This is your comment section safety warning:

STRAP IN, PEOPLE, IT'S GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE

I don't care what gender you say you are as long as you're not a butt about it.

tagm said:
This is your comment section safety warning:

STRAP IN, PEOPLE, IT'S GONNA BE A BUMPY RIDE

This is your second comment section safety warning:

WHAT'S BELOW WILL PROBABLY BE UGLY, LAST CHANCE TO SCROLL BACK UP[/b][/i]

Oh I can smell the period blood induced screams of Tifa from here.

You better fucking run.

NineyWhoovesButt said:
Man Anti-trans people really just wanna put all this shit everywhere they can.

Althorn said:
*Eyeroll* how edgey

This isn't even anti-trans.

A relevant and important Inkbunny conversation on the source.

PopsiclePete said:
This isn't even anti-trans.

is right and the image backs it up.
https://my.mixtape.moe/pxqazu.png

NineyWhoovesButt said:
Man Anti-trans people really just wanna put all this shit everywhere they can.

Nope, I want to preserve for just how out there this is.

The artist's claims that transgender people feel as bad or worse after transitioning (?), as well saying that most transgender people are just faking it because "they're just gay" (?!), is complete "alternative facts" style lying B.S.

There's nothing wrong with believing in two biological sexes. I think so as well. That is a fundamentally different thing than the question of "what if somebody's got a problem with their current biological sex".

This sentence:
->"Biological gender is a social construct with multiple options, with being it wrong to say that there's only two."

And this sentence:
->"Transgender people are just mentally ill individuals who need pity rather than support, so don't let them go through transition to match their outside gender with what's in their brains... they must stay exactly as they're born."

These are not the same viewpoints. Not at all.

I don't know why it's hard for people like the artist to understand this.

Transgender people who need assistance in matching up to their gender... what's wrong with that? I don't see anything wrong with that. If anything, thank goodness that modern society lets people better themselves so that they're happier.

Roarey Raccoon is deliberately pretending as if the two points are the same, and God I wish that the artist wouldn't do that. This isn't a matter of "whining" or being "triggered". Think about the logical fallacy that Roarey is making in the context of anything else in medicine.

Human beings have two legs and two arms. If somebody has a problem with one of their limbs, then they might go to get surgery, and maybe drastic things have to happen which are painful in the operations, but it's done all to help the person. The alterations don't change the "definition of humanity" and harm some notion of "authentically living how you were born".

It would be silly to claim that "limbs are a social construct, and people can have as many arms as they like". But that doesn't change the fact that some people in the hospital for surgery do need help, and they ought to get it. The victimized individuals who aren't happy about being limbless and get prosthetic arms have made themselves far better off. Maybe some guy happened to be born different... but so the hell what? Modern science can improve his life... why the hell hold him back from doing that? Is it fair to point a wagging finger and the dude saying "But you were born different!", really?

PopsiclePete said:
This isn't even anti-trans.

The artist is literally stating that transgender transitioning is a waste of time and discusses their suicide rates as if somehow it's transgender people's moral fault for being suicidally depressive.

Lizardthinking said:
It sounds like you're putting words in his mouth.

Honestly uploading this was a mistake for the fact that it'll just cause a shitstorm

PopsiclePete said:
Honestly uploading this was a mistake for the fact that it'll just cause a shitstorm

Yes, I agree.

Deer lord even my porn isn't safe from this crap.

theres no price on this unicorn ych image wtf

memeboy said:
theres no price on this unicorn ych image wtf

Where can I buy this?

/dev/null said:
e621 gone political. Are we allowed to post Michael Ramirez now? It's hate speech set next to a cute picture of a unicorn, and I'm not sure how the former fits in with e621.

Thankfully, the political discussion's been quite tame.
As for the post itself, it hasn't been approved or deleted yet, so we'll have to find if this goes through. We have a 9/11 tag and other, more...controversial coughgratercough images on here, so I wouldn't count on this being removed.

