"Why can't people just be nice to trans people and move on with their lives? Like just be nice to trans people. They're pretty chill."
APPARENTLY THE BELOW IS WHY.
"I was nice to trans people. When transwomen complained they didn't have a space to fit in, I said, like many others who wanted to be nice "you can sit with us lesbians". Then they wanted more. They wanted that we see them as real women. They wanted us to see them as sexual partners even when they knew we were homosexuals. They wanted us to see their girl d cks as a female organ and non threatening. Also mouthfeel... All we needed to do was to see them as female and then we would be able to cope. They wanted that we stop talking about our biology and bodies because they felt excluded. They wanted that we see them as the same and believe them when they complained about periods and pains. They wanted that we stop talking about our homosexuality in the space we invited them in because they felt excluded. They wanted that we stopped any mentions of vaginas, and female sex organs whilst inundating our spaces with conversations around male genitalia. When they realised that we weren't complying, they banned myself and other homosexual women from the space we invited them in. They called us bigots, TERFs, hateful, c nts and kicked us out of our own spaces. When the majority of us were out, they got more daring and started writing r pe fantasy posts about r ping lesbians. They shared tips on how to sexually coerce and guilt trip homosexual women into sex with them. I was nice to trans people. And they repaid that kindness by decimating the spaces we invited them in. And by sexually coercing homosexual women. Lesbians like me made one single mistake. And that was to listen to trans people and be nice to them. Never again."
9 comments:
We listened to homosexuals and lesbians and they managed to browbeat enough of the right people to have fascistic pro-LGB laws enacted for force us all to indulge their fantasies about their "orientation". Normal people like me made one single mistake, and that was to listen to LGB people and be nice to them. Never again.
(Of course, I personally never listened to them in the first place, except to note the many lies they told to advance their agenda.)
It seems clear that the "trans" agenda is akin to an invasive species. There is a desire to force their normalization on others in a way that the LGB never did. The LGB push was more about leave us alone to do our thing and we'll leave you alone.
I know there were pride parades and the like, but those can be ignored and those have only gotten more objectionable as the LGB alphabet has expanded.
But with the T's it's all about telling lesbians that they have to have sex with a dude who's undergone some level of "transing". It's essentially telling lesbians that they have to have sex with dudes or they are oppressive bigots.
Like many leftist constituencies, the "Ts" are going to try to take over the LGB space and push the LGB's out of the tent. This is what happens when you build a political movement where groups with opposing goals are pandered to. Eventually, the new trendy group gets all the attention and the older group gets pushed aside.
What the "Ts" are doing to the "LGBs" is an exact parallel to what the "LGBs" did to normal people.
"Pride" parades were always objectionable from their very beginning. Promoting immoral and disordered behavior was rightly and presciently regarded as the promotion of more odious degrees of it should they be tolerated. That easy to posit "prophesy" has come to pass and without a doubt will get even worse than this. I'd wager that right now someone is getting the word from "the holy spirit" to welcome and celebrate all the other sinful practices listed by those like Rick Santorum.
Snark and sarcasm aside, I would submit that it was never about merely "leave us alone to do our thing and we'll leave you alone." It was about legitimizing their immorality to the point they be regarded as no different than actual moral, normal people. The "LGBs" succeeded in taking over the moral, normal space and push out anyone who won't accept them as such. The "Ts" have merely taken a page out of the "LGB" playbook. The "LGBs" have no standing to bitch and moan about it. Were it not for them, they'd not now be suffering the indignities they feel they're enduring at the hands of the "Ts"...their students.
I disagree. The LGBs were very clear that they did not expect or demand that straight people should date or have sex with them. They made it pretty clear that they weren't interested in having relations with anyone but others of their letter. Obviously the B's were more flexible, but weren't demanding that non Bs absolutely must have sex with them.
Yes, the parades and stuff were there, but they've only gotten more explicit as the alphabet soup has grown. I'm not suggesting that there aren't similarities in the sense that it was a slippery slope. I am suggesting that this new militancy from the Ts that demands that Gs and Ls must have sex with them regardless of their biological sex, is new.
It seems obvious that the Ts are realizing two things.
1. That despite all the propaganda and the weight of the narrative, that they are really just a surgically/chemically altered version of their biological sex. The fact that a biological male who's "transed" to a pretend female can't understand why a B isn't interested in having sex with a "woman" with (possibly non functioning) male sex organs, shouldn't shock anyone.
2. That "transing" themselves doesn't make them fit in with the LGB culture. They're not Ls, Gs, or Bs, but demand to be treated as if they were.
The LGB movement is an excellent example of a slippery slope that wasn't a fallacy. It was clearly a long game to "normalize" all sorts of crap. The difference is that you don't see gay dudes bitching that straight guys don't find them sexually attractive. They want acceptance, but not like the Ts demand.
As the medical data come in we'll find that the Ts are going to end up as a small blip in history, and that as this glut of them dies off, it won't be nearly as much of a thing as it has been.
"I disagree. The LGBs were very clear that they did not expect or demand that straight people should date or have sex with them."
Yet clearly demands were made of normal people which included forcing them to accept the legitimacy of their disordered immorality. Thus, your disagreement focuses on the specifics of the demand, not on having demanded. The "Ts" are a greater degree of disordered immorality so it stands to reason their demands would also be. The "Ls" and "'Gs'" insist they're actually just like everyone else (meaning, normal people), while the "Ts" insist they're actually women, so their demands are essentially the same in kind.
RE: "It seems obvious that the Ts are realizing two things."
1. Again, it's no different than "LGBs" not understanding why normal people refuse to regard them as normal.
2. That "LGBs" insisting they are normal was no more a legit argument for forcing the rest of society to accept it. They were never normal but demand to be regarded as normal.
