Topic: Gender is NOT a social construct.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #49,833
Ignore the writing style of this image as it reads as if it was written by a retard.Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #647,718
@OP
Not reading a single word of that neckbeard word salad.
Not reading a single word of that neckbeard word salad.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #647,719
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,736
If this were true, then gender dysphoria shouldn't exist
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,737
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Gender dysphoria is a proven biological condition. It's independent of what society is doing or not doing.
As for gender, it's not really a straightforward thing. There is such a thing as innate gendered behaviours and gendered predispositions, but at the same time, society and environmental factors have a large impact on genders. To further complicate the issue, the influence of these factors can vary between individuals.
Gender dysphoria is a proven biological condition. It's independent of what society is doing or not doing.
As for gender, it's not really a straightforward thing. There is such a thing as innate gendered behaviours and gendered predispositions, but at the same time, society and environmental factors have a large impact on genders. To further complicate the issue, the influence of these factors can vary between individuals.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,738
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,740
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,742
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,745
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,768
Gender as a word has several usages, one of which indeed is simply a synonym for sex. To demand that we all follow someone's academic ideas and writings with the newer usage is not appropriate. No one likes a scold.
As to a person's feeling that their mind or whatever you want to call it does not match their body with regards to male/female, the idea of social construct is irrelevent anyway, because a person's feeling of being one thing or another is part of the internal sense of self, independent of what other people think they see.
As to a person's feeling that their mind or whatever you want to call it does not match their body with regards to male/female, the idea of social construct is irrelevent anyway, because a person's feeling of being one thing or another is part of the internal sense of self, independent of what other people think they see.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,772
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
So like you have no problem with a male wanting to be a fire hydrant or water sprinkler, as they proceed with life?
So like you have no problem with a male wanting to be a fire hydrant or water sprinkler, as they proceed with life?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,777
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,783
@647,740 (squeegee)
I believe that gender dysphoria is a version of body dismorphic and should be treated as such.
I believe that gender dysphoria is a version of body dismorphic and should be treated as such.
!MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,792
> lingust's fallacy; many languages lack gender, other than English; "implied" categories of gender are not valid linguistic grammatical classifications
> implied attempt to moralize the connotations of words like 'abbarition' and 'anomaly' and a hint towards their unnaturalness despite thier natural occurrence
> using BSTc when it is not deterministic of identitarian persuasions and only correlates of amniotic hormone environments, which were shown little correlation with later identity
> treating identity as something which must be forced congruentiality with sexual essentiality
> basically reducing gatekeeping to an enterprise which only lets those they've self-confessed to be "anomalous freaks" (but the good, naturally occuring kind we've selectively acknowledged!) through
Yeah this is riddled with angsty, neckbeard, wannabe-tranny, overcompensating-pseudoscientist dislogic.
> implied attempt to moralize the connotations of words like 'abbarition' and 'anomaly' and a hint towards their unnaturalness despite thier natural occurrence
> using BSTc when it is not deterministic of identitarian persuasions and only correlates of amniotic hormone environments, which were shown little correlation with later identity
> treating identity as something which must be forced congruentiality with sexual essentiality
> basically reducing gatekeeping to an enterprise which only lets those they've self-confessed to be "anomalous freaks" (but the good, naturally occuring kind we've selectively acknowledged!) through
Yeah this is riddled with angsty, neckbeard, wannabe-tranny, overcompensating-pseudoscientist dislogic.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,794
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,795
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,796
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Whom is this "Tony" person whom you obsess over? Is he one of your imaginary friends, Mr. Gillon?
Whom is this "Tony" person whom you obsess over? Is he one of your imaginary friends, Mr. Gillon?
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 28 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,806
My refutations appended:Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,810
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,815
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,816
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,817
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,820
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,821
@previous (J)
The defense is a bit more complicated than that actually. It more genuinely implies that an outrageous claim is being made by an equally-so practitioner of the same flaw. I doubt there are any human qualities to your writing, for example, based on what little I've seen.