Plus, given that this site has an archivist purpose, I don't think they would or should move images inside your name for political reasons.

i mean Tir asked for it when uploading this little gem of horse shit, excuse the pun

"DONT PUT EMOTIONS OVER FACTS UWU" being trans is literally, even if you look at it as a mental illness, psychological. AKA, emotions play a big part. Science changes, that's the point of science. It's so fucking embarrassing being part of a fandom that has so many people that share these terrible ideals.

VR-AI-NS said:
The artist is not implying that being trans is harmful to children. They are implying that NORMALIZING it and acting as though being uncomfortable with your gender, and hating yourself for it should be a normal thing and that making people want to change their gender is more damaging to them than simply helping them accept the one they are biologically assigned, similarly to how trying to teach people growing up to be uncomfortable with their sexual orientation and having them try to change it is damaging.

The artist is simply stating that the trans movement is getting it backwards. Rather than telling people to accept how they were born, they are now telling people to try and change their gender into something more unique, rather than being comfortable with how they naturally are: Male or Female. While I support the trans community, I very seriously think they're doing more damage than good by telling young people, or people in general, to not identify as their biological gender. Just replace "gender" with "sexual orientation" and you'll realize just how backwards the gender movement is.

"You were born straight, and always identified that way? But you could be gay! Or bi. Or Pansexual, or a plethora of other things. Why just settle for straight? Try dating people of the same sex, and intersex and transgender people."

"You were born white? but you could be black!"
anyways. most people in the trans community aren't saying "kids, defy your sex!" they are saying that "kids, some people are like this and we have to accept their differences." If the kid sees a transgender person and questions their gender, it is on the parents to help them find what makes them comfortable. The trans community is not responsible for children that are influenced by its existence. As for normalizing gender dysphoria, refer to what I said above. We literally just wish to be accepted for who we are. If you think every single transgender person and activist is someone who forces everyone they see to not be cis, get the fuck off r/tumblrinaction and actually look at the LGBT community. Transphobia is not interchangeable with homophobia. Trans people are not evil predators that want children to hate themselves. Just replace zoophile with furry and see how fucked up the furry fandom is! "Furries want to fuck dogs!" How about some logic I've heard? Replace black with white and see how reverse racism is real! "Black people enslaved white people and abused them, and regarded them as subhuman!" Forms of bigotry are not the same. If you support the trans community, fucking act like it and listen to us. If you have a problem with trans people wanting to be acknowledged, I don't know how to change your mind.

your opinion is a demand. Lol.

This picture should have an entire wing in the Smithsonian dedicated to how much salt it produced

Knotty_Curls said:
hello imma bird

Hello, bird.
It's nice to see you watching out for us.

DH said:
Deer lord even my porn isn't safe from this crap.

Welcome to the fresh new hell of Identity Politics

Also - Dictatorship of the small minority

This post isn't particularly intelligent.

Has nobody noticed either a) the apparent conflation of sex and gender b) the lack of relevance between the two assertions? At least get this right to start, or you're not making any case at all.

Since I haven't seen the source I'm not going to speculate on what alleged 'abuse' is going on here, nor am I going to comment on the exact relationship between "sex" and "gender", which is obviously heavily contested. I will merely note the obvious: that if true, the statement that 99.8% of all people are cis-gendered ought to have no bearing on how the other 0.2% should identify. I trust that this is not the thrust of this post, though if it isn't, then we lack the context from which to deduce this, hence the salt.

As for the first claim, which should properly read: There are two sexes, this is not entirely untrue; pretty much our entire taxonomic Kingdom relies on sexual dimorphism. When conceived, most animals will have an embryological process whereby they undergo a form of sexual differentiation. For humans, this starts at around 6-8 weeks gestation. Rarely but most definitely, this process doesn't always proceed as planned, so a person's sexual differentiation is not guaranteed and you get various degrees of unintended intersex conditions (most notably seen in elite athletes of questionable sex), and in the most rare of cases, true hermaphroditisim. This doesn't mean that we aren't *trying* to be either of two sexes, of course. If you want to know more about exactly where your sex comes from after you're given your chromosomes, and where it might go wrong, look up Wallerian degeneration. But as I already said, this is not the same process as that which governs gender identity.

Regardless of how you identify, how you think others should identify, or how you think others should identify you, it pays to learn facts so you don't end up adding nonsense to an already jumbled discussion.

