Radfems Banned From Twitter; Trump OK

[IMPress Polly]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "shithole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???

[Mister D]

A better question would where were you when conservatives were complaining about this kind of nonsense. Now that you know what it's like do some thinking, Polly.

[Chris]

Some of us criticise the government and its institutions like universities banning free speech. Twitter's not the government. Many liberals advocate banning hate speech. Twitter banned radfems for hate speech.

[Mister D]

Some of us criticise the government and its institutions like universities banning free speech. Twitter's not the government. Many liberals advocate banning hate speech. Twitter banned radfems for hate speech.
Liberals usually shake their pompoms when this happens to conservative groups.

[spunkloaf]

It's not ok to suppress speech when it centers on ideas. When it centers on hatred, that's a different story. Some issues can lead to some very gray areas. For instance, I oppose toxic masculinity. That doesn't mean I hate men, it just means I think men need to put their egos aside and stop promoting the idea that being a jerk makes them more successful.
Some people have ideas about eugenics. Others have racial ideas.
The important thing is to get people to engage with your ideas in a way that encourages the conversation and doesn't promote anger. People are going to become angry regardless, and that is their right to do so. But if everybody looks at that and gives up on being civil, then we're all fucked.

[Chris]

Liberals usually shake their pompoms when this happens to conservative groups.

They're to busy going after Roseanne (to get to Trump).

[spunkloaf]

Liberals usually shake their pompoms when this happens to conservative groups.

Well, if conservatives would stop focusing on hatred, that probably would not happen, would it? Same goes for liberals, too.

[spunkloaf]

They're to busy going after Roseanne (to get to Trump).

Roseanne did that to herself. And if you want to talk about that, let's take it to that thread, please.

[Mister D]

It's not ok to suppress speech when it centers on ideas. When it centers on hatred, that's a different story. Some issues can lead to some very gray areas. For instance, I oppose toxic masculinity. That doesn't mean I hate men, it just means I think men need to put their egos aside and stop promoting the idea that being a jerk makes them more successful.
Some people have ideas about eugenics. Others have racial ideas.
The important thing is to get people to engage with your ideas in a way that encourages the conversation and doesn't promote anger. People are going to become angry regardless, and that is their right to do so. But if everybody looks at that and gives up on being civil, then we're all $#@!ed.
You love men. :wink:

[Mister D]

Well, if conservatives would stop focusing on hatred, that probably would not happen, would it? Same goes for liberals, too.
Yeah, liberals like radfem. Haters.

[spunkloaf]

You love men. :wink:

Are you trying to seduce me, Mr. Dirlewanger?

[Mister D]

They're to busy going after Roseanne (to get to Trump).
It is amusing that radfem's fate is beyond the pale but Roseann Barr needs to be punished. Will they never learn?

[Mister D]

Are you trying to seduce me, Mr. Dirlewanger?
I'm just saying we know you don't hate men. But f I was gay I think I'd have better taste. You're a pudgy, whiny man-girl.

[Orion Rules]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "$#@!hole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???Per your blog, http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/monkeyqueen/, it is a very interesting reading, and so thank you for the effort.

Here is something else of interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5141&v=2eB046f998U

"Psywar - Full Documentary"

[Chris]

It is amusing that radfem's fate is beyond the pale but Roseann Barr needs to be punished. Will they never learn?

But Barr is not trans. She's woman, an idiot as she herself has said now, but a woman.

[Captdon]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "$#@!hole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???

This from the UK where they allow the government to decide what allowed and what isn't.

This is the US in case you forgot.

[Ethereal]

Policing thought and speech is a hallmark of authoritarianism. What I think some leftists need to understand is just how authoritarian some within their own ideological sphere can be, because it's not libertarians and conservatives who own and operate Twitter.

[spunkloaf]

Policing thought and speech is a hallmark of authoritarianism. What I think some leftists need to understand is just how authoritarian some within their own ideological sphere can be, because it's not libertarians and conservatives who own and operate Twitter.

There needs to be moderation, and the "leftists" are not the only ones who know that is the truth. You and others would serve humanity better if you stop pretending that only the left wants to "police" people. If you were more honest, you'd say that EVERYBODY wants to have that kind of control, as long as it serves their own interests.

[Ethereal]

There needs to be moderation, and the "leftists" are not the only ones who know that is the truth. You and others would serve humanity better if you stop pretending that only the left wants to "police" people. If you were more honest, you'd say that EVERYBODY wants to have that kind of control, as long as it serves their own interests.