The defense is a bit more complicated than that actually. It more genuinely implies that an outrageous claim is being made by an equally-so practitioner of the same flaw. I doubt there are any human qualities to your writing, for example, based on what little I've seen.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,824
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,825
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,827
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 49 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,828
@647,821 (!MLHqI35Srs)
durr bughh I never learned nothing before buhhhhhhh
im in bed writing with one Thumb posting on minichan
What do u expect me to not type like teen robot
durr bughh I never learned nothing before buhhhhhhh
im in bed writing with one Thumb posting on minichan
What do u expect me to not type like teen robot
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 18 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,829
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 29 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,830
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 5 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,831
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,912
BSTc disturbs me for a number of reasons:
1. A deliberately small selection of cadavers were picked for study.
2. Nothing actually suggests pre-natal determination of its size except for the back-inferrential deduction reliant claim that because an equally small selection of heterosexual male cadavers on a similar hormonal regime to the transsexual sample had not seen reductions in their BSTc size, that "it must simply be". Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc anyone? Forgetting the lack of empirical guarantee, to say the BSTc had been connected to their transsexualism on the assertion that this tiny sample of individuals possessed such a phenomena is absolutely ridiculous when a larger look at all transsexual cadavers are probably going to reveal after time that this claim is bullshit.
3. To suggest that other regions of the brain are not prone to such in-utero effects by extension of this morphological rubric remaining the only consistent one over time stands to repudiate the consistency of Lettuce's beloved Cohenitically-oriented claims. I would love, for example, to see autists end up getting discovered of their own BSTc sizes completely inconsistent with the predominant hypermale theorem, though I notice that no cadavers of such individuals have been investigated for this specific feature of morphology as of yet.
4. Truscum bastards cling onto it as honest reinforcement fodder for the internalization of the legitimacy of their own experience at the expense of others', despite honestly not knowing if it's even a reflection of a neurological makeup specific to themselves. One can't help but laugh uproarously at the fall from the grace of pride they'll inevitably and deservingly sustain when it's discovered they're more like the subhuman rote-automaton hypermale than those "pretenders" they'd derided.
1. A deliberately small selection of cadavers were picked for study.
2. Nothing actually suggests pre-natal determination of its size except for the back-inferrential deduction reliant claim that because an equally small selection of heterosexual male cadavers on a similar hormonal regime to the transsexual sample had not seen reductions in their BSTc size, that "it must simply be". Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc anyone? Forgetting the lack of empirical guarantee, to say the BSTc had been connected to their transsexualism on the assertion that this tiny sample of individuals possessed such a phenomena is absolutely ridiculous when a larger look at all transsexual cadavers are probably going to reveal after time that this claim is bullshit.
3. To suggest that other regions of the brain are not prone to such in-utero effects by extension of this morphological rubric remaining the only consistent one over time stands to repudiate the consistency of Lettuce's beloved Cohenitically-oriented claims. I would love, for example, to see autists end up getting discovered of their own BSTc sizes completely inconsistent with the predominant hypermale theorem, though I notice that no cadavers of such individuals have been investigated for this specific feature of morphology as of yet.
4. Truscum bastards cling onto it as honest reinforcement fodder for the internalization of the legitimacy of their own experience at the expense of others', despite honestly not knowing if it's even a reflection of a neurological makeup specific to themselves. One can't help but laugh uproarously at the fall from the grace of pride they'll inevitably and deservingly sustain when it's discovered they're more like the subhuman rote-automaton hypermale than those "pretenders" they'd derided.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,918
@647,783 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
yeah. idk, you go in to a psychiatrist as a super skinny person and call yourself fat and go to extremes to be thinner and they'll label you anorexic and get you help.
you go to a shrink and tell them that you're actually the opposite sex and they'll help you mutilate your genitals. seems odd that one body dysmorphia is treated so vastly different than others. it'd be like a skinny anorexic person saying, "i'm so fat," and the doctor saying, "we'd better get you some liposuction then, fatso."
yeah. idk, you go in to a psychiatrist as a super skinny person and call yourself fat and go to extremes to be thinner and they'll label you anorexic and get you help.
you go to a shrink and tell them that you're actually the opposite sex and they'll help you mutilate your genitals. seems odd that one body dysmorphia is treated so vastly different than others. it'd be like a skinny anorexic person saying, "i'm so fat," and the doctor saying, "we'd better get you some liposuction then, fatso."
Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), also termed body dysmorphia or dysmorphic syndrome, but originally termed dysmorphophobia, is a mental disorder characterized by an obsessive preoccupation that some aspect of one's own appearance is severely flawed and warrants exceptional measures to hide or fix it.
how does this not exactly fit transgendered people? why are they such special snowflakes that we have to bend reality to fit their views? idk, i don't really care either, people can do whatever they want but it just seems weird that the medical establishment considers it separate or unique among other body dysmorphic disorders.(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,919
@previous (squeegee)
> why are they such special snowflakes that we have to bend reality to fit their views? idk,
lol
Because Psychiatrist has a family to support and a new boat and airplane to buy.