A-T-S said:
Made extra hilarious by the fact that this shit is being done by a shota artist, yeah he definitely knows what's harmful to children...

im sure the paper its drawn on is very hurt :l

If mere smallness of number is enough to say that somebody shouldn't have civil rights and ought to be treated by shit by their government, then that would also mean open season on American Indians (<10% of the overall population), Jewish-Americans (ditto), deaf people (ditto), the blind (ditto), Americans identifying as atheist/agnostic (ditto), and a whole buttload of other groups.

And if we're arguing mere inconvenience, well, that's pretty horrifying for anybody who in any way doesn't meet the general stereotype of normalcy, from a fellow using crutches that needs help getting doors open to a deaf woman using an electronic aid to browze the internet to whomever else.

The last that I can really say and see is this: Is it really too Goddamn hard to just have an overall principle of treating everybody with decency and respect even if they happen to have some physical difference from their biological sex (and I don't see how that violates the sense of there being two genders only one bit)?

treos said:
still, it's nice to be on the sidelines watching the storm develop sometimes.

Grab some popcorn. There may be a second round.

BlueDingo said:
Did you just compare physical disabilities to a mental disorder?

If you actually read what I wrote before you replied, then you'd see that I mentioned minority group status in general and listed religious groups, ethnic groups, and more.

As far as a "biological disorder" in the medical sense goes, then that's a broad thing that includes a lot of people from those with chronic migraine headaches to those with blindness caused by a chemical imbalance to those with severe depression to people with gender identity struggles to a lot of other individuals: the brain is an organ, and like any other organ (bladder, heart, spleen, etc) it has difficulties often. Yes. I don't see the point that you're making at all.

If someone has X medical condition causing them suffering, then it would be prudent to give them an Y treatment in order to relieve that suffering and restore them to a sense where every part of their body is in homogeneous working order... what's wrong with that?

kitsuneyoukai said:
im sure the paper its drawn on is very hurt :l

I just find it funny that a guy whose fetish is literally child abuse is pretending that teaching children facts is harmful.

How about the people who are born with both or none?

I say it can be mental thing,
or a "I was born in the wrong body" thing.
Even tho I think that happens when you had both genders
but mommy and daddy mistakenly clip off or plug up the wrong gender.

as I heard stories a woman's brain becoming a man's,
and a man's brain becoming a women's.

as for the children let them choose, not force upon them,
that's easy common sense, and let them be who they are
and see if they change their minds or not way later on.

someone should upload the other version

Tagging ambiguous_gender.

I see we have some context now. This is where it gets interesting, as I'm now able to comment on the gender part:

The issue is gender and the social constructionist propagnda associated with the topic. All of this is pushed under the guise of compassion towards transgender individuals, which is complete nonsense. Gender is not a spectrum, trans people feel they are the other gender than that with which they were born.

While the 'social constructionist propaganda' objection is very understandable, the assertion we should always assume there are two *genders* is not uncontroversial and also, if you think about it, part of a social constructionist propaganda, only it's an incumbent one that's been around since unscientific and unenlightened times of past millenia. Certain health services still operate under this presumption and therefore the traditional criteria for diagnosing transgender conditions and gender dysphoria, insisting upon a dichotomous gender model. But more recently a growing subset of patients are being turned away from this service, leading to the creation of what was initially termed "third gender", which is a misnomer. As to whether it is, as some people accuse, some 'cry for attention' or 'being contrarian for its own sake', a byproduct of frustrated self-expression that more properly belongs to another domain, or whether we really have been going about tying gender to biological sex incorrectly, is part of an evolving discussion in which no matter what you say, the inability to be flexible will result in hurting somebody regardless of which way you won't bend. Which is where I feel the poster falls flat, if it purported to be truly advocating for transgender wellbeing.