"The difference is that you don't see gay dudes bitching that straight guys don't find them sexually attractive. They want acceptance, but not like the Ts demand."
I don't know if that's true and don't believe it is. It doesn't make sense that if anyone was rebuffed by another to whom that one was attracted there wouldn't be some bitching resulting, even if it was in that one's own mind. Being rejected almost guarantees a negative response to one degree or another. In the case your post presents, the "Ts" clearly want acceptance by the "Ls", who won't give it to them.
As to your last paragraph, from your virtual lips to God's ear!!
"Yet clearly demands were made of normal people which included forcing them to accept the legitimacy of their disordered immorality."
In a broad sense, yes. But even then it was more about legal discrimination and not about you must be forced to date/have sex with a gay person if they demand it. My point is that the new demands of the Ts are much more intrusive than previously. They realize that their "dating pool" is incredibly small (to their amazement) and now have to force people to have sex with them. They were confused by the fact that the APL "supported"/used them as a political cudgel. They mistook that support for attraction, they thought that because someone "supported them", that they were how sexual/dating properties. They're surprised that lesbians don't want a "girl dick" on their sex partner, and they use the only tactic they know, force to try to fix the problem.
"Thus, your disagreement focuses on the specifics of the demand, not on having demanded. The "Ts" are a greater degree of disordered immorality so it stands to reason their demands would also be. The "Ls" and "'Gs'" insist they're actually just like everyone else (meaning, normal people), while the "Ts" insist they're actually women, so their demands are essentially the same in kind."
Essentially yes.
"1. Again, it's no different than "LGBs" not understanding why normal people refuse to regard them as normal."
But the LGBs aren't demanding that "normal people" absolutely must have sex with them. "Live and let live", is a far cry from you must sleep with me, even though you have no sexual attraction to me.
"2. That "LGBs" insisting they are normal was no more a legit argument for forcing the rest of society to accept it. They were never normal but demand to be regarded as normal."
As I pointed out, much of that was legal/social, not sexual. I have no problem with the concept that LGBs should not be discriminated against, and the like. I do have a problem with an LGB who started to shame straight people for not being sexually attracted to them.
The problem is that the Ts are realizing that (outside of a very few) they have an incredibly small pool of dating/sex partners, as well as sexual organs that don't function as other people's do. They've realized that they have to lie to potential partners, until they can't hide it any more, then they're shocked that these potential sex partners aren't jumping into bed with them. Why would anyone jump into bed with someone who'd lied to them about something important?
"I don't know if that's true and don't believe it is. It doesn't make sense that if anyone was rebuffed by another to whom that one was attracted there wouldn't be some bitching resulting, even if it was in that one's own mind. Being rejected almost guarantees a negative response to one degree or another. In the case your post presents, the "Ts" clearly want acceptance by the "Ls", who won't give it to them."
Not only that, but they're turning on the LGBs and attempting to force them into sex with Ts by publicly shaming them.
"As to your last paragraph, from your virtual lips to God's ear!!"
Well, as T is a genetic/evolutionary dead end, and as the Science is demonstrating the bullshit behind the narrative, and as they're realizing that no one wants to have sex with them, it seems likely.
"In a broad sense, yes. But even then it was more about legal discrimination and not about you must be forced to date/have sex with a gay person if they demand it."
Well, that was merely the first step, the step at which the Ts are but pushing beyond now. And I have to say, even by your post, I'm not seeing actual force beyond those who actually rape. Pressuring someone to not "knock it until you've tried it" is no more or less an attempt to shame than the LGBs did back after they were at or just passed step one. The LGBs are still playing the shame game against normal people as we even see among their enablers like Dan. Despite the specifics of how each of the letters play that game, it all amounts to the same thing: accept us on our terms or you're shamefully immoral. Resistance is futile. What the LGBs have over the Ts is that they're demands aren't considered quite as demented as the Ts and they now have the benefit of having forced a real measure of compliance to the extent they're regarded by too many in a manner akin to the black community and other minorities, despite their thing being behavioral and not at all immutable. This ties them to the annoyance they now suffer from the Ts, who also are compelled by dysfunction and not immutable characteristics. With this in mind, your distinction between the two groups suggests a level of acceptance of the LGB group, as if it's a done deal and there's no going back. I hope that's not the case. They're all birds of a feather, with a sliding scale of perversion.
Art,
I'm not talking about rape at all. I'm talking about Ts who insist that they must be dated by Gs/Ls based on their assumed gender, not their biological sex or genitals. Why would a L be attracted to someone with a penis? Why should an L be shamed because they refuse to sate a woman with a penis?
What the LGBs have over the Ts is that there is no demand that biology be ignored, no demand that someone's fantasy must be embraced regardless of the desire of the embracer.
I think that there is a degree of legal acceptance of the rights of LGBs that will be impossible to remove from US code. That doesn't mandate a moral acceptance of demand that every thing an LGB does is to be accepted. It's (to sound like Dan a bit) pointing out the reality of US law at present.
I'd argue that the Ts are on a whole other level of "perversion" in the sense that they are determined to pervert biology in their quest for acceptance.
OK. So we're not talking about rape. But that doesn't help your argument. The Ts want to be regarded as women, but the lezzies won't go for it. To complain about the rejection is not forcing anyone to do anything. They may be more vocal about their displeasure, but they're more disordered than the LGBs. In the meantime, the LGBs are unhappy when a normal person won't date them. How is it different except in degrees?
My argument is apart from the law which is the manifestation of my argument. Indeed, the law is every bit a matter of forcing the larger group to accept than merely asking to get it on.
All members of the LGBTQ+ community have perverted biology in their quest for acceptance.
Post a Comment