> why are they such special snowflakes that we have to bend reality to fit their views? idk,
lol
Because Psychiatrist has a family to support and a new boat and airplane to buy.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,920
@previous (L)
sure, but realistically the proposition of counseling someone with body dismorphic disorder until they are suitable comfortable with who they are seems like just as long a process as coaching someone through gender reassignment surgery. i'm sure there's exactly the same amount of money to be had either way. you're still looking at years, and years of therapy either way. so why choose the route that causes the most changes? i mean fuck, what if it IS dysmorphia and they'll never be happy and now they've made irreversible surgical changes. there's actually a surgery for testicle removal without vaginoplasty. they'll just cut out your reproductive organs. seems so fucking drastic.
would they cut out an anorexic girl's stomach? fuck no. that would be in-fucking-sane, even though she could totally live just fine without one.
sure, but realistically the proposition of counseling someone with body dismorphic disorder until they are suitable comfortable with who they are seems like just as long a process as coaching someone through gender reassignment surgery. i'm sure there's exactly the same amount of money to be had either way. you're still looking at years, and years of therapy either way. so why choose the route that causes the most changes? i mean fuck, what if it IS dysmorphia and they'll never be happy and now they've made irreversible surgical changes. there's actually a surgery for testicle removal without vaginoplasty. they'll just cut out your reproductive organs. seems so fucking drastic.
would they cut out an anorexic girl's stomach? fuck no. that would be in-fucking-sane, even though she could totally live just fine without one.
The Meme joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,923
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,932
@647,918 (squeegee)
> how does this not exactly fit transgendered people?
With BDD, the person is having some disconnect with their perception. They either imagine a flaw, or vastly overexagerrate an existing one.
Meanwhile, those with gender dysphoria aren't delusional. They can correctly percieve their bodies, and reality. The issue is that their brain is wired in a way that conflicts with their body, not that they have a poor perception of their body.
> how does this not exactly fit transgendered people?
With BDD, the person is having some disconnect with their perception. They either imagine a flaw, or vastly overexagerrate an existing one.
Meanwhile, those with gender dysphoria aren't delusional. They can correctly percieve their bodies, and reality. The issue is that their brain is wired in a way that conflicts with their body, not that they have a poor perception of their body.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,937
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> The issue is that their brain is wired in a way that conflicts with their body
There's little evidence that this is as true with the condition of gender dysphoria as it is with transsexualism proper, to be honest. And definitionally it's not a requirement. Solely, you literally have to be convinced that your responses, mannerisms, wiles and the identity centered around those are incongruent with biological sex. It's not a delusion in the sense that it's culturally conventional enough, i.e. follows paradigms of regarded gender norms. However, it may fall under delusion through the technicality that in many cases, they do fail to convince the larger public body.
Still, that isn't sufficient to evoke the entire criteria-set in a wide-rangingly satisfactory sense.
> The issue is that their brain is wired in a way that conflicts with their body
There's little evidence that this is as true with the condition of gender dysphoria as it is with transsexualism proper, to be honest. And definitionally it's not a requirement. Solely, you literally have to be convinced that your responses, mannerisms, wiles and the identity centered around those are incongruent with biological sex. It's not a delusion in the sense that it's culturally conventional enough, i.e. follows paradigms of regarded gender norms. However, it may fall under delusion through the technicality that in many cases, they do fail to convince the larger public body.
Still, that isn't sufficient to evoke the entire criteria-set in a wide-rangingly satisfactory sense.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,940
@647,920 (squeegee)
> sure, but realistically the proposition of counseling someone with body dismorphic disorder until they are suitable comfortable with who they are
About as effective as trying to reprogram a gay person. You're going against a very innate biological impulse.
And "who they are" is a bit more complicated than just their body, really.
> i mean fuck, what if it IS dysmorphia and they'll never be happy and now they've made irreversible surgical changes.
There's actually quite a specific diagnosis for gender dysphoria. Here is what the NHS says.
In theory, there should not be as much confusion as you seem to be assuming. Additionally, I have read at least one study that found happiness increasing in post-op transsexuals. So it is addressing the issue.
