Are you a man or a woman?

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Trans people are abnormal. 

Define normal.

[User]

5 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Define normal.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 9:06 AM, User said:

On 12/16/2024 at 9:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

On 12/16/2024 at 8:59 AM, User said:

On 12/16/2024 at 8:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Nothing more to be said.

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. 

[User]

1 minute ago, Scott75 said:

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. 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

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. 

User is projecting, once again.

Some of the most vehement homophobes, are the way they are either due to being in the closet themselves, or they are sexual deviants. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

User is projecting, once again.

Some of the most vehement homophobes, are the way they are either due to being in the closet themselves, or they are sexual deviants. 

Man, I really broke you this last week. I was not even trying. 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

Could you elaborate on what principles you're referring to?

Sovereignty, responsibility, accountability of the medical profession.

 

The role of said profession, the Public and government in public sphere.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

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. 

The origins of the Phoenix come from ancient Egyptian mythology. Styx comes from ancient Greek mythology. It is the principal river of the underworld.  

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 12/16/2024 at 9:06 AM, User said:

On 12/16/2024 at 9:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

On 12/16/2024 at 8:59 AM, User said:

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. 

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".

[User]

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

User then jumped to the conclusion

Interesting... as you are here jumping to conclusions about what he meant. 

I have been in several threads with Michael on this subject and others. This is what he does, he denies, deflects, and runs away. 

Look... even now, he has had ample opportunity to come back and set his record straight, to admit that these surgeries do in fact happen. 

He has not. 

[NAME REMOVED]

21 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

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".

User is not the "sharpest tool in the shed," so I would not worry about it too much. 

[Scott75]

17 minutes ago, User said:

30 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

User then jumped to the conclusion

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.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

12 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

User is not the "sharpest tool in the shed," so I would not worry about it too much. 

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.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 9:19 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/16/2024 at 2:44 AM, Scott75 said:

On this, at least, we agree.

If you look at the nested quotes in the first part of this post, you'll see that I first brought up the KKK after you'd said "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." You may not be aware of the fact, but the term tranny is a slur. Wikipedia spells it out:

**

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 and other groups of this nature also use coded language on those who they dislike. There's an article that delves into how politicians use coded language to appeal to those who dislike various groups, from blacks to the LGBTQ community. It can be seen here:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

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.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Scott75

[Michael Hardner]

User doesn't know how to use a discussion board. @Scott75

They should leave here, buy a megaphone and march to a downtown street corner and rant away.

Edited December 25, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

For those who are genuinely interested in the topic, and want to know about responsible people who have expressed concern over how these issues are assessed.... Please see Jesse Singal and his interview with trans doctor Erica Anderson. 

What you will find out is that at the center of this controversy are people who can take sides on how gender affirming care works and should work.  You will also learn pretty quickly that the trade-offs on proceeding are not proceeding are huge. 

And this discovery should lead most people to understand that sensitivity, empathy, and objectivity should be the guidepost in any such discussion. 

This is why the fire and brimstone cowboy morals that get plopped out on such threads are pernicious and useless. If you want to discuss those things in depth, and learn and exchange views, I really recommend you block people who arrive at the discussion with their conclusions already made. 

I certainly have had my mind changed.

[Scott75]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

User doesn't know how to use a discussion board. @Scott75

They should leave here, buy a megaphone and march to a downtown street corner and rant away.

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. 

[Scott75]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For those who are genuinely interested in the topic, and want to know about responsible people who have expressed concern over how these issues are assessed.... Please see Jesse Singal and his interview with trans doctor Erica Anderson. 

What you will find out is that at the center of this controversy are people who can take sides on how gender affirming care works and should work.  You will also learn pretty quickly that the trade-offs on proceeding are not proceeding are huge. 

And this discovery should lead most people to understand that sensitivity, empathy, and objectivity should be the guidepost in any such discussion. 

This is why the fire and brimstone cowboy morals that get plopped out on such threads are pernicious and useless. If you want to discuss those things in depth, and learn and exchange views, I really recommend you block people who arrive at the discussion with their conclusions already made. 

I certainly have had my mind changed.

I imagine you're referring to the following interview:

https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/bonus-interview-youth-gender-clinician-731

I haven't listened to it as of yet, just thought it'd be good to put up in case I or someone else would like to listen to it in the future. 

Edited December 25, 2024 by Scott75

[Deluge]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

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.

The best way to resolve things is to make sure Marxists don't get their way. This isn't a left-wingers playground. If trannies want to have their way with society then they will have to do it someplace else. 

Get dolled up, hit the town, but that's as far as it goes. 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The best way to resolve things is to make sure Marxists don't get their way. This isn't a left-wingers playground. If trannies want to have their way with society then they will have to do it someplace else.  Get dolled up, hit the town, but that's as far as it goes. 

Put the Marxists on ignore if they don't play fair.  But the Marxists I have known would be glad to talk to you.

You don't put people on ignore because of beliefs, but because of behaviour.

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Put the Marxists on ignore if they don't play fair.  But the Marxists I have known would be glad to talk to you.

You don't put people on ignore because of beliefs, but because of behaviour.

Put the Marxists in jail if they start crossing lines. Simply ignoring them won't keep their drag queens away from kids or out of women's bathrooms. 

[User]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

User doesn't know how to use a discussion board. @Scott75

They should leave here, buy a megaphone and march to a downtown street corner and rant away.

Apparently, I know how to use it better than you do. As I actually engage in discussion. You just run away and cry about putting people on ignore. 

Also note... once again, you did not directly address the post in question. Figures. 

15 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

User is not the "sharpest tool in the shed," so I would not worry about it too much. 

Once again, I have broken you. 

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Put the Marxists in jail if they start crossing lines. Simply ignoring them won't keep their drag queens away from kids or out of women's bathrooms. 

It's notable that your comments aren't grounded in real politics, or achievable policy changes.

It's just how you feel about things.

It's fine, but there's not much for me to add, other than "ok, then...".

[User]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is why the fire and brimstone cowboy morals that get plopped out on such threads are pernicious and useless. If you want to discuss those things in depth, and learn and exchange views, I really recommend you block people who arrive at the discussion with their conclusions already made. 

Or... in your case, you just pretend it isn't happening. 

This is projection. You certainly arrive in these discussions with just as much of your views and conclusions already made as you dismiss anyone and everyone who is even concerned about this. 

 

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, Scott75 said:

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".

Hey.  Dipshit. 

Nobody respects your opinion in the first place. attempting to explain other people's opinion is just stupid