Scott75

I have to admit that last line made me laugh :-p. I don't think they should actually do that, but I -do- think that they jump to conclusions far too often and hope that they'll try to be more cautious as to what they think they know in the future.

The word "Tranny" fits. It fits because the trannies have gotten aggressive. Insulting people that you think have gotten "aggressive", as you put it, is hardly a way to resolve things. Now, I certainly wouldn't deny that transgender people, and others in the LGBTQ community, have gotten more vocal about being treated fairly, and this could certainly be seen as aggressive if you'd like these people to "stay in their lane" as someone here (you?) put it. All of this reminds me of things that were said to black people who refused to do what they were told to do by white people, such as the case of Rosa Parks. There's a word similar in some senses to aggressive that was frequently used- these black people were being "uppity". The term has an interesting history. From the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition: ** adjective Haughty or presumptuous, especially for one's rank or social standing. ** Wiktionary really spells it out, as well as other codewords that have since replaced it for the most part: ** This term has historically been used in America to describe black people who were considered to be acting above "their place", and is considered by some to have racist connotations when applied to people of color; sometimes arrogant and presumptuous, invoking the same idea, are used as codewords for it.[3][4][5] ** I imagine "aggressive" could be used as well, both for people that consider that blacks have refused to "stay in their lane" as well as others who people dislike, such as members of the LGBTQ community.

Well, he had a point when he pointed out that I was jumping to a conclusion myself when it came to what Michael meant in post #625. I'd say it was an well educated guess, but the fact remains that I don't know for sure. So I sent Michael a message asking if he could clarify what he meant.

Interesting... as you are here jumping to conclusions about what he meant. Your response made me smile :-p. You're right, I'm not completely sure what Michael meant. It reminds me of a line I once made up: "A theory is an educated guess, as far as one's education goes". In any case, I'm going to ask Michael if he could weigh in on what he meant, let's see if he does.

Lies and lies and propaganda... You're convincing no one. Enjoy your pastime. No lie. See you next time you pretend this is not happening and only get upset at those who call it out... User, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions. Michael has made it quite clear that he's -not- in favour of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers and transition surgery, such as in post #737. You need to read better. He called it lies and propaganda that kids were getting these surgeries. I've read what Michael said in response to your post #624. You have clearly jumped to conclusions as to what he meant. For the audience, User stated the following in post #624, in response to a post from Michael: ** Oh, I am sure you will pretend like you don't know what we are talking about in many more threads. You will decry the culture wars only when we fight back, and ignore children being butchered and coerced into being butchered, drugged, and given "gender affirming" care... ** Michael responded in post #625 with the following: ** Lies and lies and propaganda... ** User then jumped to the conclusion that Michael "called it lies and propaganda that kids were getting these surgeries". User's problem here is that Michael clearly said no such thing. Now, one can certainly argue that Michael's statement was vague, but having spoken to Michael a fair amount of time, I'd say that what he -meant- was that the post User was posting was full of untruthful statements. I think one statement that he probably took particular offense towards was User's statement that he ignores "children being butchered and coerced into being butchered, drugged, and given "gender affirming" care".

Oh, I am sure you will pretend like you don't know what we are talking about in many more threads. You will decry the culture wars only when we fight back, and ignore children being butchered and coerced into being butchered, drugged, and given "gender affirming" care... Lies and lies and propaganda... You're convincing no one. Enjoy your pastime. No lie. See you next time you pretend this is not happening and only get upset at those who call it out... User, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions. Michael has made it quite clear that he's -not- in favour of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers and transition surgery, such as in post #737.

Both the Phoenix and the river Styx have elements in common. For starters, they are both associated with life and death, the Phoenix being a creature that is reborn upon its death and the river Styx being the boundary between the world of the living and the world of the dead. This is actually not why I chose to mix the Phoenix and the river Styx in my moniker though. The reason had to do with a book I read which seemed to suggest that the concept of Hell originated from a place in Greece, and that an underground series of caverns with a river in it is where the original river Styx came from. I'm no longer sure where I read all of this, but I -think- it was in Michael Bagent's book The Jesus Papers.