You should try to be less presumptuous. My record of criticizing right-wing authoritarianism is prodigious. But this thread is about censorship on Twitter, which is owned and operated mostly by liberals.

[IMPress Polly]

Yeah my point is that not one of you would defend MY right to free speech, just your own. And of course we can see that it's true.

Yeah yeah, Roseanne Barr's show was cancelled by ABC. Anti-conservative bias on ABC, the Fake Media! Except of course when ABC banned the episode of Blackish that revolved around NFL players kneeling for the national anthem. There was no "censorship" problem then, remember? Maybe that's because ALL OF YOU SUPPORT the censorship of NFL players!! You only support free speech for yourselves, NOT ANYONE ELSE!! Just you! You only care about yourselves! You don't respect anyone's rights but your own! Yet you demand my sympathy.

And furthermore Roseanne Barr is still ALLOWED on Twitter. She has voluntarily removed herself. For now. You'll never know MY world! And you don't give a fucking shit either, so don't expect me to defend you.

EDIT: I hear that the conservatives are responding to the Roseanne cancellation by demanding the cancellation of Bill Maher's program. Personally, I'm thinking..."that's a penalty? Sounds like a BONUS to me!" You can have him! :tongue: I'm as tired of Bill Maher as you are!

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Policing thought and speech is a hallmark of authoritarianism. What I think some leftists need to understand is just how authoritarian some within their own ideological sphere can be, because it's not libertarians and conservatives who own and operate Twitter.

Seriously, I think the liberals like him and the alt-right fascists better than they do "losers" like us. Hence why they're all still allowed on Twitter and feminists like me are not.

[IMPress Polly]

Sorry for my meltdown today, everyone. I just hate being thought-policed all the time and these right wing hypocrites claiming they're victims here. And the fact that liberals like them better than me. I'm just like "FUCK EVERYONE!!!" today.

[Mister D]

Yeah my point is that not one of you would defend MY right to free speech, just your own. And of course we can see that it's true.

Yeah yeah, Roseanne Barr's show was cancelled by ABC. Anti-conservative bias on ABC, the Fake Media! Except of course when ABC banned the episode of Blackish that revolved around NFL players kneeling for the national anthem. There was no "censorship" problem then, remember? Maybe that's because ALL OF YOU SUPPORT the censorship of NFL players!! You only support free speech for yourselves, NOT ANYONE ELSE!! Just you! You only care about yourselves! You don't respect anyone's rights but your own! Yet you demand my sympathy.

And furthermore Roseanne Barr is still ALLOWED on Twitter. She has voluntarily removed herself. For now. You'll never know MY world! And you don't give a $#@!ing $#@! either, so don't expect me to defend you.

EDIT: I hear that the conservatives are responding to the Roseanne cancellation by demanding the cancellation of Bill Maher's program. Personally, I'm thinking..."that's a penalty? Sounds like a BONUS to me!" You can have him! :tongue: I'm as tired of Bill Maher as you are!
Do what you like on Twitter, dear. A fuck I do not give.

[Abby08]

Not agreeing with what is said, isn't the same as saying, you don't have a right to say it.

I don't agree with 99% of what liberals say, but, don't want to stop them from saying it.... I just shake my head, chuckle, call them batschit crazy (in my head,) and, go about my business.

[Chris]

Yeah my point is that not one of you would defend MY right to free speech, just your own. And of course we can see that it's true.

Yeah yeah, Roseanne Barr's show was cancelled by ABC. Anti-conservative bias on ABC, the Fake Media! Except of course when ABC banned the episode of Blackish that revolved around NFL players kneeling for the national anthem. There was no "censorship" problem then, remember? Maybe that's because ALL OF YOU SUPPORT the censorship of NFL players!! You only support free speech for yourselves, NOT ANYONE ELSE!! Just you! You only care about yourselves! You don't respect anyone's rights but your own! Yet you demand my sympathy.

And furthermore Roseanne Barr is still ALLOWED on Twitter. She has voluntarily removed herself. For now. You'll never know MY world! And you don't give a fucking shit either, so don't expect me to defend you.

EDIT: I hear that the conservatives are responding to the Roseanne cancellation by demanding the cancellation of Bill Maher's program. Personally, I'm thinking..."that's a penalty? Sounds like a BONUS to me!" You can have him! :tongue: I'm as tired of Bill Maher as you are!