The more proper question is not so much about whether gender itself belongs on a spectrum, but perhaps more about the spectrum of how strongly attached or repulsed one is to their sexual identity. By way of example, I'd technically be cis-male, but I view the ability to identify as that as a matter of convenience or even privilege. Being male doesn't bother me, and I'm aware of a lot of ideas about what it may or may not entail, but I don't think these ideas are necessarily objective or concrete and that it should restrict the scope of my behaviour. Other men may disagree, but they often find themselves distressed at the notion of their failed masculinity and react poorly to this kind of open discourse about gender.

Framing the question correctly is important because we're able to maintain the integrity of the definition of transgendered people who are actively repulsed and distressed by the notion of their biological sex (which in turn is important in terms of establishing clear criteria for definitive treatment i.e. gender reassignment), and allow for a proper examination of everything in between. It would ideally also free us from the fractious tribalism that is increasingly rampant: this may appear to be progressive edgy stuff but it's as tainted by our reactionary human natures as much as anything else. It's not about defining forty genders. It's about finding a better way to signal with our language that there's nothing wrong with being something that ought not to be wrong.

If the tl;dr of my first comment was: know your facts before talking shit, the tl;dr of this one is: see the bigger picture before taking a shot or you might commit friendly fire.

Munkelzahn said:
someone should upload the other version

here we go... and original pic set as the parent post. yeah...nothing could possibly go wrong with this...right?

and i thought bluedingo was looking for trouble with that the_truth tag here... not like your suggestion will be any better. lol

I'm just waiting for the r34 of the unicorn to show up.

I just skipped the comments so I can say this:
there's actually 3 possible genders to be born with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

aaaaaaand I'll see myself out

HeartSoul said:
I just skipped the comments so I can say this:
there's actually 3 possible genders to be born with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

aaaaaaand I'll see myself out

nope, intersex isn't a 3rd gender.

memeboy said:
theres no price on this unicorn ych image wtf

the only good comment here

HeartSoul said:
I just skipped the comments so I can say this:
there's actually 3 possible genders to be born with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

aaaaaaand I'll see myself out

Gender != sex. Also if we want to talk sexual characteristics then there's actually more than two sexes in humans as we've observed varying degrees of intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions.

A-T-S said:
Gender != sex. Also if we want to talk sexual characteristics then there's actually more than two sexes in humans as we've observed varying degrees of intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions.

um, no. males have gonads, females have ovaries, hermaphrodites have both but that isn't a 3rd sex, it just means they have both reproductive systems at the same time.

A-T-S said:
Gender != sex. Also if we want to talk sexual characteristics then there's actually more than two sexes in humans as we've observed varying degrees of intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions.

>intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions

No. They're disorders. If someone has an ear growing out of their neck, that's not some kind of "evolution".

Let it be known I do not say the word disorder as a way to belittle or demean anyone. I say it because that's what it is.

One thing that's pretty weird in Roarey et al using transgender suicide as some kind of a bludgeon to criticize them (and I see this as a criticism thrown at a lot of other groups with higher suicide rates in the U.S., from mixed-race children to people who are really poor to kids of divorced parents etc) is: why is someone being so depressed that they to want to commit suicide viewed as a negative moral failing on them?

That doesn't really make any sense at all. It doesn't apply to any other personal health issue that causes pain. It's so weird.

Why is being in pain bad enough to want to end it by any means necessary some kind of a character flaw? Where does this weird logic come from? Why is this viewed through a moral lens and not a scientific one?

Normally, even if somebody has a medical problem that they've contributed to by their actions, you still show empathy for them. Nobody goes to people in a cancer ward with diseased lungs going "Well, it's just desserts for smoking all of those cigarettes." And yet it's standard when talking about somebody in the hospital in terms of suicide to be like "Well, it's just desserts for choosing to be depressed." It's hard enough to even get why depression is assumed to be some kind of a choice like what shirt to wear in the morning or whatever-- isn't it obvious that personal health doesn't work that way?

Can anyone here explain to this morality to me?

P.S. I guess this applies as well to people born with autism and/or schizophrenia as well somewhat, but then the stereotype there that I see is that "those people are violent therefore dangerous". Which isn't true at all factually, statistics saying that if anything an autistic guy is more likely to be a criminal victim than otherwise for one, but at least the if-then logic of the false stereotype makes sense (being paranoid of X hurting you will make you pre-disposed to hate X people).