I never said the debates on trannies is over, I'm just saying that their agenda is overreach and it needs to be put back in its place. The fight will be ongoing, and I expect morality to win this one. First of all, there's no need to insult transgender people. For those who don't know, the term tranny/trannies is generally considered to be an insult at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny Secondly, I've seen no evidence transgender people don't have a unified agenda. As to overreach, we agree that some things, such as transitioning hormones/hormone blockers and surgery is generally not a good thing, at least for minors. We clearly disagree on other issues. I also expect morality will win, we just have different ideas on what is moral on a lot of things in this area.

I find it rather comical that you think there's some sort of spell check for online monikers :-p. While I was certainly inspired in part by the mythical creature called the Phoenix, as well as Marvel's incarnation of this creature, I put the y in there for a different reason, having to do with the river Styx. Anyway, I've now switched to the name I go by in my daily life, as I've come to the conclusion that my reasons for initially going with Phoenyx are outweighed by how it's been received.

What problem do you think I am creating? Oh, OK. So you don't think there is a problem that requires calling normal people cis now. Great. Glad you agree. You are aware that there is a difference between there being a problem and me creating one, right?

Well medical experts are divided. Not sure what you want to do about that. More discussions I think. More articles like the one I linked to previously. For the audience, that would be this one: https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/ Could you elaborate on what principles you're referring to?

You seem to think that because there is no standard box for cis in forms, this means that the vast majority of people would mind trans people saying they are the gender they identify with. If that is what you're suggesting, you've presented no evidence for this. You are conflating two different things: Calling normal people cis, and having a problem with trans people calling themselves male or female. Show me the evidence you have for why this is a problem that needs to be solved with calling normal people cis. You have presented none. First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're going to call normal people cis, the implication is that trans people are abnormal. Your problem is that you seem to want to keep on forgetting that not everyone defines male and female the way you do. If a person defines a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman, then looking women in a dating app may yield some results one would like to avoid. By simply allowing a second word to define the -category- of women one is looking for, such as cis, one could resolve this problem.

Since they have to approve the surgery, I disagree. They're certainly an -integral- part of the issue, but I think what I quoted after the sentence you quoted is crucial. Those who'd like to see the actual quote can go back to the post Michael was responding to, but the gist of it is that many parents who agree to allow their children to get transgender hormones/hormone blockers and surgery rely on what some here might call "medical experts" (I'm definitely thinking of robosmith here, he seems to have a real thing for such people). For a long time now, I think that people place -way- too much trust in such people and the results can frequently be quite tragic.