I have many a time stated that I am glad you post here regardless my disagreement with your opinions.

ABC's a private compnay, can do anything they want for any reason with their shows...and suffer any consequences.

[Chris]

Seriously, I think the liberals like him and the alt-right fascists better than they do "losers" like us. Hence why they're all still allowed on Twitter and feminists like me are not.


Alt-right fascists like Spencer are self-avowed socialists, Polly.

[Mister D]

Fascism happened, Note tense.

[Chris]

Fascism happened, Note tense.

Not, apparently, in the collective mind of the left.

[Ethereal]

Probably the most annoying aspect of the trans penchant for suppressing speech is their tendency to label ANY opposing viewpoint as "trans-phobic" or hateful. I do not hate trans people, nor am I afraid of them. My disagreement with the trans movement is based purely on concerns over biology and the well-being of trans people themselves. I am especially concerned with the unbelievably unethical attempts to uncritically affirm and encourage children into "transitioning". Some day, when people have regained their senses, that word will take on its full battery of creepy connotations. I think the unwillingness of hardcore trans activists to accept any criticism, no matter how reasonable, has a lot to do with protecting their own egos. The idea that they might be wrong about the way they perceive themselves is an embarrassing thought to entertain, especially if they've invested years of their lives into embodying a trans identity. Having to admit that you're not really a "girl" or a "woman" after pretending to be one is emotionally fraught to say the least. Particularly because their next thought will be something along the lines of, "If I'm not really a woman trapped in a man's body, then what is really wrong with me? Why am I so unhappy and self-loathing?" But as difficult as that conversation may be, it is the ONLY viable path to truly resolving their suffering. Pretending to be something you're clearly not, while injecting yourself with chemicals and mutilating your god-given body, is only a temporary placebo. That is why there is no real proof that surgeries are effective. Within ten to fifteen years of surgery, the average rate of suicide for trans people regresses to its pre-surgery mean. Just don't tell the folks at Twitter I said that...

[Tahuyaman]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "$#@!hole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???
More TDD.

[donttread]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "shithole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???

Those statements don't sound like they would inspire a ban , might there be more to this?

[Chris]

Those statements don't sound like they would inspire a ban , might there be more to this?

Well, those are statements redfems direct toward transgenders and Twitter is a liberal site and PC is spreading.

[Mister D]

Well, those are statements redfems direct toward transgenders and Twitter is a liberal site and PC is spreading.
"Gender non-conformity". I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around this because I know they don't mean a girl doing boyish things. They mean a girl not being a girl.

[Mister D]

Those statements don't sound like they would inspire a ban , might there be more to this?
Allow me. PC insanity has been extended to cover the irrational claims of "transgenders". If you a man does not believe that he is a man, for example, anyone who suggest otherwise is an "alt-right fascist".

It's sad. The left, the real left. used to be of some interest. They had something to say. Now they're just fucking retarded.

[spunkloaf]

Allow me. PC insanity has been extended to cover the irrational claims of "transgenders". If you a man does not believe that he is a man, for example, anyone who suggest otherwise is an "alt-right fascist".

It's sad. The left, the real left. used to be of some interest. They had something to say. Now they're just fucking retarded.

Do you identify as a man?

[Mister D]

Do you identify as a man?
I am a male of our species. That's a fact. Are you asking me if I accept that reality?

[spunkloaf]

I am a male of our species. That's a fact. Are you asking me if I accept that reality?

Thank you for answering my question.

And by whose grace are you able to live in a world where other people don't identify you as a woman, against your wishes?

[Mister D]

Thank you for answering my question.

And by whose grace are you able to live in a world where other people don't identify you as a woman, against your wishes?
A world in which most people are a) sane and 2) understand basic biological facts? The sort of world in which people don't identify me as a Korean? Your question may make for a corny Twilight Zone episode but...are you serious?

[Chris]

"Gender non-conformity". I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around this because I know they don't mean a girl doing boyish things. They mean a girl not being a girl.

It's odd because radfems animosity towards transgenders is because they are men identifying as women, and vice versa, the very thing I believe radfems otherwise advocate, a divorce from our biological nature.

[Mister D]

One thing I do appreciate about our spunkloaf is that he says what he means. He means what he says. This is the unguarded face of the progressive left.

