what exactly is your problem here? because as far as I can see a trans person deciding to change something about their body has literally nothing to do with you. It's none of your business what's between someone's legs. Just leave them alone
Nah, fuck that bullshit. That’s libertarian nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that libertarians can’t admit that their ideology is dying because people are realizing how stupid and ineffectual it is and can’t admit to themselves that it was invented and perpetuated by people who want to live in a world where the only thing that matters is economics, everything is openly owned by private entities, and all of their degeneracy and sociopathic criminality is not only impossible to speak out against without violating their “freedoms” but institutionally encouraged and rewarded.
Libertarianism is a desire to cherrypick what works out of Traditionalism and classic conservatism while still permitting culture to be as libertine as possible. It is the movement of people who want to fix the world but don’t want to go through the pain of changing themselves. They want to believe that you can solve these problems by shuffling laws around and giving people more freedom than they already have.
Giving people the freedom to destroy themselves and their societies and not enforcing any sort of culture that shames them for doing this is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with, and libertarianism has absolutely no answer to it. It is a failed ideology and it has completely failed to provide any sort of compelling argument for why it should exist and why it is worth perpetuating or propping up. To the libertarian, every man lives in his own little self-contained universe and the things he does mostly only effect himself. It’s hopelessly solipsistic and narcissistic.
People don’t live in self-contained microcosms. If I do heroin, I’m not “just” hurting myself. I’m hurting my community. I’m hurting my fellow taxpayers who are paying to subsidize my bad decisions. I’m hurting my nation and my people by not only failing to live up to my true potential but by becoming an active burden that they need to take care of.
Libertarians refuse to see this or pretend that it is not relevant. Their entire ideology is based off of a deeply-rooted blend of “Me-ism” and materialism. That is why it will never work and will always fail whenever attempts are made to implement it. The only reason libertarians are less dangerous than communists is because communists will always start killing people to try and force their ideology to work while libertarians will just collapse inwards and be fiscally ruined and culturally scrubbed by competitors less burdened by a sense of morality and fair play.
The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.
Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.
But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place… with disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry–as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such–legal. Libertarianism’s utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.
Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want “small government”–which, were it true, is a noble cause–but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism’s lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, “Who would build the roads?” The US Constitution stipulates that the government must “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute “free market” parody).
There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today’s governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected–not from failure–but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.
Why do I keep responding to you people? You’ve proven a dozen times over that you’re incapable of comprehending objective truth, don’t care about it when you can’t refute it, and think that your delusions will always be made “real” by simply feeling they’re real. So why respond?
tallest skill said: And since he’s the initial claim for the “success” of transgender in the first place... Do you really need your hand held?
Do you not recognize that you are literally making an argument from fallacy here? Just because an "initial claim" (which you are building up as a straw man, btw) contained a fallacious premise (i.e. the man was not actually transgender) it does not render its conclusion, that transgender identity is real, to be false. Don't call people out on rhetoric if your argument is made of Swiss cheese.
...a fallacious premise (i.e. the man was not actually transgender)
HE. IS. THE. REASON. THAT. TRANNIES. ARE. GIVEN. ANY. AMOUNT. OF. TIME. AT. ALL. The fallacious premise is that trannies are sane. The fallacious premise is that trannies are normal. The fallacious premise is that trannies are healthy. ALL OF WHICH ARE BASED ON LIES TOLD ABOUT HIS LIFE AND EXPERIENCES.
you're right. being transgender is unnatural. real americans reject everything that is unnatural. that's why they don't drive cars or wear eyeglasses or have prosthetic limbs /s
This is the only part of your fallacy I’ll even acknowledge because it applies directly to the argument.
Lop off a healthy limb: mental illness Lop off a gangrenous or otherwise damaged limb: not mental illness Lop off a healthy limb and replace with machinery: mental illness Lop off a gangrenous or otherwise damaged limb and replace with machinery: not mental illness
This expands the discussion to canners (people who want to augment themselves with cybernetics) and splicers (people who want to cosmetically alter their genetics), but since even tranny supporters still agree “that’s crazy; people will never do or want that” without even comprehending the irony slapping them in the face, we may as well not bother. Relegated to the realm of futurology.
...a fallacious premise (i.e. the man was not actually transgender)
HE. IS. THE. REASON. THAT. TRANNIES. ARE. GIVEN. ANY. AMOUNT. OF. TIME. AT. ALL. The fallacious premise is that trannies are sane. The fallacious premise is that trannies are normal. The fallacious premise is that trannies are healthy. ALL OF WHICH ARE BASED ON LIES TOLD ABOUT HIS LIFE AND EXPERIENCES.
