial to register how flaaaaaming she comes off. And it's not just a picture here or there -- every one either reads as a nervous gay wreck struggling to keep his poise and not be found out, or outright flaming theater kid hysterical emotional ejaculation. Then I found pictures of her when she was a child and a teenager, and the impression is even stronger then. Hang with me if you want to see just how warped the modern movie industry icons are, or bail now and spare yourself the brain-bleaching you'd need to unremember what you're about to see.
Side note: normally I'd refer to male-to-female transsexuals as "he." It just sounds jarring to be told that a news item is about a male who believes he's female, and to keep hearing "she" "she" "she". In this case, though, it would be more jarring to hear "he" referring to Sandra Bullock. So I'm going to stick with calling S.B. "she".
Again, the point of this series is not to feed our lurid fascination with celebs. I could care less about any of them. The point is rather to uncover how pervasive the homosexual influence has been in the pop culture of the past 20 years, for better or worse (mostly worse). They don't just make movies; they use their vast cultural influence to try to mold the public's perceptions of what the world is like, and how it ought to be. And it would be hard to point to a more influential Hollywood actress nowadays than S.B.
Has anyone else thought the same thing I did? Most definitely, and it's such an unlikely thing to think about a major actress. If so many people are independently wondering the same way-out-in-left-field thing about her, can we all be wrong?
Google's auto-complete thing only gives four answers these days. But merely typing in "was sandr" gives a fourth answer of "was sandra bullock born a man" -- wow, good guess, Google! It's almost uncanny how you leapt to that conclusion from one and a half words. Try "is sandra bullock" -- no luck there, but try "is sandra bullock a" -- "man" is the first answer, ahead of "republican," "scientologist," etc. Even when you use "an," where the next word should begin with a vowel, the third answer shows that Google still thinks you actually meant to ask is she a "man." How about "is sandra bullock r" -- "really a man" is the second answer, behind "racist" and ahead of "rescued in gravity" and "related to seth bullock". And "sandra bullock ad" -- "adam's apple" on the third answer. Glad to know I'm not the only one here.
Now onto the pictures. Please, do an image search for her name and wade through the evidence yourself, it'll blow your mind if you have an even halfway functioning gaydar. Note her inability to form a normal adult smile, with the lip corners pulled back and up, with only the top row of teeth (or none) showing, with the outer corners of the eyes crinkled, and with raised cheeks pushing up the eyes into a squint. Every one of her expressions looks like an infantilized Peter Pan queer, including her attempt to look seductive -- which reads more like a small child aping a femme fatale movie star, coming off campy and vampy.
Nervous gay laugh: here and here. Note much space visible under top row of teeth, lips pulled sideways rather than back-and-up -- center of top lip is clearly above the height of the corners.
"I've been a bad widdle boy" smile: here and here. Note lips pressed together with more wide-open eyes than squinty-crinkled eyes.
Gay bedroom eyes: here, here, and especially these two here and here (oops, an earlier version had a third pic that was probably Natalie Portman). Forehead bent slightly forward, narrowed eyes, or at least drooping upper eyelid, plus subtly raised eyebrows, blatantly and obviously asking a question -- "So... you feel like... y'know?" Real women are never that direct and obvious. If they do wear those eyes, it's part of a kabuki face / hammed-up performance, whereas S.B. is making these eyes sincerely. That's how she truly feels a seductive glance would look coming from a real woman. Closeted gay male celebrities always make these eyes too.
Can't be gay without some kiddie surprised eyebrows raised straight up and/or mouth agape: here, here, and here.
Over-the-top eager intensity when holding her adopted kid: here. Note the lack of a nurturing instinct, as that's not the kind of face a new mommy ever makes. Compare to homo blogger Perez Hilton and infant son here.
These facial expressions are the most important to establish that she is gay, not merely mannish-looking for a woman. Specifically, a gay male. But she does also look mannish, unlike the boyish queers --
Angular jaw: here and every other picture. Thick/wide neck with Adam's apple: here, here, and here. Jutting brow ridge / recessed eyes: here and here. Man hands to end all man hands: here, here, and here. Man calves: here. A few man-woman gestalt pictures: here and here (is that Christian Slater driving the bus in Speed?).
Now for the before-she-was-big evidence, which would seem to leave little room for doubt. Here is a must-watch interview (dead link fixed) from 1989 about her role as the new Bionic Woman (if only they knew). Like I said, no deviance dial can go high enough to measure the full shock of all those 'mo mannerisms. Was the interviewer told not to ask "So, uh.... you're a dude, right? Why should you get to play a woman?"
Here she is sometime in the late '80s or early '90s (obvious neck, jaw, chin, and brow). Here are a few with her looking like a flaming theater kid on the cheerleading squad, and her prom date apparently oblivious of her obvious Adam's apple and man jaw. Here she is making that gay seduction face as early as high school. A high school yearbook picture showing a boy with Farrah Fawcett hair and a sweater covering his Adam's apple. Finally, here is a gallery to click through of her as a teenager, clearly showing a teenage boy's face and hands.
In fact, there are pictures of S.B. wearing frilly dresses and long hair cut like a girl's as early as her pre-pubescent childhood -- here and here -- meaning she must have felt this inclination from a very young age.
If she is a male-to-female transsexual, she would fall into the category discussed by J. Michael Bailey as very effeminate gay men who have been that way from childhood. She clearly had hormone treatments around the time of puberty, since she looks way more feminine than a normal teenage or 20-something boy would have. Still, it looks to have affected her body shape and fat deposition more than her skeletal structure, prompting lots of inquiring minds to ask if she was born with an X and a Y chromosome.
So judge for yourself -- is America's Sweetheart actually made of slugs and snails and puppy dog tails?