[Mister D]

It's odd because radfems animosity towards transgenders is because they are men identifying as women, and vice versa, the very thing I believe radfems otherwise advocate, a divorce from our biological nature.
They seem to be conflating gender roles with biological sex. It's all so confusing and their explanations only muddy the waters further. In fact, I think part of the problem radfems have with "transgenders" might be that the latter force the former to confront the sheer absurdity of radical feminist doctrine. If sex is meaningless then why couldn't a supposed male be female?

[spunkloaf]

A world in which most people are a) sane and 2) understand basic biological facts? The sort of world in which people don't identify me as a Korean? Your question may make for a corny Twilight Zone episode but...are you serious?

If you have to ask if I am serious, then you are not taking the issue very seriously, which implies that you don't care. If you don't care, then you don't have a stake in this conversation. Since you don't have a stake in the conversation, then your only purpose in contributing your opinion is to be a troll, because you have an inexplicable contempt for transgender people. I don't really need to point that out because I think you are just as aware of it as I am, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.

I would be delighted ASTONISHED if you could provide an objective viewpoint to this topic.

[Chris]

They seem to be conflating gender roles with biological sex. It's all so confusing and their explanations only muddy the waters further. In fact, I think part of the problem radfems have with "transgenders" might be that the latter force the former to confront the sheer absurdity of radical feminist doctrine. If sex is meaningless then why couldn't a supposed male be female?

Exactly. Many deal with cognitive dissonance through anger.

[Mister D]

If you have to ask if I am serious, then you are not taking the issue very seriously, which implies that you don't care. If you don't care, then you don't have a stake in this conversation. Since you don't have a stake in the conversation, then your only purpose in contributing your opinion is to be a troll, because you have an inexplicable contempt for transgender people. I don't really need to point that out because I think you are just as aware of it as I am, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.

I would be delighted ASTONISHED if you could provide an objective viewpoint to this topic.
I already have. I am OBJECTIVELY a biological male. That's not my opinion. :)

[spunkloaf]

I already have. I am OBJECTIVELY a biological male. That's not my opinion. :)
Incorrect.

You were born into a gender that suits your preference. Count your blessings.

[Mister D]

Incorrect.

You were born into a gender that suits your preference. Count your blessings.
WTF does that even mean?

[spunkloaf]

WTF does that even mean?


Would you sincerely like me to explain it to you? Or, are you disingenuously pretending that it is too difficult or radical for you to comprehend?

[Mister D]

Would you sincerely like me to explain it to you? Or, are you disingenuously pretending that it is too difficult or radical for you to comprehend?
Have at it but I honestly don't think you can. You could make the distinction between gender roles and biological sex but that's irrelevant to the issue of "transgenderism". They aren't rejecting gender roles but their own biology.

[Mister D]

This is the muddled, crazy, passionate left, my friends. They are utterly bereft of a serious cause and have been reduced to following the logical conclusions of liberal individualism to their most insane extremes.

[spunkloaf]

Have at it but I honestly don't think you can. You could make the distinction between gender roles and biological sex but that's irrelevant to the issue of "transgenderism". They aren't rejecting gender roles but their own biology.

Their bodies, their domains. You can't dictate what they are, and nobody else can. We both know that there are plenty of circumstances where sex is indeterminate at best.

[Mister D]

Their bodies, their domains. You can't dictate what they are, and nobody else can. We both know that there are plenty of circumstances where sex is indeterminate at best.
I'm a zebra.

[Cletus]

Yeah my point is that not one of you would defend MY right to free speech, just your own. And of course we can see that it's true.

Has anyone here told you to shut the fuck up?

They might wish you would, but no one here has ever or is likely to ever say you don't have a right to speak your mind... even if it is just to claim victimhood once again.

[Mister D]

I'm a zebra.
No, I am am black lesbian. Therefore, it is no longer even possible for me to be wrong about anything.

[spunkloaf]

No, I am am black lesbian. Therefore, it is no longer even possible for me to be wrong about anything.

Fine.

Since I can assume you are being serious, I will refer to you as a black lesbian from now on. Cool?

[Mister D]

Fine.

Since I can assume you are being serious, I will refer to you as a black lesbian from now on. Cool?

Referring to me as right in every circumstance will do. Thank you. You may remove your white male ass from my presence now.

[spunkloaf]

Referring to me as right in every circumstance will do. Thank you. You may remove your white male ass from my presence now.