Remember not even a few years ago when things like this werent being taken so seriously and to heart?

I figured I would see a lot of garbage masquerading as people here, and I wasn't disappointed.

From being shit to people for no good reason (perpetuating ignorance and hate that contributes towards people's suffering and then blaming those people for suffering is a nice one two combo of gross shit), to pretending they have some kind of healthcare or scientific consensus when they have neither (citation healthcare: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx ) (citation scientific: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/ ).

High_Botanist_Telarn said:
Remember not even a few years ago when things like this werent being taken so seriously and to heart?

Unfortunately, radicals are both motivated to polarize dialogs and skilled at doing so.

HeartSoul said:
I just skipped the comments so I can say this:
there's actually 3 possible genders to be born with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

aaaaaaand I'll see myself out

why all the donvotes? I never took any side on the argument. personally, if someone wants to change their gender, let them. I'm not going to get butthurt because some guy wishes he had boobs or a woman wished for a penis. We have the technology to do that, why prohibit them? I'm fine with being the same gender I was born with, but that doesn't mean I want people to be exactly the same gender they were born with. all I did was simply point out that there were more than two genders.

A-T-S said:
Gender != sex. Also if we want to talk sexual characteristics then there's actually more than two sexes in humans as we've observed varying degrees of intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions.

I can admit to being a bit wrong there, as intersex isn't exactly a "gender," but it's also something to point out every time someone points out there's strictly two genders.
I never said gender = Sex, I simply was proving a point that there is not only two genders. I know Gender is only the physical characteristics of the person, while Sex is how someone perceives themselves as. If someone's sees themselves as a diferent gender than they are born with, I say support them n the decision, but make it clear that what they decide can change the course of their life forever.

TheTundraTerror said:
>intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions

No. They're disorders. If someone has an ear growing out of their neck, that's not some kind of "evolution".

Let it be known I do not say the word disorder as a way to belittle or demean anyone. I say it because that's what it is.

nothing wrong with that, but having a extra ear doesn't really qualify as a gender disorder, as it's more likely you got a "inferior twin" stuck in your body.
Also, Disorders are mainly qualified for characteristics that can harm a organism. Take London's Pepper Moths as a example. Gray moths used to be considered a disorder for moths since it can't camoflauge them against the white oaks. As time went on, pollution blackened the trees, and soon it was the white moths that were considered Disorders. Now, I'm not saying we need to have a world cataclysm that'll make Hermaphrodites the top "gender," the point of this particular paragraph is that with the current way the Theory of Evolution is, Disorders = Evolution

huh...2 days and has anyone stopped to look through the tags on this pic? lol there's one that could potentially lead to even more lol_comments material. mainly cause it's true.

I'm nonbinary and I agree. (With the description obviously.)

procrastinator said:
words

I understand that diagnosis of autism, schizophrenia, and other category labels are something that happens in childhood and later adolescence and aren't simply just 'nature' but some combination of 'nature plus nurture together', likely.

The larger point here, though, is that labels such as "autistic", "schizophrenic", "transgender", etc-- and "disordered" plus "mentally ill" more generally-- are claimed to be non-pejorative but in regular speech are used as signs of disdain.

It's such a weird situation since normally somebody with an issue with X medical trouble-- if X is lung cancer, hemophilia, migraines, or whatever the hell-- is seen as a person struggling to overcome and therefore lauded. But then some category label such as "autistic" and "transgender" is a kind of Scarlet Letter to be worn everywhere as a badge of moral inferiority-- and there's a reduction of the person to be something like an object, to be feared as dangerous and weird. It bothers me honestly more in terms of people with autism versus transgender people since the stereotype of autistic individuals is that they're supposedly violent-- when there's jack-shit in terms of factual evidence, and actually they're more likely than not to be victims of crime. Ugh.

SwiperTheFox said:

words

I understand that diagnosis of autism, schizophrenia, and other category labels are something that happens in childhood and later adolescence and aren't simply just 'nature' but some combination of 'nature plus nurture together', likely.