> sure, but realistically the proposition of counseling someone with body dismorphic disorder until they are suitable comfortable with who they are
About as effective as trying to reprogram a gay person. You're going against a very innate biological impulse.
And "who they are" is a bit more complicated than just their body, really.
> i mean fuck, what if it IS dysmorphia and they'll never be happy and now they've made irreversible surgical changes.
There's actually quite a specific diagnosis for gender dysphoria. Here is what the NHS says.
In theory, there should not be as much confusion as you seem to be assuming. Additionally, I have read at least one study that found happiness increasing in post-op transsexuals. So it is addressing the issue.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,944
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Expand exclusion criteria as unreasonably far as possible and sure, you can cherry-pick the most satisfactory sample you want. The machinations of Masonic peer-review, as ever, fail to convince.
Expand exclusion criteria as unreasonably far as possible and sure, you can cherry-pick the most satisfactory sample you want. The machinations of Masonic peer-review, as ever, fail to convince.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,945
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 35 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,946
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,947
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 9 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,948
I feel like now is a good juncture to point out that I am, in no way, affiliated with Autphag on this issue. Thanks.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,950
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
He is the example case. You are arguing for him to be her. Thanks
He is the example case. You are arguing for him to be her. Thanks
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,951
@647,948 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Even though I'm following the ICD-10 definition closer than you are?
Too bad. Reality concurs, meaning you've admitted denouement of any affiliation with it.
Even though I'm following the ICD-10 definition closer than you are?
Too bad. Reality concurs, meaning you've admitted denouement of any affiliation with it.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,962
@647,950 (K)
No.
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
I'm sorry. When you start citing the ever-present masonic peer-review, I just can't cope. Reality is too much.
No.
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
I'm sorry. When you start citing the ever-present masonic peer-review, I just can't cope. Reality is too much.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,964
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'm most certainly the example case, and I've defied all of your reasoning. Just admit it. An ideological enemy of yours is a tranny. That's really what this little crusade against me is about at its crux. I'd advise that you cease clinging onto the most petty begrudgements.
I'm most certainly the example case, and I've defied all of your reasoning. Just admit it. An ideological enemy of yours is a tranny. That's really what this little crusade against me is about at its crux. I'd advise that you cease clinging onto the most petty begrudgements.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,966
@647,962 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
He is the example case though. You are denying his existence to his face, yet still arguing for him with a rose tinted view of trannys. You have also denied Chris Chan in the past, and claimed that "he's done crazy shit like this before" So he is not a real tranny either.
He is the example case though. You are denying his existence to his face, yet still arguing for him with a rose tinted view of trannys. You have also denied Chris Chan in the past, and claimed that "he's done crazy shit like this before" So he is not a real tranny either.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,970
@previous (K)
Chris-chan is an intellectally dull autist though. In all fairness, arguing against him is provided an easy disposition; he probably doesn't get the implications of what he's doing.
However, Lettuce has no similar recourse agaist me, and that's his major issue.
Chris-chan is an intellectally dull autist though. In all fairness, arguing against him is provided an easy disposition; he probably doesn't get the implications of what he's doing.
However, Lettuce has no similar recourse agaist me, and that's his major issue.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,972
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
He really digs the whole special snowflake ideal promoted by his gender studies degree.
It's cool though bro, I don't think you are special
He really digs the whole special snowflake ideal promoted by his gender studies degree.
It's cool though bro, I don't think you are special
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,974
@previous (K)
I don't want to be thought of as 'special'. This has become an increasingly collectivist ideal anyway, I'd just be among other overly self-aggrandized people.
I value being seen for genuinely individual qualities, not some proclivity of mine.
I don't want to be thought of as 'special'. This has become an increasingly collectivist ideal anyway, I'd just be among other overly self-aggrandized people.
I value being seen for genuinely individual qualities, not some proclivity of mine.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,975
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,976
@647,966 (K)
Ah, strawman guy.
You could never step to me in a serious debate involving evidence or science, so you must resort to misrepresenting my statements or lying about me. I suppose we all must compensate for out short-comings in some way.
Ah, strawman guy.
You could never step to me in a serious debate involving evidence or science, so you must resort to misrepresenting my statements or lying about me. I suppose we all must compensate for out short-comings in some way.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,979
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
You've stated nothing but falsehoods in your own misrepresentation of his position as a strawman when it was certainly characteristically reflective of an evasiveness specific to your style of argumentation.
