It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
hs1010: What a depressing world we live in, full of self-proclaimed sjws. Really sickening! “Protect all children! Prettyplease think about them! You monster!” Wow, what a load of rubbish!

Protect them? The sissies who complain all the time “This too hard, that too hard”, I beg your pardon! When I was a lad, when I lost a ballgame, I didn't get a “participation ribbon”, I didn't get dinner! “Winning is not everything, it is the only thing” my old man always said! Words of wisdom my friends, ballgames do matter, winners become glorious leader of men and losers get nothing, such is the circle of life! Complaining changes nothing, just get over it!
By the way here is a fun fact, I never lost a ballgame, just talking about a hypothetical situation, a “what if” scenario.

I also have the suspicion that the “unlucky to get caught by a predator” children are not native children, must be foreigners, possible illegal aliens! Native children are much smarter. Sooo typical, the parents clog our social systems, their children clog our toilets and of course, white knights in shining armor are actually defending this. All for facebook likes from some ugly feminists. Madness, I say!

We need glorious leader of men, not sissies who can't win a ballgame, there is only one solution! Let them play on the autobahn! The surviving boys will undoubtedly turn into glorious leader of men! Girls must play too, we need strong girls too! Let's be honest for a second, standing the whole day in the kitchen preparing food for your glorious husband is hard work and requires strong legs! So the autobahn is our only hope for saving our civilization!

But I can already hear your responses “I live in a county with no autobahn :-(“. Sigh, such an uncivilized country you live in. But here is the solution, build an autobahn. Preferably using child labor, much cheaper this way and character-building for the little rascals. Character-building and autobahn-building, that is a classic win-win situation if I ever saw one!
Then the children can play and the surviving boys will turn into glorious leader of men and the girls will become great cooks!

On a somewhat related note, let's not forget this is a gaming forum after all, hitting children on the autobahn reminds me of some kind of “reverse Frogger”, a beloved classic game. You control your car and instead of frogs there are children on the road, what a great concept! No matter who you are, or where you are from we've all found this forum, we got that in common, so we all agree gaming is fun! Everybody can play it could turn into some kind of national hobby.
Of course poor people, who don't own cars, or environmentalists will not play but don't get me started on those! Poor people and environmentalists, ughhh, I almost hate them as much as sjws!

Now I'm not a newbie on the internet, I know about the difficulties of detecting irony/sarcasm in the written word, so a few of you might ask me “Surely you can't be serious” so let me quickly respond to that.

I am serious and don't call me Shirley!
Dear Shirley,

There are *so* many problems with your post. In orde:
1. Your use of that three-letter acronym. People whom that acronym is intended to describe do not generally use that, so your term "self-proclaimed" is not correct here.
2. You being insulting to "sissies". Consider that that term is derogatory, and you are also being sexist in using it. (Essentially, you are implying that femininity is bad.)
3. You are also insulting immigrants here.
4. Feminists are not, by definition, "ugly". There are, in fact, feminists who are quite beautiful; just like there are non-feminists that are. (Also, this is insulting to feminists.)
5. You are also insulting the poor and environmentalists.

As I said, your post has way too many problems.

avatar
dtgreene: Also, the reason that parents shouldn't be allowed to "correct" it is that doing so would be immensely harmful to the child. See the case of David Reimer.
avatar
RWarehall: Dtgreene, David Reimer proves nothing. This has been gone over before. This is a case where someone who was born male, was lied to and brought up as female, but as biological changes kicked in, he realized he was born a boy and lied to all along. In this case, all it shows is biological sex is very important and in many ways disproves your point.

And frankly, who the hell do you think YOU are to tell parents what they can an can't do with their child? Notice how you choose not to address the fact that people grow out of these feelings, like the post Gnostic linked which talks about a woman did not fit in with the "girl" click but learned it was the not fitting in which was the problem and not that she wasn't a girl, or the trans friend who told her how he regretted undergoing a change. How you continue to claim that young children somehow have these rights over their parents is beyond me...
(First, my username starts with a lowercase letter. Mentioning this first only because it's the first word (not counting the quoted section) in your post.)

David Reimer does prove that forcing the wrong gender identity on a child can lead to disaster. The fact that he was cisgender is beside the point, actually; if he were a trans man who was raised as a girl, there would be similar issues.

If you want a specific case involving a transgender person, just look at Leelah Alcorn, a trans girl who committed suicide as a result of parents forcing her into a male role to the point of being abusive.

The suicide rate is staggeringly common among trans people; it's 41%. Yes, *forty-one* percent. That is *really* high. (Note that the rate decreases *significantly* after hormone treatment and surgery.)
Post edited May 28, 2016 by dtgreene
avatar
dtgreene: There are *so* many problems with your post. In orde:
1. Your use of that three-letter acronym. People whom that acronym is intended to describe do not generally use that, so your term "self-proclaimed" is not correct here.
2. You being insulting to "sissies". Consider that that term is derogatory, and you are also being sexist in using it. (Essentially, you are implying that femininity is bad.)
3. You are also insulting immigrants here.
4. Feminists are not, by definition, "ugly". There are, in fact, feminists who are quite beautiful; just like there are non-feminists that are. (Also, this is insulting to feminists.)
5. You are also insulting the poor and environmentalists.

As I said, your post has way too many problems.
This makes me want to tell you to lighten up a little.

avatar
dtgreene: Dear Shirley,
This, on the other hand, makes me wonder whether you are even being serious.
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: 4. Feminists are not, by definition, "ugly". There are, in fact, feminists who are quite beautiful; just like there are non-feminists that are. (Also, this is insulting to feminists.)
Oof...

Ah, well... I've had a good run. We all gotta go eventually. Might as well go out in a bang.

*Ahem*

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there isn't one single feminist who is "beautiful". Even if their outward appearance is otherwise appealing, the blackness of their souls engulfs & renders them as horrendous creatures of the foulest pits of hell to each & every one of the other four senses. Yes, taste included.

(Also, feminists are insulting to everyone else.)
avatar
mechmouse: unfortunately, for science, such absolute control of a study if not only impossible but highly unethical.
Don't confuse what you want the results to be with the data. The results are not supposed to lead to a conclusion, not the conclusion trying to explain the desired result.

When you are asking a question as to why a girl might want to wear trousers and not dresses, why does it make more sense to believe its genetic rather than the much simpler explanation of admiring one's father or another male figure? Children are trying to figure out how the world works, figure out their role in it. What does genetics have anything to do with that?
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: 4. Feminists are not, by definition, "ugly". There are, in fact, feminists who are quite beautiful; just like there are non-feminists that are. (Also, this is insulting to feminists.)
avatar
Dalthnock: Oof...

Ah, well... I've had a good run. We all gotta go eventually. Might as well go out in a bang.

*Ahem*

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there isn't one single feminist who is "beautiful". Even if their outward appearance is otherwise appealing, the blackness of their souls engulfs & renders them as horrendous creatures of the foulest pits of hell to each & every one of the other four senses. Yes, taste included.

(Also, feminists are insulting to everyone else.)
Assuming souls exist (I believe they don't), femisists have much brighter souls than most of the general population, and *certainly* much brighter than yours.
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: There are *so* many problems with your post. In orde:
1. Your use of that three-letter acronym. People whom that acronym is intended to describe do not generally use that,
You mean "cis"?
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: There are *so* many problems with your post. In orde:
1. Your use of that three-letter acronym. People whom that acronym is intended to describe do not generally use that,
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: You mean "cis"?
I don't think that post used that three letter sequence, which is clearly *not* an acronym.
low rated
Someone give the Op a throat lozenge.
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: David Reimer does prove that forcing the wrong gender identity on a child can lead to disaster. The fact that he was cisgender is beside the point, actually; if he were a trans man who was raised as a girl, there would be similar issues.
It is very clear you have no clue what constitutes proof, nor understand logic at all. Your conclusion does not follow logically.

If you want a specific case involving a transgender person, just look at Leelah Alcorn, a trans girl who committed suicide as a result of parents forcing her into a male role to the point of being abusive.

The suicide rate is staggeringly common among trans people; it's 41%. Yes, *forty-one* percent. That is *really* high. (Note that the rate decreases *significantly* after hormone treatment and surgery.)
Leelah killed herself. That is all. You are the sick individual trying to blame the parents for a tragedy. You call it abusive, but if Leelah wasn't so screwed up in the head, it should have been clear all she had to do was wait 2 more years and it would be her choice. Her parents did not kill Leelah, Leelah killed Leelah. And all you idiots popularizing her suicide note, just lead more people to kill themselves in some Monty Python-escue "Crack Suicide Squad" way.

If you want to start blaming the parents, you and many others should also shoulder the blame for your own recklessness. Suicide experts who have studied suicides for decades have found that making suicide notes public leads to more suicides than not. Following Leelah's death and the subsequent publishing of her note, transgender suicides jumped among teens. Who's at fault for that increase?
Post edited May 28, 2016 by RWarehall
Dear Shirley,

There are *so* many problems with your post. In orde:
1. Your use of that three-letter acronym. People whom that acronym is intended to describe do not generally use that, so your term "self-proclaimed" is not correct here.
2. You being insulting to "sissies". Consider that that term is derogatory, and you are also being sexist in using it. (Essentially, you are implying that femininity is bad.)
3. You are also insulting immigrants here.
4. Feminists are not, by definition, "ugly". There are, in fact, feminists who are quite beautiful; just like there are non-feminists that are. (Also, this is insulting to feminists.)
5. You are also insulting the poor and environmentalists.

As I said, your post has way too many problems.


Dear dtgreene,

there are many problems with my post, because the world is full of problems! Circular logic is best logic!

1. Thanks for your correction but I got the impression that people are wearing it as a badge of honor, of course I could be wrong. But I never am, I once thought I was wrong, but it turned out to be a mistake.

2. I understand but ballgames are serious business I'm afraid. Losing is not acceptable!

3. Maybe a little harsh, but a lot of people who drank too much alcohol say the same things. People who are drunk are never wrong,!

4. I never implied that. I never generalize, dang I just did it. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder!

5. Both groups are usually bad at ballgames and never play car related games. This is unacceptable!

My post has many problems but also a solution: The glorious autobahn! Surely you must see the wisdom of this! Or wait, I have a terrible suspicion. Say, are you good at ballgames?
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: Assuming souls exist (I believe they don't), femisists have much brighter souls than most of the general population, and *certainly* much brighter than yours.
The soul bit was just a metaphor, darling.

Brighter souls than most?

Then why do they want to kill every man that looks/doesn't look at them, talks/doesn't talk to them, touches/doesn't touch them, in short any man that breathes & viciously attack/humiliate/dismember any woman who even slightly questions them?
avatar
Dalthnock: I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there isn't one single feminist who is "beautiful". Even if their outward appearance is otherwise appealing, the blackness of their souls engulfs & renders them as horrendous creatures of the foulest pits of hell to each & every one of the other four senses.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

This thread is amazing. The last few pages are a incredible mixture of insults, madness, and sheer, stubborn refusal to understand what the other person is saying. It's approaching ctitical mass, and soon enough the Internet will bend back on itself, and the first post will become the replay to the last one. The circle will be complete, and the gate to the Nether Realms will open.
Post edited May 28, 2016 by Breja
avatar
RWarehall: You claim you nurture the same, but is it really? The difference can't possibly be the younger daughter wanting to be different than her sister. Or despite your best intentions, you treat them a little differently? I'm pretty sure most scientists agree that upbringing (social learning) and not biology dictates learning and thoughts. Biology may impair the learning process, but the learning itself is not "genetic". But yeah, I'm sure most people will buy your implication that there is a "wear trousers" gene combination...
avatar
mechmouse: unfortunately, for science, such absolute control of a study if not only impossible but highly unethical.
Again, I would ask that you simply stop talking.
avatar
Dalthnock: Oof...

Ah, well... I've had a good run. We all gotta go eventually. Might as well go out in a bang.

*Ahem*

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there isn't one single feminist who is "beautiful". Even if their outward appearance is otherwise appealing, the blackness of their souls engulfs & renders them as horrendous creatures of the foulest pits of hell to each & every one of the other four senses. Yes, taste included.

(Also, feminists are insulting to everyone else.)
avatar
dtgreene: Assuming souls exist (I believe they don't), femisists have much brighter souls than most of the general population, and *certainly* much brighter than yours.
Comedy gold
Post edited May 28, 2016 by lazydog
low rated
avatar
Hunter65536: Not sure if this has already been said but let's say that trans people are allowed to go to toilets of their choice. In that case a female to male trans person would go to the men's toilet and will have to use the stall. Now let's consider a male to female trans person who would have to go into a stall in women's toilet. Since they're using a stall anyway, can't they use the same stall in the bathrooms of their birth gender? The only time they are out of stalls is to wash their hands (which shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes) so what's the problem here?
tl;dr: The big problem is forced outing.

Trans people are visible to others when going into or coming out of the stalls. By forcing people someone who looks very male into the woman's restroom, that person is effectively outed by the law to whoever witnesses them do so. That might not be so bad if there trans people aren't in danger of being victims of violence and if there are anti-discrimination ordinances to protect them from less immediate retribution. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Further, enacting this sort of law can help legitimize the pre-existing prejudice against trans people, which really doesn't help reduce the risk of, say, school bullying, or various other horrible shit.
avatar
Hunter65536: Not sure if this has already been said but let's say that trans people are allowed to go to toilets of their choice. In that case a female to male trans person would go to the men's toilet and will have to use the stall. Now let's consider a male to female trans person who would have to go into a stall in women's toilet. Since they're using a stall anyway, can't they use the same stall in the bathrooms of their birth gender? The only time they are out of stalls is to wash their hands (which shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes) so what's the problem here?
avatar
Jonesy89: tl;dr: The big problem is forced outing.

Trans people are visible to others when going into or coming out of the stalls. By forcing people someone who looks very male into the woman's restroom, that person is effectively outed by the law to whoever witnesses them do so. That might not be so bad if there trans people aren't in danger of being victims of violence and if there are anti-discrimination ordinances to protect them from less immediate retribution. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Further, enacting this sort of law can help legitimize the pre-existing prejudice against trans people, which really doesn't help reduce the risk of, say, school bullying, or various other horrible shit.
I'm sorry, who forced what to where exactly?