The larger point here, though, is that labels such as "autistic", "schizophrenic", "transgender", etc-- and "disordered" plus "mentally ill" more generally-- are claimed to be non-pejorative but in regular speech are used as signs of disdain.

It's such a weird situation since normally somebody with an issue with X medical trouble-- if X is lung cancer, hemophilia, migraines, or whatever the hell-- is seen as a person struggling to overcome and therefore lauded. But then some category label such as "autistic" and "transgender" is a kind of Scarlet Letter to be worn everywhere as a badge of moral inferiority-- and there's a reduction of the person to be something like an object, to be feared as dangerous and weird. It bothers me honestly more in terms of people with autism versus transgender people since the stereotype of autistic individuals is that they're supposedly violent-- when there's jack-shit in terms of factual evidence, and actually they're more likely than not to be victims of crime. Ugh.

What do you mean by "Scarlet Letter"? I tried looking it up but only found the movie and an out of context UrbanDictionary term.

Siral_Exan said:
What do you mean by "Scarlet Letter"? I tried looking it up but only found the movie and an out of context UrbanDictionary term.

I'm using it in the metaphorical context to mean "an sign that tells people not to associate or interact with you", like:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10623/what-does-become-a-scarlet-letter-mean-for-a-senator-who-took-advantage-of-the (first answer)

Metaphor like how the Washington Post used.

SwiperTheFox said:
I'm using it in the metaphorical context to mean "an sign that tells people not to associate or interact with you", like:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10623/what-does-become-a-scarlet-letter-mean-for-a-senator-who-took-advantage-of-the (first answer)

Metaphor like how the Washington Post used.

Oh. Thank you.

TheTundraTerror said:
>intersex and hermaphrodite evolutions

No. They're disorders. If someone has an ear growing out of their neck, that's not some kind of "evolution".

Let it be known I do not say the word disorder as a way to belittle or demean anyone. I say it because that's what it is.

The only difference between an evolution and a genetic disorder is now widespread it becomes. While it may be a disorder in humans many other species have evolved to the point where it's common. Several species like snails are completely hermaphroditic, other animals like clownfish are actually able to change their sex.

..Now I wish we had a "controversial" tag.

A-T-S said:
The only difference between an evolution and a genetic disorder is how widespread it becomes.

Why is this being downvoted? This is about as correct as you can get without regurgitating formal definitions of mutations: beneficial functional mutations persist and increase in prevalence. It's just that, as I said before, failures of sexual differentiation have an infinitesimal likelihood of becoming well represented because they're mostly non-functional. Not to mention that intersex conditions the poster was referring to earlier aren't actually the result of a genetic disorder, like sex chromosomal abnormalities (the majority of which also are infertile).

SwiperTheFox said:
It's such a weird situation since normally somebody with an issue with X medical trouble-- if X is lung cancer, hemophilia, migraines, or whatever the hell-- is seen as a person struggling to overcome and therefore lauded.

To be clear, I'm ignoring all the things you've said which I agree with. Your overall point is, well, completely on point and people would do well to remember it.

What I'm doing here however is not to detract from what you're saying, but being annoying and nit-picky about all the tangential stuff because facts and maybe possibly being able to refine your examples so other people don't try to drag you back off point later down the track, for example:

Lung cancer- actually heavily stigmatised due to association with smoking, except people don't know that the more common kind of lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, isn't actually associated with smoking. It's the squamous cell and small cell that are. On that note, the stigma manifests in the distribution of health-funding grants for research: among cancers, lung cancer is very poorly represented in grants given and therefore treatment advancements compared to a lot of less common cancers. Part of this is due to scientific research funding being driven by government in many places which depends on an assessment of public interest.

To make this relevant to what you were saying, there's an element of rationale here that somebody being responsible for their illness/condition abrogates the public responsibility for bearing the resource burden for their care. Currently, the way the debate is being framed, a lot of people are implicitly pushing the line that people's expression of their gender is a personal choice, therefore the burden of responsibility lies upon them to conform for the convenience of the general population. The first part seems rational enough, but the latter is a paradoxical conclusion which only serves to underline the inherent monopoly of an unempathetic majority, particularly because it is indeed a smaller minority among us who have issues relating to our biological sex.