Agreed. I think tatoos are generally -much- less impactful then transgender surgery. From the article I linked to, it doesn't appear to be the parents that are the main issue here. From the article I referenced in my previous post: ** Although medical intervention for minors requires parental consent, many mothers and fathers approve surgery and hormone therapy at the recommendation of affirming medical professionals or even out of fear their child might self-harm if denied treatment. “It’s very hard for parents to know exactly how to evaluate their own kids, and they rely quite heavily on experts to tell them,” said Jane Wheeler, a former regulatory health-care attorney who founded Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, a non-profit that promotes ethical, evidence-based care and treatment for dysphoric children. “There’s obviously a lot of concern about the capacity for the adolescent or minor to fully appreciate what medicalization really means.” Medical professionals typically follow the affirmative-care model, which is supported by the American Psychological Association, validating a patient’s expressed gender identity regardless of their age. As a result, detransitioners frequently report that getting prescriptions is a breeze. A total of 55% said their medical evaluations felt inadequate, according to Dr. Littman’s survey. In Helena’s case, all it took to get a testosterone prescription was one trip to Planned Parenthood when she was 18. She said she was given four times the typical starting dose by a nurse practitioner in less than an hour, without ever seeing a doctor. Chloe said she was fast-tracked through her entire transition — from blockers to a mastectomy — in just two years, with parental consent. The only pushback she said she encountered came from the first endocrinologist she saw, who agreed to prescribe her puberty blockers but not testosterone when she was 13. But she said she went to another doctor who gave her the prescription with no trouble. “Because all the therapists and specialists followed the affirmative care model, there wasn’t a lot of gate-keeping throughout the whole transition process,” she recalled. “The professionals all seemed to push medical transition, so I thought it was the only path for me to be happy.” Evans, the author of “Gender Dysphoria: A Therapeutic Model for Working with Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults,” now runs his own private practice with his wife in Beckenham, England, where he helps parents struggling with how to address their children’s dysphoria. A variety of studies suggest that as many as 80% of dysphoric children could ultimately experience “desistance”— or coming to terms with their biological gender without resorting to transition. Which is why many professionals like Evans think it’s wise to hold off on potentially irreversible medical intervention for as long as possible. “I’m not against transition. I just don’t think kids can give informed consent.” ** Some other very interesting things from the article on consequences of transition therapy: ** For those who ultimately end up regretting their transition, the consequences of hormone therapy and surgery can be devastating. For Helena, testosterone caused emotional instability that culminated with two hospitalizations for self-harm. While in the hospital she came to the realization that her transition was a mistake. “I saw a montage of photos of me, and when I saw how much my face changed and how unhappy I looked, I realized this was all f****d up and I shouldn’t have done it. It was a really dark time.” Chloe said testosterone altered her bone structure, permanently sharpening her jawline and broadening her shoulders. She said she also struggles with increased body and facial hair. She has a large scar across her chest from her mastectomy, which disturbed her about surgery. “The recovery was a very graphic process, and it was definitely something I wasn’t prepared for,” she said. “I couldn’t even bear to look at myself sometimes. It would make me nauseous.” Gravest of all concerns is her fertility. Although she’d like to have children one day, Chloe doesn’t know whether the viability of her eggs was compromised by years of testosterone injections. She’s working with doctors to find out, and her medical future is uncertain. “I’m still in the dark about the overall picture of my health right now,” she said. • • • The subject of detransitioning is often met with vitriol from the transgender activist community, which claims that stories like Chloe’s and Helena’s will be used to discredit the trans movement as a whole. This is understandable, although unlikely, as research reveals that up to 86% of trans adults feel that transitioning was the right long-term decision for them. But, as more and more children are entrusted to make serious medical decisions with permanent implications, the numbers of disaffected detransitioners is almost certain to grow. That’s why Dr. Anderson feels compelled to speak out on their behalf, as a transgender woman herself. “Some of my colleagues are worried that conversation about detransitioners is going to be more cannon fodder in the culture wars, but my concern is that if we don’t address these problems, there will be even more ammunition to criticize the appropriate work that I and other colleagues are doing.” And, like Anderson, these young people — who will forever live with the consequences of hasty transition — refuse to be silenced. “I want my voice to be heard,” said Chloe. “I don’t want history to repeat itself. I can’t let this happen to other kids.” **

Respectfully, I disagree. I think any transgender person who undergoes transition does it to be their authentic self. I know a lot of sources that say that this is true for the majority of people undergoing transgender surgery. But there are other cases that are definitely not in that category. I suspect the majority of these cases are where the person undergoing surgery is a minor. An article on this: https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

I was over 50 in 2020, so my wife and I were done having kids, and we had a lot less to lose than younger people from taking the jab. If it wasn't being forced on people I might have taken it, but I really objected the more and more the pushier they got, especially when all the things that they were saying were basically a mix of lies and drivel. I knew someone online who didn't take the covid vaccines for the exact same reason :-p. I lost touch with him, so I don't know if he eventually took them, but I remember him being suspicious of how pushy they were being. As I said, I've been an anti vaxxer, in the true sense the term, for a while now, so ofcourse I did my best to persuade him that they were terrible, but as to what he himself said was his biggest red flag, it was the official pushiness from establishment to take them.