Oh, come on.ReplyDelete
I can't say if she is a transsexual - that seems a little extreme although I suppose it's possible - but at the very least she is a woman who's somewhat on the masculine side in her appearance and behavior, something not unheard of.ReplyDelete
I've noticed that in spite of being an A-list hollywood actress, she has almost never played the sweet sexy compliment to a male lead. Most of the time it's a co-hero (like in Speed) or an awkward tomboy forced into a feminine role (Miss Congeniality or better yet, Demolition Man where her character is uncomfortable with sex, although this is attributed to literal sex not existing in the future society).
I just finished reading A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe and I thought it was interesting that the made-up term he uses to describe the female ideal of the era is, "a boy with breasts." Whatever the cause, I guess you could say Sandra Bullock fits pretty well into that type.
I've never before heard of a famous actress who turned out to have had a sex-change in the past. I would think that would be hard to keep secret. I'm going to wager that her birth certificate does indeed list her name as "Sandra" rather than some boy's name.ReplyDelete
I didn't know that Sandra Bullock was such a major actress or that she was "America's Sweetheart." I've only seen her in "Speed" and "Crash."ReplyDelete
How is it that she dated anyone? How was she married?
I guess George Clooney is Most Elegible Bachelor.
I remember Steve Sailer commented on her when she adopted the black baby.ReplyDelete
"And then, in real life, the adorable actress adopted from New Orleans a remarkably menacing-looking baby. (Thanks to WWTDD for that characterization)."
I didn't think that the baby looked menacing, but I think he and all the commentators were put off by the cross-racial adoption.
In some of the pictures I've seen of her with the baby, she reminds me a little of Michael Jackson.
I wonder what people who have seen her in real life think of her?
This case was harder to tell than Tim Allen, since male and female cues are posed against each other. And there are not one but two gestalts you have to get -- she looks very mannish, and her mannerisms are those of an effeminate gay male.ReplyDelete
If she were only a masculinized woman, she'd give off other masculinized traits. She would've always looked more muscular or at least wiry than she has, which is soft (recent muscularity is probably doping and working out too much). She'd show more aggressive, dominant behavior, yet she's more shy, nervous, and bumbling. Hence she should've landed a bunch of butt-kicking babe roles, whereas she actually plays a frazzled woman struggling to hold it together.
She'd be known as a woman you can hang with as though she were just one of the guys, yet she doesn't have that guy-ish reputation at all.
The effeminate male homosexual mannerisms are evident in her recent pictures, with no countervailing straight woman mannerisms, whether feminine or masculine. Former: smiling a normal smile, cradling her baby with soothed and soothing demeanor rather than high-strung intensity or flat affect. Latter: glare, snarl, body stance taking up lots of space, etc. (think of the skank singer Pink).
But that video interview from 1989 is the one that solves the riddle for good. You can't weigh in on the matter without watching it, perhaps several times if you don't have good gaydar, though again it's so off-the-charts that once should do. Not to mention that she looks way more masculine back then.
Spastic speech, vocal inflection all over the place, jerky scatter-shot body language and facial expressions that read almost like nervous tics. Narrowing her eyes and staring intently while biting her lower lip = creepy gay male look. Mouth way-wide-open when laughing = theater kid exhibitionism.
Especially that bit around 0:40 where she says she blurts out a lot of stuff but never feels embarrassed, and has that "I'm such a little pranky stinker" look, wrinkling her nose and squinting her eyes.
Around 2:00, "there's a... GLOW about me" -- typical gay theater kid ejaculation. 2:20 -- head bowed with lips pressed and eyebrows raised, "Oooh, should we get into some trouble?!" while spazzing about "gossip, gossip!"
And then her explanation toward the end about wanting to act because it lets you fantasize and escape the realm of reality. The way she goes on so nervously about it, you can tell it's a misfit who wants to change the world they're in, rather than an empathetic person who wants to inhabit another person's mind while playing a role. It's like a little kid talking about why they love to play make-believe because life isn't fair. More mature actors (and she's 25 in that interview) would talk about enjoying changing who they are for the new role, experiencing someone else's life.
"she has almost never played the sweet sexy compliment to a male lead."ReplyDelete
Right, when she tries to do feminine, it comes off as infantilized rather than nurturing -- insecure, easily frazzled, somebody pleeeeease help me. And when she tries to do masculine and in-charge, it comes off as a bratty sassypants rather than dominant and castrating.
If it were only childlike, then she'd be known more for her spunky, and, well, childlike nature. But the extremely frazzled "I'm putting out fires!" kind of instability, is more of a child who's been thrust into an adult's body and expected to look and behave like an adult, where they have to ape everything grown-ups do. That flavor of childlike is more uniquely gay.
One last thing: on a hunch, I googled pictures of "sandra bullock swimsuit" and "sandra bullock bikini." You'd think with how popular she has been for 20 years, not being plain or ugly-looking, and representing a non-slutty role model for female audiences, there would be plenty of paparazzi photos of her in a swimsuit.ReplyDelete
In fact, there are only two real-life occasions where she's ventured onto the beach in a bikini, and another one where she has a long sarong covering her lower body. And that's it.
Very odd for an actress who's so popular, visible, and not-ugly. It can't be because the paparazzi don't care -- she's one of the biggest stars of the day. She apparently feels unbearably uncomfortable being seen in public, in real life, in a swimsuit. What is she afraid we're going to see?
(Not a wang, obviously -- I assume that she would've had that changed, but maybe there's something about it that doesn't look quite normal and would be picked up on if there were too many paparazzi photos.)
Contrast that with the previous holder of the title of America's Sweetheart -- Julia Roberts. Google Images turns up a zillion different pictures of her in a bikini, swimsuit, etc. And having a good time, smiling, and laughing while she's out at the beach. S.B. doesn't look like she's enjoying the beach on those few occasions where she has gone out.