Right I've procrastinated long enough and should probably stop posting on this. All I can really say is some people should calm the fuck down and remember some first principles:

• Sex is biology. Biology has strong tendencies supported by evolutionary processes which don't always work as intended
• Gender is a concept of identity which may or may not align with our biology
• You're not actually obliged to identify as a biological sex or even identify as the same thing for all life
• Etiquette dictates that people should listen to each other and not yell over each other, and if you ignore this you're being rude, regardless of what sex you are and what gender you may or may not identify as

In operation: I don't actually care if you identify as an attack copter and for how long in your life you do that. If I speak to you more than once I'll try to refer to you as your preferred pronoun, whatever that may be, though if it's easier I'll just refer to you by name. If you're just doing this in an attempt to make my life difficult that's your problem, not mine. And if I get it wrong, you've got about as much right to bite my head off as if I accidentally referred to a he as a she and vice-versa, which is to say, it was an honest mistake, get over it.

procrastinator said:
(except oh noooo we won't be using a generic "he", maybe a generic "they" lol).

You mean singular they. They is already generic. The majority of people are not going to use the same pronoun for a single person as they do multiple objects, plus the generic he is an actual thing that people do when gender is unknown or absent (eg. Yoshis are canonically genderless but Nintendo almost always uses male pronouns for them regardless).

lol

Honestly who gives a shit about this. i just wanna look at cats with fat asses and meme shit.

treos said:
nope, intersex isn't a 3rd gender.

I've always thought of hermaphrodites as being a gender by themselves though. Like, I know doctors confer with the parents on what gender they want the child to be if that happens, but I think that hermaphrodite should be in its own little sub-category. Don't get me wrong, Im not supporting the other 20 genders that just popped up in the last 5 years. All I know is that having both sets of reproductive organs is pretty big.

NineyWhoovesButt said:
>Literally calls trying to teach kids what Transgender means "Abuse"
>"This isn't even anti-trans"

post #777111

Hey guys! I'm reading the comments again and I've decided that all furries should be exterminated! As a fandom, we are fucking despicable pieces of shit! I'm taking up my picket and going to the white house in an attempt to get all furries killed. Thanks!

boondeb said:
Hey guys! I'm reading the comments again and I've decided that all furries should be exterminated! As a fandom, we are fucking despicable pieces of shit! I'm taking up my picket and going to the white house in an attempt to get all furries killed. Thanks!

Because calling for genocide is totally not gonna piss everyone off.

taylorkingct said:
Honestly who gives a shit about this. i just wanna look at cats with fat asses and meme shit.

You can only do that because you're cis-privileged!

Pretty ironic statement coming from a furry.

Clitheroe said:
I'm sure that the only reason this was uploaded to the site was to stir up comment drama and make us look bad.

Whatever happened to, you know... Good ol' furry porn, bad dragon dildos, and cheese graters?

No... PLEASE... ANYTHING but CHEESE GRATERS...!

Somewhere out there are a bunch of Eunuchs laughing their ass off.

Well this is some hot garbage. I love how I can't even browse porn without people spewing hateful garbage everywhere.

BTW http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_qa.shtml

"Intersex patients, people who are both male and female, believe they should be treated on an individual basis, depending on their exact condition. Many intersex patients are angry that their gender was chosen for them and believe that children now should be brought up as intersex and allowed to choose their own gender and surgery, if appropriate, at a later stage."

*looks at top comments*
”These aren’t to bad”
*checks just above comments*
[18 comments below threshhold]
”Oh...”

Knotty_Curls said:
hello imma bird

LMAO!

Lance_Armstrong said:
Tagging ambiguous_gender.

Never before have I lol’ed at that comment...

Here is a lesson in programming

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
*looks at top comments*
”These aren’t to bad”
*checks just above comments*
[18 comments below threshhold]
”Oh...”

Welcome to the shitshow. Try not to slip in the puddles of salty water.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Here is a lesson in programming

I remember that video.

But sex and gender are two entirely different things, that's where most people seem confused. Nobody said there was an additional sex, or infinite sexes.