I should probably mention that even when Covid started and I was quite scared of it (I still believed in biological viruses back then), the idea of taking any Covid vaccines never even entered my mind. My mother said that I reacted badly to vaccines when I was a kid and I haven't taken any since. Since Covid started, I've also read a lot more on vaccines, and they've just cemented my viewpoint that there are no good vaccines.

That's a big claim, but I think we certainly agree on the general outlines of the problem. Not really. It's pretty simple actually. The proof is right on health Canada's own site that covid deaths went from 15k to 14k to 19k. from 2020-2022. I can also show you what percent of covid deaths were happening among the multi-vaxed. Health Canada publiched that data as well. That's straight from Health Canada and there's no higher authority on the planet to give out that stat. Covid deaths absolutely were WAY higher in 2022. They were 24% higher than 2020 and 36% higher than in 2021. Biden said that the pandemic was over at the beginning of 2022, and our media in Canada wasn't talking about covid at all for the last 2/3 of 2022. About 86% of all covid deaths in Canada were among the multi-vaxed: If you do the math here, and subtract the total deaths in each column as of Aug 21st, from the total deaths in each column as of Sept 25th, you can plainly see that: during that period 85.7% of the new covid deaths came from the ranks of the dbl-, triple-, and quadruple-vaxed. There were 155 new unvaxed covid deaths, 122 new 2x-vaxed covid deaths, 482 new 3x-vaxed covid deaths, and 323 new quadruple-vaxed covid deaths. That's 1,082 new deaths, with 927 of them coming from the ranks of the multi-vaxed. 85.7%. Health Canada stopped publishing the "Covid deaths by vax status" stats after that Sept 25th report, as it was clearly not looking good for the jabs. There were very few 4xers in Canada at that point and they and the 3xers were dominating the new covid deaths stats. 19,716 people died of covid in Canada in 2022, and if only 80.6% of them were among the multi-vaxed (.806 x 19,716 = 15,891) then "there were more multi-vaxed covid deaths in 2022 than there were total deaths in either previous year". FACT. The charts that I posted were from statista, but they get those stats right from this Health Canada chart: The bottom right chart on this photo is the exact same data that's on the Statista graph for "Sept 25 2022". It's where they got it from. You can absolutely say that more jabbers died of covid in Canada in 2022 than the total number of covid deaths in either previous year. 100% true. It's not "a big claim", it's just the plain and simple truth. The folks at Health Canada absolutely know that, just no one is talking about it. My apologies, I didn't connect your first sentence in the quote above with your second. I thought you were talking about -all- of your claims, not just the ones you've made concerning Health Canada. Anyway, very interesting information, thanks for sharing. I may not have told you this, but around 2022, I came to believe that the alleged Covid virus doesn't exist. I'm not saying that the microbes that they take pictures of don't exist, just that they're not causing what the alleged Cov 2 virus does. I was first introduced to the idea that biological viruses don't exist by a journalist who used to exclusively cover the medical field. The funny thing is that she reverted to believing the biological viruses exist, while I found a group of doctors and other researchers that have become convinced that they don't. These doctors and researchers published a 2 page statement in July 2022 that I think is worth looking at. It can be seen here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/ I know that there are some people who can't fathom all biological viruses not being real, but -can- consider the possibility that the Cov 2 virus isn't real. For those people, I think the following article by a journalist named Iain Davis is good: https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

This isn't about changing anyone, this is about what labels we use for different categories of people. Secondly, I'm not advocating that terms like cisgender be used all the time, quite the reverse, I think they should be used sparingly, in situations where knowing whether someone is cisgender or transgender is important. The same goes for people who are transgender. In other cases, simply using the gender a person identifies with is sufficient. Yes, you certainly are trying to change normal people to be labeled cisgender. Labelling a person doesn't change the person. "Man" and "woman" are labels too. Terms like cisgender and transgender are just necessary to differentiate between people who may both identify as being of the male or female gender but whose biology doesn't necessarily match their gender identification. In many circumstances, such differentiation is unecessary. As I've said previously, I've lived in Mexico for 3 years now and I haven't used the spanish term for cisgender once. I didn't even know what it was until I looked it up recently.