If you'd stop being a sinuously disingenuous fuck for a minute, we might actually respect your ability to distort and selectively pick inappropriately presented evidence.
You've stated nothing but falsehoods in your own misrepresentation of his position as a strawman when it was certainly characteristically reflective of an evasiveness specific to your style of argumentation.
If you'd stop being a sinuously disingenuous fuck for a minute, we might actually respect your ability to distort and selectively pick inappropriately presented evidence.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,980
@647,976 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Tell us again how trannys are normal, well adjusted members of society. Please include examples of trannys you know. Thanks
Tell us again how trannys are normal, well adjusted members of society. Please include examples of trannys you know. Thanks
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,981
@previous (K)
He knows none closely or personally. That's why he's able to speak so glibly about them!
He knows none closely or personally. That's why he's able to speak so glibly about them!
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,982
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
Well, I'd like to think that you are the shining example. Although he's known brie for longer I think.
Well, I'd like to think that you are the shining example. Although he's known brie for longer I think.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 41 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,983
@647,981 (!MLHqI35Srs)
you realise that K is calling transexuals maladjusted and has called you delusional ITT. Rhubarb would be the person most likely to be on your side in all of this and you keep attacking him and siding with the dude calling you a trainwreck of a mental case. the fuck is wrong with you?
you realise that K is calling transexuals maladjusted and has called you delusional ITT. Rhubarb would be the person most likely to be on your side in all of this and you keep attacking him and siding with the dude calling you a trainwreck of a mental case. the fuck is wrong with you?
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 48 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,985
Also if we are going to ignore Chris Chan because he is a retard, we could possibly ignore Cath as well.
Anonymous K double-posted this 10 years ago, 40 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,986
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,988
@previous (K)
That's the basic principle of Machiavellieans like us.
@647,983 (squeegee)
Yet squeegee's social autism was oblivious to this.
That's the basic principle of Machiavellieans like us.
@647,983 (squeegee)
Yet squeegee's social autism was oblivious to this.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,992
@647,980 (K)
And there we go. A broad, useless question followed by an irrelevant question meant to strawman my statements.
You're not worth taking seriously. At least kook can successfully participate in a real debate.
And there we go. A broad, useless question followed by an irrelevant question meant to strawman my statements.
You're not worth taking seriously. At least kook can successfully participate in a real debate.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,994
@647,983 (squeegee)
He insults everybody in arm's reach. Literally everyone.
He's lashed out at kook before, even though she is actively nice to him. He's even said bizarre things about TTEH and Meta, despite them never interacting with him.
He insults everybody in arm's reach. Literally everyone.
He's lashed out at kook before, even though she is actively nice to him. He's even said bizarre things about TTEH and Meta, despite them never interacting with him.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,995
@647,992 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yet you can't answer specific critiques when called, either.
If anyone has dropped out of a debate, you'd reneged on participation as soon as you thought capitalizing on the bereft reputation of someone you could spin to appear ridiculous on the basis thereof was propituous.
You're not intelligent, you're just another lagging undergrad. Get fucked.
Yet you can't answer specific critiques when called, either.
If anyone has dropped out of a debate, you'd reneged on participation as soon as you thought capitalizing on the bereft reputation of someone you could spin to appear ridiculous on the basis thereof was propituous.
You're not intelligent, you're just another lagging undergrad. Get fucked.
!MLHqI35Srs double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,996
@647,994 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Meta frequently insults me via. PM, which I can prove by way of screenshot dare you so please.
Also TTEH and I have infrequently interacted with each other prior to 2014.
Meta frequently insults me via. PM, which I can prove by way of screenshot dare you so please.
Also TTEH and I have infrequently interacted with each other prior to 2014.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 14 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,997
@647,992 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Fine. Say whatever you want about the subject. Please include Autphag as part of the group instead of simply dismissing him if he doesn't fit your examples or agenda.
Say what you want, cite what you want, post links to papers, summarize the lectures you have attended on the subject, whatever. But you must relate it to him, and his situation. Because he is the example case.
Or not. Because if he doesn't fit, you'll likely just leave it there.
Fine. Say whatever you want about the subject. Please include Autphag as part of the group instead of simply dismissing him if he doesn't fit your examples or agenda.
Say what you want, cite what you want, post links to papers, summarize the lectures you have attended on the subject, whatever. But you must relate it to him, and his situation. Because he is the example case.