No, he isn't. Gender as a social construct and transsexualism are two different things. That you're incapable of understanding this is proof of your total lack of understanding about this issue. Your fallacious ideas are nothing more than ramblings. And as I said earlier shouting is not gonna make them right. You are as ignorant about this matter as someone can be therefore your opinion is worthless.
...a fallacious premise (i.e. the man was not actually transgender)
HE. IS. THE. REASON. THAT. TRANNIES. ARE. GIVEN. ANY. AMOUNT. OF. TIME. AT. ALL. The fallacious premise is that trannies are sane. The fallacious premise is that trannies are normal. The fallacious premise is that trannies are healthy. ALL OF WHICH ARE BASED ON LIES TOLD ABOUT HIS LIFE AND EXPERIENCES.
I can see my words are still going over your head. You are building a straw man. You are misrepresenting and drastically simplifying the history of the transgender rights movement in order to make an argument from fallacy, which is also a fallacy of the single cause. Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it right. That's an argument from repetition. Claiming that others have failed to prove their claims when you have demonstrably failed to provide sufficient evidence of your own is an argument from silence. Seriously, someone could write the textbook on you
Actually the NC state law is exactly the opposite of Jim Crow laws* which mandated racial segregation. This law prevents cities from passing laws that mandate any particular bathroom or shower policy and allows individual business and organizations to set those policies themselves.
You're missing my point. In some respects, these laws are different. Some discriminate directly, some give citizens the right to discriminate. But the fact remains that all of these laws are designed to humiliate, alienate and punish those who have the audacity to be different from those in power.
I never said that it wasn't pro-freedom so it still seems like you're missing my point. A pro-freedom law can still have serious negative consequences to minority groups. For example, the freedom to own slaves.
Dear, please slip into something silky, put your feet up, get a facial and relax. This is not your battle to fight.
Have a fucking argument. I’ll wait as long as it takes you to gain the intelligence you need.
why- said:
Nah, fuck that bullshit. That’s libertarian nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that libertarians can’t admit that their ideology is dying because people are realizing how stupid and ineffectual it is and can’t admit to themselves that it was invented and perpetuated by people who want to live in a world where the only thing that matters is economics, everything is openly owned by private entities, and all of their degeneracy and sociopathic criminality is not only impossible to speak out against without violating their “freedoms” but institutionally encouraged and rewarded.
Libertarianism is a desire to cherrypick what works out of Traditionalism and classic conservatism while still permitting culture to be as libertine as possible. It is the movement of people who want to fix the world but don’t want to go through the pain of changing themselves. They want to believe that you can solve these problems by shuffling laws around and giving people more freedom than they already have.
Giving people the freedom to destroy themselves and their societies and not enforcing any sort of culture that shames them for doing this is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with, and libertarianism has absolutely no answer to it. It is a failed ideology and it has completely failed to provide any sort of compelling argument for why it should exist and why it is worth perpetuating or propping up. To the libertarian, every man lives in his own little self-contained universe and the things he does mostly only effect himself. It’s hopelessly solipsistic and narcissistic.
People don’t live in self-contained microcosms. If I do heroin, I’m not “just” hurting myself. I’m hurting my community. I’m hurting my fellow taxpayers who are paying to subsidize my bad decisions. I’m hurting my nation and my people by not only failing to live up to my true potential but by becoming an active burden that they need to take care of.
Libertarians refuse to see this or pretend that it is not relevant. Their entire ideology is based off of a deeply-rooted blend of “Me-ism” and materialism. That is why it will never work and will always fail whenever attempts are made to implement it. The only reason libertarians are less dangerous than communists is because communists will always start killing people to try and force their ideology to work while libertarians will just collapse inwards and be fiscally ruined and culturally scrubbed by competitors less burdened by a sense of morality and fair play.
The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.
Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.
But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place… with disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry–as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such–legal. Libertarianism’s utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.
Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want “small government”–which, were it true, is a noble cause–but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism’s lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, “Who would build the roads?” The US Constitution stipulates that the government must “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute “free market” parody).
There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today’s governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected–not from failure–but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.
Why do I keep responding to you people? You’ve proven a dozen times over that you’re incapable of comprehending objective truth, don’t care about it when you can’t refute it, and think that your delusions will always be made “real” by simply feeling they’re real. So why respond?
Because it’s right.
Holy crapping moly, you have have quite literally made up a whole argument and existential philosophy in order to get angry about it. Almost no-one believes the picture you have painted, and yet you spend a thousand words arguing against it.
Or are you just going to paste the same sentence 6 more times?
Copying and pasting is the only thing he seems capable of because it's clear he doesn't understand the things he's posting.
So, I just googled some paragraphs from tallest skill's rants and it turns out almost everything he said was actually plagiarized from other parts of the internet.
