Transgender Rights

Ixian

Ixian

Well-known member
KilroywasNOTHere said:
Honestly I'm not comfortable with urinals period. Call me a prude but I don't want to see another man's sausage when I'm peeing.
Click to expand...

Never had that problem, because I ain't looking lol.

That said it would be nice if privacy dividers between urinals were more common.

Could be worse, I remember when a lot more places used to just have a trough with ice in it.
 
KilroywasNOTHere

KilroywasNOTHere

"BEEP!"
not that it matters, but I deleted one of my previous comments. I don't actually think Children are nonpeople (as my mom pointed out as she rebuked me for that comment). but my point is still the same. what separates the LGBTQ+ compared to literally everyone else is that they seem to be going specifically after kids.
 
Last edited:
Jormungandr

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
KilroywasNOTHere said:
not that it matters, but I deleted one of my previous comments. I don't actually think Children are non-people (as my mom rebuked me on). but my point is still the same. what separates the LGBTQ+ compared to literally everyone else is that they seem to be going specifically after kids.
Click to expand...
There is a massive difference between someone who is gay, Bi, or lesbian and is just a regular person with a different orientation and the weirdos and freaks which are in Groomers United. They're the groomers and predators.

The latter is made up of the former, but the former doesn't always mean the latter.

However, while I do agree with gays, Bis, and lesbians getting equal rights and not being persecuted because of their orientation, and I do agree with gay 'marriage' to some extent (just don't call it marriage and give them the same legal rights), I am fully aware of (and horrified/repulsed by) the slippery slope and what's happened in the last few decades (especially the last two).

It also doesn't help that a lot of child sex crimes involving single digit-aged kids in the US are, IIRC, by gay, Bis, and lesbians at a whopping 40% or 60%, despite the population of gay, Bi, and lesbians being a minority of the overall population.

It's that slippery slope, which inexorably stems from society being more open and free with being gay, Bi, or lesbian, which inevitably causes the Groomers United degeneracy and disgusting behavior.

So, unless there's an option I missed, it looks like the choice is to either basically
  • tell gays, Bis, and lesbians to "keep it behind closed doors"/not advertising their orientations openly (e.g. being affectionate with their same sex partners in public like heterosexual couples) while not persecuting them for being gay/Bi/lesbian (which is near-impossible because there will always be the worst elements of society that will take this as free reign to literally act like how people were in the early--mid 20th in persecuting gays/Bis/lesbians),
  • or stamp down on it all hard to prevent such disgusting degeneracy, predation, and superiority (what else would giving them preferential treatment legally and socially, including get passes from doing stuff like fucking in the street and infront of children?) from inexorably occurring, despite a lot of gay, Bi, and lesbians not being Groomers United and being innocent themselves personally
It's a proverbial "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation -- keep the flower garden free of weeds despite not all of the weeds actually being weeds but normal flowers of a different colour, or allow the garden to sprout weeds all over the place, eventually killing said garden, which also includes all the flowers.

(And, no, before someone here inevitably mentions this as justification/guidance for point 2, I and many other people don't see this through a Christian/religious view (such as being gay, Bi, or lesbian as being a sin/to be stamped out on religious principles alone). Unless you're Christian/religious, it being a "sin" means fuck all to the rest of us).
 
KilroywasNOTHere

KilroywasNOTHere

"BEEP!"
Jormungandr said:
There is a massive difference between someone who is gay, Bi, or lesbian and is just a regular person with a different orientation and the weirdos and freaks which are in Groomers United. They're the groomers and predators.

The latter is made up of the former, but the former doesn't always mean the latter.

However, while I do agree with gays, Bis, and lesbians getting equal rights and not being persecuted because of their orientation, and I do agree with gay 'marriage' to some extent (just don't call it marriage and give them the same legal rights), I am fully aware of (and horrified/repulsed by) the slippery slope and what's happened in the last few decades (especially the last two).

It also doesn't help that a lot of child sex crimes involving single digit-aged kids in the US are, IIRC, by gay, Bis, and lesbians at a whopping 40% or 60%, despite the population of gay, Bi, and lesbians being a minority of the overall population.