A-T-S said:
Made extra hilarious by the fact that this shit is being done by a shota artist, yeah he definitely knows what's harmful to children...

Why are you booking them? They're right.

god im so hard right now

Hello. Imma boi.

These chips are good

BlueDingo said:
You mean singular they. They is already generic. The majority of people are not going to use the same pronoun for a single person as they do multiple objects, plus the generic he is an actual thing that people do when gender is unknown or absent (eg. Yoshis are canonically genderless but Nintendo almost always uses male pronouns for them regardless).

Actually singular they is old,being used by Emily Dickinson in a letter in 1881. And english usage of a "third gender" dates back to the 17 century.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they

Can we agree that transgender and transsexual are two different things

Roarey draws sexual content of children and is gonna say "the TR*nnies are hurting our children" because..... Self-awareness I guess.

I don't understand why it's a big deal for the far right that Trans people want to be respected. They didn't care at all until the LGBT push for equality started, now they have a whole list of talking points to push hatred and inequality. You know, the right USED to be about only perpetuating the status quo, now it's about fighting back against any human progress. Frankly, it's disgusting and so are the people that are a part of it.

It's important to realize how far right the 'mainstream' right in America has shifted over the past century as well. Not only is rightwing terrorism on the rise, but active dehumanization and advocation of violence is now becoming normalized with Trump.

You think this guy would have learned he isn't liked by now

A_raccoondude said:
Drawings don't hurt people

I'm a lolicon/cub and it's not like I'm going to rape a kid, lol

Keep telling yourself that dude. Just don't walk near a child, or I'll have some "words" with you

popsiclepete said:
This isn't even anti-trans.

Roarey is very well known to be anti trans. And this is anti trans.

Not only are you a bigot, youre a circus of bigots

lmao this guy is a fucking treasure trove of bad takes

And if you look to the right, you can clearly see what we call the ever so present "societal collapse", a mysterious occurrence of ideological battles against two creatures of vastly different extremes. Truly a sight to behold for the average apolitical creature.

(Fr though who cares what you do with your body or mind? As long as it makes you happy and you're not doing it for the sake of others, people should be free to do whatever they want with themselves)

treos said:
um, no. males have gonads, females have ovaries, hermaphrodites have both but that isn't a 3rd sex, it just means they have both reproductive systems at the same time.

I know this whole thread is an ancient shitshow, but technically "gonads" refer to the reproductive organs of both sexes that actually produces the sex cells, IE the testicles and ovaries.

Mind you I'm a trans woman and I think this whole deal is just a disaster. Y'all are drama queens on both sides. Mostly the phobes tho. Chillax.

Real people suffer when bigotry flourishes. Bigots are scum, hard stop.

I don't exactly remember how I found myself in this rabbit hole of a comment section a few months ago, but since I remembered this existed I'm throwing my own hat in the ring.

But First

user_281271 said:
anyways. most people in the trans community aren't saying "kids, defy your sex!" they are saying that "kids, some people are like this and we have to accept their differences." If the kid sees a transgender person and questions their gender, it is on the parents to help them find what makes them comfortable. The trans community is not responsible for children that are influenced by its existence. As for normalizing gender dysphoria, refer to what I said above. We literally just wish to be accepted for who we are. If you think every single transgender person and activist is someone who forces everyone they see to not be cis, get the fuck off r/tumblrinaction and actually look at the LGBT community. Transphobia is not interchangeable with homophobia. Trans people are not evil predators that want children to hate themselves. If you support the trans community, fucking act like it and listen to us. If you have a problem with trans people wanting to be acknowledged, I don't know how to change your mind.

First, I wish this user still had their account active so they could understand how things have changed (Probably unaware what's happening). And like I said in the disclaimer, the majority of people there aren't like that, but like all groups, there's always someone to ruin it for everyone else.

In conclusion, there are the bad sides for the group if you look for it and those freaks are giving a bad look to the group as a whole. And again I don't have problems for the regular ones that aren't doing any of the bad stuff. I believe I may have even came across one of those nice ones during my job and I'm none the wiser. I could've had this way more opiniated than just slapping on some video links, but I'm sure I already come off as a prick or a know it all without even trying to do so.