And here is the source of his "The words “gender” and “sex” have been skewed by feminists" rant: http://leekyforums.com/thread/3241119/politics/need-anti-tranny-material.html, in addition to the list of all of the sources he posted on page 2 as his evidence (this explains the general poor quality and broken links).
The name of the thread is "Need Anti-Tranny Material," with the original post:
"I need anti-tranny material for an upcoming argument. Sources needed. Please try to link more scientific studies with peer reviews and shit but a little more shady shit and maybe some particular stories of them being disgusting welcome."
Of course his information about David Reimer was copied from Wikipedia. I don't think he was trying to hide that.
Amusingly, his (I assume auto-biographical) short story about wanting to be Napoleon appears to be original.
REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS, he said.
tallest skill, you got an F on the paper. You also got kicked out of school.
So, I just googled some paragraphs from tallest skill's rants and it turns out almost everything he said was actually plagiarized from other parts of the internet.
jet23, thanks for pulling back the curtain of that guy's powerful might Oz routine. I noticed when he didn't have a logical response to a point someone made he let the curses loose like flying monkeys and tried to beat anyone which did not agree with him into submission with s tirade of off subject rants about liberals, etc....
1. Answer literally any of my fucking questions if you’re actually in the right. 2. Explain why repeating something makes that thing wrong.
Seems pretty easy, and yet not a single one of you will do it. Why? That’s another question. I already know the answer, though. You don’t actually support trannies. Not anymore, at least. Not sincerely. I’ve given nothing but fact here. You’ve given absolutely nothing. Zero evidence to support your claims about trannies. They’re not sane. They’re not normal. They’re not healthy. You can’t even prove any of THOSE things. You have no logical foundation for your beliefs, either. I’ve proven this. You’ve no rebuttal whatsoever.
Your mentally ill beliefs will be thrown away and no one will remember that anyone ever held them.
Here I go wasting my time again.. I know and work wth a transgender person, intelligent, friendly, humane and totally sane. There are also 2 transgender people living on my block which I see just about every day, one walks a dog, the other runs to stay fit. The "not sane" excuse to discriminate against others has been used against homosexual people in this country until recently by laws. A person's sexuality or gender identity cannot be legislated against in a free society. Countries like Iran through homosexuals off rooftops perhaps you think that is appropriate treatment of these "insane" people. Nobody here is telling you how to live, what clothes to wear yet you take that side that those that express themselves differently from you should be subject to your laws. You must have a very deep rooted issue to spend all this time striking out at people you don't know.
By definition of act, not. Beyond what the APA says, beyond what the AMA says; self-mutilation is mental illness because of the nature of what it implies.
The “not sane” excuse to discriminate against others...
In no way is it “discrimination”. How dare you discriminate against pedophiles! How dare you discriminate against sadists! How dare you discriminate against canners/splicers’ desires!
A person's sexuality or gender identity cannot be legislated against in a free society.
No, it can’t be legislated for. “A free society” is nebulous bullshit. We live in a specific society–America–founded on a specific set of instructions. Violation thereof is violation thereof.
Countries like Iran through homosexuals off rooftops perhaps you think that is appropriate treatment of these "insane" people.
You’ll notice that I’ve said the exact opposite the entire time. But if you had actually noticed that, actually cared about this topic whatsoever, and actually read anything I’ve written you 1. wouldn’t be implying this (proving you haven’t done so) and 2. wouldn’t be believing what you believe, since I’ve refuted it.
...people you don’t know.
See, this’d be why I complain about you not reading what I post, since you keep repeating the same bullshit that was disproven days ago, showing that you don’t actually read what I post.
You still haven’t done either of the requests listed just in the post you quoted, by the way.
self-mutilation is mental illness because of the nature of what it implies.
So according to you every male who has decided to have a circumcision is by definition insane. LOL.
I happen to believe circumcision if mutilation especially on infants or anyone under the age of 18. I'm going out for drinks with my sane transgender college tonight, although she will use the ladies room and I the mens room.
So according to you every male who has decided to have a circumcision is by definition insane. LOL.
Strange that you think self-mutilation is funny... Isn’t that just marginalizing what trannies go through? Not sure they’d like that.
Most males don’t get to choose that, by the way. I shudder in horror at the lingering permanent psychological effects it has had on the millions on whom it has been inflicted.
Comments
why- said:
Nah, fuck that bullshit. That’s libertarian nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that libertarians can’t admit that their ideology is dying because people are realizing how stupid and ineffectual it is and can’t admit to themselves that it was invented and perpetuated by people who want to live in a world where the only thing that matters is economics, everything is openly owned by private entities, and all of their degeneracy and sociopathic criminality is not only impossible to speak out against without violating their “freedoms” but institutionally encouraged and rewarded.