Referring to you as "right in every circumstance" is more atrocious than anything we have discussed here, including zebras and black lesbians. I simply cannot abide.

[Mister D]

Referring to you as "right in every circumstance" is more atrocious than anything we have discussed here, including zebras and black lesbians. I simply cannot abide.
How very white and male of you. :rollseyes:

[Abby08]

Their bodies, their domains. You can't dictate what they are, and nobody else can. We both know that there are plenty of circumstances where sex is indeterminate at best.

Ok, this has become ridiculous beyond words. No one has to ' dictate,' what they are.... biology did that for them.

A person is free to CALL themselves anything they please, it doesn't make it so.

[Common]

I'm just saying we know you don't hate men. But f I was gay I think I'd have better taste. You're a pudgy, whiny man-girl.

TB'd for insults

[IMPress Polly]

donttread wrote:
Those statements don't sound like they would inspire a ban , might there be more to this?

Oh you'd be surprised, donttread. Saying things while female by itself often gets you treated very differently. I would observe that the current president has implemented actual policies that I too would consider hateful toward transgender people, such as banning trans-identifying people from joining the military outright. But that doesn't count as a transphobic action according to the warped logic of the people who run Twitter. He can stay! But if a woman says that "Women give birth", now that is just hateful!


Mister D wrote:
"Gender non-conformity". I'm having some trouble wrapping my mind around this because I know they don't mean a girl doing boyish things. They mean a girl not being a girl.

Gender-nonconforming is actually a more neutral term. It refers to, if you will, "feminine" boys/men and "masculine" girls/women. Only when such a person defines themself by their contrary gender expression are they considered to be a transgender person. It's only the latter phenomenon that I take issue with, not "cross"-dressing or anything like that.

For one thing, I feel that the steadily increasing social pressure on such persons to identify as trans is basically intended to wipe out public perceptions that men can be something other than masculine (which is really just our sexist way of saying controlling, authoratative) and that women can be something other than feminine (which is our culture's sexist way of saying submissive, servile). There's a conservative premise there, I would observe, and it parallels increasing belief among younger Americans that traditional social roles -- male breadwinners and female homemakers, that sort of thing -- are superior and more natural (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/sunday/do-millennial-men-want-stay-at-home-wives.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&referer=https://t.co/Tb8mbx3oBu); perhaps the product of three decades now of non-traditionally extreme gendering of the child-rearing process (example of what I mean by that (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/28/toys-kids-girls-boys-childhood-development-gender-research)) in reaction to the feminist wave of the 1970s.

The overlap between increasing belief in gender roles among younger people and their increasing reliance on gender-based identification is not a coincidence in my opinion. The latter thing is, at least in part, an outgrowth and expression of the former.

If girls cannot play with toy trucks without "becoming boys" in the process in our collective mindset, then is our collective imagination actually expanding...or contracting?

[spunkloaf]

Ok, this has become ridiculous beyond words. No one has to ' dictate,' what they are.... biology did that for them.

A person is free to CALL themselves anything they please, it doesn't make it so.

And who makes the decision that it IS so, then?

[Chris]

And who makes the decision that it IS so, then?

Mother Nature.

[spunkloaf]

Mother Nature.

Oh. And have you have spoken to her about this? You have some official documents that Mother Nature has signed, given her great authority?

No, you haven't. And no, you don't. Your argument is dead.

[MisterVeritis]

And who makes the decision that it IS so, then?
You didn't take any science courses in high school, did you?

[Ethereal]

And who makes the decision that it IS so, then?
Nobody makes any decisions. It's determined by evolution.

[spunkloaf]

Nobody makes any decisions. It's determined by evolution.

Aren't all of us with our different qualities determined by the same evolution? (The answer is yes.) We aren't determined by different forces. We came from one place. So, where are the rules that begin to separate us?

[Ethereal]

Aren't all of us with our different qualities determined by the same evolution? (The answer is yes.) We aren't determined by different forces. We came from one place. So, where are the rules that begin to separate us?

The study of those rules is generally referred to as biology. It's what allows us to differentiate not only between different species but different sexes from within the same species. You do agree that there are such things are different species, right? And that such differences emerge as a consequence of evolution generally and genetics specifically?