I haven't always agreed with AOC, but I think that Democrats like her are the best in the party. I haven't fogotten that to win her seat, she had to beat one of the old Democrat dinosaurs that were definitely dragging the party down. Like Bernie Sanders, she was also critical of the Democrats mistakes shortly after Trump won the election. Time Magazine, which I definitely consider to be part of the establishment, made it clear in an article that both Bernie Sanders and AOC lobbed some shots at the Democratic establishment after the Democrats lost the election. Quoting from the article: ** On his own, Sanders would be easy to write-off. But he seldom stands solo. He has inspired a legion of supporters loyal to him, and he made progressive ideas less fringe and cringe than when he offered himself up as socialist alternative to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race. So threatened were Democrats in 2020 of a Sanders nomination, the primaries all but ended inside 48 hours when the party coalesced with shocking speed behind Joe Biden. And it’s why the grimace of gnashing over Sanders threatened to become a gush of self-introspection when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—a progressive paragon—picked up some of the rubble and amplified it in her own framing. Although Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez hit the trail in the end for Harris, it was clear they had their own lens on this puzzle. "Our main project is to unite the working class in this country against a fascist agenda. Period. We have had an enormous setback in this election because the fascist won a lot of working-class support, which has happened before in history,” AOC said on a live-stream later Wednesday evening. “I think what is important is that we have to be able to hold that analysis and have these discussions without turning on each other." An honest discussion about the Democrats’ future? Without turning on each other? That seems absolutely fanciful given the Establishment’s fresh wounds, deep animus toward the likes of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and a shaky alliance with members of The Squad. (In a particularly unhelpful move, Squad member Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American who represents the Muslim- and Arab-rich city of Dearborn, declined to endorse Harris—in part over the ongoing war in Gaza.) Ocasio-Cortez, who again called for a national $15 minimum wage and proposals for universal health care during her hour-long, direct-to-smartphone chat with supporters on Wednesday, kept the pressure on her party for not doing more to connect with the base, even as others in the party argue that their actual problem was too much deference to that side of the tent. “At the end of the day, the ultimate problem is our ability to clearly and forthrightly advocate for an agenda that clearly champions the working class,” she said. For their part, Establishment Democrats were having none of it and immediately pushed back on Sanders—but not explicitly against AOC, who remains a potent force and potentially national nominee. ** Source: https://time.com/7173985/trump-bernie-sanders-aoc-election/ I read your article, and it never says that AOC wants "full control" or anything like that. There is nothing wrong with wanting a media environment where "you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation" without consequences. The main issue is making sure that what is being targetted is actually disinformation and misinformation. I'll end this post with a quote from another article, this one from former New York Times writer Chris Hedges: ** In the end, the election was about despair. Despair over futures that evaporated with deindustrialization. Despair over the loss of 30 million jobs in mass layoffs. Despair over austerity programs and the funneling of wealth upwards into the hands of rapacious oligarchs. Despair over a liberal class that refuses to acknowledge the suffering it orchestrated under neoliberalism or embrace New Deal type programs that will ameliorate this suffering. Despair over the futile, endless wars, as well as the genocide in Gaza, where generals and politicians are never held accountable. Despair over a democratic system that has been seized by corporate and oligarchic power. This despair has been played out on the bodies of the disenfranchised through opioid and alcoholism addictions, gambling, mass shootings, suicides — especially among middle-aged white males — morbid obesity and the investment of our emotional and intellectual life in tawdry spectacles and the allure of magical thinking, from the absurd promises of the Christian right to the Oprah-like belief that reality is never an impediment to our desires. These are the pathologies of a deeply diseased culture, what Friedrich Nietzsche calls an aggressive despiritualized nihilism. Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay. He expresses a childish yearning to be an omnipotent god. This yearning resonates with Americans who feel they have been treated like human refuse. But the impossibility of being a god, as Ernest Becker writes, leads to its dark alternative — destroying like a god. This self-immolation is what comes next. Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which allied itself with Harris, live in their own non-reality-based belief system. Harris, who was anointed by party elites and never received a single primary vote, proudly trumpeted her endorsement by Dick Cheney, a politician who left office with a 13 percent approval rating. The smug, self-righteous “moral” crusade against Trump stokes the national reality television show that has replaced journalism and politics. It reduces a social, economic and political crisis to the personality of Trump. It refuses to confront and name the corporate forces responsible for our failed democracy. It allows Democratic politicians to blithely ignore their base – 77 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support an arms embargo against Israel. The open collusion with corporate oppression and refusal to heed the desires and needs of the electorate neuters the press and Trump critics. These corporate puppets stand for nothing, other than their own advancement. The lies they tell to working men and women, especially with programs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), do far more damage than any of the lies uttered by Trump. ** Source: https://scheerpost.com/2024/11/07/chris-hedges-the-politics-of-cultural-despair-2/ For anyone who's made it this far, I do actually see a few good things in Trump winning. I still hope that RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard become cabinet members, as I think they would both definitely do some good things. But in general, I don't have high hopes for another Trump administration. That doesn't mean I think that Kamala would have been better. She may well have been worse, especially in regards to the war in Ukraine. The bar was just pretty low.