Something's not quite right...
I remember reading an article about babies with ambiguous improperly formed gentials. Apparently they would be automatically assigned family and radical urogenital surgery would be performed on them. This happened at Johns Hopkins.ReplyDelete
"I would think that would be hard to keep secret."ReplyDelete
Not in her case. Although born in a wealthy suburb of DC, she spent most of her childhood and early adolescence abroad in Germany and Austria, only returning to the DC area for the end of high school. There's nobody who knew here over her developing stages who could come forward and say, "Y'know, it always struck me as odd how she used to be so obviously male, if effeminate, and then went full-on female."
"I didn't know that Sandra Bullock was such a major actress or that she was "America's Sweetheart.""ReplyDelete
Neither did I. I think the only movie of hers I've seen in full was Speed. Probably parts of The Net while channel-surfing back in the day, and only the odd trailer or clip since.
I think that made it easier for me to sniff this out, not having such a solid preconceived notion of her as a woman, let alone a sweetheart. Also would be tough to tell here if a guy had a boner for her back in the '90s, but she never did anything for me (though I wasn't turned off like I was with Pink, Jolie, and other masculinized women).
I knew there was a reason I never fantasized about her growing up...ReplyDelete
A much more likely scenario would be that she has AIS:ReplyDelete
Put simply she has XY chromosomes but due to her body rejecting estrogen and testosterone (and other hormones) she never developed as a man. Something like 5% of women have AIS.
Personally I've always felt Sandra Bullock had no soul. Not exactly scientific but the look in her eyes and face always made me a bit creeped out.
Akinokure, you are onto something here. This is truly fascinating.ReplyDelete
Two more homos I have dug up with the Peter Pan look going on:
Carrot Top - https://www.google.com/search?q=carrot+top&espv=210&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BpJtUtbpGo3rkQfaoICIAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=667
"Put simply she has XY chromosomes but due to her body rejecting estrogen and testosterone (and other hormones) she never developed as a man."ReplyDelete
I read up on that a little before posting, and from what I could tell, those women have somewhat masculine or androgynous personalities and behavior. But watch that interview from 1989 -- that is a flaming effeminate homosexual.
However, if she were an AIS case, she could still have gotten infected by the "gay germ" and developed effeminate gay male tendencies.
So, it isn't *just* AIS -- it would be AIS plus gay germ infection.
Pharell is definitely gay, as it seems like most of the hip hop world is nowadays.ReplyDelete
Carrot Top certainly seems like it, but it's complicated by him having such an extreme comic persona. Is the gay kabuki face really him, or his schtick? I'd have to see out-of-character interviews to get a better hunch.
Looking into the family, on the AIS idea: her sister Gesine and mother Helga Meyer both look very masculinized for women. Strong jaws, robust faces, mannish necks, and man hands.ReplyDelete
I can't find any videos of the mother, but the sister's actions doesn't give off any flamer vibes. Kind of a no-nonsense businesswoman / lawyer type (which is what she has been).
If it's AIS, then the mother and Gesine are female carriers, and Sandra is the affected son of the X-linked recessive form of inheritance for AIS.
In fact, Gesine seems to be dropping hints that her sister is not all she appears. She's now a baker, and has multiple cakes that feature a central rainbow color scheme. Not exactly what most mature women would cook up. And she's not a known supporter of gay rights, so why put out an obvious gay symbol across multiple instances?
And she wrote a book called "Confections of a Closet Master Baker" -- now, maybe "master baker" is just trying to use the sex sells approach. But why insist on the world "closet"? It doesn't make any sense in context (who is a "closet masturbator"?). The sub-title of her blog is the same thing, only with "closet" in parentheses.
Here's a brief interview of both of them:
Sandra nearly died of fright knowing that her sister was writing a book with details about their childhood. What details is she worried about coming out?
Then Gesine blurts out that as a child Sandra used to stand outside the bathroom door and ask the occupant if they remembered to wipe and wash their hands. Sandra again nearly drops dead of embarrassment.
That's not a normal girl-ish thing to do or say. It sounds more like an immature and very unaware gay male with no sense of proper boundaries, particularly around body taboos.
Gesine knows something that we don't know.
as' suggestion would mesh the best with the lack of evidence from childhood pictures that she was ever raised as a male. The main basis for John Money's claim that male children can be raised female came from hermaphrodites, as opposed to boys like David Reimer who just had a botched circumcision. But the base rate for hermaphroditism is too low for me to call it likely.ReplyDelete
some guy, where are you getting that 5% number from? The wikipedia article you linked gave figures like 1 out of 20400. The only place the number 5% came up was when it said 5% of women with CAIS lacked an AR mutation.
I just read that Bullock's role in "Demolition Man" was originally going to go to Lori Petty. That made me want to find that claim from a Sailer commenter that her short-haired presence underscores the homoerotic nature of the movie, but I can't seem to find it.ReplyDelete
I didn't realize it was April 1st already. Oh wait...ReplyDelete
Forgot to mention that the Lori Petty movie the commenter (I think it might have been the TITLES IN CAPS guy who comments anonymously) discussed was "Point Break".ReplyDelete
AIS plus gay germ infection are two low probability events. Female carriers are said to have "slightly reduced body hair, delayed puberty, and / or tall stature", I have not heard that they are supposed to be "mannish". If her mother and sister are both like that, it raises the probability that she is also just a woman with mannish genes rather than a male with androgen insensitivity.
It is my understanding (possibly incorrect) that hermaphrodites do not menstruate. That would be something people (such as her sister & mother) would know about. Wikipedia lists progestin-induced virilization as a counter to that generalization, but it's questionable whether they qualify as hermaphrodites.