Libertarianism is a desire to cherrypick what works out of Traditionalism and classic conservatism while still permitting culture to be as libertine as possible. It is the movement of people who want to fix the world but don’t want to go through the pain of changing themselves. They want to believe that you can solve these problems by shuffling laws around and giving people more freedom than they already have.
Giving people the freedom to destroy themselves and their societies and not enforcing any sort of culture that shames them for doing this is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with, and libertarianism has absolutely no answer to it. It is a failed ideology and it has completely failed to provide any sort of compelling argument for why it should exist and why it is worth perpetuating or propping up. To the libertarian, every man lives in his own little self-contained universe and the things he does mostly only effect himself. It’s hopelessly solipsistic and narcissistic.
People don’t live in self-contained microcosms. If I do heroin, I’m not “just” hurting myself. I’m hurting my community. I’m hurting my fellow taxpayers who are paying to subsidize my bad decisions. I’m hurting my nation and my people by not only failing to live up to my true potential but by becoming an active burden that they need to take care of.
Libertarians refuse to see this or pretend that it is not relevant. Their entire ideology is based off of a deeply-rooted blend of “Me-ism” and materialism. That is why it will never work and will always fail whenever attempts are made to implement it. The only reason libertarians are less dangerous than communists is because communists will always start killing people to try and force their ideology to work while libertarians will just collapse inwards and be fiscally ruined and culturally scrubbed by competitors less burdened by a sense of morality and fair play.
The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.
Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.
But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place… with disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry–as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such–legal. Libertarianism’s utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.
Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want “small government”–which, were it true, is a noble cause–but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism’s lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, “Who would build the roads?” The US Constitution stipulates that the government must “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute “free market” parody).
There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today’s governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected–not from failure–but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.
Why do I keep responding to you people? You’ve proven a dozen times over that you’re incapable of comprehending objective truth, don’t care about it when you can’t refute it, and think that your delusions will always be made “real” by simply feeling they’re real. So why respond?
Because it’s right.
Do you not recognize that you are literally making an argument from fallacy here? Just because an "initial claim" (which you are building up as a straw man, btw) contained a fallacious premise (i.e. the man was not actually transgender) it does not render its conclusion, that transgender identity is real, to be false. Don't call people out on rhetoric if your argument is made of Swiss cheese.
Lop off a healthy limb: mental illness
Lop off a gangrenous or otherwise damaged limb: not mental illness
Lop off a healthy limb and replace with machinery: mental illness
Lop off a gangrenous or otherwise damaged limb and replace with machinery: not mental illness
This expands the discussion to canners (people who want to augment themselves with cybernetics) and splicers (people who want to cosmetically alter their genetics), but since even tranny supporters still agree “that’s crazy; people will never do or want that” without even comprehending the irony slapping them in the face, we may as well not bother. Relegated to the realm of futurology.
Straw, meet man.
Here is the source of his off-topic essay about libertarianism (CMD F "The fact of the matter is that libertarians can’t admit that their ideology is dying"): http://leekyforums.com/thread/3847287/politics/ron-paul-on-the-alan-colmes-show.html
And here is the source of his "The words “gender” and “sex” have been skewed by feminists" rant: http://leekyforums.com/thread/3241119/politics/need-anti-tranny-material.html, in addition to the list of all of the sources he posted on page 2 as his evidence (this explains the general poor quality and broken links).
The name of the thread is "Need Anti-Tranny Material," with the original post:
Of course his information about David Reimer was copied from Wikipedia. I don't think he was trying to hide that.
Amusingly, his (I assume auto-biographical) short story about wanting to be Napoleon appears to be original.
REFUTE MY ARGUMENTS, he said.
tallest skill, you got an F on the paper. You also got kicked out of school.
In no way is it “discrimination”. How dare you discriminate against pedophiles! How dare you discriminate against sadists! How dare you discriminate against canners/splicers’ desires!
No, it can’t be legislated for. “A free society” is nebulous bullshit. We live in a specific society–America–founded on a specific set of instructions. Violation thereof is violation thereof.
You’ll notice that I’ve said the exact opposite the entire time. But if you had actually noticed that, actually cared about this topic whatsoever, and actually read anything I’ve written you 1. wouldn’t be implying this (proving you haven’t done so) and 2. wouldn’t be believing what you believe, since I’ve refuted it.
See, this’d be why I complain about you not reading what I post, since you keep repeating the same bullshit that was disproven days ago, showing that you don’t actually read what I post.
You still haven’t done either of the requests listed just in the post you quoted, by the way.
I'm going out for drinks with my sane transgender college tonight, although she will use the ladies room and I the mens room.
Most males don’t get to choose that, by the way. I shudder in horror at the lingering permanent psychological effects it has had on the millions on whom it has been inflicted.