Or not. Because if he doesn't fit, you'll likely just leave it there.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 55 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,998
@647,996 (!MLHqI35Srs)
Meta's shitpost PMs are hilarious. You should be flattered he makes them for you. :/
Meta's shitpost PMs are hilarious. You should be flattered he makes them for you. :/
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #647,999
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
No amount of teenage snark is going to disguise your passive-aggressive intentions, bud.
Meta's a fucking waste of space from what new things I've most recently learned about him. Why should I care if some deadbeat modabuses his powers to compose childish insults against me or not? You should consider yourself lucky that anyone has bothered to attempt to engage you on as remotely challenging a level as I have.
No amount of teenage snark is going to disguise your passive-aggressive intentions, bud.
Meta's a fucking waste of space from what new things I've most recently learned about him. Why should I care if some deadbeat modabuses his powers to compose childish insults against me or not? You should consider yourself lucky that anyone has bothered to attempt to engage you on as remotely challenging a level as I have.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 28 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,000
@647,988 (!MLHqI35Srs)
> Yet squeegee's social autism was oblivious to this.
oh, no, i look people in the eyes when i speak to them. it's just funny to see you siding with someone openly mocking you is all. you, the transexual, siding with the guy slandering "trannies" to mock the guy defending transexuals just because you have some grudge against people who give support to transexuals? idk, i guess it's because the people who support transexuals, i.e. these doctors you keep claiming mistreat you, are evidently refusing to validate your claim of transexuality or something i guess. i know you keep writing all these screeds about doctors and nurses who "have it out for you" and i'm guessing that they're treating you like the "pretender transexuals" and now you're just projecting everything onto Rhubarb and even catherine because you so desperately want to be taken seriously. so you'll do anything, even side with your idealogical enemy just to level a single verbal assault against KL who represents the psychiatric establishment in your weird little demented mind.
> Yet squeegee's social autism was oblivious to this.
oh, no, i look people in the eyes when i speak to them. it's just funny to see you siding with someone openly mocking you is all. you, the transexual, siding with the guy slandering "trannies" to mock the guy defending transexuals just because you have some grudge against people who give support to transexuals? idk, i guess it's because the people who support transexuals, i.e. these doctors you keep claiming mistreat you, are evidently refusing to validate your claim of transexuality or something i guess. i know you keep writing all these screeds about doctors and nurses who "have it out for you" and i'm guessing that they're treating you like the "pretender transexuals" and now you're just projecting everything onto Rhubarb and even catherine because you so desperately want to be taken seriously. so you'll do anything, even side with your idealogical enemy just to level a single verbal assault against KL who represents the psychiatric establishment in your weird little demented mind.
Anonymous K replied with this 10 years ago, 53 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,002
Anonymous K double-posted this 10 years ago, 48 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,003
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 33 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,004
@647,995 (!MLHqI35Srs)> "You're not intelligent, you're just another lagging undergrad. Get fucked," said the jobless man without a degree.
your insults are even ineffectual.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,006
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,010
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
i'd guess you're not but that doesn't make you a woman ;)
i'd guess manchild since you exhibit all the signs of one. you're certainly old enough and male enough.
i'd guess you're not but that doesn't make you a woman ;)
i'd guess manchild since you exhibit all the signs of one. you're certainly old enough and male enough.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,013
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,024
@647,772 (H)
> So like you have no problem with a male wanting to be a fire hydrant or water sprinkler, as they proceed with life?
I don't give a shit. People can think all kinds of retarded shit, and we can think they are nuts for it or whatever.
> So like you have no problem with a male wanting to be a fire hydrant or water sprinkler, as they proceed with life?
I don't give a shit. People can think all kinds of retarded shit, and we can think they are nuts for it or whatever.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,025
@647,980 (K)
> Tell us again how trannys are normal, well adjusted members of society. Please include examples of trannys you know. Thanks
Lol every trans person I know in real life is successful and well adjusted well beyond just about anybody I've encountered here
> Tell us again how trannys are normal, well adjusted members of society. Please include examples of trannys you know. Thanks
Lol every trans person I know in real life is successful and well adjusted well beyond just about anybody I've encountered here
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,027
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,051
@648,025 (N)
where are you meeting all of them? are they more common than people with say, diabetes now?
where are you meeting all of them? are they more common than people with say, diabetes now?
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #648,062
Fuck them all right in the pussy or arse, that'll set them straight!