It's that slippery slope, which inexorably stems from society being more open and free with being gay, Bi, or lesbian, which inevitably causes the Groomers United degeneracy and disgusting behavior.

So, unless there's an option I missed, it looks like the choice is to either basically
  • tell gays, Bis, and lesbians to "keep it behind closed doors"/not advertising their orientations openly (e.g. being affectionate with their same sex partners in public like heterosexual couples) while not persecuting them for being gay/Bi/lesbian (which is near-impossible because there will always be the worst elements of society that will take this as free reign to literally act like how people were in the early--mid 20th in persecuting gays/Bis/lesbians),
  • or stamp down on it all hard to prevent such disgusting degeneracy, predation, and superiority (what else would giving them preferential treatment legally and socially, including get passes from doing stuff like fucking in the street and infront of children?) from inexorably occurring, despite a lot of gay, Bi, and lesbians not being Groomers United and being innocent themselves personally
It's a proverbial "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation -- keep the flower garden free of weeds despite not all of the weeds actually being weeds but normal flowers of a different colour, or allow the garden to sprout weeds all over the place, eventually killing said garden, which also includes all the flowers.

(And, no, before someone here inevitably mentions this as justification/guidance for point 2, I and many other people don't see this through a Christian/religious view (such as being gay, Bi, or lesbian as being a sin/to be stamped out on religious principles alone). Unless you're Christian/religious, it being a "sin" means fuck all to the rest of us).
Click to expand...
I don't know what the answer is to be frank. Every solution I see comes to a bad slippery slope. It's just a matter of different demographics being hurt by the slippery sloap. I don't trust asylums because I see them getting used to house political prisoners and political corruption, plus there are instances where the cure for a "Mental illness." is worse than the disease itself. and at the endpoint is of course eugenics.


But so is the endpoint of leaving things the way they are. It's just that different demographics are weeded out. It really is a darned if you do darned if you don't situation and either way I still see the oligarchs coming out on top its just different rhetoric or maybe different faces representing them.
 
Last edited:
Jormungandr

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
KilroywasNOTHere said:
I don't know what the answer is to be frank. Every solution I see comes to a bad slippery slope. It's just a matter of different demographics being hurt by the slippery sloap. I don't trust asylums because I see them getting used to house political prisoners and political corruption, plus there are instances where the cure for a "Mental illness." is worse than the disease itself. and at the endpoint is of course eugenics.


But so is the endpoint of leaving things the way they are. It's just that different demographics are weeded out. It really is a darned if you do darned if you don't situation and either way I still see the oligarchs coming out on top its just different rhetoric or maybe different faces representing them.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Unless there's something we've missed, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with all options leading to a flavour of "bad end".
 
E

evilchumlee

Well-known member
Jormungandr said:
It's that slippery slope, which inexorably stems from society being more open and free with being gay, Bi, or lesbian, which inevitably causes the Groomers United degeneracy and disgusting behavior.

So, unless there's an option I missed, it looks like the choice is to either basically
  • tell gays, Bis, and lesbians to "keep it behind closed doors"/not advertising their orientations openly (e.g. being affectionate with their same sex partners in public like heterosexual couples) while not persecuting them for being gay/Bi/lesbian (which is near-impossible because there will always be the worst elements of society that will take this as free reign to literally act like how people were in the early--mid 20th in persecuting gays/Bis/lesbians),
  • or stamp down on it all hard to prevent such disgusting degeneracy, predation, and superiority (what else would giving them preferential treatment legally and socially, including get passes from doing stuff like fucking in the street and infront of children?) from inexorably occurring, despite a lot of gay, Bi, and lesbians not being Groomers United and being innocent themselves personally
It's a proverbial "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation -- keep the flower garden free of weeds despite not all of the weeds actually being weeds but normal flowers of a different colour, or allow the garden to sprout weeds all over the place, eventually killing said garden, which also includes all the flowers.
Click to expand...

There are certainly more options...

We could always just, treat everyone equally... if something is ok for a straight couple to do, it's ok for a gay couple to do. If something is not ok for a straight couple to do, it's not ok for a gay couple to do.

It's not rocket science. But it does need to be applied.