[Ethereal]

(Wikipedia) Sexual Dimorphism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)

[Ransom]

Twitter is banning women who reject the idea of gender at a conceptual level for so doing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44288431). Simple statements like..."The penis is a male sexual organ", "women give birth", and "Women deserve their own, separate sporting competitions" are resulting in permanent bans from Twitter on the grounds that the constitute "hate speech". But Donald Trump is allowed! Roseanne Barr is allowed! (She recently left Twitter voluntarily! Not even her recent, blatantly racist tweet got her banned.) What's the problem here, right? Where's the double-standard??! :rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes: The President of the United States can label an entire continent "$#@!hole countries" and that's fine, no penalty, but claiming that women give birth is hate speech!

I point out this contradiction to the conservative membership we have here because conservatives are always complaining about how they're supposedly being "censored" in the media and whatnot. At least you're ALLOWED on Twitter! At least you're ALLOWED on social media! Feminists, and especially those who think like me (the more radical kind) are just being thought-policed outright! Where's OUR support???

Typical fake news and absolute bullshit.

Twitter did not want to comment on the letter but said it does not suspend accounts for being feminist, and that it would only ever suspend accounts for violating their rules.
It said the rules are enforced equally for every user regardless of the commentary they engage in.

The ban is for violating their rules.....these chip on the shoulder feminists.....very much including the thread start here.....are singling themselves out and playing victim. You're being treated like everyone else on Twitter, Polly, quit playing victim and acting out of line. And I mean right f'n now.

[Ransom]

F'n tulips.

[Abby08]

It's really quite simple.....born with a penis and testicles..BOY.....born with a vagina and uterus...GIRL.

Now, if a person chooses to identify as the opposite sex, as I've said, they're free to do that, but, no amount of surgery or, wishful thinking, can/will, change their genders.

[Abby08]

Oh. And have you have spoken to her about this? You have some official documents that Mother Nature has signed, given her great authority?

No, you haven't. And no, you don't. Your argument is dead.

You do grasp the concept of simple biology, don't you?

[Abby08]

I love horses, I have a couple. When I was a youngster, I often thought how great it would be to BE a horse, that, of course, was wishful thinking on the part of a horse loving little girl. No amount of wishful thinking, would have ever made me a horse.....no matter how much I might have identified as a horse.

A person can't change species, any more than one can change gender.

[Chris]

Oh. And have you have spoken to her about this? You have some official documents that Mother Nature has signed, given her great authority?

No, you haven't. And no, you don't. Your argument is dead.



https://i.snag.gy/eUtSEa.jpg


Argue with her.

[IMPress Polly]

Ransom wrote:
Typical fake news and absolute bull$#@!.

Twitter did not want to comment on the letter but said it does not suspend accounts for being feminist, and that it would only ever suspend accounts for violating their rules.
It said the rules are enforced equally for every user regardless of the commentary they engage in.

The ban is for violating their rules.....these chip on the shoulder feminists.....very much including the thread start here.....are singling themselves out and playing victim. You're being treated like everyone else on Twitter, Polly, quit playing victim and acting out of line. And I mean right f'n now.

And the winner for Cartoon Response is...RANSOM! (Big surprise.) Come take a bow! :tongue:

[AZ Jim]

WTF does that even mean?If you fail to understand his point, it's on you...Most "get" it, I am sure.

[Orion Rules]

Originally Posted by Ethereal:
Nobody makes any decisions. It's determined by evolution.



Aren't all of us with our different qualities determined by the same evolution? (The answer is yes.) We aren't determined by different forces. We came from one place. So, where are the rules that begin to separate us?

Your first sentence written as (The answer is yes.) is false. Quit telling yourself how right you are. The only evolution that is possible is that which is endowed by the Creator. It says so in the Bible, as elsewhere. You either are not or are. You cannot pose one way and then be something else. You cannot deny that there are other forces at work all the time there are works: "Faith without works is dead..." and there are prayers, from above in Heaven as well as below on Earth where the whole plan is. You think there is something else?

God shall rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 2:27) as the zodiac of the Animal Kingdom surrounds Orion. The Bible states that every eye shall see him, and so whether the church accepts ut or not, there is one interpretation, although most likely not the only one. And he is not a hunter that killed a lion; He is He who placed a bow in the clouds and he angles at night. Osiris has been likened to Orion, but he is not him. And when Atlantis fell it was because of its own built-in corruption. On Hawaii, hell is opening to show the other side. What, there is no afterlife?

[Chris]

If you fail to understand his point, it's on you...Most "get" it, I am sure.


Good, then please explain it, AZ Jim...