Agreed with all of that. My battle goes a lot further than just the Covid vaccines, I'm against all of them, a stance which I'm pretty sure you yourself don't have. That's fine- I definitely think that being skeptical of covid vaccines for kids is a step in the right direction.

I don't think that it's going too far to merely draw attention to highly relevant facts that come straight from the Health Canada website. Completely agree with you there. That's a big claim, but I think we certainly agree on the general outlines of the problem. It's not really me who's making the claims, it's the authors of a certain study. I just believe that the claims are credible. For the audience, who may not have seen anything on the study in question, there's an article on it here: Vaccines Caused 17 Million Deaths During Pandemic Plus 4 More Takeaways From Largest Excess Mortality Study to Date | Children's Health Defense That number is an extrapolation for the number of deaths worldwide caused by covid vaccines. Another author has come up with an estimate of the number of people killed by covid vaccines in the U.S. His article can be seen here: Google AI just estimated that as many as 1.1M Americans may have been killed by the COVID vaccines | Steve Kirsch I made a thread with Steve Kirsch's article in the opening post in another forum, which can be seen here: https://politicalhotwire.com/t/google-ai-just-estimated-that-as-many-as-1-1m-americans-may-have-been-killed-by-the-covid-vaccines-steve-kirsch.283510/ It's worse than that- there's strong evidence that many were harmed by atleast the mRNA vaccines: Study of 1.7 million Kids and Teens Found Heart Inflammation Only in Those Who Got Pfizer’s COVID Shots | Children's Health Defense ‘Striking Evidence’ COVID Shots May Increase Kids’ Risk of Asthma | Children's Health Defense