At a certain age, whatever we collectively determine, kids can learn about sex. It's not a bad thing. They'll find out on their own anyway, better to have some education of the matter.

Prior to a certain age, kids should not be learning about sex. This includes sex adjacent things. The whole drag queen storybook time thing needs to go away... drag queens are something rooted in sex, they have no business with children. What IS ok for children to know is that sometimes, boys like girls, and sometimes boys like boys. It's ok. And if the question comes up, sometimes boys dress like girls and that's ok too.

The equality street needs to go both ways though, since... equality. Yeah, it's not ok for Pride parades to have public nudity. It's just not. It doesn't give trans people the right to expose themselves to people. That's also not ok.

Signs of affection? There's nothing wrong with that. It's not damaging in any way.
 
Jormungandr

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
evilchumlee said:
There are certainly more options...

We could always just, treat everyone equally... if something is ok for a straight couple to do, it's ok for a gay couple to do. If something is not ok for a straight couple to do, it's not ok for a gay couple to do.

It's not rocket science. But it does need to be applied.

At a certain age, whatever we collectively determine, kids can learn about sex. It's not a bad thing. They'll find out on their own anyway, better to have some education of the matter.

Prior to a certain age, kids should not be learning about sex. This includes sex adjacent things. The whole drag queen storybook time thing needs to go away... drag queens are something rooted in sex, they have no business with children. What IS ok for children to know is that sometimes, boys like girls, and sometimes boys like boys. It's ok. And if the question comes up, sometimes boys dress like girls and that's ok too.

The equality street needs to go both ways though, since... equality. Yeah, it's not ok for Pride parades to have public nudity. It's just not. It doesn't give trans people the right to expose themselves to people. That's also not ok.

Signs of affection? There's nothing wrong with that. It's not damaging in any way.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world, that'd work.

This isn't an ideal world, and one "side" doesn't repeatedly suffer from the slippery slope that results in the fucking insanity we're seeing now. In less than twenty years we went from "we just want to be left alone" (agree with) to "let us fuck, molest, brainwash, and groom your children, bigot."

Twenty. Years.

The slippery slope is inevitable and inexorably comes with society becoming more open and accepting. They take an inch and run a mile with it until... well, just look around.

They're pretty much a protected class which have the confidence to preach what's basically superiority over 'heteros'.

Again: Twenty. Years. Since society became more liberal and open.
 
E

evilchumlee

Well-known member
Jormungandr said:
This isn't an ideal world, and one "side" doesn't repeatedly suffer from the slippery slope that results in the fucking insanity we're seeing now. In less than twenty years we went from "we just want to be left alone" (agree with) to "let us fuck, molest, brainwash, and groom your children, bigot."

The slippery slope is inevitable and inexorably comes with society becoming more open and accepting. They take an inch and run a mile with it until... well, just look around.

They're pretty much a protected class which have the confidence to preach what's basically superiority over 'heteros'.
Click to expand...

That's why there is work to do in ensuring that equality is... equal.

Realistically in a non-Fox News, Breitbart fueled world of crazy pants information, the threat of what your suggesting is nowhere near as prevalent as you think. It's not a total non-issue, but it's also not the conspiracy-levels you seem to be saying.

Let's break it down a bit. Ok, fuck and molest.

LGBT people aren't actually any more likely to molest children. There's just no data to support that. There's alot of confirmation bias and some loud people reporting when it DOES happen. You are hyperfocused on it, so it SEEMS more prevalent

Grooming might be a bit more of an issue.

"Brainwashing" is a loaded nonsense term. What is brainwashing? Does it only count as "brainwashing" if they're persuading kids to do stuff you don't like? Is it brainwashing to indoctrinate them into a religion?
 
Thread Moved Back to SFW Forum: Spoiler All Graphic Content
  • Staff
    • LTR

    LTR

    Don't Look Back In Anger
    Administrator
    Staff Member
    Founder
    The thread has been moved back to the SFW Forum.

    With that done, if discussion necessitates the posting of graphic or other adult material it should be clearly marked/warned as such and put in spoilers or else you will be open to facing punishment, up to and including Threadbanning and the part of MtF Transitional Care where they remove your balls.
     
  • Staff
    • You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Top