Reminds me of Neve Campbell and Demi Moore.ReplyDelete
Looking into the family, on the AIS idea: her sister Gesine and mother Helga Meyer both look very masculinized for women. Strong jaws, robust faces, mannish necks, and man hands.ReplyDelete
An semi-androgen insensitive woman who could reproduce (i.e. who we know is XX), a carrier, would be the opposite of masculinized or robust, from what I understand of the biology of the syndrome.
The androgens would have no effect on their body, so they wouldn't have any even skeletal masculinization from testosterone, would fit a normal female growth curve, so none of the stuff where men mature later skeletally and grow to larger sizes would affect them, and there would be no effect directly on the body of skeleton from having an X chromosome, to the extent that exists.
"Bullock tells WENN, "You know what, I have to say, Helga Bullock - a very strict German woman - forced me in to gymnastics and dance at a young age. I hated her for it. I then continued to other athletics and now I'm thankful... "ReplyDelete
She says her mother forced her to do girly things through middle childhood (ballet, gymnastics, dancing). But if she had been a pre-homosexual boy these would have been her preferences.
Agnostic's keen eye for mannerisms is fascinating, but I think Bullock's physical mannishness is being overplayed.
Hey agnostic: I like your idea of male homosexuals being un-fully grown-up males. Have you read David Brin's essay on neoteny?ReplyDelete
Who knows, but that gays may be the future.
"She says her mother forced her to do girly things through middle childhood (ballet, gymnastics, dancing). But if she had been a pre-homosexual boy these would have been her preferences."ReplyDelete
Not necessarily. Future gays are more likely than normal boys to be into those things, but there are plenty who are into other things.
She wasn't into those things because they have some objective measure of skill -- can you keep your balance, can you do a certain turn or flip, etc. And they require you to change yourself to fit the demands of the activity, getting better.
She has always been into escapism -- not changing herself to play different roles, but playing herself before an audience who must applaud her for her special-ness, otherwise she'll melt down and feel worthless. Someone who wants to stay the same, and have the environment and social reaction be different, would stay far away from physical activities like dance and gymnastics.
I'm going to claim success on this one, as no one's said they have a gaydar in the top 1%, yet did not have it go off the charts while watching that 1989 interview, which clearly shows a flamingly gay theater kid.ReplyDelete
The typical theater chick is different -- more hysterical and constantly emoting. Flaming gays have a more jerky, off-and-on, scattershot way of emoting, and their inflection wanders all over the place like the singsong inflection of a small child.
And no one's said that the high school yearbook picture showing a lantern-jawed boy with Farrah Fawcett hair is actually a girl.
If she were a normal female, then she should've looked most feminine during high school and early adulthood, then looking more mannish in their 30s -- that's what happens to every female.
Yet S.B. looks unrecognizable from age 14 to 24 because of how robust the skull and face is. No way you could show those pictures to someone who knew what she looked like now, and have them guess correctly who it was.
Fast forward to her look in Speed, The Net, etc., and she looks way more feminine, when she should have begun looking even more masculine. Even in her 40s, she looked more feminine than she did from 14-24, when nearing menopause should have made her look more masculine than in adolescence.
Flaming gay male behavior, plus hyper-masculinized skeletal structure in adolescence, means she was born XY, identified as female, and has now been accepted as such. Generalized masculinization would make her behavior masculine, like Pink, whereas it's "effeminate" (i.e. infantilized and sissified, not feminine and nurturing).
The mechanism is a separate question, but it looks like it's just hormone therapy. That takes awhile to have visible effects, which is why she looks more feminine in her 30s and 40s (decades of treatment) than in her teens and 20s, when the treatment had only just begun.
Brilliant! Agnostic, you've really outdone yourself this time.ReplyDelete
Here's an interview from 2000 for Miss Congeniality. Her voice is more feminine, and she seems more even keeled. She says she tried to get the swimsuit competition part written out of the movie.
Link to that 2000 interview:ReplyDelete
She is so terrified of being seen in a swimsuit, at least after The Net. And is this what it ended up as?
It's like a mini-sarong that disguises the whole region. Why not a normal swimsuit?
She doesn't mind a nude scene, though, provided she gets to obscure the shape of the area with a towel:
Another shot of that scene shows her nude from the side as she slams into Ryan Reynolds. So it isn't nudity per se that frightens her. It's specifically that someone will see something not-quite-right between her legs if she were wearing something clingy and swimsuit-y.
That made me think how she could've let a bikini scene get into The Net. Well, she has the same sarong-like band around her hips there too! I didn't notice at first:ReplyDelete
Here's the scene:
She starts on her stomach, so that it can't be seen. There's only about 1 second where she's turning upright and not disguising that area. Then immediately she flops this huge towel over her entire waist-and-hips. What are you afraid we're going to see?
I wouldn't know what to look for to detect post-ops, and would rather swallow glass than try to study a trannie's nether-anatomy. If anyone else feels like it, here's a frame from that split second where she isn't covered:
I'm fascinated by this general topic and especially applaud your willingness to attack the gay mafia's stranglehold on popular culture (I agree it is bad for America and bad for the culture).
But as for Sandra Bullock -- this may be the craziest thing I have ever read on the internet (well, not really, but I had to razz you a bit).
As the always brilliant TGGP says, until you produce the birth certificate or pictures of her private parts, I will happily continue to assume she is an attractive woman.
Her waist and hips look boyish. Her waist doesn't seem to narrow and then flare out to her hips. When you're kind of on your side like that, that's usually a flattering shot for most women. It accentuates the curves of your body.ReplyDelete
In the interview on Miss Congeniality, I thought she mentioned the devices ("bone") that women use to help shape the body. Maybe you can't do that as well when you're wearing a bathing suit?
Isn't it a bit strange for an actress to do a nude scene in her mid 40s? Has she ever done one before?
The other thing about that the beach clip from the net is her voice and her manner, but I guess you've already commented on that quite a bit.ReplyDelete
Agnostic, do another one! Do a hard one.ReplyDelete
You've presented a compelling case so far, but how do you explain this:ReplyDelete
Body structure apart, I can't see anything wrong with her 'that area' in that swimsuit pic at 14 that you've linked to.ReplyDelete
"until you produce the birth certificate or pictures of her private parts, I will happily continue to assume she is an attractive woman."ReplyDelete
Even though that hypothesis does pathetically at explaining the full range of the observations here. You're mistaking an empirical investigation for a court case where the meagerness or failure of alternative hypotheses is not at issue -- only does this particular one settle the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.
BTW, the birth certificate and pictures of private parts wouldn't settle it. It'd be a blood test to see if she has XX or XY chromosomes (under lab conditions that she didn't control). Forget a blood test -- just pay some paparazzi type to pilfer a soda can or thrown away piece of food with her saliva on it, and go all CSI on it.
"You've presented a compelling case so far, but how do you explain this"
What's to explain?
"I can't see anything wrong with her 'that area' in that swimsuit pic at 14 that you've linked to."
Neither can I. I'm not claiming that there's some gross abnormality that we'd all see. But S.B. is deathly frightened that there is -- and she'd know better than we would. Maybe it's just extreme, overblown self-consciousness -- but specific only to her sex organs, not nudity in general. Very odd, not seen among any other woman, actress or otherwise.
How about something on the singer Pink now?ReplyDelete
Shit Agnostic, this analysis about the penetration (heh) of homos in Hollywood and gender-changing Sandra Bullock is absolutely fascinating to me (since I know really nothing about Hollywood).ReplyDelete
However, what about Sandra's ex boyfriends and husbands? I admit she can't keep them hanging around, but still, they dated or stayed married to her for multiple years. Are you saying that the surgery from male to female is so good, and the hormones so strong, that even guys who are boning her can't tell?
My impression, after reading through a zillion Blind Gossip entries, is that the default view of Hollywood relationships and marriage is that they're a contractual publicity stunt until proven to be genuine. So who knows if they even got it on.ReplyDelete
I have a guess about what S.B. is so frightened off about shots of her in a bikini or underwear.ReplyDelete
Against my better judgement, I checked out drawn diagrams and actual pictures of what the man-gina looks like after a pre-op becomes a post-op. It would definitely look odd to anyone who saw it, even if she were wearing a swimsuit/underwear to cover it up.
This makes it unlike developing breasts with hormone therapy and/or implants, since that isn't creating an entirely new contraption from existing parts, but (severely) feminizing the stuff that a guy has on his chest to give him man-boobs.
What might give the man-gina away in a swimsuit/underwear shot? They look really flat against the body because they're basically the original wang that's been tucked and folded back into the lower abdomen. Imagine a sock with the toes facing you, then folding it inside-out so that the toes now face away.
A real vagina is a 3-D thing whose labia extend out from the body surface. With a clingy bottom on, this appears as a tiny pouch being held by the clothing. If it's clingy enough, it becomes a camel toe.
The man-gina doesn't have that same extension of flesh away from the body around the opening, since it's all been tucked back into the body. Hence there won't be a pouch held by the clothing, which will look very flat against the body. No camel toe possible.
And the two side folds of the man-gina are gathered all the way from where the pubic area meets the leg, drawn in to the center. Whereas a real vagina has the base of the labia close around the opening, not looking like they're drawn in all the way from the thigh area.
So the man-gina "labia" will look a lot wider than for a real one.
This combination is what S.B. must be terrified of: unusually wide "labia" and a very flat-against-the-body profile (like the person had their external genitalia cut off and sanded down).
She sort of looks that way in the few shots of her in a swimsuit, but it's hard to say for sure because she's so insistent on hiding it.
Interesting theory Agnostic. A lot of good points (on her mannerisms mostly), but on the most questionable matter... Does she have a man-gina? It would seem the best photo evidence of that area points to the contrary.ReplyDelete
In the gallery of her as a teenager, there is one photo in jean shorts that hints at a camel-toe, but difficult to discern so far away. Quick search on google and found a video with better resolution that conveniently zooms in on the area. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/sandra-bullock-embarassed_n_994195.html
Up the resolution to 720p and freeze at about 40 sec for an outline of her camel-toe. Sticks out well from the body in 3-d (as evident by shadowing) tapering thinner at the bottom. It isn't wide enough to presume man-gina "labia" (or testes). If anything she's pretty well endowed camel-toe wise, haha. :) Perhaps as an unusual women on the insecure tomboyish side (atypical combination), she felt embarrassed of this and has been careful to hide one of her more feminine traits.
I never found Sandra to be one of the hottest women in Hollywood, she was off my radar in her younger years. I'd say she was pretty, albeit not the most feminine looking. But I must say that compared to her contemporaries she's aged very well and yes looks more feminine now than she used to. It would seem that she has taken her natural high insecurity level and parlayed it into a type of obsessively high self care.
By her own account she is an exercise freak, going at it for an hour 6 days a week. This would in part account for "manly calves" and seemingly reversal of aging in some aspects (with the exercise/healthy eating enhancing hormonal levels). That along with ridiculously expensive high end cosmetics. Shit's $355 for a tiny 45ml bottle, which is only one part of a 3 step system she uses. http://www.amway.com/hbwellness/Shop/Product/Product.aspx/ARTISTRY-LuXury-Creme-LuXury?itemno=103564
I must say I really do admire your blog Agnostic and find you normally freakishly on point. I was nodding my head long with your dissection on Sandra until said further examination of photo (with camel-toe) lead my thoughts down an entirely different path.
Come on, she can't be gay. She's been in relationships with four different guys: Tate Donovan, Matthew McConaughey, Troy Aikman, and Ryan Gosling. Oh wait...ReplyDelete
The problem with your observation is very simple: you're trying to claim SB is a man based on your observations of her physical characteristics and mannerisms--which you categorize as "obviously male"--without seeming to realize that gender is not a simple A-or-B proposition.ReplyDelete
Look at it this way, are Paris Hilton and Rosie O'Donnell the same gender? Sylvester Stallone and Prince? And those two pairs are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vast physical and emotional DIVERSITY commonly found within both genders!
Blogga, pleeeze! '-)
Given that Sandra has had work done, I'd also discount most of the physical "evidence" of mannish features. She's always looked a bit tomboyish, but that's not very uncommon. The real issue with Bullock is that she's very obviously a lesbian in the line of Jodie Foster. Trying too hard, WWP. Don't be a stranger. though!ReplyDelete
Mannishness is common enough, but not in combination with effeminate homo male mannerisms. Tomboys tend to have guyish speech, facial expressions, body language. Sandra Bullock's mannerisms are those of a flaming theater kid:ReplyDelete
You know that People magazine cover with Sandra Bullock and the black baby?ReplyDelete
What is odd is that the two aren't looking at each other and smiling. They aren't mirroring each other.
Normally, you catch the baby's eye and you both smile at each other. She's smiling at the side of the baby's head.
And she's not looking at the camera either, like the baby.
I actually know of a girl who resembles SB in this regard quite a bit: mannish face, thin hair, cleft chin, man calves, small breasts, tall. She was a high school athlete, then got into science in college - clearly more masculine than average. Her and SB's mannerisms from the "Bionic Woman" interview are almost identical - same intonation, same facial expressions, same reactions, same voice, etc. She, like SB, is of German ancestry, and her sisters look similar to her, except shorter and fatter. I highly doubt she's a MTF.ReplyDelete
She's not very feminine, but everything taken into consideration points to her genetics making her (and her sisters) much more masculine than the norm, not to a "trans" person. From what I know, she grew up in a small town, has a good relationship with her father, she wasn't a theater kid, and she describes herself as socially awkward, while showing no real desire to "change the world" around her or to garner any attention. Her acting as "flamboyant" as SB and having no previous connection to that kind of behavior leads me to think this is how some very masculine women act. Maybe they weren't socialized in the same way as other women, maybe it's their family environment, who knows?
Just wanted to let you know there are women out there that match SB's mannerisms and traits almost to a T, and who are likely not crypto-MTFs.
I stumbled onto this blog while looking for what's being said about Sandy, an old friend of mine. I love your detective work. A very interesting analysis.ReplyDelete
Let me bust your bubble: Sandy is all girl. Yes, she has a tough-girl side that many German ladies share. Her Mom was just like she is. But is she a guy -- nope.
She's quite conservative. If you met her, you'd call her shy. She doesn't show off her body, doesn't do nude scenes and stays covered on the beach. She's actually quite self-conscious,
That's the Sanda I knew and know very, very well. A wonderful lady and a true lady indeed!
- E in NY
It's possible that Ms. Bullock is an androgen insensitive XY. Though she was assigned the gender of F at birth her genetic make up could be XY male. She does have extremely masculine facial features consistent with XY genetics but without the 9th. week fetal androgens, her primitive gonads would not develop and she would have neither functioning ovaries nor testicles. She would have genitalia that are either feminine or slightly ambiguous. This is not an unusual condition and such persons are reared female and identify fully as female. They are, however, sterile and usually resort to adoption. Many female celebrities have been suspected of being AIS (androgen insensitive males) including Jamie Lee Curtis.ReplyDelete
I thought she was a tranny. Then, I heard there was an article that got scrubbed...which said she was born with just one X chromosome. That's what I was looking to find when I saw this article. People saw the article... and then said it was scrubbed. ???ReplyDelete
The movie "Premonition" near the end where she is in the bed with Julian McMahon --that's when I realized it and looking back to older photos, etc., opened my eyes. Believe it or not it's true. Open your eyes people -why do you think "HE" adopted? Hollywood is a sick place ...HE had us fooled for many years. Look at the movie Premonition -go to the scene with Julian near the end of the movie where Bullock is in the bed with McMahon. Clearly Hollywood could have covered up the boy look in the bed here but they WANTED to see if anyone was paying attention to 2 guys in the bed. You can almost see where Bullock's hair is sewn on here and sports a shaved hairdo any other time. WOW -America's Sweethearts deserves a medal.ReplyDelete
An earlier poster here said: "I just finished reading A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe and I thought it was interesting that the made-up term he uses to describe the female ideal of the era is, 'a boy with breasts."ReplyDelete
If that's the case, then that explains the present-day fascination that our white men seem to have with those ugly Asian women. Of all the races, those are the most horrible looking women. They are the complete opposite of the European standards of beauty that we have had for thousands of years, and which frankly, without being racist, are truly the most beautiful women on the planet.
The Asian women don't have eyebrows, they have a flat and wide nose, a flat face, the eyelids are nonexistent and they look like geckos, most of them have no boobs or butts. They are short and squatty looking. They are not elegant because they are short and their bodies so small, so they don't stand out. They are not feminine because they have small bodies, small hips, little to no butts and little to no boobs.
They aren't even nice. They most definitely are not submissive, whatever our white guys may think. Once they have the guy and have sunk their nails into him, the poor guy is done for. They'll get him to marry them and then stick him with her parents because in their culture the woman's parents live with her and her husband.
White guys, stop this nonsense! Go find a beautiful woman to be with and stop this nonsense of
S.B is a dude https://plus.google.com/photos/116125097390348758255/albums/6169489511426774225ReplyDelete
Before you form a concrete opinion, do this: google sandra bullock childhood photos or pictures AND[seperately] go to this website http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/celebs-then-now-school-photos/sandra-bullock-92-2/ where people that knew her family and Sandra(back then) do comment. I can't watch this video, as my phone has watching restrictions. I also never payed attention to whether she had an Adam's apple or not(or a knot/layer of fat that looked like one), but I am a 36 year man and have no pronounced Adam's apple(if I have one) and a hebetic(puberty developed) penis. To add to this point, I also have never had surgery marks to indicate that I once had a vagina. No one would ever mistake me for a woman and I naturally grow a beard. Maybe that whole Adam's apple thing is not a 100% indicator of manhood. That being said, I never paid attention whether she actually had one. Still, it seems like ya'll may be going off opinion: please look at that evidence and weigh it with video. Some women just have some of their father's features and vice-versa. This may need to be filed away as myth. Whether she's gay or not, I don't know. Maybe the move on TV was more a coming out of the closet move or maybe it was political(saying I accept the lgbt lifestyle). Still, there were allegedly photos of her boy holding baby doll that girls traditionally get. I believe that lgbt should not be a lifestyle and that they should not be given a right to marry and that they should not raise kids. I am a Christian after all. But, Before you decide on the transgender issue, look at the evidence that I've presented to you.ReplyDelete
I've learned that Hellywood is purposefully putting trannies in front of us to program us. When I saw that Jennifer Aniston is a big neck man tranny... I looked at Brad Pitt. He's Female to Male tranny. Angelina cut off her breasts and ovaries. Their daughter Shiloh they are dressing as a boy and calling "John" to make Shiloh a boy. I saw that these actresses and actors have been raised by THEIR OWN PARENTS like this to be transgenders... and now this generation is doing this openly. Sandra Bullocks parents took a boy and made that boy a girl just like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are already twisted... and are doing this to Shiloh. It's generational perversion... and when the industry and the media shove these trannies in our faces... and now come out with Bruce Jenner openly and demand we all accept this... it's been social programming all along. It's organized, plan, and yes, a conspiracy. Sandra Bullock was a boy whose parents made her into a girl... and she was on the Hellywood "order list". It's sinister... and bigger than mere coincidence happening due to sheer volume of it going on... and the push at us for all America to accept transgenderism as they push Bruce Jenner on us and try to manipulate us.ReplyDelete
I KNEW IT ! The scene from Premonition where she is in the bed with Julian McMahon - I looked up and there HE was looking like a man with short hair and a wig on to try and mimic a woman. What it looked like was two men in bed. I always thought HE was - the Adams Apple work or the line across her nice is also a give away. The movie that is coming out Oct 2015 shows more and more of the manliness coming out. Wonder why she's not had alot of movies the last 5 years? The hormones are making the wrinkles go haywire - the hands, the neck especially. The movie "Miss Congeniality" the biggest joke to all of us who weren't in on it. Says ALOT about Jesse James now doesn't it? Wow.ReplyDelete
Video is goneReplyDelete
Replaced the link with a live one.ReplyDelete
Strange how often this video gets taken down... almost as if it's something man was not meant to know.
BTW, none of those Google auto-complete phrases show up now, no matter how closely you come to completing the phrase.ReplyDelete
The only one that survives is "sandra bullock adam--" which gives "adamsapfel" as the last suggestion. Of course, that suggestion is in German rather than English.
Conclusion: his team has spent the last two years (or maybe it went quickly) scrubbing all of those awkward auto-completes out of existence. Don't ask me how, but they have.
They forgot to do the ones in foreign languages, though.
You've got more scrubbing to do, team Sandy.
One piece of biometric data that I missed -- his height. He's 5'7 or 5'8, which is somewhat tall for a woman but short for a man.ReplyDelete
His flamingly drama queeny mannerisms are not what you find with somewhat-tall women. If anything, hyper-effeminate women tend to be average or a bit short. Little hummingbird types. Somewhat-tall women tend to be more reserved and not so ditzy.
But if Sandy is really a man, it's no surprise. Gay men are shorter than straights, as part of the broader pattern of having more pedomorphic bodies (and minds -- "ewww, girls are yucky!").
Would it be strange for a flamingly effeminate man to be 5'7 or 5'8? Not at all. Even hetero men in that height range tend to be spazzier and all-over-the-place.
Spazziness is linked to below-average height for one's sex. With spazzy S.B. being 5'7 or 5'8, he can only be below the male average.
At this point, the data is so convincing that I wouldn't even be persuaded otherwise by a blood test showing S.B. has two X chromosomes -- I would just assume it was a doctored result that was bought and paid for.
"Sandra Bullock transgender" gives my post as the first result (or for any search on the topic). This YouTube video is the second result, LOL:ReplyDelete
She has a slightly different take -- that it's part of a Satanic influence of the New World Order to push trannies on us in such high positions as "America's sweetheart" and "Most beautiful woman". But not far off from what I'd say.
Includes some pretty lulzy comments about S.B.'s physiology being clearly male, more the tone than the content being funny. I'd be laughing talking about it, but she like most women feels disgusted and "I literally can't even" about attention-whoring trannies with obvious male bodies.
She has a Michigan accent, nice wholesome Midwestern girl. I wonder if she's cute?
"How did you two meet?" Oh, we both independently discovered that Sandra Bullock was a dude and created the #1 and #2 efforts to waken up the masses to the fact that America's Sweetheart is a tranny.
BTW, her video has clips from that 1989 interview, so I'm sure she's read this post before.
That same woman has videos about Jennifer Garner and Elizabeth Hurley being trannies as well.ReplyDelete
Any speculation on those two?
P.S. Do an image search for "Elizabeth Hurley bikini" and "Jennifer Garner bikini". After looking at the results I'd say that it's plausible.ReplyDelete
Agnostic, seems you may have missed her comment but the woman you found for the #2 google result not only read your post here (as you wisely deduced) but also posted here as "Apostle Laura Lee".ReplyDelete
She seems to believe EVERYONE in Hollywood (or "hellywood" as she puts it) is part of a Satanic plot to abolish Christian values in the eyes of the public. That comes across to me and most people as cuckoo conspiracy theory (although that's not entirely a bad thing). There disturbingly is an increasing anti-christian sentiment in mass media, but not to the extent everyone's in on it as part of some grander scheme.
Continued lack of action by the cocooning public in curbing increasing deviance could feasibly lead to complete corruption of morales. So it probably doesn't hurt to frame things in exaggerated absolutes (such as Laura's cuckoo conspiracy theories along with agnostic on this post) in order to spur people into action (and a more outgoing period). Still, I couldn't help lulzing myself when I found a video of Laura speaking of such.
Videos of her at:
Agnostic, I imagine you would admire her conviction on the matter (while further "lulzing" at the tone haha) and find her personality "cute" for an older women.
Apostle Laura Lee, do you have a "cute" 18+ daughter you could set Agnostic up with? :P haha. Just teasing agnostic, man, teasing, but you never know...
I still say you're wrong on your assessment of Sandra, Agnostic. See evidence I posted earlier.
Sandra Bullock's an atypical woman. Not a man. But your conviction in such matters of intuition still puts you ahead far more often than not. Very much a fan of your blog.
Sweet. I don't read through comments to old posts, just skim to see if they're BS or spam, otherwise allow them through.ReplyDelete
I like that second video where she calls out milquetoast Christian men for being "faggots" about the gay agenda taking over churches. It's not something women say much anymore toward weak men, but she's from an earlier generation where it was more common.
The Millennial girl's rebuke wouldn't sound quite so stinging:
"Seriously guys? It's 2015 and you're still allowing the gay agenda to move forward in the church? Not gonna lie, I'm actually kinda let down..."
Thought you would enjoy the 2nd video especially, Agnostic. Hahaha, yeah. True that a typical millenial's rebuke would have been a whole lot more wishy washy.ReplyDelete
Did you check out the Sandra video I posted? It's a higher resolution version of same video you posted prior to me (a couple years ago), that conveniently zooms in on the area in question. I'll reiterate that it gives the best evidence one way or the other at the 40 sec mark. Looks like a normal camel toe to me. As much as I babbled on in that post (2 years ago) you wouldn't be the only one to have missed it I'd wager. haha :D
"She seems to believe EVERYONE in Hollywood (or "hellywood" as she puts it) is part of a Satanic plot to abolish Christian values in the eyes of the public. That comes across to me and most people as cuckoo conspiracy theory (although that's not entirely a bad thing). There disturbingly is an increasing anti-christian sentiment in mass media, but not to the extent everyone's in on it as part of some grander scheme."ReplyDelete
Of course it's painting with a broad brush to say that the majority of people in any non-vice industry are guilty of subversion. Just the same, any industry with a large number of Jews, gays, and atheists is bound to be rotten. Really, Silents and Boomers have corrupted everything at this point anyway. Jews and nihilist liberals are just feeding on the putrescent corpse of the West.
It would be a stretch to say that any reasonably successful/intelligent person is actually Satanic. But for all intents and purposes, the utter hostility towards traditional values espoused by many in the entertainment biz would be defined as Satanic by conservative Christians. There's nothing modest or spiritually refined about people who place narcissism, opulence, and ideological/intellectual snobbery above any sort of understanding and empathy for Americans who can't afford to attend an $800 per plate Obama fundraiser.
BTW, something ain't right about Sandy Bullock. It can't be a coincidence that her big break came circa 1994, which is around the time that most people entered a stupor from which we've yet to emerge.
the most likely explaination: Sandra Bullock is a genetic male with either AIS or klinefelter syndrome ( like Jamie lee Curtis, Ann Coulter, tula cossey and perhaps even kathryn bigelow or grace jones).ReplyDelete
A sex change would have left a trail of evidence behind
Many actresses and statuesque fashion models are rumoured to be genetic males with chromosomic defects (which explains the lack of feminity), hence all those celebrity babies born via surrogate mothers or adoption.
Anyway it's still the gay agenda seeking to marginalize genetic females and heterosexuality...
Bullock is a dude man...That's pretty obvious to the discerning eyes.ReplyDelete
There have been very few real women in Hollywood, and this was true way back to its golden age.
Most producers/execs and directors are not only Jews but they are gay as well, and thus have not much use for real vaginas.
Interesting. Ive never found her attractive because she is what I would deem a masculine woman, much like Aniston and the Williams 'sisters' which have both been outed as transgenders now. Ok, so you're saying she's a tranny, well it doesn't surprise me one bit. Now I know why she can't bare children which is oft a tell tale sign, or failed marriages. I like my women to be feminine. I love that girly laugh, hour glass shape and narrow shoulders which most red blooded men look for. Bullock has those ugly man legs that I hate and broad shoulders and is quite tall. These freaks act like women but their bodies don't and thats the problem. You can't fool people. Its a primeval human trait that tells us when something just ain't right no matter how much mind control is out there. Their dark agenda is being exposed.ReplyDelete
She has an Adams apple..periodReplyDelete