Personal attacks, the last bastion of those who have no substantive argument to make. Is this a joke? You just got done saying the poster would fit right in with KKK. No, I didn't. Deluge used a term that is generally considered to be a slur for transgender people and I pointed out that the KKK tend to use slur terms for people they dislike as well. Deluge, on the other hand, clearly used an insulting term on me. Yes, you went on to say exactly that: "It certainly looks like in some ways, you might fit right in." I bet you didn't even notice the difference between what I actually said and what you said I said. Saying that in -some- ways a person might "fit right in" with the KKK is not saying that they would fit right in all ways, and I'm certainly glad that Deluge made it clear that he's -not- a fan of the KKK. The reason I said this to begin with was in large part because of comments such as the following one from Deluge's post #371: ** The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection. ** As I've said elsewhere, tranny and its plural trannies is a word that is now considered a slur by a fair amount of organizations: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny The KKK is also fond of using slur words for members of the LGBT community, so they certainly have that in common. My actual response to Deluge's comment was the following in post #413: ** I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning. ** His response, in turn, was the following, in post #443: ** The KKK hates black people and used to murder them, I just want the LGBT community to stay in their lane, and YOU are a troll. ** It was only then that I pointed out that the KKK didn't just hate blacks, but also the LGTB community, and in -that- way, it looked like he'd fit right in. For anyone who'd like to see exactly what I said, the post in question is post #480. Now, there is one point I will concede- perhaps Deluge doesn't hate the LGTB community. But this talk of putting them "back in their lane" sounds -so- very similar to the types of things that the KKK and other hate groups would say about blacks that I found the similarities too glaring to overlook.

You've already got two accounts here [snip] No, I just have this one. You certainly jump to a lot of false conclusions. I may be mistaken, but I think you were recently accusing Radiorum of having 2 accounts too. Whether it was you or someone else, I remember the person provided no evidence for that accusation either.

The insults come out AFTER deceptiveness. I insult people all the time, and it's almost always because the other person is lying or is perpetuating a lie. For starters, as I've told people in the past, there's a big difference between someone saying something that's not true and someone saying something they -know- isn't true. Insulting people because they're saying something that isn't true is the wrong way to go about showing them the error of their ways. The most likely result of insults and other flame bait material is for the entire conversation to devolve into a flame war. As I've said in the past, there is no common "trans agenda". There are transgender people, who have different ideas as to how the world should be, just like there are cisgender people who have different ideas as to how the world should be. I'm actually in the latter category. You seem to be equating cross dressers with transgender people. While there was certainly a great deal of overlap back when transgender wasn't a well known term, they've since gone their separate ways for the most part, at least in places like the U.S. Learned a great deal of this from a Wikipedia article I read just now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism In any case, it -seems- that you have an issue with transgender -and- cross dressers being able to dress the way they like in public. Seems like a classic case of transphobia. In case you're not aware of the term, Wikipedia has a helpful article on the subject. Here's the introduction: ** Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles.[1][2] Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism, sexism, or ableism,[3] and it is closely associated with homophobia.[4][5] People of color who are transgender experience discrimination above and beyond that which can be explained as a simple combination of transphobia and racism.[6] Transgender youth often experience a combination of abuse from family members, sexual harassment, and bullying or school violence.[7] They are also disproportionately placed in foster care and welfare programs compared to their peers.[8] Adult transgender people regularly encounter sexual violence, police violence, public ridicule, misgendering, or other forms of violence and harassment in their daily lives.[9] These issues cause many trans people to feel unsafe in public. Other issues include healthcare discrimination, workplace discrimination or feeling under siege by conservative political or religious groups who oppose LGBT-rights laws.[10] Discrimination and violence sometimes originates from people within the LGBT community[11] or feminist movements. As well as increased risk of violence and other threats, the stress created by transphobia causes negative mental health outcomes and lead to drug use disorders, running away from home (in minors), and suicide. In much of the Western world, there has been a gradual establishment of policies combatting discrimination and supporting equal opportunity in all aspects of life since the 1990s. The trend is also taking shape in some developing nations. In addition, campaigns regarding the LGBT community are being spread around the world to improve social acceptance of nontraditional gender identities. The "Stop the Stigma" campaign by the UN is one such example.[12] However, transphobic violence has been on the rise since 2021,[13] accompanied with an increase in anti-trans discriminatory laws being enacted in many parts of the US and other countries.[14][15] ** Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia