Killing the 77 year old.
If you have a son, is that what you will teach him?
Hell No.
No sarcasm here bro, I think you should give the question @jshaving has been hitting you with some serious thought.
1 Like
See my edit.
I’m with you that irreversible operations like SRS and top surgery shouldn’t be performed on minors (not that 18 is the magic number where one becomes rational enough to make such a decision, but society has agreed that it works for pretty much every other relevant case so I don’t see why this should be an exception). I think the opposition to that is a very niche opinion. However, there’s a pretty big Catch-22 with preteens/teenagers hormonally transitioning, in that it works drastically better the earlier they begin. You’re either left with trans people who resent that they weren’t allowed to begin the process earlier and as a result will never pass, or detransitioners who feel as if they were misled into beginning to transition against their best interests, and the interests of the two groups have to be weighed against eachother.
Truth be told, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone use that expression off of the internet.
1 Like
It is not a niche opinion. It is a mainstream opinion endorsed by the Joe Biden Administration. They’ve been quite clear on their position that giving children hormones and mutilating their bodies is the correct course of care for children who think they can grow up to become the opposite sex.
They’ve made it clear in both rhetoric and action that educators at all levels ought to be able to suggest to little children that they might be, can be and even should be members of the opposite sex.
If you find yourself revolted by this notion, you should think about voting for republicans.
3 Likes
What for? I have nothing to be worried about.
Few men your age do.
Hope they sort out their anger issues.
Just to play devil’s advocate here, the initial comment specified
Appearance, genitalia, and and ability to have children are all ways to tell the difference here. If, due to some future-y surgery that were to make the trans woman completely indistinguishable from a cis one on a cellular level, then I think refusing to date her on that basis could be argued as transphobia.
In any practical setting, I agree with you in principle.
In practice, I’ve been involved romantically and sexually with multiple trans people before, and can say with confidence that y’all are missing out on some crazy shit.
I believe I expressed, years ago, my belief that this type of thing is how Progressives would respond to the regulation of at-will abortions. “If they can’t be killed, they should be allowed to make their own decisions.”
You came dangerously close to implying that Biden is still intellectually capable of holding an opinion
2 Likes
Tranny. I’ll say it to trannies as well, but calm and in a nice way. Since you’ve read my post and seemingly not understood it as you still try to coerce people to be goodthinkers, it’s safe to say you are retarded as well. Tone-deaf would describe most of your comments appropriately as well. They hit me as kinda faggy if I think about it.
In this post of the guy, you can see the hallmarks of a bad-intentioned individual. There’s only two types of people that use approved-by-the-leftist-authority language consistently and these are, ironically, oppressors and oppressed.
The first type of people (e.g. tlgains) uses it as a power tool to alter an arguments topic into an ad hominem attack. See how the discussion went from a conversation about fairness in women’s sports to a conversation about some people here being anti-tranny (in newspeak this would read „transphobic“)? In a public square the tactic not only gets rid of the need for arguments but uses guilt and shame („think about the feelings of others sometimes“) to shut up opposition or to force compliance. Always get weary of someone if they appeal to guilt, honor or shame. It’s a method for receiving something from you (here compliance) without giving something in return that you want. It’s a narcissists and a psychopaths favorite tool. Notice how no one was hurt by someone saying tranny on here (even if there was a tranny reading, it would not qualify as hurt as that definition of harm is the next coercion tactic nested in his post), the potential of someone reading it was enough for him to claim moral superiority and start the guilt trap.
The second type of people (the oppressed) are using the approved terms out of fear of repercussion. These are the types that desperately try to fit in with the authority as their neuroticism and insecurity are best controlled by putting themselves in the hands of the thought police. These types try to gain moral superiority by being virtuous followers of the authority often without being virtuous at all. It’s a mechanism to ease their mind by obeying. These types are the useful idiots to the psychopaths.
Now, the guy also appeals to authority in his question to @Andrewgen_Receptors („already defined as an offensive term“), but catch how he does not care if that definition is something Andrew concedes as being acceptable or who defined this term. If we check who first defined it as such, it is GLAAD who did so, which is a tranny-advocate group, consisting of the first type of „appropriate“ term user. These people even enrich themselves by altering the language and therefore justify their own existence by continually providing new terms to be and not be used.
If one does not agree with GLAADs interpretation of the word and the brainwashing of the alphabet people’s and their advocates‘ minds by coercion then there can not be agreement on if the term is an abbreviation for transsexual/transvestite/transgender or if it’s a slur. To accept their redefinition you’d also have to accept the premise that any word that is used as a derogatory term, too, is then only a derogatory term. Some sites on this topic speak of a scale that tips in favor of a standard use or a slur depending on region and user group. But who in the end defines when the tipping point is reached? You guessed it, the narcissists who then gain the ability to define a new word, oust anyone who is not up-to-date according to their needs and coerce people into changing their thoughts into a specific direction by forbidding them to participate in an argument that thoroughly disowns any part of their ideology.
Using their language means participating in their ideology. Don’t comply. Don’t let the narcissists and useful idiots rule.
In my estimation, tlgains has forfeit the baseline assumption of well-mannered and honest debate participant and that’s the reason I’m not addressing him. Anyone would do good to expel virtue claiming narcissists from civil society and all their social circles. They are parasites sucking out the morale from
other people for self-aggrandizement.
6 Likes
Geez, relax dude damn. Enjoy your Sunday.
The worst thing you can do when someone accused you of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia is go on the defensive and explain why you’re not. It always better to just say, “fuck you” and leave it at that.
Edit: good example
2 Likes
Dear God, he killed 77 year old man. A senior citizen. He could be your grandpa. Over a (admittedly offensive) word?
GTFO!
2 Likes
Not being able to vote, not being allowed into schools or workplaces, not being allowed to own land, not being able to practice a religion (based on your “race’s” beliefs), stuff like that.
1 Like
GREAT-grandpa, even.
1 Like